tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post2686634888173436249..comments2023-10-31T08:49:14.757+00:00Comments on Cambridge Cyclist: County Elections - who to vote for 4 - UKIPCab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-60914849435132163892013-05-01T15:41:42.501+01:002013-05-01T15:41:42.501+01:00Below is his reply. Fair does he replied, but whol...Below is his reply. Fair does he replied, but wholly unrepentant in doing so:<br /><br />Dear David,<br />Road tax is a convenient acronym for whatever you call the thing you display<br />on your windscreen. It is a symbol of misguided policy that what the government<br />asks you to display is a receipt for tax paid, not something that says your vehicle<br />is fit to be on the road. Talking about "general" taxation is a fudge to conceal the fact<br />that motorists pay a disproportionate share. The idea that road tax is something to do<br />with CO2 emissions is a new, misguided idea that justifies ever higher road taxes.<br />I find it odd that people would think that a 2 ton electric car would not create the same<br />damage to the roads as a 2 ton petrol driven car. Especially as the electricity is largely<br />generated by burning something somewhere else and then half is lost in transmission<br />and conversion. It will also do nothing about alleged global warming. The weather <br />systems operate on a timescale measured in millenia. We will have exhausted much<br />of the fossil fuel resouces before any real amelioration is possible. I do not say that<br />"zero" emission vehicles should not be allowed on the roads, only that there should not<br />be any concessions for the illusion of not creating pollution at the point of use.<br />I shudder to think how the government finances would look if everybody used<br />electric vehicles. They would have to tax electricity used to charge your car.<br />You have not actually "corrected" any inaccuracies in what I wrote. You have simply<br />disagreed with it, which is your right. I never said anything about how healthy cycling<br />might make you, except that it is beyond the physical capability of lots of elderly people<br />whom you still expect to contribute their taxes to support.<br />With regard to road accidents, speed is not the major culprit. Accidents for all road users<br />are caused by doing something stupid. The only thing involving speed is that if there is an<br />accident, it will be worse, the faster the vehicles involved are moving. Most motorways<br />could have their limit raised to 100 say, without any danger.<br />In Cambridge, where I live, it is virtually impossible to go faster than 25mph anywhere,<br />but accidents still happen from time to time.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14020436426386997867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-49029877137781712952013-05-01T15:39:18.136+01:002013-05-01T15:39:18.136+01:00I emailed the guy. You know how you shouldn't ...I emailed the guy. You know how you shouldn't argue with an idiot cos you'll lose. Yeah, that. Below is my email.:<br /><br />Dear Mr Burkinshaw<br /><br />As I'm sure others may well have pointed out, your misguided comments on cyclists will have done you no favours apart from with other mistaken "anti-cyclists". Several points:<br /><br /><br />"Road Tax" is a misnomer. Churchill himself changed it from Road Tax back in the 1930s as he feared car owners would think they owned the road. Roads are actually paid out of general taxation. Everyone pays for the roads via taxation on purchases and so on, even my 102yr old grandmother & my 7yr old son.<br /><br />"Road Tax" is actually a pollution tax on motorised vehicles. That's why heavily polluting cars pay more and why electric/low emission cars don't pay any "road tax" either...In your logic, surely nil-contribution cars shouldn't be allowed on the roads either as they're not paying for them.<br /><br />Cyclists and motorists are not mutually exclusive people. I cycle, I drive. So even if the "motorists only pay for roads" belief was correct, I would still pay for the roads via my car which I use sometimes, and sometimes I don't.<br /><br /><br />Cycling is fun, can keep you fit (and heavily reduce the obesity and heart disease rates in the UK), it is not polluting, can reduce traffic congestion, can make for more liveable city centres and residential streets, is often quicker for shorter journeys and so on. For those that can be bothered to look there are plenty of studies to prove all this. UKIP really ought to be pushing for more & better cycling facilities akin to the Netherlands where the school run means a walk or bike ride and few chelsea tractors (I've family in Holland, I know this is fact), and whilst I have sympathy with some UKIP policies, there is not a chance I shall vote for them unless they have a balanced plan to improve cycling facilities and generally curb the "motorist is boss" attitude which has lead to streets where kids cannot play in roads safely anymore and 3k road deaths per annum with little responsibility (legally or financially) being imposed on the biggest culprit of all - irresponsible speeding and dangerous driving.<br /><br />I'm sorry to go on, I'm sure you've plenty of other things to work on too, but please take my email as it was intended - that is, to correct the inaccuracies of what you have stated and help state the reasons why you should be changing your views. I certainly will agree that red-light jumping cyclists and so on are a nuisance - as are, shall we say, speeding motorists, tailgating motorists, motorists on phones and so on - so what if anything UKIP should be for is strong fines and penalties for ALL traffic violations, not just singling out a minority. Whilst remembering, the roads belong to everyone.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />David WilsonDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14020436426386997867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-3022181239305860812013-04-30T10:35:18.424+01:002013-04-30T10:35:18.424+01:00It does indeed seem that they've gone for quan...It does indeed seem that they've gone for quantity over quality "with hilarious consequences" as the Radio Times used to say. And while you get glimmers of decency, the whole UKIP package is a disgrace.Cab Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-2493685413619411612013-04-30T10:14:49.172+01:002013-04-30T10:14:49.172+01:00I was speaking David Kendrick (Melbourn) at the cy...I was speaking David Kendrick (Melbourn) at the cycle hustings. He'd been pretty sane (barring his "britain is full up rants") during the event, talking about (among other sensible points) the frequent bad air quality issues in Cambridge that plague the roads where traffic is often stationery for long periods. he actually favours a congestion charge type scheme, with exemptions for EVs and low emissions vehicles (this would reduce the number of vehicles total quite well, like London, so we could have some more road space for cycling). He even has an LPG car- however I later researched him and discovered he's a Director of a firm that supplies gas... he's also barred from all horse racing due to betting "irregularities".<br /><br />He said the candidate selection process was not at all rigorous- requiring little more than a phone call to HQ. He said this explains the torrent of unsuitable candidates- UKIP wanted as many candidates as the Lib Dems, and they managed that at the expense of any sort of coherency or any ackground checking.Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06817806128052425511noreply@blogger.com