Transport for London (TfL) board member Brian Cooke has come under fire from cycling campaigners after tweeting that cyclists should be registered and licensed and contribute "virtually nothing" toward paying for the roads.
Mark Sutton at BikeBiz has the full blow-by-blow which started with Cooke responding to Hounslow Cycling's report of a bus that had hit a cyclist. Cooke tweeted: "more reasons for compulsory registration and insurance for all cyclists".
When he was called on this, and learned that councillors had called for this road to be subject to a 20mph limit, Cooke demanded "what evidence says 20mph would help?"
He was offered plenty of evidence and his tweets became increasingly agitated as he was accused of being anti-cycling. Among other things, he called Twitter user JustMandyH a "rude lying cow."
In another exchange, over road funding, he claimed that only motorists paid towards roads, and said: "Cyclists as cyclists pay virtually nothing toward road funding."
Roads are funded from general taxation, of course. The 'Road Fund' set up to directly pay for roads, was abolished in 1937, and only ever paid for a fraction of the costs of roads.
Cooke claimed that the posting saying the bus had been driven into a cyclist was "entirely speculation without evidence".
Here's the tweet with pic of bike under wheels of bus:
Bus driven into bike outside Feltham police station. Councillors have said this road should be 20mph. pic.twitter.com/4XE1dHX9dQ
— Hounslow Cycling (@HounslowCycling) January 7, 2015
The previous week Cooke was involved in a spat with racer Tom Staniford, whom he called a "liar" and threatened to sue for "deformation."
Cooke has subsequently deleted his Twitter account.

41 thoughts on “Transport for London board member slammed for not understanding road funding”
Just wow.
Is it any wonder
Just wow.
Is it any wonder that the roads aren’t safe for cycling with halfwits like this in ‘control’
md6 wrote:Just wow.
Is it
One of the benefits of democracy is that any old fool can stand for election. One of the drawbacks is that they can sometimes be elected.
oozaveared wrote:md6
One of the benefits of democracy is that any old fool can stand for election. One of the drawbacks is that they can sometimes be elected.— md6
Though this guy wasn’t elected, so, while true, I’m not sure what relevance your point has.
There’s more to democracy than some people, somewhere in the system, being elected, by some method or other.
This country perhaps has too many unexamined quangos stuffed full of people with possible vested interests.
I would suggest, looking at
I would suggest, looking at the picture that the man may benefit from taking up cycling.
Quote:The previous week Cooke
I blayme Thatcher.
I can’t find his email
I can’t find his email address. I would like to contact him.
Who ate all the pies?
Crikey
Who ate all the pies?
Crikey he’s fat! With any luck he’ll have a heat attack getting himself all agitated
This appointment, also by the
This appointment, also by the GLA, was prematurely terminated as noted here
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2008/06/london-assembly-ends-travelwatch-chairs-appointment
London Travelwatch remit includes looking after interests of cyclists.
I’m surprised that they then still had him as TfL Board member (part time job, £24,000/year) given that earlier issue, and he is on Surface Transportation group, which deals with Cycling.
Details here https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/annual-report-2013-14.pdf (at end of report)
What a tool.
His position on
What a tool.
His position on the TfL board must be some sort of favour, as he is utterly ignorant about transport and its funding.
And clearly about safety as well.
jacknorell wrote:His position
Can’t possibly imagine what that could have been for..
http://www.adambienkov.com/2008/06/watchdog-chief-sacked-for-backing-boris.html
Surely we can all agree, that
Surely we can all agree, that people who are able to stand for any public office, be subjected to at least some basic tests related to their intelligence quota? 8|
Perhaps even they should be made to take history tests, related to their area of work. For example the appointment to the board of Transport For London could include having to understand, at least in a broad sense, what your job actually is – and perhaps WHOM EXACTLY IT IS YOU SERVE! PUNK!
Fat Tory knows nothing about
Fat Tory knows nothing about how the roads are paid for but is responsible for transport policy, What Shocker !
His tweet said ‘try learning
His tweet said ‘try learning to read and note what I actually said, not what you made up you rude lying cow’
I know, I retweeted it as a back up copy when he he deleted it.
And no, she did not insult him first, merely stated she thought it was shocking that someone in his position did not know how roads were funded.
Flying Scot wrote:His tweet
So what did he actually say then? As its reported here, he said that “Cyclists as cyclists pay virtually nothing toward road funding.” Did he mean that he knows cyclists as citizens do pay towards road funding through taxation and rates, its just that they don’t contribute specifically as cyclists in the way that motorists do as motorists, through VED? If so, this is different from just simply ‘not understanding how roads are funded’. Its an opinion that if you use a bike you should pay at least something more towards roads than the basic taxes everyone pays.
This is still a rubbish, nonsensical opinion, of course, still based on ignorance. The VAT on bikes would cover any extra contribution to roads for the life of the bike. Plus cyclists do not need any of the expensive road features that motor vehicles use, such as motorways, complex junctions etc. Bikes would be fine with a three metre wide simply surfaced track, not even any roundabouts kerbs etc. Then there are such things as far less damage and wear to roads caused by bikes, positive impact on congestion, pollution, safety and the huge costs of vehicle accidents – all this means that cyclists should be paid for using bikes instead of cars on roads. Cycling non-driving taxpayers are in fact subsidising roads and subsidising motorists, and should if anything be rebated for this rather than charged more.
Someone should point out to him that motor vehicles pay VED for the right to use publicly funded and owned roads. VED is a contribution towards the cost of the damage and pollution caused by vehicles. VED does not pay for the roads in the first place.
By the way, nothing can excuse this man’s extreme rudeness to this woman, even he thinks she did get it a bit wrong. Someone with so little self control and so much aggression does not belong in public office.
I sense the impending end of
I sense the impending end of a gravy train for one poli
mad_scot_rider wrote:I sense
Unfortunately, the proverbial ‘gravy train’ also comes with lumps at the end. Usually in the case of termination following disgraceful conduct by a government employee, this lump is the cash type.
As A V Lowe points out, this
As A V Lowe points out, this idiot was previously sacked from his post as Chair of London Travelwatch after he endorsed Boris for Mayor.
It’s worth pointing out that Cooke is *not* an elected politician. Nor are other members of the Board. However, TfL do have a Code of Conduct for their Board members. I suspect that Cook’s behaviour falls well short…
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/corporate-governance/code-of-corporate-governance
Final point:- getting into a twitter argument with Tom isn’t exactly difficult…
Rob Simmonds wrote:
Final
Heh, that’s true enough.
Quote:Cooke was involved in a
I don’t know, he looks pretty deformed to me already. Maybe he should try cycling?
He was happy to stuff his fat
He was happy to stuff his fat at a Tour de France lunch recently
Tiffin15 wrote:He was happy
He posted a picture on his Twitter account of the London finish line. However, upon closer inspection, it was posted from Russia! Was he there at all?!
The board of TfL is has been
The board of TfL is has been overdue a bit of public scrutiny for sometime. It doesn’t contain anyone directly representing cycling as a mode of transport, when as of now that’s a quarter of road traffic in central London.
It does however contain not one, but two representatives for the taxi trade, as the minicabs and hackney carriage drivers are as hostile toward each other as they are militant in defending their own self interest in transport policy.
I am sad. I don’t know the
I am sad. I don’t know the man at all but he looks like a walking heart attack.
I’m guessing that he doesn’t
I’m guessing that he doesn’t do that much walking!
I pay for the roads through
I pay for the roads through council tax. My bill is accompanied by a breakdown of where the money is spent. I also do not get to ride on Motorways. Motorways cost £30M a mile to build.
With all these arguments
With all these arguments about roads, I find it annoying that the emphasis is always put on the construction costs (or, occasionally, the maintenance costs) of them. And then that is compared with the mythical ‘road tax’.
When these people live in a house they don’t own, are they outraged that their rent exceeds the maintenance cost of the property?
Roads take up land, land that could be used either for people to get about by means other than private cars, or even for something else entirely (an especially valid issue when those roads are mostly used as free storage space for cars).
Land has a rental value/opportunity cost, that, at least in urban areas, exceeds the cost of maintaining the roads that sit on it.
So even if VED were ‘road tax’ and not just compensation for the pollution and other harm done by driving, it still wouldn’t anywhere near cover that cost.
(of course cyclists don’t pay that rental cost either, but the point is the money the motorists _do_ pay is insignificant compared to it, so we are actually all in the same boat – well not a boat because that wouldn’t really work on the road at all…er…)
Maybe Boris as chair of
Maybe Boris as chair of London Transport should be aware about the ignorance of some of its board members and might explain to them
how roads are funded in this country? I for one sent an email with an extract of this article to
mayor@london.gov.uk
Fat b’@stard(can be confirmed
Fat b’@stard(can be confirmed with his parents wedding certificate.. or he is a hatchling) who is so disconnected from reality in the back of his chauffeur driven car.. don’t know why but he does remind me of Jabba the Hutt
Reading this stuff, I’m
Reading this stuff, I’m reminded of the arguments against female quotas on boards – that we are better off “picking the best candidate for the job”. 😕
Ah well, at least his son is
Ah well, at least his son is trying to do something about doping 😉
I like “cyclists as cyclists
I like “cyclists [i]as cyclists[/i] pay nothing…” He can’t even write! Is it any wonder we are cynical when we have politicians like him?
Daveyraveygravey wrote:I like
He’s not a politician.
Rob Simmonds
So being a board member of TfL is not to do with politics? And his role, where does the salary come from? What would you call him?
Daveyraveygravey wrote:Rob
I’d call him Brian.
Seriously though, not everyone involved in politics is a politician. Plenty of people on Boards like the TfL’s are activists, industry reps, trade unionists etc. The “all politicians are lying bastards” thing is lazy enough, but applying it to the likes of Mr Cooke is just inaccurate.
Trying to think of a
Trying to think of a rational, intelligent retort……but the fat, ignorant ruddy faced twat doesn’t deserve any use of my brain cells.
So can anyone reveal what
So can anyone reveal what taxes cyclists as cyclists do pay? We all pay general taxes but drivers pay £50,000,000,000 a year driving taxes on top of that. Do cyclists as cyclists? No.
So why are cyclists so sensitive about the truth?
Quote:Transport for London
This idea of paying virtually nothing really is an interesting one.
I have two cars and numerous bikes.
When people see me riding my bike they make an assumption that I’m not paying my fair share towards the upkeep of the roads. This, of course, is bollocks.
The one vehicle I have is a large 4×4 ( I know, and I apologise to the cyclists out there……. Oh hang on…) and pay in excess of 250GBP in VED becasue is got a chunking huge diesel engine, which is fair enough.
My other car is a company vehicle and is changed with such frequency that it is never older than a year old. The VED on this vehicle is 0.00GBP ( the same as a bike).
Somehow it is more acceptable for me to drive my 0.00GBP VED vehicle than it is to ride my bike.
These people who claim that I, when I’m riding my bike, contribute less than then.
How the hell are these people who claim that they know how much my VED I’m paying know?
And why am I accepted on the roads when I drive a 0.00GBP VED vehicle but not a 0.00GBP VED bike?
These people who claim that I, as a cyclist, don’t contribute really are a bit thick, aren’t they?
I too am trying to think of a
I too am trying to think of a witty retort, but cant
Fat Knob Head ~X(
He not only is ignorant of
He not only is ignorant of the way that roads are funded, he is also incapable of politely debating with people he does not agree with and does not know some basic transport figures (85% of cyclists have a road ready motor vehicle, source CTC survey I think).
In other words he is completely incompetent for his position – Oh a normal politician….
Giles Pargiter wrote:He not
Except….oh, what’s the point? ~X(
To put the maintenance
To put the maintenance question into perspective : I saw some DfT research a long time ago that damage to the roads goes up by the 4th power of the axle weight. So even going from a 100kg bike and rider to a 1.5ton car means 50,600 times as much damage. A 40t HGV, lots more. So in terms of road maintenance, its insignificant.
And of course the infrastructure currently in place wasn’t put there to provide for the needs of bikes, but for motor vehicles.
So if its not infrastructure investment, and its not maintenance, what exactly should a cyclist be paying back for ????
This whole cost argument is total bollocks.