Chris Boardman accused of “letting cyclists off the hook” as columnist urges government to give active travel role to a “pedestrian next time, rather than an Olympic cyclist” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Chris Boardman accused of “letting cyclists off the hook” and “bleating” bout two-tonne vehicles, as columnist urges government to give active travel role to a “pedestrian next time, rather than an Olympic cyclist”
It’s been quite the week for Chris Boardman, hasn’t it?
Yesterday morning, England’s active travel commissioner was forced to stand in front of a camera freezing in the Cairngorms while listening to Richard Madeley spouting his usual Partridge-inspired nonsense about Dutch bike licence plates.
And if that wasn’t enough (believe me, it’s enough), while grabbing a mid-morning coffee and flicking through the papers, Boardman would then have been greeted by the sight of Spectator columnist Ross Clark accusing him of trying to “let cyclists off the hook”.
Clark also described the former Tour de France yellow jersey wearer’s desire to focus on motoring offences as “bleating”, while urging the government to give the active travel commissioner role to a pedestrian next time, “rather than an Olympic cyclist”.
The columnist’s tirade came after Boardman penned an open letter to the Times, following an FOI request from the newspaper which revealed that the number of fines issued by police forces in the UK fell to 3,660 in 2025 (the same number of forces issued 6,083 cycling fines in 2021, according to the report).
“People riding bikes should stop at red lights – it’s the law, and there is no excuse for ignoring it,” Boardman wrote in his letter. “Not doing so can frighten people and cause collisions and serious harm.
“But we need to distinguish between behaviour that irritates us and behaviour that puts lives at greatest risk. Someone on a bike and someone driving a two-tonne vehicle do not pose the same potential danger.
“That does not excuse either breaking the law, but it should inform where we put our limited enforcement resources.
“By all means we should tackle cyclists jumping red lights. But we should apply at least as much determination to speeding, dangerous driving and distraction. Surely the measure of successful road policing should be how many deaths and serious injuries we prevent, not how many people we catch breaking the rules.”
That distinction between irritant and genuine danger appears to have riled up Ross Clark no end – enough for him to write a few hundred words in the Spectator about pavement cyclists, anyway.
“A modest request to HM Government: if we have to have an ‘active travel commissioner’ can we please make it a pedestrian next time, rather than an Olympic cyclist?” Clark began his latest column, ignoring Boardman’s decades-long crusade for safer roads straight from the start.
He then claimed that the drop in cycling fines – and the revelation that some police forces don’t issue any FPNs to cyclists – “is still too much for Chris Boardman, the current holder of the above post and a former gold medallist on his bike”.
Addressing Boardman’s claim that a person on a bike doesn’t pose the same threat as someone in a lorry, Clark continued: “Sorry, but that sounds just a bit too much like a call to let cyclists off the hook. True, a two-tonne vehicle driven at 30 mph has a lot more momentum, and so a lot more potential to cause destruction, than a cyclist riding at 15 mph.
“But then two tonne vehicles don’t tend to be driven along the pavement; a space which cyclists increasing seem to think they are entitled to make their own.”
Can you guess Clark’s next topic? Of course you can.
“Moreover, more and more are riding what are not really pedal cycles at all: they are, in effect, motorbikes,” he said, claiming Cambridge has become “increasingly unpleasant to walk” around thanks to the recent proliferation of illegal bikes.
“Their riders appear to think that they can ride wherever they like so long as they use an electric motor rather a petrol engine, and many police forces are completely unbothered by this.”
He’s so close to getting it, isn’t he? So close.
“A cyclist cutting up pedestrians on a footpath is more than an irritant,” Clark added, turning to “mile for mile” travel analysis to claim that, in fact, “cyclists are killing about half as many pedestrians as car-drivers” and “around twice the number of their fellow cyclists as car-drivers do.
“Cyclists moan bitterly about how they are treated by motorists, and not without good reason,” he continued. “But they then go out and treat pedestrians in the same was as car-drivers treat them, trying to bully them out of the way. By the way, contrary to Boardman’s bleating, police forces already are focusing their ‘enforcement resources’ heavily on motorists.
“In 2024, 2.54 million fines were issued to motorists (which doesn’t include all the bus lane fines and so on). Mile for mile, motorists are receiving over nine times as many fines as are cyclists. If we could increase the number of cyclists being fined in order to bring that closer to parity with motorists it would be a lot more pleasant to walk around our towns and cities.”
I hope you’ve scheduled a few free hours today, Chris.
“When bad cycling gets all the column inches, it fools people into thinking cycling is one of the biggest dangers to us all. It isn’t”
Yesterday, as I’m sure you all know by now, Good Morning Britain set up shop at Birmingham’s Belgrave Middleway junction, where drivers run red lights every three and a half minutes (and where the red light camera was switched off years ago due to a lack of revenue funding), to tell the nation that police forces aren’t fining enough cyclists.
That segment and its subsequent studio discussion were so misguided, so riddled with factual errors, and lacking in any kind of nuance that Adam Tranter – the former active travel commissioner for the West Midlands – got in touch about writing a column on GMB, the media’s approach to cycling, and what yesterday’s outside broadcast inadvertently says about the state of bike-themed discourse in the UK.
Here’s what he had to say:
> This broken red light camera in Birmingham tells you everything about Britain’s road safety debate
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
1 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I'd still suggest rising bollards (or spikes) when the green light turns to amber would be the solution for curbing the riskier drivers at many of the most dangerous junctions, such as this one in Birmingham.
Fit a dropper. Even 40mm of travel is enough to give you more flexibility on the bike and also get your weight further back on descents. It'll help on the road too - just ask Matej Mohoric. Available drop will be frame dependent of course and you'll need to have one of those old fashioned round seat tubes but the improvement in descending confidence and therefore speed will far outweigh the loss of an aero post. There's even the option to add suspension with some droppers
Re the active travel commissioner role. I suggest going a step further and offering it to somebody who drives everywhere in either a huge SUV or customised Subaru, takes part in no physical activity, walks less than 200 steps per day and has at least one conviction for causing injury or worse to a cyclist as a result of dangerous driving. This will give a balanced and fair view on active travel issues.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c63elww8djj1o
@chrisonabike Shouldn't that be 'most first "look with their phones"'?
@Rome73 don't forget being a constant existential threat to pedestrians - whilst cycling on the road at lower speeds than motorists. Plus startling people by appearing "out of nowhere" while as inconspicuous as a lighthouse. (TBF many / most first "look with their ears", and cyclists on cycles neither sound nor indeed look like motor vehicles).
@Accessibility for all yup - driving around a heavily built-up area (which has great public and active travel networks) shouldn't be seen as a status-enhancing activity, but boorish posing and/or a stupid thing to do.
@saw442000 I too use another part of the cycle path, the bit from Bishops Cleeve to Cheltenham. The usage of this bit steadily increased over the summer but is tailing off a little now in the bad weather. By no means perfect, you get kicked out into the road at both ends, but a vast improvement over using the road. People moaned about it when it was being built and said it wouldn't be used and the road would be made too narrow. I haven't seen any problems due to the width of the road even with busses passing each other. You would have to be an extremely poor driver to have any trouble with it. I also use the bit from Cheltenham to Gloucester and it is possible to keep on a cycle path or shared use path nearly all the way from Bishops Cleeve if you are willing to take a few detours and slow down for pedestrians on the many shared use sections. Oh and avoid the many parked cars. They are currentlyworking on the last bit into Gloucester which has always been an absolute nightmare. We'll see what it's like when the work is completed. I suspect that, like the rest of the route, a long time will be spent waiting at traffic lights. As far as this bit is concerned I have no knowledge of the area but looking at the map it is going to be quite difficult to find a suitable route through Gloucester. The alternative along Bristol road will mean breathing in a lot of traffic fumes I suspect and at least this proposal keeps you in relatively low traffic volumes even if it does meander around a bit. One of the problems I have with the route from Bishops Cleeve is a long up hill section to a railway bridge. This involves heavy breathing for me and I don't like breathing in the fumes from the vehicles speeding up the hill only a meter away. The speed limit is 40mph but few stick to it outside of rush hour when it's nose to tail. More info and local comment in the two links below. You will see one of the comments talking about the surface used causing high tyre wear. This has certainly been my experience. I asked about it at one of the public sessions they had and was told the surface was chosen to stop slipping if it ever became icy. I suppose you can't have it both ways. https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/absolute-joke-gloucester-cycle-path-11211404 https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/cycle-path-plans-spark-parking-11127298
@saw442000 Re building cycle infra that is far less convenient than the direct route / reinventing the wheel / putting isolated infra "where we can". I think you've correctly described how "supporting cycling" work in the UK, yes. As to why - sensitivity to the complaints about "*my* parking space (on the public road) is gone" / "I had to walk 15m further from the car" / "now I actually have to pay attention when driving". Also politicians who either think the same or see mileage in echoing that. Then the facts on the ground: most of our transport networks have now given the direct route and the bulk of the space over to motoring. So often any change is "motoring's loss". Funding systems where active travel is essentially on the sporadic lottery model. Plus without much feedback to check councils making it up or just building the same old rubbish (though Active Travel England have been working on that)
@wtjs They cling on to the outdated term 'Road Tax' to perpetuate the lie that VED is a hypothecated tax.
1 thought on “Chris Boardman accused of “letting cyclists off the hook” as columnist urges government to give active travel role to a “pedestrian next time, rather than an Olympic cyclist” + more on the live blog”
Re the active travel commissioner role.
I suggest going a step further and offering it to somebody who drives everywhere in either a huge SUV or customised Subaru, takes part in no physical activity, walks less than 200 steps per day and has at least one conviction for causing injury or worse to a cyclist as a result of dangerous driving.
This will give a balanced and fair view on active travel issues.