To: Terese Coffey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment & Jesse Norman MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Roads, Local transport and Devolution
Safer city cycling. And towns too!
Allocate one path/walkway at the side of every road for bicycle use, with the opposite side of the road allocated to pedestrians.
Why is this important?
This makes use of the paths that are already in place alongside most roads in towns and cities.
Generally each road has two paths.
For example the north to south path could be for pedestrians, the south to north for bicycles.
More zebra crossings would be required to allow people to get to their side of the road.
Side roads exiting onto main roads would need ’stop' signs rather than ’give way’ signs to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
The onus should be on the cars to stop as they are the ’stronger’ vehicles, can start and stop more readily and are the more dangerous in every sense. It would subtly shift the emphasis away from the cars dominion.
Perceived danger deters people from cycling. From personal health to environmental issues, the fewer cars compared to pedestrians and cyclists there are the better.
Why continue the way we are? There are so many issues to face, this is a small step in the right direction, it would not be costly to implement and could revolutionise the roads for us all.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/04/fewer-cars-not-electric-cars-beat-air-pollution-says-top-uk-adviser-prof-frank-kelly
The attached article, courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd, argues that we need less cars of all types (including electric) on the roads:
“Prof Frank Kelly said that while electric vehicles emit no exhaust fumes, they still produce large amounts of tiny pollution particles from brake and tyre dust, for which the government already accepts there is no safe limit.
…Toxic air causes 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK"
Time for a change.
Generally each road has two paths.
For example the north to south path could be for pedestrians, the south to north for bicycles.
More zebra crossings would be required to allow people to get to their side of the road.
Side roads exiting onto main roads would need ’stop' signs rather than ’give way’ signs to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
The onus should be on the cars to stop as they are the ’stronger’ vehicles, can start and stop more readily and are the more dangerous in every sense. It would subtly shift the emphasis away from the cars dominion.
Perceived danger deters people from cycling. From personal health to environmental issues, the fewer cars compared to pedestrians and cyclists there are the better.
Why continue the way we are? There are so many issues to face, this is a small step in the right direction, it would not be costly to implement and could revolutionise the roads for us all.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/04/fewer-cars-not-electric-cars-beat-air-pollution-says-top-uk-adviser-prof-frank-kelly
The attached article, courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd, argues that we need less cars of all types (including electric) on the roads:
“Prof Frank Kelly said that while electric vehicles emit no exhaust fumes, they still produce large amounts of tiny pollution particles from brake and tyre dust, for which the government already accepts there is no safe limit.
…Toxic air causes 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK"
Time for a change.
