Written evidence submitted by Mr Colin Stone (RSA0037)

 

Firstly, can I offer my deep appreciation for your efforts and interest in road safety, I believe the state of safety on our roads is in a desperate position and am grateful for the opportunity to present the following to you.  Truthfully, if I could stand before each of you, I would drop to my knees and beg for urgent and wide sweeping changes to be passed as a matter of urgency.

 

My name is Colin Stone and I believe I have become something of an expert on this matter, having amassed a wide range of experience relating to this subject, as such I am deeply passionate about arguing for radical overhaul of road legislation to protect us all.

 

In 1994 my 5-year-old step sister was killed, along with her mother when the vehicle they were travelling in was hit by an HGV.  Her mother died instantly but Tia died some 20 minutes later at the side of the road waiting for an air ambulance.

 

The driver of the HGV faced no charges as there was insufficient evidence of poor driving.  I was at home when the police arrived to confirm the identity of my step father and watched in shock and disbelief as the news was broken that his daughter and former wife had been killed.  He collapsed against the wall repeating over and over ‘Not my little girl…not my little girl’.

 

I didn’t attend the funeral as I couldn’t bear to see the small white coffin, preferring to try and remember that little girl for the beautiful soul that she was. 

 

In December 1996 I was out cycling on a quiet country road in Northamptonshire.  As a 22-year-old athlete I had committed my life to racing professionally and was under the guidance of British Cycling as a member of their elite centre of excellence.  I had dedicated years of work to my ambitions and was due to spend 1997 in Belgium racing with a top tier team to gain valuable racing experience and exposure to bigger teams. 

 

A motorist changed my life forever.  The driver was on the wrong side of the road (to save time going around a right-angled traffic island) and he hit me head on at speed shattering the windscreen.  The next memory I have is being dragged across the road under the arms.  I subsequently learned that the driver was attempting to change the scene of the collision.  He left me on the wrong side of the road so he could later claim that it was I who was on his side of the road in order to avoid blame. 

 

He left my head against the kerb, which blocked my airway.  I started fitting and by the time the paramedics arrived I had been left with a hypoxic brain injury due to my restricted airway. 

I was left in a coma and narrowly escaped death; indeed, I have been told that had the paramedics arrived even 1 minute later that I would likely have died of shock as my body struggled to cope with the net result of the injuries sustained. 

 

The driver denied all wrongdoing and eventually escaped any prosecution whatsoever as there were no independent witnesses.  I lost years of work, my life ambition and was left with a permanent brain injury that I spent some 5 years trying to deal with having cognitive brain therapy to help me deal with my deficits.  Worse, the insurance industry facing a potentially large insurance claim ran me through various supposedly impartial medicolegal experts who did everything they could to minimise the value of the claim. 

 

One ‘impartial’ expert suggested I had tried to kill myself as I must still be depressed after the death of my step sister, which would explain why I was found on the wrong side of the road.  I was fuming. 

 

Another ‘impartial’ expert tried to argue the paramedics had mistakenly assessed my Glasgow Coma Score implying I hadn’t been seriously injured at all.  I learned quickly that the insurance industry has no morals whatsoever when it comes to reducing their exposure to monetary damages and have no regard for the victims of dangerous drivers.

 

Fitness however remained deeply ingrained in me and I endeavoured some years later to get back into training, eventually finding triathlon.  In 2012 I was out running on a quiet country lane; I’d ran that route dozens of times.  I saw a black mustang approaching and it slowed.  I continued to run towards it anticipating it would simply pass.  The driver had other ideas though.

 

He suddenly accelerated and veered off towards me as his wheel mounted the grass verge.  I was forced to jump into the ditch to avoid being hit, injuring my ankle and knee as well as being left very shaken and bruised by my fall. 

 

The driver was interviewed by the police as I had taken the registration number and the car was so distinctive.  The driver was known to the police ‘for other undisclosed offences’ and I also learned that he had previously been a banned driver.  He simply denied what he’d done and once again the police did nothing. 

 

In my time as a vulnerable road user, specifically as a cyclist, in addition to the above, I have had to endure the following –

 

 

The threat, intimidation, harm and continual fear of violence has meant I have given up training on UK roads.  I have been forced to build a gym at home and must do all my training using an indoor resistance trainer. 

 

As I race Ironman triathlon, an event involving a 2.4-mile swim, a 112-mile bike followed by a 26.2-mile marathon I am forced to keep my passion for fitness alive by spending up to 5 hours at a time on my bike indoors.  I have managed to reach the top 5% of the sport and am chasing a world championship place at the sports biggest race in Kona, Hawaii yet society and government offers me no safety at all. 

 

In the event of my death at the hands of a reckless driver my family will be let down by the courts and the CPS who will at best achieve a £400 fine, £75 victim surcharge fee, 6 points on their licence (if they have one) and a brief driving ban of typically 10 months. 

 

My indoor facility where I am forced to do all my cycling

 

Such ‘punishment’ by the courts are offensive to the memories of the dead, leave an increasing number of families angered and sickened at the lack of justice, offer little deterrent to other drivers and do nothing to make the roads a safer place for everyone.

 

I am no longer able to entrust the British driving public with my life and can no longer enjoy the thousands of miles of beautiful country roads this country has purely because I have had so many negative and dangerous encounters forced upon me by dangerous and reckless drivers.

 

In order to keep competing in triathlon I am forced off the roads by the reckless, the inept, the dangerous and the plain homicidal, all of whom it seems are continually protected by a succession of failed government efforts to make the roads safer.

 

Does government not understand the increasing anger from road victims, bereaved families, road safety campaigners and charities when killer drivers are repeatedly let off and allowed to re-join the roads when they’ve demonstrated such recklessness for life?  Just what does society really owe these people?

 

Can you possibly imagine what it is like to not be able to simply go out and use the roads in peace purely because others in society are so callous and irresponsible that your life is constantly at risk?  The only place I feel safe riding is on the island of Mallorca.  The drivers there are calm and there is a good relationship of sharing the roads in peace. 

 

Spain also operates the Presumed Liability system meaning there is a greater expectation and demand for care to more vulnerable road users.  Lorries owe greater care to everyone, cars to cyclists and cyclists to pedestrians for example with automatic fault being found in the favour of the more vulnerable unless it can be shown that party was the cause of the collision.

 

As a result, motorists are immediately more cautious around cyclists and pass with decency and care, unlike the fast and dangerous close passes British cyclists are forced to endure.  Even the road signs in Mallorca enforce this mindset and culture and it makes a huge difference.

 

Common road sign in Mallorca enforcing safer mindset of drivers

 

The governments historical and current approach is dire.  One of the key criticisms many have is the fact that in 2019 a driving licence is no longer seen as a responsibility or a privilege.  Being able to drive is just a given, irrespective of the risk a driver presents to wider society.  I passed first time in 1996 and as a cyclist I was immediately aware of the huge responsibility I now had as a driver and evidence proves that cyclists make better drivers due to their experiences as vulnerable people.

 

As I write this government has quickly passed new legislation to make ‘upskirting’ an offence punishable by up to 2 years in prison.  A campaign by a member of the public was quickly investigated by parliament and new rules voted in, just as parliament should work, proactively and passionately.

 

In contrast, despite years of begging by bereaved families, road safety charities, road safety experts, report writers and hundreds of private petitions from injured members of the public successive governments refuse to take tough action on dangerous drivers.  Despite threatening up to 2 years in prison for taking a cheeky photograph, in contrast killer drivers are rarely sent to prison for their actions unless there are other aggravating factors.

 

In 2016 1,792 people were killed on our roads.  24,101 people suffered life changing injuries and a further 155,491 people were slightly injured.  The cost to society was estimated at £36 billion pounds per year.

 

Very few members of parliament appear to think these statistics are worthy of their time, yet all were in favour of changing laws to stop people taking a photograph under a skirt. 

 

Every year a cyclist is involved on average with 3 pedestrian fatalities, and very often the pedestrian is jointly responsible for stepping into the path of the cyclist as they’re on their phone for example, not concentrating on what they’re doing.  This represents 0.6% of pedestrian fatalities. 

 

By comparison motor vehicles were responsible for 99.4% of pedestrian fatalities.

 

Lord Robert Winston, allegedly having an altercation with a lady riding on the pavement has quite frankly, made government look ridiculous by appearing on the television demanding that cyclists are made to have insurance and be licenced.

 

He appears content to ignore the actual cause of fatalities and serious injuries in society by brushing aside the actual dangers in our country and picking on cyclists.  He fails to recognise the fact that that cyclist was probably only on the pavement to avoid the homicidal behaviour of motorists. 

 

Lord Winston makes government look quite stupid and has only managed to alienate and anger those in society who are sick to the back teeth of violence caused by the motoring public.  Given 1 in 38 drivers aren’t insured quite how does he propose to police cycling when government can’t even control motoring?  Are we also to insure and licence motorised disabled carts?  Should pedestrians be licenced and insured given they become road users when they cross the road? 

 

Why isn’t Lord Winston using his power to focus on the real danger out there presented by motor vehicles?

 

 

Finally, I would like to offer the following analogy of what it’s like to be a cyclist on UK roads.  Imagine you lived on one side of a river and you worked on the other side.  You have little choice but to use one solitary bridge to live your life.  However, on that bridge are people milling about with hammers.  Every time you walk across the bridge those people swing their hammers at you wildly, narrowly missing you, shouting abuse and using their hammers to intimidate you.  The police don’t stop them using their hammers to threaten you.  The courts offer little deterrent to these people and government isn’t interested at all.

 

You know many people are killed and seriously injured by these hammer wielding people but no one in authority will protect you from the hammers. Robust action is repeatedly denied as the people with the hammers cry out in protest about their rights and how their hammers are important to them.  You know if you’re hit by a hammer and killed that you will be denied justice, your killer will claim it was an accident.  They’ll be charged £400 for killing you and have their hammer taken off them for 10 months, after which they’ll get it back with very few questions asked. 

 

That is exactly what it is like to be a cyclist in this country.  It’s not if, it’s when you’ll get hit and society is indifferent to the violence. 

 

Numerous surveys cite fear of motor vehicles as the number 1 reason people don’t cycle more.  Government needs people to adopt sustainable transport modes, pretends it supports those efforts, yet repeatedly fails to create an environment to foster that mindset.

 

Air quality levels are frequently in breach of permitted levels, our schoolchildren being smaller and closer to exhausts are more vulnerable as are children sitting in vehicles on their way to school.  Obesity levels amongst the public are sky rocketing costing the NHS billions of pounds, notwithstanding the human misery and cost to the economy.  Congestion costs billions more in lost productivity.  Our roads are over populated resulting in increased road surface damage, costing billions more. 

 

Government needs cycling, period.  It is a golden bullet for so many problems yet too many MP’s are indifferent and completely apathetic to the gains the country could make if they worked together to make the roads a place without all the hammers. 

 

I deeply care about this subject and am exasperated by the failure of parliament to get its act together and introduce widespread legislative changes.  I offer the following ideas and suggestions to make the roads a safer place for all. 

 

Action Government Could Take

 

Abolition of vehicle technology telling drivers where speed cameras are.

 

Our car pings a noise whenever we are approaching a speed camera.  We didn’t pay extra for it; it came with the cars navigation system.  In theory therefore we could drive everywhere at 90mph with complete disregard for the lives of those around us and simply slow down whenever the car tells us there’s a camera ahead.  This is absurd.  In no other scenario does permitted and widespread technology assist the public to break the law and put lives at risk.

 

No longer making it compulsory for mobile speed camera units to tell drivers where they are going to be.

 

Mobile speed camera units are critical to enforcing the message that speeding is not acceptable.  Yet, every day the locations of these vans is published in local newspapers. 

Somehow, somewhere it was argued that it would be unfair if motorists weren’t told where these units would be so society bent over and decided to ‘give fair warning’ so poor motorists weren’t unfairly caught out breaking the law. 

 

Can I call the police during a plan to commit a robbery and ask them where they’re going to be so that I maximise my chance of escape?  Can I call the tax office and insist they tell me how to avoid paying my full share of taxes? Motoring, once again, has a unique and completely warped avoidance clause.  Such vans should be enabled to work in the true spirit of being a deterrent to reckless driving meaning no one should know where they’re going to be. 

 


Introduction of lifetime driving bans for killer drivers who have demonstrated such a cavalier attitude to life that they should no longer be entrusted with public life. 

 

The General Medical Council don’t hesitate to strike dangerous doctors off the medical register to protect the bigger needs of the general public.  Unfit pilots are grounded, to protect the public.  Teachers found to have indecent material on their laptop are removed from their roles with immediate effect, to protect and safeguard the vulnerable children in their care.  Incompetent solicitors are stopped from practising law to avoid causing harm to the public. 

 

None of these people get to argue that it isn’t fair.  Society demonstrates zero tolerance in order to protect and care for society and in many cases the above actions are taken as preventative measures when people haven’t even been affected, let alone seriously maimed or killed.  

 

In contrast a killer driver is represented by a defence team who offer up all manner of excuses as to why that driver should not be banned.  Motoring is the only area in modern society where the needs of 1 person are placed ahead of the basic right to safety of the rest of the public. This must change. 

 

Examples of drivers who should face lifetime bans include:

 

Hit and run drivers.  Despicable people who flee the scene leaving their victim at further risk of being hit and making no attempt to offer or call for medical assistance.  Society should demonstrate this behaviour is repugnant and such drivers are not fit to share road space with responsible members of society.  Government must step up and send out a very clear message.

 

Drunk or drugged drivers who have already served a driving ban should face immediate and permanent revocation of their licence if they are caught a second time as they have demonstrated contempt for the law and for the lives of the public around them.

 

Drivers who engage police in high speed pursuits threatening high risk to the public and to the police should face lifetime bans.  If the police ask me to pull over then I should demonstrate respect for that process, not put the public at immense risk in a selfish and lethal attempt to evade the authorities. Society owes these people nothing. 

 

Numerous TV shows such as Police Camera Action, Road Wars and Police Interceptors to name just a few contain thousands of hours of incredibly dangerous driving and at the end the drivers typically face small fines and brief driving bans.  If the police ask you to stop, you should stop, period. 

 

Killer drivers or those who have caused catastrophic and life changing injuries found at fault for their actions should accept that their victim has paid a terrible price because of their driving, therefore it is only right that they lose their driving privileges having demonstrated to the public that they cannot be entrusted with a licence.

Education on the fictional Road Tax.

 

The belief in this fictional tax is a dangerous one that causes tension and danger.

 

Roads are funded through general taxation, meaning anyone who works and pays income tax is funding the roads.  Through years of misinformation there are too many drivers who have been led to believe that their vehicle tax is a road tax.  They then use this false belief to justify aggressive driving towards those on the roads who they perceive not to pay such a tax, which means cyclists are abused and victimised daily.  Even government is guilty of propagating this myth. 

 

The Department of Transport recently sent my wife a blue badge as she has lupus, now suffering with breathing problems.  In the booklet describing the rules of the blue badge scheme they refer to Road Tax on page 12 which states -

 

‘Holding a Blue Badge does not in itself mean that you do not have to pay road tax,

but you may be exempt if you meet certain set criteria’.

 

When even the government facilitates this dangerous myth it’s very poor, this reference to a fictitious tax must stop in order to stop drivers endangering those they perceive to not have paid such a tax.  Vehicles that don’t pay ‘road tax’ include all emergency vehicles, classic vehicles and agricultural vehicles but drivers don’t pick on any of those, they just victimise cyclists and drive dangerously around them somehow believing their behaviour is justified.

 

Insurance companies are hugely responsible for many problems on the roads.

Insurance risk.  When you present to an insurance company you should be assessed based solely on your personal risk to the public.  Currently everyone pays to subsidise the worst drivers, which is unfair, immoral and contrary to the actual nature of insurance where risk should be the key driver to the amount you must pay.  When there is little incentive to drive safely as everyone else helps to keep you on the road why should a dangerous driver adjust their behaviour?

Protected no claims bonus.  This must stop.  It started out as a marketing gimmick to capture customers but now it’s a basic component of car insurance.  A protected NCB allows a motorist to drive badly as there is no penalty for causing a collision.  When there is nothing to lose what incentive is there to drive safely?  I remember the incentive to be a good driver when I passed my test in 1996.  I drove carefully and built my NCB up.  Now there is no perceived value in doing this. 

Compulsory Insurance Black Boxes.  I believe these boxes could have a huge impact on driver behaviour and are necessary to effect change in driver behaviour.  Good drivers have nothing to fear, I would take one without hesitation if it meant dangerous drivers around me were also forced to have a box fitted.

Introduction of Presumed Liability.  From Sweden to Germany, presumed liability has been a staple of cycle-friendly regulation. But some European countries, including the UK, still refuse to introduce the rule. 

The reasons for UK’s cycling decay are complex, but safety remains the biggest issue for many bike enthusiasts. In 2016, the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in the UK was in fact higher than the 2005-2009 baseline average.

And yet, despite these and other alarming statistics, the UK and few other EU members (including both Cyprus and Malta) still refuse to take the cue from countries that have achieved both high levels of cycling and low casualty rates. One thing they all have in common are Presumed Liability laws.

When it comes to road traffic accidents, these outlier nations still operate on a fault-based system, placing the burden of proof on the more vulnerable road user. In practice, this means that if you, as a cyclist, are hit today by a stronger vehicle like a car or a bus in Bucharest or London and wanted to sue for damages, you’d have to prove that the driver of the vehicle was at fault, rather than the other way round.

There are several issues with this:

 

 

Most importantly, a fault-based system fails to consider the underlying power dynamic on the roads, and the driver’s capability to cause great harm. There is an inherent risk to driving a vehicle – much higher than riding a bike or walking – and this set of rules ignore that fact entirely.

Presumed liability simply shifts the burden of proof – from the more vulnerable road user to the driver. It does not abolish fault for the cyclist or pedestrian, nor does it automatically hold the driver liable. Rather, to level the (legal) playing field, it presumes that the driver is liable for the accident, which he can disprove in court.

The UK must look to countries with this greater protection for the vulnerable and adopt a system that has proven itself to offer considerable advantages for society.

Driver attitudes need radical change. An example.  My former boss at work was a dangerous driver, although he would insist, he was a wonder behind the wheel.  His own wife refuses to get in his car with him.  He drove an extremely powerful BMW M5, a car that spins its wheels in 3rd gear and reaches killing speed in the blink of an eye.  Quite frankly he is frightening but all he must do to get behind the wheel of that car is pay a private company some money, no questions asked. 

The general public are then little more than collateral as he races about.  How can this possibly lead to a safe environment?  Anyone, regardless of suitability, can pay an insurer to get behind the wheel of a lethal weapon. 

Killer drivers can still drive a powerful machine, they simply go to a specialist insurer who take a fee, gambling the safety of the public for their own financial gain, and that driver heads out onto the road possibly to kill or injure yet again, no questions asked.  How is that right or safe?

Government can learn from the video games industry here.  If the most dangerous and powerful vehicles were only available to drivers who have demonstrated they are fit to drive such vehicles amongst the public, we would surely see a reduction in drivers willing to engage in risky behaviour.  Right now, a new, 17-year-old driver can get behind the wheel of a lethal machine in exchange for paying a private company money.  If the price is right anything goes.  

Can you imagine if I set up an agency that took money from convicted sex offenders and gave them papers to go back to work with children?  It’s basically the same concept, my private company makes money by putting dangerous people where they don’t belong using the public as collateral.  Again, government wonders why the death and injury levels are so high and not falling. 

Air ambulances.  Currently such vital services are typically charitable in nature relying on the goodwill of the public to keep them in the air.  Given the large number of road related injuries they attend it makes perfect sense that they should be able to charge the insurance company of the motorist responsible for the crash they attend.  This immediately reduces the burden road crashes place on the long-term viability of the service and places the responsibility firmly at the feet of the causation, namely the driver. 

NHS.  Again, where a driver is insured the NHS should be able to bill the insurance industry for the costs caused by their driver.  This has the net effect of immediately reducing the impact of road crashes for the taxpayer and allows valuable healthcare funds to be used for more deserving causes such as treating illness and disease.  Why should the taxpayer continually pick up the cost of dangerous and irresponsible driving when the driver has insurance?  Additionally, if the insurance industry is paying their way for the true cost of bad driving this will impact the cost of insurance for bad drivers who present higher risk to the public, exactly as it should be.

DVLA.   Does the DVLA and insurance industry have a joint system that automatically flags registered vehicles without insurance?  Do these systems talk to each other?

Unmarked police vehicles.  We’ve all seen drivers behaving themselves when a police car is around, then they return to dangerous and poor driving once it’s gone.  If drivers knew there were a decent number of unmarked vehicles policing the roads, they would have little choice but to reconsider their decision to speed, overtake dangerously, tailgate, use their phone etc. Such a department would no doubt be self-funding with excess proceeds being used for driver education schemes.

Violent offence history.  It is well recognised that when people are behind the wheel, surrounded by a steel cage with airbags that road rage can be exaggerated as the feeling of invulnerability grows.  If someone already has a history of aggression or violence, why on earth would society allow that person to get behind the wheel?  If they can’t behave themselves at a personal level, there is no way they are going to behave whilst behind the wheel. 

Aggressive or violent offences such as ABH, GBH and assault should impact your ability to drive with the DVLA being able to cite mental instability to temporarily revoke driving privileges until such time as those offences have passed. 

Such measures should have a positive influence on day to day violent offences as people are aware that they risk their driving privileges should they demonstrate inability to control aggression and violence.

Rural road speed reduction. Many of the deaths and serious injuries occur on these roads and should have far lower speed limits. In exchange and to counter the easily anticipated ‘outcry and anger’ from the motoring lobby speed limits could be increased on the motorways, as they are well surfaced roads with long sightlines and with quick access to emergency assistance. 

 

Too many drivers throw their cars at 60mph into blind bends and we wonder why people are getting killed and injured.  Vulnerable road users such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders are particularly endangered by drivers treating country lanes as private raceways and the statistics back this position up.  Too many people are killed or seriously injured by drivers on these roads, it makes perfect sense to cut the speeds permissible if improving safety is a genuine target. 

 

Introduction of a law that makes weaponizing a vehicle a serious offence.  There are numerous examples of motorists using their cars in deliberate attacks against people when they’ve lost their temper or simply choose to use their cars to cause intimidation or fear.  If I walk the streets with a baseball bat using it to incite fear I can be immediately arrested and charged, if I use my car the police aren’t interested.  Given the death and injury rates caused by cars compared to baseball bats isn’t it appropriate that the courts have an avenue to pursue when an individual deliberately turns their vehicle into a weapon?

Dashcam footage investigation service.  Every day millions of hours of footage is collected on dashcams.  I have one, I refuse to drive without it.  If the public were empowered to send in footage of dangerous driving resulting in the police bring able to issue appropriate sanctions dangerous drivers would be forced to adapt their driving knowing at any time they can be called to account for their actions.

Why not offer the public a percentage of the fine collected in order to encourage the sending in of dangerous driving on the highways?  This service would be self-funded and have a huge impact on the roads, literally overnight. 

Abolition of the term ‘accident’.  If I punch someone, I cannot claim it was an accident.  However, if I drive my car into someone and put them in a wheelchair, I can claim it was an accident, as if somehow if was nothing to do with me.  Government and the courts must stop viewing road violence as accidents, when in the vast majority of cases the incident was nothing less than an inevitable consequence of stupidity.  Like pointing a gun and firing it into a crowd how is it any less responsible than choosing to drive dangerously? 

Modern cars are incredibly sophisticated, people should not be crashing and killing in the numbers we see yet when a crash does occur it’s not treated as an avoidable event, it’s diluted into an accident as if no-one could have helped it.  Drivers who crash as a result of plain stupidity, the crashes that are not true accidents, should face sanctions on their licence to remind them of their responsibility to the wider public.

Media channels who incite intolerance and hatred.  There are a number of ‘gutter’ media outlets such as The Sun and particularly The Daily Mail who deliberately publish inflammatory ‘clickbait’ stories inciting intolerance on the roads.

Cyclists are frequently targeted by these papers with incendiary headlines that condemn anything a cyclist does wrong whilst perpetually ignoring the death toll inflicted on society by drivers.  This leads to a certain type of person posting comments that can only be described as hate crimes.

If the word ‘cyclist’ was swapped out for ‘muslim’ or ‘black’ or ‘gay’ there would be public outcry and a swift response from the regulators acting robustly to stop such conduct.  As such, and because cyclists are frequently victimised and marginalised, I believe in line with other vulnerable groups, that government should introduce protection against such hatred in this form as it leads directly to aggression on the roads. 

The comments on such online forums would not be accepted in any other realm or tolerated towards any other member or group in society.  I have pasted typical Daily Mail comments below, there are literally thousands of comments like this and the media channels responsible write such stories deliberately to inflame anger between motorists and cyclists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are the kinder comments, many talk about running cyclists down, knocking them off and generally promoting extreme violence supposedly justified as cyclists don’t pay ‘road tax’ as can be read in the points above. 

I hope my contributions can be considered in the true spirit of making our roads a pleasant resource for all to use in safety as opposed to the current nightmare society faces.  If government really is serious about improving the roads, it’s going to have to accept that the changes needed are huge and the motoring fraternity will make all sorts of complaints about freedoms and rights. 

It will take a bold and strong government to make an impact on the death toll, to date I have not seen a government prepared to make such changes, but I live in hope.  Ideally, I believe these changes will require cross party support with all members of parliament uniting to stop the carnage.

Please keep engaging the public on this matter, the number affected by this issue grows daily and enough really is enough.

April 2019