Almost 10 years to the day after it launched an award-winning campaign to make Britain’s roads safer for people on bikes, and on the eve of the introduction of changes to the Highway Code aimed at protecting vulnerable road users, The Times has today called for cyclists to be licensed and insured and for a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be introduced.
Launched on 2 February 2012 with a front page headline of ‘Save Our Cyclists’ accompanied by a picture of Mary Bowers, the Times journalist left with life-changing injuries when a lorry driver ran her over outside the newspaper’s then headquarters in Wapping, the Cities Fit For Cycling campaign set out an eight-point manifesto calling among other things for safety improvements on lorries and at junctions, the building of “world class” infrastructure, and for cities to appoint a cycling commissioner.
‘Save Our Cyclists’ – The Times launches major cycle safety campaign
The campaign sparked a House of Commons debate later that month, with the then All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group holding a six-week inquiry the following year which culminated in the publication of the Get Britain Cycling report.
https://road.cc/content/news/53285-parliamentary-debate-cycling-takes-centre-stage-houses-parliament
> Get Britain Cycling report calls for 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike by 2025
Times journalist Kaya Burgess, who was heavily involved in the campaign, also spoke at a conference in Milan entitled Cycling and Road Safety in the City hosted by Italian sports newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport, one of whose journalists had been killed while riding to work in the Lombard capital in 2011.
> Kaya Burgess of the Times talks to road.cc about Cities fit for Cycling campaign
Then as now, the newspaper today made its current position on cycling clear through a strongly-worded lead article – although the contents of the two editorials published a decade apart could hardly be more different, with the latest leader entitled The Times view on dangerous cycling: Safety Standards.
Echoing comments made by Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps, who earlier this week called for an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be introduced, the newspaper described it as “a sensible proposal to deal with a genuine problem.”
> Grant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law
In response to his Shapps’ comments, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all.”
The Times acknowledged that of 146 reported deaths in collisions involving cyclists on Great Britain’s roads in 2020, almost all the victims – 141 – were bike riders, the editorial insisted that “It is not a plausible objection to new legislation that many more pedestrians are killed by motorists than by cyclists each year.”
Few legal observers would argue that it is unsatisfactory that the only options open to prosecutors in a case involving the death of a pedestrian are to charge a cyclist with causing bodily injury through wanton or furious driving – an offence under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 – or manslaughter.
However, such cases are rare – in England, there have been two successful prosecutions within the past five years with both cyclists receiving custodial sentences after being convicted of the former offence but cleared of the latter – and, as Dollimore points out, reform of laws regarding motorists who kill, many of whom even if convicted are given suspended sentences, should be the priority given the number of cases involved.
However, in its editorial, The Times insisted: “Legislation would not penalise cyclists but merely correct an anomaly whereby those who recklessly cause death on two wheels are treated differently from those who do so on four.
The newspaper continued: “It would further enhance safety and equity if cyclists were required to hold licences and take out liability insurance, just as motorists are.”
It said: “The overwhelming majority of cyclists are scrupulous in their road use and sensitive of pedestrians. The problem lies with a small minority who are aggressive and regard traffic signs, safety features, and a strict division between road and pavement as optional.
“No-one seriously queries that motorists should be required to hold driving licences and take out mandatory third party insurance, and have mandatory forms of identification, namely number plates. Requiring the same of cyclists is fair, and would deter antisocial and dangerous behaviour by the few who are tempted to engage in it,” said The Times – with no mention of the estimated 1 million uninsured drivers on Britain’s roads, let alone how laws against speeding or using a handheld mobile phone at the wheel have failed to curb such behaviour by a large proportion of drivers.
Moreover, the government has consistently rejected calls for cyclists to be licensed and insured, including in its response last month to a petition from the motoring lawyer Nick Freeman.
Laughably, The Times went on to say that requiring cyclist to have insurance, be licensed and have registration plates on their bikes “would also combat bike theft.”
It saved the best for last, though, suggesting that cyclists should pay to use the road, even though they are funded from general taxation.
“The objection that it would deter legitimate cycling is not persuasive,” it said. “The road network is a service available to everyone, and it is reasonable to expect those who benefit from it to abide by its regulation and contribute to its upkeep. The delicate network of relations between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists needs tougher legislation in favour of those on foot,” it added.
We can’t argue with that final sentence. But with drivers, not cyclists, involved in upwards of 99 per cent of pedestrian fatalities in Great Britain each year, it’s clear where efforts would best be concentrated.





















48 thoughts on “Editorial in The Times – which in 2012 urged ‘Save Our Cyclists’ – calls for dangerous cycling law and riders to be licensed and insured”
Yet again, the mean spirited
Yet again, the mean spirited and ridiculous notion of licensing and insuring cyclists is rolled out, this time for “safety and equity” reasons.
Insurance is readily available and many already have it. I believe that the Times, when it writes ‘insurance’ is just trying to use a more reasonable sounding argument to suggest a tax, which is what mandatory third-party insurance would amount to. There is a clear and simple path to mandatory cyclist insurance, presumed fault on the part of drivers.
I have yet to see any coherent safety argument that includes licensing or insurance in terms of incident reduction, and frankly the word ‘safety’, like the word ‘dangerous’ when applied to cycling by the press is being thoroughly mangled in attempts to link it to circumstances where it has no meaning. When you hear people taking about safety or danger in leisure or commuter cycling it always in the context of perceived inconvenience for drivers (two-abreast) or benifits for the 100kg cyclist (cutting across the pavement) being dressed up as a danger to, or caused by, riders.
As for licensing, the notion doesn’t even pass the first hurdle in any practical way. How would it deal with children? You cannot drive without a licence in any circumstance, are children to be kept off bikes until they’re driving age? What about tourists – quick trip to the dvcla before you take any bike rides?
All these editorials come down to one thing, preaching to their choir. By support taxing or licensing bike use, you’re not just suggesting a mean-spirited charge to people in Lycra, you’re also supporting the idea that children and the poor should pay to use the only form of transport they have, that people should pay to exercise and pay for zero CO² active travel.
When motorists say ‘cyclists are a danger’, they mean ‘cyclists are an inconvenience’. The danger posed by a bike to a car is precisely zero. The danger from a 20kg bike + rider doing 20mph to other riders and pedestrians may exist, but it’s vastly less then the danger from cars.
Re licencing. I wonder how an
Re licencing. I wonder how an argument along the lines of passing a recognised cycle proficiency, basic roadcraft and practical test as a pre-requisite to applying for a driving licence would go down?
And it works for children by
And it works for children by not working for them.
What responsible parent would place their child in such danger?
Beware of people demanding
Beware of people demanding laws for your own good; they are charlatans. So sad to see the Times so eaten up by populist petrolhead outrage that they attack the HC code changes by pointing over there and shouting loudly about dangerous cyclists.
Have they had a rational article about the HC changes?
The world must be in a state of almost perfect equilibrium and harmony if a national newspaper can devote so much time, space and effort into such a ridiculously miniscule subject. Or is this just more distraction from whatever Boris the Liar has done now?
eburtthebike wrote:
Most of the MSM seems to be fuelled by anger. Although you’re right that they want to divert our attention from stuff that is in the public interest. But perhaps it’s also the sense that they have lost so much of their readership they are now struggling to control the narrative as they once did (which was the only reason those stupidly rich f*ckers own the newspapers in the first place).
Murdoch & co putting the Times and Torygraphy behind paywalls at least saves the rest of us from reading most of their self-important drivel. The infantile ‘columnists’ like Matthew Parris, Rod ‘piano wire’ Liddle and tinyDick Littlejohn add nothing and don’t deserve a platform.
I feel sorry for any journalists with integrity or ethics, it must be horrible.
Simon E wrote:
It’s a desperate ploy to keep their audience when they know they’re becoming more irrelevant to modern society. Their only hope is to try to secure the old, angry readers even though they’re in dwindling supply. They’re trying to compete with Meta/Facebook which is only going to end one way.
“Requiring the same of
“Requiring the same of cyclists is fair”
Yes because when a cyclist hits a railway bridge as they do 5 times a day causing delays and damage, it only makes sense that they should pay the same as drivers.
In fact there is a whole thread devoted to cyclist hits building in the forums. You can see the damage caused.
hirsute wrote:
I apologise. In my defence, that bridge keeps looking at me funny.
When they say
When they say
“The road network is a service available to everyone, and it is reasonable to expect those who benefit from it to abide by its regulation and contribute to its upkeep. “
can they point to someone who lives in the UK who doesn’t benefit from it , even if they don’t drive or cycle, how do they survive without buying goods that are transported on that network?
If this is to be the argument
If this is to be the argument that the Times rolls out then fine, start funding roads by taxing road users based on distance travelled (benefit) and vehicle weight and emissions (impact).
I would imagine that would be a nasty shock. Maybe time for cycling UK to prepare some defensive research, what would the actually cost to motorists be if roads were funded entirely through a tax based on a ‘fair’ use formula (noting that if everybody rode bikes, existing road network maintenance due to wear and tear could be halted immediately and new infrastructure would have vastly lower structural engineering and maintenance demands).
That might even force long
That might even force long distance goods transport back onto the railways where it belongs!
Backladder wrote:
Will that mean that we can then seize the means of transportation and re-nationalise the railways?
Vive la révolution
Vive la révolution
they should be careful what
they should be careful what they wish for.
Licencing cyclists, would mean training and testing. As the national cycle standard advises not to ride in the gutter and when to ride primary, the net result of such a rule, would be a shift to the right (physically, not politically) in the average position taken up by cyclists.
I am pretty sure this is NOT what drivers want.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Exactly this. Everybody trained, everybody in primary. Reclaim the roads that we pay tax for.
Viva la revolution!
or
or
The top doner to the party in power wins the contract, does their own consultation and the training that will include showing you how to use the cycle lane, that the roads are only for normal people in cars.
Yet more proof, if it was
Yet more proof, if it was needed, that rightwing and hypocrite are the same word.
better than left wing and
better than left wing and stupid..
grOg wrote:
Really? Why is that?
brooksby wrote:
More power / more money?
grOg wrote:
Well done with a clever and insightful comment that just owned all the commies. And people say that the art of debate is in decline and we’ve devolved into primates throwing shit at other groups because we don’t like them being different.
I know a lot of knuckle
I know a lot of knuckle dragging right wingers knocking about who can barely string a coherent sentence or thought together. So what’s your point?
The Times has gone over to
The Times has gone over to The Dark Side to join the Mail, Express, Sun etc.- this may prove to be a mistake, as there are only so many crazed nutters to go round. Is the Times prepared to join the bidding war for ever more right wing misanthropic copy, when up against the real professionals at it?
wtjs wrote:
Are you assuming that the number of crazed nutters is constant? New ones are being created all the time, in a much more efficient process than bitcoin.
I know, I know. Depressing,
I know, I know. Depressing, isn’t it?
If ONLY people were exactly like you – sanctimonious, prejudiced, correct about everything all the time – well, the world would be a much better place.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
I’ve often thought exactly that, but it would probably end up resembling the Citaddel of Ricks
spen wrote:
.
.
The big short covers the
Wrong thread.
‘crazed nutters’.. ‘right
‘crazed nutters’.. ‘right wing misanthropes’.. I think I must be in the comment section of The Guardian, not road.cc..
The Times doesnt normally
The Times doesnt normally play these games though, the audience who get outraged about things tend to read the Mail or the Express instead, hence why they could run the Mary Bowers cycle safety campaign and it not be out of step with the readership or get any blowback from them.
Yes we can cite two columnists in the past decade who wrote objectionable comment pieces on cycling, but other newspapers print equally hostile to cycling pieces on a near weekly basis.
So this is something different, I wonder if theres been a recent change in editors, though still typical of its dual headed approach to cycling they are just as likely to publish an article like air pollution is bad cycling is the answer,or Neah Evans says cycling is great you should try it, as they are “Killer Cyclists may be classed like motorists” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/killer-cyclists-may-be-classed-like-motorists-8l82q90cm or “Dangerous cycling needs stiffer sanctions and tighter regulation” editorial
the frustrating thing for me is how did we get from a national conversation about improving safety on the roads for vulnerable road users like cyclists, to end up in this Grant Shapps led cul-de-sac, who the Times say is a “keen cyclist” so clearly any bats*** crazy thing he proposes must be right I guess by their logic.
It even claims the “…problem of dangerous cycling on both rural and urban roads is known to every regular motorist.”
yes I often think as Im passed within inches approaching a blind bend by a motorist travelling at near 60mph, Im the one causing the danger.
But this is basically a posh way of saying whataboutRoad Tax isnt it ? “and it is reasonable to expect those who benefit from it to abide by its regulation and contribute to its upkeep.”
and yet Im pretty damn sure my taxes that I pay, contribute to the upkeep of the roads already, and if they want to get picky, I just paid £155 VED on my car, because yes Im a cyclist and a driver, yet I rode twice as many miles as I drove last year, I paid taxes to the upkeep of the road and I lowered congestion, I lowered air pollution, I lowered the wear & tear on the roads by choosing to cycle instead of driving, frankly they should be paying me.
as for the abide by regulation stuff, well if you dont follow the rules on the road you are more likely to end up as one of those KSI stats, funnily enough the fear of permanent injury or death tends to focus the mind not to muck about cycling on the roads as its too dangerous to, if only that were the same for drivers.
See my comment under the
See my comment under the Grant Shapps story.
I told you so…and so it begins. I have a comment uner the HC story next that relates.
I wish the editor of the
I wish the editor of the Times would read out aloud the article and then realise how bad it is, we have nearly 1 million uninsured car drivers in the UK. Despite each car displaying a number plate and thousands of cameras to read and track such plates. I would happily afford a small amount of money to ensure I can travel safely along roads but why not charge everyone which includes pedestrians? If we are applying such a principle, base it on the harm or danger created to individuals or society and the effect that vehicle has in damaging the road ? The BBC also has a more positive article on the new highway code changes, hopefully the pressure applied with people writing in about the more harmful articles and bias is having some effect ? Highway Code: How the update could improve road safety – BBC News
My current pasttime is to
My current pasttime is to count the number of vehicles with numberplates so dirty, they can’t be read.
Mine counting the
Mine is counting the number of fully valeted cars with numberplates that can’t be read.
Mine is counting the number
Mine is counting the number of fully valeted cars with numberplates that can’t be read
Have you reported these to the police in your area? What was the result? In Lancashire, they just don’t respond- as opposed to, as in the case of untaxed vehicles, making a statement of number plates are nothing to do with us
Why report them to the police
Why report them to the police? That would only be necessary if they were not already aware. But you see these “stealth” cars daily. And then there’s all the others with number plates, yes, but not so as you could read them – they are that heavily smoked. They are legion. It is not credible that the police are unaware. So I conclude that they don’t care and are not going to enforce the law. Given the ever increasing numbers of these infractions, Joe Motorist has evidently come to the same conclusion.
Why report them to the police
Why report them to the police?
Because you’re compiling lists, with photographs and report details, of examples of all the traffic offences they do nothing about! The lists are divided into 3 sections: those the police are prepared to state are nothing to do with us (untaxed vehicles, crossing double white lines while overtaking cyclists etc.); those where they dare not state it, but which are in practice nothing to do with us (close-passing cyclists, crashing through red lights, handheld mobile use while driving etc.); and the newest category which is where they pretend to be doing something but the evasive and ambiguous nature of the ‘action letter’ tells you that in reality they’re also all going in the bin
The Times and the Torygraph,
The Times and the Torygraph, are simply the more ‘respectable’ versions of the Daily Mail and Daily Express. They’re not even fit for wiping your @rse on.
Guardian reader?
Guardian reader?
The effing idiots. What about
The effing idiots. What about pedestrians – why don’t they pay ‘road tax’ then? they have loads more infrastructure than cyclists do – there are pavements, traffic islands, footbridges, toucan, pelican, zebra crossings, underpasses, pedestrian traffic lights . . . . Everywhere. Why don’t pedestrians pay for those then? Or cycle licence and insurance? When? At the age of 5? Or maybe a ten year old should have a licence? Bu then mum and dad would have to pay for that, so let’s say at 18. And would my mate have to be insured if he / she popped on my cycle down to the shops? The fuckin idiots. More read meat for the brexitty demographic to salivate over.
I’ve got an idea. Why not
I’ve got an idea. Why not have the government provide third party insurance for all cyclists and pay for it from all the money said cyclists are saving the government by choosing to use a mode of transport that doesn’t polute or cause wear and tear to the roads. Seems fair to me. Who could possibly not think that to be fair?
iandusud wrote:
I bet the cost would be so tiny that it would hardly be worth accounting for. Whilst we’re at it, provide similar 3rd party insurance for all pedestrians, scooterists, horse-riders, skateboarders etc. Basically cover anything that’s less damaging than a tonne of speeding metal.
Ah but (as I heard in the
Ah but (as I heard in the context of some misogyny) “but what about all the accidents they cause?”
Agreed – but in fact the government context seems to be “we need to be seen to give cyclists some extra burdens as a ‘compensation’ for their ‘extra rights’ in the HC wording review because fairness”. So I doubt any positive contributions are on the cards for a while. I’d rather even that trifling sum get put in the coffers of Active Travel England to assist Chris B though.
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2022/jan/31/the-times-editorial-cycling-licences
another good article and even
another good article and even better, not in The Guardian..
https://www.warwickshireworld.com/news/people/the-rugby-advertisers-view-youre-not-allowed-to-kill-cyclists-because-some-of-them-annoy-you-3543310
‘Mary Bowers, the Times
‘Mary Bowers, the Times journalist left with life-changing injuries when a lorry driver ran her’.. now there’s an understatement; Bowers is now in a minimally conscious state and will spend the rest of her life in a care home; the criminal negligence of the Romanian truck driver was unbelievable.. he was behind her stopped at a traffic light and while talking on his phone, drove over the top of her when the light went green; he then stopped and got out, neglecting to apply the handbrake, which allowed the truck to roll back over Mary.
Hmm, as already commented,
Hmm, as already commented, this looks like we are building up to the roll out for whatever was the trade for the new HC rulings… probably the introduction of dangerous death cycling laws, or mandatory use of cyclepaths, or insurance / taxation. Maybe all of it.
I’d suggest the press have been quietly steered towards building and concentrating populist momentum on this subject so that ‘action must be taken’.
The cycling authorities and indeed all cyclists need to take stock and action – where possible – as none of these potential measures will deliver safety, or equity, or even satisfy the masses, the only deliverable will be less cycling.
There are plenty of powerful groups that would benefit greatly from cycling being removed from our highways, the most obvious being anyone associated with facilitating self driving technology.
If you chuck in enough barriers, then kids won’t start riding, and if you don’t ride as a child, you are unlikely to ride as an adult. Problem solved.
Self driving vehicles are far easier to implement, and the benefits greater, without slow moving organic matter in the way!