The organisers of the London Naked Bike Ride have responded to reports about increased security at next year’s event, stating that the measure is not due to more hostility towards nude cyclists and insisting it is unrelated to an assault at the Colchester World Naked Bike Ride event this summer which saw a motorcyclist punch a naked cyclist.
The Times newspaper had reported the decision for WNBR London to arrange increased security at its 2026 event, and switch the day from a Saturday to a Sunday when the city is quieter, was due to increased hostility towards nude cyclists.
“We’ve found that leading over 1,000 cyclists through central London on a Saturday in June has become increasingly troublesome,” an event representative told The Times.
“We’ve also been making increasing use of professional security personnel, which has become our largest cost. Their role is to improve safety and behaviour, both for our riders and for spectators. They patrol the start, finish and rest points as well as riding along with the participants.”
However, since we cited those quotes in an article communicating the news of increased security, WNBR London has elaborated on the thinking behind the decision and disputed “increased hostility” towards participants is a factor, although a spokesperson did suggest organising the event in central London had become “increasingly troublesome”.
“It is entirely untrue that we have hired more security because of a recent increase in hostility,” they told us. “We have not noticed any significant change. There are always a few complaints and an occasional minor incident. These are greatly outweighed by supportive, positive comments and overall enjoyment of the ride.
“We’ve found leading over 1,000 cyclists through central London on a Saturday in June has become increasingly troublesome. There are public events, multiple protests, counter-protests, police lockdowns, road closures, crane operations, traffic jams, congestion and crowds of spectators.
“Even with good police liaison, we have found it hard to make trouble-free progress on our planned routes. In 2024, almost every section of our routes had to be diverted as the central area was in lockdown. We had documented and tested 13 possible route variations, which we applied based on updates from the police control room.
“Challenges like that are why we have increased our professional security personnel and decided to experiment with holding the ride on a Sunday when London tends to be quieter. The next ride is planned for Sunday 14th June 2026.”
The organisers also reject that the increase in security is a response to the sentencing of a motorcyclist for punching a naked bike ride participant off his bike at a Colchester naked bike ride event in Essex on Saturday, 9 August. Lee Turnage, 46, received a 14-month suspended sentence for the assault of Mr Brown, 59, and for later attacking two police officers. The court heard that Turnage believed the cyclists to be “sexual predators” and “perverts”.
While they may ride as part of the same movement, many naked bike rides are distinct events run by individual groups in their respective areas and are not linked or affiliated with other naked rides in different parts of the country. The London ride’s organisers have not commented on the assault in Colchester and insisted the increase in security is not a response to the incident.
“The media have conflated that [security increase] with the report of a thug on a motorbike in Colchester, attacking a rider, wrecking his bike, injuring him and two police officers,” the spokesperson continued. “He was convicted but only received a suspended sentence – which, in itself, is quite an outrageous news story. Needless to say, that was nothing to do with us in WNBR London, and, therefore, we have declined to comment on it.”
Following the assault, the cyclist who was attacked said naked bike rides’ intention is to “change people’s opinions and improve the perception of naturism”.
“Unfortunately, these attacks are an occupational hazard, but they shouldn’t be. We are not perverts,” he said.
The story was widely reported by the media in the UK and there was also a petition launched calling for the ban of the naked bike rides, for “the future safeguarding of children”.
When speaking to road.cc about the petition, the World Naked Bike Ride London said: “The WNBR is a peaceful, lawful protest that intends to get its messages across by generating public interest. We want other road users and spectators to be pleasantly surprised and take notice. We do not behave badly!”
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, nudity is allowed in England and Wales, as long as it does not “cause alarm or distress”.
The riders follow strict rules; they must remain seated at all times, be clothed before and immediately after the ride, and close-up or long lens photography is forbidden.
The organiser of the naked bike ride in York, children’s entertainer John Cossham, has said that there have been several incidents in recent years. This includes a “staunch Christian feminist” making complaints to the police.
He added that “we occasionally get someone shout ‘get your clothes on’. I have witnessed three times a Muslim family turn their backs on us, and we actually changed the route this year to not go past the mosque out of respect.”
“We generally get a very good response — people laughing, clapping, cheering,” he said. “There are always a minority of people in society who have loud voices and make complaints, but sometimes their complaints are based on a preconception that we are a bunch of pervy men.
“We may be a bunch of men — it’s about a 70-30 split in York — but we are mostly, as far as I can tell, not pervy. Naturism is not about sexuality; it’s about being clothes-free and the sense of freedom it gives some people.”
This story has been updated with more input from the London Naked Bike Ride’s organisers since it was first published on 29 December.
83 thoughts on “London Naked Bike Ride hires more security, but denies measure due to increased hostility towards nude cyclists”
We are not perverts. Only
We are not perverts. Only exhibitionists who impose the sight of their naked bodies to unconsented audiences.
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
Nobody is forced to face the riders or has their eyelids held open by matches so how is anything imposed on them? There are plenty of things I don’t like seeing and I do the obvious thing and avoid them, not campaign to impinge on the freedom of others.
chrisonabike reveals all:
chrisonabike reveals all:
Prudes! Avoid the risk of seeing naked bodies (other than your own or your relatives’) simply by not clicking on articles containing the words “naked” or “nude”.
Where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line? Men walking around shirtless in hot weather (personally, I hate that)? Anyone wearing shorts? What’s “too much” flesh?
Next logical step: all over body covering, to protect you from “perverts”. I say all power to the nudies, if only to upset pearl-clutching prudes.
Good idea. What would you
Good idea. What would you call this prudish cult that forces women to cover up in case some random man gets the urge to rape them?
Any ideas?
It’s a puzzle – there are so
It’s a puzzle – there are so many to choose from! But in “the West” it’s largely Christian -associated groups (simply because those are still the most prevalent; and indeed there being a resurgence in eg. the US in combination with a certain strain of conservatism)…
Personally I cover up in winter to deal with the cold and in summer to handle the sun.
I’m not against others dressing how they feel – though context does have some bearing, true. Though overall I think it’s what’s on the inside makes you more than what’s on the outside (or not).
But… occasionally I do feel tempted to say to someone what you might say to a nudist – “I can clearly see you’re nuts”.
We are not prudes – we just
We are not prudes – we just wish to control what other people do with their bodies because they don’t meet our arbitrary definition of morality.
PS most of us believe in the great sky fairy. We’ve been brainwashed since birth but that’s ok.
Also – for socially
Also – for socially conservative types or many of the religious prescribing exactly what people can do with their bodies once adult (*especially* if they’re female…) including all manner of regulations on the showing (or not) of skin and shape is normal, but letting it all hang out occasionally is “perverted”.
Still, humans have been doing that more or less since forever. I guess the more repressive attitudes are effectively “hallmarks of civilisation”.
FFS! They are on bikes! This
FFS! They are on bikes! This negates whatever nefarious activity they may be doing at that time!
Re: ‘Under the Sexual
Re: ‘Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, nudity is allowed in England and Wales, as long as it does not “cause alarm or distress”.’
This in inaccurate. Nudity is allowed under the act unless there is a deliberate intention that someone will see and be caused alarm or distress.
Hopefully nude security?
Hopefully nude security guards?
If the Lord had meant us to
These entitled non lycra clad louts will streak through red lights and into the hearths of hell! If the Lord had meant us to cycle nude, we would surely have been born without clothes on.
Oh! But wait!
TBF if the good Lord had
TBF if the good Lord had meant us to have bicycles (to mount naked) surely they would be found growing in nature, available to harvest? Or be found roaming wild in herds…?
chrisonabike wrote:
Don’t be silly, they live in small family groups hidden in the woods!
Bicycles are found in very
Bicycles are found in very deep remote woodland and undulating moorland. They are shy. Some are solitary, but many exist in peleton herds.
They do all they can to avoid their main predators : SUVs, white vans and VWGolfs. Vans and Golfs cannot drive on countryside.
The SUV is fully capable of hunting in rough countryside, but is reluctant to do so. Instead the SUV often frequents fast food outlets, retail parks and schools. Although large and powerful, the SUV is relatively stupid. If it attacks it can be neutralised simply by causing it to turn on it’s back.
A precursor to an SUV attack is a beeping horn and a growl of : “Arrghettoffmyroadyurmakinmelate!”
Or “Argghgedfuckinginsured!”
Plenty of people will be
Plenty of people will be offended at being subjected to this in a public place. Some of them doubtless will be distressed by it for a wide variety of reasons which do not necessarily make them ‘prudes’ (though even prudes are entitled to civility in public spaces)
These riders know this perfectly well – yet choose to disregard the offence they undoubtedly cause.
If it walks like a prude and
If it walks like a prude and talks like a prude it’s a prude.
The naked human body is literally the most natural thing in the world and it’s recognised as such in law.
The Prudes could choose to not to find it offensive but they chose to externalise instead, probably in many cases due to religious brainwashing or the need to control others.
You and the prudes can get in the bin.
I give notice to all these
I give notice to all these prudes, from this point onwards I will be totally naked when posting on this forum, you have been warned!
If it walks like a groomer
If it walks like a groomer and talks like a groomer….
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Nonsense! Rocks are far more natural. Life is an aberration – a galactic perversion!
In general, if one is
In general, if one is offended by something we see we have option to switch-off, stop viewing, etc. This is not so in this example, where the public will have no choice but to be subjected to this if they are on the road.
You are perfectly aware this will cause offence and even distress but clearly don’t care about that. You refer to me and other ‘prudes’ who disagree as as trash.
But you probably expect others to treat you with respect – which commonly involves considering the impacts of our actions for others, even including those of faith who you dismiss as brainwashed. This is a very selfish attitude.
Crazyhorse wrote:
You’re obviously not a cyclist, after the first hundred times of a driver nearly killing you to save a few seconds of his time you realise that being subjected to seeing a bit more skin than you are comfortable with is microscopic on the scale of treating people with respect.
So that’s the baseline now is
So that’s the baseline now is it? Being close-passed? Then you can’t moan about seeing a strangers genitals!
What about kids and those that have been molested and raped? If they’ve been close-passed once in their life, can they be offended at seeing an old man’s cock?
WhichWayNow wrote:
Rape and sexual molestation are both very serious assaults, but we don’t respond to any assaults by banning sight of all instances of the weapon used, otherwise there would be no cars on the road and no people either, clothed or not. We respond by supporting the victim and identifying and convicting the perpetrator.
I really am worried about you
I really am worried about you Backy. It’s almost like yourse saying the antidote to being raped or abused is seeing more willy instead of telling those with exposed willies to cover up?
WhichWayNow wrote:
You’re not reading the comments are you, you’re just another troll saying what you think will provoke outrage but its not going to work here.
So explain what your words
So explain what your words mean then.
“Rape and sexual molestation are both very serious assaults, but we don’t respond to any assaults by banning sight of all instances of the weapon used”
What does that mean? To me it means that you’re giving priority to a pervert who wants to be naked in a public setting over the negative impact that may have on some of the most vulnerable in society, as long as the naked pervert in question is a cyclist?
WhichWayNow wrote:
You should be more worried about yourself, your increasingly hysterical language and your desperation to get a reaction. Classic projection, no doubt.
“Who smelt it dealt it” again
“Who smelt it dealt it” again. Another abuse enabler.
Rape victims offended at
Rape victims offended at seeing men’s genitals on display in a public place – “I’m a victim of sexual abuse, I don’t think there should be naked men in their thousands riding round London”
Backladder – “Raped? Is that all? You should count yourself lucky, I’ve been close passed!”
Rape victims offended at
Rape victims offended at seeing men’s genitals on display in a public place – “I’m a victim of sexual abuse, I don’t think there should be naked men in their thousands riding round London”
Backladder – “Raped? Is that all? You should count yourself lucky, I’ve been close passed!”
Crazyhorse wrote:
I mean – the “natural state” of adult humans on land hasn’t been “naked” for … probably many thousands of years *.
On the other hand societies have got just about every variation of “some skin exposed” at least in some circumstances.
Perhaps (extremely rarely) people can be minimally clothed or less in public and in return some people can tut, complain, or even be a bit rude – and those who “haven’t consented” can work out what they make of it all?
And anyway – who gets to decide what they experience in public space before it happens (beyond a few specific things that are criminalised)?
* I like the suggestion that it’s no more “natural” to show humans naked in tracts on biology than it is to show eg. monkeys dressed up like in the Typhoo adverts.
With situations like this,
With situations like this, where no one is actually being hurt either mentally or physically, people need to ask themselves why they are so offended or upset.
The reason is society has taught us that we should not be naked in public.
While the law is about intention to cause distress, I doubt anyone on the ride is intending to do so.
If anything, I’m more offended that with the knowledge that pollution from vehicle exhausts harms us far more than seeing naked people ever could (not to mention actual KSIs from collisions)… the government hasn’t done more to remove that which causes far more harm to the public.
Excellent strawmanning and
Excellent strawmanning and deflection.
If a man is naked in a public place, it’s those that look and notice that are the problem ain’t it?
Survivors of rape and sexual abuse be dammed eh?
That’s all well and good and
That’s all well and good and yes, maybe some of the naked cyclists might be perverts acting out a perversion in full view of children that haven’t consented to his bollocks.
But, they are on BIKES! Everyone knows no one who rides a bike has done anything wrong. Ever.
At least, not according to most here at Road.cc….
Pretty sure most perverts
Pretty sure most perverts prefer to keep their clothes on * – indeed often present an outwardly conservative respectable appearance (commonly appearing as pedagogues, police, politicians, priests…)?
Don’t predators generally seek power and status to give them a wider selection of victims and impress them / cow others?
Perhaps we should consider a sharp suit or a fancy car more of a warning sign?
* with the possible exception of “flashers” – who are apparently more aptly described as “w***ers”.
Also just noting that it’s believed that the vast majority of abuse is carried out by family members or close friends.
In that case, I fear for many
In that case, I fear for many of the family and close friends children of road.cc after reading the other posts on here.
WhichWayNow wrote:
I was commissioned some years ago to proofread a very interesting psychology PhD thesis that demonstrated that sexual abusers/those likely to become sexual abusers of children were frequently characterized by a monomaniacal obsession with accusing others of the crimes they had committed or fantasized about. It showed that it was highly unusual for those who were actually paedophiles, or potential ones, to give the slightest hint about their proclivities in any way, even if posting anonymously on the internet; they were much more likely to position themselves as “the voice of morality and reason” and to accuse everyone else of their own crimes/desires. Fascinating.
Someone should have told
Someone should have told Saville that, plenty of red flags coming from him.
Did this thesis mention anything about those that ignore the signs and pass it off as “normal” and something “man has been doing since the dawn of time”?
You always seem to fall into
You always seem to fall into these hypocritical holes don’t you Rendel?
You accuse someone of being something by the sheer fact they aren’t displaying the characteristics of that something but in fact, are pointing out the blatant characteristics of being that something of others.
And yet you fail to see the irony of your “who smelt it dealt it” accusations you are making yourself.
I do not recall accusing
I do not recall accusing anyone of being perverts nor is there any evidence to support that designation. Nevertheless, their actions do cause offence and there is no compelling reason why they need to do so.
They are not highlighting any great injustice – merely imposing their own personal choices on others in a way they know will make some/many uncomfortable.
If you are offended by people
If you are offended by people behaving legally then you either need to have your offenceometer recalibrated or move to a country more in tune with your sensibilities.
Backladder wrote:
Whilst I agree in general with you, legality isn’t a great measure of whether something may be offensive or moral (c.f. old U.S. laws making it illegal to offer help/shelter to fleeing slaves).
However, being offended by nudity is surely a sign of being emotionally stunted.
Or it could be a sign of
Or it could be a sign of having been through trauma, or, having some modesty?
If you can’t see that not
If you can’t see that not being able to consent to seeing a strangers genitals in a public space is wrong then I’d worry what your end game is in all this…
Crazyhorse wrote:
The nudists would surely only be really “imposing their own personal choices on others” if they forced others to be naked, no?
I’m no nudist nor an Elon Musk yelling about the right to offend and “free speech” (who however appears very easily offended by certain subjects himself and not keen on certain speech…)…
… but there is a constant debate in most societies because there will always be some people who find some behaviour by others offensive. Apart from in the most repressive and outwardly homogeneous, of course.
I’d say getting your cock out
I’d say getting your cock out in front of kids is a line that shouldn’t be crossed in a modern progressive society, but you do you I suppose.
I’m starting to wonder who
I’m starting to wonder who are the “exhibitionists”?
Is it people appearing unclothed in public… or rather those who are exposing their sexualised thoughts on the internet who are really seeking a (outraged) reaction?
Still not following your argument that restricting public nudity * is going to protect children or those who have been abused?
We know that when the former are preyed on it’s almost always by those they know and/or trust, in private. And the misogynists, abusers and those who want to keep “women in their place” are happily doing that in society and on the internet, without needing to get chilly or ride a bike.
Actually … have we got you wrong? Could it be it’s the *cycling* and not the exposed flesh that really gets you peppery?
* What should be hidden? All flesh? Does it differ for men and women? Are public swimming facilities too much – those costumes still show a lot? Should we be censoring National Geographic and medical texts to ensure there is nothing you consider immoral there? What about private nudity – if genitalia are morally corrupting isn’t that just as bad? Who will police that?
Also … are you aware of the internet…?
I hope these naked cyclists
I hope these naked cyclists remember to wear gloves. It’s very cold out there.
perce wrote:
You can keep your hat on! (And/or helmet according to choice).
Keeping your hat on your
Keeping your hat on your helmet might placate the sensitive souls among us. Perhaps tassles for the ladies? Or is that discriminatory?
perce wrote:
Also, you wouldn’t want anyone who’s been a victim of being punched to be offended by catching sight of a naked hand.
Ah, another “who smelt it
Ah, another “who smelt it dealt it” wrapped up and pretty words.
Another “it’s those that notice the nakedness that are the pervs, not the naked ones”
I love how your able to write lots of words without actually saying anything.
Absolutely vacuous.
WhichWayNow wrote:
So you’ve smelt it, does that mean that you’ve dealt it?
Backladder wrote:
Whoever said the rhyme did the crime.
Shame the noticers. That’s
Shame the noticers. That’s the liberal thing to do. As you have probably seen here at Road.cc they see those that notice are the bad guys, especially if the perpetrators are cyclists.
Well, quite. You’ve only got
Well, quite. You’ve only got to look at the huge number of right-wing figures revealed as paedophiles and sexual abusers, to know this.
As per usual here at the
As per usual here at the liberal epicentre of cycling. If it’s being done by a cyclist, no matter how how perverted, it’s not bad.
You are the pervert for noticing!
Am I right road.cc?
In the thousands of hours I
In the thousands of hours I’ve spent riding a bike, I’ve never had a boner. Something about reduced bloodflow I assume. If nekkid riders are pervs, let them ride – at least they won’t be molesting anyone while they’re doing it. It’s when they stop, you’ve got to be worried.
Just keep the children away from the end of the ride – that’s the thing.
Let’s hope some of the road
Let’s hope some of the road.cc commenters aren’t involved….
.
.
Spot on, except they should
Spot on, except they should be pointing at a straw man! (Or perhaps it should say “this bicycle is a paedo”?)
Exactly!
Exactly!
Anybody that’s not willing to get their cock out in front of kids, is a paedo!
Come on men of road.cc prove you’re not a paedo by exposing yourself to children!
You seem to be associating
You seem to be associating naturism with sexual deviance. A bit silly really.
Is it? Really? You know
Is it? Really? You know perverts will do anything to look at naked bodies don’t you? I’d bet a naked beach will attract more perverts than a normal beach. Bet you.
So you are saying perverts
So you are saying perverts will turn up to watch a naked bike ride? I think you are getting a bit confused now.
It’s true – naked statues
It’s true – naked statues attract more perverts than clothed statues. Fact!
Oh hang on … does that make those statues perverts? Or their makers, or those who commission them?
You’re saying perverts WON’T
You’re saying perverts WON’T want to watch a naked bike ride or take part?
Oh to be so naive. You sweet summer child.
Like I said.
Like I said.
You are coming across as
You are coming across as being a bit hysterical with poorly structured arguments.
Why not take 5 minutes to read through your comments before posting anything else?
You seem to be dodging the
You seem to be dodging the explanation of your own (badly structured) sentences.
Youre deflecting, dodging, denying.
Now, just try explaining? What did you mean?
The foundation of your
The foundation of your argument is the assumption that some of the participants in a naked cycle ride will be perverts who will take the opportunity to expose themselves, make onlookers uncomfortable and maybe indulge in worse activities.
You then make a further assumption that anyone who argues in favour of a naked cycle ride must also be a pervert.
The language you use is becoming more extreme, presumably in an attempt to shock.
Why not consider the enjoyment that most participants gain from the ride? A naked ride is not my cup of tea, but I accept that it appeals to some. Spectators are not forced to watch and I find it hard (no pun) to believe that such events aren’t well publicised in advance, allowing ample opportunity to avoid the event.
I apologise for my poorly constructed sentences, but that is a direct consequence of reading pictures only, Danish hard core, deviant porn magazines inside my copy of Cycling Weekly.
There it is again, perverts
There it is again, perverts over people. You’re saying stay home if you don’t want to see naked people? Workers should book a day off?
That’s been the running theme throughout all this thread, that those noticing (and maybe being bothered by) the naked bike riders are the ones in the wrong.
Perverts will use every opportunity possible to exercise their perversion. Wether it be watching or participating in a mass nakedness event.
Im saying that something like this doesn’t need to happen. If a man walked naked through the streets of London on any other day he’d be arrested, you all know that. The difference in this case is they are on bikes, so it’s ok.
I’m also concerned by some of the language used by others in this thread that’s been pure victim blaming, something readily called out normally here.
If the organisers booked out a private venue then I’d be all for it, the more the merrier.
WhichWayNow wrote:
Except… he wouldn’t. Especially not if he was taking part in a ‘World Naked Protest Walk’.
So basically, he would,
So basically, he would, unless he was participating in a made up event.
Gotcha. Thanks for proving my point.
Er, no. I think perhaps you
Er, no. I think perhaps you need to practice your reading comprehension.
No. People don’t have to stay
No. People don’t have to stay at home, to avoid being offended. Just avoid the course.
And looking at the photos above, the throngs (not thongs) of spectators would make it difficult to see the event unless bypassers force their way to the front of the crowd.
I don’t accept your argument about the event presenting opportunities for perversion. In my experience most people are decent with a good sense of right and wrong, meaning that participants / spectators would almost certainly call out bad behaviour.
I agree that a private venue would be ideal, but it is very difficult to find somewhere large enough.
Why not try to live and let live?
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Nor really – it would rather defeat the ‘protest’ element, which is the stated purpose of the event.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Featuring nudes like this one? All the outer covers stripped!
WhichWayNow wrote:
Ah yes, they should aspire to emulate the crystal clarity and elegance of your sentence structure, such as:
“You accuse someone of being something by the sheer fact they aren’t displaying the characteristics of that something but in fact, are pointing out the blatant characteristics of being that something of others.”
As usual with you Rendel,
As usual with you Rendel, ignore the meaning and just concentrate on the grammar when you’ve been found to be your hypocritical self.
WhichWayNow wrote:
Without the correct grammar your meaning is impossible to decypher.
Happy 2026, all!
Happy 2026, all!