Martin Lewis, owner and founder of the website Money Saving Expert, got rather more than he bargained for when he posted a poll on Twitter asking people what they thought of Lord Winston’s call for cyclists to be licensed and insured – likening the response it provoked from some users of the social network to the one he got from members of the black cab trade when he ran a poll about Uber.
Today’s Twitter Poll: Sir Robert Winston is calling for all cyclists to have number plates/visible ID so they can be “accountable for their actions”.
(On the back of him being attacked after telling a cyclist to get off the pavement)
Do you agree with him?
— Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) April 10, 2019
Since the Labour peer made his appeal, which has been rejected by the government, the subject has been covered across the national media including newspapers, radio and TV, receiving still more publicity after he claimed to have been assaulted by a woman he says was cycling on the pavement.
Lewis, who has more than half a million followers on Twitter, regularly posts polls to the social network on a whole range of issues, but few provoke the level of response this one has got, with more than 20,000 people having now responded.
He posted the poll this morning as made his way by train to an event in Cardiff – and it looks like dealing with the many replies from both the pro- and anti-cycling Twitterati took up a chunk of his time on the journey. Here’s a selection.
When drivers – who are taxed, insured, licenced and have numberplates- stop killing and seriously injuring 23,000 UK citizens each year, often with little or no punishment, then we can start talking about people riding bikes.
— brixton hatter (@BrixtonHatter) April 10, 2019
Allegedly attacked. He has provided no evidence, no corroborating witnesses have come forward despite blanket media coverage of his claim, and no CCTV/helmetcam/dashcam evidence has been submitted by anyone of the thousands of people in the area at the time.
— Three From Leith (@threefromleith) April 10, 2019
Registration schemes are expensive, overly-bureaucratic and difficult to retro-fit. Who bears the cost & burden of registration? If it’s a person using a bike – you have your barrier. Plus, it doesn’t work, cars have VRNs and there are 28,000 hit and runs https://t.co/N7Ui9sUsA8
— (@SpinarelloDogma) April 10, 2019
I was once mugged while walking on the pavement. Therefore, all pedestrians should display a numberplate so that if they mug someone, that individual can be identified and arrested
— Tom Scorza (@TomScorza) April 10, 2019
You’re probably getting a strong reaction on this & wondering why. Every day we read about people killed on the roads, by drunk drivers,by people already with 12 pts but let off, so people DO get upset that one Lord gets so much attention for his vendetta that he’s had for ages.
— Conservative Cycle Campaign (@ToryCycling) April 10, 2019
Here is Lewis’s final thought before he signed off Twitter earlier.
Wow the level of attack for my poll about cycling is almost up there with the reaction from taxi drivers when I did a poll about if people use Uber.
Why does transport get people so riled? So may I clarify.
MY TWITTER POLLS AREN’T LEGALLY BINDING!
— Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) April 10, 2019
As for the poll itself … well, at the time of writing 19 per cent of respondents said that they are a cyclist and disagreed, while 13 per cent said that they are a cyclist and agree with Lord Winston.
Of the other people replying to Lewis’s poll, 14 per cent said they were a non-cyclist but disagreed, while a whopping 54 per cent said that they were a non-cyclist and backed Lord Winston’s proposals.
67 thoughts on “Martin Lewis polls Twitter over Lord Winston’s call for cyclists to be licensed and insured – and is surprised by the replies”
Martin’s poll should have
Martin’s poll should have been;
Should scientists, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and climate change deniers who make unsubstantiated claims that can be proven false be given equal publicity as scientists whose research is verifiable and peer-reviewed?
Winston has proved himself a post-truther and conspiracy theorist and shouldn’t be given the oxygen of publicity on this matter. Shame on the media for pandering to these whack-a-doodles.
54% showed they have no idea
54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.
hirsute wrote:
Sounds a bit like brex…..
hirsute wrote:
Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so … let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so … let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!— hirsute
Exactly! A poll isn’t of much use if it doesn’t clearly and truthfully specify the costs/consequences of the choices.
hawkinspeter wrote:
That could be adopted as a general guideline for all such representative polls. Not just some bloke on Twitter but even – for examples sake – a government run referendum or plebiscite…
brooksby wrote:
I think that was exactly the implied point of @hawkinspeter’s post.
harragan wrote:
I *know*. I was trying to play along with the “Don’t mention the elephant in the room” but it clearly I needed to use a <sarcasm=on> marker… 😉
Now let’s have a poll for
Now let’s have a poll for clearing out the crusty old fools in that giant gin palace known as the House of Lords.
sheesh he claims its just a
sheesh he claims its just a random fun poll, since when did money saving advice need to run twitter opinion polls anyway, but then only retweets the Kim Briggs campaign, and then moans alot about cyclists attacking him, way to go for balance there, not. At least the “Im a cyclist, no” has moved into 2nd place now, but those circa 3666 odd cyclists saying yes Winston is right, assuming they are really cyclists, need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Awavey wrote:
For someone who has done so much work in challenging misselling he was sold and bought a fallacy simply because it came from someone who calls themselves a scientist. He never thought to check out the validity of the unsubstantiated claims or the history of the seller in peddling post-truths and lies as part of a campaign against cycling.
As innocent and fun as such polls by the media appear by ignorantly promoting such whack-a-doodle ideas they give credence and validity to the ideas and embolden their creators to continue pursuing a campaign of lies that go unchecked.
So, the poll is wrong, the
So, the poll is wrong, the question was wrong, the votes are wrong, etc etc.
On a previous thread about a cyclists fined for cycling in a non-cycling zone it was the fault of ‘plod’ for enforcing the regulation, the cyclist should be excused due to the culpability of motorists, ‘plod’ should exercise ‘discretion’ (i.e. turn a blind eye on account of it being a cyclist). And the prevailing advice was that the cyclist should just have ridden off. Any wonder the rest of society wants cyclists held to account?
Sriracha wrote:
Okay, I’m not going to bother addressing your irrelevant bits as I think we should keep these comments relevant to the story.
It’s easy to throw a poll together but it’s difficult to make sure that it’s done well or is fit for purpose.
Imagine a society where 40% are vegetarian, 30% love beef but won’t eat pork and 30% love bacon and pork chops but won’t eat beef.
Now imagine that for some reason there’s a poll to decide what everyone is going to eat tonight but the only options are for “meat” or “no meat”. Assuming that everyone votes for their own preference, you’d end up with 60% voting for “meat” and 40% voting for “no meat”. A nice clear result you may think.
However, when the pollster goes to buy ingredients, what should they buy? If they choose pork then 70% are going to be unhappy. If they choose beef, then again 70% will be against it. (If they went for vegetables then only 60% would be unhappy, but that would also highlight the uselessness of the poll).
Obviously the “meat” option is poorly defined and the poll needs to be redesigned so that the voters know what exactly they are voting for.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Okay, I’m not going to bother addressing your irrelevant bits as I think we should keep these comments relevant to the story.
It’s easy to throw a poll together but it’s difficult to make sure that it’s done well or is fit for purpose.
Imagine a society where 40% are vegetarian, 30% love beef but won’t eat pork and 30% love bacon and pork chops but won’t eat beef.
Now imagine that for some reason there’s a poll to decide what everyone is going to eat tonight but the only options are for “meat” or “no meat”. Assuming that everyone votes for their own preference, you’d end up with 60% voting for “meat” and 40% voting for “no meat”. A nice clear result you may think.
However, when the pollster goes to buy ingredients, what should they buy? If they choose pork then 70% are going to be unhappy. If they choose beef, then again 70% will be against it. (If they went for vegetables then only 60% would be unhappy, but that would also highlight the uselessness of the poll).
Obviously the “meat” option is poorly defined and the poll needs to be redesigned so that the voters know what exactly they are voting for.— Sriracha
Let them eat nuts!
Except when it’s trolls. Don’t feed the trolls!
ConcordeCX wrote:
…but they voted for “meat”!
Some wag, Clive Andrews, has
Some wag, Clive Andrews, has posted this poll on the twitter feed:
Martin Lewis is running a poll about restrictions on cycling. Why is he doing this?
Actually cares
Jumping on some clickbait
The first is at 4% , the second at 96%
So I have a car driving
So I have a car driving license and insurance, I’m already covered right? As are probably 75%+ of adults who cycle, I don’t get why people who are non cyclists assume all cyclists are non people.
RobD wrote:
I doubt your car insurance would cover you, but most people have got home insurance which gives 3rd party cover.
hirsute wrote:
So I have a car driving license and insurance, I’m already covered right? As are probably 75%+ of adults who cycle, I don’t get why people who are non cyclists assume all cyclists are non people.
— hirsuteI doubt your car insurance would cover you, but most people have got home insurance which gives 3rd party cover.— RobD
Home insurance may cover you for third party risks when cycling, but only may, not definitely, so you have to read the small print.
burtthebike wrote:
The simplest answer to me would be to make this a compulsory addition to car insurance.
There is already the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) scheme, which effectively covers 3rd parties where the negligent driver doesn’t pay car insurance, and a similar scheme for untraced drivers i.e. hit and runs – though from memory it is a less generous scheme than where the driver is known but uninsured.
It is objectively unfair that drivers that do pay for insurance have to cover those that don’t, but society has decided that it is more unfair for injured people to be left without compensation for injuries. It was decided that what is effectively a tax on car insurance (albeit self-administered by the insurance industry as a whole), is the most pragmatic way to deal with it.
So, since such a large proportion of cyclists are drivers with car insurance anyway, simply extend that scheme:
Of course this will never happen. The idea of drivers paying for cyclists’ insurance would be incendiary, notwithstanding how many cyclists are drivers anyway. But if injuries (and damage to other vehicles?) caused by cyclists with no insurance is a real problem, this strikes me as the simplest way of dealing with it.
Oh – and if people really complain, we could point them to the changes the government have made to effectively remove lawyers from low value RTA injury claims involving whiplash. That’s expected to massively reduce the numbers and costs of such claims, and the insurance industry was very vocal in how much it would reduce premiums for decent, honest & hard working motorists (or some such bollocks).
burtthebike wrote:
Just checked this out – my car insurance definitely does not cover me when riding a bike (all cover relates to driving my car or another car I have permission to drive), but my home insurance (arguably) does – it covers me for personal injury / property damage I cause to others as a private individual.
I like the way Mr. Lewis
I like the way Mr. Lewis framed the question. If we must insist on holding binary polls they should be split into at least four options:
The reason is that people are so selfish nowadays. Every day – on the roads, in city centres, in offices, on public transport – you witness little acts of selfishness. People barging out of shops without looking. People watching TV on a mobile phone in a bus without headphones. This morning I saw a stream of cars overtaking vehicles parked on their side of the road, holding up an ambulance with flashing lights coming the other way.
You just cannot expect people to think about the effects on others of their choices anymore. Don’t like the extra few seconds that cyclists add to your car journeys? Make ’em wear helmets and have a license. Doesn’t matter to you that it would be unworkable, because you won’t personally be affected. Want blue passports? Vote leave, who cares if others lose their jobs.
There are selfish people who ride bikes, of course, but only the motorcar promotes selfishness by design. It selfishly takes up public space when not in use, it unsustainably pollutes the environment, and it cocoons its users in a bubble when driven. That is why driving needs to be taxed and regulated, whereas cycling does not.
Yep, we have reached peak
Yep, we have reached peak zero f*cks. This is the logical destination when everyone and everything is given a label. The word “community” no longer means the people you rub along with on a daily basis, but defines a special interest group. (Example: “The cycling community” ARRGGHH!)
It’s not just people wandering down the street with headphones in and eyes on a screen, it’s not just the driver endangering another human being to save themselves three seconds, it’s almost everywhere. I feel genuine surprise when I hire someone to do a job and they turn up on time and do it competently, or when I complain about something in a restaurant and am met with an apology rather than a shrug. Courtesies that were once par for the course are now a rare treat.
I’m sure someone will be along in a moment to blame Thatcher, but I lay the blame at a combination of identity politics and the “everyone gets a medal, you’re all very special” approach to teaching that became popular in the late 90s, coupled with the arrival of those taught like that into a world where most of their whims can be fulfilled almost immediately by tapping on their phone. Want a taxi? It’s outside in 30 seconds. Gonna be late (again)? Just send a text. Cyclist delaying your arrival at the back of the next traffic jam? Honk your horn at them, verbally abuse them, punishment pass them, fuck it, knock ’em off!
I thought Martin Lewis was a
I thought Martin Lewis was a money saving expert. I would have thought he’d be all over cycling as a way for people to save money commuting, not to mention wider health benefits and saving the taxpayer money. He could also have pointed out as RobD above that if you have car insurance you are likely covered third party anyway to ride a bike.
Disappointing he could not make a useful contribution to the debate rather than this Twitter nonsense.
PRSboy wrote:
Disappointing he could not make a useful contribution to the debate rather than this Twitter nonsense.— PRSboy
I’m not sure about anyone else, but I for one am entirely satisfied that the above points are entirely unrelated…
TedBarnes wrote:
cycle insurance* can be had for about a tenner . I doubt anyone is getting rich on commissions on that
*(3rd party liability, not theft coverage which it seems will buy you a new bike about every 6 years)
PRSboy wrote:
Where do you get the idea that third party cover for a motor vehicle will cover you when you are riding a bicycle? I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am aware it ONLY covers damage to a third party made by you when driving your car, unless you specifically have a clause written into the policy covering such damage when you are riding your bike.
Most home insurance policies do cover an individual for third party liability, so it may be possible for a third party to make a claim against such a policy. However, the amount of cover may vary from policy to policy and there may be specific exclusions. Always best to check the small print before assuming that you have any such cover.
PP
Could work
Could work
Scoob_84 wrote:
Is there an aero version?
Could work
double post
Nice Scoob, though I would
Nice Scoob, though I would offset it to the right, and have scratchy things on the end.
ktache wrote:
i want one as wide as a car with the number plate
y0u asked for 1t
then i can take the whole lane at all times, like the knobs who can’t wait 5 seconds to join the next queue of cars.
ktache wrote:
i want one as wide as a car with the number plate
y0u asked for 1t
then i can take the whole lane at all times, like the knobs who can’t wait 5 seconds to join the next queue of cars.
Today’s Twitter Poll: Sir
Today’s Twitter Poll: Sir Robert Winston is calling for all cyclists to have number plates/visible ID so they can be “accountable for their actions”. (On the back of him being attacked after telling a cyclist to get off the pavement)
Do you agree that you should be able to kick a Lord who is bossing you about?
I’m a Lord: yes [ ]
I’m a Lord: No [ ]
I’m a Pleb: yes [ ]
I’m a Pleb: No [ ]
So of the total respondents 2
So of the total respondents 2/3 agree with Lord Winston. Of those who agree, just shy of 1 in 5 are themselves cyclists. And of cyclists in general, just over 40% agree with Lord Winston.
So we can argue about the questionnaire design, the demographic of his followers, the guilt of the non-participants, the merits of the proposal, or the character of Lord Winston and Martin Lewis. Or we can ask ourselves, how can we address the situation where so many have this view of cyclists.
Sriracha wrote:
The (cheapest) answer is education.
What we should have is some public service type of adverts that address issues such as two-abreast cycling, close-passes. filtering through traffic and why cyclists may choose to not use unsafe “cycle lanes” or indeed use the pavement in preference to the road.
Maybe have sound-bites at the end such as “Cyclists – they don’t foul the very air you breathe”.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The (cheapest) answer is education.
What we should have is some public service type of adverts that address issues such as two-abreast cycling, close-passes. filtering through traffic and why cyclists may choose to not use unsafe “cycle lanes” or indeed use the pavement in preference to the road.
Maybe have sound-bites at the end such as “Cyclists – they don’t foul the very air you breathe”.— Sriracha
Totally agree. But “telling them” is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example. The best is for those we seek to educate to themselves become cyclists following our good example, to learn by experience. But it may be that we have to settle for second best whilst hoping for the rest. Pointing the finger at other road users (even though they may be guilty) is guaranteed not to work.
Sriracha wrote:
What does that even mean? I really don’t understand your point.
I mean, every day I set an example by not stabbing anyone on the streets of London. But that doesn’t seem to be working, and the crims continue to kill people.
Sriracha wrote:
Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?
Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?
Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don’t want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?
What good examples do you mean? I don’t use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn’t stop drivers using them whilst driving along.
hirsute wrote:
Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?
Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?
Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don’t want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?
What good examples do you mean? I don’t use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn’t stop drivers using them whilst driving along.— Sriracha
I don’t think it means any of those things. Just as there is no law against towing caravans, considerate caravanners will help traffic get by them when safe and possible. Others just crawl along mile after mile with an ever longer queue building behind them cursing their existence.
I have been out on group rides where the cyclists travel strung out in one uninterrupted line of 10-15 bikes, along narrow lanes. They leave no gaps to help cars overtake – their choice is to chance overtaking all 15 in one charge, or wait. Or they cycle two abreast as if they own the road and have no need to share, mile after mile. It’s not the two-abreast that irritates, it’s selfishly ignoring the needs of other road users. That will colour their judgement of cyclists. If we want to change that judgement we need to do more than blame others.
But I think the thing that riles others the most is people who jump red lights and flout the highway code. There is no excuse. If cyclists don’t want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others. But they don’t. That other road users are not blameless is not the point.
“I don’t use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn’t stop drivers using them whilst driving”
True enough. I’m not suggesting we educate car drivers about their behaviour. I’m suggesting we educate them about ours, that we are not in need of any measures to ‘hold us to account’ (reg numbers etc), because we have no case to answer. The thead was about those measures being applied to cyclists.
Sriracha wrote:
Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?
Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?
Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don’t want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?
What good examples do you mean? I don’t use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn’t stop drivers using them whilst driving along.
— hirsute I don’t think it means any of those things. Just as there is no law against towing caravans, considerate caravanners will help traffic get by them when safe and possible. Others just crawl along mile after mile with an ever longer queue building behind them cursing their existence. I have been out on group rides where the cyclists travel strung out in one uninterrupted line of 10-15 bikes, along narrow lanes. They leave no gaps to help cars overtake – their choice is to chance overtaking all 15 in one charge, or wait. Or they cycle two abreast as if they own the road and have no need to share, mile after mile. It’s not the two-abreast that irritates, it’s selfishly ignoring the needs of other road users. That will colour their judgement of cyclists. If we want to change that judgement we need to do more than blame others. But I think the thing that riles others the most is people who jump red lights and flout the highway code. There is no excuse. If cyclists don’t want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others. But they don’t. That other road users are not blameless is not the point. “I don’t use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn’t stop drivers using them whilst driving” True enough. I’m not suggesting we educate car drivers about their behaviour. I’m suggesting we educate them about ours, that we are not in need of any measures to ‘hold us to account’ (reg numbers etc), because we have no case to answer. The thead was about those measures being applied to cyclists.— Sriracha
how many people who have been using their phones while driving have seen another road user, cyclist or otherwise, who is not using their phone at the time, and put their phone down, thinking “That person isn’t using their phone, but I am. What an excellent example they’re setting – I will immediately stop using mine.”.
Supplementary question: is the number less than, equal to, or greater than the number of people who’ve put their phone down when they’ve spotted a police officer perambulatin’ in the vicinity m’lud?
Answers on a postcode, please, addressed to “Sriracha, 13 Underbridge St., Cloud-Cuckoo-land”.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Once again, I am NOT suggesting you can teach others (eg car drivers) how to behave. Your excellent example will not teach them. So at least we agree there.
I am suggesting we teach them that we are not a bunch of selfish arrogant inconsiderate road users in flagrant breach of the highway code in urgent need of regulation and licencing. That we (might) do by our example.
Another poster (FluffyKitten…) suggests that is pie in the sky, he believes there is scant chance of cyclists as a group (he argues they are not) reforming their collective ways. He may be right. In fact, judging by the many threads on this site, there is zero chance of some cyclists taking any ownership.
S/He cites “self-induced pressures that cause them [motorists] to be antagonistic towards cyclists” (I’d add the same of cyclists towards motorists).
S/He has a point. Divide any peaceful bunch of ordinary people into two groups with their own identity and you will breed tribal conflict. The woeful roads infrastructure pits them against each other.
But the attitude of many posters on this site speaks volumes. Naked hostility, sarcasam, infantilism, denial, anyones fault except the cyclists. If that is generally what underlies their attitude to other road users then Lord Winston’s job is easy.
Sriracha wrote:
I thought maybe you had some original argument, but it’s the same old ‘giving us a bad name’ foolishness. Are you saying “everyone who ever uses a bike” consitutes some collective hive-mind that can ‘decide’ to behave perfectly…and that then all motorists will magically forget the entirely-self-induced pressures that cause them to be antagonistic towards cyclists?
Nah.
It’s not only impossible to achieve, it won’t work even if it miraculously happened.
“Education” via, I dunno, poster campaigns and TV adverts or lessons in schools, or improved driving lessons (though you’ll have to educate driving instructors first) is a more plausible idea than that (even if I still don’t believe it).
Sriracha wrote:
Except that most cyclists do leave those things to others, and still get tarred with that by brush, so your prescription doesn’t work. You’re making the mistake of thinking that logic and reason are involved in these opinions.
Sriracha wrote:
I’m really bored of this bullshit argument. Your posts on this thread are rubbish.
Do all teenagers/youths get maligned because of a relatively small number of stabbings? No.
Must all Muslims suffer abuse and violence because a tiny number of people support ISIS? If so then can we should do the same to all white British people as some of them are racists / EDL / hard right / neo-fascists.
And why do black footballers (and black and minority ethnic people in general) still get abuse even though they have done nothing?
Red light jumping by cyclists may be wrong but it is NOT the problem. It’s the media and attention-seeking ‘personalities’ like Robert Winston, Julia Bradbury and many others that are doing the tarring. THEY are the ones causing the hardening of attitudes towards people on bikes and refusing to debate the real issues.
When I’m cycling lots of drivers are considerate. Posters, adverts and asking nicely to “share the road” won’t work on the entitled, angry minority who show no respect for other road users.
The only way to get them to behave is punishment and unambiguous explanation of how they should be driving. WMPRHRT is the template every force should follow, not nicking a Dad for cycling at walking pace with his 2 year old in Peterborough.
We need the media on-side for things to change, to reinforce the message that what all of us experience sometimes is unacceptable. But looking at the headlines in the press – local and national – and the noise on social media, we’re a bloody long way from that happening. 🙁 And while idiots like Sriracha blather on about RLJ it can only get worse.
Simon E wrote:
I started writing another response, but then it dawned on me – when he went for the stream of abuse while accusing others of being ‘hostile’ option – that sriacha is just another petrol-head troll. Waste of time responding – he’s just one of those who has some sort of paraphilia about his car and so is consumed with hatred for anyone he perceives as threatening his love affair.
Edit – I wonder if he’s one of the old ones returned under _yet another_ forum ID? It was always pretty clear that several of them were the same guy, but maybe not all of them?
hawkinspeter wrote:
well, maybe occasionally, but only if I had beans on toast for tea.
Sriracha wrote:
You might like to do some research on the accuracy of self-reporting polls.
Is it just me that thinks
Is it just me that thinks these ‘cyclists’ last rode a bike 20 years ago, or once a year round centre parks. In fact even those Raleigh Shopper pootlers are probably against ‘us’ as they do a mile a week down a cycle lane to Sainsbury’s.
I really would like people answering such questions to be passed on a pavement at 10mph by a cyclist (with a metres distance) then do the same on a road with an HGV at 60mph – then walk an hour and see how many times a cyclist threatened their life versus cycling on the road…
The problem is that Sir
The problem is that Sir Winston’s real point is about compliance he’s assuming that licensing and registration will make people comply with the law and if not, then by being identifiable, then the police can charge them.
So his real problem is not actually compliance, it’s enforcement. You don’t need any of his suggested measures if there are sufficient police to enforce the law.
However, as many of us here will know, getting the police to respond to reports is next to impossible, even with clear and unambiguous video evidence.
If he wanted an example of how well his measures would work in practice, he should stand at some traffic lights and film cars or licenced and registered vehicles jumping the lights and then report them to the police….
Or stand around a speed
Or stand around a speed camera zone and watch all of the brake lights come on, all those “law abiding” motorists thinking that they might be breaking the law.
I love that the attached
I love that the attached image to this article features a Boris Bike which clearly shows an ID number on it!
A few weeks ago I had a taxi
A few weeks ago I had a taxi driver rant at me I shouldn’t be on the roads as I didn’t have insurance simply because I had taken a strong primary at the lights and forced him into the right turn only. When I told him I was insured via Cycling UK he then started to splutter as his brain tried to assimilate that new information and before he could formulate another attack the lights changed and I was able to sail on leaving him trapped in the ‘committed’ turn as he was unable to swing into the ahead only.
I really don’t have much
I really don’t have much faith in ‘education’. It just doesn’t seem to work. ‘Setting examples’ is even more useless. Where has that ever worked for anything?
I used to think the only solution was better infrastucture, which would create a virtuous-circle by allowing more people to feel able to cycle and thus creating a larger lobby for more and better infrastructure and taking more space from motorised vehicles.
But (partly thanks to Khan – whose name I feel should only be uttered with an anguished shout in the style of Shatner’s Captain Kirk) that seems to have stalled completely.
So now I mostly think it’s a bit hopeless and maybe we just have to wait for the oil to run out or for cars to become so large none of them can move and there’s no room for anything else in our cities.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Could we at least try ‘education’ and see if it has any effect?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Don’t let me stop you – knock yourself out!
(Er, not meaning to start a helmet argument)
But what would ‘education’ consist of? Don’t, for example, all those speed limit signs count as ‘education’ as to what the appropriate speed is? The give way markings, etc? Without enforcement people come to ignore such things. Why would signs telling people to be nice be any more succesful?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I did get one success fromo this image
hirsute wrote:
Fair enough as far as individuals arguing with those they know, but I am still very skeptical that sort of thing can be scaled-up and then shown to have much of a real-world effect. Those who aren’t ever going to listen, even if a minority, can cause a massive amount of harm.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I think I should have emboldened the word ‘one’ previously.
Actually my success was on an anonymous forum, so I have no idea who it was.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I was thinking more of public service adverts. A long, long time ago there were lots of “Think Bike” and “Clunk, Click, Every Trip” adverts. How effective they were is arguable but they were at least memorable. Start with that and then ramp up enforcement.
Interesting that everyone
Interesting that everyone criticising cyclists lumps them in a convenient category (i.e. as an out-group) but conveniently forgetting that they are people and that 85% also drive a car.
As well as people trotting out the same old media bullshit, the poll demonstrates that Martin Lewis is being a clickbaiter and stoking the hate but not the least bit interested in a conversation about road safety. Look how people totally ignore posts with facts – 23,000 deaths and injuries per year, that drivers kill 5 people every day or the hit-and-run stats… Says it all.
FFS. Someone makes
FFS. Someone makes unsubstantiated claims against cycling and people get all uppity and verbose in response.
When it comes to cycling Robert Winston is an absolute twat. There is no need for debate with complex or nuanced points of view. His views are wholly unsubstantiated.
You have been drawn into the world of the idiot and despite your best efforts they will beat you by their experience.
Stop trying to be the better moron.
Sriracha you want me to obey
Sriracha you want me to obey the law, but you don’t seem to understand that that is not enough. This is why I mentioned cycle lanes.
Surely you have come across people saying cyclists should use them because they have been paid for and some even think they should be compulsory.
I’m not going to use a cycle lane to appease some motorist or to set an example. I might use one if it goes where I want or where the surface is set to a suitable standard or I don’t constantly have to stop.
I’m not going to stop filtering either and set a good example by waiting in a queue, simply to appease some driver who is fed up with crawling along.
As long as the car is seen as the most important thing, setting an example is not going to change calls for ‘road tax’, insurance, number plates because cyclists should have to ‘pay their way’ like other road users ‘ if they want to use the roads’.
Politician Lord has an
Politician Lord has an unsubstantiated pop at cyclists.
Meanwhile his political colleagues cannot sort out the really big issues like brexit.
A plague on both houses.
This week the WHO released a
This week the WHO released a study showing there are 11,000 new cases of childhood asthma linked to vehicle emissions PER DAY worldwide. Scale the incidence rate of 29 new cases per 100,000 per year in the UK up too the size of the whole population and that’s almost 20,000 children a year in this country alone getting diagnosed with asthma per year.
But yet the discussions around transport are still ‘do cyclists needs number plates?’
Seems even stranger that someone who spent their career helping people have children wouldn’t want to do everything possible to ensure a safe and clean environment for those same children.
Municipal Waste wrote:
But yet the discussions around transport are still ‘do cyclists needs number plates?’ S— Municipal Waste
It’s not just asthma, as I’m sure you know. The true cost of motoring is massive.
There are the thousands of road casualties year after year and the huge financial, psychological and social burden they bring.
The massive and growing health time bomb due to inactivity.
The far bigger time bomb of climate change, which is threatening our very existence.
The loss of freedom, for adults as well as children (it has curtailed my own two kids’ ability to explore their surroundings, even now in their mid-teens, like I did when I was young).
The aggression shown by some drivers to other road users and the fear of traffic that deters people from riding or prompts them to ride on the pavement.
Hugely expensive road building projects that don’t solve anything and the cost of maintaining the existing highways while cycle infrastructure is pathetic yet arseholes on twitter like Julia Bradbury still think it’s OK to whinge about the “millions being spent on cycling superhighways” (which amounts to about 10 miles in London).
I’m sure there are plenty other issues too but the media love to demonise out-groups.
The quality of argument on
The quality of argument on this forum speaks volumes when compared to the usual postings in MSM against any story relating to cycling. Depressing as it is to dive into the cesspit of the Daily Mail and local syndicated news sites. I think there is something to be said for picking up the pithiest replies to the standard “road tax”, insurance, red light jumping comments and fire them right back.