Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner denounces “full-Sky-replica-kit cyclists” riding “three or four abreast in front of me” and “ignoring red lights” – and says cyclists “don’t contribute in vehicle taxes”

I have been paying VED (commonly and erroneously known as 'road tax') continuously since 1989. For over a decade of that I was paying to tax a motorcycle as well as my car.

Like many of us pedalling types, I have been paying income tax, NI, multiple insurance taxes and an abundance of other taxes, duties and levies all that time and yet the roads are STILL full of potholes and STILL have too many shithead drivers who don't know the rules and/or don't care about them (or about anyone else's safety). And it seems the plod don't care either despite the money I'm relieved of every month.

If I want to wear Team Sky kit when I ride a bicycle then I will. What I wear is absolutely none of her effing business. And if I want to ride 7-abreast on my invariably solo rides then I will. And I'd like to see her try to stop me.

I am debating whether to also send a copy of this to SurreyPCC [at] surrey.police.uk - found at https://www.lisatownsend.org.uk/ where, among other piles of excrement, she writes that she is "passionate about being a strong, supportive voice for victims". Spare me your barefaced lies, madam.

Does tory HQ have training courses for politicians to firmly plant both feet in their mouth?  With wellies on.  Or in this case, skis.

Isn't the post of PCC supposed to be non-political, objective and unbiased?

Anyone who is quite so anti-cyclist as Lisa Townsend without being much more aggressively anti-bad driving is clearly biased.  Drivers kill, at a conservative estimate, somewhere around a thousand times more people than cyclists, but the problem is cyclists.

Goebels, Hitler's popaganda minister flat out said, that no mattter how outrageous, inspite of evidence, if a lie is repeated loud enough and long enough, it will eventually be believed

My opinion is that most horse riders, like most cyclists, are sensible and amenable people. The same cannot be said of most drivers. However, some of the riders have adopted the DM anti-cyclist position and assume the right to make imperious demands from what they see as their rightful physical and moral high ground. I recall labouring up a steep hill, towing my trailer, on the Pennine Bridleway when I encountered a rider coming towards. The horse baulked and stopped, and the rider berated me. I think it was a posh accent, but I might be imagining that. She thought I should have got off and waited for her to pass and claimed that my little flag mounted behind the trailer had upset the horse. There are many more frightening sights for a horse than an oncoming cyclist travelling very slowly

When was the last time she rode a bike on a road next to angry drivers like herself? Either never or it was so long ago she's forgotten what it's like.

PS How roads are paid for, maintained, and which methods of transport cause all the damage and death should be part of the driving theory test.

When road.cc reports on disinformed rants against cycling, I sometimes wonder whether there's an AI-filter, only letting unhealthy looking tories get through - of the kind that should pay more "road-wear-tax" not just for the 'political' weight they carry...

Are these people pre-selected or do they really all look alike???

Go give her some feedback https://x.com/_lisa_townsend

My letter to Surrey PCC

Dear Ms Townsend
Having read your Guardian article (Dining Across the Divide - 06/12/24), in which you set out your opinions on a variety of topics, I am slightly aghast at your comments relating to cycling.
Whilst you will undoubtedly respond that these were personal opinions, they repeat anti-cycling stereotypes and inaccurate information relating to the funding of road infrastructure. Why for example, should cyclists not enjoy wearing appropriate clothing and ride (not drive) 3 or 4 abreast? You also repeat the tired claim that they jump red lights. Yet strangely, you seem largely ignorant of your own 'Police and Crime Plan', in which you identify that, "Our roads carry over 60% more than the national average amount of traffic. High profile cycle events in recent years, coupled with the beauty of the countryside, have made the Surrey Hills a destination point for cyclists and walkers as well as off-road vehicles, motorcycles and horse riders" You also state that, "Our roads, footpaths and bridleways are vibrant and open Surrey up to economic prosperity as well as leisure opportunities."
As I understand, 742 people were seriously injured on Surrey Roads in 2023, with 28 deaths. Can you advise the proportion of those caused by cyclists?  Moreover, are you aware that on one stretch of non-motorway roads in Surrey, over 18,000 motorists were caught speeding in a single year. It would be interesting to have your comments in relation to this non-compliance of road traffic regulations. As for jumping red lights, I would be interested to receive information from your office as to how many morists have been fined for this offence compared to cyclists. The last information that I can find is from 2015 and indicates that two roads in Surrey were in the top 20 for this offence, with over 1,500 motorists fined for this offence.
In terms of taxing cyclists, you will be aware (perhaps not) that road tax does not exist and that vehicle excise duty is a general taxation and does not directly contribute to road infrastructure. Take for example, the M25 improvements in Wisley, a scheme that will cost £317 million. Can you let me know how this has been funded directly by motorists? In fact, non-motorists will have contributed to this infrastructure project and one may question why they should have done so, not least to ease the congestion created by the 60% higher volume of motorists that use Surrey roads (your figures not mine). Perhaps if there were more cyclists (the ones that contribute to the economic prosperity of the county - again, your words), these congestion pressures would be eased and damage to the roads would not require Surrey County Council to invest an additional £300 million on road repairs over the next 5 years.
In short, as an elected official, your comments and inability to grasp simple facts in relation to both taxation and policing are worrying. The fact that you are simply parroting the misconceptions of the anti-cycling brigade and presenting them as if they are fact would lead me to conclude that you are unfit to hold the office that you do. In this regard,I look forward to receiving your response.
 

"I know it’s not great but it would never be a political priority for me to give non-smokers better healthcare, particularly when they don’t contribute in cigarette taxes."

She sounds like a twitter troll. I wonder what car she drives? It would be deliciously ironic if it were a zero tax EV - anyone know a way to find this out? Also I wonder what she thinks abour Surrey Police's fleet of EVs? I look forward to her introducing a policy that they must yield to any "road tax" paying real motorists.

She's a prize winning idiot - not least for failing to realise that the cyclists riding "three or four abreast" still take up less road space than she does driving her vehicle with no-one else in it.