- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Chris Boardman smilingChris Boardman says MPs “should be embarrassed” & don’t “even know the most basic of facts” about cycling
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.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 1 hour 23 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 1 hour 43 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 2 hours 9 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 2 hours 55 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 3 hours 23 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 4 hours 4 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 4 hours 43 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 5 hours 40 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 56 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
73 comments
God, I hate politicians.
I like it when Chris gets angry. It's just a shame the general level
of discourse is pushed onto the irrelevent hobby horses such as taxing cyclists and making them wear helmets. From parliament through Jeremy Vine - who as a cyclist should know better - to the anti cycling morons on Twitter, it's the same obfustication and muddying the water.
Maybe Chris can alter the media slant with the help of someone who sponsors a pro team and happens to be inheriting a media empire. Of only such a person existed....
Boardman sticking his head above the parapet and getting well stuck in...nicely done!
Boardman sticking his head above the parapet and getting well stuck in...nicely done!
'put their bikes through a sort of MoT test'
Here's a goody... Wasn't my fault gov, I'm quite amazed he even bothered responding...
Thank you for your email.
I am very well aware of the funding mechanism for our road system. My clear intention was to challenge the witnesses – who were arguing for more spending on cycling infrastructure - to state whether or not the cycling community should make a specific contribution to this infrastructure. I was neither expressing support or opposition but seeking the view of witnesses.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Vickers
Member of Parliament for the Cleethorpes Constituency
I've just watched the entire two hours of this Transport Select Committee hearing and, despite the distinct lack of knowledge shown by some MPs, I'm impressed by the depth of understanding demonstrated by all the "witnesses", including those from the "hgv side".
Some interesting points heard:
10,000 London cyclists have now taken part in the "Changing Places" scheme, where cyclists get a chance to sit in an hgv, and that a large number were "shocked" to discover how limited the view of cyclists appeared to be.
Members of the Road Haulage Association specifically made a representation, highlighting that their biggest concern was cyclists moving up on the inside of members' lorries, exascerbated by filter lanes that encourage cyclists to put themselves in danger.
A peak time lorry ban would increase London transport costs by 30%.
A peak time lorry ban would channel Hgvs onto streets at the "exact same moment as pensioners keen to avoid the rush hour".
There was much talk about the unreliabilty of "sensor sytems" currently being tested.
Also, "risk compensation" was discussed, whereby cyclists get closer to lorries if they think they're being "monitored".
The Road Transport Association voiced concerns about "information overload", citing an example where a driver was having to look at "six mirrors and four tv screens".
Both sides seemed to agree that infrastructure needed improvement but, for the moment, the overiding message was to "stay back".
All in all, despite some numpty comments from MPs, a very useful hearing.
Maybe they will do better when they get the proposed £10k pay rise?
Re: Martin Vickers response - note the phrase "cycling community". 'Community' being used when wishing to lump together a group and suggest collective responsibility for the wrong doings of a minority whilst appearing to remain respectful and even handed e.g. 'the Muslim community', 'the travelling community'.
Never hear people referring to 'the banking community' or 'the driving community' do you?
CTC's evidence submission to this farcical inquiry is here:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/dont-just-train-people-to-avoid-....
We specifically included arguments to pre-empt the road haulage lobby's inevitable attempt to shift the focus onto cyclists' behaviour, when it really ought to have been on safe roads and junctions, safe lorry designs, and/or restricting lorry access to busy roads at the busiest times.
CTC does not in any way defend irresponsible behaviour by cyclists. However the available evidence doesn't provide any basis for MPs to focus on cyclists' behaviour as a policy response to cyclists getting killed by lorries on London's roads.
Regrettably the Committee seem not to have read a single word of our submission. Ho hum.
Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC
Where do I find the 'like' button for Chris's comments?
I was foolish enough to watch the whole session.
The MPs asked some pretty stupid questions. Jim Dobbin gets my vote for the worst contribution - using this public inquiry into cycle safety to air his private grievances about two encounters with cyclists, one where he got a scratch on his car, and another where someone knocked on his roof.
I think it was Sarah Champion who asked a bizarre question about cyclists scaring horses. I doubt cyclists scare horses more than vehicles, and how far from the point can you get?
The witnesses made useful and sensible contributions, including the commander from the Met. The exception was Andrew Gilligan, who claimed there was no problem with cyclist safety on London roads, it's all a problem of perception. That's offensive spin.
Get in, Boardman, what a legend.
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.
The APPCG @allpartycycling has just tweeted:-
Good news. There is hope some sense will be spoken.
Let's hope it is also listened to
Sounds as if it is time to get some snotagrams emailed out to them too...!!
The more the merrier to get across to these pillocks our complete disdain for their ignorance and arrogance!!
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
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 [at] parliament.uk
dobbinj [at] parliament.uk
jim.fitzpatrick.mp [at] parliament.uk
karen.lumley.mp [at] parliament.uk
jason.mccartney.mp [at] parliament.uk
karl.mccartney.mp [at] parliament.uk
sandersa [at] parliament.uk
chloe [at] chloesmith.org.uk
connollym [at] parliament.uk
martin.vickers.mp [at] parliament.uk
alex.mayes [at] parliament.uk
becky.rowland [at] 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!?).
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?!
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.
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?
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?
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.
Could we not just outsource the running of the Government to British Cycling?
Chris Boardman for President!
Seriously, isn't it about time the cycling organisations clubbed together and appointed Chris Boardman as National spokesman for cyclists?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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_...
Pages