Confusion reigned this morning as transport minister Grant Shapps’ comments in an interview given to The Times appeared to contradict his widely-reported pledge to enforce tougher rules, namely possibly introducing number plates for cyclists, as part of the current legal review.
> Grant Shapps: Cyclists should have number plates, be insured and subject to speed limits
Speaking to the national newspaper, the Tory cabinet minister said: “I’m a keen cyclist, I’m very proud of the big expansion in the number of miles being cycled. I’m not attracted to the bureaucracy of registration plates. That would go too far.”
These comments, published in a story on the front page of The Times, contrast with Shapps’ interview simultaneously published on the front page of the Daily Mail, in which he says he “absolutely proposes extending speed limit restrictions to cyclists” before stating: “That obviously does then lead you into the question of ‘well, how are you going to recognise the cyclist, do you need registration plates and insurance and that sort of thing?'”
Wednesday’s Mail: Cyclists May Need Number Plates #TomorrowsPapersToday #DailyMail #Mail pic.twitter.com/xwsJplT1sW
— Tomorrows Papers Today (@TmorrowsPapers) August 16, 2022
The Mail interview prompted something of a media frenzy, with talk shows, news outlets and social media filled with debate about the prospect of cyclists needing a number plate to use the roads.
road.cc contacted the Department for Transport for clarification on the matter and were told: “It’s just proposals. No new policy has been introduced as of yet. The Times piece is the more accurate reflection of the Transport Secretary’s view. That’s his position on it.”
The Department for Transport is likely to clarify the position further in the coming hours.
Speaking to the Mail, Shapps said: “Somewhere where cyclists are actually not breaking the law is when they speed, and that cannot be right, so I absolutely propose extending speed limit restrictions to cyclists.
“Particularly where you’ve got 20mph limits on increasing numbers of roads, cyclists can easily exceed those, so I want to make speed limits apply to cyclists.
“That obviously does then lead you into the question of ‘well, how are you going to recognise the cyclist, do you need registration plates and insurance and that sort of thing.
“So I’m proposing there should be a review of insurance and how you actually track cyclists who do break the laws [via identifiable markings].
“I don’t want to stop people from getting on their bike, it’s a fantastic way to travel, we’ve seen a big explosion of cycling during Covid and since, I think it has lots of health benefits.
“But I see no reason why cyclists should break the road laws, why they should speed, why they should bust red lights and be able to get away with it and I think we do have to not turn a blind eye to that and I’m proposing setting up a review to do exactly that.”





















92 thoughts on “Confusion as Grant Shapps now says he is “not attracted to bureaucracy” of number plates for cyclists”
Other countries which have a
Other countries which have a more developed and mature cycle culture
. If other countries governments have a weekly briefing on the UK, I’d call it the ‘comedy hour’ (“their Prime Minister is on a bender in Greece and, get this one, they want to put registration plates on bicycles
“)
Shades wrote:
It’s just distraction from this week’s, sorry, today’s government disaster.
The Papua New Guinea Courier,
The Papua New Guinea Courier, often found on Twitter, does some very fine coverage of British politics of this kind.
I’ve come to the conclusion
I’ve come to the conclusion that Grant Shapps doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.
Does anyone else think that
Does anyone else think that “bust red lights” is a really strange phrase?
ktache wrote:
I did wonder if it only applied to women cyclists, but I couldn’t quite see how.
Idiot two faced minister is
Idiot two faced minister is caught being an idiot and two faced.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
How long do we have to wait for him to be sacked?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Sacked? Have you been living under a rock for the past twelve years? Like every other slimey, truth-twisting hypocrite in this government, he won’t be sacked, he’ll be promoted.
Or he’ll take up a job with
Or he’ll take up a job with whatever company is given the contract to deal with the licencing sh!t that he has created….
brooksby wrote:
Sounds about right, and as with track and trace will cost millions and deliver nothing.
TEST AND TRACE – “TRACK” is
TEST AND TRACE – “TRACK” is Parcelforce.
ROYAL MAIL
ROYAL MAIL
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, he was promoted by Boris as clearly they have a similar approach to truth and integrity (less of an approach though and more of a run the opposite direction from). Presumably, he wants a job under poundland-Thatcher or defund-the-deprived Sunak?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Too long
Isn’t it obvious? One
Isn’t it obvious? One interview was with Grant Shapps and the other was actually with Michael Green.
(We await the next set of interviews, with Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox, shortly…).
😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps#Business_ventures
brooksby wrote:
I had no idea just how scummy he is until reading that!
hawkinspeter wrote:
They all are. Our government is run by gangsters.
Hmm… I did not know that.
Hmm… I did not know that. With that many aliases I wonder whether he’s ever posted on road.cc?
The briefing to the Mail
The briefing to the Mail fulfilled exactly its purpose.
A headline to feed red meat to the loons and no intention of actually doing anything, and setting “us” against each other instead of against the Tories.
#CrushTheTories
TheLonelyOne wrote:
And how exactly are you going to do that Wolfie? That would require: a) a general election; b) someone massively less useless and massively more worthy of winning a vote.
Btw, please drop the Macmillan monicker, if you’re going to get nastily political and rude underneath it. It’s such a turn-off and I just put a wad Macmillan’s way too. Maybe, I’ll give it elsewhere if people like you associate themselves.
RTB wrote:
You’d consider withdrawing your support for a charity to which you previously donated because you don’t like the opinions of a random Internet poster who also supports the same charity? Well, that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Macmillan stands for
Macmillan stands for everything that the Tories don’t.
Macmillan provides help and support and care for those that need it most, when they are at their lowest and weakest.
Macmillan provides a safety net for those whose world is falling apart.
Macmillan appreciates every contribution made, and I’m truly happy that you have provided your support to them.
Threatening to abandon such people that we both want to help is incomprehensibly perverse,
#IdReallyRatherThatWeVotedTheToriesOutOfPowerEverywherePossibleThankYou.
RTB wrote:
I rewatched “V for Vendetta” recently…
Surely even DM readers must
Surely even DM readers must be wondering if such a trivial issue deserves to be 96pt front page headlines? They couldn’t possibly be distracting from the massive, complete, total ultra-shambles that passes for a government, could they?
DM readers are not so self
DM readers are not so self-aware, on the whole at least.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Look, they know that they’re angry, they just need to know what they’re angry about
A couple of questions:
A couple of questions:
1) I only really ride offroad, will I need a number plate for that too and if the answer is yes please can it be a soft one in case I fall onto it?
2) Will my children also need a number plate for riding to school and if they break the speed limits will they go to prison?
This agent provocateur
This agent provocateur forcing his mum to break the law should definitely go to prison.
If your kids ride a Grifter.
If your kids ride a Grifter. Their insurance premiums will be double the average due to the distraction caused by the suspect 3 gear shifting mechanism.
I fear for unicyclists. They’ll have to pay by direct debit.
With a grifter, definitely
With a grifter, definitely need to pay road tax as the weight of it would really wear the roads. And if dropped on one the resurfacing work needed.
Those Sturmey Archer units
Those Sturmey Archer units were rough going. I hit many a curb trying to get some transmission. No claims bonus. My arse!
Don’t even want a Risk
Don’t even want a Risk Assessment on the olde Chopper stick shift then…..premiums will be massive!
That was a family bike as
That was a family bike as could carry 6 kids on it if you ignored the safety warning on the saddle.
BudgieJohnson wrote:
And would you need to make a Statutory Offroad Notification?
3a) Shouldn’t horses, ponies
3a) Shouldn’t horses, ponies etc need number plates as well?
3b) How do you fit a speedo(meter) to/on a horse?
3bi) Good luck with calibration!
Not needed as by definition
Not needed as by definition they’re limited to 1hp.
Weirdly, I had a little look
Weirdly, I had a little look at hp, because of the previous death by cycling bit a while back (laws same since days of the horse and other such nonsense), as 1hp is 250W, but WvA can stick out 3hp, horses generally can put out 6hp.
I’m guessing this is one of the reasons those SI people have stayed away from the HP.
@#?*! So, clydesdales & other
@#?*! So, clydesdales & other heavy horses will need HH(orse)V licencing!
ktache wrote:
But I thought we wanted to restore some of these good old units? Maybe road.cc could start by quoting candlepower for light reviews…
Rejection of the HP was actually because they didn’t like his squirrels.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well, it takes all sorts, I suppose
ktache wrote:
I’m guessing this is one of the reasons those SI people have stayed away from the HP.— ktache
There’s a certain amount of marketting involved there. James Watt used the power output of a pony to set the measure (one horsepower is double what that pony produced). An average healthy human can put out 1.2 hp, while Usain Bolt produced 3.5 hp while setting a world record three years ago. Peak power of a strong horse has been measured at 14.9 hp.
Yes, Watt had a vested
Yes, Watt had a vested interest in underestimating horsepower as he agreed to take royalties of one third of the savings his engines made over horses, so the lower a horsepower was measured at the more horses he could claim the engine replaced and so the higher his royalties. Canny folk, yon Scots!
But his profiteering held
But his profiteering held back the development of the steam engine.
An electric motor rated at
An electric motor rated at one horsepower outputs 746 Watts, mechanically that’s 76 kgf⋅m/s i.e. it can lift a 76 kg mass a metre vertically in a second. That’s about half what a top sprinter can manage, but the cyclist will do it for a few seconds while the motor (or horse) can do it all day.
grumpus wrote:
I think you’re doing cycling wrong.
mdavidford wrote:
Why? He might be a truly epic descender…
Oh yes, I’m a great descender
Oh yes, I’m a great descender
Descending a vertical wall
My speed is such, I descend too much
I can’t tell it apart from a fall
Who would have thought it,
Who would have thought it, confused messaging from a member of Bozo’s cabinet.
Will Olympic sprinters need a
Will Olympic sprinters need a registration plate to cross the road?
It’ll need 7 armed officers
It’ll need 7 armed officers to arrest them.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Only if they’re with a chicken
Saw this piece on Gandruia
Saw this piece on Gandruia about the only country that has mandatory cycle registration: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/17/north-korea-where-bicycle-licence-plates-are-non-negotiable-grant-shapps
They also ban women from cycling, so is that Grant’s next bright idea?
No, but he thinks they should
No, but he thinks they should be taxed.
Taxing women?
Hmmmm.
Taxing women?
Hmmmm.
I wouldn’t be surprised at
I wouldn’t be surprised at anything with this lot. After all, they’re now the UKIP/ Brexit Party in all but name. I remember one prominent UKIP member’s comments about slovenly women not “cleaning behind the fridge”. These are the “values” supported by many of their members after all. , Not sure why they’re determined to elect a woman as leader though, although she does support a lot of their other values,
like calling Britons lazier than foreigners and avoiding “handouts” for struggling families while promoting tax cuts.
Capercaillie wrote:
They were put in the tough (for them) position of choosing between a woman and a non-white man.
Sack Shatts. Idiot!
Sack Shatts. Idiot!
Here’s a politician scoring political points that will empower the moron motorist with his Shatty utterances. How many more cyclists will be injured or worse following Shatt’s shit chat?
What a Shitter.
Boris. Sort him out!
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Boris is currently extremely busy with his
caretaking dutiessummer holiday, so he won’t be doing much of anythingFignon’s ghost wrote:
This is a very real concern. I’m out the door and cycling into work before most, so the roads are quiet, but on the way home – now that the gammons have had time to rouse from thier sleep and wank themselves raw to the DM front page – I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more punishment passes.
It’s the Max Cady types you
It’s the Max Cady types you’ve got to keep an eye out for. They never ever forgive. Or forget.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Shapps the Shit.
I mean the fundamental point
I mean the fundamental point on cyclists speeding is surely one of physics.
Let’s assume we’re on the flat – the typical cyclist plus rider that can “easily” go faster than 20, might be 75kg and one a 10kg bike (so definitely not a climber of riding a top end bike, or even a carbon road bike but lets stick to these for round numbers), so 85kg.
20mph is 8.94 m/s (again lets say 9, this goes against the cyclist and makes the maths easier).
KE = 1/2 MV^2
KE = 0.5*85*81 = 3.44 kilojoules.
Now for the car, lets run it for a ’22 mini (curb weight 1275kg) – lets all the fuel passengers etc. are freakisly light and call in 1300kg all-in (it has a gross weight of 1640kg which is far more likely to reflect the rolling weight of this bad body in the real world).
So applying the same maths:
KE = 0.5*1300*81 = 52.65 kilojoules
So at the same speed the car (even a relatively small one) in a 20 would have roughly 15.3 times the energy of the cyclist. To put that into context – comparing the car doing 20 to the bike doing 20 is about the same as comparing a car doing 76 to a bike doing 20… or finally a bike doing 20mph has about the same kinetic energy as a car doing 5mph…
Now look – I’m not saying that we should base everything on physics as that would create an incredibly fiddly set of speed limits and road traffic laws based on total vehicle mass (including occupants and load) but you know what – lets be serious – to have the same energy as a small car going 20, an 85kg bike + rider would need to be going 78.5 mph – and if people were doing that then we wouldn’t have to put up with all this bollocks about cyclists being slow and getting in the way!
Yeah, but it’s all
Yeah, but it’s all concentrated through those tiny thin wheels, so it does more damage…
You are Edward Mountain and I
You are Edward Mountain and I claim my £5
https://road.cc/content/news/255991-conservative-msp-argues-bike-could-do-more-damage-car-collision
Poor choice of examples.
Poor choice of examples.
A small electric moped weighs 75kg.
A driver of such a vehicle has to legally obey speed limits.
A fully laden e-cargo bike can easily weigh 120kg.
It is exempt from speed limits.
Now obviously it’s quite hard to get 120kg of fully laden cargo bike up to speed on the flat but downhill you could easily surpass 30mph.
According to this Danny
According to this Danny MacAskill short you can do a wheelie with cargo bikes though. Yet more dangerous and anti- social behaviour which some politician could
flirt with regulating to play to party membersusefully look into.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XD2eRIgBgI4
Rich_cb wrote:
A small electric moped weighs 75kg. A driver of such a vehicle has to legally obey speed limits.
A fully laden e-cargo bike can easily weigh 120kg. It is exempt from speed limits.
Now obviously it’s quite hard to get 120kg of fully laden cargo bike up to speed on the flat but downhill you could easily surpass 30mph.— Rich_cbPoor basis for comparison.
Have you ridden a fully laden e-cargo bike at 30 mph? Do you know anyone who has? Or are you just trying to justify the bullshit around this topic because Grant Shapps is a Tory?
If the tiny number of heavily-laden cargo bikes are a problem* then let’s have registration, number plates, third party insurance and speed limits. But before we introduce that level of beaurocracy for a very small number of vehicles we should ask whether those things are working for larger, more dangerous vehicles…
The road casualty stastics and other evidence show that that they are not.
So this idea is a non-starter.
https://twitter.com/CarltonReid/status/933636636717584384
* has anyone identified how many collisions are there between cargo bikes and other road users, specifically pedestrians? Or is this just more pie-in-the-sky making-it-up-as-we-go-along bullshit?
I have personally ridden a
I have personally ridden a fully laden cargo bike at over 30mph. It was obviously downhill and, for the record, the section of road had a 40 mph limit.
The point is that it is entirely possible for a bicycle being ridden legally to have significantly more kinetic energy than a motorised vehicle being driven legally. That doesn’t just apply to cargo bikes either.
Using kinetic energy as justification for the speed limit exemption therefore doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Personally I don’t think the number plate idea will ever take off so, in order to catch speeding cyclists, the police will have to actually get out onto the roads and actively police illegal behaviour.
As your data so neatly demonstrates the consequence of this will be far more drivers having their collar felt alongside a tiny number of cyclists. I’m happy with that exchange.
Rich_cb wrote:
Chapeau! Or – down with this reckless, dangerous “speeding” behaviour.
I’m confused – I guess we should be getting into stopping distances, centres of inertia and were you cycling to the conditions?
So… maybe similar questions to those for a motor vehicle operator! Hmm…
I also think this is empty noise by a politician. At least as far as taking it literally. So – maybe sadly – not really surprising.
It’s very much empty noise.
It’s very much empty noise.
Unfortunately it has hit a sweet spot for the outrage merchants on both sides.
Why was it a poor choice of
Why was it a poor choice of examples? Pretty standard weights for the majority of variants of each vehicle on the road. You have decided to choose too very rare examples of two vehicles, then decided to put them on one specific section of road. At any other time the e-cargo bike would only be able to get to half the speed limit of this very small e-scooter, which itself is capped under the speed limit of majority of roads (28mph), and in theory might also be able to freewheel passed 30mph.
As I explained below, if
As I explained below, if kinetic energy is your justification for the lack of speed limits then it’s easy to demonstrate the flaws in your argument.
Any bicycle can theoretically surpass the kinetic energy of a moped as the weight difference isn’t always that great.
Eg 90kg rider on 15kg bike Vs 50kg rider on 75kg moped.
Still doesn’t answer why his
Still doesn’t answer why his is a poor example though. Yours needs such a combination of vehicle types in such specific circumstances. (E-cargo bike fully laden on a specific downhill section with a rider who would let it go faster then 20mph v lighest legal scooter with nothing else on the bike). When most people give examples, they give standards. He gave standards, hence not a poor example.
If your basing your argument
If your basing your argument on kinetic energy but there is overlap between the two categories your examples should probably reflect that at least to some degree.
A standard bike and rider can easily surpass the kinetic energy of a small moped and rider. Neither are particularly unusual vehicle types.
If you put a moped into the original examples you’d find yourself arguing that speed limits shouldn’t apply to it.
That’s why the examples were poorly chosen as they ignored the obvious flaw in the argument.
Rich_cb wrote:
The crucial word you’ve left out here is “sometimes”. I’d guess that *while moving* mopeds will be expected to have higher average speed. Because of the motor. That would make their average kinetic energy higher as the velocity is the dominant term, no? (Through an urban area they could end up with similar average speed if the bike took the same path eg. waiting at same traffic lights; there might be faster routes for bikes via cycle infra).
Where I stay there are plenty of places at the bottom of hills where planners / designers certainly should note that bikes could be moving fast. Overall though – even with motor assistance up the hills – I’d expect a lower average K.E. Other factors are also important here for safe operation eg. braking, stability, turning circle. And asuming that the bikes are legal of course! (I’d suggest that for commercial freight cycles – if enough get used – we might even consider a mini-MOT).
Otherwise we need to take account of the terminal velocity of bikes falling off bridges in the argument!
The point is that if speed
The point is that if speed limits are needed because of kinetic energy then they need to apply to bicycles too as a bike can easily possess the same kinetic energy as a motorised vehicle which is subject to speed limits.
The average kinetic energy is a meaningless distraction.
If a car breaks the speed limit on one part of its journey but keeps below the limit for the rest do we discount the speeding because the average speed is ok?
So why should we discount periods of high kinetic energy just because the average is lower?
Rich_cb wrote:
Average speed cameras do indeed work like that.
The point of using average weights/kinetic energy of different vehicle classes is just to simplify the calculations – otherwise it’s a case of weighing each and every vehicle in order to discuss them which is an unnecessary level of detail. Yes, there’s going to be outliers that would suggest that a vehicle should be in a different class, but they will be a minority.
I’d say both are important
I’d say both are important for road design and regulation. However if we’re talking about the importance of KE for setting speed restrictions (or not) looking at expected / average speeds is entirely sensible. If you put a cargo bike in South Holland, say, (flat) it would be extremely unlikely to ever get near your magic number (downhill). * A moped there would be going around at whatever top speed it’s capable of, and most of the time – because more motor. And it could have that speed anywhere – on a long straight in the country, in an urban area…
Move that to near me and now you could hit your max speed. So would that justify regulation *everywhere*? I’d suggest this would be excessive (eg. waste of money). There are only a limited number of places where this would be possible. Again the moped could possess dangerous KE anywhere.
Back to the big picture – however you want to manage things we should be measuring outcomes (including “near miss events”), prioritising and (the government’s own choice – so they say) encouraging active travel. That seems a world away from what Shapps’ has been saying for his own political advertising!
* it’s blowy there sometimes so maybe you could occasionally put up a sail…
Thinking again – don’t the
Thinking again – don’t the Dutch have some intermediate categories between “cycle” (which covers a lot of vehicles) and “full motorcycle / car”. There’s definitely a “motor scooter” class. They also have some fast pedelecs- not sure what category they fall into.
Ignoring the fact that all these things are currently very rare and accepting we “need to do something” – shouldn’t the government be proposing a *study* (or even trial, just like with scooters – although that horse may have bolted now)? Since we don’t have packs of them over here why not look overseas? Nothing to stop then reviewing both the safety data and how / why things are regulated.
Yes, in NL there have long
Yes, in NL there have long been “snorfietsen” and “bromfietsen”.
A snorfiets is a very light motorbike, some historically were basically bicycles with engines. They are, by law, not supposed to be capable of more than 25 km/h. There was no requirement to wear a helmet with them, but that is (sadly?) changing next year.
A bromfiets is a 50cc bike, meant to be limited to 45 km/h. A helmet is required, since the 70s. You need to pass a test to ride one (since mid 90s).
Snor and brom fietsen used to go on bicycle paths (fietspad), but now they generally can not, unless otherwise indicated.
What type of speedometer,
What type of speedometer, with what accuracy will be required?
please, Liz can I have a
please, Liz can I have a cabinet role – I met the 3 criteria of being (i) “tough” (ii) wrong about everything and (iii) not focused on anything that actually matters
The intent seems to be that cyclists aren’t above the new default 20 mph speed limits. Cool? Is the enforcement then the same as it was with driver speeding before speed guns came along?
If it’s really him, his
If it’s really him, his Strava profile has 31 rides. Ever. “Keen cyclist?”
mbrads72 wrote:
Could be; I have none.
eburtthebike wrote:
HERETIC!
But have you checked his
But have you checked his other accounts? He’s well-known for making up multiple identities.
Shapps really is a knob
Shapps really is a knob
I’d say that:
I’d say that:
1 – Shapps is an ignorant tosspot (we all know that),
2 – he has just had previous work proving that his ideas are BS pointed out to him by a Civil Servant,
3 – he has been hit over the head with a cluebat containing a 6 inch nail long enough to penetrate his thick skull,
4 – he is now desperately back-pedalling to preserve a credibility that
5 – he is too stupid to realise that he does not possess.
One point in the argument
One point in the argument about speed limits for bicycles that I haven’t seen made is that it could actually encourage cyclists to put themselves in more danger to make sure they don’t break the speed limit. We all know that the average cyclist doesn’t tend to carry a speedometer, and so the temptation will be to slow down well below the speed limit to ensure that they don’t get a ticket. This in turn will inevitably lead to more frustration and close passing from drivers who will be able to see what speed they’re doing. I hate to think how the snarling, hooting drivers I sometimes have following me when I’m riding at the 20 mph speed limit on my local roads (where due to parked cars both sides it is often impossible to pass) would react if I started carefully dawdling along at 15 mph or lower to make sure that I was within the limit.
Although if cyclists did have
Although if cyclists did have limits, then they would also be forced into buying and fitting a calibrated and accurate speed measuring device. I’m sure Grant won’t have already invested in firms selling those things beforehand though.
Look for a kickstarter under one of his alter-egos.
Although if cyclists did have
Although if cyclists did have limits, then they would also be forced into buying and fitting a calibrated and accurate speed measuring device
These, of course, already exist and are highly accurate when calibrated against GPS, and are more accurate than car speedos even when simple measurement of the tyre circumference is performed. However, it is axiomatic for the police that cyclists are always travelling at less than 10 mph, which is why it is always legal to cross unbroken white lines to overtake them. Therefore, the police will be forced to simultaneously decry cyclist rev/counter or GPS speedos as worthless junk and therefore legitimising DWL crossing motorists, while simultaneously approving them for the purpose of prosecuting cyclists. These double standards come naturally to the police