CTC: who do they represent these days?

This is not a critique of the CTC membership, nor of their magazine. It is a denunciation of their political approach.

So far this month we have

1. The CTC endorsing the niceway code -the victim blaming shite from Scotland.
2. The CTC issuing a welcoming note to the DfT's complete denial of the APPCG proposals. Yes, there's a hint of dissatisfaction, but it doesn't come out and say "a few months after announcing billions to be spent on roads, the DfT confirms it is prepared to do nothing to address the growing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians being killed on our streets, failing to even accept that cycling has a role to play in Britain's transport options, and instead trying to put us off with yet another recycled announcement of the crumbs pushed our way"
3. It becoming clear that the CTC's school policy "more training needed", is actually at odds with how the CTC staff let their children cycle -because they know that infrastructure is the solution.

Given the CTC claims to represent cycling in Britain -and it is the organisation with the largest membership- it need to look hard at its actions and rethink them. In particular, it needs to stop thinking about the needs of its members -a niche group in a minority activity- and think of the needs of the cities -what will transform them without waiting for the cars to go away.

That comes down to quality infrastructure, which comes down to a government providing serious funding and the technical guidance needed for it. Which they are not going to do with the current DfT policy -so "welcoming" is a complete waste of time. 

The CTC needs to stop with the politeness, and come out with condemnation that makes headlines. The ABD do it after all, and they are three people who won't even let their dog join.

1. Accept that massive infrastructure changes are the solution.
2. Push it using the "save the children" argument, instead of "train the children and all will be well".
3. Condemn failures of the DfT like this weeks announcement.
4. Refuse to support victim-blaming niceway code campaigns -particularly when they divert funding from the cycling investments we really need.

It's too late for the CTC to re-issue a press release on the DfT report -but not too late for them to have a a harder hitting one ready for any unsatisfactory outcome from next weeks debate. Get the quotes ready from the vocal campaigners -including hembrow, get the the plans ready to double up the campaigning, not be fobbed off with DfT "nothing we can do" toilet-paper-grade reports.

And, the same week, publicly withdraw support for the niceway code on the basis that it is a victim blaming failure. 

There is no time to be wasted trying to politely hint that things could be better: that has been tried for 40 years and done nothing whatsoever.

The anti science, anti-cycling government

A lot of the arguments in favour of cycling are based on health, cost -it will save the NHS billions, and congestion: nobody has any other solution.

These arguments make sense to anyone who looks at the figures.

Except we have a government that doesn't give a fuck about scientific arguments.

This weeks badger cull is an example: the scientists say it won't work and be a waste of money, but it is going ahead. Why? To keep the NFL and rural tories happy. 

Those billions of new roads. No, they don't make sense, but the DfT doesn't care. It wants the money, the politicians the headlines. 

Then there is Fuckwit Pickles. His proposal effectively abolishes double yellow lines, would make driving worse though congestion, and, once the corner shop is surrounded by illegally parked cars, not even let you park near the shops. Yet the fuckwit -and remember this is a fuckwit who claimed for a second home as 37 miles was too long a commute- thinks double yellows should go.

Now we have "speed bumps will save the cities from online shopping". This is so bollocks its clear that Fuckwit Pickle just doesn't like speedbumps and is trying to justify it. Except: online shopping has been hurting out of town stores more -look at the John Lewis results showing reduced sales out of town malls as fuel costs increase. Paying to drive for half an hour each way to wander round a featureless mall? Shop online and pay less? All shops need a reason to be compelling, and speed bumps are not it.

The government is clearly anti-science, anti-evidence. Instead: headline grabbing measures that Daily Mail commenters like. Because those are the voters being fought over; the swivel eyed loons who don't want data, talk about "common sense" instead. Loons who only demand -then discount- data when it's bad news, like global warming. 

This creates a problem for cycle campaigning: we can't expect economic or health arguments to win, not when the politicians and the swivel eyed view cycling as a hobby for eco warriors -not a realistic option for themselves. 

Somehow we need to get the Daily Mail on our side, so the swivel eyed will follow - and then, perhaps, the politicians.

Nicewaycode : wake up, time to die.

Introducing a new law for the Internet

Hembrow's Law: whoever cites Franklin in a debate about cycling loses.

This week the losers citing Franklin are @nicewaycode trying to defend their bus ad:

Cyclecraft author John Franklin is strongly in favour of overtakes on the right unless the nearside lane is free of traffic in a multiple lane situation. 

(from @EdinburghTom)

The correct riposte to anyone who cites Franklin is: so fucking what?

Franklin criticises dedicated cycling infrastructure and claims that having it makes the Dutch lazy. Yet the fact they have that  infrastructure means that they can get to and from their destinations alive, irrespective of age or skill. By denouncing infrastructure and advocating taking the lane, Franklin has got the UK into a situation where about one cyclist a week is dying, yet all the Scottish government is prepared to is divert some of the tiny amount of money dedicated to cycling into an advertising campaign that says, essentially, "do not use what shit pieces of paint we've put in so as to claim that we are cycling friendly -as that  will only kill you"

(photo: Nicewaycode GB)

They have a point: the red-paint routes are shit. The showcase South Causeway cycle route is shit. What is proposed in Leith Walk is an even bigger pile of poo as they are actually spending money on road redesign there -but still producing something shit where there is space for it.

The nicewaycode people are just victim-blaming cyclists for even imagining that the shitness provided across Scotland for them is safe to use.

That "don't go up the left" advert is reflecting what campaigners like pedal on parliament are saying: what we've been given today is shite. The other sign, "maybe", means "maybe if you are fit and brave you could cycle in the traffic"

Which summarises the problem of cycling in Scotland. Except the niceway code fuckwits are just repeating a fact to cyclists, cyclist who, unless this is the first 15 minutes of a bike ride in Britain they will know: cyclists are not welcome.

These bus signs are the cycling equivalent of the Home Office "immigrants go home" racist vans. Here they are instead sticking buses in the bus lanes that cyclists are forced to use as they are the least unsafe par of a road, with a sign on the buses saying "cyclists: fuck off to the Netherlands". 

Why are they doing this? Because the MSP with responsibility for cycling doesn't seem able or willing to make cycling a safe transport option in the country, and he lives in the imaginary Franklin Land where he, Franklin and the nicewaycode team can pretend that cyclists will live if they take the centre of a lane, don't run lights, and instead pretend that they are a horse.

Keith Brown, MSP has passed the poisoned chalice to the niceway code agency, with a brief "stop the cyclists running red lights and maybe wankers with a history of killing cyclists won't kill another one then get a light slap on the wrist as a penalty" 

Those naive fools took the bait -and so are getting vilified and ridiculed for producing what will go down in history as the "what not to do" example for any road safety campaign;  an example whose YouTube videos will be watched and laughed at by media studies students in future courses on the effective use of social media.

Here is the message of the cycling front to the niceway code: stop it before you make things even worse.

Go back to the minister and say "we are spending cycling money telling cyclists to not use the shit you build for them". Say "cyclists ride on pavements as you have provided nowhere else safe for them -and an advert isn't going to change that". 

Finally, say "stopping now will save cycle fund money which can actually be used to make cycling in Scotland safer for pedestrians."

Because if you don't: you will just dig a deeper hole for yourself and your paymasters. The more bollocks you put out, the more of a reaction you will get from the cycling campaigners. Eventually those organisations naive enough to sign up: CTC, Sustrans, will drop put -and the publicity from that will mean Keith's spin doctor will be on the phone to you swearing  like Malcom Tucker, blaming you for the press disaster.

Stop now and tell the politicians that Franklin's approach is exactly what left Scotland in the condition it is in: a nation where most sit in traffic jams on their way to coronary heat disease  sounding their horn whenever one of the few cyclist does what Franklin says and gets in their fucking way.

Arise the People!

Imagine a place suffering from congestion problems due to too many people trying to drive vehicles many times the size of themselves.

Imagine a place that is an air quality action area, due to the pollution generated by all those motor vehicles.



Imagine a place with parking problems due to the sheer number of cars trying to park -even for short journeys like a trip to local shops.

Imagine a place with health problems due to the inactivity of the population, where obesity is a growing crisis, where physical exercise has been negleted so long that the residents cannot even walk short distances from where they park, where such problems are not treated with exercise, but rewarded with disabled parking stickers that actualy make it easier to park outside your destination, and free parking is needed for those people who aren't quite there: "There are an awful lot of people who are not disabled enough to qualify for a parking badge and therefore a disabled space, but nevertheless they are not terribly mobile.

Imagine a place where "more civilised" places nearby look on in sadness and despair: how can this place not realise that they have painted themseves into a corner -that their dependency on driving has now created the problems: congestion, pollution, parking -problems which can begin to be fixed if they could get even a small fraction of the people who currently drive. When asked "why don't you follow their examples", the response is invariably some form of "we are different"

Imagine a place where existing cycling facilities are of awful quality and nowhere where people would actually want to go -yet the response to anyone suggesting "add more cycling facilities" is "but the cyclists aren't using the ones they've already got".

Where to take any space away from cars is considered a line that cannot be crossed: "not giving up two free spaces period", because "it's not fair for others"



Imagine a place where those people with the health and obesity problems, the ones who drive everywhere, are unable to recognise that they have options to get around, that rather than view cyclists as "them", they should consider it themselves.

Imagine a place that when the people and their leaders asked why they are not following the lead of the "more civilised places", the response is "we are not like them"

Imagine a place when pressured to put in more cycling facilities, the leaders respond with some empty words that while implying to be supportive of the idea, make it clear that they will not fund anything, that nothing will be done.

Imagine a place where the leaders say that while they support cycling, they have to take into account the needs of "all road users", by which they mean the people who drive, take up the most space, and endanger the lives of everyone trying to cycle -to the extend that they effectively supress cycling.

Imagine a place that is happy to spend money on improving driving, creating "solutions" to traffic problems that merely delay congestion for a few years, but by reinforcing the idea that driving is the way to get round, amplifying pollution and parking problem and making it worse to walk and cycle.

Imagine a place where it is considered dangerous to let the children out to play or walk to school because of the way everyone drives -the school run then creating more congestion and more dangerous for anyone trying to be different.

Imagine a place where the metric of suppressed cycling is the presence of the no-cycling signs on the few places where people can safely cycle.
What is that place?

1. Scotland
2. England and wales
3. S Gloucs
4. Marlborough
5. All of the above

The answer is, of course: all of the above.

For Scotland and England, the "more civilised" places are of course the rest of Europe -not just Amsterdam and Copenhage, but Dublin and Paris.

For S gloucs, the more civilised place is Bristol.

For Malrlborough, the more civilised place is maybe somewhere like Oxford.

It is the same problem across the board. The population has painted themselves into a corner -their choice of transport is not only poisoning the cities it is slowly killing the people who use it, and rapidly killing the people who try to lead a better life.

Marlborough and S Gloucs are simply a fraction of the country-wide ; delve down into individual streets and you will find that how people drive and park in their own roads makes it dangerous for children to play outside their own houses, when they want to visit friends two streets over their parents drive them for fear of their lives.

These are our villages, our towns, our cities and our countries, and they are the process of slowly committing suicide, while any attempt to say "it doesn't have to be this way", is treated with derision, patronising comments and utter inaction.

It's politicians saying fatuous bollocks and doing fuck all -all the way down

This raises an interesting question: how to change things? It's easy to say: focus on the bits that are changing, the inner cities. But why should the places that are theoretically the most dangerous : the busy city with the most people, the delivery vans, the taxis and the buses -the places where cycling is taking off? While the "leafy" suburbs, the dormitory towns, the market towns, the rural villages are getting worse? Because they are. And it is the people who live in them, who drive everywhere, who expect parking to be free and available wherever they go who are the ones we need to change.

We need to change their behaviour. How they get round a city. If they want to cycle, they need to be helped to get around safely -for them to be able to do the school run with their children alive, for them to send their kids out to play without worrying every time they hear a car speed by, where when they send a kid to see a friend round the corner they phone ahead to say "they are coming", and have the far end call in "they've arrived" when it happens.

How to do this? PoP has shown that the Scottish government isn't going to care about thousands of people turning up on bicycles, instead they issue fatuous words of inaction, targets delegated to others, wilful ingorance of safety statistics showing that Scotland is getting more dangerous to walk or cycle round.

The UK spending revew has shown that the English government isn't going to care about thousands of people signing petitions, national paper campaigns, parliamentary groups or warnings from the NHS. Instead they issue fatuous words of inaction, targets delegated to others, wilful ingorance of safety statistics showing that London is getting more dangerous to walk or cycle round.

This goes all the way down from the UK government, to regional govts, to county councils, towns stuck in the dark ages, to streets who complain about how cyclists threaten them, and how penalising them for driving in bus lanes is "persecution".

We need to keep that pressure up the councils -to let them know that their patronising bollocks is just that, that the data is at odds with their claims, that we wont accept the shit that they expect us to be grateful for.

But it isn't going to be enough unless they think they will be penalised at the polls for their inaction.

Press helps here: if the councillors realise there is popular support for change, they may change. The problem here is that those little local papers love local conflict, and cars v bikes makes for popular vitrol. Same for those regional TV news channels that like their phone ins. They'd rather see controversy over change -which is where the Times, the Evening Standard and the Glasgow Herald have to be praised for moving beyond this.

We also need to get out and protest about dismissive legal penalties, where judges forgive drivers for killing people, "a mistake anyone could make", when they impose penalties that are a joke. Whenever a judgement comes in, we need to get out to the court in our bicycles, be ready with quotes and again, that press.

If change isn't going to happen from the top, it has to come from below.

Organisations like Transition Marlbough can focus on the local issues, but its clear that they are still viewed as "troublemakers", not parts of the general population. Idealists; sweet but naive. What else?

Lower down: Street by street. School by school. Workplace by workplace.

Cycle to work looking normal -and offer support to anyone who also wants to do it, emphasise the time savings in the car, the money saved from the drive and the gym.

Cycle to school with the kids -offer support for other parents, and try and do it in convoy -as if a group of parents can marshall the kids, everyone will be happier. Try and get the school to do something about the parents who drive and make that final 300 metres, the school zone, the most hazardous.

Because that is all we have left -and because a more of the population spend even a little time on a bicycle, benefits will accrue

• They will stop viewing those who cycle as outsiders who can be treated as expendable
• Their friends and neighbours will stop viewing those who cycle as outsiders who can be treated like shit
• The more people who cycle on the school run, it will make the school run safer for everyone who walks or cycles
• If congestion and parking problems can be visibly reduced, it validates the fact that people on biycles take up less space, cause no pollution, can provide tangible benefits to the city.

We do need to get those councillors on board and the policitians. They need to get on a bicycle so they can stop talking about "the danger to motorists from cyclists backing out of cycle hoops at the side of the road. so they can stop with the "safe if you keep your wits about you" quotes, so that they can appreciate the benefits themselves.

Every cycling group needs to get in touch with their local councillor and offer to take them on a bike tour round the city. They need to contact their transport planners and offer to take them round an problem area by bike -to make the issues more tangible.

Because if we don't get out there, to do the groundwork and get their neighbours to the shops by bike, to do the school run by bike, then the fatuous politicans will continue to issue press release containing fatuous bollocks.

Arise! The politicans will have to adapt or die!

Marlboroughgate: who knew what, when? Nothing -now.

We are still to hear back from Cllr "let the cyclists walk" Dobson, but one of his colleagues has posted a comment on our previous article on the Marlborough Bike Rack Debacle, here repeated in full.

Before reading it, please go and sign the wiltshire council petition asking for the cycle parking to go ahead. The more people making their feelings known, the higher the chance there is of a decent outcome.

16 June 2013 15:33

Ok the following views are a pure and personal thoughts of my own and in no way reflect the view of Marlborough Town Council(MTC).

Hi everyone this is Justin Cook responding to your invite to air my view on the cycle racks in Marlborough.

The first any of the new council members heard about the proposed cycle racks were in the first full town council meeting of the new sitting. In this presentation made my Transition Marlborough(TM)it was asked if we could vote through the cycle racks installation in that very same meeting.

Handover of power can always be awkward. More subtly, cancelling anything of the previous government's/council's plans -especially something opposed by either a large group of people or a noisy press- is a low cost means of gaining popularity. You can be seen to reward your loyal supporters, while saving money. Because it is simply cancelling work, it doesn't need anything in terms of planning, so delivers political benefits fast.

It was also agreed by all parties that the particular style of cycle rack could be installed either before or after the re-surfacing work had been carried out on Marlborough High St. This is an important point as there would be no harm in any way to the item if I as a new councillor took some additional time to carry out more research on the item and indeed ask the other parish members in the community their views on the demand for the cycle racks.

Other parish members are clearly not a viable source of information here, not with Cllr Dobson saying the cyclists should walk, and Councillor Margaret Rose, complaining of "the danger to motorists from cyclists backing out of cycle hoops at the side of the road". These are clearly people whose opinions on the matter: cyclists are the other; something to fear. This is the classic cyclists-as-outgroup theory.

I also personally asked my FB site for their views as local Marlborough people in helping me come to an informed and correct decision.

It is also worth noting that Marlborough already has two set's of cycle racks at either end of the High St. I have been keenly checking these racks three times a day (my office is in High St) and have found there to be very little use if any made of them. This in itself does not sway me as i think if we had some well placed cycle racks people would use them and indeed you only have to see the volume of cyclist's we have coming through the High St at weekends to see how this would be used.

Exactly. There are many cyclists in wiltshire at weekends -a revenue stream for places like the tea rooms, if only they were made to feel welcome in the region. That's even without considering the opportunities for people who live in the area to cycle in.

The next important point is the location of said cycle racks.
The initial feeling from TM was that outside the Polly Tea Rooms would be a good idea but there was also advice given from some full time cyclists that having the cycle racks in a high footfall area increased the risks of theft and vandalism.

given a choice between "visible cycle racks where lots of people walk past" and "obscure parking where nobody can see your bicycle get stolen", someone went for the "out of sight" option? Unusual.

There was also the suggestion from WCC that we give up two free parking bays on the the sides of the High St. This i am afraid does not work for the majority as the side bays are the only free parking people have to pop into post office, pick up cleaning etc etc.

Here we come to the crux of the issue. The bike bays were to be on the two sides of the high street -the short-stay parking area. This is clearly unacceptable for "the majority",

This is vital for ongoing economic ease of business in the town and will be protected by me personally in any role that works.

Again, the economic case which seems somewhat weak. It would be good to have some hard data on how much revenue per parking bay the local shops earn. Having bays at a high occupancy rate doesn't guarantee income for the area.

The fact that the shops weren't opposed to the proposals shows that they seem to recognise the value in expanding the capacity of the street to accept more customers -yet the council seems unable to.

Again, it comes back to this outgroup concept. There is the majority -implicitly those those who drive- and the minority -the cyclists - and they are disjoint sets. The idea that someone who has a car may actually opt to cycle in to the high street doesn't occur. Instead it's "the cyclists", categorising people by the transport options they make on specific journeys.

I felt strongly that WCC should give up two paid parking spaces in the middle for the racks to make it fair for everyone. It is worth noting that a particular councillor from MTC is indeed engaging with WCC to this end on behalf of TM and the cyclists.

This isn't necessarily a bad idea. It is better than the "let them walk, they are fit" message. Some requirements here would, obviously, be:

• Secure parking for bicycles, not the "wheel benders" that provide no security guarantees at all
• Enough space to actually support parent + child journeys. That means the ability to safely park a bike + trailer. If the layout does not support that, there's a message there, "families are meant to drive".
• Safe crossing from the bike racks to the shops. 

And of course, a serious attempt by the council to deliver this in a timely manner. This summer is lost already.

My personal experience with business and money is that good research and preperation is key to making good ongoing business decisions that make sense over the long term. What makes my blood boil is quick emotional decision making not based on good research and decision making. Then the inevitable happen's and we need to re visit the item and spend more money upgrading or moving such item. This is a big waste of everyone's money and a waste of time.

That's valid, as long as it isn't just an excuse to make some short-term populist decisions at the expense of the long-term quality of life of the area.

One particular thing to flag up here is that if money is going to be spent improving signage to the existing low quality bike racks -that will destroy the whole "don't waste money on decisions that need to be revisited" argument.

So again i am not against the cycle racks but wanted more time to think it through and come to a good decision for all.

I just want to make sure that the cycle racks go in the best possible place for cyclist's and car users equally as it's not just the cyclist's that have a say in this.

Did the cyclists get a say in where the car parking went? When? What about the pedestrians? So please, drop this "balanced" story, it isn't defensible.

Also i must say that the emotional rhetoric that has been thrown round this is really blurring the lines of good debate and i for one will NOT be rushed into any money expenditure decision by anyone period. I have no problem spending budgets set out for the town but will not be rushed into making decisions based on a emotional volume.

We look forward to the delivery of some well placed, high quality cycle parking, and will visit the region when it arises.

For anyone from Marlborough reading this, thinking "What why should we care what an underground cycling group near Bristol say", we know which of our colleagues in the military-industrial sprawl of the North Fringe live near Marlborough, Calne and Swindon. They don't just expect parking near their post office, they expect a traffic free route from their rural homesteads to work, and end up stuck on the A4174 instead. The lifestyle and transport choices those people have made have a direct impact on the quality of life on residents and colleagues who actually live close their workplaces. These are people demanding millions of pounds spent on new motorway junctions, a widened ring road and new bypasses -which is why arranging for some modal shift for their transport choices matters so much for S  Gloucs.

We don't expect them to cycle to work from Wiltshire to the N Fringe -though if they work in Bath or Swindon, that may be possible. What we would like is them to take the train instead, though as we've seen, First GW don't like bicycles parked at their stations; Swindon is no better. The combination of folding+train -that works.

To close, then:

1. If you live in town, contact your parish councillor and make your opinions on the matter known.
2. If you cycle through the area from time to time -and currently feel unwelcome, sign the petition
3. We shall keep an eye on Marlborough. As part of the commuter catchment area, they come within our remit.

As for the councillors of Marlborough Town: you need to recognise that your actions are visible on a national scale. So far some of your statements "danger to motorists" and "cyclists are fit enough to walk from other side of the high street" have made you sources of ridicule. Please don't dig yourself deeper into a hole. Try to come up with a plan that doesn't just help the existing cyclsits, but encourages people who live in the town to try getting to the high street and back by bicycle and foot, rather than driving there and expecting to find an empty parking space.

Cllr Stewart Dobson, Marlborough "drivers need parking near the shops as they are unfit; cyclists can walk"

Marlborough, over in Wiltshire, is on the easternmost fringe of the S Gloucs commute ring; people do drive all the way from there to the offices on the A4174. They are the ones who have to get to work by 8am, who stay until after 7, who whine about congestion on the M4 near bath.

They are also, perhaps, the people too unfit to walk a short distance to the shops.

This has to be the conclusion to an ill-fated proposal to add bike racks outside some shops in Marlborough -at the expense of a parking space.

The plan was voted down, due to the fact it would take away two free parking spots.

The most ridiculous rationalisation for this has to come from Cllr Stuart Dobson, Marlborough East.

"It is so important, especially in these present financial times, that we do all we can for residents,"

subtext: nobody who voted for me rides a bicycle. People who do cycle are non residents -yet bring no revenue to the shops.

"There are an awful lot of people who are not disabled enough to qualify for a parking badge and therefore a disabled space, but nevertheless they are not terrible mobile.

subtext: we need to feel sorry for the people -the residents- who have to park right in front of the shops, because it is for their health. Even if they don't have disabled badges, they can't walk.

"Cyclists by and large are very active people," he added.  "So I can’t see a problem with them walking from one end of the High Street to the other whereas we would be penalising people who are far from active."

subtext: it is acceptable to penalise those people who cycle. They are not residents/voters after all.

This is possibly the most retrograde piece of thinking there is. Unless he has been misquoted, think about what it means

1. We should reward the people who drive into the town by providing parking directly outside their destination.
2. We should penalise those people who cycle in to town by making them park elsewhere and then walk to their destination -so increasing their journey time and inconvenience.

Yes, it is couched in terms of "my residents aren't healthy enough to walk far" and "those cyclists, they are all fit and healthy and can walk a few minutes to get to the shops", but that makes clear the fundamental problem that the NHS has to tackle

By encouraging people to drive everywhere, we have created a nation of obese, unfit and unhealthy people.

Rather than care about the health of his residents, Cllr Dobson is implying that health problems are not lifestyle-related, that they are some random acts of chance. Those people who drive, they only do so because they are unfit. If they were fit and healthy, they'd be cycling instead. Except of course in this time of austerity we need to provide the parking spaces because those fit and healthy people don't bring any money into the city.

This is completely missing the point about Britain's growing obesity crisis: it is driven by a lifestyle that involves no physical activity at all.


Rather than reward these people by providing a parking space directly outside the chemist, they should be ever so subtly trying to get them to do a hint of activity, even it if it is walking five to ten metres from the car to the chemists. That's all. There's lots of car parking nearby -it's only cycle parking that is absent.

According to the government, 61% of adults are obese, 30% of children. This is why the government wants to encourage everyone "to eat and drink more healthily" and "be more active". The policy in Marlborough is going completely against the NHS recommendations, where even adults aged 65+ are encouraged to take part in moderate physical activity for at least two hours a week.

The other thing worth picking apart is the entire economic argument. Two parking bays, 30 minutes free parking. If every visitor used their full 30 minutes, you'd only have 16 visitors per bay in an 8 hour working day. Let's be generous and assume that there's a minimum dwell of ten minutes, but after the ten minutes the visitor can leave at any time in the remaining twenty minutes -with a uniform distribution. That would give an average parking time of 20 minutes. You could say then that there'd be a whole 24 visitors/bay/day, but that assumes that there is no period when the bays are ever empty, which is unrealistic. let's assume 0-10 minutes with again, a uniform arrival time, leaving another average of 5 minutes (a poission distribution of random events would be more appropriate, but it's not that different). The outcome is ~19 visitors/bay/day, or ~40 a day. You could argue about the numbers, but the big one: how long people stay, could be optimistic -as we are assuming that nobody stays above 30 minutes, the nominal legal limit. If someone with a disabled badge were to park there -as they can- they could say for two hours, cutting the daily capacity of that by down by about four vehicles -four customers for the high street.

Now imagine each bay has four sheffield stands. A parking capacity of eight. Being pessimistic and assuming a continuous occupancy of only 50%, you would still get 4x the customers per bay from parked bicycles than you would from parked cars. Even if each cyclist bought half as much as someone driving in -a completely spurious figure- the shops revenue from converting a car bay to a cycle parking bay could double.

the whole economic argument is bogus.

There we have it then. Someone who says "in these present financial times" we should actually reduce the potential customer parking capacity of the high street, and that we should penalise those people who have adopted a lifestyle that make them healthier than those who haven't.

This is worse than being stuck in the 1970s. It is coming up with the most irrational form of thinking you can -which essentially comes down to "we don't want people on bicycles shopping in our town".

@BBCNorfolk: encouraging hate for the sake of ratings

Transport taxes are not hypothecated. The main tax that is hypothecated is "the television tax"; the money everyone with a TV pays irrespective of whether or not they watch BBC TV. Or listen to BBC Norfolk. Something this article will return to at is end.

On Tuesday, BBC Norfolk dedicated their three hour talk show to, nominally, "should cyclists pay road tax".

Why? Over the weekend a cyclist got hit by a driver coming round the corner too fast -and ending up on the wrong side of the road. The driver didn't stop; she drove off and was only identified because she boasted about it on Twitter, saying they don't pay road tax.

That could have been an opportunity for a news channel to get the region to look at itself, to consider that driving off after injuring another person is no longer unusual. To consider how "road rage" has gone from being something that happened in the US, to something that happens every day somewhere in the county. To consider that the driving test may not be preparing the next generation of drivers to drive safely in the current generation of cars. To ask why the punishments for any act of dangerous driving is usually a gentle slap on the wrist.

That didn't happen. Instead, the way they treated the incident of a hit an run assault on a cyclist by having a three hour phone in on whether cyclists should be on the road at all.

They may gloss that over, to say they were "encouraging the debate" -but if you listened to any of that show, it was primarily an opportunity for cyclist-haters to come out of their caves, to phone in complaining about cyclists not using the paths to the side -and so endangering the drivers. To phone in complaining about a cyclist wobbling all over the road "whey they tapped their horn behind them". The radio show accepted these calls without ridiculing the caller "how many drivers were killed by cyclists last year". Without ridiculing the "all over the road" hater with "why did you sound your horn just because you were behind someone with the right to be there?". No. The station -our tax funded station- delegated all defence of the situation to the few people dialling in to make that defence.

Carlton Reid got to make a response, which he did, politely, on the topic of road tax. Yet even he didn't raise the fundamental issue with the program: why was the BBC reacting to a hit and run, not by looking at the issue of dangerous drivers, but instead effectively asking: should the cyclist have been there?

That is what they were asking, and they let the locals dial in to make the case that no, they shouldn't.

Imagine an immigrant had been victim in the hit and run. Would the channel have a broadcast "should immigrants be allowed on the road?". No, because they'd recognise that even though immigration is a core UKIP theme, to devolve it to a "should they be on the road" topic would be morally wrong.

Imagine a child had been the victim in the hit and run. Would the channel have had a three hour talk show "is it the children's own fault for being out there?". No. Because the victim blaming would have been blatantly obvious.

Yet here we have a channel where they were looking round for a local theme to keep the phone lines busy, and came up with "lets start a discussion about whether cyclists should be on the road".

Did anyone put their hand up in the planning for this and say "to do this two days after someone justified running over one as 'they shouldn't be there' is morally wrong". Did someone say "we are stirring up hate?". Well, they may have -but it didn't stop the show going ahead.

And now whoever measures the ratings will be feeling smug, "this was popular", and planning a rerun later this year.

If the radio station had chosen to make the theme anything stirring up hate against immigrants, the disabled, travellers, or similar, they'd be rightfully part of a national scandal, how a local channel was encouraging on-air abuse of a minority group. Not so for anything picking on cyclists. It is considered socially acceptable.

If the taxpayer-funded BBC radio and TV channels can do this, what hope do we have for the rest of the country. The BBC is legitimising the actions of those people who do "punishment passes" at "arrogant cyclists" who have the arrogance to hold up drivers who "have paid road tax". They are defending those people who lean out the window of their cars and should at the cyclists "you don't pay road tax" whenever their driving is criticised.

Why does the BBC consider doing this to be acceptable?

To close then, here is a suggestion for BBC Norfolk to cover one morning:
TV License fees: are they worth the money?