A vote for labour is a vote for cycling

Cambridge Cycling Campaign has sent out a set of questions, and the
responses are listed he

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/

Interesting that the responses from Labour candidates seem to be totally
in favour of aiding and increasing cycle use (though their ability to
spell is sometimes compromised), example quotes:

"...am determined to lead an ambitious effort to expand the use of
cycling both here in Cambridge and across the UK."

and

"The princle of giving people space to cycle is step one."

and

"...show people that cycling is a very viable option."

On 03/05/2015 17:22, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
Cambridge Cycling Campaign has sent out a set of questions, and the
responses are listed he

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/

Interesting that the responses from Labour candidates seem to be totally
in favour of aiding and increasing cycle use (though their ability to
spell is sometimes compromised), example quotes:

Labour are well known for wasting huge sums of public money to meet the
demands of insignificant minorities.

"...am determined to lead an ambitious effort to expand the use of
cycling both here in Cambridge and across the UK."

They should read the research;

"Years of government efforts to promote cycling have had almost no
impact on a sceptical population who largely view bikes as either
children's toys or the preserve of Lycra-clad hobbyists, a university
study has found.

The coalition has pledged more than £500m over five years on pro-cycling
efforts. But the research indicates these reach only the small
proportion of people already interested in cycling, leaving others unmoved."


and

"The princle of giving people space to cycle is step one."

A backward step.

and

"...show people that cycling is a very viable option."

"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.

"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
regular basis."


UKIP on the other hand have some very sensible policies on cycling;

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and
responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of
red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road
courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party
liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate
registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to
cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should
also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle
theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of
cycle parking at
reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made
mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP
supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a
‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety
concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where
the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause
unacceptable delays to traffic

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:24:52 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 03/05/2015 17:22, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
Cambridge Cycling Campaign has sent out a set of questions, and the
responses are listed he

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/

Interesting that the responses from Labour candidates seem to be
totally in favour of aiding and increasing cycle use (though their
ability to spell is sometimes compromised), example quotes:

Labour are well known for wasting huge sums of public money to meet the
demands of insignificant minorities.

"...am determined to lead an ambitious effort to expand the use of
cycling both here in Cambridge and across the UK."

They should read the research;

"Years of government efforts to promote cycling have had almost no
impact on a sceptical population who largely view bikes as either
children's toys or the preserve of Lycra-clad hobbyists, a university
study has found.

The coalition has pledged more than £500m over five years on pro-cycling
efforts. But the research indicates these reach only the small
proportion of people already interested in cycling, leaving others
unmoved."


and

"The princle of giving people space to cycle is step one."

A backward step.

and

"...show people that cycling is a very viable option."

"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.

"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
regular basis."


UKIP on the other hand have some very sensible policies on cycling;

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and
responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of
red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road
courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party
liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate
registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to
cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should
also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle
theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of
cycle parking at reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made
mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP
supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a
‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety
concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where
the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable
delays to traffic

yeah, kind of confirms to me ukip are a bunch of c@nts astro-turfing on
the "immigrant-problem"....

should be simple rule, cyclists and pedestrians should have +50%
protection as far as blame is concerned.... (unless it's me driving of
course LOL)

cyclists (and pedestrians, and push-scooterists/skateboarders) only people
really doing something to counter "global warming" (also known as
consumerism that the corporats like....)!

the oil and technology corporats do not like that.

On 03/05/2015 18:56, Cheesey wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:24:52 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 03/05/2015 17:22, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
Cambridge Cycling Campaign has sent out a set of questions, and the
responses are listed he

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/

Interesting that the responses from Labour candidates seem to be
totally in favour of aiding and increasing cycle use (though their
ability to spell is sometimes compromised), example quotes:

Labour are well known for wasting huge sums of public money to meet the
demands of insignificant minorities.

"...am determined to lead an ambitious effort to expand the use of
cycling both here in Cambridge and across the UK."

They should read the research;

"Years of government efforts to promote cycling have had almost no
impact on a sceptical population who largely view bikes as either
children's toys or the preserve of Lycra-clad hobbyists, a university
study has found.

The coalition has pledged more than £500m over five years on pro-cycling
efforts. But the research indicates these reach only the small
proportion of people already interested in cycling, leaving others
unmoved."


and

"The princle of giving people space to cycle is step one."

A backward step.

and

"...show people that cycling is a very viable option."

"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an
interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study.

"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
regular basis."


UKIP on the other hand have some very sensible policies on cycling;

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and
responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of
red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road
courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party
liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate
registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to
cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should
also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle
theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of
cycle parking at reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made
mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP
supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a
‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety
concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where
the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable
delays to traffic

yeah, kind of confirms to me ukip are a bunch of c@nts astro-turfing on
the "immigrant-problem"....

should be simple rule, cyclists and pedestrians should have +50%
protection as far as blame is concerned.... (unless it's me driving of
course LOL)

cyclists (and pedestrians, and push-scooterists/skateboarders) only people
really doing something to counter "global warming" (also known as
consumerism that the corporats like....)!

the oil and technology corporats do not like that.


Cyclists also make CO2 and should be taxed.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=26623

is that because they'll destroy the fuel security?


--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

should be simple rule, cyclists and pedestrians should have +50%
protection as far as blame is concerned.... (unless it's me driving of
course LOL)

cyclists (and pedestrians, and push-scooterists/skateboarders) only
people
really doing something to counter "global warming" (also known as
consumerism that the corporats like....)!

the oil and technology corporats do not like that.


Cyclists also make CO2 and should be taxed.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=26623

Ha ha!
For a start it's an American nutcase saying this.
Secondly there's these stupid quotes from your link:

"Yet Orcutt’s main support for the tax comes from his belief that riding
a bicycle is worse than driving a car for the environment."

“A cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That
means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of
carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse
gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,�
he said."

On 03/05/2015 20:05, Bod wrote:


should be simple rule, cyclists and pedestrians should have +50%
protection as far as blame is concerned.... (unless it's me driving of
course LOL)

cyclists (and pedestrians, and push-scooterists/skateboarders) only
people
really doing something to counter "global warming" (also known as
consumerism that the corporats like....)!

the oil and technology corporats do not like that.


Cyclists also make CO2 and should be taxed.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=26623

Ha ha!
For a start it's an American nutcase saying this.
Secondly there's these stupid quotes from your link:

"Yet Orcutt’s main support for the tax comes from his belief that riding
a bicycle is worse than driving a car for the environment."

“A cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That
means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of
carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse
gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,�
he said."

The loonies even want to tax people *BREATHING* ROTFPML.

"Some even feel that this could open the door to a carbon tax on
breathing. A New York Times op-ed from 2007 said that “right now,
everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing
carbon dioxide free,� also suggesting that the government should start
charging for the “privilege� by imposing a carbon tax.

On 03/05/2015 20:05, Bod wrote:


should be simple rule, cyclists and pedestrians should have +50%
protection as far as blame is concerned.... (unless it's me driving of
course LOL)

cyclists (and pedestrians, and push-scooterists/skateboarders) only
people
really doing something to counter "global warming" (also known as
consumerism that the corporats like....)!

the oil and technology corporats do not like that.


Cyclists also make CO2 and should be taxed.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=26623

Ha ha!
For a start it's an American nutcase saying this.
Secondly there's these stupid quotes from your link:

"Yet Orcutt’s main support for the tax comes from his belief that riding
a bicycle is worse than driving a car for the environment."

“A cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That
means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of
carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse
gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,�
he said."

Quite true. And they fart a lot.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 03/05/2015 21:34, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 03/05/2015 20:05, Bod wrote:


should be simple rule, cyclists and pedestrians should have +50%
protection as far as blame is concerned.... (unless it's me driving of
course LOL)

cyclists (and pedestrians, and push-scooterists/skateboarders) only
people
really doing something to counter "global warming" (also known as
consumerism that the corporats like....)!

the oil and technology corporats do not like that.


Cyclists also make CO2 and should be taxed.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=26623

Ha ha!
For a start it's an American nutcase saying this.
Secondly there's these stupid quotes from your link:

"Yet Orcutt’s main support for the tax comes from his belief that riding
a bicycle is worse than driving a car for the environment."

“A cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That
means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of
carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse
gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,�
he said."

Quite true. And they fart a lot.


Do you speak as an ex saddler sniffer?

On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 5:23:01 PM UTC+1, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
Cambridge Cycling Campaign has sent out a set of questions, and the
responses are listed he

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/


All votes are for a police state run by the corporations.
BOYCOTT THE ELECTION.

http://www.novote2015.co.uk