Two Cambridgeshire councillors have called for tighter regulations on cyclists, such as making third-party insurance and helmet use mandatory, reports Cambridge News. The councillors argue that legislation is needed now that cyclists are having ‘large amounts money from the taxpayer poured onto them’.
The councillors were speaking at a highways and community infrastructure committee meeting at which it was revealed that serious accidents involving cyclists were up by around 30 per cent since 2005, with the number of cyclists up by around 50 per cent in the same period.
After first asking police whether it was illegal to ride without a helmet, Conservative councillor William Hunt, who represents Haddenham, said:
"I think cyclists could contribute a bit to their safety and I think we should see if we can bring in some sort of local legislation to make it illegal to ride a bicycle without a helmet, and make it illegal to ride with one of those ridiculous flimsy tent things for their children.
"It seems unreasonable for us as a nanny state to make everything great and spend lots of money when the people themselves aren't regulated and aren't helping themselves with a crash helmet."
UKIP’s Gordon Gillick, who represents Waldersey, echoed Hunt’s sentiments before expanding on them.
"They are now having large amounts of money from the taxpayer poured onto them and there should be legislation for them to adhere to. They should be registered, they should go through a national cycling test and they should carry third-party insurance."
However, the council's cycling projects leader, Mike Davies, pointed to a drastic reduction in incidents involving cyclists following improvements at the Catholic church junction at Hills Road and Regent Street as evidence that the money was being well spent.
Whether or not cycle helmets should be compulsory is a perennial debate. Last year, a Transport Research Laboratory report concluded that such legislation would “prevent head and brain injuries, especially in the most common collisions that do not involve motor vehicles, often simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars”.
In contrast, Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said his patients who have been in bike crashes have not seen any benefit. “I see lots of people in bike accidents and these flimsy little helmets don’t help,” he said.
Campaigners also argue that evidence indicates that cycling levels fall once helmet use is enforced. They therefore argue that such a measure has a detrimental effect on public health in a broader sense.




-1024x680.jpg)


















62 thoughts on “Cyclists should be registered, insured and be made to wear helmets say Cambridgeshire councillors”
What are the flimsy tent
What are the flimsy tent things?
bendertherobot wrote:What are
I presume the child trailers
bendertherobot wrote:What are
A bike trailer: http://www.lifecycle.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bike-trailer.jpg
Relax everyone it’s not going
Relax everyone it’s not going to happen. Some wanker from UKIP and a Tory no-one’s heard of from a local council is about the same as listening to two retired council officers propping up the bar at a golf club when they’ve had 3 too many brandies.
Did we not do this last week,
(|:
Did we not do this last week, and the week before that?
Local councillors do not have law-making powers, so it really doesn’t matter what they say in this context. They DO have to ability to make cycling safe for everyone through infrastructure improvements, and should continually be pushed to make their areas more pleasant for people on bikes.
Cambridge councillors can get
Cambridge councillors can get stuffed. Do they have any idea how much that would cost to enforce ??? Who would pay ???? I live in Canterbury – another student town where the majority of cyclists you see at night do not have lights. The rozzers take absolutely no notice.
If they really care about public safety how about making sure those 100kg mobility scooters with 125kg lardies on board stick to the rules. Most are technically classified as invalid carriages which should be registered and insured but they’re not.
I passed through Eastbourne while walking the seven sisters a few years back. I was amazed to see how many mobilities there were and actually saw people scootering into each other.
BigglesMeister
Cambridge*shire*. They both represent constituencies quite a way out of Cambridge. If they ever visit the city it will certainly be by private car, at which point they will be apoplectic at the congestion caused by lots of other people in private cars, and will be upset at people on bikes moving about freely.
However, transport is controlled at a county level, so they do get a say in the cycle infrastructure in Cambridge. One council for Cambridge and south cambs needed soon.
If government wants to
If government wants to actually enforce regulation on cyclists, then the government better get off their butts and actually penalize and incriminate motorists who harass cyclists and endanger cyclists with reckless driving.
Who am I kidding, that will never happen. 8}
RoadChick2 wrote:Two can play
But they aren’t the government. It’s two councillors in Cambridge. Not even from the same party and another party has a majority on the council. Plus the council officer pointed out the error of their ways.
It isn’t really news except this is a cycling blog and bikes are mentioned better still helmets which are always click bait.
oozaveared wrote:helmets are
Yes, can be guaranteed to get forumites in a froth.
Is this conservative and UKIP
Is this conservative and UKIP policy for the general election. These representatives of there parties should recieve more publicity on this so people know what there parties stand for.
Beefy wrote:Is this
Just two individual councillors no-one’s heard of. Not MPs. Not even candidates for Parliament.
As you would suspect all he parties would say they are pro cycling. Why wouldn’t they? As it happens cycling policy isn’t really a party political matter. It’s road policy and the main influencers on policy are civil servants in the DoT and highways Officers in local authorities. It’s very difficult for any politician of any stripe to just change that policy. It’s usually years in the making and it’s evidence based. Meaning it’s slow.
How does that effect us cyclists. Positively actually. The obvious answer to urban congestion is cycling. All over the world big cities are recognising this. Ok so it’s slow. On the other hand nutty politicians don’t get a look in. Politicians tend to go with the expert policy flow. There is no upside to not doing that. Going against the experts and the evidence is risky. Increasing or reducing the pace of travel in the policy direction is about all they can do and not even a lot of that because that becomes risky as well.
Cycling is a bit like football. It’s not party political. Nor are cars. People like cycling or don’t like it irrespective of their politics. There will always be people that try to make cycling as an activity fit into some agenda or another. You can pitch that either way. or any of the other ways you like. There will be some idiots like these two councillors in every major party and there’ll be some avid cyclists in that party as well.
Politically what is far more interesting is what you mean by a “pro cycling agenda”. That can mean a variety of things. For example I am wary of wholesale segregation. Some might see that as a pro cycling policy. But I want to ride safely on the road not be forced on to a segregated path. So I support cycle infrastructure and some segregation where it makes safety sense. But I am not a cheerleader for segregation because it absolves the powers that be from even trying to make integrated cycling much safer.
In general I’d rather make the roads safer for cyclists than do things to get cyclists off the road. I think that’s pro cycling. But others that are pro cycling think the opposite. Being pro cycling in policy terms has a lot of permutations and possible empases. It’s not as easy as you think. And not really party political.
Same with pedestrians? Train
Same with pedestrians? Train passengers, plane passengers, bus passengers? All have even more huge amounts of money from the taxpayer poured into them. HS2 is costing billions of public money – all HS2 passengers should have a number plate 8} !!!!!!!
– that’s what happened when I
=)) – that’s what happened when I read this. Meanwhile, two months after being knocked off my bike by a motorist and reporting the incident to the police with the registration plate, nothing has happened, not even the call back to confirm what action hadn’t been taken. I don’t recall too much money ‘being poured onto me’.
The stupidity and impatience I witness from motorists every day is just baffling. Unless there is a fatality it just isn’t taken seriously or even considered an issue.
I’m just about to go and pick
I’m just about to go and pick my daughter up from pre-school in one of those flimsy tent things. Hoping someone pours some money onto me on the way home.
Chris wrote:I’m just about to
Your doing it all wrong!
You need a Chelsea Tractor minimum to run your child to/from school
Large amounts of money
Large amounts of money pouring into cycling infrastructure.
About time too…..i paid my taxes now i want something i can use.
The ignorance, miss-guided
The ignorance, miss-guided intentions and sheer stupidity of those in elected office at all level just beggars belief.
Gordon and William can go
Gordon and William can go swivel.
Stupid old duffers. Fat too.
how about a FAT tax, these
how about a FAT tax, these fat people are having loads of money spent on them in the NHS, with Heart surgery and statins and gastric bands and strokes.. =D>
Why do they think cyclists are not the “taxpayer”.. I sure am the taxpayer.. I am a car owner, I am a pedestrian, I am a Train user..I pay road tax x3 I am people. I am voter.
I must get into politics and become an MP, clearly none of these idiots have any sense and yet they are representing us.
maybe I should stand for the UK cycling party? who will vote for me?
Manifesto – cycle paths for all, cycling super highway, coffee shops everywhere and car free zones on strava climb segments on a Sunday? Let me know what else we need? 😉
I’ll find out how you get into this politics thing on google..
anyone fancy being my campaign manager? we will need some banners anyone any good at that? :H
Redsport wrote:how about a
While I do find the idea somewhat appealing, there are all kinds of pitfalls. It would no doubt end up being done on BMI which is a totally stupid measure that assumes you do no exercise. For example, my BMI says I am “overweight” (just) yet a medical consultant recently described me as being of slim build. What do you think the BMI of a track sprinter is?!
Cyclists beware: Leg muscle gets counted as fat.
Interestingly, those figures
Interestingly, those figures suggest that the number of cycling accidents per capita (of cyclists) has actually fallen since 2005.
Personally I think the worst
Personally I think the worst thing in this article is that people feel the need to use words like ‘they’ when referring to others who decide to throw a leg over a bike to go somewhere.
This is the latest stick to
This is the latest stick to beat bike users with but its just the road tax argument repackaged.
The local rag carried an opinion piece at the weekend from another bored and angry retiree cross that his driving privileges were being challenged and kicking up a fuss. This and usual arguments backed up by prejudice-based pseudo facts and surprise surprise – he turns out to be a friend of gloating arch-turd Keith Peat.
i saw a comment on that story that it starts to look like a generational conflict – people of a certain age who have been sold the dream of motoring freedom all their lives and invested a lot of their money and self-worth in a car realising that it was all a sham and looking for someone to blame. Stuff them, i want the roads to be safe by the time my kids are adults.
right, you can have the soap box back now.
joemmo wrote:i saw a comment
A generation that got to enjoy cycling in childhood before cars were so common on the roads, too.
joemmo wrote:This is the
What are ‘bike users’? We are cyclists…
Sorry, amongst all the
Sorry, amongst all the fluff:
WHAT?? Did a Conservative councilor really call themselves a ‘nanny state’, and did they really state that cycle helmets are not helping??
Must be Mad wrote:Sorry,
Got to love the irony of bemoaning our ‘nanny state’ and calling for compulsory helmets in the same sentence.
What I also found grimly amusing about this was that an elected coucillor thinks that it is possible to introduce some “local legislation” to enforce helmet use. Nice to see our elected representatives so clued up on what local councils can and can not do. Isn’t there some sort of training course these people can go on… maybe some sort of national test that they have to pass before they can get on their high horses? 😕
Must be Mad wrote:Sorry,
I spotted that also – the Conservative Haddenham councillor sounds like a UKIP councillor in disguise. What worries me is what other ill-informed entrenched opinions do they have on things that they can influence.
i seem to remember that a
i seem to remember that a large chunk of my “cyclist” wages
disappear every month in ….. TAX, guess that makes me a
TAX payer AND a cyclist … who’d have thought it …
phukktards ….. X(
I wear a helmet and through
I wear a helmet and through circumstances and BC am insured and registered. When do I get the “large amounts money from the taxpayer poured onto me”? 😕
C. Hunt …(as in
C. Hunt …(as in councillor)…does actually suit his name.
I’m pretty sure that he is on the ball with his thinking and that these cyclingist chappies, should contribute…I mean obviously cyclingers don’t pay any tax whatsoever…do they?
It’s not as if they deserve to be on the roads is it…
“They should be registered,
“They should be registered, they should go through a national cycling test and they should carry third-party insurance.”
This sounds like a good thing to do (and enforce) with car drivers. he might be on to something you know.
Oh wait……
A Conservative and a UKIP
A Conservative and a UKIP councilor. That’s funny!
More frightening than funny
More frightening than funny 8}
Maybe what’s really needed is
Maybe what’s really needed is for this country to have a minimum standard of intelligence for MPs and Councillors?
Have cyclists had the right
Have cyclists had the right to vote removed? When did this happen?
I find this motorist idea
I find this motorist idea that cyclists ought to have insurance infuriating.
In an “encounter” with a car the cyclist is concerned about damage to flesh, blood and bone, but all the driver can think of is his paintwork. Are they really so selfish and stupid that they cannot see this is disgusting?
Its because of this imbalance in the capacity to do harm, and to suffer harm, that cyclists are so much more careful.
In a collision between a bike and a car several studies have found that three out of four are the fault of the driver.We all make mistakes, but for some reason drivers make three times as many, in a car/bike incident.
When I am menaced by bad driving my first fear is of physical harm, not of who pays the bills.
felixcat wrote:
In an
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment but must pick up on one thing you said…
Whenever I have crashed, the first thing that flits through my mind as I’m going down is more “hope the bike’s ok!” Thoughts of damage to myself come later on down the thought process!
The University city of
The University city of Cambridge and its surrounding county illustrate that theory – I don’t remember what it is called but no doubt someone can help me out here – about the equilibrium between good and ill. Put simply, with such a clever bunch of chaps in the city, equilibrium and balance requires that the surrounding country must be very very stupid indeed.
£500 plus 10
£500 plus 10 nominators.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/173018/UKPGE-Part-2a-Standing-as-an-independent-candidate.pdf
Councillors represent their
Councillors represent their local community – the community does contain a lot of ignorant cyclist haters who haven’t a clue about infrastructure funding or how to move away from a car dependent culture
I quite like it when idiot’s like these open their mouths – at least you know what the problem is. Equally sad that they are unable to contribute anything positive to the role they have been elected to
antigee wrote:Councillors
You’re dead right. What I really object to though is the lazy was that councilors regurgitate ill-informed opinions from their constituents without even attempting to back them up or research the feasibility of what they are asking for.
If this guy had taken the time to research the number and value of damages claims against uninsured cyclists and had a think about the cost and logistics of compulsory insurance and associated enforcement I suspect he would very quickly have come to a different conclusion.
Quote:
I pay road tax x3
No
No you don’t ~X(
Must be Mad wrote:Quote:
I
Why do people get their knickers all bunched up their holes over what is commonly used to refer to VED? We all know what is meant.
kwi wrote:Must be Mad
I think it began with Churchill (not the dog…)
kwi wrote:Must be Mad
Actually most people don’t That’s the problem. You deserved to get called on it.
Kippers have these odd
Kippers have these odd pairings of conditional ideas. Last year it was:
The Gay can get married => I should be allowed to marry my dog.
This year it’s:
There’s a Cycling Path => cyclists must wear helments.
Cllr Bill Hunt seems a
Cllr Bill Hunt seems a charming chap – he is, apparently a ‘Retired motor industry manager, self employed consultant, company director’ who owns a number of houses that he lets out. Obviously an expert on cycling then.
As cyclists, we should be
As cyclists, we should be thankful for the fact that none of us pay taxes…. oh, hang on a minute – yes I fcking do ~X(
Maybe I object to my taxes going towards paying for health care for all the fat bastards who don’t cycle….. like local councillors.
There is a conflict of
There is a conflict of interest here. Check out Councillor Hunt’s register of interests:
http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Hunt%20B%20NEW.pdf
I quote:
“Motor industry consultant (Self employed)
Volkswagen Group UK pensioner”
This guy should be shot down for abusing his position.
More cycling – less fatties,
More cycling – less fatties, healthier nation, less burden on NHS
More cycling – less congestion, reduced road costs, improved productivity
More cycling – less wear and tear on roads, reduced road costs
More cycling – less pollution, better health, less burden on NHS
What exactly aren’t we contributing to councilor nobjockey?
Simmo72 wrote:More cycling –
To be fair, he said contribute to safety. I’d guess he is equally ill-informed on the economic benefits of cycling but I don’t think he actually said anything on the subject.
As for contributing to safety, cyclists do so purely through their choice of transport. Our streets are safer places when there are fewer cars about.
Simmo72 wrote:More cycling –
More cycling – More productive at work as most of us are desk jockeys and awake and alive when we cycle to work !
Introducing a 10 year ban for
Introducing a 10 year ban for being caught texting whilst driving would have a greater impact on road safety. a bit of foam doesn’t help when hit from behind at speed by some idiot in their x5 busy posting their latest LOL on facebook.
Shouldn’t there be some sort
Shouldn’t there be some sort of ‘national test’ for councillors? Either these councillors are ignorant or just cynical. Haven’t they read any reports, published by the likes of the Department of Health, the World Health Organisation etc., that say that each new cyclist generates around 500 pounds of benefits to the community in terms of reduced health costs? Or that the average return on every pound spent on measures to promote cycling is 12 pounds? I suppose not. Far easier to to pander to the most subsidised transport users – car drivers, who only civer approximately 15 per cent of the total costs generated by their acticvities.
cerutticolumn wrote:Shouldn’t
Try to make that free of political influence!! It would prove difficult I think.
The problem is, everyone is ignorant or poorly informed about something.
DaveE128 wrote:cerutticolumn
No the point in a democracy is that anyone can stand for election. There are places where candidates have to be vetted but they’re not democracies.
In theory you are right, but
In theory you are right, but in practice councillors are increasingly selected and vetted by parties, who should be held accountable if their councillors prove to be less than competent.
“It seems unreasonable for us
“It seems unreasonable for us as a nanny state to make everything great”
>everything great
Really?
Pricks in cars, get rid of
Pricks in cars, get rid of them, problem solved.
I believe :
Nobody has paid a
I believe :
Nobody has paid a ”Road Tax” since the early 1930’s, it was abandoned so car drivers would not feel they owned the roads which were originally built and used for horse drawn carriages and cycles 🙂 The tax was collected to pay for damage to the roads caused by vehicles. If paying for damage means ownership then there are a lot of windows owned by kids!
Vehicle Excise Duty or Car Tax is based on the amount of toxic emissions produced by the vehicle, a 6.0L V8 pumping out in excess of 400 mg / mile pays a lot. Electric, most small hybrids and even some small internal combustion engines pay NOTHING, ZERO, NOWT, SOD ALL or about the same as fellow car drivers pay for the bicycles they use except………ALL VED is collected by the general treasury NOT the department of transport, along with Income, Whiskey and Kebab tax and is then divided up among the various Government departments that require funding ( all of them ) so in fact any VED paid is as likely to be funding aid to Vanuatu or school dinners as it is to ( not ) repairing the roads in this country.
Anybody who buys anything in this country that is subject to tax helps maintain the road network.
Please correct inaccuracies in the above if you know better.