Chris Boardman has shut down any residual attention on the idea that cyclists should need registration numbers and licences to use the roads, and stressed “regardless of the headlines” people want to see more cycling and walking.
Speaking to BikeBiz magazine, the National Active Travel Commissioner said the best way to approach talk of licences, registration and number plates is simply to avoid giving the debate any air time — “You don’t answer stupid questions,” he concluded.
> Is there anywhere cyclists are required to be licensed, and how has it gone in the past?
Boardman’s comments come a couple of months withdrawn from the height of the summer heat, kicked up by then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ words in the Daily Mail (and subsequent backtracking) suggesting he would like to see stricter rules for cyclists.
Nonetheless, U-turn or not, Shapps’ damage was done and prompted a string of frontpage splashes, talk show specials and TV ‘debates’ digging up culture-warring divisions now centred on the UK’s roads and who should get to use them, and how.
> “No plans to introduce registration plates” for cyclists, insists Grant Shapps
Boardman suggests the best way to deal with the noise is simply to shut it out – “I just focus on the fact that we know, regardless of the headlines, 70 per cent of people want to see more cycling and walking – even if it requires road space giving over,” he told BikeBiz.
“But a lot of the time the strategy has to be: just don’t give it any air time. You don’t answer stupid questions and perpetuate the argument about something that’s not important. The Department for Transport knows that putting licences on bikes and enforcing these mandatory things doesn’t get the outcomes, and so we don’t need to speak to that kind of stuff.”
Boardman added that he remains optimistic cycling will continue to grow, something he will hopefully oversee in his newly-appointed role at Active Travel England.
“Whether you like cycling or not, it’s cheap. It’s nine times cheaper than running a car. And that really matters right now. It’s super-reliable, it’s equitable. [It addresses] all of the big issues that you face,” he continued.
> Third of Brits want to cycle more, many to cut their fuel spending
“We know we won’t make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we drive a lot less. And the only politically palatable way to do that is to give people a viable, attractive alternative.
“Active travel is so incredibly robust. [Where will we be] In five years’ time? It’s here. We’ve joked several times over the years that we should get a t-shirt that says: ‘Cycling. The least shit option.’ Because even if you hate it, you’ve almost got to back it. So I’m optimistic in that respect. I’m not sure if that’s optimistic or pessimistic. I think it’s realistic.”
48 thoughts on ““Don’t give it air time. Don’t answer stupid questions”: Chris Boardman shuts down cycling registration ‘debate’”
Avoid giving the debate any
Avoid giving the debate any airtime is a good strategy, but not one road.cc has yet adopted!
Sometimes you just have to
Sometimes you just have to talk about the gammon in the room
so Mr Boaring man just ignore
so Mr Boaring man just ignore what a lot of people think ? Put your hands over your ears blah blah blah I can’t hear what your saying so it doesn’t matter . How childish there are real concerns as cycling is still hazardous and unfortunately there are a lot of bad cyclists ignoring the basics of the Highway Code and there DOES need to be some way to make cyclists accountable if electric scooters can have number plates why not cyclists ? Look at some other countries who use ID Plates . It should be a requirement for every new bicycle made
On the spirit of Chris
On the spirit of Chris Boardman, please leave this site, Mr One Post.
David9694 wrote:
Is that a sort of cycling exorcism? 😉
Oh go on then . . . . I’ll
Oh go on then . . . . I’ll rise to the bait. Which other countries use ‘ID Plates’?
Since when do electric
Since when do electric scooters have number plates?
“When you register with the DVLA you will be given a registration number in the same way as registering a car. However, unlike a car there is currently no legal requirement to display a number plate”.
There are a lot of bad
There are a lot of bad motorists out there as well. Ones who are registered, licensed and insured. Yet regardless of these measures they still manage to kill and maim large numbers of people due to their shoddy road craft be it deliberate or negligent. Many of these drivers when caught receive a simple slap on their wrists as their peers and our magistrates cannot fathom how someone can allow their road skills to deteriorate to such a level as to harm another human being.
Wartek wrote:
Which countries, and what about them?
According to the AA over 1 in
According to the AA over 1 in 40 motorists drive without a license.
1 in 12 are driving on false cloned plates.
In any sensible persons mind, It would make sense to ensure all motorists are legal first, considering the 500 pedestrians and cyclists killed & 8000 seriously injured by motorists in an average year.
Yet all you want to worry about is a few people on bikes? You need to give the Daily Mail a rest for your own mental healths sake buddy.
yupiteru wrote:
and there are a million uninsured drivers. which probably exceeds the total number of cyclists, never mind those who don’t have third party insurance through BC or CUK or other means
You got a source for that? If
You got a source for that? If there are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists, that would make for a fantastic bit of ammo for the anti-cycling arguments I constantly find myself getting drawn into.
Motor Insurance Bureau
Motor Insurance Bureau estimate (they pay out for uninsured drivers):
https://forcescompare.uk/guides/how-many-drivers-are-not-insured-in-the-uk/
2,000,000 vehicles seized for no insurance 2005-2020:
https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2020/february/police-seize-the-uk-s-2-millionth-uninsured-vehicle/
https://forcescompare.uk
https://forcescompare.uk/guides/how-many-drivers-are-not-insured-in-the-uk/
Hilarious This website states:
It is illegal to drive any vehicle on UK roads without valid insurance, whether it is a car, bike, van, motorhome or tractor – because of the risks it poses to third parties and to maintain a high standard of driving and safety. In some instances, the police may fine you a £300 fixed penalty along with 6 penalty points
We have to assume they’re only referring to motorbikes, but we all know the police don’t do any of this. People driving cars with no MOT for years have no insurance, but the police won’t lift a finger to do anything about them
I absolutely agree they don’t
I absolutely agree they don’t do nearly enough but that second link, showing 2 million vehicles seized in a decade and a half, shows that at least they do something!
Using the MID, police ANPR
Using the MID, police ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras can scan passing vehicles’ licence plates to see if they appear to be uninsured and make further enquiries at the roadside.
Once a driver is found to be without insurance, they can have their vehicle seized and can face court with an unlimited fine and a driving ban amongst the possible outcomes.
They can, but they don’t. Not in Lancashire, anyway. I have shown here, more times than enough, MV57 GXO parked outside The Old Garstang Police Station on the main road the police use to get into Garstang, It wouldn’t matter if it was parked outside The New Garstang Police Station, they still wouldn’t do anything about it.
It’s just the bald statement
It’s just the bald statement but on the AA’s site:
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/continuous-insurance-enforcement
RAC have an article about a FOI request – this also gives a breakdown (in 2020) of e.g. no licence and uninsured, no licence and under 16 etc.
https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/2020-saw-jump-in-number-of-provisional-licence-holders-caught-without-insurance-3161016
Can’t see the original FOI but I think you can search for those.
It’s just the bald statement
It’s just the bald statement but on the AA’s site:
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/continuous-insurance-enforcement
It’s not only bald, but completely without substance and dated over 5 years ago. The DVLA doesn’t even detect vehicles on their own website, loads in Garstang alone, with no VED for months and years, no SORN but which have passed MOT within the last few months
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Its a difficult one.
~70% of UK homes have contents cover; Almost all home contents cover includes public liability that covers cycling (more expensive to define a bicycle for exclusions (without also defining wheelchair (illegal) than to just cover it). So most cyclists are probably insured.
There are estimates on how many uninsured drivers there are (~1 million according to MIB).
Gov stats claim there are ~6 million cyclists; But this defines cyclists as someone who has used a bicycle twice in the last month.
So per gov stats there are probably more uninsured cyclists than uninsured drivers. But it wouldn’t surprise me if you could give plenty of other sane definitions of cyclist than has gotten on a bicycle twice in the last month that would result in far, far lower numbers.
And where are those people
And where are those people getting on bikes and cycling? No numbers I’m aware of but I bet a lot is “round the park” or “along the path to the supermarket” – or at least not down the road. Not that that necessarily absolves of the need for insurance, but it’s not quite the same as driving on the road.
yupiteru wrote:
Those numbers, if accurate, are completely insane
Wartek wrote:
Is a ‘Boaring man’ one who snorts a lot and can always find truffles?
Hairy with a big nose, can
Hairy with a big nose, can move surprisingly fast and you don’t want to get in his way?
Massively unwelcome half
Massively unwelcome half-witted bigotry. Go back to Facebook please and never darken our pages again! Begone ye Doddypoll
You should write to your MP
You should write to your MP about it. That way even more people can ignore your opinion, but at least you can stop moaning about it eh?
Wartek wrote:
Only in NORTH KOREA. Try reading the article below:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/17/north-korea-where-bicycle-licence-plates-are-non-negotiable-grant-shapps
So, where would stick a
So, where would stick a licence plate on a horse or e-scooter? Boardman’s absolutely correct – it’s a no-debate issue. Are the police going to be expected to stop and check cyclists…in the manner they stop and check car drivers etc. That’s potentially far more dangerous a situation than stopping cars. It’s a bizarre caucus of those who resent authority applied to them and see any other group, no matter how dissimilar, as being obliged to having the same rules applied to them. It’s the envious and mean who begin these issues and the Daily Mail, the paper for those who know their rights and point out everyone elses wrongs, who take up their self-righteous causes.
More good work by CB, but I
More good work by CB, but I feel he doesn’t fully appreciate the uphill struggle most of us are obliged to make against the Fifth Column of Anti-Cyclist activists, the Police
wtjs wrote:
Do you know about his mum?
Who’d’ve thought I’d find a use for this rag!: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8321720/driver-jailed-30-weeks-killing-olympic-cyclist-chris-boardman/
Do you know about his mum?
Do you know about his mum?
Yes, but it’s a good point!
Why does any road space need
Why does any road space need to be given over? The road is plenty wide enough for me, on my vehicle, that my taxes contribute towards (i.e. it’s mine just as much as it is anyone else’s). It’s the law breaking drivers that are the problem. Even when cyclists are given segregated space, it’s taken up by pedestrians, parked cars, road/Street furniture, etc. So let’s not pretend that ‘giving over road space’ is a viable solution.
Maybe for you, but Dutch
Maybe for you, but Dutch style infrastructure is the only way that we are going to get large numbers of current non-cyclists on the road. Cycle lanes aren’t really for current cyclists, more for future cyclists
Is building a network of
Is building a network of dedicated cycles lanes that is comparable to the UK road network a vaguely achievable goal though, considering we can’t even get local authorities to put up a row of bollards at risky locations?
I agree with several things
I agree with several things here: this would be great, it’d save a ton of money and be more eco than building more infra. Most UK infra efforts to date have been straight-up cynical rubbish or so compromised that they’ve been self-defeating on many levels. Because we’ve allocated 95%+ of space for motor vehicles we end up fighting over scraps with desperate pedestrians and also the other things you mention. Also agree we could do much better on policing drivers (I’m coming round to the idea of “all motorists to have dashcams / some kind of black box recorder” as I can see insurance companies adding incentives for this too).
However – are you just saying what you want personally, for you alone? Maybe you enjoy the thrill of riding with cars? Because “Improve driving” doesn’t address the reason why the majority of people in the UK don’t cycle. You could sit people down with the stats – which show cycling is a very “safe” activity already – but I don’t think it would change much. There are many reasons why but a few are: “but I’ve aready got a car”, “it’s not convenient to cycle and it’s more convenient to drive” and “I just don’t feel safe cycling in lots of traffic, or with much faster and heavier vehicles”.
Are you saying you’d hate this sort of thing?
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/what-defines-dutch-cycling-2/
Or this?
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2015/10/cycle-paths-providing-efficient-cycling.html
Sadly it seems that we just can’t go there directly. So “giving over road space” e.g. taking some space back from motor traffic – as long as it’s better than the usual feeble UK efforts * – may be the best we can do initially. That at least should increase the number of people who cycle some trips. Some form of separated cycle infrastructure is about the only palatable (crush all the cars!) intervention actually shown to do this.
* Such as “advisory cycle lanes” (utter waste of paint), cycle lanes which don’t go anywhere useful or form a network, cycle lanes which give up at junctions, cycle lanes which regularly disappear along their length, non-protected cycle lanes, cycle lanes with “protection” that just makes them more dangerous, cycle lanes a metre wide or less, cycle lanes which turn into bus lanes (which then appear or disappear depending on time of day and may even incorporate marked car parking) …
It is my opinion and of
It is my opinion and of course other people have different views and opt to cycle on dedicated cycles tracks, or even the velodrome or stationary bike. But no, I can’t stand cycling with cars because many pass way too close or overtake only to be slowed down, while I would have been able to keep going.
But why do you subscribe to the view that we can’t get there directly? Has there been any attempt to get drivers to treat cyclists in the same way as every other vehicle? The recent highway code changes have ‘othered’ us more than ever.
We are vehicles and we pay just as much towards the roads as any other vehicle owner/user. We should take them back. (Okay maybe let them keep the motorways)
Also, you said “we’ve allocated 95%+ of space for motor vehicles”. Says who? I’m only aware of one type of road that is allocated to motor vehicles – and that’s motorways. The roads are ours. Stop talking like they’re for motor vehicles, they’re not.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Totally agree here – and another reason (for me) why simply saying “we already have the infra – roads!” is imperfect. Like most cyclists I like to keep going – at a slower speed than cars yes, but keep momentum. The “race to the next traffic light / busy junction” that happens (because lots of cars, who need traffic lights, unlike cyclists) is unsuited to most cyclists. (I guess maybe some short-distance sprinters appreciate the training?)
I’d like to believe otherwise. As Chris Boardman says – we know what works – we can see it in several other countries at different levels. We know it does work if done properly. However even the best efforts in the UK are affected by “not invented here” and utter ignorance of what actually works for cyclists. And every scheme requires first fighting your way out of the same vicious circle *.
There seems to be some agreement that the first step forward is a rough-and-ready network for cycling. Getting enough cash to do this at the (eventual) target level is unlikely. When they did it in Seville they deliberately limited the area (and by necessity the quality) just so they had something completed in part of the city which would work. They’ve been able to build on that subsequently.
So having places in your country as exemplars seems important – because people simply don’t believe it works here otherwise (see all the excuses e.g. “but we’re not Dutch / Danish, but we have weather in the UK, but people are lazy and have cars in the UK, but we have hills”…). Also getting a modest but significant modal share is important. I don’t mean going from 2% to 3%, more like going up to e.g. 8-10% of trips. The point is you don’t need everyone cycling to have more social / political leverage. You can still get much better understanding if everyone knows a friend / has a family member who cycles.
Not sure about top down, but there was vehicular cycling. An attempt by cyclists to reclaim “we’re also driving a vehicle” status. Although some of the tools put forward are still sadly relevant for cycling in the UK (take the lane, develop a quick sprint, think like a driver) I think of this as a kind of Stockholm syndrome – the oppressed identifying with the aggressor. It was favoured by a particular group of robust individualists – quite frankly a certain niche group of (almost all) men. Its chief proponent was unashamedly elitist and certainly not in favour of most people cycling.
I don’t see that as the intent of the Highway Code changes obviously and since many people still aren’t aware of them I doubt this is generally the case. It certainly allowed some pundits to blow their dog whistles harder and their gave their supporters some new justifications. But they are the types who do this anyway.
And yes – I’m aware that I’m effectively paying other people to endanger me and make my cycling less pleasant while taking on the burden of polluting less. I still enjoy cycling though. For selfish reasons I hope that many more people can be encouraged to cycle; but I’m probably a die-hard cyclist now.
* “but there aren’t many cyclists, so we can’t spend much money / provide too much space / build a network first” which starts with “we’ll just do a little bit in one place, to see if it works” so is doomed from the get-go. Then along the way this inevitably also gets further compromised. The scheme generally only happens if it has minimal effect on capacity for drivers. And sure enough, thousands don’t stop driving to instead cycle in a narrow lane which doesn’t go where they want. So there’s shaking of heads and a “maybe it doesn’t work here / it’s not what people want to do”…
In my view, things like
In my view, things like ‘vehicular cycling’ and the recent highway code changes are like advising women how to put up with rape and sexual assault, or how to make themselves safer. The wrong audience is being targeted. We should be targeting drivers to get them to consider cyclists as fellow road users and not an obstacle to overtake (which is what you do when you give advice about how to overtake a cyclist safely; the overtake is inherently set out as the objective to be achieved).
I revere CB, for his
I revere CB, for his commitment, advocacy and knowledge, but I can’t help thinking he’s a little optimistic here.
“Active travel is so incredibly robust. [Where will we be] In five years’ time?”
It’s been incredibly robust for the past 40 years, which is about how long I’ve been campaigning for it, 8×5 years later, we are very little further forward. The case for active travel is irrefutable, in all areas of policy; health, pollution, congestion, climate change, communities etc, and it always has been, but the media ignore it and the establishment just make polite noises.
Where we should be in five years time is entirely different, it’s just that my experience makes me cynical about what will actually happen, especially with the current government of washed up incompetents.
I’d say that compared to what
I’d say that compared to what was 40 years ago, there are more everyday cyclists now and conditions are generally better. But the number of cyclists hasn’t risen as fast as the number of car drivers – or at least, not as fast as the number of cars (since there were always drivers without cars).
Bmblbzzz wrote:
— BmblbzzzBut the change is marginal when it needs to be massive. At the rate we’re going it will take centuries to get to the cycling levels in Holland.
“Whether you like cycling or
“Whether you like cycling or not, it’s cheap. It’s nine times cheaper than running a car”
Huh? I run an old 12 year old car and several used even older bikes. Pretty sure i spent about 20 euro on one bike last year (new chain) whereas my cheap car still costs me 1400 a year in tax and insurance.
I would be interested in the
I would be interested in the source too. But only spending £20 per year on a bike that is ridden regularly is probably on the low side, and £1,400 per year on tax and insurance alone is probably on the high side (I know I’ve spent more than that and less than that, respectively).
problem is it just goes on
problem is it just goes on and on drip, drip.
E.g.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23027328.letter-cycle-lane-money-go-worthy-causes/
a response
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23040719.letter-need-courtesy-roads/
Hmm…
Hmm…
I just think of how much social care could be funded by the costs of just a single motorway junction upgrade…
And all the revenue costs –
And all the revenue costs – the maintenance, the installations of car infra, cleaning-up after yet another smash (drivers have their own police section!) – all the costs that are largely hidden from motorists and/or they choose not to engage with or understand.
brooksby wrote:
If you want a figure, the cost of upgrading junction 10 of the M27 is £91.25 million. (£41.25 million from the government and £50 million from the nearby Welborne development).
Ref – https://www.hants.gov.uk/News/14032022M27J10HEfundingagreement
Knighthood in the post, Sir
Knighthood in the post, Sir Chris.
Organon wrote:
Will he have to hand his sainthood back?