A Conservative councillor in Northumberland has been criticised for “reprehensible” comments about cyclists, having penned a bizarre rant on Facebook in response to a county council post telling pedestrians and those riding bicycles to ensure they are visible to motorists during the darker winter months.
The council too attracted questions about its approach, notably from those who suggested asking motorists to take extra care and look out for vulnerable road users might be a more effective approach, however it was Councillor Ian Hutchinson’s reply that went a couple of steps further.
The comment posted from his account wrote: “In Northumberland we are spending millions on cycle tracks, yet “lycia louts” (sic) don’t use them! Come on cyclists, play the game and appreciate what we are doing to try and keep you safe! If you ride on the road and there is a cycle track available, YOU suffer the consequences!!!!!!”
One response to the Conservative councillor called his attitude “pretty reprehensible” for someone in his office.
“Cyclists have a right to use the roads and be safe on them. Your attitude is disgusting,” one reply said.
road.cc has contacted Cllr Hutchinson for comment but had not received a reply at the time of publication.
The rant came as Northumberland County Council urged pedestrians and cyclists to “wear something bright or reflective to help motorists see you” during the winter months.
“Calling all pedestrians and cyclists,” the council posted, sharing the picture above. “During autumn and winter months motorists take longer to notice you. Take extra care near or when crossing roads or try to wear something bright or reflective to help motorists see you.”
While most cyclists will use lights and many wear hi-vis clothing, it has also been pointed out repeatedly that doing so will not protect you from dangerous driving and there have of course been cases of riders suffering near misses, being hit and even, tragically, killed while using lights and hi-vis in the way these sorts of posts demand for safety.
> Hi-vis jacket “blended in with the trees” says driver accused of causing the death of cyclist
It is for that reason that when these posts emerge from emergency services and local authorities at this time of year, often to coincide with the clocks going back, they are always met with questions about whether their road safety efforts would be better served elsewhere.
The top reply to the post said: “Do you think wording this: drivers take extra care to look for pedestrians and cyclists might be better?”
Another person wrote: “To be fair pedestrians and cyclists can take all of the extra care in the world it won’t help, as the motorists who don’t notice you are more than likely looking at their phone.”
37 thoughts on “Conservative councillor wades into cyclist hi-vis clothing discussion with “reprehensible” rant… says “Lycra louts” who ride in roads instead of cycle lanes “suffer the consequences””
TBH I have some sympathy wtih
TBH I have some sympathy wtih those who say we should use cycle lanes. We fought long and hard for them and large amounts of public money have been spent on them. Lack of use is one of the arguments used to remove them as well as against future provison. We lierally need to use them or lose them. As for high viz kit and lights they doesn’t protect you but they do give you a better chance of being seen before it’s too late.
biking59boomer wrote:
— biking59boomerNo, we fought long and hard for proper cycle lanes, but 90%+ in this country aren’t fit for purpose and we definitely didn’t fight for them. Give us decent cycle facilities and we’ll use them, but give us dangerous, inconvenient shared use paths and we’ll stay on the road. Losing them would be a benefit.
Exactly – use this cycle lane
Exactly – use this cycle lane that stops before the busy part where it’s really needed or use this cycle path, which is really a pavement going past numerous concealed entrances to homes and ends abruptly and inexpicably nowhere near a town or a group of offices.
Surreyrider wrote:
Wow! Worse than I thought. I wonder if Councillor Ian Hutchinson has ridden it and would like to tell us what effing use it is.
You have aroused a couple of
You have aroused a couple of hopelessly ineffectual obvious trolls, the most recent being obviously Tory – the relevance of a non-cycling story concerning a Labour MP being obvious only to the dimwit himself
wtjs wrote:
You made a funny.. I saw the term Bully Boy and that made me think about the article I recently read concerning an MP beating the crap out of a constituent. Nothing more than that and neither a Tory or Labour supporter as I do not reside in the UK dimwit.
biking59boomer wrote:
Paint on a road is not
Paint on a road is not infrastructure
As demonstrated at the top of
As demonstrated at the top of this article.
The government and councils
The government and councils have yet to deliver safe, robust, joined up and consistent cycling infrastructure. I used to live in a university town where you would hope that would have existed and all that was there was a handful of ASLs and a few strips of paint. The same town also claimed to be a link for two NSL routes yet had nothing linking them. Pretty much every suggested infra put up for consultation has seen huge kickback and has never come to fruition.
Until I start to see proper maintained infra in place and laws ensuring my safety I will continue to keep to the roads.
biking59boomer wrote:
I don’t. Until I knew better, perhaps … then it was safe – and in fact attractive and convenient – cycle routes *. Not painted rubbish ** nominally backed by unenforced laws. With legal exemptions…
* For today’s motorists e.g. tomorrow’s occasional cyclists. Sharing with motor vehicles where their numbers and speeds have been reduced, fully separated from them where not, also separated from pedestrians.
** Because all sensible people accept we can’t “cause congestion” or “steal parking spaces” or “cause disruption” because works – or do anything to reduce the motoring capacity, because otherwise how will people drive? (Self-fulfilling “no change, ever”).
We didn’t fight long and hard
We didn’t fight long and hard for the rubbish that gets labelled cycle lanes in most places, and the money spent on them is usually an accounting error in comparison to the money spent on roads for motorists.
I think people who ride bikes in the dark without lights are idiots, but hiviz doesn’t help you out.
biking59boomer wrote:
What a load of tripe.
The only reason why cycle lanes are even thought about is due to dangerous drivers and then we typically end up getting a poorly thought out, unconnected bit of paint on a road that then gets parked on and is unusable. Never mind the fact that road debris all ends up at the side of the road and causes additional hazards to cyclists.
It’s typical motornormativity whereby drivers who haven’t even touched a bike since they were a kid, believe that they know better than actual cyclists and are extremely vocal in espousing their uninformed opinions just so that they can try to blame the road congestion on someone other than themselves.
Can we ban vehicles from
Can we ban vehicles from roads that don’t get much use? Is that what drivers are doing, lots of tiny needless journeys in order to justify keeping the roads?
If only they weren’t all so
If only they weren’t all so terrible.
Southampton City Council spent millions and closed roads for months putting in new cycle infrastructure on Bevois Hill and it’s just so bad that it’s unusable. What was the point
They widened the pavement and added some white paint and blue signs.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MN9WSRLbrQzgdBuy5?g_st=ac
In Surrey they don’t even
In Surrey they don’t even widen the pavement. They put a few metal studs in the middle of it at regular intervals for a few hundred yards and call it a cycle lane (which then simply stops where it is most needed). A primary school kid could come up with better.
That result looks firmly car
That result looks firmly car – biased. Do they really need / want such a wide road in a built up area?
Councillor Ian Hutchinson
Councillor Ian Hutchinson appears to be yet another petrolhead (or whatever derogatory term suits you) who doesn’t understand anything about cycling, but then, he’s a tory so spouting loudly and long on subjects you know nothing about is second nature.
“In Northumberland we are spending millions on cycle tracks, yet “lycia louts” (sic) don’t use them! Come on cyclists, play the game and appreciate what we are doing to try and keep you safe! If you ride on the road and there is a cycle track available, YOU suffer the consequences!!!!!!”
And that sounds just like the right wing bully boys of little brain and less English ability who intimidate council officers explaining why Active Travel facilities are so necessary. As for appreciating what they are doing to try to keep us safe, I very much doubt it. I don’t know the facilities he’s talking about, but if local cyclists don’t use them, I’m pretty sure they’re rubbish.
Never mind that they’re rubbish, if you don’t use them and a driver hits you, it’s your fault. I know the tories are only a shadow of their former glory, but it would appear their barrel has been scraped clean.
eburtthebike wrote:
Now this is a real bully boy – Labour MP Mike Amesbury.
If car drivers can make a
If car drivers can make a journey using a motorway but choose other roads that are not motorways and are involved in an accident and get killed, then it’s their fault.
The term ‘Conservative
The term ‘Conservative councillor’ on here is fast attaining ‘Florida Man’ status.
james-o wrote:
Except that ‘Florida Man’ is very often quite amusing.
Conservative councillors are
Conservative councillors are quite often laughable too?
The mx after May 2025 will be
The mix after May 2025 will be interesting.
All County and Unitary seats in England are up for reelection.
Personally, I see significant Lib Dem and Green gains.
Reform UK are still driving a clown car.
The concillors comments are
The concillors comments are clearly misguided, but I do agree to the general theme of wearing some brighter colours. Wearing all black gear, on an all black bike, without lights, does make you hard to see in some situations. I myself have had one near-miss with a dude in complete black, on a bike in the dead of night, with no lights. This is how motorists are often able to get off with the excuse in court of: “it was bad lighting and I didn’t see him guv’.” I do dispair when I see the all-black-gear crew out when the lighting conditions are poor. I’m not saying we should all have hi-vis and stupid tabards! but to the point, let’s not make it easier for motorists to kill us and lets stop giving them these excuses. Wear something with a little colour when the lighting is bad. The world needs more colour; I’m so bored with all the dull colours in the latest lineup of jerseys. Is it really too much to ask? …and YES, motorists should be reminded to take extra care too!
alexuk wrote:
But he didn’t say that, AFAICS – he said wearing dark colours was a bad idea full stop.
It shouldn’t matter what colour clothing you are wearing or what colour your bike is, if you have lights on.
And, TBH, going on the number of times you hear “I saw this cyclist, all in black, with no lights on” I’m not convinced anything matters as much as the motorist having their vehicle’s headlights switched on and properly paying attention to the road environment around them.
brooksby wrote:
Well, it’s this, isn’t it.
People too often drive on auto-brain. They’ve always gone this way; they always speed up at that bit; there’s never anybody along this section…
Until people accept that you may only proceed as far as you can see your path to be clear, we will not have safe roads. Even on a dark, poorly lit road in the wet, this holds true. If you cannot see tell that the tarmac is clear of any obstructions – not just that you can’t see any obstructions – you should be slowing down.
Yet anything approaching that standard of driving is treated as a war on motorists.
The problem is we implicitly
The problem is we implicitly accept that “only proceed as far as you can see your path to be clear” or the like is not always true, given speed limits and the layout of many roads. Indeed, some folks are happy to say this explicitly e.g. “driving simply doesn’t work well if that were always true”.
The problem with flexibility on the latter point is the presence of vulnerable road users also. Drivers going too fast to stop will (literally) impact vulnerable road users the hardest. Motor vehicles crashing into other motor vehicles should not be something we “design for”, but I could see that this might be more acceptable in some circumstances *. With pedestrians and cyclists (and animals, wild and domestic) on the roads ccepting “sometimes drivers just can’t stop” is accepting a higher level of KSIs: that’s the choice.
Something something different philosophy something something “Sustainable Safety”…
* Both because of the protection of the motor vehicle and in many cases velocities will be similar. (Of course the potential for high opposite velocities make things much worse. That is the the reason why some places prohibit ANY overtaking by motor vehicles on some classes of road e.g. NL).
I nearly got hit twice last
I nearly got hit twice last year, it was only my reactions and hard braking that saved me, whilst wearing a bright luminous yellow jersey, reflectives, with two front lights, one flashing,one steady, in full street lit conditions, riding prime position.
One of the drivers was driving a police car.
One of the drivers was
One of the drivers was driving a police car
Despite my loathing of the despicable Lancashire Constabulary and its almost universally anti-cyclist officers, I have only once caught one of them driving badly, and I didn’t have the camera running. It was illegal crossing of a single unbroken white line.
Here’s my experience while
Here’s my experience while wearing a bright yellow jacket. Also had two static lights on pannier rack. A flashing red on seat post and my panniers had bright yellow reflectives on them. He was still determined to squeeze through. Far too many motorists drive on auto pilot and consistently do not read the road. It makes little odds how many steps you take to increase visibility. Drivers simply don’t pay attention.
Edit: Not sure why the paste didn’t work
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
I’ll start wearing brighter
I’ll start wearing brighter colors when cars do. At the moment, 90% of the cars on my street are black or dark blue. I guess lights and reflectors will have to do for both of us, for now.
I think you stand out because
I think you stand out because of the fur and ears … but yes to lights and more so to reflectives, especially those on moving parts.
I’m all for helping those poor folks who are driving a bit when it’s mostly in my interests. However seems that’s not easy *. Particularly because driving tends to train us to only look for the cars.
* Apart from helping their arguments as to why they didn’t to their job properly / adhere to the conditions of their driving licence e.g. “but they weren’t wearing hivis / helmet / were at the edge / middle of the road / were on a bike / I was astonished that it got dark at night and that made it harder to see”.
chrisonabike wrote:
Well also those cateyes help.
Perhaps if said councillor
Perhaps if said councillor wants cyclists to use the cycle lane,he should go out and personally clear it of all the detritus that typically collects there. He would see this mess if he was to use it too…but the average councillor usually can’t be bothered to move their fat lazy backsides for anything that doesn’t line their own pockets.
I’ve only found one piece of
I’ve only found one piece of equipment that makes drivers pass me with more space – a PassPixi sticker on my backpack.
Other than that it makes no difference whether I have multiple lights, or just one (or a couple of times when the one rear light failed and I didn’t lnow), hivi gear, a helmet, etc. It’s clear that the problem isn’t whether driver see me – they always do. The problem is whether they choose to care – most do, those who don’t change their mind if they think they’ll get caught.
It doesn’t have much impact
It doesn’t have much impact on drivers around me except when I point out, literally, poor passes, then the next driver always takes a wide berth.
But 2 or 3 passes later and we’re back in the loop again.
Worst recently has been the number of learner drivers close passing, clearly missing the passpixi sign, and seemingly without correction from their instructor, which makes me think the next generation of drivers even with the recent HC changes are just as clueless and driving as MGIFs