A new survey from the market research firm YouGov has found strong levels of support for compulsory registration of cyclists – even apparently among cyclists, defined as people who confirmed they have ridden a bike in the past year.
The survey follows the petition launched by motoring lawyer Nick Freeman – who styles himself ‘Mr Loophole’ for his history of getting often high-profile clients cleared of driving-related offences, often on technicalities – urging that cyclists being licensed.
Conducted among 1,888 adults in Great Britain, the survey found that six in 10 respondents (60 per cent) backed the idea of cyclists being made to wear numbered tabards so they could be identified, with around half (31 per cent) expressing “strong support.”
71 per cent of people who voted Conservative at the 2019 general election supported the proposal, compared to 55 per cent who voted Labour. While response rates across socio-economic groups and regions were broadly similar, support rose steadily with age – from 45 per cent of 18-24s to 72 per cent of those aged 65 and above.
Just 28 per cent of people said they were against the idea, and only 15 per cent strongly opposed it – sentiments most likely to be held by Labour or Lib Dem voters, men, and younger people.
Among people who have cycled in the past year, 51 per cent were against the notion of having to wear a numbered tabard, of whom 37 per cent were strongly opposed – but a surprising 42 per cent were in favour, with 15 per cent expressing strong support.
Freeman also wants cyclists who have broken the rules of the road to be subjected to penalty points on their driving licence, should they possess one – something backed by 70 per cent of all respondents, and 58 per cent who had ridden a bike in the past year.
While the YouGov survey suggests strong support for Freeman’s proposals, his petition – posted more than six weeks ago – has only attracted 6,332 signatures at the time of writing.
That’s less than two thirds of the 10,000 votes required that would oblige the government to respond – and more than 90,000 short of the 100,000 needed before the Backbench Business Committee would even consider the issues raised in the petition for debate.
Helpfully, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport Baroness Vere of Norbiton reiterated the government’s position just last month in response to a written question from Lord Berkeley, patron of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling & Walking.
> Minister repeats there is no prospect of requiring cyclists to be licensed as ‘Mr Loophole’ lawyer Nick Freeman continues to push his petition
https://road.cc/content/news/minister-no-prospect-requiring-cyclist-be-licensed-284475
He asked the government “what assessment they have made of the possible (1) advantages, and (2) disadvantages, of introducing a licensing system for cyclists.”
In response, the minister said: “The government considered this matter carefully as part of the cycling and walking safety review in 2018, and has no plans to introduce such a system.
“Cycling brings many benefits, particularly in terms of health and the environment, and the government is keen to encourage rather than restrict it.
“Cyclists must respect the rules of the road as set out in The Highway Code and enforcement of cycling offences is a matter for the police.
“The introduction of a licensing system would be likely to deter many people from cycling and the costs and complexity of introducing and administering such a system, would be likely to outweigh any road safety or other benefits,” she added.
55 thoughts on “Survey finds strong support for calls for cyclists to be registered”
can I start a petition asking
can I start a petition asking that drivers who break the rules of the road get points on their license?
the little onion wrote:
Plus they don’t get off with anything, so Loophole Freeman would be out of a job.
Betting that many of those
Betting that many of those people who confirmed they have ridden a bike in the past year only rode it the once, and drove to get to where they rode it…?
Here’s a survey: “Do you
Here’s a survey: “In your opinion, is Nick Freeman annoying and has no idea what he is talking about regarding cycling safety?”
A) Yes
B) Yes
How about C) Donate to taking
How about C) Donate to taking out a contract on him.
Dingaling wrote:
Good, but I’d much prefer taking his driving licence away.
Also, the thing about tabards
Also, the thing about tabards is that there is, in terms of physics, a strong argument that if you extend it to cyclists then you also need to extend it to pedestrians.
The kinetic energy of an object increases linearly with mass, but exponentially to the power squared with velocity. The difference in kinetic energy between a cyclist and a pedestrian is tiny compared to that between a cyclist and a car.
Why not extend it to
Why not extend it to motorists – the same impeccable logic applies.
And their passengers who can
And their passengers who can open doors onto other road users which in a few cases have lead to deaths.
edit or this
Which just goes to show that
Which just goes to show that such surveys are as reliable as a Boris promise i.e. not at all.
Were the respondents provided with the facts before they voted? Were they selected on the basis of being drivers? The reported results of the self-identified cyclists really indicates that this survey is farcical, since I doubt that one in a hundred cyclists is in favour of registration, let alone 42%.
How about running your own survey road.cc?
Yet. I’m betting similarly
Yet. I’m betting similarly large percentage would agree that we need to cut down vehicle emissions.
Its a pointless survey with no context. People will give different answers if they are forced to think about the context rather than if they dont.
For instance – do you support a additional government spending to fund a scheme to issue and monitor tabarded licenses for cyclists?
And I’ll happily comply and
And I’ll happily comply and wear my tabard, when the [b]same rule [/b]applies to all, cyclists and drivers (not cars) alike, so that the driver (not the car) can be held accountable for the actions of the driver.
Enough of all this having to petition the registered keeper to please divulge the identity of the unknown driver. Tabard for one, tabards for all.
Mind you, since so many cars are sporting greyed out illegible number plates (or even no number plate at all), good luck with that.
Top lawyer Nick Freeman has
Top lawyer Nick Freeman has successfully piggy-backed on the danger of e-scooters, and it’s important that they are regulated first and foremost, especially privately owned ones that don’t adhere to any of the rules and norms.
On bikes, I think registration is unworkable, but I’d like to see police have immediate powers to fine and endorse the driving licence of people breaking the law, and to seize and sell (and keep the revenue of those sales) for repeat offenders.
Because we’ve seen how
Because we’ve seen how knowledgeable police officers are of cycling law. This whole thing is stupid.
This is another fallacy put
This is another fallacy put about by the anti cycling lobby. Laws, rules and enforcement already exist to cover antisocial cycling and traffic violations. Cyclists have been prosecuted under existing legislation. That the Police consider that their limited resources are better devoted to other Policing matters speaks volumes as to just how low on the risk to greater society list cyclists come.
Do you have wet dreams about
Do you have wet dreams about ‘top lawyer nick freeman’ ?
hirsute wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder if he is actually “top lawyer Nick Freeman”, given his obsession with namechecking him in virtually every one of his tedious posts.
Rendel Harris wrote:
certainly the repeated references to “top lawyer nick freeman” seem to be written by the same person who woulr write the following
“Without doubt Nick Freeman is the most famous solicitor practising in the country today. His reputation as a skilled advocate and tenacious lawyer has been reported far and wide within the press. Owing to his indepth knowledge of motoring law, the press dubbed him as “Mr Loophole” following his continued successes at challenging prosecutions. So much has the name of “Mr Loophole” become a mark of his success that Nick trademarked the name in 2008.”
https://www.nickfreemansolicitors.co.uk/about-us/
Either written by a narcisist or a sycophant.
He might be, or he knows that
He might be, or he knows that it winds up the forum which would appear to be his main objective.
He is not a top lawyer. His
He is not a top lawyer. His career is to increase the risk of children being killed or seriously injured, and he is therefore a stain on society.
Nope, Nick Freeman is a top
Nope, Nick Freeman is a top lawyer, whose job is the give his clients the best defence in a court of law, as everyone is entitled to. That’s just a fact, deal with it.
It isn’t his job or duty to judge his clients, that would be the job of a judge or magistrate, and the fact he actively campaigns to tighten driving laws and close loopholes shows that he is committed to good legislation
No it shows he has little
No it shows he has little morality or courage but is someone who wishes to advance a career in representing people who have done harmful and dangerous acts, yes they may be entitled to representation but are found not guilty on technicalities not from being not guilty. He only ‘pretend’ campaigns on legislation that furthers his career by being contentious, seeking publicity or place vulnerable groups at further disadvantage non of which is good legislation mainly the reverse but opens further potential loopholes. This seems to be like many of your own comments ?
The yougov website is co
The yougov website is co-owned/founded by Nadhim Zahawi.
Let that sink in.
Most of the respondents
Most of the respondents probably have less brains than a service station pasty, so why is it a surprise? Time and again the ‘good old British public’ prove how thick they are.
I regularly get e=mails from
I regularly get e-mails from Yougov on all sorts of issues BUT as I have filled in my profile page thingy as a cyclist I did not receive this particular one! Strange that
The question asked was:
The question asked was:
[I]Would you support or oppose the following?
A requirement for cyclists to wear a numbered tabard, equivalent to a car registration plate[/i]
The question is loaded, because of course having to wear a tabard is not equivalent to cars having registration plates. However by making that equivalence the question invites the affirmative, for who would be against [i]”car registration plates”[/i]?
The question should either have asked whether bicycles, like cars, should have registration plates. Or, whether vehicle operators should be individually identifiable through the compulsory wearing of tabards – motorists and cyclists alike.
Surely it’s more akin to
Surely it’s more akin to trade plates. I always think my attitudes tend to be quite authoritarian in a very neo liberal society, so it amazes me that the public can get behind authoritarian policies when they suit them. However, if you suggest that everybody should carry an identity card, or all cars should have a black box it would have very little support.
Registration plates identify
Registration plates identify a motor vehicle not the driver. We all know that unless vehicle owners nominate who was driving at the time of an offence, justice is rarely served. Requiring cyclists to wear an identifying tabard is the equivalent of requiring drivers to publicly display their drivers licence at all times to everyone. It’s a massive over-reach.
Here in Australia we had an over-reach 5 years ago by the then NSW roads minister when he proposed law requiring cyclists to carry photo ID with fines for failing to do so. Clearly discriminatory. Fortunately that idea was scrapped before it was due to take effect. The fact it was entertained by the minister at all as the price for introducing minimum passing distance law (as were massively increased fines for cycling offences, which remain) just showed the entrenched resentment of cyclists as a whole.
Nothing good can come of these sorts of proposals, they begin life full of prejudice and only serve to perpetuate it.
The answer is for everyone to
The answer is for everyone to wear a numbered tabard when in a public space.
What do you mean that is a flagrant violation of your rights and privacy? If you don’t do anything wrong then what are you afraid of?
How about chipping or tattooing everyone with a unique ID and increasing surveillance and tracking? That way no excuse of putting on the wrong tabard or leaving it at home.
Only a matter of time, Munge
Only a matter of time, Munge
I thought it was already done
I thought it was already done with the 5g nanobots in the vaccine.
Rigobear wrote:
Man don’t joke, I’ve seen some of the comments here on helmets, vaccines, aliens, all kinds of conspiracy theories.
Rigobear wrote:
The tracker chips are in the helmets.
What about if the cyclist or
What about if the cyclist or driver is walking and get caught for j walking do they loose points to. Just tell the police you don’t have a driver licence problem solved
These surveys never seem to
These surveys never seem to ask the most important question – “how much do you care about this issue?” I’m guessing that not many people on the “want cyclists to wear tabards” side care very much.
SaintClarence27 wrote:
Spot on – a followup question “Where does this issue come on the list of the top twenty things you want dealt with?” might be revealing.
More to the point, they never
More to the point, they never tell you about the 97% of people who didn’t care enough one way or the other to bother responding to the survey.
because thats never the point
because thats never the point of these surveys, they dont exist to take a level headed sounding of peoples attitudes towards a specific subject, they are paid for by an organisation/group/body who simply want data that supports whatever thing they are campaigning for.
So the questions will always be tailored to support the outcome they want, and biased towards their outlook, and it gets wrapped up in a banner of respectability by Yougov, instead of it being somekind of low level surveymonkey thing, who simply provide the mechanism for collating the data.
the only Yougov poll thats free of that inherent bias of simply confirming what the survey authors want it to, is the general election poll, and note then its often more likely wrong
YouGov is a load of bollox,
YouGov is a load of bollox, believe me you cannot believe any of their polls, it is run entirely for the Conservative party political gain by people such as the Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi.
You don’t have to dig very deep to see the buried vein of bias running through this organisation. Ony a gullible fool takes any notice of the nonsense they spout.
Those campaigning for cycle
Those campaigning for cycle registration, insurance, licencing, even mandatory helmets are rarely interested in road safety except as a cover for the deception at their root. They are thinly disguised attempts to have cyclists removed from the public highway as they challenge the hegemony of the car as a practical and accesible mode of personal transport, particularly in urban environments and need to be called out as such.
Nick Freeman in particular seems to get a lot of airtime with frustratingly poor cycling advocates put forward to represent the “other side of the argument”.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Mostly, the cycling advocates are pretty good, they just get less than 10% of the air time of the petrolheads.
What am I talking about; 1%.
eburtthebike wrote:
Let’s stop calling them petrolheads and start calling them what they really are, “car nerds”. Dorky car nerds.
lio wrote:
Let’s stop calling them petrolheads and start calling them what they really are, “car nerds”. Dorky car nerds.
— eburtthebikeProbably car addicts would be nearer the truth. There was an AA report in the distant past which found that many people demonstrated all the behaviours of an addict when threatened with having their car taken away.
eburtthebike wrote:
Sounds pretty dignified compared to how i’d behave if someone took my bicycle 🙂
Doesn’t really matter as it
Doesn’t really matter as it simply isn’t happening.
Well, if it stops cyclists
Well, if it stops cyclists riding at 24mph in Richmond Park, I’m all for it
And when a cyclist does this as inevitably they will, it will be no problem in knowing who it was
hirsute wrote:
Clearly if that traffic light had been wearing a tabard with its registration number on, the collision wouldn’t have happened.
In 2019 58% of Britons
In 2019 58% of Britons favoured capital punishment for certain crimes…that’s why we have a representative democracy rather than government by plebiscite – as Winston said, it’s the worst form of government except for all the others. If people want cyclist registration they’re free to vote for parties that support it…
“In 2019 58% of Britons
“In 2019 58% of Britons favoured capital punishment for certain crimes”
Would one of the reasons be ‘being a cyclist’ ?
hirsute wrote:
If the survey sample solely comprised of London cabbies, I’d guess it’d be top of the list!
Was that a YouGov poll of
Was that a YouGov poll of Daily Mail Readers?
Or, you could encourage
Or, you could[i] encourage [/i]cycling…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-57944428
I will happily wear one. Once
I will happily wear one. Once every uninsured, untaxed, speeding, close passing, and otherwise law or rule breaking carist is removed from the UK roads.
So people want the government
So people want the government involved with someone riding a freaking bicycle. I will never understand the sheep who want to have every aspect of their lives controlled by politicans.
60% of fewer than 2000 people
60% of fewer than 2000 people…despite inexplicable national news coverage and TV and radio puff pieces. Shouldn’t the headline be ‘Survey finds miniscule support for calls for cyclists to be registered.’