Electric bikes are a cheap, light, efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transport, which can travel 66 times further than a car on the same amount of energy. This approximates to 2,000 mpg. They are also far safer for other road users and cause significantly less congestion and pollution, while also reducing wear and tear on the roads. The problem is the arbitrary 15.5mph top speed imposed on electric bikes. There seems no good reason for this, other than to support the car-making and fossil fuel sectors. 15.5mph is fine in a city, but it makes electric bikes impractical for moderate to long-distance commutes on open roads, where they are significantly slower than pedal-powered bikes. It is precisely in the 15-25mph range where you need mechanical assistance, and this is where it is currently banned.

Council members are proposing to extend loading times and bays on the refurbished off-road cycle lane approaching Cleveland Place, These changes will either force cyclists into the heavily trafficked [two-lane] west bound carriage ways; OR into potential collisions with pedestrians. The Council also wants to remove the curb build-out at Snow Hill, which was designed to protect cyclists and prevent illegal ingress by motorists onto the on-road cycle lane. The Council may also be considering complete complete removal of the on-road cycle lanes, simply to increase traffic flows. All of these plans contradict previous agreements and undertakings supporting improved cycling access, agreed by all the parties, in the Bath Transport Strategy.

The DfT's delay is blighting sales of electric bikes. Orders for hundreds of e-bikes have been put on hold while potential customers await the introduction of the incentive. The failure to implement the e-bike grants could cost jobs in the motorcycle industry and undermines the Government's repeated claims to be promoting green transport. Unlike the grants for cars and vans, a plug-in grant for electric motorcycles would also cut congestion.

Join the RMT and other Trade Unions in opposition to removing the Guard (Conductor) from Abellio ScotRail services. The recent incident at East Dumbarton, where a traveller sadly suffered from life changing injuries, shows how unsafe Driver Only Operation has become. In this incident it emerged that a group of teenagers raised the alarm to oncoming trains. This was a incident that could've easily been avoided were there a Guard on the service. In the 2 weeks leading up to the end of May we found that a Taxi Driver had to assist a wheelchair passenger off a DOO service at Livingston North as there was only a driver on the train and no second person, another issue that could've been resolved were there a Guard on this service. Further we have seen the ScotRail MD Phil Verster openly tell his employees, via social media,  that if a passenger comes running to the train late then the train must depart on time as it could cause a delay to other services - if you know the industry you will know that delays to services cost money - a example of safety over profit. Safety before profit delivers safe trains for Scotland's people, the model that Abellio ScotRail want to follow delivers a unsafe method of operation for Scotland's rail users. Indeed the whole project is about two things; 1) cutting ScotRails wage bill and 2) maximising shareholder profit. Please sign and share this petition widely, join the campaign to keep Scotland's Rail Services Safe.

I learnt yesterday coming from London to Bristol that it is now 'mandatory' to make bike reservations in advance for all travel on GWR trains, a policy I was told (by a guard) came into effect on 16th May, and is largely because of new high speed trains. Are GWR reducing storage on their trains? Probably, and down to 2 or 3 on some 'high speed' trains, instead of increasing to meet demand. This will obviously discourage bike use with great implications, particularly on rural routes, and turning up to catch a train anywhere will be really difficult. What about workers cycling several miles to and from stations to get to work? Isn't it government policy to encourage less car use, supporting more sustainable, less damaging, and healthier modes of transport? Particularly on main routes like Bristol to London, a journey that is already a silly £56 at its cheapest (around 40% more expensive than a similar journey in Europe) for a 'flexible' OFF-PEAK return. Those who need to be flexible will no longer be able to be 'flexible' - and not everyone can afford a Brompton, or the additional charges of London public transport on top. UK rail travel seems to be increasingly inaccessible for most people. I took a trip to Sheffield to cycle in the Peak District recently, and on a Bristol to Sheffield train (£93.80 for an OFF-PEAK advance) there were only 3 bike slots. It cost a friend who was driving £40 in fuel, he carried 3 people, 3 bikes and spent a good amount of time in traffic jams.... https://www.gwr.com/your-journey/journey-information/on-board/cycles https://www.gwr.com/making-a-complaint

The bus services in the Borders are vital life lines to may people young and old the removal of the town services in Hawick and Peebles will mean that many older residents in these towns will miss out on links with other parts of the town and the wider borders if these services are removed. The removal of the College bus service from Hawick to Galashiels will mean that young people from Hawick may miss out on training courses at Borders College which would help improve there education and life. The other services that are being cut will mean that those places loose there vital link and their elderly resident loose out too.

To reduce pollution levels in Inner London.

Please help us get over well over 5000 local people supporting this campaign as it will force Sheffield Council to properly debate this issue in the open. We have until the end of September to do just that. Help get Sheffield City Council to finally bring in urgent traffic safety measures to protect over 100 children who regularly use this route to go to three local schools in the area. The urgency of this was brought home to us when our daughter sustained serious injuries in late 2015 from a car going less than 20 mph when she was on her way to High Storrs School. This school is the closest catchment school for Nether Green and Fulwood. However the walking route has no footpath in places and no crossing. The path opens up into a T junction (picture). The Council has admitted that the lack of footpath across this junction is dangerous and they won’t even place a School crossing warden there because of the danger. Now the Council have said after months of talks that they will not consider installing a crossing or altering this dangerous footpath to what is the most direct route to High Storrs School, Notre Dame School and Nether Green Junior School. It is only a matter of time before a child or another member of the community receives life changing injuries or death as a result of the council's inaction.

• 20mph is safer than 30mph • You don’t need speed bumps to have 20mph • Everyone needs safer streets 20’s Plenty for Us campaigns for wide area, signed, mandatory, enforceable, default speed limits and call this Total 20. Some roads can be exempted where warranted. Portsmouth, implemented 20 mph limits for 94% of its roads. We don’t campaign for zones (with traffic calming), school safety areas, single streets or a “blanket” 20 mph. More information can be found here: www.20splentyforus.org.uk and at our Ware specific page http://www.20splentyforware.moonfruit.com

The world is going to s*** and we're destroying it at an alarming rate what I'm proposing wont stop it but its a very small step in the right direction and in the mean time it might help slow things down while someone smarter than me comes up with a real solution and if we go fume free on a Sunday it'll make the least upheaval to things like buses, postal service and the like

The 1999 Finance Act introduced the Cycle to Work scheme, a Government backed tax exemption scheme that allows employers to loan cycles and cyclists' safety equipment to employees as a tax-free benefit, which the employees can purchase at ‘acceptable market value’ at the end of the loan or hire period. The exemption was one of a series of measures introduced under the Government's Green Transport Plan to promote healthier journeys to work and to reduce environmental pollution. The scheme has proved very successful, with over 1 million employees participating. However, walking to work is also very healthy option for one’s commute. With even less manufacturing involved than cycling, with less embedded carbon associated with it, walking to walk can claim to be even better for the environment than cycling. Walking is obviously not an option for longer journeys, but for journeys of a few miles, a walk of up to an hour a day is a choice that can greatly improve health, take even more cars of the road and safe money on fuel or public transport fares. May 2016 is National Walking Month. In promoting this initiative the British Heart Foundation cites a ‘physical activity specialist’ as saying: "Walking is a fantastic way to keep active and maintain a healthy heart as it is fun, flexible and free.” Although correct on the health and other intangible benefits, regular commuting by foot in Britain cannot be described as ‘free’; it requires good quality, waterproof footwear and necessitates an investment in durable wet weather clothing. I therefore suggest a campaign to lobby government to amend the 1999 Finance Act to include a ‘Walk to Work’ scheme, whereby employees can gain benefits similar to those provided to cyclists by the Cycle to Work scheme, to acquire good quality, waterproof footwear and outer wear to make their regular walk to work more pleasant and beneficial.

This will save money as they don’t need to be cut and will provide more habitat for bees and other pollinating insects