Petition on road taxes/fuels

[Psamathe]

...The intention is to try and get more spent to improve roads, improve cycling conditions and improve conditions for pedestrians.....

Your petition does not even mention pedestrians. I'd never have guessed they were included from the petition text you provided.

I suspect your petition might be a bit broad. Spending more on roads is something most politicians from the party in power would already claim they are doing (truth being irrelevant to most politicians).

If you were to get your petition wishes granted based on the petition text, what do you think would happen? Big improvement in roads allowing every more cars and lorries ... Why not add something about trains so people don't have to use their cars, or buses ...?

To me the aims you are outlining are a bit like a Ms World contestant being interviewed "I just want world peace". Do you want more spent on roads to relieve congestion for lorries or so we can accommodate more cars. Do you consider that more city centres should be pedestrianised or are you wanting wider pavements, etc. Many many questions so if it were my petition I'd be trying to be more specific about what I really wanted.

Ian

[Steady rider]

Road taxes on vehicles/fuels: spend on roads/cycle tracks/bridges.
To improve UK roads extra cycle tracks are needed. Extra bridges are needed to allow for cyclists and pedestrians to cross safety.

Basically it asks for a higher proportion of the money from road taxes/VAT/fuel to go on improving roads, cycling infrastructure and provision with extra bridges for cyclists and pedestrians, some would be underpasses. How this money would be split up if granted could be in the hands of the government of the day, unless specified in a bill before parliament. One 2016 AGM motion mentions a figure, motion 13, suggested 3% of transport spending on cycling infrastructure, a fair proportion of members voted for the motion.

People usually only walk about 1km into towns or cities and require buses, whereas cycling 3 or 4km is often feasible, catering for cyclists provides more potential benefit.

[Bonefishblues]

I was on a tablet earlier, and others have given pointers, but to expand on my earlier comments, you should put the level of detail in that you've started to share.

What precisely are you proposing?

Why is there a net benefit from your proposal? What is it? For whom?

Why does this need to be prioritised over other initiatives?

Everyone wants more spend, a bigger slice, deserves better consideration, at least in their own minds, but the ones that get it are the ones who best establish their case - which is not the same as being the most deserving.

HTH

[SilverBadge]

Roughly I think 'Road taxes on vehicles/fuels' would come to about £40 billion per year. I gather they may spend about £6 billion in total on roads/cycle tracks/bridges. The intention is to try and get more spent to improve roads, improve cycling conditions and improve conditions for pedestrians. Asking for improved cycling infrastructure and walking combined has resulted in about £300 million, being planned for over about 5 Years or about £60 million per year, figures need checking, about 1% of current spending on roads.

The amount the government spends on the consequences of transport pollution and road casualties far outweighs the total motoring tax take. I don't see presenting the car as the cash cow it isn't will assist matters here.

[ian s]

I don't want more dual use cycle paths and totally impractical cycle routes which is what so many local authorities in GB provide. What I want is driver education so that cyclists become treated as road users not obstructions. The place for bicycles is on the roads. Also driver education shouldn't cost very much

[Steady rider]

A petition on 'Road taxes on vehicles/fuels: spend on roads/cycle tracks/bridges.' would probably include a range of issues if debated.

I would agree some of the duel cycle/pedestrians path do not provide the benefits cyclists are seeking. I would also agree about the need to change driver behaviour in a proportion of cases. Usually or often a joint path is provided regardless of he level of congestion between pedestrians and cyclists. Clearly for both users this is not good and often leads to conflicts and even danger. Riding on busy main roads is not conducive to promoting or safe for cycling. All the pros and cons of many issues raised need a full evaluation to determine best practice and policy. If a parliamentary debate, led to a select committee looking at what detailed changes should be made, Cycling UK and British Cycling should get together and press for the best options. It does need more funding for cycling. Motoring groups will also say more funding for roads is needed.
The short answer to help two aspects is a detailed passing law and a proportion of transport spending on cycling infrastructure. 'standards' for cycling facilities is another issue. It is complex trying to change behaviour and infrastructure and the agenda. The petition would help put the topic back on the front line for consideration.

[Bonefishblues]

Small point, but "Road Tax" isn't a thing, so your heading is unclear. I think you mead VED and Taxation on Fuel - or do you want to couch it more broadly?

[mjr]

I don't want more dual use cycle paths and totally impractical cycle routes which is what so many local authorities in GB provide. What I want is driver education so that cyclists become treated as road users not obstructions. The place for bicycles is on the roads. Also driver education shouldn't cost very much

That hasn't worked so far. Why should it work now?

It's time for change, building decent practical cycleways (and not what so many local authorities in GB provide). I don't care much whether they're shared with walkers or not because, pragmatically, no-one's going to police that to keep walkers off cycleways and bicycles aren't big like motor vehicles to bully walkers out of a space - and nor would I wish them to. The better solution is to provide adequate width for the traffic levels and not try to squeeze both walking and cycling into the motorists' leftovers regardless.

[ian s]

MJR writes "That hasn't worked so far, Why should it work now?"

I don't believe it has seriously been tried so far. I believe in the West Midlands they tried a bit with cycling policemen, but certainly not a nationwide campaign to educate motorist to give cyclists adequate space. So it is possible it could still work; and would be much much cheaper than miles of daft cycle tracks/lanes

I am not holding my breath though!

[profpointy]

If I've understood mjr's point "it hasn't worked so far why should it work now" is being used in favour of cycle lanes rsther than safety education.

And yet it seems to me that virtually every bit of cycle infrastructure or lane actually makes cycling worse so "if it hasn't worked so far" why would we want more of it.

[ian s]

Profpointy wrote - "And yet it seems to me that virtually every bit of cycle infrastructure or lane actually makes cycling worse so "if it hasn't worked so far" why would we want more of it."

Exactly - I don't, repeat don't, want more GB cycling infrastructure. As for those misguided Sustrans folk, "shoot" the lot of 'em.

[Steady rider]

I think all these comments in a way shows how unclear the 'UK cycling strategy' is in practice. I would like to see a clear strategy covering many of the issues that crop up.

http://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/files/ ... 1-2016.pdf
perhaps only page 2 of 46 is worth reading, a few pointers may be in there somewhere, but lots to be avoided perhaps as well.

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com ... ly1996.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... t-strategy

[MikeF]

Profpointy wrote - "And yet it seems to me that virtually every bit of cycle infrastructure or lane actually makes cycling worse so "if it hasn't worked so far" why would we want more of it."

Exactly - I don't, repeat don't, want more GB cycling infrastructure. As for those misguided Sustrans folk, "shoot" the lot of 'em.

I think you are confusing bad infrastructure with good infrastructure. You may be "happy" to ride on roads with heavy traffic passing at 60 or even 70mph, but I think you are in a tiny minority. And here you will have traffic travelling at 70mph either side of you . And that's if you've managed to cross previously from the nearside lane to the middle lane to follow the A23 . A french cyclist was killed here a few years ago. Highways England haven't provided any decent cycling infrastructure here , but they may be doing a better job on the Pembury Tonbridge section of the A21 from what I've seen.

We definitely need cycling infrastructure (not paintwork ) - and yes I do cycle on roads including some A roads, but I also use off road paths sometimes, especially if they are shorter or less hilly.

[mjr]

Profpointy wrote - "And yet it seems to me that virtually every bit of cycle infrastructure or lane actually makes cycling worse so "if it hasn't worked so far" why would we want more of it."

Exactly - I don't, repeat don't, want more GB cycling infrastructure. As for those misguided Sustrans folk, "shoot" the lot of 'em.

I don't want more of the crap most councils were building from 1980 (possibly earlier) to the early 2000s, but the stuff built in many neighbouring countries and more recently places like central London and Cambridge does actually seem to work. That is, it encourages more people to cycle - at some times, 70% of traffic over Blackfriars Bridge is now cyclists, for example - and if you provide that sort of space for cycling on some key desire lines, then you may also increase safety in numbers on the yet-to-be-redesigned streets around it, as people join and leave the cycleway. There are also other things London did which are probably helpful, such as easier public cycle hire.

And to be fair, although I like to kick their crap routes as much as anyone, many Sustrans officers seem much better now and to have learned from history. I don't think they would accept some of the council-controlled junk used to complete the National Cycle Network Millennium project now... but I feel they're frustratingly reluctant to pressure people to get the existing junk fixed or reroute their network to avoid it.

[Steady rider]

If Cycling UK had a reference 'standards' to guide the assessment of particular sections of routes, they could list those up to standard and rate others. All new routes would require building to standard. Prior to building, all routes should be evaluated and signed off saying they meet standards, local authority task. The Tadcaster example is good to look over, goes from being largely fit for purpose to not fit for purpose. follow the slip road and see how bad the cycle path becomes.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.89059 ... 6656?hl=en