« Back to list of all 35 questions for this election

Question 3 - we asked:

Do you support our view that traffic policing, of all groups of road users (cyclists, drivers, etc), should become a greater police priority, and that this should be evidence-based, namely based on the relative levels of danger presented by each such group?

We asked this question in all 27 divisions, namely: Abbey, Arbury, Bar Hill, Castle, Cherry Hinton, Coleridge, Cottenham, Histon and Impington, East Chesterton, Fulbourn, Gamlingay, Hardwick, The Hemingfords and Fenstanton, King's Hedges, Market, Melbourn, Newnham, Norman Cross, Petersfield, Queen Edith's, Roman Bank and Peckover, Romsey, Sawston, Trumpington, Waterbeach, West Chesterton, Whittlesey North, Willingham.

79 of the 128 candidates (62%) who were asked this question responded as below.

Those candidate(s) which were elected are highlighted.

(Cambridge Socialists)

With the current cycling provision so inadequate I would argue to prioritize funding for making cycling safer, and eliminating dangers for all road users, above policing road users.

However I agree with the tone and intention of the cycling campaigns position paper.

(Conservative Party)

Yes, traffic policing needs to have a high priorty. Speeding and on street parking both need to be addressed.

Andrew James BOWER
(Conservative Party)

I am delighted that the new Conservative police and crime commissioner has already made increased enforcement of road safety offences by ALL road users (not just cyclists, as the report above to which you linked may lead people to believe).

I campaigned for proper police enforcement of speeding on problem roads in this area, including holding police officers to account at the council’s East Area Committee. I persuaded my colleague who was Conservative councillor to get police enforcement of speeding made a priority in our area, which was eventually successful despite being opposed by councillors from different parties all along the way.

One of the advantages of using police to enforce speed limits is that they can also tackle other motoring and cycling offences at the same time. However, the benefits of this approach have been undermined by the incremental city-wide 20 mph plans, which attract derision for being excessively broad.


I organised a survey of bicycles on Mill Road over a couple of nights to gauge the extent of the problem of cycling without lights and found that 50% of lights were missing. I achieved some publicity as a result of this survey and consequently found police paying attention to the problem. It is important that policing of cycling is not just confined to a token annual check on Sidney Street.




We should be trying to increase the total amount of policing by cutting out police bureaucracy, doing more patrols individual rather than in pairs.

Cycle offences such as riding in the dark without lights and using pedestrian-only pavements, which intimidates pedestrians, should be taken more seriously. I think the prevalence of shared-use footpaths as part of a box-ticking culture towards cycling provision has created uncertainty and led many to assume that cycling on footpaths is always permitted.

Martin John CURTIS
(Conservative Party)

I believe in local people setting priorities such as this, which the police do. The question appears very loaded in the way it has been couched, inferring that the police should focus on catching motorists who misbehave towards cyclists rather than dangerous cyclists and those tht cycle without lights. Of course, where motorists who act inappropriately towards cyclists should be prosecuted, but the truth is I see cyclists breaking the law every day I am in Cambridge. If we want to improve and change the negative attitudes many have towards cycling we need to sort that problem out. I am all too aware that Cabridge Cycling Campaign have done great work on this, but this question leans towards a different stance.

Timothy James HAIRE
(Conservative Party)

Yes. The Conservatives in Cambridge have for a long time supported this view. Enforcing traffic laws whether it be byicycles or cars is very important.

John Michael IONIDES
(Conservative Party)

This is another highly leading question. I have done considerable survey work within Trumpington in the past that suggests that the options are by no means as clear cut as the question implies, particularly where pavement cycling (a significant issue in areas such as the High St near Alpha Terrace) is concerned.

Richard Graham JEFFS
(Conservative Party)

Our police do a great job and have been focusing on cyclists recently, specifically with reference to lights. I think that both drivers and cyclists need to respect one-another by sticking to the law and the Highway Code with some help from the police. I like the idea of "Think Cyclist" signs for out-of-towners who may not be used to the volume of cyclists on Cambridge's roads.

(Conservative Party)

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to improve road safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, and to cut down on anti-social road use. And yes, traffic policing must play a central role.

It's not enough to bring in measures like speed limits but fail to enforce them: my residents' group has evidence that the 20mph speed limit is not being observed. Increased traffic policing is one way I'd tackle this (using evidence as a guide to focus resources efficiently), but while policing can certainly deal with the symptoms of the problem, it cannot remove the root cause.

Too many vehicles are crammed onto our narrow central streets, e.g. King Street, Bridge St., and Mill Road; and dangerous driving takes place there and on wider ones, a fact I know only too well.

(Conservative Party)

Policing should be evidence-based, but policing covers many areas of concern: road user behaviour is one such area, but domestic abuse is another, as is burglary and many other issues of concern to the general public. Some of these other issues may have a greater priority than traffic policing.

The number of deaths and cases of serious injury is falling and has been for a number of years in Cambridgeshire. This is good news, but even so evey death or serious injury is one too many. Road traffic accidents have impacts not only on those involved but also on friends and relatives. Prevention is important so educating road users is important in this context.

Evidence-based is not only about the 'relative levels of danger presented by each group' but aklso the 'relative levels of danger presented to each group'.

James Andrew STRACHAN
(Conservative Party)

I would agree - given the way in which the question is worded, it is impossible to disagree.

But you must look in the mirror and recognise that people cycling in dark clothes with no lights after dark pose a risk to themselves and to others.

And so do people cycling on pavements.

(Conservative Party)

I think that police priorities are best set locally by police, elected politicians and local people. In my own division I would welcome a focus on rural speeding - in other areas different priorities might come forward.

(Conservative Party)

Irresponsible cycling gives us all a bad name, but as you say is far less likely to cause physical injury to anyone than - for example - texting whilst driving.

(Green Party)
The candidate did not enter a response for this question.
Eleanor Ruth CRANE
(Green Party)

I support evidence-based policing. Police priorities should be determined according to local need. Where traffic is identified as a key issue then traffic policing should be a high priority, but I wouldn’t insist on traffic policing being raised as a priority across the board at the expense of other issues that might be of more pressing importance.

Shaun Peter ESGATE
(Green Party)

Increased traffic policing of dangerous road users in the city could be effective if enough resources could be diverted for finely targeted actions. The dangerous incidents which have been highlighted in the press over recent months are usually over in seconds and unless they result in injury need to be witnessed by police officers for any action to follow.

Brett Mark HUGHES
(Green Party)

Yes. I am disturbed but the recent reports of road conflict between cyclists and both cars and pedestrians. This is surely evidence that more needs to be done.

Stephen Roger LAWRENCE
(Green Party)

"Evidence-based" is the word. Also "based on levels of danger". However, people have their own priorities. Blitzes are popular, and do also work (viz success with bike lights). So we should say "the evidence suggests this" and "but peoples' preferences are this" so "as a compomise we'll do this". Ie as educative as possible, without IMO being judgemental. We do have to police our community together, after all.

(Green Party)

I agree that policing should be evidence-based. Education on awareness of other road users, as well as reducing conflict through improvements to infrastructure, would be most effective as it would help to prevent incidents occurring in the first place. I think schemes police operate to sell bicycle lights to those caught without work better than handing out fines, for example. Obviously highly dangerous actions such as speeding through a pedestrian area should be punished.

Peter Harry POPE
(Green Party)

I am not an expert on policing priorities. I do support the introduction of 20mph limits and having more officers using bikes themselves. These measures would create a more sympathetic environment for cyclists and pedestrians, increase cycling uptake, reduce congestion and thereby shift priorities to a more rational basis.

(Green Party)

This isn't really a genuine issue. It's largely an issue propagated by the Cambridge Evening News and fuelled by knee-jerk responses. Yes, there are examples of anti social driving and cycling and occasions of cyclists without lights and jumping traffic lights, but these are also commonplace in the 'ideal' cycling cities of Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc.

Simon David Francis SEDGWICK-JELL
(Green Party)

Yes: particularly re mobile phone use (cars and cycles).

(Green Party)

I agree that policing should be evidence-based and that traffic policing should be a higher priority.

(Green Party)

I support evidence based policing, as policing should be determined at the local level. If the local need was police transport users then I would support this.
As cycling is not the commonest method of transport they stand out and therefore are percieved to be irresponsible road users (which the vast majority aren't) Therefore the policing has to be based on evidence of danger presented and the actual frequency of traffic infringements.

(Green Party)

Evidence-based is good. So traffic policing should become a greater police priority if there is evidence that this will result in more positive outcomes (in terms of reduced accidents, ease of traffic flow etc) than use of the resources elsewhere (eg in investigating criminal behaviour). I agree that it should be based on relative levels of danger, if that includes quantity as well as quality. For example, HGVs may cause more damage if involved in an accident than bicycles, but there are far fewer of them. So you need a kind of risk assessment.


Wrong to class road users generically. Some cyclists are a danger to pedestrians and motorists!


I see the Police involvement as a last resort. If elected, I would focus on transport as my main priority and try and get round table discussions between all road users to redesign each junction in the city to take into account reducing ambiguity, improving safety and visibility and reducing accidents. As such, with less risk and clearer routes, the conflict between various road users would be reduced. As well as encouraging education and road sense in schools, and also foreign language schools, the need for Police involvement should be reduced.

John Frederick BERESFORD
(Labour & Co-operative)

Out canvassing, the negative behaviours of both sets of users are often raised. Education of both groups is vital, as well as mutual empathy when on the road. Effective policing of bad behaviour is also, of course, important.

(Labour Party)

Talking to people frequently on the doorstep speeding cars and poor behaviour by some cyclists come up quite often and it is important to address those concerns. At the same time enforcement action by the police is most effective when it is side by side with education and other measures to promote good behaviour by all road users.

(Labour Party)

I’m certainly not in favour of traffic policing being based upon arbitrary prejudices, so to that extent my answer is yes.

Traffic policing in relation to cycling should be constructive and should seek to encourage safer bike use. I think the L. I. T. scheme which allows cyclists to have their fines commuted if they demonstrate they’ve bought bike lights is a great example of this. I also support the Cycle Campaign’s calls for better signage – the Arbury Road/Milton Road junction is an example where the current situation is just not good enough.

I would never say I favour less enforcement of the rules of the road for cyclists, both because we have to accept that the behaviour of a minority of cyclists is problematic and because a small proportion of motorists would view that as a sign that there is a conspiracy against them, and I don’t think we should do anything to validate the paranoia of the sort of person who comments on the Cambridge News’ website.

I would say I favour enforcement that works. I think it’s uncontroversial that the primary aim of traffic policing is to reduce the amount and severity of road accidents. It’s also the case that motor vehicles are the fastest and heaviest things on the roads. This being the case, basic physics suggests that most effective interventions relate to motor vehicles.

(Labour Party)

Traffic policing should become a greater priority. Accompanied by education and other measures, this should ensure safe behaviour by all road users.
In Cherry Hinton, we have cycle lanes and traffic calming including bollards. We have had problems with cars hitting the bollards late at night due to driving too fast. This should not be considered a problem with the calming, but with the driver!
I think there should be greater penalties for drivers who are driving carelessly in residential areas - the bollards in this case could have potentially prevented a pedestrian or cyclist from being injured or killed.

Adam John DUTTON
(Labour Party)

I think it is hard to argue with your position paper. The huge blind spots of trucks and relative vulnerability of bicycles when moving away at junctions, relatively slowly to traffic hoping to overtake, clearly leaves an incentive for cyclists to move away from the traffic as soon as possible. It is clearly important that we take action to deal with these problems given the number of unnecessary deaths suffered by cyclists.

I have also experienced intimidating behaviour from motorists and with less provocation. Thankfully they did little more than shout at me. Too many motorists seem to believe that cyclists taking defensive positions upon the road (I sometimes do this to prevent them from overtaking in places where it is unsafe) is in some way a personal slur against them. Long term I'm unsure what the answer is to this kind of behaviour but I would be happy to discuss ideas.

Adrian John FRENCH
(Labour Party)

Cost effective policing requires complex decisions. I do believe that laws and regulations to ensure safety for all forms of transport should be given sufficient priority.

(Labour Party)

Generally, Cambridge cyclists and motorists treat each other with a great deal of consideration. However, there are significant minorities among both groups whose behaviour needs to improve. The police have a role to play in this.
Policing is only part of the solution. Cycle safety training in schools needs to be supported and strengthened, particularly with regard to making sure cyclists understand the importance of visibility. Driver awareness of cyclists' vulnerability needs to improve; perhaps driver 'speed awareness training' should include a section on the needs of cyclists or maybe a session to experience cycling in heavy traffic.

(Labour Party)

The enforcement of traffic laws by the police should become a higher priority as part of a strategy to make travel by cyclists, pedestrians and motorists safer. Police action to modify poor behaviour by some road users needs to be part of broader, on going campaigns to increase understanding between the different user groups.

(Labour Party)

Responsible road use is vital regardless of mode of travel. The more open spaces in this area can mean greater speed for car traffic making roads more dangerous for cyclists. Active policing here in practice is often scarce, but along with better investment in policing in our area, I'd advocate proportionate policing of traffic.
Where cyclists and pedestrians share routes, this can throw up different challenges. I'd like to see an extension of signage regarding rights of way and priority on the cycle routes in our area to enable safer use for all users especially where routes run along side busy roads. Improved policing needs to be linked to ensuring that everyone takes an appropriate level of responsibility.

(Labour Party)

We all have to be reasonable - far too many aggressive motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I think the issue should be one of 'education' in the broadest sense and less of policing. Plainly, there is a place of policing for the idiots, as part of that I would include motorists driving inconsiderateky and cyclists riding withoout lights.

(Labour Party)

Enforcement action by the police is most effective when accompanied by education and other measures to ensure good behaviour by all road users including cyclists and drivers.
Speeding cars, bad driving and poor behaviour by some cyclists come up on the doorstep quite often and it is important to address concerns expressed and ensure good understanding between different road user groups including pedestrians.

Angela Mary PATRICK
(Labour Party)

I agree

(Labour Party)

All policing priorities should be evidence-based. Throughout my campaign I have called for greater consideration by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. We all share our roads and public spaces and inconsiderate users make life difficult and often dangerous for others. Enforcement action is more effective when accompanied with education. My school made us take our cycling proficiency test and the lessons learnt then still serve me today. Whilst dangerous drivers have the greatest potential for serious injury, we all have to be more responsible. On the doorstep elderly residents and parents of young children, amongst others, have raised fear of collisions with cyclists, especially on Christ's Pieces and around the Grafton. Better signage and enforcement should help dispel these fears.

(Labour Party)

Policing priorities are set in area committees and we must make sure that there is good information available when that happens. Education is as important as enforcement.

(Labour Party)

I am strongly in favour of more visible and assertive policing and a 'zero tolerance' policy against irresponsible road users of all sorts. In Newnham, pedestrians and cyclists are especially vulnerable because the pavements and cycle paths (such as along the Madingley Road) are in a dreadful state and the sitting Lib Dem councillor has been utterly ineffectual - Madingley Road is a case in point - it is just round the corner from where she lives!

Jocelynne SCUTT
(Labour Party)

I favour properly focused and consistent traffic policing, with an accompanying programme of education and associated measures designed to promote courtesy on the road and footpaths. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians all have a responsibility to be alert and cooperative on Cambridge roads and footpaths, for the safety of all road and footpath users.

Speaking with residents - as well as reading 'Letters to the Editor' – makes it clear that there are competing interests in terms of road and footpath usage. All road and footpath users need to recognise that there are competing interests and that fairness and consideration is the key to safety on the roads and footpaths.

It is important to ensure that concerns based in cogent evidence and experience are fairly dealt with in determinations made on traffic policing priorities, and by all road and footpath users.

An evidence-based approach is preferable to one that simply 'targets' a particular group.

Martin SMART
(Labour Party)

Enforcement action by the police is most effective when accompanied by education and other measures to ensure good behaviour by all road users including cyclists and drivers.

Peter SNOW
(Labour Party)

Enforcement of all traffic rules for all road users is needed.

Ashley WALSH
(Labour Party)

Particularly in Petersfield, where there are many narrow streets and Mill Road easily becomes congested with cars, pedestrians, and cyclists, traffic should be a high police priority. Certainly, we need to reduce the number of traffic accidents on Mill Road each year.

Enforcement action is essential and it should follow the evidence of which groups of road users in each area may represent the greatest danger, be they cyclists, pedestrians or motorists. This should be supported more generally by measures including education which seek to improve relations between road users and to encourage good behaviour. There is a small minority of motorists who do not show enough care when driving by cyclists. Further, a small minority of cyclists harm the reputation of most responsible and considerate cyclists by, for instance, cycling without lights or ignoring red lights.

Barbara Anne ASHWOOD
(Liberal Democrat)

I would be pleased to see more traffic policing. The occasional crackdown on cyclists without lights is fine, but I would like to see more emphasis on policing the roads generally, especially major junctions such as at the Catholic Church. ALL road users are guilty of not always adhering to the rules of the road - better policing might serve to highlight the problems faced by cyclists in particular.

William James BARTER
(Liberal Democrat)

Broadly speaking, yes. I have always been in favour of evidence-based decision making, and priorities should be set with this in mind.

(Liberal Democrat)

Yes. Although there is rarely clear agreement about evidence (different people interpret the same evidence differently, or point to different evidence) we should not lose sight of the fact that being hit by a ton of metal is as a rule more inconvenient than being hit by a cyclist travelling at the same speed.

I prefer an educative approach to the policing of cycling: the scheme that involved cyclists with no lights being issued with a fine that could be redeemed by purchasing a set of lights was excellent. Ultimately though policing is reactive and will never deliver the kind of improvement that we need to see on its own.

To achieve this we need a change of approach from County highways, so that roads are not primarily treated as through-routes for traffic, with the main goal being to “maximise throughput”; this reinforces the impression that roads belong to motorists and that cyclists are intruding on their space. Major investment in twenty-first century infrastructure is needed to change behaviour.

Belinda Margaret BROOKS-GORDON
(Liberal Democrat)

It would be rather nice if it didn't need to be a policing priority. However, I believe that policing priorities should be set locally by communities with enough evidence and information to make an evidence-based and informed choice.

Christopher John BROWN
(Liberal Democrat)

In such a busy City it is important that all road users are aware of their responsibilities and that the police ensure compliance with traffic laws and deter offending. I support the actions which have been taken to encourage all cyclists to have lights when necessary, but also believe that motorists, myself included, have an important responsibility to always consider cyclists on the road given their greater vulnerability. The Police should enforce speed restrictions within the City.

(Liberal Democrat)

A 20mph sped limit has been brought in across all residential streets in Market which I fully support.
It already has become a priority for the market area police team to tackle anti social cycling-which I also think is important.

All road users have a role to play in this and is not helpful to demonise any one group.

(Liberal Democrat)

I wouldn't want to be prescriptive on police priorities. I support local priority setting, as at Cambridge's area committees, where residents and councillors can redirect the police's finite resources as seems necessary from time to time.

Peter Robert FANE
(Liberal Democrat)

Yes enforcement of traffic rules, including for cyclists, is important and should be given greater priority by the police; we have good police co-operation in Dry Drayton for the speedwatch group in recording speeding through the village, and I would be confident of similar co-operation throughout Hardwick division when the case is made effectively.

David Aubertin GRACE
(Liberal Democrat)

That makes great sense. I'm always disappointed when I see cyclists breaking the rules which discredits the whole cycling community, but similar behaviour by motorists is much riskier.

(Liberal Democrat)

If someone is breaking the law and it is detected then that is a matter for the courts, especially when it could result in serious injury. The police have tried to encourage compliance rather penalties and I would like to see more carrot than stick. Great idea to get cyclists to buy lights rather than take a fine.

John David JENKINS
(Liberal Democrat)

Yes but ... I know it's a minority but I would like to see the cycling community leading by example. Cycling without lights at night-time on unlit roads is simply dangerous.

And we do need all groups to recognise their roles in a hierachy of users and to relate appropriately to each other.

Michael Thomas KILPATRICK
(Liberal Democrat)

Where practicable, I believe all traffic should be better policed: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. However, to suggest that all policing MUST be solely evidence-based seems dogmatic to the extreme. I do not know if there is evidence that pavement parking actually causes accidents to pedestrians or cyclists, but even if it does not, tackling it should be given a higher priority simply because it is clearly an inconsiderate and downright stupid thing to do. Tackling inconsiderate behaviour ought to have a knock-on benefit all round, and is therefore good, whether there is direct evidence (accident records) to prove that or not!

Sebastian Gerald Molesworth KINDERSLEY
(Liberal Democrat)

I'm not sure. I think there needs to be a societal shift towards more individual roaduser responsibility - for example like with wearing seatbelts. Only the very reckless or stupid driver now drives without wearing a seatbelt. We should be in a position where only very reckless or stupid cyclists don't light up at night (for example) and where only very stupid or reckless drivers think it appropriate to 'bully' other road-users by with aggressive driving (and so on). I'm not sure making this a Police priority will achieve the step-change required in people's attitudes. Happy to be persuaded otherwise, however.

Maurice Leonard LEEKE
(Liberal Democrat)

I agree that traffic policing, for all road users, should be carried out on a proportionate basis.

Daniel Stephen LEVY
(Liberal Democrat)

I fully support evidence-based policy making, but I'm not sure I agree with the rather strange definition of the term that is given in the question. If something is evidence-based then it should be based on all the available evidence, not just the bits that fit with a particular agenda.

Ian Geoffrey MANNING
(Liberal Democrat)

Yes, but only where it is needed: I don't think we should police for the sake of it.

The key of course is how you measure the danger – for which I think it should be in proportion to the amount of harm each form of transport can cause.

It is important to communicate that this doesn't mean that less dangerous forms of transport get no enforcement (not that this is campaign policy) in order to not alienate people.

(Liberal Democrat)

Yes i do support your view on traffic policing,people moan that cyclists are sometimes using the footpaths around Wisbech,but i always use the road ,i can see why they are on the paths , the motorists don't give us enough room,i have had my right arm hit a few times now.My son always rides in front,have very little trust of motorists,never seem to consider allowing room when they stop for trafficlights either.Always seem to brake at the very last minute too..

Lucy Kathleen NETHSINGHA
(Liberal Democrat)


(Liberal Democrat)

The law should be enforced - regardless of who breaks it. I find it difficult to believe that those who break the law while on one form of transport turn into model road users when they switch to another!

Barry John PLATT
(Liberal Democrat)

As a pedestrian, cyclist and driver, I see problems in all areas, with a perception in recent years that too much emphasis is placed on automated enforcement (such as speed cameras). While overall responsibility for police priorities is not a matter for the County Council, I do support a proportionate increase in prioritisation of road enforcement for all road users, to encourage safer coexistence.

(Liberal Democrat)

I would prefer to see more 'active' police monitoring on the A14 and local trunk roads and commuter routes, as well as in our towns, rather than relying just on 'passive' cameras everywhere.

Amanda Joan TAYLOR
(Liberal Democrat)

Absolutely. I would like to see the police enforce the rules of the road for all road users. I support them stopping cyclists without lights; however, I am concerned that they may be spending a disproportionate amount of time on this when there are greater dangers posed by motorists breaking the law, namely speeding and dangerous parking, eg cars that flout yellow lines and zigzags outside schools.putting vulnerable road users at risk.

(Liberal Democrat)

Broadly, yes. I think safety should be the priority, injury accidents whether injury drivers, cyclists or pedestrians have a massive impact on people's lives and a cost to taxpayers. I think we need to start talking about *dangerous* anti-social behaviour (both driving and cycling) and prioritising that over pestering teens in hoodies.

The incident on Hills Road could well have been me having caught up with a reckless driver and made my views on their speeding known. The police response when reporting the threats from the passenger who got out and 'in my face' should not have been "it's better to ignore speeding drivers". My response: I'll be ignoring what you said as I want our streets safe for children, and I will not live in fear of bullies.

Susan Elizabeth Kerr VAN DE VEN
(Liberal Democrat)

I am a driver and a cyclist and in either role I don't trust traffic dynamics for all the reasons stated in your position paper. If as a cyclist I stop at a set of traffic signals in Cambridge, I can bet that another cyclist will go through the red lights. I can also expect, on a ten minute cycle ride, to see several drivers using mobile phones. So yes sensible enforcement to obey traffic rules. On the question of lights, my son lives in Oxford and finds that cycling without lights there is rare indeed due to effective enforcement policies - there is simply an assumption that one must be organized and kitted out with lights.

John George WILLIAMS
(Liberal Democrat)


(The Official Monster Raving Loony Party)

The Monster Raving Loony Party believe in SELF Policing
In that..... EVERYBODY should be a policeman/woman/child/OAP
Problem solved

Diane Paula BIRNIE
(UK Independence Party)

Yes. I would also point out that the problem of cyclists on pavements often comes about
because the cycle ways/paths are often missing or just not wide enough for the cyclist to feel safe, hence they transfer to the pavement. We need a sensible proportion of the road to be given to cyclists, not just a mean dribble of tarmac!

Motorists are just not giving the cycle trackways the room they should. They tend to
cut into the cycle path or drive too close to it for the comfort and safety of the cyclist.

(UK Independence Party)

Cyclists are by far the most undisciplined road users.
On several occasions, I have had to stop or dodge cyclists riding through red lights when
crossing at pedestrian crossings. More police attention to cyclists would be useful.
Cars are not a danger to other road users, provided they in turn act sensibly.
It should be borne in mind that motorists have to pass a driving test. Cyclists are not tested for competence or knowledge of road signs and traffic lights.

Richard GLOVER
(UK Independence Party)
The candidate did not enter a response for this question.
Martin John HALE
(UK Independence Party)

Yes, all road users should be treated equally and abide by the same highway rules, it would be good to see 'traffic police' back on our roads, using discretion when thought fit

(UK Independence Party)

Intuitively, the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. But I do not feel that I would be well qualified in advising the police on the optimum use of their time in this area. If, following meetings with organisations such as yours, the police were to make recomendations themselves, that may be an effective way forwards.

Alan LAY
(UK Independence Party)

Could not agree more. There are many bad drivers who have no consideration for others, and I am afraid to say some mad cyclists as well.

(UK Independence Party)

I am partially in agreement with this but I think that the police's principal priority should be crime prevention. In so far as they spend time on traffic matters, I believe their principal priority should be accident prevention, which may well include the enforcement measures you have in mind.

Nicholas David WILSON
(UK Independence Party)
The candidate did not enter a response for this question.

Camcycle is a non-partisan body. All candidates are given an equal opportunity to submit their views. Information published by Camcycle (Cambridge Cycling Campaign), The Bike Depot, 140 Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DL.