Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling has said that people riding in cycle lanes are not road users – leaving British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman feeling “embarrassed” for the Tory politician.
The cabinet minister was asked in Parliament today by Labour MP for Cambridge and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner to clarify remarks he made in a recent interview with the London Evening Standard, where he was quoted as saying “‘Cycle lanes cause problems for road users.”
Zeichner asked him: “I was wondering if he could clarify for the House exactly who he thinks road users are?”
Grayling replied: “Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes.
“And there’s a road alongside – the motorists are the road users, the users of the road.
“It’s fairly straightforward to be honest.”
Referring to the exchange, Boardman said: “The transport secretary’s comments demonstrate an astonishing lack of knowledge about how 7 million people regularly use the roads in this country.
“I feel embarrassed for him. If he truly thinks the roads are not for cyclists, then what am I paying my taxes for?
“Chris Grayling’s government has made a commitment to double cycling levels to help tackle congestion, obesity and air pollution – three issues that are at crisis point.
“The minister should also know that segregated cycle lanes of sufficient quality are incredibly rare in Britain.
“In fact, it’s going to be impossible to meet government targets on a diminishing budget of less than £1 per head. This is in stark contrast to the Netherlands and Denmark where more than £20 per head is spent.”
The former world and Olympic champion invited the minister out on a ride to experience the reality of cycling on Britain’s roads.
He said: “If there was ever anyone who needed to actually get on a bike and hear about the true state of cycling infrastructure, it is Chris Grayling and I’d be delighted to go on a ride with him.”
Grayling was in the news last month when video emerged of an incident in October in which he ‘doored’ a cyclist opposite the Houses of Parliament as he got out of his ministerial car.
> Former APPCG co-chair demands apology for Grayling over dooring incident
Earlier this week, the Independent reported that Grayling did not give the rider his details since “no-one asked for them.”
Transport minister Andrew Jones said: “No details were requested at the time by either party”.
He added that Grayling “got out of the car, checked the cyclist was okay and waited until he was back on his feet.
“He spoke to the cyclist and apologised; they shook hands.
“The secretary of state has since been in contact with the cyclist and the matter is closed.”
But Simon Munk of the London Cycling Campaign pointed out that by failing to pass over his details, Grayling had broken the law.
He said: “The law is very clear – in a collision you stop, exchange details and wait for the police if necessary.
“That the transport secretary appears not to understand this basic issue, let alone how important cycling and funding cycling is, should be of major concern to anyone who wants a healthier, better Britain.”
50 thoughts on “Transport secretary Chris Grayling ignites fresh row by claiming cyclists aren’t road users”
This guy is a fucking joke.
This guy is a fucking joke.
Exactly what you expect from a Tory government: Grayling is to transport what Hunt is to healthcare or Johnson to foreign affairs – completely unsuited to the job and full of prejudices that will ultimately damage society.
jasecd wrote:
It’s a continuing example of politicians being given jobs they have absolutley no experience for and are completley unqualified to do.
thx1138 wrote:
tbf they dont need to have experience or qualifications related to do their job, their job is just to speak to the press and occasionally stand up in the Commons and announce stuff, theyve got a whole department of civil servants working doing all the clever expert stuff for them, they just dont have to be blithering idiots…er oh
jasecd wrote:
As much as it would simplify everything if it were only Tories…
Was it not a Labour member of the transport committee who recently declared that cycle lanes ’cause congestion’? And then there are Kate ‘cyclists get in my way’ Hoey and Dave ‘cyclists are the wealthy elite’ Hill…
Though it was another Tory, I think, who suggested removing zebra-crossings to ‘ease traffic flow’.
Oh, and not to forget the RMT (presumably Labour-supporting) and their belief that cycling is something you only do out of ‘desperation’.
There’s just a cross-party political lobby for idiocy, unfortunately.
jasecd wrote:
Completely Agree!
On the plus side, if he’s
On the plus side, if he’s declaring that cycle lanes are not a part of the road, then any cycle friendly police force can start prosecuting any driver found with wheels in one with driving other than on a designated highway…….. ringfence those fines to providing more “non-road”
Rather than send him out with someone like a professional cyclist, canwe not send him out with The Traffic Droid, now THAT would make interesting viewing !
Clickbait Robot nailed it a
Clickbait Robot nailed it a while back:
https://twitter.com/clickbaitrobot/status/806145075453509632
It all stems from the top: if
Grayling: not a brain user.
It all stems from the top: if the prime minister has no idea what they are doing, then they appoint people with even less idea below them, otherwise they look stupid.
Still no mention of Grayling knocking off the cyclist on the BBC.
“The secretary of state has since been in contact with the cyclist and the matter is closed.” Oh really? Surely this is a police matter, not at the discretion of the cyclist, and since at least one crime was committed, the police should be taking action. Have we heard from them on this matter at all?
Let’s think of this another
Let’s think of this another way: what if a health secretary said that patients with diabetes aren’t real patients? Or if an education secretary said that people taking A-level french weren’t real pupils? Or if a housing minister said that people who lived in terraced houses weren’t real households?
They would be forced to resign.
And, not entirely off topic,
And, not entirely off topic, here’s that nice Mr Grayling announcing a new tunnel near Stonehenge, a snip at £1.4bn. How many times the entire budget for walking and cycling is that?
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/1-4-billion-stonehenge-tunnel-could-help-cut-traffic-queues-on-m5-around-bristol-say-mps/story-30053739-detail/story.html?dwrMeth=addComment&afterReg=Y
I’ve said before that he
I’ve said before that he looks like the product of a hideous Tory genetics programme to produce a hybrid of Iain Duncan Smith and a baked potato. But now I realise that’s impossible, because surely a potato would increase the IQ of the progeny. He’s the sort of dribbling moron who thinks Britain will be better off begging for a deal from Trump’s America than being a partner in a cooperative community of fellow European states, even if it has to be at one remove like Norway or Switzerland. Maybe he’s already been told London’s bike lanes will have to be torn up to provide ZiL lanes for visiting plutocrats here to negotiate the dismantling of workers’ rights, pollution exemptions for multinationals, and privatisation of the NHS?
Yes the Tories, damn them. I
Yes the Tories, damn them. I remember a happier time, a simpler time when cyclists rode under a labour government and all was well….
And then I woke up and realised they all are pigs in a trough of public funds.
Quote:
“And there’s a road alongside – the motorists are the road users, the users of the road.
“It’s fairly straightforward to be honest.”
So what about a cyclist who uses the road instead of the cycle lane, as is their right? Are they a motorist? A non-cyclist? Does the presence of the cycle lane cause them problems? I think I need a Venn diagram.
This is post-truth: not lies, but people spouting total nonsense which they know no one they care about will be inclined to challenge.
captain_slog wrote:
That’s what I do whenever the cycle lane seems dangerous to me. And I can tell you what a lot of other people say about me, many of them cyclists.. you won’t like it.
just gone and looked this up,
just gone and looked this up, because I thought I was missing something:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-01-12/debates/9B003975-7C56-4B49-972C-B0C72CE72502/TopicalQuestions
[quote Hansard]
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Secretary of State; let us hope that we are well prepared. Taking him back to the time just before Christmas, given that soon after his visit to Cambridge he told the Evening Standard that cycle lanes cause problems for road users, will he clarify exactly who he thinks road users are? While he is thinking about cyclists—a helpful clue—could he explain why it is taking such an extraordinarily long time to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy?
Chris Grayling
Cyclists use cycle lanes, and motorists and other road users use the roads alongside them. That is fairly straightforward, to be honest. If the hon. Gentleman is eagerly anticipating our cycling and walking strategy, he does not have long to wait.
[/quote]
so, if you actually read what he says, he thinks that there are cycle lanes beside roads. if we were living the Netherlands, he would have a point. He genuinely seems to think that cyclists have this whole alternate transport system, from what he says there
but no, I’ve tried to be reasonable. He’s not saying that cyclists aren’t road users, just that we don’t need to be because we’ve got an alternative. Still doesn’t really reflect any reality I know, not in this country, anyway ….
riotgibbon wrote:
If you had listened to anyone besides other cyclists that love “facilities” you’d understand that this lesson is exactly what the majority has taken as the lesson from the provision of said shit facilities.
Ush wrote:
Yes.
As for the slimy twat’s disingenuous overstatement of those facilities in his non-answer to the question: he knows only too well about cycling lanes, paths and lack thereof and cyclists being in the road, having doored one in the road a few months ago.
There is a kind of arrogance that ignorance about a topic breeds – ie. you don’t know how complex a topic is, and how little you know about it, until you start studying it. Grayling, along with Hunt, Gove and others, appear to have no desire to get to grips with the areas that they were made ministers of. And why would they? They might be shuffled in a year or so, and how can you become an expert in something as complex as transport or health or education in that time, while still trying to function as a MP? It’s the system that’s at fault there, allowing completely unqualified ministers. Who do they have advising them? Sycophantic aides who’ve never worked and aspire to be one of them.
That cuts across all political parties. I think the Tories still have a monopoly on their particular brand of entitlement, though, which, when combined with the arrogance and ignorance, really damages public confidence in any of them knowing their arse from their fucking elbow.
Ush wrote:
woah! leave me out of it! I just went back to the official record to see what actually was said, not just what was said was said, to see if if there was a bit more context that hadn’t come across. That sometimes happens. What comes across in the video version was that a) the other MP was clearly taking the piss, b) Grayling doesn’t give a hoot either way, c) Grayling is considered a figure of fun by his peers
Not exactly holding my breath for this new cycling strategy
At some point being a
At some point being a politician became about appealing to prejudice and bigotry.
So facts dont matter and you’ll go mad looking for the logic in what happens around you.
I suspect its actually a result of the long slow zombification of great swaves the human race.
Our only hope is equal opportunity for all kids.
God bless us all.
Any time I worry about
Any time I worry about Scottish politicians a Grayling comes along and I remember that devolution is a wonderful thing.
and if you want to look into
and if you want to look into their eyes the whole time:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c229fd92-c029-49de-b7e0-a16d74252123?agenda=True
and zip along to 10:24, the menu on the right will let you jump to the question
God, I’ve actually just watched it. It’s some pretty passive-aggressive questioning from Zeichner, but Christ, I’ve never actually watched Grayling in action. To be fair to him, he does actually say “where there are cycle lanes. …”, then he launches into his smug ignorance, a living embodiment of the Dunning–Kruger effect
it’s worth watching, just for the appreciative mocking guffaws
he really is a first class twat
well it is the arrogance of
well it is the arrogance of knowing no real opposition. Can say and get away with anything, we are on our own, the Labour Party wont help us and we have to band together like stopping the insurance limit of 5K.
Perhaps someone should
Perhaps someone should explain to Mr Grayling that a road is a public highway i.e. a route over which the public has right of way (regardless of the type of conveyance).
At the same time he could be reminded that the cost of vehicle accidents is approx £34Bn (2012 figures – £15Bn reported plus balance unreported) which coincidentally is roughly the same amount raised in total from VED and fuel duty (2009 figures – £32Bn).
Conclusion – car drivers don’t pay for the roads (and arguably pay much less than the real costs of motoring from pollution, traffic congestion etc)
Question for him. Are buses
Question for him. Are buses and taxis in the reserved space of bus lanes road users?
Anyone up for setting up a
Anyone up for setting up a government petition to call for his removal to be debated in the house?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check
You just need 5 supporters to second your petition
Grayling clearly not a brain
Grayling clearly not a brain user! Even his own side think he’s unfit to be a minister https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2350810/chris-grayling-urged-to-resign-after-leaked-letter-revealed-he-opposed-rail-devolution-to-keep-it-out-of-labours-clutches/
The guy is an utter imbecile.
The guy is an utter imbecile!
From the Local Government Act 1888:
https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/819566022298628096
Simon E wrote:
So, that’s before the first car on the road in the UK?
I can’t see any references to motor vehicles before 1895 (but that’s just a quick Google search)
Hopeless… no chance of
Hopeless… no chance of getting any progress with this kind of idiot at the helm…
Many MPs and councillors work
Many MPs and councillors work incredibly hard -I don’t buy this “all politicians are corrupt” line, it’s not good for society. I wouldn’t want my profession slagged off in such general terms.
However, there’s a certain class of career politician, and yes, more of them are conservative, who come from a privileged background and have very little connection with reality.
The cyclist he knocked down
The cyclist he knocked down shook his hand, wtf?
Suggest that we all take the
Suggest that we all take the opportunity to fill his inbox with our thoughts: chris.grayling.mp@parliament.uk.
Might not do much but if he (or his secretary) has to trawl through 100s of emails from angry cyclists then maybe, just maybe, he’ll start to understand the issue.
AST1986 wrote:
Maybe but also you will get those being abusive which denegrates us all
Quote:
Well, the Highway Code thinks cyclists are road users…
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225
Separate question: why do all
Separate question: why do all Chris Grayling’s publicity photos make him look so damned smarmy…?
brooksby wrote:
Fake smile.
Look at photos of people happy with where they are and what they’re doing. Compare them with the likes of Gove, Grayling and Osborne in work photos… they’re not even convincing their own faces that they’re doing a good job.
That’s my cod psychology anyway… hopefully there’s a glimmer of a human in there somewhere.
brooksby wrote:
Because he’s as smarmy as he is ignorant. Grayling even makes IDS look almost competent by comparison.
If only Malcolm Tucker was a
If only Malcolm Tucker was a real person…
Dear Mr Grayling,
Dear Mr Grayling,
You are kindly requested to review the introduction to the Highway Code for an accurate definition of Road Users, and for the overriding duty of all road users, who include drivers, riders and pedestrians, to be considerate to each other.
As Minister, you have a duty to be acquainted with the relevant legislation and customs pertaining to your portfolio, and to ensure that your words and actions provide leadership to the country.
If you feel that you are not, I would suggest that you become so, or resign.
It’s quite straightforward to be honest.
Yours faithfully,
Was that patronising enough?
FFS!
FFS!
I don’t enjoy riding my bike in this country anymore. I ride mostly on Sustran off-road tracks.
I don’t like it, but I want to get home in one piece.
I’m saving my money and moving to France. I lived there for three years and never experienced the kind of shit I recieve from dickheads in cars in this country.
Cyclists are canon fodder.
Last one turning a crank, please turn off the light…
The cycle campaign guy could
The cycle campaign guy could at least get the law right before climbing his high horse.
If, as a driver, you are involved in a road-traffic accident and one or more of the following occurs:
a person, other than yourself, is injured
damage is caused to another vehicle or to someone else’s property
an animal has been killed or injured, except in your own vehicle or trailer (an ‘animal’ is defined as ‘any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog’)
You must:
stop and remain at the scene for a reasonable period
give your vehicle registration number, your name and address, and that of the vehicle owner (if different), to anyone with reasonable grounds for asking for those details.
If the cyclist did not consider himself to have been injured then there is no need to exchange details, if the cyclist did not ask for details there is no requirement to provide them.
Also the actual road traffic act reffers to the driver of the car being the one who is required to give their details.
Dooring someone can be a criminal offense on it’s own, however I don’t think this comes with a specific requirement to identify oneself.
massive4x4 wrote:
This has bindun. Away and play in the traffic, troll.
massive4x4 wrote:
The first part doesn’t take into account the rider was likely in shock and so unlikely to be thinking straight however the second part is I think correct, the driver is responsible.
Well more major road
Well more major road projects announced today for my region, so i guess thats country wide. So no increase in the amount per head for cycling infrastructure, but this expenditure for the car brigade. So more roads or widening of existing roads, to fill up with even more cars. These cars will then make town or city travel even worse as no one wants or can afford to use public transport to get to their job. Most will be occupied by only the driver.The result carmagedon, at which point these idiots will realise that bicyles, motorbikes & scooters or getting folk to use public transport is a better idea.
But we’re in the hands of the motor industy who want us to buy buy buy, and wil always influence government policy with their money.
No party have done much for the cyclist, but the Tories have always excelled at promoting the car. Dont forget gorgeous George Osborne slashed funding for cycling infrastructure projects.
When you’re in your ministerial limo you will hate the cyclists getting in you way, when you are on your way to your next car manufacturers slap up lunch
Another short term
Another short term appointment with no aptitude at all for the job. No change there alas.
Transport is at the cross roads. Do we continue the love affair with the motor vehicle or no we embrace more healthier and safer means of transport? There seems little government awareness of this. The Supreme Court has already had to take the government to court for its failure to reduce air pollution to European standards. Of course, with Brexit we can carry on as before.
Does everybody here have
Does everybody here have access to a part of his statement that isn’t in the article because it seems pretty fucking simple to me.
Where exactly did he say that if the cyclist was actually cycling on the road they would not be a road user?
Am I a road user if I am in a field or on a disused rail line on my muntain bike next to the road? No.
Am I a road user cycling on a pavement with a cycle lane next to a road in town? No.
Am I a road user cycling my bicycle on a road? Yes.
Am I a road user when cycling on a road next to a pavement with a cycle lane but choose not to use it because it is either inconvenient, slower and or on the other side of the road? Yes.
Am I allowed to do this? Yes.
If you are not on the road then……you are not a fucking road USER.
Greebo954 wrote:
But a segregated cycle-lane is still part of the road. The road is divided into a cycle-specific part and a general traffic part (which cyclists are still, currently, allowed to use). Anyone using either part of it is a road-user.
So to follow your principle that swearing makes a point more true – you are wrong, if you are in the segregated part of the road you are still a fucking road user.
Besides, only a tiny fraction of a percent of London roads have such segregated paths.
Greebo954, you have a point,
Greebo954, you have a point, but it doea all depend on how you define the cycle provision. Grayling was talking about cycle LANES, HC 63-
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
And rule 140-
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Cycle lanes are on the road (carriageway), and users of them, being on the road must be defined as road users.
Now if he had said cycle TRACKS, these are different HC62-
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.
Now, and it is my opinion, that Road Traffic regulations may still apply to cycle tracks, for example, not having working lights while on a cycle track, so that may complicate things as this comes under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, notice the words Road and Vehicle. During any of these visability blitzes our forces of law and order do regularly, do they ever do them on a cycle track, shared or otherwise, and do they ever use The Law as part of the arguement on why you need lights? Has anyone been prosecuted for such an offence, thus setting any precedent? But I digress.
“Grayling replied: “Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes.
“And there’s a road alongside – the motorists are the road users, the users of the road.
“It’s fairly straightforward to be honest.”
Grayling, the former Justice secretary and current Transport secretary, should know that these terms are very specific and he should be careful which he uses. Idiot. Fairly straightforward to be honest.
The real problem is not
At the risk of sounding overly cynical, it seems the real problem is not Grayling, but a system that appoints unqualified nincompoops to important jobs. What happened to the meritocracy?
It’s dog whistle stuff for
It’s dog whistle stuff for the Tory shires. Daily Fail readers will be creaming themselves over this.