- 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
- quadtodd 0 sec ago
And 3 of the 'workers' are just leaning!
- yellowjack 30 min 57 sec ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- yellowjack 47 min 36 sec ago
Sounds cool. I haven't taken an "unnecessary flight" since 1992. Flown many times since then for work, but you can't patrol the Iraqi desert, or...
- NOtotheEU 1 hour 11 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
- TheBillder 2 hours 7 min ago
I rented a car a few weeks ago, a Skoda Octavia (needed a big car for a weekend), and the ride was astonishingly good compared to my own 10 year...
- Sriracha 3 hours 4 min ago
Shimano were castigated for not bringing on new factories to meet pandemic demand, thus gumming up the supply chain. Their argument at the time was...
- Romanp 3 hours 13 min ago
I figured out a reason of that squeaking noise. I have xpresso 2 and 7, and also xpro 10 pedals, and that squeaking isn't present only at Xpresso 2...
- MichaelWinnerRIP 4 hours 14 min ago
Italian tourist and pussycat in Portugal.
Add new comment
47 comments
Dear oh dear - your summary of the debate suggests it was little more than a bunch of old timers swapping prejudices. I've heard more intelligently argued conversations in the pub at closing time. If this is the best they can do we are in an even bigger mess than I thought.
Loved the 'sea cucumber on crack' analogy though - genius!!!
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.
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.
Good on Lord Tebbit.. These lycra-clad thugs have got away with too much for too long... personally I would ban them from our roads altogether.. Cyclist are a menace to drivers and a danger to themselves...
#MENACE
That's not Tebbit, that's Skeletor
They sound pay "road tax" as well,
Sound like an episode of grumpy old men! If this is the best the lords can come up with then it really is time to reform them. It's unbeleivable that people with the power to legislate think this type of ill informed, opinionated "debait" is reasonable and a justified use of tax payers money.
If this is a typical example of the quality of their deliberations and debait it's no wonder the country's f**cked, and we should put these senile old dinasours our to grass soonest.
I'm surprised they didn't get road tax in to complete the set of misinformed opinion.
Very disapointed but not surprised
A deceased honourable member has his vote carefully recorded.
It looks like ctc & bc could do a much better job informing & lobbying their lordships on the cycling safety facts. I also wonder where the input was from the department of transport & home office on safety & law infringement data too?
Industry, unions, charities etc seem very good at lobbying. Why are the cyclists so poor? Perhaps some one should ask cookson?
CTC is a charity isn't it? So charities aren't universally good at lobbying...
Clearly trolling so I'll save you all the trouble - cyclists are a net benefit to the economy, the environment. They reduce pressure on the NHS and reduce congestion in towns and cities.
Cars do none of these things - the social cost of the car is not fully paid for by the driver but by wider society.
Frankly fuck you and your bullshit prejudices.
I thought they were being ironic. Genuine Trolls are a bit more subtle.
Travel into London regularly and have to say I am often shocked by the actions of a small minority of cyclists, which doesn't help with some people's prejudices against us.
However today I saw the worst yet, travelling the wrong way down the middle of the opposite carriageway, then flying up onto the pavement across the pavement at speed, onto another crossing, almost knocked over a pedestrian, who only just managed to get out of the way, pulled directly in front of a car and then proceeded at speed up the middle of the carriageway, at least in the right direction this time. All around me, including me, people stood open mouthed.
The best bit is it was an older guy in a wheelchair propelling himself along with two crutches, as a result I think we should ban all wheelchairs unless they have full insurance, number plates and carry ID, and of course pay 'road tax'
I am joking but only about the banning wheelchairs etc bit, the rest actually happened
If this is the level of debate in the House of "Lords", we should get rid of them. It can't be any better on any other subject.
Tebbit: if you're going to get on your bike, you should be made to carry ID?
What about : If you are going to talk in the House of Lords you need a letter from your doctor to say you are not senile? Or just plain stupid, or both.
Seriously, such frothing at the mouth about carrying ID?
Can't see a problem with it myself.
Maybe they should sort out the appalling sentences handed out to at fault drivers for injuring and killing cyclists first
Pages