Not all cyclists are awesome - some are twats (bet he’s a car owner).He's treasurer of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Your usual transport-related political assumptions don't apply in Cambridge.
Also he has a personal blog so
Not all cyclists are awesome - some are twats (bet he’s a car owner).He's treasurer of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Your usual transport-related political assumptions don't apply in Cambridge.
Which part of this ex conservative city councillor's opinion did you find the most compelling?
I agree with his comments on subsidising buses:
"The proposals to improve the bus service do not amount to a significant intervention commensurate with the transport needs of the Cambridge subregion and its recent and potential growth. They cannot provide a comprehensive solution to sustainable transport as they will leave too many journeys that simply cannot be made in a reasonable timeframe by bus or active travel. They do not constitute investment in transport infrastructure, and do not provide new dedicated public transport corridors - they provide subsidies to operating costs that could be removed at any time if budgets get tight. "
"most of the proposed changes to increase services into increasingly more rural areas, increase frequency and increase operating hours e.g. to the early hours of the morning are likely to involve enormous levels of public subsidy with very little benefit to the overall transport situation, as for reasons elsewhere in these responses they fall far short of what is needed to make a journey by bus a more appealing option for most journeys, and with lower population densities there won’t be enough demand to sustain the large ‘per passenger-journey’ subsidies needed. Our local Councils have repeatedly tried to subsidise various routes at extended hours, but usually cancel schemes when the extraordinary subsidy per person becomes apparent. (e.g. nightbuses were tried in Cambridge City in 2001 but cancelled later as it would almost have been cheaper to pay for taxis for the low usage numbers). "
and that such money would be better spent thus:
"The proposals outlined for cycling and walking are vague and unambitious. We should plan to deliver a full dutch standard network of cycling and active travel routes to support safe and convenient cycling. By Dutch standard network I mean a dedicated network of interconnected segregated routes in and around Cambridge, with appropriate infrastructure such as bridges and underpasses to ensure cycling and micromobility is the most cost and time effective choice for most journeys. "
But he's a Tory apparently so is obviously some sort of cunt who must be disagreed with.
So many drivers showing they don’t give a fuck about anyone else.
Take a photo/video. Get him to stop, get out the cab then report the cunt.This cabbie is checking Facebook while driving…
Keep seeing it said that the £2 fare cap doesn’t include London - that’s because it doesn’t need to as fares are already below that.Another somewhat regressive step:
Buses: More cuts to services to come, operators warn
How are you meant to get people out their cars if you're reducing bus routes and timetables? There's loads of people who are never going to ride a bike or use a scooter... but you might get them on a bus.
A car dependent society, which is what most of the UK is, creates the political environment where public transport can be continually under attack because in many places the majority do not rely on it.
You mean the jail? Or a literal meat coma?Can only presume that platinumsage has gone down some weird Jordan Paterson/Andrew Tate rabbit hole.
Completely agree with this - there's no reason to have a car that can break speed limits.And cars above some power threshold shouldn't be allowed on public roads. What possible reason is there to allow that kind of car onto anything other than a racetrack? Only extremists would defend it.