To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
sounds like a good idea, but I have a feeling that looking for 10% wont go down well with the cyclist don’t pay Road tax brigade.
Fairness feels like oppression when one is used to privileges. I guess they will just have to get over themselves.
So if this proposal is successful, who is going to supervise the manner in which the funding gets spent? The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport does not accept that it has a supervisory role over local authority engineers. What is to stop such engineers from using the 10% funds for “business as usual” aka “managing and controlling cyclists and pedestrians for the benefit of motor traffic”?