- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Pedestrian zone cyclist.JPGUKIP leaflet says cyclists should stick to pavements
Cyclists should be forced to ride on the pavement rather than the road, says a UKIP parliamentary candidate. Lynton Yates also says that benefits claimants should not be allowed to drive and their licences should be taken away from them. UKIP says the remarks do not reflect party policy.
Mr Yates is the party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for the Conservative seat of Charnwood, Leicestershire and made his remarks in a leaflet distributed locally, with a picture of it posted to Twitter by @atosmiraclesfb.
Under the heading ‘UKIP response’ on the subject of traffic congestion, Mr Yates says in the leaflet: "As much as I applaud cycling as a form of exercise and past-time [sic] the already congested roads cannot cope with both bus lanes AND cyclists.
"Cycles should go back to the pavements yet give priority to pedestrians."
.jpg)
Mr Yates, a councillor who sits on Leicestershire County Council’s transport committee, told The Mirror: "John Major made it unlawful to ride on the pavement. Since then the roads are twice as congested. It seems ludicrous to me."
As Bikehub’s Cycling and the Law article highlights, cycling on the footway has been illegal for rather longer than that; the relevant statute is Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, as amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888.
Since 1988 – when Margaret Thatcher, not Mr Major, was Prime Minister – riding on the footway has been punishable by a fixed penalty notice, although official guidance reiterated last year by transport minister Robert Goodwill is for police officers to exercise their discretion.
In his leaflet, Mr Yates also says: "We could likely remove six million cars from the roads if benefits claimants were not driving. Why do they have the privilege to spend the tax payers' hard earned money on a car, when those in work are struggling to keep their own car on the road? These people really could catch a bus."
The latter seems aimed at the unemployed, although with around two million people claiming jobseekers’ allowance, by no means all of own a car, it’s unclear where that figure of six million comes from.
In terms of money spent by the government on benefits, unemployment ranks well behind those related pensions, family, disability and housing according to 2013 research from the Joseph Rowntree foundation.
A UKIP spokesperson told The Mirror that the comments in the leaflet "are not UKIP policies and they will not form part of the UKIP manifesto."
Despite that denial, Mr Yates told the newspaper that requiring unemployed people to surrender their driving licences was a “possibility.”
He said: "I'm sure people will say 'what if they've got a job interview'. Well I'm sure if you had nothing to do you could leave a bit earlier and get a bus."
Maybe the jobless could follow the example of Norman Tebbitt’s father, as recounted by the former cabinet minister in 1981, and get on their bikes instead? But only if they ride on the pavement, of course…
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Mybike 10 min 26 sec ago
Can you show us your number of the people in wheelchairs hit by cars. Only lazy people dont like bikes. I dont care why you dont like me. 1 car 1...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 32 min ago
You've been quoted in the article as being concerned "about the safety of cyclist and vehicles”....
- S.E. 6 hours 14 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 6 hours 39 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 5 hours 47 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 6 hours 50 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 7 hours 51 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 8 hours 16 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 8 hours 30 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 9 hours 1 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
100 comments
Or is the issue the incredibly restrictive planning system that we currently have in place? There is plenty of land, consider the difference in price between a piece of agricultural land and land with planning consent? If land was the issue wouldn't the price difference be minimal???
No one wants anything built in "their" back yard, be it housing, roads, rail, power, etc. Fact of the matter is it has to be built somewhere.
And then the next step is to ever more bully us off the roads at those same points... no thanks.
Solution to this is well-designed infrastructure, not making traffic become pedestrians.
Better than the madness we have being part of it? Sad to say but heres hoping the Tories get (re)elected(?) at least the People of the UK will be allowed to decide. Its bye bye to the Strasbourg Cash Cow from me.
*infinitely* better.
Let's not be apologists for UKIP, even half-heartedly. They are dim-witted bigots, their policies are incoherent or non-existent, and their instinct is to lash out at anyone they feel is not like them. This includes lashing out at cyclists.
If you want the racist old guy from the golf club as your MP, vote UKIP. I don't and I won't.
Is said councillor unaware that inciting anyone to commit a crime is a crime in itself. Under current law, it is unlawful to ride on a pavement unless a designated shared space. Hopefully, he will never be in a position politically to change the law?
But he wasn't inciting anyone to commit a crime; he was saying what he'd like to see happen if UKIP were in a position to legislate (although the party distanced itself from his comments).
In such an unlikely scenario, however, he would be watching from the sidelines - they've suspended him.
really? Which policy do you like (in addition to their anti-cycling ones)?
I don't intend to contribute to a political debate here so I may or may not answer further after this...
However I feel strongly that a country should be governed by representatives who are elected by its citizens, and that the country's laws should equally be created/voted for by those representatives. (I'd prefer that laws were put to people in referendums, but that's far too unrealistic for now.)
As we are being forced to obey laws and rulings passed by officials who we didn't vote for, this offends me as much as free speech offends most students. The EU has become a lot more than it used to be; and as Farage says, we should be able to trade with the rest of Europe but not be governed by them.
Europe is heading towards ever closer political and economic integration and I want out. Therefore I am voting for the only party whose existence is based on that issue, i.e. UKIP.
As for UKIP being full of racists, bigots, and whatnot... yes they seem to have more than their fair share. And I can see why those people would be attracted to UKIP. If you are inherently xenophobic, you'd want to vote for the one "main" party that is serious about reducing and controlling immigration. If you're racist the same logic could apply, although given that UKIP wants to control immigration (quality as well as numbers) rather than stop it, it could easily result in more people of non-white races coming here than before; currently there is an "open door" policy to the largely white EU countries and restrictions on most others. If all countries were restricted and entry was based on skill set, you might get proportionally more non-whites than whites vs the previous ratio. Just speculation.
However even if UKIP boasts more racists than most of the other parties, that doesn't really matter to me. I'm voting to leave the EU. And UKIP is one party that *appears* to say "This is what we stand for, vote for us or don't" whereas both the Conservatives and Labour seem to care only about remaining in power and will change their policies to suit. They don't have any firm or strong opinions or viewpoints. They can't say "this is what we stand for" because they change what they stand for with every turn of public opinion. They want to reflect public opinion so that they can remain in power. I can't respect that. I can and do respect a party that stands for something even if everyone ridicules or hates them for it.
Oh well, nothing new. UKIPs got more than it fair share of "crackpot" candidates, and the press loves reporting every time they do or say something outrageous.
As mentioned already, that's what happens when you have unprofessional candidates who are relatively free to speak their own minds - they say the sort of things that you might hear amongst buddies (depending on what sort of company you keep), but would never pass as "sanctioned" policy or communication.
Let's not forget that lots of them have come to UKIP from the Conservatives and Labour. Maybe they were kept muzzled at the time.
Still gonna vote UKIP.
OK, lots of reasons to not vote for the established parties.
But why would you vote for this bunch? What policies is it you like? How do you think they'll make Britain a better place? Are these the people you trust with our government? How have they, to you, shown they should be?
I really do want to know.
I am definitely not a kipper but actually you're question misses the actual real effect on policy that UKIP sought and has achieved. It's not going to be elected as a government or even have a substantial enough number of MPs to do real deals and achieve any of its own legislation. So their policies as such don't matter.
The actual effect of UKIP has been to scare the bejeezus out incumbent MPs and in all kinds of constituencies and since there is no nailed on massive majority for any party at the moment that scares the parties. UKIP can just bugger up their numbers. It's a constant thorn in the side of the Conservative Party but there are also lots of Labour wards and seats where UKIP have gained support. They're an omni-protest party. They are that precisely because they are a totally unslick, unscripted, unprofessional shambolic mess that make unguarded remarks.
The drive of parties to be more professional and coordinated on script and as inoffensive as possible in their pronouncements has left a vacuum for people like UKIP and interesting people in other parties that are personally like this to connect. That's partly because the media wants interesting stuff and UKIP and politicians like Boris Johnson don't do boring. So while most of the parties have been painting themselves magnolia there's a gap for colourful.
The effect of UKIP is extremely interesting especially in a first past the post system which means they won't get many seats.
UKIP is an anti-politics party. Most of the people that vote for it are sticking two fingers up to someone. They do best when the target is the EU because the EU is unpopular even with people that want the UK to remain in it. The EU (slick eurocratic, suave and elitist) is the perfect foil for UKIP. But other targets exist.
So to their effect. Who thought 5 years ago that the Labour Party would be apologising for its immigration policies and advocating policies aimed at curbing so-called benefit tourism.
There are a whole raft of policies that the other parties have that are formed not to copy UKIPs (god no) but to insulate themselves from the UKIP effect. In effect to UKIP proof their own policies. That is an observable policy effect.
You'll have seen that many politicians, Cameron certainly but also Milliband have stopped trying to ridicule UKIP because the more they did the more the electorate or a portion of the elctorate knew exactly how to get up their noses if they wanted. So very few Labour MPs now wax lyrical about being pro immigration. They either stay schtum or make the case carefully. Likewise benefits. The Conservative Parliamentary party is about evenly split on EU membership. You don't hear many of them giving it large on the wonders of the EU. (except Ken Clarke maybe). That's the UKIP effect.
UKIPs polling is running at around 15% but it's been up at 20% a few times. To put that in perspective, that's about 7 points consistently ahead of the Lib dems. I doubt that 15% - 20% of the electorate seriously want kippers running the country or that they are all racist bigots or golf club bores. What UKIP now provide is what the liberals then the libdems used to provide before they actually did get into government. The repository of a protest vote. Remember when it was the liberals that had all those barking mad policies that indicated that they weren't even trying to be in government. Well that what UKIP are now with one difference. They have one underlying policy which is intended seriously and does have traction in the UK. Exit from the EU.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. UKIP is not intended to win any power. UKIP exists to make people think that the only alternative to voting for a fascist party is to vote for a bunch of crackpots.
And which, pray tell, is which?
Or you can read some of the other anti-cycling corkers dropped by the UKIP candidate in Cambridge (May 2013):
Such gems as:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2013maycounty/eastchesterton/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11305716/Ukips-tweet-crack...
UKIP always gets in trouble like this because it's not really a professional party. I don't hold a candle for them but I am interested in politics generally. The thing I wonder about is how the other parties would get on if they were as loosely organised as UKIP. If people candidates and members could get their own leaflets printed with their own comments on them without having them vetted first. Normally campaign leaflets are centrally supplied pre printed with a national or regional message and the previously submitted candidate message that has to be approved.
Trust me there's as many barking mad Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green candidates out there that would come a right cropper if they were allowed to write stuff they actually thought.
The whole New Labour project was underpinned by Mandelson issuing precise messages to Labour MPs and candidates on the party line on the latest issue minute by minute on the party supplied pager just to make sure no one said anything "off message".
It's more that UKIP are amateurs and all sorts of people are allowed to say what they want because the party hasn't got the structures to stop them. The UKIP guy for the next constutuency to me runs the club runs for the road club and is the timekeeper for their TTs. There's nothing particularly anti or pro cycling about UKIP. Or anyone other party BTW. They are just amateurs.
Hmmm.. I seem to remember a few eyebrow-raisers in their 2010 manifesto:
Compulsory insurance, a mandatory "Cycledisc" to identify cyclists, mandatory cycle training, paying for cycle parking, legal enforcement of Cyclists Dismount advisory signs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/Cycl...
http://road.cc/content/forum/77338-ukip-policies-bikes
I thought the roads were congested because of unchecked immigration and a failed policy of multiculturalism. That's what Nigel Farage says anyway.
Well, they're not going to charge me for driving abroad, prevent me from working or make it more difficult to sell my products in the EU, which is a huge market, for starters.
And they're not going to force "British values" down my throat, whatever they are.
he has been suspended by UKIP
telling the truth costs an high price ha ha
Calling people insufferable bellends is always a good way to win them over.
no intention of winning his type over. If this turns out to be true (I doubt it) then the candidate should be sacked. but the glee and speed at which people show at pointing out the stupidity of UKIP, have you looked at what your party's promises?
Why do you doubt it?
The story has been reported by The Mirror, The Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC, ITV, Huffington Post to name a few.
They give quotes from the bloke himself, from UKIP and from other parties. UKIP have said they are suspending him as a candidate.
Passports of all UKIP voters should be revoked at the polling stations.
I'm not, I think its great. I think these idiots should much more airtime to expose their ridiculous ideas and let the thinking world laugh at them.
We will get the government we deserve.
I don't know why UKIP don't just rebrand themselves as "Anarchy in the UK"
I'm embarrassed that ukip exists in the human race. (or excuse thereof)
Oh come on! The crash was publicly predicted well in advance. The politicians and bankers chose to ignore the warnings (except for tony Blair, for the timing of his exit was no co-incidence)
Why would the Greens be a laughing matter? Why are they relevant to this discussion?
He needs to read Mr Reid: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
That is, once he's learnt to read of course. I assume that anyone this ill-educated and stupid, can't.
'I'm embarrassed by UKIP's selection of some prospective candidates.'
...but not by their absolute fruitloop policies?
Pages