Penguin68

What sort of car and what sort of mileage are you assuming? A hybrid which is parked up most of the time has a very different footprint than a frequently used diesel, for instance. I'm assuming you are considering on costs and not additionally construction costs of carbon.

It's not actually just, or even, a 'side road' - it is a route through to other roads which if permanently cut will simply funnel traffic down smaller, and more genuine, side roads. It is also a road which has many shops and indeed restaurants - of course they are privately owned so I'm sure some people would be happy to see them fail.

At times, if a 999 call is unclear, or confusing, more emergency services may be called in than are actually required. On the better safe than sorry principle. This is not a bad thing.

This is good, if somewhat delayed, news

But of course John, as a Life Peer is also in Parliament, if in the Upper Chamber.

She chooses not to use that name professionally, which is her right, but as the wife of a Baron the style I quoted is legally hers, even though she may not have made a legal change to her name on marriage. This is different from a wife choosing not to use her husband's name. Her legal style is The Lady Cryer, even though she doesn't choose to use it professionally.

In which case she is actually The Lady Cryer, married to John, Baron Cryer. She chooses to use her maiden name for electoral purposes.

Moves against privately owned cars only work when public transport is available and dependable. And relatively frequent. Often at weekends trains effectively disappear for planned works, or for unplanned reasons as now. And buses offer tortuous and long east west travel for us (trains offer effectively none). I use public transport whenever I can, which seems increasingly infrequently! It's either not there or not going my way.

Most, actually, save perhaps late at night when there's no traffic, and they should, of course, even then. If as many as one in 20 cyclists signalled intent I'd be surprised.

Source?

If you drive any petrol or diesel (or electric 4 wheel) powered vehicle on your own, other than very low powered two wheelers you will need to have demonstrated hazard awareness and knowledge of road signs and the highway code together with sufficient skill in managing your vehicle. Even powered two wheelers must be licensed to drive. Cyclists (and users of electric assisted two wheelers) need have no training and are not obliged to pass any tests of any sort ever. It is not surprising that drivers are more likely to be 'better mannered' on the roads. Although some of course aren't. Careless and bad driving is not excusable, but why should careless and bad cycling get a free pass? Cyclists are of course far more vulnerable when road incidents happen, but you might imagine that would be imperative on making cyclists better skilled in road safety behaviour. Which isn't my experience.

I fear there is confusion here about regular and frequent. A regular occurrence may not be frequent, frequent or common occurrences may not however be regular. And there are many attempts to obfuscate by nit picking rather than addressing underlying issues.

I was asking you whether you laid as much blame on cyclists involved in 'accidents' as you do to 'drivers'. I think by the tone of your response we can draw our conclusions. I believe too many cyclists (frankly, as with careless drivers, one would be too many) cycle with little regard to their own safety, let alone to that of others. I don't believe and I have never said that drivers can do no wrong. By all means blacken me if you wish, but you win no arguments by doing so. What I have said is that road accident statistics suggest that drivers are driving less badly, and to less bad effect, than they have in the past. They appear to be on an upwards curve of better road behaviour at the same time as anecdotally cyclists appear to be on a downward curve.

Does this also apply in your view to cyclists involved in collisions on roads and pavements?

As is your right, but just because it is your right doesn't mean that you are right. I very much doubt, by the way, that people have spent money on extensions 'as an investment'. Read it up, but many building works do not lead to short term profits - or even long-term ones. In the main most people I know who have extended the size of their property have done so because moving to a larger property to meet growing family needs (which may include providing for elderly and infirm relatives) is not economically possible unless you also move (for those now in ED) far away - which level of disruption may be counter-productive.