Lord Winston will this week urge the government to make it compulsory for cyclists to be licensed and insured when riding in the centres of towns and cities.
The Labour peer has regularly blamed London’s Cycle Superhighways for causing congestion and pollution, without citing evidence.
And according to the Sunday Express, his appeal to ministers to make it mandatory for cyclists to have third party liability insurance and be licensed is based on his own experience, rather than hard data.
He told the newspaper: “We are only talking about a minority of cyclists but many people will have experienced problems because of people biking the wrong way down the road or on the pavement or not being careful or not stopping at a pedestrian crossing.
“It seems there is nothing to ensure adults cycling in town centres have to follow the rules.”
Lord Winston says he no longer cycles himself due to twice being a victim of theft, and instead only uses public transport to get around.
Transport questions are scheduled in the House of Lords, where Baroness Sugg is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, this Thursday.
“The question is a probing one to see if there is any will in the government to consider changes,” Lord Winston said.
“It would specifically be about adults cycling in town or city centres, meaning they would need a licence and insurance.”
Roger Geffen, policy director of the charity Cycling UK, said that the proposals would hinder efforts to tackle pollution.
“Compulsory cyclist licencing and insurance would seriously undermine the government’s efforts to tackle congestion and pollution,” he said.
“It would either make it very expensive for anyone wanting to take up cycling, including children, or else the scheme would run at a loss.
“It’s not clear what it would achieve either. Many drivers also break the law, despite being licensed.”
In a House of Lords debate on air quality and vehicle emissions last year, Lord Winston said: “The reduction of lanes which traffic can travel down means that more cars are taking longer journeys than ever before at slower speeds.
“The evidence is of course that the internal combustion engine is less efficient and pollutes more at slow speeds, particularly when it is idling.”
He urged the government to provide “figures on the evidence of pollution being greater before bike lanes are introduced than afterwards,” adding, “this is an important issue in the future planning of our cities.”
Simon Munk of the London Cycling Campaign said that there was no evidence to support the claim – and that research showed that in reality, the opposite was the case.
“As a scientist I expect Lord Winston to back up his claims with evidence, all studies so far show that most cycle schemes in London have decreased pollution,” he said.
“Pollution monitors along the Embankment actually show a marginal decrease in pollution levels since the cycle schemes were brought in,” he added.





















38 thoughts on “Lord Winston calls for urban cyclists to be licensed and insured”
Well he wouldn’t be the first
Well he wouldn’t be the first telly personality to be revealed as an utter twat.
Should stick to talking about
Should stick to talking about what he knows about.
Perhaps we should have a ‘Fertility Problem of the Day’ section where our experts can discuss the fertility concerns of male riders.
What a twat. As if those he
What a twat. As if those he views as the problem but bother to get insurance anyway.
I wonder what the actual monetary value of cyclist related collisions is vs car on car. Probably a tiny, tiny fraction.
Because that all gone
Because that all gone swimmingly with motor vehicle use.
I’ve seen Lord Winston
I’ve seen Lord Winston driving his old school jaguar between Westminster and Paddington many times whilst I’ve been cycling to / from work in heavy traffic or navigating the 5 lane dance with death by Wellington Arch.
For some reason his right to pollute the air and not bother taking the tube that actually gets between those two destinations much quicker outweighs everyone else’s right to cycle and not choke to death on fumes.
His stance is an embarrassment given his formidable background in medical research – it’s about time he was put out to grass as he clearly lacks the mental faculties to see beyond his own convenience and engage in reasoned debate as a member of the House of Lords.
If ever there was an argument
If ever there was an argument for abolishing the house of lords, this man is it.
If he was saying that all road users, including pedestrians, should have a licence and insurance, I might have some slight respect for his views. The evidence shows that in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, it’s more often the pedestrians’ fault, and I’ve been knocked off three times by pedestrians, so they are at least as dangerous as cyclists.
So if I cycle in the country
So if I cycle in the country side, I don’t have to do this?
How many uninsured drivers are there?
Most people are covered by house hold insurance anyhow.
Hard to believe someone so intelligent could come up with such an incoherent, factless conclusion.
He’s going senile.
He’s going senile.
Miller wrote:
That is at least a possibility. I wonder if he’s interested in being Prime Minister?
As a cyclist who is licensed
As a cyclist who is licensed and insured (I have a full motorbike license, which I assume would cover peddle cycles should this ever come to pass, and have BC membership insurance) I have nothing to lose. It would not cause me any hardship. I say piss off. There are many worse things in the world than the behaviour of some cyclists. There are some cyclists that ride like twats, and some of the behaviour of cyclists in Oxford fills me with rage (jumping on and off the pavement, filtering in monumentally stupid ways, jumping red lights) but it is no better or worse than licensed and insured drivers, and far better than the behaviour of taxi drivers.
licencing will make no difference to behaviour and will only cause less people to cycle, which will cause far more injuries and deaths just through the additional pollution than the few dumb cyclists that do cause problems. It doesn’t stop the dumb drivers. HGV drivers and bus drivers still manage to be twats at times, so why would cyclists change, other than forcing them off the road?
TLDR, what a fucknut.
There should be an Offensive
There should be an Offensive Moustache Licence. We are only talking about a minority of faces but many people will have experienced problems because of people sporting offensive moustachios on the road or on the pavement or not being careful or not hiding their physiognomic hairage at a pedestrian crossing.
It seems there is nothing to ensure adults wearing offensive moustaches in town centres have to follow the rules.
I’m a Capricorn. What a shame
I’m a Capricorn. What a shame the Sunday Express missed the chance to ask the all knowing fertility guy what sort of day I will have tomorrow.
The bigger problem is
The bigger problem is pedestrians stepping into the road without looking, just because they can’t hear a car coming. They are the ones who should be registered and have insurance. Especially tourists who, if they do look, look the wrong way!
This is the same thick c**t
This is the same thick c**t who thinks that cycle lanes cause pollution. And then, when asked to provide evidence, he refuses to respond.
What a pile of waste.
For an intelligent bloke – he
For an intelligent bloke – he’s not half a d ickhead isn’t he ?
Has he actually thought of
Has he actually thought of how this might affect cyclists?? As one of the mass of epileptics in this country I assume that under Winston’s proposal that I’ll have to go +12 months between seizures like I do for driving in order for me to have a licence to ride a bike.
He gave up cycling after two
He gave up cycling after two bike thefts; perhaps he could use his position to tackle that problem to benefit cyclists. Or am I pissing into the wind?
On yer bike!
On yer bike!
Poor old fella. He had a
Poor old fella. He had a great mind once, you know.
caw35ride wrote:
I’m not sure he ever did.
https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/
Licence to ride a bike? OK,
Licence to ride a bike? OK, so will this have an age limit? Will he say that people under, say, 15 don’t need one, or will he simply ban all minors from riding a bike? If he sets an age limit, then is he saying children are inherently safer than adults? What evidence would he produce for this??
Insurance? Would this only affect people who weren’t a member of BC or CUK? How would it be demonstrated? Bike registration plates (don’t get me started) or tied to frame number or to the rider (see comments on age, above)? Would you have to be separately insured to drive more than one bike? How would they be able to tell if you were insured or not, until and unless you were in a collision which caused property damage?
(And how many motorists were estimated to be on the road without a driving licence or insurance, again…
?)
brooksby wrote:
I think your error is in assuming that rightard fucks actually need to rely on ‘evidence’ when playing to what is nowadays an equally rightard populace.
The thing is that Lord
The thing is that Lord Winston claims to be a scientist and yet appears not to understand how the buden of proof works.
He is claiming that cycle infrastructure leads to an increase in pollution. He is making the claim, therefore he is responsible for supplying the evidence that backs up his claim … there is no responsibility on others to provide evidence proving him wrong. At least not until he has presented the evidence he is using to back up his position.
If he provides no evidence, his position can (and should) be dismissed and ignored.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
He’s a politician first and foremost, so he knows that he can push the populist buttons and get the hard of thinking whipped up into a frenzy.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I know … I am just endlessly frustrated that we have people in politics who should know better but don’t. It’s almost as if the first thing that happens when you become a politician is the surgical extraction of your actual areas of expertise and critical thinking faculties.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
FTFY 🙂
Jetmans Dad wrote:
As a scientist, he should know that the starting position for a scientific theory is to start with the “null hypothesis”, which is a statement which you attempt to prove false.
If you are unable to prove it to be false, then you must conclude that your experiment proves it to be true.
Perhaps this is what he has done here. His null hypothesis being: “Cyclists cause increased congestion and air pollution; licensing and insuring them would reduce air pollution and congestion”
I look forward to his paper, perhaps to be published in the Annals of Improbable Research (https://www.improbable.com/)
alexb wrote:
alexb wrote:
And another thing (to carry on with the blindingly obvious): if all those cyclists ‘causing’ more pollution were to travel by car instead, the congestion would be astronomical and so would the increase in pollution.
I suspect this is yet another example of the moronic assumption that cyclists are inferior to motorists, and should be punished for taking away any space at all from cars. Just because bikes in general cost less than cars, and cyclists don’t have to pay VED. Whereas of course cycling is far superior to car use in every way. GRRRRR Splutter ****!###!
I don’t think he’s losing his
I don’t think he’s losing his faculties, he has a bit of a track record with bad science: remember the guff he spouted about omega 3 making children more intelligent? He even made money out of it by advertising “the clever milk”, St Ivel Advance that implied the product could enhance children’s learning ability (quickly pulled by the ASA
).
Peter Walker in the Grauniad
Peter Walker in the Grauniad has picked up on this:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston
brooksby wrote:
“So, to summarise: your mooted plan would be to introduce a hugely convoluted new administrative scheme that would most likely have limited effect on the behaviour of an averagely law-abiding group of transport users who very rarely harm others, and have a huge net positive impact on the nation,…….
Apart from the one gigantic typo, an excellent article.
Just wondering how much this
Just wondering how much this scheme would cost to administer. Experience would suggest that such national scheme – including registration website, payment methods, links to Law enforcement etc etc – would be quite a lot
SO – how much do you charge – difficult to work out as many people would probably just stop cycling as it would be too much hassle
So – it would end up being an overal charge to the exchequer – i.e. we all end up paying for a scheme that makes people less healthy, moves people away from a good way of tacking obesity, is unenforceable (less face it the Police can’t enforce the current cycling laws – which is part of the problem
And no – obviously – you can’t enforce a car style reg plate on all bike – it won’t fit!!!
This all comes under the same category as compulsory helmet – which Chris Boardman covered quite well!
miekwidnes wrote:
I wouldn’t worry, this idea will go precisly nowhere.
I look forward to the day
I look forward to the day when Joe-Bloggs-on-a-bike gets the same airtime/newstime to pontificate his f***ing ignorance … and skewer the undoubted good that “Lord” Winston has indeed done (in his field
).
“Lord” Winston – you’ve done some sterling stuff. But you know f***-all about issues around cycling. Shut up.
For those needing a reminder
For those needing a reminder of what entitled drivers look like en masse, these are our rulers debating Lord Winston’s proposal. The government representative was good, but as she said, the popularity of this subject was a surprise; just as well the country is being run so well that this is the most important subject they have to discuss.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Download/Index/d1ce6fa6-3901-4600-92b0-67542ad83313
He was on BBC Radio WM this
He was on BBC Radio WM this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p072f4tm
From 12 minutes
Followed by many listeners’ comments until 44 minutes (plus a few comments later), several were anti-cyclists.
burtthebike wrote:
Absolutely ridiculous.
Robert Winston decries cyclists as “Hoodlums in lycra” and calls for compulsory licenses and insurance. Motorists have had both those things in place for many years yet they kill 1,800 people every year and nothing happens.
There are over 1,000,000 uninsured vehicles on the road. Then there’s the 10,000+ motorists with more than 12 points on their license that are still allowed to drive. We regularly read of banned drivers caught behind the wheel despite the dwindling resources put into roads policing. In February of this year it was claimed that 34% of motorists admit to using a mobile phone while driving, among young drivers it’s 60%.
And let’s not start on the cost to the people of this country of traffic congestion (which is NOT caused by the pitiful amount of dedicated cycle infrastructure), the pollution from traffic or the rising obesity due to inactivity, because those figures are astronomical.
It’s enough to make you weep.