Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Fair Fuel UK founder accuses Jeremy Vine of “Fuelling a war between drivers and cyclists”

Organisation's report for parliamentary group laments UK's 37 million “hard-pressed” and “perennially demonised” motorists...

Fair Fuel UK founder Howard Cox has accused Jeremy Vine of “politicising” cycling and “fuelling a war between drivers and cyclists” – an interesting take given that just last week, an All Party Parliamentary Group published a report written and paid for by his organisation that was highly critical of government transport policy that it claimed focused on the “privileged cycling few.”

Cox made his claims in an interview yesterday with Colin Brazier of GB News in response to a Twitter post by Vine earlier this week showing footage of bike riders quite legally riding four abreast.

The broadcaster, whose video was filmed by dashcam from the car he was driving – yes, cyclists and motorists are more often than not one and the same person – explained in a voiceover: “This is exactly how cyclists should ride, they are calming the traffic behind them, we won't overtake unless we have a really wide clearance.”

Referring to the footage, Cox told Brazier: “Blocking a road will make people take bigger risks and lead to worse accidents – it’s ridiculous. Vine is fuelling a war between drivers and cyclists,” he insisted.

“This is part of a long-term anti-driver rhetoric that he’s been going on about – he is encouraging cyclists to act as roadblocks to stop drivers overtaking.

“The Highway Code states you should never ride more than two abreast and preferably ride in narrow or single file,” Cox continued, quite correctly. “This advice is not a legal requirement, it's advice, so how can we police this?”

He added that “most cyclists are very, very good” and “very kind people,” before railing against “these cycling zealots which are led by Jeremy Vine.

"He may be a national treasure but I am afraid he is hellbent and I think he is politicising this against the BBC’s code of ethics!”

Cox’s appearance on GB TV comes just days after Fair Fuel UK paid for and produced a report on behalf of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Fuel for UK Motorists and UK Hauliers entitled What does the 2030 fossil fuelled new vehicle sales ban really mean to the economy, environment, and UK’s 37m drivers?.

> Cycling UK accuse Fair Fuel UK of running ‘how much do you hate cycling’ survey

There are repeated references throughout the report to it aiming to give a voice to “the UK’s 37 million drivers” – described as “hard-pressed” and “perennially demonised,” and all for the benefit, apparently, of cyclists, supported by the policies of a “virtue signalling government” and a “political bias … towards cyclists, particularly in urban areas.”

“It is critical a long-term road transport strategy is put together that benefits and unites ALL road users with an emphasis on public transport and freeing up our congested roads,” the report says.

“Residents, businesses, motorists are incensed with current political policies such as the discord created by Local Traffic Neighbourhood schemes and Cycle Lanes causing blockades, congestion, and deferred pollution,” it claims.

“The APPG and Fair Fuel UK call on the Government [to instruct local authorities] to build new cycle schemes away from existing roads,” it continues, saying that “The growing conflict in road policy is being fuelled by a laudable but mistaken belief that cycling is the ultimate transport solution.

“While drivers and motorcyclists pay for all road space, the recent allocation of many existing urban highways is mostly for the benefit of a few who are ‘unrepresentative of the population at large’,” the report claims – even though road building and maintenance is financed from general taxation.

Cox writes in the report “I am on record asking cycling leaders to work with Fair Fuel UK to create a long-term road user plan that benefits all road users, the environment, road safety and the economy.”

That’s difficult to square, however, with the recommendation that the government “Instruct local authorities to build new cycle schemes AWAY from existing roads” – without suggesting how that might be achieved in reality, nor the likelihood that such routes would of necessity go round the houses and be ignored by people simply wanting to get from A to B by bike in as direct and as safe a manner as possible.

Take the London junction where Dr Marta Krawiec died last week while riding to work on one of the busiest cycling corridors in the capital, where cyclists make up more than half of rush-hour traffic yet there is no dedicated cycling infrastructure, and where there is simply no alternative route where it could be put; many would view one subtext of the report as being that the roads would be better with no cyclists at all on them.

> London Cycling Campaign launches petition demanding action on capital’s lethal junctions

“Drivers were happy to coexist with cyclists, even though many on pedal power ignore the rules of the road,” Cox insists – although government statistics it was speeding motorists, not cyclists, who were responsible for 12 per cent of road deaths in Great Britain during 2018, for example.

“Cycling had a chance to prove it could make a meaningful contribution to travel in this country if only its advocates would cut out their belief that they have a majority right to road user-ship,” he continues – despite the fact that what campaigners are calling for is infrastructure to encourage people to be able to make a decision about which mode of transport best suits their journey and if that choice is by bike rather than car, to feel safe while doing so.

Cox is keen to blame what he terms “a ‘them and us’ struggle” not only on Vine, but on “a very highly vocal minority of militant cyclists,” as well as the policies of central government led by Boris Johnson and, in the capital, the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and claims that “perennially demonised drivers are calling for common sense to close the divide once and for all.”

The evidence from articles in mainstream newspapers such as the Mail or Express and the comments below them, or remarks made by motorists calling radio phone-in shows, suggests otherwise.

> 10 of the most hysterical anti-cycling Daily Mail headlines

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

62 comments

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
9 likes

If we define people by the mode of transport they cover more miles in/on then I am a motorist. Howard Cox does not represent me, my views or aspirations to being part of the solution to and not part of the ongoing destruction of our planet by burning carbon to move around in our cars. Whilst I wouldn't say that Jeremy Vine particularly floats my boat, I would hardly put him in the same league of hypocrisy and dishonesty as Howard Cox, Nick Freeman, and many other pro car influencers with access to the media.

Some people's idea of a militant cyclist is anyone who complains about the behaviour of drivers, even more so if they have the temerity to post videos of dangerous driving or anyone who campaigns for even a tiny portion of road space and transport budget to be allocated for good quality infrastructure projects that support people's choice of active travel by reducing the very real fear of death and injury from motorised traffic and dangerous drivers.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
4 likes

Nigel Garrage wrote:

That's my honest opinion.

Only someone who consistently posted lies would bother saying that their opinion was honest this time.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
0 likes
eburtthebike wrote:

Only someone who consistently posted lies would bother saying that their opinion was honest this time.

To be fair, Burt knows all about this.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

If you want a good laugh about lying follow this link https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/576886?reveal_response=yes

Avatar
brooksby replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
4 likes

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You can delete my posts all you like.

Oh.  You're back.  Did your time on the naughty step expire?

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
5 likes

So Jeremy Vine and other cycling extremists are bad, but Howard Cox, who has also massively promoted clashes with cyclists for no reasons other then publicity should be applauded? 

At least the name is no longer specifically having ago at cyclists again but is a homage to someone who has a habit of preaching in echo chambers like GB News, CPAC, Drumpf Rallies, Fox News, etc.  

Avatar
Hirsute replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
6 likes

Name change must be another "server problem" again.

I did do the "fair"  fuel survey last year. Here is a selection of the questions

FROM RECENT MEDIA REPORTS, UNELECTED SPECIAL ADVISORS IN NO 10 ARE INFLUENCING THE ROLL OUT OF CYCLE LANES. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS

HAS ROLLING OUT HUNDREDS OF MILES OF DEDICATED CYCLE LANES DURING THE PANDEMIC BEEN THE RIGHT TIME TO IMPLEMENT

SHOULD ROAD CYCLISTS BE MADE TO ADHERE TO THE SAME ROAD USER RULES THAT DRIVERS LEGALLY MUST FOLLOW, SUCH AS:

1. MOTORING LAWS & PENALTIES

2. ROAD USER TESTS

3. ROAD TAXES

 

Nothing loaded about that at all !

(sorry for caps but C&P from here https://road.cc/content/forum/fair-fuel-uk-are-it-again-279341)

Avatar
brooksby replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
0 likes

AlsoSomniloquism replied to brooksby wrote:

So Jeremy Vine and other cycling extremists are bad, but Howard Cox, who has also massively promoted clashes with cyclists for no reasons other then publicity should be applauded? 

At least the name is no longer specifically having ago at cyclists again but is a homage to someone who has a habit of preaching in echo chambers like GB News, CPAC, Drumpf Rallies, Fox News, etc.  

??

Avatar
Hirsute replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

Assume you mean para 2 which is a reference to the poster's changing username (was last TT danger)

 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
2 likes

Sorry I was adding to your comments that NG was back. Not directed at you specifically. 

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
0 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Sorry I was adding to your comments that NG was back. Not directed at you specifically. 

OK, that makes more sense  1

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
1 like

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You can delete my posts all you like but if you post about Jeremy Vine

Hi Nige

Avatar
quiff | 3 years ago
7 likes

"...a Twitter post by Vine earlier this week showing footage of bike riders quite legally riding four abreast. The broadcaster, whose video was filmed by dashcam from the car he was driving..."

Pedant: I think the consensus was that they probably weren't four abreast, just offset so you could see 4 of them, and I think he filmed it from the passenger seat - a caption in the video says "I'm not at the wheel". 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
3 likes

Quote:

It is critical a long-term road transport strategy is put together that benefits and unites ALL road users with an emphasis on public transport and freeing up our congested roads,

Following on from the IPCC report, maybe some kind of public transport ferry would be appropriate as I'm not convinced that we're ready to stop burning dinosaurs yet

Avatar
wtjs | 3 years ago
5 likes

many on pedal power ignore the rules of the road

Yes, black Range Rover F2 YNY did crash through the red light at 50+ mph, and No, Lancashire Constabulary didn't do anything at all about it.

Avatar
wtjs | 3 years ago
8 likes

“Drivers were happy to coexist with cyclists, even though many on pedal power ignore the rules of the road,” Cox insists

Yes, drivers are indeed keen to get close to cyclists

Cox is a moron who should know what he can do...

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
9 likes

“Drivers were happy to coexist with cyclists, even though many on pedal power ignore the rules of the road,” 

Anyone know what the impact of gaslighting is on the battle to reduce carbon emissions? 

Avatar
brooksby replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
1 like

wycombewheeler wrote:

“Drivers were happy to coexist with cyclists, even though many on pedal power ignore the rules of the road,” 

Anyone know what the impact of gaslighting is on the battle to reduce carbon emissions? 

I think he's referring to some extra special subgroup of motorists...

Motorists in general are not so happy to coexist, and wish we'd all go away (or die, perhaps, although they can help with that too).

Avatar
Sevenfold | 3 years ago
3 likes

Cox & all his supporters are total oxygen thieves. No more needs to be said.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Sevenfold | 3 years ago
4 likes

I think the oxygen he prefers is tied up with carbon and some other elements in a series of long-chain molecules...  3

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

I think the oxygen he prefers is tied up with carbon and some other elements in a series of long-chain molecules...  3

C2H6O?

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

C2H6O?

H60??

Avatar
brooksby replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

C2H6O?

H60??

See two aitch six oh

Avatar
wtjs replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
1 like

He's an Extreme Reductionist

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
3 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

C2H6O?

H60??

C2 H6 O

Avatar
andystow replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

C2H6O?

H60??

C2 H6 O

That's dimethyl ether... it's a gas at normal conditions, unlike ethanol / ethyl alcohol which is more often written as C2H5OH.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

C2H6O?

H60??

C2 H6 O

Lol, read it as sixty. I thought to myself, "I know science moves on, but things can't have changed THAT much since my A level chem"🤣

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like

I thought we were talking about

       H         H

H     C         C      O   H

        H        H

(Ethanol)

As oppsed to CH3-O-CH3  Dimethyl ether

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
4 likes

Yeah, I thought I'd throw in the wrong diagram to see who was paying attention

Avatar
Surreyrider | 3 years ago
2 likes

Dear oh dear. His arguments have a million more holes than any sieve. 

Pages

Latest Comments