Chris Boardman says MPs “should be embarrassed” & don’t “even know the most basic of facts” about cycling

British Cycling's policy champion slaps down "negligent lack of research and understanding"

by John Stevenson   December 3, 2013  

Chris Boardman smiling

British Cycling policy adviser Chris Boardman has hit out at the MPs on the government’s Transport Select Committee who yesterday held a two-hour session to investigate the recent spate of deaths on London’s roads, but instead discussed helmets, 'road tax' and cycling registration.

***

Update: According to a tweet on Tuesday evening from Press Association Transport and Travel Correspondent Peter Woodman, the chair of the committee, Louise Ellman, has invited Boardman to give evidence to the inquiry. On Wednesday, the committee is due to hear from minister for cycling, Robert Goodwill.

***

The session, Boardman says, was meant to be about why six people died riding bicycles on London’s roads in the space of two weeks but “the MPs demonstrated that they didn’t even know the most basic of facts. Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics.”

He said that the MPs “should be embarrassed by their performance.” According to the Guardian’s Peter Walker, the discussion included Labour MP Sarah Champion wondering if helmets could be made compulsory; Conservative Martin Vickers asking if the panel thought cyclists should “contribute” to the upkeep of the roads; and Labour's Jim Dobbin asking if a solution would be to force all cyclists to be registered, tested, and to put their bikes through a sort of MoT test.

Observers were puzzled by the digressions. There’s no evidence that a helmet would have saved the lives of any of the six riders killed on London’s roads in November or the 10 who died elsewhere in the country last month. Nobody in the UK has paid directly for the upkeep of the roads via a ‘road tax’ since it was abolished in 1937. Instead roads are funded out of general taxation.

Jurisdictions that have tried compulsory registration of cyclists have almost always quickly dropped it because it almost impossible to enforce, expensive and has the main effect of suppressing cycling.

Boardman said: “Such a clear demonstration of lack of research and understanding at this level of seniority would, in any other business, be classed as negligent.”

Here’s the full statement from Chris Boardman, issued by British Cycling:

"The MPs that sit on the transport select committee should be embarrassed by their performance yesterday in an inquiry that was meant to be about why six people died riding bicycles on London’s roads in the space of two weeks.

“In front of them sat experts from campaigning bodies, transport research and the police – all ready to get into a proper discussion - and yet the MPs demonstrated that they didn’t even know the most basic of facts. Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics.

“Such a clear demonstration of lack of research and understanding at this level of seniority would, in any other business, be classed as negligent.

“This was an opportunity to discuss how we can make our roads fit for people to get around by bicycle, improving our nation’s health, the environment and cutting emissions. This will deliver benefits for everyone, not just cyclists, and to do it we need to transform infrastructure, tackle dangerous junctions and encourage people to use bikes to get around.

“I’d like to see a proper, fruitful evidence session, rather than opinion-based discussion, on how to protect and encourage cycling as a mode of transport. To that end I am going to write to the MPs on the committee asking them to meet with British Cycling representatives to get to work discussing the real issues that can lead to the transformation of not just cycling, but the environments that we live in.”

72 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Re Martin Vickers reply.

I do make a specific contribution. It's called VAT and charged on every new bike, cycling component and most clothing.

Makes you wonder who's running the country as they don't seem to have a clue.

Velotastic !

Too many hills, but too little time.

badback's picture

posted by badback [252 posts]
3rd December 2013 - 22:36

like this
Like (13)

The APPCG @allpartycycling has just tweeted:-

Commons Transport Comm chair Louise Ellman responds to Chris Boardman criticism by inviting him to give evidence to cycling safety inquiry

Good news. There is hope some sense will be spoken.

Username's picture

posted by Username [31 posts]
3rd December 2013 - 22:52

like this
Like (12)

Username wrote:
The APPCG @allpartycycling has just tweeted:-

Commons Transport Comm chair Louise Ellman responds to Chris Boardman criticism by inviting him to give evidence to cycling safety inquiry

Good news. There is hope some sense will be spoken.

Let's hope it is also listened to

joemmo's picture

posted by joemmo [689 posts]
3rd December 2013 - 23:15

like this
Like (12)

Sounds as if it is time to get some snotagrams emailed out to them too...!! Angry

The more the merrier to get across to these pillocks our complete disdain for their ignorance and arrogance!!

posted by Furry Mommy [31 posts]
3rd December 2013 - 23:42

like this
Like (9)

This is exactly the way they run this country. No wonder we are in a mess. We need less Government & many fewer politicians

Just give us Strict Liability

RoundtheEdge

spragger's picture

posted by spragger [25 posts]
4th December 2013 - 0:14

like this
Like (11)

Here is a list of all the emails that I could quickly find that are either members of the Transport Select Committee or in the case of the last two associated with the Chair of the committee:

louise.ellman.mp@parliament.uk

dobbinj@parliament.uk

jim.fitzpatrick.mp@parliament.uk

karen.lumley.mp@parliament.uk

jason.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk

karl.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk

sandersa@parliament.uk

chloe@chloesmith.org.uk

connollym@parliament.uk

martin.vickers.mp@parliament.uk

alex.mayes@parliament.uk

becky.rowland@parliament.uk

So if you feel strongly enough to contact them, this might be a suitable means of communicating your exasperation and disdain to them (though might be a good idea to CC any emails to your own MP as well, in that way you're more likely to at least get a reply!?).

posted by Furry Mommy [31 posts]
4th December 2013 - 0:24

like this
Like (12)

Explains a lot doesn't it? Like having career criminals writing the criminal justice act...just embarrassing and we deserve better.

I'm thankful we have Chris fighting our corner at this level so a heartfelt thanks to him and others for their persistence and willingness to make a noise.

Political apathy increasing and they wonder why?!

Hating our selfish and ignorant car culture

posted by ironmancole [111 posts]
4th December 2013 - 1:19

like this
Like (12)

Roger Geffen wrote:
CTC does not in any way defend irresponsible behaviour by cyclists. However...
...
Regrettably the Committee seem not to have read a single word of our submission. Ho hum.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

You have to applaude Chris Boardman's patience. He expresses a real anger without losing the high ground. Looks like he's made real progress here. I've sometimes been a bit disappointed in the CTC, who, for my money, seem to fail to express well any great anger while conceding that high ground with unsolicited fumbled caveats about not defending irresponsibility. Your woolly "ho hum" resignation at MPs not reading your best written submissions says much.

posted by vbvb [165 posts]
4th December 2013 - 4:40

like this
Like (13)

Precisely @Neil753 must catch up with you sometime. I was wincing and shaking my head at the lack of any proper structure or briefing to this - it was rushed, it was grandstanding, with both the cycling panel and the hauliers panel having prepared well.

I was especially interested by to point that Jack Semple of RHA managed to get in despite the committee failing to ask the question. Two thirds of the operators called in for formal interview and (usually) some form of sanction being imposed on their licence are operating on a restricted licence - they don't have to have a CPC qualified transport manager, and are often in the waste management sector (ie skip lorry operators) .... speaks volumes?

Also had a useful piece of feedback - many are embracing the LCC proposal to design a truck which does not need a small forest of mirrors to actually see what is happening immediately beside the cab because the driver has direct vision of that area. Refuse trucks are widely being specified with 'walk-in' cabs that have the driver's eye-level just 2 metres above the road - practically in line with an adult pedestrian on the footway - look in from outside and you'll see the driver from bonce to bum and they will see you.

But this type of truck is not primarily being specified because of the lack of blind spots. A major source of crew injury on refuse collection is slipping and falling when climbing up or down from the 'classic' high cab. So I asked the MPA guy after the session if their members had any similar issues on tipper operations and guess what - tipper drivers are getting injured in exactly the same sort of incidents. So what of logistics and distribution?

I've also seen at least two recently registered 18T box trucks on logistics/parcels work (TNTPost and DHL) with the footwell part of the n/s door panel as a glazed area. Are we being listened to at last? (Unfortunately both sightings in traffic and at night so no opportunity to grab a picture)

Your thoughts also on the fact that a lot of muck shift and other construction haulage is very sporadic as sites start, finish, etc, and driver pool is often as transient as the work, with a possible bias to Class C's, as they are more readily available?

47 years of breaking bikes and still they offer me a 10 year frame warranty!

A V Lowe's picture

posted by A V Lowe [428 posts]
4th December 2013 - 7:00

like this
Like (14)

Clearly you don't understand the protocols here. MP's generally only respond to correspondence from constituents - so you have to be a constituent to use these addresses, unless you've been invited to correspond in this way.

There may be some value in sending your comments/observations to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, or working with the organisations active on this lobby.

Remember too that for both the major Westminster Hall debates organised by APPCG, we've seen mass cycle rides around Parliament Square on the same day, and on 2 September at the same time as the debate. This latter occasion saw the tail of the ride still heading out over Westminster Bridge as the lead riders were coming back over Lambeth Bridge, and the noise of bells, and voices outside could be heard inside the debating chamber.

Theodore Roosevelt said that to negotiate with a clear prospect of success we need to speak softly (as with Chris B's measured but chiding remarks) but carry a big stick. That big stick is the fact that with 24 hours notice around 2500 cyclists came to Holborn for a short vigil after a fatal cycle crash, appearing as if from nowhere and melting away just as quickly. Lets see 10,000 for the next big debate on making cycling mainstream as transport.

47 years of breaking bikes and still they offer me a 10 year frame warranty!

A V Lowe's picture

posted by A V Lowe [428 posts]
4th December 2013 - 7:18

like this
Like (28)

Could we not just outsource the running of the Government to British Cycling?

posted by scrapper [59 posts]
4th December 2013 - 8:40

like this
Like (11)

Chris Boardman for President!

Seriously, isn't it about time the cycling organisations clubbed together and appointed Chris Boardman as National spokesman for cyclists?

posted by Sara_H [32 posts]
4th December 2013 - 9:43

like this
Like (10)

A V Lowe wrote:
Clearly you don't understand the protocols here. MP's generally only respond to correspondence from constituents - so you have to be a constituent to use these addresses, unless you've been invited to correspond in this way.

What if one's MP is a cyclophobic ignoranus?
[cyclophobic ignoranus = A cyclist-hating ignoramus & bigot prone to talking out of his fundament and showing not the slightest shred of interest in learning some facts that might dispell his overwhelming ignorance and bigotry]

posted by Recumbenteer [138 posts]
4th December 2013 - 10:20

like this
Like (20)

Having asked Adrian Sanders for a response to Chris's comments he replied with:

"Yes, I wasn't there"

That just shows the utter contempt that the Transport select committee has for the cyclists and pedestrians.

posted by farrell [1015 posts]
4th December 2013 - 10:23

like this
Like (8)

Yes I attended a BBC Radio Surrey debate a month or more ago and the same happened there. It was supposed to be about the Safer Cycling Plan for Surrey and how to deal with large numbers of sportives all in one place at the same time. Instead the chairman not only let it degenerate into a spleen venting session aimed at cyclists but actually steered in that direction.

I guess that's what gets ratings rather than sensible discussions. We have to remember that these Parliamentary Committees are less about doing real detailed work than they are about providing opportunities for MPs to Grandstand in front of TV cameras and pander to whatever prejudice is trending on Twitter at the time.

The same went for their performance on banking, tax and energy. No real understanding of the complexities of international financial regulation, international tax law or energy investment models just a chance bash the bankers, or Google and starbucks and impress the public that they are really annoyed about fuel bills by getting people in front of them and letting rip with the latest "janet and john" version of the real issues.

Well done Chris Boardman. A man with a spine. I saw him previously on a TV debate when some numpty went on about compulsory helmets and he marmalised them. "So if kids in a neighbourhood were being shot by idiots with guns your solution would be for the kids to wear compulsory body armour - mine would be to stop the idiots with guns shooting them."

He was already high in my estimation he just went higher.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [363 posts]
4th December 2013 - 10:39

like this
Like (20)

A V Lowe wrote:
MP's generally only respond to correspondence from constituents.

Earlier this year I received an email from The Times "Cities Fit For Cycling Campaign" urging me to send an email direct to my MP, who FWIW is a member of the shadow cabinet. I asked his opinion (as a member of the body which makes the laws of the land) about the disgraceful sentencing of those drivers convicted of killing cyclists. I was impressed with the speed of his reply which I suspect had already been composed in advance of a glut of similar emails. This man is a true politician, spouting platitudes while addressing NOT ONE of the points I made.
If those other MPs are as similarly adept in smoke and mirror politics, we really are up sh!t creek without a paddle.

K Stand Ken

posted by K Stand Ken [28 posts]
4th December 2013 - 16:00

like this
Like (7)

Can't help thinking the RHA's "Evidence to London Assembly on Cycling" seems a little weak
http://www.rha.uk.net/docs/Evidence%20to%20London%20Assembly%20on%20cycl...
e.g. one piece of "evidence" is an article written based on something Alan Sugar said and another "An article in the magazine Commercial Motor magazine" talks anecdotally about red light jumping.

The CTC's seems a lot more detailed...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1311_rg_transcom_cycle-safety_...

posted by ribena [118 posts]
4th December 2013 - 16:23

like this
Like (8)

MP's a joke - that's a surprise, NOT !

posted by yenrod [87 posts]
4th December 2013 - 17:39

like this
Like (4)

I got exactly the same response from MP Vickers. Basically the MPs are there to throw in an idea (probably thought of by someone else), and if its a flier then they will take the credit, if its a duffer then issue statements such as these.

To be honest it sounds like a blinding job!

posted by Simmo72 [210 posts]
5th December 2013 - 14:30

like this
Like (8)

Out of curiosity, would you contribute to a voluntary fund that guaranteed it was used solely to supplement cyclist safety projects and spending agreed by a 3rd party committee (which I would like to include Mr Boardman).

I know, I pay tax as well but being realistic there isn't enough cash, we need it to blow on superfast train lines and inefficient government services.

How much would you give a year?

posted by Simmo72 [210 posts]
5th December 2013 - 14:33

like this
Like (1)

"Out of curiosity, would you contribute to a voluntary fund that guaranteed it was used solely to supplement cyclist safety projects and spending agreed by a 3rd party committee (which I would like to include Mr Boardman).
I know, I pay tax as well but being realistic there isn't enough cash, we need it to blow on superfast train lines and inefficient government services.
How much would you give a year?"

Frankly, no I wouldn't. Since I choose to cycle a lot of the time instead of using my car or my two motorbikes, I think a discount on my VED for those three vehicles would be fair given the the emissions they aren't producing because I'm using my bicycle a lot of the time. Any slack in VED revenue can be made up from those using motor vehicles all the time, as vehicle owners like me who opt to cycle are effectively subsidising those who don't.

That is much more fair.

Bear in mind too that cycling causes no wear and tear of the road infrastructure and next to no congestion, unlike motor vehicles.

In other words, this voluntary contribution would be a payment in lieu of something that actually reduces the infrastructure costs to the UK. So why would any cyclist want to pay it?

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [1941 posts]
5th December 2013 - 15:47

like this
Like (3)

Simmo72 wrote:
Out of curiosity, would you contribute to a voluntary fund that guaranteed it was used solely to supplement cyclist safety projects and spending agreed by a 3rd party committee (which I would like to include Mr Boardman).

And who would be on this committee, sustrans????

Think of it like this, why do we need a separate fund? We all pay tax, many of us pay VED now, we pay VAT when we buy bikes, as it is the sum spent on cycle infrastructure is less than the amount the government raises in VAT on bikes.

If we start to consider the health savings and congestion reduction caused by not driving!!!! we should be getting paid to ride!

Why is there no mention of cycling or walking in the government infrastructure plan? How do you get it in that plan without central government support, a Quango isn't going to cut it. We have a transport committee that have clearly shown themselves to know nothing about transport! take a body even further removed? It would be nothing more than a talking shop.

Even taking a slightly wider view on transport, where is the joined up thinking regarding public transport? Try getting buses between counties for instance, in many places it doesn't happen. Or why do Stagecoach, First take all the profitable routes and leave the subsidy dependent routes to the local tax payer....

mrmo's picture

posted by mrmo [852 posts]
5th December 2013 - 16:35

like this
Like (5)

mrmo wrote:
And who would be on this committee, sustrans????

That made me chuckle.

I suppose someone would have to make sure the coffee and tea at the meetings was Fair Trade...

posted by farrell [1015 posts]
5th December 2013 - 17:34

like this
Like (3)

'Cycling doesn't cause congestion' This really is not true, especially outside of the towns.

Often on my commute I get caught in a big tail back because a cyclist is on a busy road at rush hour and no one can get past? In part this is caused by drivers not having the skill to judge a safe gap and sitting behind unnecessarily.

If this number increases significantly, what will happen - even more hatred + less revenue for the government and more anger to cyclists, including me as I am sometimes one of those cyclists causing the backlog.

Then how much extra Co2 is caused by having bike generated tail backs and the excessive power used to overtake quickly? I often wonder how much this increases your Co2 saving commute.

It really isn't simple and that is why I would be prepared to pay an annual cost towards dedicated cycling schemes, but only if we do away with this stupid CO2 VED based tax. A toyota prius is generating wear and tear, more than others because it weighs more and why pretend its saving polar bears, its not. Build the ved into the cost of fuel, you use, you pay, you drive a big car, you pay more, you cycle more you pay less. don't penalise me because I can only afford a 5 year old car.

posted by Simmo72 [210 posts]
6th December 2013 - 12:14

like this
Like (4)

"Bike generated tailbacks" - the scourge of the nation.

If you'd have shoe horned Diana in to that post you'd have sorted 90% of the copy for the Express for the next week or so.

posted by farrell [1015 posts]
6th December 2013 - 12:52

like this
Like (3)

Simmo72 wrote:
'Cycling doesn't cause congestion' This really is not true, especially outside of the towns.

Often on my commute I get caught in a big tail back because a cyclist is on a busy road at rush hour and no one can get past? In part this is caused by drivers not having the skill to judge a safe gap and sitting behind unnecessarily.

If this number increases significantly, what will happen - even more hatred + less revenue for the government and more anger to cyclists, including me as I am sometimes one of those cyclists causing the backlog.

Then how much extra Co2 is caused by having bike generated tail backs and the excessive power used to overtake quickly? I often wonder how much this increases your Co2 saving commute.

It really isn't simple and that is why I would be prepared to pay an annual cost towards dedicated cycling schemes, but only if we do away with this stupid CO2 VED based tax. A toyota prius is generating wear and tear, more than others because it weighs more and why pretend its saving polar bears, its not. Build the ved into the cost of fuel, you use, you pay, you drive a big car, you pay more, you cycle more you pay less. don't penalise me because I can only afford a 5 year old car.

My car's older than yours.

If you look more closely at the urban commute, you'll realise that the actual delays you encounter are down to waiting times at junctions. Those waiting times are because vehicles have to queue at the junctions. Look at how many times those bicycles you wait to overtake then come past you at the junctions. Note also how many motor vehicles contain only one occupant (around 80% according to DfT research). Drivers who don't cycle will become frustrated while waiting to make an overtake of a slow moving cyclist, then hurry basically to get to the end of the queue. I see this all the time, whether I'm in my car, on my motorbike or on my bicycle.

Severe congestion is a function of having too many motor vehicles in too little road space. The UK has the highest number of registered vehicles/km of road of any major western nation. That's why the urban commute takes a long time. If more drivers switched to cycling, the congestion would lessen and the commute would be quicker because you wouldn't have the long waiting times at junctions that cause delays.

The urban commute makes up the greatest percentage of traffic movements. So delays to motor vehicle journeys outside of towns and cities to motorists caused by cyclists are very much the minority.

Yes, a lot of people delude themselves into thinking they're saving polar bears by driving a Prius. But bear in mind too that the average fuel consumption of modern vehicles is declining as they become more efficient, which is why taxation of fuel is only a short-term measure that has already been identified as such by transport ministries the world over.

I wouldn't be prepared to pay an annual cost to ride my bicycle so as to benefit a small reduction in journey times for a small percentage of motor vehicle users. I know that by riding my bike, I'm saving the UK economy on a number of counts, as outlined in my earlier post and a number of others.

That is my point.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [1941 posts]
6th December 2013 - 12:57

like this
Like (6)

Simmo72 wrote:
Often on my commute I get caught in a big tail back because a cyclist is on a busy road at rush hour and no one can get past? In part this is caused by drivers not having the skill to judge a safe gap and sitting behind unnecessarily.

all you're doing is reaching a queue at a different point in your journey. unless, once you get to town, all those cars are magically transported somewhere else. they'll get in to town before you, tail back and you'll be behind them. the fact that you were stuck behind a cyclist for 30 seconds earlier on won't make a second of difference to your journey time in most cases. especially at rush hour.

i see this all the time. people overtake me, i overtake them, they get cross that they have to overtake me again, then i overtake them again, they get more cross, etc, etc. the fact is that your journey time in your car is almost entirely unrelated to what i do on my bike because the speed of my bike journey is almost entirely unaffected by traffic volume. you keep having to overtake me because my average speed is the same or better. if you just sat behind a bike instead of having to overtake it, a lot of the time it wouldn't make any difference at all.

bikes aren't the problem in cities. single-occupancy cars are the problem.

Dave Atkinson's picture

posted by Dave Atkinson [7025 posts]
6th December 2013 - 13:09

like this
Like (6)

Simmo72 wrote:
'Cycling doesn't cause congestion' This really is not true, especially outside of the towns.

Often on my commute I get caught in a big tail back because a cyclist is on a busy road at rush hour and no one can get past? In part this is caused by drivers not having the skill to judge a safe gap and sitting behind unnecessarily.

If this number increases significantly, what will happen - even more hatred + less revenue for the government and more anger to cyclists, including me as I am sometimes one of those cyclists causing the backlog.

Then how much extra Co2 is caused by having bike generated tail backs and the excessive power used to overtake quickly? I often wonder how much this increases your Co2 saving commute.

It really isn't simple and that is why I would be prepared to pay an annual cost towards dedicated cycling schemes, but only if we do away with this stupid CO2 VED based tax. A toyota prius is generating wear and tear, more than others because it weighs more and why pretend its saving polar bears, its not. Build the ved into the cost of fuel, you use, you pay, you drive a big car, you pay more, you cycle more you pay less. don't penalise me because I can only afford a 5 year old car.

Often on any journey I make (other than the middle of the night) I am delayed by huge queues of traffic (often with cars alternately at the kerb or further out, thus making filtering on either side very difficult). The congestion is due to cars being too large and too numerous for the road (and they have gotten wider on average over the last couple of decades).

They drive down side-roads, overtake me, and then find they can't pass the car coming the other way, for example, and make me wait while they stop and try and maneuver past each other.

Its the cars that delay _everyone_. The idea that bikes significantly delay cars and cause more CO2 is nonsense. Its overwhelmingly the other way round. Cars constantly stop and start due to lights and other cars.

Perhaps VED should be rolled-up into fuel tax, I'm not 100% sure on the relationship between fuel-consumption and emissions though (I guess it must be a simple one for CO2, as the Carbon in petrol hasn't got anywhere else to go, but there ought to be a cost for all the other crap cars put out, and surely that can vary depending on the engine?).

But there also needs to be an element of congestion charging, because emissions is one cost, but the use of in-demand roads by such large vehicles is another. I think that is actually a more important issue than the cost of wear-and-tear. That roadspace is a scarce resource.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [497 posts]
6th December 2013 - 13:15

like this
Like (3)

Dave Atkinson wrote:
Simmo72 wrote:
Often on my commute I get caught in a big tail back because a cyclist is on a busy road at rush hour and no one can get past? In part this is caused by drivers not having the skill to judge a safe gap and sitting behind unnecessarily.

all you're doing is reaching a queue at a different point in your journey. unless, once you get to town, all those cars are magically transported somewhere else. they'll get in to town before you, tail back and you'll be behind them. the fact that you were stuck behind a cyclist for 30 seconds earlier on won't make a second of difference to your journey time in most cases. especially at rush hour.

i see this all the time. people overtake me, i overtake them, they get cross that they have to overtake me again, then i overtake them again, they get more cross, etc, etc. the fact is that your journey time in your car is almost entirely unrelated to what i do on my bike because the speed of my bike journey is almost entirely unaffected by traffic volume. you keep having to overtake me because my average speed is the same or better. if you just sat behind a bike instead of having to overtake it, a lot of the time it wouldn't make any difference at all.

bikes aren't the problem in cities. single-occupancy cars are the problem.

Yeah that's the idealistic approach but it's easy to see how drivers are tempted to "yo-yo overtake" in slow traffic because if anything, it gives a more consistent spread of progress when stewing a traffic jam.

But single occupancy cars... mayyyn. It just occurred to me lately how perverted the idea is. Upwards of 1000kg of metal to move just ONE person, often over pretty small distances. Comes across very grim.

There is undoubtedly a use for cars, lol, but I guess the ever increasing petrol prices might be an opportunity to publicize cycling more as a way of getting around.

It all boils down to perception and awareness - even the best shops/services/products are of little use to someone if they are looked at from a skewed angle and/or people don't know about them.

koko56's picture

posted by koko56 [298 posts]
6th December 2013 - 16:23

like this
Like (2)

As far as I know I have never met Chris Boardman or discussed things with him, But I'am getting to like his views, the way he forms them and the way he projects them more and more.

posted by Giles Pargiter [36 posts]
21st February 2014 - 22:26

like this
Like (1)