- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Chris Boardman smilingChris Boardman says MPs “should be embarrassed” & don’t “even know the most basic of facts” about cycling
British Cycling policy adviser Chris Boardman has hit out at the MPs on the government’s Transport Select Committee who yesterday held a two-hour session to investigate the recent spate of deaths on London’s roads, but instead discussed helmets, 'road tax' and cycling registration.
***
Update: According to a tweet on Tuesday evening from Press Association Transport and Travel Correspondent Peter Woodman, the chair of the committee, Louise Ellman, has invited Boardman to give evidence to the inquiry. On Wednesday, the committee is due to hear from minister for cycling, Robert Goodwill.
***
The session, Boardman says, was meant to be about why six people died riding bicycles on London’s roads in the space of two weeks but “the MPs demonstrated that they didn’t even know the most basic of facts. Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics.”
He said that the MPs “should be embarrassed by their performance.” According to the Guardian’s Peter Walker, the discussion included Labour MP Sarah Champion wondering if helmets could be made compulsory; Conservative Martin Vickers asking if the panel thought cyclists should “contribute” to the upkeep of the roads; and Labour's Jim Dobbin asking if a solution would be to force all cyclists to be registered, tested, and to put their bikes through a sort of MoT test.
Observers were puzzled by the digressions. There’s no evidence that a helmet would have saved the lives of any of the six riders killed on London’s roads in November or the 10 who died elsewhere in the country last month. Nobody in the UK has paid directly for the upkeep of the roads via a ‘road tax’ since it was abolished in 1937. Instead roads are funded out of general taxation.
Jurisdictions that have tried compulsory registration of cyclists have almost always quickly dropped it because it almost impossible to enforce, expensive and has the main effect of suppressing cycling.
Boardman said: “Such a clear demonstration of lack of research and understanding at this level of seniority would, in any other business, be classed as negligent.”
Here’s the full statement from Chris Boardman, issued by British Cycling:
"The MPs that sit on the transport select committee should be embarrassed by their performance yesterday in an inquiry that was meant to be about why six people died riding bicycles on London’s roads in the space of two weeks.
“In front of them sat experts from campaigning bodies, transport research and the police – all ready to get into a proper discussion - and yet the MPs demonstrated that they didn’t even know the most basic of facts. Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics.
“Such a clear demonstration of lack of research and understanding at this level of seniority would, in any other business, be classed as negligent.
“This was an opportunity to discuss how we can make our roads fit for people to get around by bicycle, improving our nation’s health, the environment and cutting emissions. This will deliver benefits for everyone, not just cyclists, and to do it we need to transform infrastructure, tackle dangerous junctions and encourage people to use bikes to get around.
“I’d like to see a proper, fruitful evidence session, rather than opinion-based discussion, on how to protect and encourage cycling as a mode of transport. To that end I am going to write to the MPs on the committee asking them to meet with British Cycling representatives to get to work discussing the real issues that can lead to the transformation of not just cycling, but the environments that we live in.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- RoubaixCube 9 min 58 sec ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 1 hour 45 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
- kingleo 1 hour 56 min ago
Crossing the road is the big danger for pedestrians, not the cycle path.
- Hirsute 3 hours 14 min ago
More of an oblique reference to a cyclist being taken out when in the cycle lane in the same scenario. Of course the cyclist pretty much gets the...
- slc 4 hours 51 min ago
Lavable neigbourhoods? Could be handy on bins day
- chrisonabike 6 hours 7 min ago
Wait - have those wafers been upgraded to chocolate wafers now (or maybe those pink ones?) Or is it all the sugar in the communion wine?
- Scribe Cycling 6 hours 51 min ago
Hi username983, thank you for the comment, and it's great to hear you rate the wheels. The new models have a slightly different design which come...
- wtjs 7 hours 12 min ago
I'm pleased to say I didn't 'do' Latin, but I was also pleased to learn the origin of 'laconic'
- Surreyrider 7 hours 17 min ago
Looks like Specialized dusted off their blueprint for the Tarmac circa 2012-14 to 'create' the Aethos.
Add new comment
73 comments
Maybe they will do better when they get the proposed £10k pay rise?
Re: Martin Vickers response - note the phrase "cycling community". 'Community' being used when wishing to lump together a group and suggest collective responsibility for the wrong doings of a minority whilst appearing to remain respectful and even handed e.g. 'the Muslim community', 'the travelling community'.
Never hear people referring to 'the banking community' or 'the driving community' do you?
CTC's evidence submission to this farcical inquiry is here:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/dont-just-train-people-to-avoid-....
We specifically included arguments to pre-empt the road haulage lobby's inevitable attempt to shift the focus onto cyclists' behaviour, when it really ought to have been on safe roads and junctions, safe lorry designs, and/or restricting lorry access to busy roads at the busiest times.
CTC does not in any way defend irresponsible behaviour by cyclists. However the available evidence doesn't provide any basis for MPs to focus on cyclists' behaviour as a policy response to cyclists getting killed by lorries on London's roads.
Regrettably the Committee seem not to have read a single word of our submission. Ho hum.
Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC
Where do I find the 'like' button for Chris's comments?
I was foolish enough to watch the whole session.
The MPs asked some pretty stupid questions. Jim Dobbin gets my vote for the worst contribution - using this public inquiry into cycle safety to air his private grievances about two encounters with cyclists, one where he got a scratch on his car, and another where someone knocked on his roof.
I think it was Sarah Champion who asked a bizarre question about cyclists scaring horses. I doubt cyclists scare horses more than vehicles, and how far from the point can you get?
The witnesses made useful and sensible contributions, including the commander from the Met. The exception was Andrew Gilligan, who claimed there was no problem with cyclist safety on London roads, it's all a problem of perception. That's offensive spin.
Get in, Boardman, what a legend.
Re Martin Vickers reply.
I do make a specific contribution. It's called VAT and charged on every new bike, cycling component and most clothing.
Makes you wonder who's running the country as they don't seem to have a clue.
The APPCG @allpartycycling has just tweeted:-
Good news. There is hope some sense will be spoken.
Sounds as if it is time to get some snotagrams emailed out to them too...!!
The more the merrier to get across to these pillocks our complete disdain for their ignorance and arrogance!!
This is exactly the way they run this country. No wonder we are in a mess. We need less Government & many fewer politicians
Just give us Strict Liability
Here is a list of all the emails that I could quickly find that are either members of the Transport Select Committee or in the case of the last two associated with the Chair of the committee:
louise.ellman.mp [at] parliament.uk
dobbinj [at] parliament.uk
jim.fitzpatrick.mp [at] parliament.uk
karen.lumley.mp [at] parliament.uk
jason.mccartney.mp [at] parliament.uk
karl.mccartney.mp [at] parliament.uk
sandersa [at] parliament.uk
chloe [at] chloesmith.org.uk
connollym [at] parliament.uk
martin.vickers.mp [at] parliament.uk
alex.mayes [at] parliament.uk
becky.rowland [at] parliament.uk
So if you feel strongly enough to contact them, this might be a suitable means of communicating your exasperation and disdain to them (though might be a good idea to CC any emails to your own MP as well, in that way you're more likely to at least get a reply!?).
Explains a lot doesn't it? Like having career criminals writing the criminal justice act...just embarrassing and we deserve better.
I'm thankful we have Chris fighting our corner at this level so a heartfelt thanks to him and others for their persistence and willingness to make a noise.
Political apathy increasing and they wonder why?!
Could we not just outsource the running of the Government to British Cycling?
Chris Boardman for President!
Seriously, isn't it about time the cycling organisations clubbed together and appointed Chris Boardman as National spokesman for cyclists?
Having asked Adrian Sanders for a response to Chris's comments he replied with:
"Yes, I wasn't there"
That just shows the utter contempt that the Transport select committee has for the cyclists and pedestrians.
Yes I attended a BBC Radio Surrey debate a month or more ago and the same happened there. It was supposed to be about the Safer Cycling Plan for Surrey and how to deal with large numbers of sportives all in one place at the same time. Instead the chairman not only let it degenerate into a spleen venting session aimed at cyclists but actually steered in that direction.
I guess that's what gets ratings rather than sensible discussions. We have to remember that these Parliamentary Committees are less about doing real detailed work than they are about providing opportunities for MPs to Grandstand in front of TV cameras and pander to whatever prejudice is trending on Twitter at the time.
The same went for their performance on banking, tax and energy. No real understanding of the complexities of international financial regulation, international tax law or energy investment models just a chance bash the bankers, or Google and starbucks and impress the public that they are really annoyed about fuel bills by getting people in front of them and letting rip with the latest "janet and john" version of the real issues.
Well done Chris Boardman. A man with a spine. I saw him previously on a TV debate when some numpty went on about compulsory helmets and he marmalised them. "So if kids in a neighbourhood were being shot by idiots with guns your solution would be for the kids to wear compulsory body armour - mine would be to stop the idiots with guns shooting them."
He was already high in my estimation he just went higher.
Can't help thinking the RHA's "Evidence to London Assembly on Cycling" seems a little weak
http://www.rha.uk.net/docs/Evidence%20to%20London%20Assembly%20on%20cycl...
e.g. one piece of "evidence" is an article written based on something Alan Sugar said and another "An article in the magazine Commercial Motor magazine" talks anecdotally about red light jumping.
The CTC's seems a lot more detailed...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1311_rg_transcom_cycle-safety_...
MP's a joke - that's a surprise, NOT !
Out of curiosity, would you contribute to a voluntary fund that guaranteed it was used solely to supplement cyclist safety projects and spending agreed by a 3rd party committee (which I would like to include Mr Boardman).
I know, I pay tax as well but being realistic there isn't enough cash, we need it to blow on superfast train lines and inefficient government services.
How much would you give a year?
"Out of curiosity, would you contribute to a voluntary fund that guaranteed it was used solely to supplement cyclist safety projects and spending agreed by a 3rd party committee (which I would like to include Mr Boardman).
I know, I pay tax as well but being realistic there isn't enough cash, we need it to blow on superfast train lines and inefficient government services.
How much would you give a year?"
Frankly, no I wouldn't. Since I choose to cycle a lot of the time instead of using my car or my two motorbikes, I think a discount on my VED for those three vehicles would be fair given the the emissions they aren't producing because I'm using my bicycle a lot of the time. Any slack in VED revenue can be made up from those using motor vehicles all the time, as vehicle owners like me who opt to cycle are effectively subsidising those who don't.
That is much more fair.
Bear in mind too that cycling causes no wear and tear of the road infrastructure and next to no congestion, unlike motor vehicles.
In other words, this voluntary contribution would be a payment in lieu of something that actually reduces the infrastructure costs to the UK. So why would any cyclist want to pay it?
'Cycling doesn't cause congestion' This really is not true, especially outside of the towns.
Often on my commute I get caught in a big tail back because a cyclist is on a busy road at rush hour and no one can get past? In part this is caused by drivers not having the skill to judge a safe gap and sitting behind unnecessarily.
If this number increases significantly, what will happen - even more hatred + less revenue for the government and more anger to cyclists, including me as I am sometimes one of those cyclists causing the backlog.
Then how much extra Co2 is caused by having bike generated tail backs and the excessive power used to overtake quickly? I often wonder how much this increases your Co2 saving commute.
It really isn't simple and that is why I would be prepared to pay an annual cost towards dedicated cycling schemes, but only if we do away with this stupid CO2 VED based tax. A toyota prius is generating wear and tear, more than others because it weighs more and why pretend its saving polar bears, its not. Build the ved into the cost of fuel, you use, you pay, you drive a big car, you pay more, you cycle more you pay less. don't penalise me because I can only afford a 5 year old car.
"Bike generated tailbacks" - the scourge of the nation.
If you'd have shoe horned Diana in to that post you'd have sorted 90% of the copy for the Express for the next week or so.
As far as I know I have never met Chris Boardman or discussed things with him, But I'am getting to like his views, the way he forms them and the way he projects them more and more.
Let's hope it is also listened to
You have to applaude Chris Boardman's patience. He expresses a real anger without losing the high ground. Looks like he's made real progress here. I've sometimes been a bit disappointed in the CTC, who, for my money, seem to fail to express well any great anger while conceding that high ground with unsolicited fumbled caveats about not defending irresponsibility. Your woolly "ho hum" resignation at MPs not reading your best written submissions says much.
Clearly you don't understand the protocols here. MP's generally only respond to correspondence from constituents - so you have to be a constituent to use these addresses, unless you've been invited to correspond in this way.
There may be some value in sending your comments/observations to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, or working with the organisations active on this lobby.
Remember too that for both the major Westminster Hall debates organised by APPCG, we've seen mass cycle rides around Parliament Square on the same day, and on 2 September at the same time as the debate. This latter occasion saw the tail of the ride still heading out over Westminster Bridge as the lead riders were coming back over Lambeth Bridge, and the noise of bells, and voices outside could be heard inside the debating chamber.
Theodore Roosevelt said that to negotiate with a clear prospect of success we need to speak softly (as with Chris B's measured but chiding remarks) but carry a big stick. That big stick is the fact that with 24 hours notice around 2500 cyclists came to Holborn for a short vigil after a fatal cycle crash, appearing as if from nowhere and melting away just as quickly. Lets see 10,000 for the next big debate on making cycling mainstream as transport.
And who would be on this committee, sustrans????
Think of it like this, why do we need a separate fund? We all pay tax, many of us pay VED now, we pay VAT when we buy bikes, as it is the sum spent on cycle infrastructure is less than the amount the government raises in VAT on bikes.
If we start to consider the health savings and congestion reduction caused by not driving!!!! we should be getting paid to ride!
Why is there no mention of cycling or walking in the government infrastructure plan? How do you get it in that plan without central government support, a Quango isn't going to cut it. We have a transport committee that have clearly shown themselves to know nothing about transport! take a body even further removed? It would be nothing more than a talking shop.
Even taking a slightly wider view on transport, where is the joined up thinking regarding public transport? Try getting buses between counties for instance, in many places it doesn't happen. Or why do Stagecoach, First take all the profitable routes and leave the subsidy dependent routes to the local tax payer....
My car's older than yours.
If you look more closely at the urban commute, you'll realise that the actual delays you encounter are down to waiting times at junctions. Those waiting times are because vehicles have to queue at the junctions. Look at how many times those bicycles you wait to overtake then come past you at the junctions. Note also how many motor vehicles contain only one occupant (around 80% according to DfT research). Drivers who don't cycle will become frustrated while waiting to make an overtake of a slow moving cyclist, then hurry basically to get to the end of the queue. I see this all the time, whether I'm in my car, on my motorbike or on my bicycle.
Severe congestion is a function of having too many motor vehicles in too little road space. The UK has the highest number of registered vehicles/km of road of any major western nation. That's why the urban commute takes a long time. If more drivers switched to cycling, the congestion would lessen and the commute would be quicker because you wouldn't have the long waiting times at junctions that cause delays.
The urban commute makes up the greatest percentage of traffic movements. So delays to motor vehicle journeys outside of towns and cities to motorists caused by cyclists are very much the minority.
Yes, a lot of people delude themselves into thinking they're saving polar bears by driving a Prius. But bear in mind too that the average fuel consumption of modern vehicles is declining as they become more efficient, which is why taxation of fuel is only a short-term measure that has already been identified as such by transport ministries the world over.
I wouldn't be prepared to pay an annual cost to ride my bicycle so as to benefit a small reduction in journey times for a small percentage of motor vehicle users. I know that by riding my bike, I'm saving the UK economy on a number of counts, as outlined in my earlier post and a number of others.
That is my point.
What if one's MP is a cyclophobic ignoranus?
[cyclophobic ignoranus = A cyclist-hating ignoramus & bigot prone to talking out of his fundament and showing not the slightest shred of interest in learning some facts that might dispell his overwhelming ignorance and bigotry]
That made me chuckle.
I suppose someone would have to make sure the coffee and tea at the meetings was Fair Trade...
Earlier this year I received an email from The Times "Cities Fit For Cycling Campaign" urging me to send an email direct to my MP, who FWIW is a member of the shadow cabinet. I asked his opinion (as a member of the body which makes the laws of the land) about the disgraceful sentencing of those drivers convicted of killing cyclists. I was impressed with the speed of his reply which I suspect had already been composed in advance of a glut of similar emails. This man is a true politician, spouting platitudes while addressing NOT ONE of the points I made.
If those other MPs are as similarly adept in smoke and mirror politics, we really are up sh!t creek without a paddle.
Pages