- 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
Norman Tebbit (©James Robertson Photography, Wikipedia)Tebbit: if you're going to get on your bike, you should be made to carry ID
Norman Tebbit is perhaps best well known for his (slightly apocryphal) message to the unemployed back in the early 1980s: "get on your bike and look for work". He doesn't seem so keen on bikes these days though, suggesting that cyclists 'habitually' break the law by giving false details when pulled up for traffic offences, and recommending that they be compelled to carry identification.
The exchange is part of a discussion on the saftey of cyclists (that's what it was supposed to be about, anyway) in the House of Lords yesterday. The full debate is shown in the video below; the section on cycling starts 23 minutes in.
It takes the Lords less than three minutes to get off the topic of making cyclists safer to blaming them for the incidents they're involved in, and then accusing them of flouting road laws; that's not counting a short foray into the legality or otherwise of headphones. Baroness Sharples is first to wander: "Would my noble friend agree that cyclists should wear some form of identification? I was nearly knocked over outside Millbank," she says, leading us to wonder what her recourse would have been if the incident had involved a car; going to the police with the registration number of a vehicle that 'nearly knocked you over' would get short shrift, in our opinion.
Earl Atlee responds sensibly, pointing out that there are times when it would be helpful if pedestrians carried ID but they're not required to do so. The debate then moves on to children's helmets (very advisable but not to be mandated, in Earl Atlee's opinion) while Lord Winston suggests that the health beneifts of cycling might be offset by air pollution, missing the point that the drivers – who are causing the pollution – are also breathing it.
Lord Taverne is next to speak up, in favour of Dutch-style infrastructure, while Baroness Butler-Sloss wonders what can be done about cyclists "with ear things otherwise filled with music, turning right across the traffic when the light is red against them."
Lord Davies of Oldham attempts to get the debate back on track by highlighting the Times' Cities Fit for Cycling campaign, before Lord Tebbit weighs in. "My Lords, how many cyclists actually pay the fixed-penalty tickets which are issued to them for offences such as riding on the pavement to the danger of pedestrians?" he asks. "My noble friend may know that they habitually give false names and addresses; there is no way for the police officer issuing the penalty notice to know that. What are we going to do? Are we going to compel cyclists to have some form of identification so that, if issued with a penalty ticket, they are required to pay it instead of just scoffing at the law?"
Quite where Lord Tebbit has received this information that cyclists 'habitually' give false information – and of course, we're not suggesting it's simply based on his own pejudices – is unclear. The CTC were quick to rebuff him via twitter: "Ld Tebbit demands ID for cyclists who "habitually" give false names to avoid fines. Where's his evidence? Police have NEVER said this to us," they tweeted. Certainly it's not a habitual problem we're aware of, and it hasn't stopped the police from targeting cyclists in a succession of 'crackdowns', usually to do with lights or pavement cycling.
Dave is a founding father of road.cc, having previously worked on Cycling Plus and What Mountain Bike magazines back in the day. He also writes about e-bikes for our sister publication ebiketips. He's won three mountain bike bog snorkelling World Championships, and races at the back of the third cats.
Latest Comments
- ktache 1 hour 18 min ago
The Cure, 1989 day was fantastic, what little I got to hear. I think the BBC is wonderful, not perfect, but I'm so glad we have it.
- Ride On 2 hours 3 min ago
I ended up using Parcelforce - paying online and printing off a sticker - then drop off at the post office. I came across a couple of things worth...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 9 min ago
Reckless doesn't exist as a charge in the UK, it's either careless or dangerous.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 43 min ago
Australia?...
- mattw 2 hours 32 min ago
First Degree Assault in Maryland is serious - intent to cause serious injury, regardless of whether injury caused. A firearm makes it First Degree...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 41 min ago
Beat me to it. 30mph on gravel for a 75kg rider requires around 680W, so those who can achieve it will be experiencing a 0.4% improvement. I know...
- mattw 2 hours 52 min ago
Good comments on the story in the Sheffield Star.
- ktache 3 hours 18 min ago
The madman Fox failed to fill in the form correctly...
Add new comment
47 comments
What worries me here is that 'cyclists' are still seen as some kind of monolithic tribe in a way that motorists or pedestrians are not. A shame, as the standard of debate in the Lords is generally more considered and grown-up than the Commons, but not in this case
I routinely 'nearly get hit' by cars where drivers are not paying attention (maybe because their car is 'filled with music'?!) or driving agressively, but to hold responsible every single person who sits behind a steering wheel (including myself) is self-evidently nonsense.
As for Tebbit, I don't think anyone takes him seriously. Regardless of your politics, he's a nasty piece of work.
Sure about that? The Lords is the same place where the "if you clear snow, you are risking being sued" anti-social myth seems to have started. The noble friends should be required to state their sources.
Yeah, tribalism won't help anything here.
Baronesses? Lords? oh FUCK OFF,THE ruling classes singling out the peasnts day in day out in this shit country
I despise the accident of birth scumbags interfering in our lives,when was the last time a cyclist maimed or killed anybody?
Like the Qat plant that wretch Theresa May banned yesterday they ignore expert advice on the supposed dangers to health and impose their own filthy prejudice anyway
They should start by banning motor vehicles in city centres for a start
whatever law they arbitrarily impose with their filthy prejudice and dogma i will go out of my way to oppose
The lies these cretins manufactured to back up their dirty little prejudices is beneath contempt
Robert Catsby had the right idea about these cretins 400 years ago,the world would be a better place if the scum were eradicated and then we could get on with our lives without their dirty privileged meddling,shame the IRA didnt succeed with the old Nazi bastard in 1984
Easy now...breathe, breathe...extreme attitudes suppporting violence against those with different opinions is likely to hinder the cause of cycling. Don't agree with Mr Tebbit on this(who is a life peer not a hereditary peer, and came from a working class background in Ponders End, Middlesex - so no accident of birth).
But, perhaps just a tad harsh to wish him dead...especially as he had to care for his wife until her early death, as a result of her paralysis caused by the bombing.
We are all destined to become slightly ranty old people who younger people will not agree with...
Wonderful rant, my afternoon has perked up no end since reading this
Bang on the money.
What a bitter, ill-informed rant that was.
There are 92 hereditaries in the House of Lords out of nearly 800. Most are political placemen being rewarded for good work or handy favours.
Of the ones mentioned - Tebbitt, Sharples, Attlee, Winston, Taverne, Davies - only Earl Attlee is a hereditary. And he's the one being congratulated for talking sense.
But we all know Normo Tebbs is as mentally sound as a sea cucumber on crack, yes? He's argued against gay marriage on the grounds that he could marry his own son as a tax break. I'm sure he'd willingly stand up and argue that cupcakes should legally only be sold in green boxes marked "God Save The Lesbian Queen" if that's what the voices inside his cobweb-infested head told him to do.
At least, as you said, Earl Attlee has the right answers to deflect the inane questions. It gives one a little hope.
So let's legislate on the back of one person's random experience on Millbank. What could possibly go wrong?
Why not apply the same argument requiring ID to pedestrians: many times people bump into each other because they're in a hurry/don't care/aren't paying attention. Drivers don't have to carry ID either. Admittedly there are number plates on cars but what if it's illegible or false or the person is driving a stolen car?
I thought Tebbit was dead. At least I now know his arguments are!
I don't think this is a bar to being a member of the House of Lords.
A deceased honourable member has his vote carefully recorded.
If police aren't satisfied that you can prove who you are, you're arrested.
This applies to anyone, cyclists or otherwise.
Agreed.
Pretty shameful Daily-Mail-level behaviour from the Lords but then what do you expect. Actually I do expect more, from Lord Winston especially, he's a scientist!
I think Winston's comment does have some basis in science. Cyclists do breathe in more pollution in built up areas than people in cars.
Oh my god, I'm shocked and appalled at this discussion even taking place.
Why are they even discussing this when they clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about.
I'm not knocking their ignorance about all things concerning cycling (they can't be expected to be experts in every field) , I'm knocking them for their arrogance of trying to 'fix' the problem using their own (clearly prejudiced) narrow viewpoint. Where are the experts?
Maybe they should sort out the appalling sentences handed out to at fault drivers for injuring and killing cyclists first
Pages