The Green Party says that the government is promoting an “anti-cycling narrative that is making things far more dangerous for cyclists” in response to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ call earlier this week for people on bikes to be required to display number plates, carry third party insurance cover and be subject to the same speed limits as motorists.

The cabinet minister’s comments, initially made to the Mail in an article published on Tuesday evening, made for prominent headlines in both print and broadcast media yesterday, and are in direct conflict with repeated assurances from his own ministers and from civil servants at the Department for Transport (DfT) that imposing such requirements on cyclists would be counter-productive.

While Shapps subsequently rowed back on his remarks regarding licensing of cyclists, his comments have been seized on with glee by some media outlets and commentators with a history of anti-cycling rhetoric.

Indeed, much prominence has been given in some quarters today – including in the Mail (link is external) and on Talk TV – to a poll run by pro-motoring lobby group FairFuelUK, which is part-funded by the haulage industry, which claimed that 91 per cent of respondents (who had to enter their email address on its website to be able to vote) were in favour of cyclists having to display registration numbers.

The self-selected nature of the poll – it’s entirely possible that many participants would be aware of it because they already follow the lobby group through social media and agree with its aims – mean that its results, which also include 80 per cent wanting to see cyclists fined for speeding and 70 per cent supporting compulsory insurance, should be taken with a large pinch of salt, and may not be as reflective of general public opinion as say a survey undertaken among a random sample by an independent market research company, but the prominence given to them by some outlets does help fuel an anti-cycling narrative.

And while many interpret Shapps’ intervention as being aimed squarely at Conservative Party members as the leadership campaigns of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss continue – perhaps in an attempt to save his job once one or other becomes Prime Minister – and to deflect from issues such as rail strikes, the cost of living crisis, or water pollution, there has been widespread dismay among active travel and environmental campaigners that they have inflamed existing anti-cyclist sentiment from some quarters.

Green Party Transport and Healthy Streets spokesperson Matt Edwards, who also sits on Bradford Council accused Shapps of ignoring facts and attempting to deflect from problems currently facing the country.

He said: “If we are serious about tackling the Cost of Living Crisis and the Climate Emergency, we need to get people out of their cars and – for many people, especially in urban areas – cycling is the cheapest and easiest way for people to get around.

“This latest announcement is not based on facts and is another example of Grant Shapps trying to shift focus from a Conservative government that has no idea how to tackle the big problems we all face. The Netherlands and Denmark have much higher rates of cycling than the UK and they know that a registration scheme for cyclists is an expensive folly that would be impossible to administer.

“Most road traffic accidents in the UK, especially those with fatalities, are caused by reckless car drivers – not cyclists. The anti-cycling narrative this government is pushing is actually making things far more dangerous for cyclists,” he added.

https://road.cc/content/news/greens-anti-cycling-narrative-danger-cyclists-295327

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Green Party says that the government is promoting an “anti-cycling
> narrative that is making things far more dangerous for cyclists” in
> response to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ call earlier this week for
> people on bikes to be required to display number plates, carry third
> party insurance cover and be subject to the same speed limits as motorists.

> The cabinet minister’s comments, initially made to the Mail in an article
> published on Tuesday evening, made for prominent headlines in both print
> and broadcast media yesterday, and are in direct conflict with repeated
> assurances from his own ministers and from civil servants at the
> Department for Transport (DfT) that imposing such requirements on
> cyclists would be counter-productive.

> While Shapps subsequently rowed back on his remarks regarding licensing
> of cyclists, his comments have been seized on with glee by some media
> outlets and commentators with a history of anti-cycling rhetoric.

> Indeed, much prominence has been given in some quarters today – including
> in the Mail (link is external) and on Talk TV – to a poll run by
> pro-motoring lobby group FairFuelUK, which is part-funded by the haulage
> industry, which claimed that 91 per cent of respondents (who had to enter
> their email address on its website to be able to vote) were in favour of
> cyclists having to display registration numbers.

> The self-selected nature of the poll – it’s entirely possible that many
> participants would be aware of it because they already follow the lobby
> group through social media and agree with its aims – mean that its
> results, which also include 80 per cent wanting to see cyclists fined for
> speeding and 70 per cent supporting compulsory insurance, should be taken
> with a large pinch of salt, and may not be as reflective of general
> public opinion as say a survey undertaken among a random sample by an
> independent market research company, but the prominence given to them by
> some outlets does help fuel an anti-cycling narrative.

> And while many interpret Shapps’ intervention as being aimed squarely at
> Conservative Party members as the leadership campaigns of Rishi Sunak and
> Liz Truss continue – perhaps in an attempt to save his job once one or
> other becomes Prime Minister – and to deflect from issues such as rail
> strikes, the cost of living crisis, or water pollution, there has been
> widespread dismay among active travel and environmental campaigners that
> they have inflamed existing anti-cyclist sentiment from some quarters.

> Green Party Transport and Healthy Streets spokesperson Matt Edwards, who
> also sits on Bradford Council accused Shapps of ignoring facts and
> attempting to deflect from problems currently facing the country.

> He said: “If we are serious about tackling the Cost of Living Crisis and
> the Climate Emergency, we need to get people out of their cars and – for
> many people, especially in urban areas – cycling is the cheapest and
> easiest way for people to get around.

> “This latest announcement is not based on facts and is another example of
> Grant Shapps trying to shift focus from a Conservative government that
> has no idea how to tackle the big problems we all face. The Netherlands
> and Denmark have much higher rates of cycling than the UK and they know
> that a registration scheme for cyclists is an expensive folly that would
> be impossible to administer.

> “Most road traffic accidents in the UK, especially those with fatalities,
> are caused by reckless car drivers – not cyclists. The anti-cycling
> narrative this government is pushing is actually making things far more
> dangerous for cyclists,” he added.

> https://road.cc/content/news/greens-anti-cycling-narrative-danger-cyclists-295327

ROFL

Translation: Cyclists are their own worst enemy.

--
Spike

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3470 posts | 3 hours ago
3 likes

Great to see the Greens calling out Shapps the Sh*t on his blatant, cynical machinations, I am in the GP, but I'm slightly surprised that they didn't include the billionaire-owned media in their criticism. After all, without despicable right wing rags like the DM, his views would never have been published, as any competent reporter would have checked the facts and found that the story was nonsense.

We do need a new government, and a new voting system, but we also need a free press, not one owned by billionaires who don't even live in the UK.

On 18/08/2022 09:15 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Green Party says that the government is promoting an “anti-fairy-cycling narrative that is making things far more dangerous for fairy-cyclists” in response to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ call earlier this week for people on fairy-bikes to be required to display number plates, carry third party insurance cover and be subject to the same speed limits as motorists.
>
> The cabinet minister’s comments, initially made to the Mail in an article published on Tuesday evening, made for prominent headlines in both print and broadcast media yesterday, and are in direct conflict with repeated assurances from his own ministers and from civil servants at the Department for Transport (DfT) that imposing such requirements on fairy-cyclists would be counter-productive.
>
> While Shapps subsequently rowed back on his remarks regarding licensing of fairy-cyclists, his comments have been seized on with glee by some media outlets and commentators with a history of anti-fairy-cycling rhetoric.
>
> Indeed, much prominence has been given in some quarters today – including in the Mail (link is external) and on Talk TV – to a poll run by pro-motoring lobby group FairFuelUK, which is part-funded by the haulage industry, which claimed that 91 per cent of respondents (who had to enter their email address on its website to be able to vote) were in favour of fairy-cyclists having to display registration numbers.
>
> The self-selected nature of the poll – it’s entirely possible that many participants would be aware of it because they already follow the lobby group through social media and agree with its aims – mean that its results, which also include 80 per cent wanting to see fairy-cyclists fined for speeding and 70 per cent supporting compulsory insurance, should be taken with a large pinch of salt, and may not be as reflective of general public opinion as say a survey undertaken among a random sample by an independent market research company, but the prominence given to them by some outlets does help fuel an anti-fairy-cycling narrative.

Why does any of that matter?

No-one ever based previous Road Traffic legislation on public opinion polls.

Why start now?
>
> And while many interpret Shapps’ intervention as being aimed squarely at Conservative Party members as the leadership campaigns of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss continue – perhaps in an attempt to save his job once one or other becomes Prime Minister – and to deflect from issues such as rail strikes, the cost of living crisis, or water pollution, there has been widespread dismay among active travel and environmental campaigners that they have inflamed existing anti-fairy-cyclist sentiment from some quarters.
>
> Green Party Transport and Healthy Streets spokesperson Matt Edwards, who also sits on Bradford Council accused Shapps of ignoring facts and attempting to deflect from problems currently facing the country.
>
> He said: “If we are serious about tackling the Cost of Living Crisis and the Climate Emergency, we need to get people out of their cars and – for many people, especially in urban areas – fairy-cycling is the cheapest and easiest way for people to get around.
>
> “This latest announcement is not based on facts and is another example of Grant Shapps trying to shift focus from a Conservative government that has no idea how to tackle the big problems we all face. The Netherlands and Denmark have much higher rates of fairy-cycling than the UK and they know that a registration scheme for fairy-cyclists is an expensive folly that would be impossible to administer.
>
> “Most road traffic accidents in the UK, especially those with fatalities, are caused by reckless car drivers – not fairy-cyclists. The anti-fairy-cycling narrative this government is pushing is actually making things far more dangerous for fairy-cyclists,” he added.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/greens-anti-cycling-narrative-danger-cyclists-295327

The Green Party, including their MP, are the very definition of a gang
of anti-social, sociopathic, loonies.

espressodan | 50 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

Here's the only thing I would buy.... If the government commissioned an online course ( value questionable, but stay with me) that a cyclist over 18 could choose to complete on an annual basis (far more often than drivers get competence maintenance), in exchange for which they would gain government underwritten third party cover for the next twelve months that would silence the 'but cyclists' motorists on two fronts and deliver a real benefit to society in terms of assurance.

As actual accidents are as rare as hens teeth, the cost would be negligible.. I propose that this is enabled by the government engaging with British Cycling to manage the scheme under their 'Commute' cover, effectively extending it to a national scheme administered by the UK cycling body but funded by the government.

For under 18s, government should proceed assumed TP coverage.

Would go a long way towards encouraging active travel too.

This could also effectively silence the 'registration' lobby, because unlike cars the issue isn't the bikes themselves. No more complaining about road tax, registration etc... Just an assumption that cyclists would routinely register online in order to gain their insurance cover.

Silence the anti cycling lobby and deliver a real benefit.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> espressodan | 50 posts | 1 hour ago
> 2 likes

> As actual accidents are as rare as hens teeth…

Stats?

<deafening silence>

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> eburtthebike | 3470 posts | 3 hours ago
> 3 likes

> Great to see the Greens calling out Shapps the Sh*t on his blatant, cynical machinations

Of course, the Greens never employ blatant, cynical machinations….

--
Spike

Members of CUK and British cycling already get 3rd party under their subs.

And many others have it under their household insurance.

Can you imagine motorists inadvertently having insurance?

There are more motorists driving around right at this moment, or any moment, who have taken the fully conscious illegal option to not have insurance than the total number of cyclists on our roads.

And then there is VED, MOTs, licences and cloned number plates. All to a significant proportion, or more than the number of cyclists.

We've seen the ridiculous proportion of speeding by drivers of motorised vehicles, which also has two whole pages in the HC.

And the stat I heard was that 1-2% of motorists are using their phones, that's not do use their phones, no that number is unfortunately huge, but that are using their phones right at the moment.

But no calls for getting their own house in order.

Uninsured motorists cost insured motorists huge amounts of money, not cyclists, whom a large proportion have insurance without it being a legal requirement.

On 19/08/2022 06:51 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> espressodan | 50 posts | 1 hour ago
> 2 likes
>
>
> Here's the only thing I would buy.... If the government commissioned an online course ( value questionable, but stay with me) that a cyclist over 18 could choose to complete on an annual basis (far more often than drivers get competence maintenance), in exchange for which they would gain government underwritten third party cover for the next twelve months that would silence the 'but cyclists' motorists on two fronts and deliver a real benefit to society in terms of assurance.

Why should the taxpayer pay for your insurance?
>
> As actual accidents are as rare as hens teeth, the cost would be negligible. I propose that this is enabled by the government engaging with British Cycling to manage the scheme under their 'Commute' cover, effectively extending it to a national scheme administered by the UK cycling body but funded by the government.
>
> For under 18s, government should proceed assumed TP coverage.
>
> Would go a long way towards encouraging active travel too.
>
> This could also effectively silence the 'registration' lobby, because unlike cars the issue isn't the bikes themselves. No more complaining about road tax, registration etc... Just an assumption that cyclists would routinely register online in order to gain their insurance cover.
>
> Silence the anti cycling lobby and deliver a real benefit.
>

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Members of CUK and British cycling already get 3rd party under their subs.

> And many others have it under their household insurance.

> Can you imagine motorists inadvertently having insurance?

> There are more motorists driving around right at this moment, or any
> moment, who have taken the fully conscious illegal option to not have
> insurance than the total number of cyclists on our roads.

Data on that?

> And then there is VED, MOTs, licences and cloned number plates. All to a
> significant proportion, or more than the number of cyclists.

Data on that?

> We've seen the ridiculous proportion of speeding by drivers of motorised
> vehicles, which also has two whole pages in the HC.

It’s the dominant mode of transport, you moron.

> And the stat I heard was that 1-2% of motorists are using their phones,
> that's not do use their phones, no that number is unfortunately huge, but
> that are using their phones right at the moment.

Anecdata.

> But no calls for getting their own house in order.

Cyclists are screaming with rage at the thought of being brought into line
with motoring law.

> Uninsured motorists cost insured motorists huge amounts of money, not
> cyclists, whom a large proportion have insurance without it being a legal requirement.

Cite some cases where such insurance has paid out.

--
Spike

On 19/08/2022 11:19 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Members of CUK and British cycling already get 3rd party under their subs.

And all the rest get it under their household insurance.
>
> And many others have it under their household insurance.

Oh! You were going to say it too.

That also includes the contents of the fridge / freezer, doesn't it?
>
> Can you imagine motorists inadvertently having insurance?

Not insurance that would ever be known to pay out for damage,
destruction, injury or death, no.

Please quote a few cases where a fairy-cyclist's fridge / freezer
insurance ever compensated any wronged third party (or their bereaved
relatives) for damage or destruction of property or for injury or death.

<FX: tumbleweed>

> There are more motorists driving around right at this moment, or any moment, who have taken the fully conscious illegal option to not have insurance than the total number of cyclists on our roads.

And it's illegal and carries severe penalties (as well it should).

The police are welcome to track them down and stop them.

Most of those uninsured aren't drivers, of course, since they also have
no licences. They're just fully-qualified fairy-cyclists. Having no
licence, insurance, training, skill, experience, knowledge of the
Highway Code or the slightest consideration for other road users, they
meet every possible descriptive characteristic of the fairy-cyclist.

> And then there is VED, MOTs, licences and cloned number plates. All to a significant proportion, or more than the number of cyclists.
> We've seen the ridiculous proportion of speeding by drivers of motorised vehicles, which also has two whole pages in the HC.
> And the stat I heard was that 1-2% of motorists are using their phones, that's not do use their phones, no that number is unfortunately huge, but that are using their phones right at the moment.
> But no calls for getting their own house in order.
> Uninsured motorists cost insured motorists huge amounts of money, not cyclists, whom a large proportion have insurance without it being a legal requirement.

If insurance for fairy-cyclists is so cheap, and if fairy-cyclists are
so determined to act responsibly (ha!), a statutory requirement to have
specific fairy-bike and fairy-cycling insurance isn't an imposition, is it?

Here's the space for the whinge in response:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Exactly. Just look at the topic of speed.....

If a cyclist isn't able to travel at or above the given speed limit (because a growing number of motorists are incapable of travelling at the speed limit) for any road then they shouldn't be on that road because they hold up traffic/are putting themselves in danger by not being able to keep up with the motorised traffic.

But also if a cyclist is going faster than the posted speed limit they are an absolute menace, complete scofflaws, and are liable for killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people every single day because they are going too fast on their bikes..........