Parliamentary inquiry into cycling

[johnr]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/20/cycling-in-britain-government-inquiry

Should be worth following. Infrastructure improvement seems to be a main focus.

 

[BSRU]

Shame they will not discuss law enforcement and suitable punishments for killing a cyclist while in charge of a deadly weapon.

 

[Davidsw8]

I do hope some improvements are made.

I was disappointed that TFL decided to scrap their plans for improving the Northside roundabout area of Lambeth Bridge. Despite their detailed plans and the lengthy consultation period, the chose to abandon any idea of making any changes 2 months after they were scheduled to complete the works.

I wonder how many thousands of commuters' and taxpayers' £'s was thrown at that total waste of time.

 

[gambatte]

I’m not encouraged. Whilst planners are able to say “I know the guidelines say 2m minimum, but they’re only guidelines.... so we put ‘em in at 1m, so as to not inconvenience other road users*”
*cars?

 

[Drago]

They're taking testimony from a Guardian journalist. They won't be going within a mile of anyone who actually knows anything about cycling, so its doomed to be a waste o money that'd be better spent on the crumbling roads.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

They're taking testimony from a Guardian journalist. They won't be going within a mile of anyone who actually knows anything about cycling, so its doomed to be a waste o money that'd be better spent on the crumbling roads.

A bit of a disservice to Peter Walker there, methinks.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

How about an enquiry into why road laws are not enforced?
Of course there's talk of investment in cycling. What a load of twaddle! They can't invest in a bloody police force!!

 

[Sara_H]

Shame they will not discuss law enforcement and suitable punishments for killing a cyclist while in charge of a deadly weapon.

I've emailed my MP regarding this issue, and giving my views about cycling infrastructure and have requested that she forward my views to the inquiry.

 

[derrick]

They're taking testimony from a Guardian journalist. They won't be going within a mile of anyone who actually knows anything about cycling, so its doomed to be a waste o money that'd be better spent on the crumbling roads.

We don't want any more crumbling roads we want nice smooth ones.

 

[Drago]

A bit of a disservice to Peter Walker there, methinks.

No, having read that a while back I stand by my judgement. Problem will be that he won't just say it how it is. He's already thinking about what spin to put on it, what message to convey. Just answer their blooming questions truthfully and without bias would probably cut it.

 

[StuartG]

No, having read that a while back I stand by my judgement. Problem will be that he won't just say it how it is. He's already thinking about what spin to put on it, what message to convey. Just answer their blooming questions truthfully and without bias would probably cut it.

Do you have any evidence that this particular journalist has a record of dishonest reporting (or giving dodgy evidence)?

Would a Daily Telegraph, Mail or Sport journalist have more credence - and why?