Browned off
No doubt you've seen our Prime Minister make a humiliating U-turn on the 10p tax bracket, oh no wait sorry it was a strategic reassessment of people's needs.
From what I saw the main points were as follows:
Pensioners get a higher Winter Fuel Allowance
Young workers get an increase in minimum pay
Low-earning families get more out of the Working Tax Credit system.
So in order we get a pittance being raised by another pittance, greater unemployment as those employers who decide between getting in a young staffer or making the existing workers do more choose the latter (or get in illegal workers cash in hand), and forcing more people into the barely functioning Tax Credit system where a government department decides whether they can have some of their own money back or not.
What alternatives do we have:
Conservatives - Well we get a synopsis of Cameron's remarks 'This is bad' without a corresponding 'So this is what we'll do'. The closest thing I can find is a speech by George Osbourne that essentially says 'We're going to do something about tax' with some specifics for businesses
Liberal Democrats - From a tax paper dated Autumn 2007. Amusing they also wanted to cut the 10p band except they didn't want to amalgamate the two into one 20% band. There's a few extra policies there, but I've got to be honest there's nothing exciting there. It's all just tinkering with the current system, tweak a band here, alter who controls what; nothing to make me go wow.
Green - Their economy policy paper Okay first off people this looks like something run off a student's 'for-free' printing press... in the 70's. Yes wanting pretty fonts and pictures is really shallow of us, but at least try showing you're a major player in politics and not some student collective. Green stuff, environment blah and finally something about tax about a Basic Income Scheme and Citizen's Income (power to the people) and increasing the Basic rate of tax from 23% to 35% which they claim will give 50% more to the lower decile while not removing much from the top four. I'm kinda scratching my head on that.
Monster Raving Looney Party: A full Manifesto turning inheritance tax into irrelevance tax. Alright it's all a bit of a joke... except I really do like some of their policies [Gods so many more then I originally thought] -
19: Every day the news should tell people an interesting fact in a hope to increase people's knowledge.
26: Homework should be banned as it is bad enough for kids having to go to school let alone bring it home with them [Actually being considered by some experts]
38: It is proposed that Political leaders are banned if they avoid a straight answer "Yes" or "No". As they may still be telling fibbs, any such person found to string out an answer longer than2.8 seconds should be forced to undertake a lie detector test
39: It is proposed that people should have a free go on the national lottery when they go and vote. [Seriously do this now!]
109: Pupils to be allowed to decorate the corridors
112: All pupil records will be abolished, only results from tests will be recorded for future use. This insane policy will help cut the Teachers work load and give them back more free time to teach.
115: Industries will be made to clean themselves up, especially when advertising their products. If an advert claims 'you can't eat three' then this must be backed up by independent scientists, or a disclaimer must be shown stating the lie. The disclaimer must be double the size of the original advert.
116: The Media must print only the truth and publish apologies on the front page. [snipped the rest]
129: Manufacturers will be made to compensate for the "Old and Inferior" goods that they have now replaced with "New and Improved"
141: We will abolish roundabouts, and replace them with friendly Traffic policemen. (assuming there is such a thing)
143: Due to the massive increases which M.P's seem to vote for themselves it is proposed that:
A. All M.P,s should have to sign on at the local Employment Office and provide evidence that they have been doing some work.
B. All M.P's should be paid by the Social Security Office via a giro in the Post. Then we shall see how they like being short changed and paid three weeks late.
[...] It is [also] proposed that it would be illegal to call yourself a Party if it can be proved that you don't. (Having said that could someone check the Trades Description Act).
145: It is proposed that the Government re-instate Student Grants, as their parents have invariably already paid for them via taxes. Bearing in mind that the Students will also be contributing via their taxes in future years. (Probably many times over).
147: It is proposed that parking fees in Public Car Parks are made transferable to others. Why should we not be allowed to give the time remaining to someone else. At the moment Companies and Authority Car Parks are getting paid twice for the same space.
154: The age at which people can stand for election should be reduced to 18 yrs
157: It is proposed that National Insurance is disbanded, as we already pay for the National Health, Pensions, and other benefits from our high indirect Taxes. Added to this the fact that no one ever gets a no claims discount.
164: The Councils and Government spend hundreds of thousands of pounds building Cycle routes and lanes to keep cyclists safe and away from vehicles.
Cyclists then ride on the road causing danger to themselves and other road users. It is proposed that all cyclists must (by law) drive in the cyclists lane if provided. They wouldn't like it if we drove on their bit.
8 comments:
You should have known not to mention cycle paths. If cycle paths were any use cyclists would use them, and no such law would be necessary. But in fact they (a) do not go where people want to go, (b) do not connect together like roads do, (c) are often shared with pedestrians, which is dangerous, and (d) have awful surfaces. "Hundreds of thousands of pounds" is not actually very much money, and is absurdly small compared to the road budget overall.
Here's a really loony idea: how about we provide a network of cycle routes that is safe, allows rapid travel, and direct, maintaining priority over roads and pedestrians, and taking cyclists to where they want to go? The cost would be a drop in the road budget ocean, and congestion would be a thing of the past, as has happened when the Netherlands implemented such a policy.
On the other hand, if people "causing danger to themselves and other road users" is really the problem we are trying to solve, then clearly it is the drivers who should be banned, as they cause far more road casualties (even if you count it per person, per journey, or per vehicle mile) than cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, or horse riders.
"You should have known not to mention cycle paths.
I was just trolling for you Dan, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. :-)
99% of the time you're right; they're in the wrong place, badly maintained or just plain dangerous. However that does leave the 1% of times when you watch a cyclist ignoring a perfectly fine cycle lane and there's nothing you (as a motorist) can do about it.
On the cycle front although you're not local you might be gratified to hear that they're increasing the cycle route around here as a continuation of the Sustrans project.
Don't forget there are often cases when cyclists won't want to use the lane for other reasons than an inherent problem with the lane, like that they know they will want to turn right shortly, or that the lane is often illegally parked in by motorists, or even because the traffic light priorities at either end favour the road.
On my trivial 1.1mi ride to work in the morning I use the road the whole way, pulling off the cycle lane at one point because it is to the left of the turn left lane, avoiding an off-road shared-use path later on (even though it is shorter) because it has dangerously narrow and windy chicanes, and another because it loses priority when rejoining the road and requires mounting the kerb. (Losing priority, and the speed reduction because of pedestrians, makes it slower for me even though it skips a set of traffic lights.)
On the way back of an evening, I avoid a shared-use path that forms part of the national cycle network because it is slower (being shared use) and I would have to do a dodgy right turn and cross four crossings to get to it: on the road there is only one set of traffic lights, so the road is safer and quicker.
Often, when I'm out and about, I come across off-road cycle paths that I have missed using simply because they aren't signposted in advance, and, being unfamiliar with the area, I haven't spotted them in time to slow down and join. They are almost always hard to join from the main carriageway, so once you're on the road, you're stuck.
I bet you a drink that if I sat in your car with you and you pointed out every cyclist who is ignoring a cycle feature, I can give you a good reason why.
Of course, the question the Loonies don't address is that of enforcement. If, despite such a law, I could use the road with the same impunity as motorists driving along or parking on bus or cycle lanes -- even off-road cycle tracks -- then I would have nothing to fear.
Dan I've no argument with you, but nevertheless there is still a tiny percentage of cyclists who just don't seem to know what the hell they're doing or what road traffic signs mean.
I've watched cyclists ignoring a perfectly maintained cycle lane that runs exactly parallel to their direction of travel; I've watched them bump up to the pavement to avoid traffic lights or simply ignore them and cycle straight through; I've watched them cycling the wrong way down one-way streets and up areas marked 'no bicycles'; I've watched them trundling along with hands in pockets; and I've watched them with a passenger clinging to the back legs splayed wide as they head down narrow pavements.
I have however yet to see any coppers around while they're doing all this. Though I have seen traffic wardens ignoring them.
I like the way you include cyclists ignoring cycle lanes among a list of real malfeasances, as if to suggest that people who use the road for its intended purpose are wrongdoers. It's very slick, but it won't wash. I think we agree that enforcement is poor generally, and that where it exists it is often inflexible and unfairly applied (I am thinking of speed cameras as an example).
In fact, it is usually the experienced cyclists who ignore misdesigned cycle lanes, because they suffer more from slower speeds and loss of priority, and because they are more aware of the risks of being too close to parked cars &c. Running exactly parallel to your direction of travel is insufficient if you have to give way at side roads, or dodge pedestrians, or if the tarmac is split by tree roots, or if the path is too narrow to overtake slower cyclists.
I still don't believe that this 1% of times when people ignore perfectly good cycle lanes exists; I stand by my offer of a bet, and I maintain that all you have to do to make cyclists use cycle paths is provide cycle paths that get them to their destination at least as quickly and at least as safely.
Me: "I've watched cyclists ignoring a perfectly maintained cycle lane that runs exactly parallel to their direction of travel"
You: "people who use the road for its intended purpose are wrongdoers"
Not quite, I treat them as if they were pedestrians walking along the road when there is a perfectly usable pavement on the other side.
If there's a perfectly fine specially designated route for a particular group then they should use it.
If the designated route were perfectly fine they would use it. Let's put it another way. You've written before about Tesco car parks and how good they are for pedestrians - I think not. In fact, you've written about how they make a token effort for peds to get planning permission, but don't think about where people are coming from and don't connect the pathways together. Peds thus end up milling around the whole car park.
If you're a cyclist, the whole road system is like a Tesco car park. The Loonies' policy comes from the notion that cycle lanes and paths are provided for the benefit of cyclists; we both know that just isn't the case. They're provided so Highway Authorities can get money out of the EU.
Again I can do nothing but agree with you. This is why I was consciously making the distinction between the stupid 1m long cycle lanes that serve no purpose and the well-laid out ones.
To switch to the pedestrian side and even bringing Tesco into it peripherally, on one of our busy roads at one side the pavement stops abruptly and starts again past a road-hugging wall.
Technically you should cross the road, this busy road; even more technically you should have walked in the opposite direction, crossed at an uncontrolled crossing point, walked back along the other pavement up to another uncontrolled crossing point before walking back to get to where the new Tesco entrance will be.
This is clearly moronic and as such I hold no ill-will to any pedestrian who walks, with their back to traffic, along this short stretch of wall to rejoin the pavement.
I hold the same reaction for cyclists avoiding a clearly ill-laid out cycle route.
Post a Comment