Reclaiming the term ‘road user’ from the motoring lobby

22 Sep

These banners, which were proudly displayed at a fringe event at the Labour Conference, give a clear impression that ‘Driver=Road User’ and ‘Road User=Driver’. This is totally unacceptable and marginalises all other road users.

This is not an isolated instance, and we need to be challenge it. Following the success of the campaign, I suggest we complain whenever we see the term being used in this way.

Here are the banners in question.




IMG_5454 IMG_5455

4 Responses to “Reclaiming the term ‘road user’ from the motoring lobby”

  1. anelcombedrea September 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm #

    I would just like to point out a few things on this notice 26.8% spent on public transport and railway. That not right lets take all thought people that use this public transport and put them all in cars then no one would be able to get around roads would be grid locked. What about all these accident we just make motorist pay for there own treatment guess what that would do to your insurance.

    I bet the same people would not say that on tobacco tax which not goes into health than is use for tobacco related illness.

    What about all the extra money going in to the roads after last winter none is being spent to repair pavement that motorist have damaged due to drive or parking on them. If you motorist don’t like pay you tax don’t drive walk the environment would be better.

    I would not tar all motorist with the same brush but sum think that because they in a car they can do what they like and to hell with us pedestrians the have to use the road to get round one of there own parked on the path. They tell you to get out of the road! The answer is easy to that you and your likes don’t park on pavement and don’t damage them so disabled can’t use them. If you want to use the roads that is the cost. Stop complaining, and just use the part of the highway that has been put there for you and not the bit that pedestrian use Andrea Elcombe.

  2. Kevin Algar September 23, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    Reblogged this on A Riverside View and commented:
    The correct term is Vehicle Excise Duty. You can’t be taxed for using a public highway the same as you can’t be taxed for using a public park or open space. Typical old Labour trying to put it across that people have some kind of entitlement to something they don’t

  3. Graham Martin-Royle September 25, 2014 at 7:49 am #

    This is a typical view by the motoring lobby, they think that they are the only people (entitled to) use the roads. Pedestrians, cyclists, we just don’t feature in their world.


  1. Striving for improvements along Westgate (while rejecting current poor planing proposals) – ChiCycle - April 19, 2019

    […] Following  the 5th April County Council meeting where our councillors unanimously supported Mr Michael Jones motion on Climate Change,  ChiCycle wish to promote focus on sustainable transport and pressure our local politicians into adhering to their commitments. If our elected representative are genuinely committed to the objective of a zero carbon society, then this must be reflected immediately in our local town planning decisions. All new housing development must now be designed to promote sustainable modes of transport over and above the conventionally accepted desires of the motoring lobby. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: