While it was to be somewhat expected, the cycling debate in the House of Lords did somehow manage to exceed out wildest expectations, adding new vocabulary to the anti-cycling bingo that we honestly could do without.
In the eye of the storm was Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, who in a long-winded speech, touched on a number of bingo topics, blaming the rise in thefts on cycling, expressed his agreement with former Met chief Lord Hogan-Howe about enacting mandatory registration plates for cyclists, and culminated with comparing cyclists to a “plague of mosquitos”.
“I believe we need regulation for current cyclists because their behaviour is, at times, becoming a bit like plague of mosquitoes. You simply cannot get them away from you when you get to traffic lights,” said Hastings, who is listed as a Crossbench peer.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick said that the behaviour of cyclists is like a "plague of mosquitos"
Transport journalist Carlton Reid tweeted about Hasting’s comments, saying: “In effect, he's saying there are too many cyclists. (And they wait at traffic lights, as many videos on here attest.)”
“This othering is not new. Nor is the use of an insects metaphor any novelty. Here's town planner Thomas Sharp in the 1940s discussing the cyclists of Oxford, and calling them a ‘plague of locusts.’”
The comments of course have left cyclists horrified, with Julian Antoniewicz saying: “Blows my mind that I'm seeing dehumanising language in regard to cyclists all around the globe, in many languages. Worldwide bikes are causing insignificant amount of deaths or injuries, but it sure is trendy to farm outrage on someone who ran a red light on an empty street.”
Christopher Lang wrote: “You would think with someone with his experience, he would realise how dehumanising this language is. It using ‘mosquito’ conjuring up thoughts of disease carrying and plague something overwhelming to be controlled, rather than protected. He should know better.”
Meanwhile, another person wrote: “For a supposedly crossbench peer, he sounds remarkably right-wing. His language is appalling.”
> “Many may consider this to be a vote loser, but I think it is a vote winner”: Insurance for cyclists debated in House of Lords, and quickly shut down as “utterly ridiculous and unenforceable”
The debate was started off by Lord Hogan-Howe, who of course began ticking off the classic, easy bingo number: “I want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not anti-cyclist, because some may allege otherwise. I cycle myself.
“I am not going to say that cyclists are the only threat because that would be quite wrong, but there is a case for making sure that pedestrians are protected from the behaviour of bad cyclists and cyclists who behave badly.”
He added: “There is a further offence, a very old one from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, called furious driving of a carriage. Obviously that law was for other times, but cycling can be pulled within it if there is a serious injury.”
Lord Hogan-Howe and Boris Johnson
In case you need a quick refresher on Lord Hogan-Howe’s previous trespasses, in 2013, the former Met chief, still in the role at the time, said that he wouldn’t ride a bike in London by choice and that many Londoners are forced on to two wheels by the cost of public transport.
A decade later, now relieved of his policing duties and sitting in the upper chamber of the Parliament, he claimed that cyclists should need "a registration plate somewhere on the back" in order to avoid being "entirely unaccountable”.
Just a few months ago, Hogan-Howe tried to reignite the insurance debate in the House of Lords, but his machinations were quickly shut down as “utterly ridiculous and unenforceable”.
Back to yesterday's speech, where he continued: “Cyclists are not even bound by speed limits. When I first raised this issue in the House, I mistakenly believed that they were; I had just forgotten that they are not. Cycles can go any speed in an urban environment, or any environment.
“Cycles can of course get to high speeds. For fit people, through muscle power, 30 miles an hour is easily attainable on the flat, and certainly downhill. With electric assistance, that is even easier.”
At least there was some levity provided by Lord Austin of Dudley, who continued his string of rebuking Hogan-Howe’s claims (he had previously shut him down during the insurance debate too — hear hear), this time saying: “I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because if he thinks it is easy to ride a bike at 30mph on the flat, he should have been in the British Olympic team and not a Member of the House of Lords.”
Add new comment
44 comments
Cycles can of course get to high speeds. For fit people, through muscle power, 30 miles an hour is easily attainable on the flat, and certainly downhill. With electric assistance, that is even easier.”
no it isn't mate.
I'd rather be a mosquito than a dinosaur...
The most in depth reporting of this one. 28 day trial, from other sources.
https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/24578511.verdict-given-murder-tr...
I wonder what Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick's ecological footprint is, I think we should be told.
You simply cannot get them away from you when you get to traffic lights,” said Hastings, who is listed as a Crossbench peer.
A cross bench peer, surely, as in bench thicker than a plank, and very cross.
I've always been on the fence about reforming the Lords, but if idiots like him are there, reform it tomorrow. Not that MPs are much better, but at least you can unelect them.
The house of lords should most definitely be disbanded tax payer money will be saved on keeping a load of bloated lazy farts warm with a place to park their backsides all day long. Surely has to be the most over priced senior daycare centre in the country, send them home honestly no one will notice the difference!
Bicameralism is not a concept without merrits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism
Honestly the biggest issue with the Lords at this point is they're appointed by the PM and there's no way to get rid of them once they're too senile to be competent as in this case.
I'd strongly be in favour of a new independent appointment system that brought in actual experts.
That said anything is better than nothing and removing the Lords entirely would be a catastrophic mistake.
Mosquitos?
That's nothing. I cycle into that London frequently & in "cycle lanes" & at traffic lights you get swarmed by motorised vehicles. They're like grey squirrels (an invasive species).
I recently got rid of the saddle which had been on my commuter since I bought it*, as I thought that it was looking very worn (the nose was starting to come apart).
It looked NOTHING like that Trench Tales saddle…
*The bike, not the saddle
I think the most puzzling aspect about this incident (other than 'why didn't his father use contraception') is why are the plod asking for 'anyone with information'? I suspect had the Beeb not blurred the registration plate out, it would have been clear for all to see?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c1k3k400jk8o
I don't understand that, when video of incidents like this or photos of obviously illegally parked vehicles are put out on the internet then why bother with blurring the numberplate?
As you say, showing the numberplate might make it a little easier to identify the vehicle and its keeper and thus find the passenger…
Peter Walker in the Grauniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2024/sep/13/pedalling-...
(EDITED) They've opened it up for comments BTL. Guess how long it took for someone commenting on 'Five dangers every UK cyclist needs to watch out for' to start on about pavement cycling and RLJ and how that's just as dangerous…
5 Things Cyclist Should Watch Out For
I find I can cycle quite happily with no regard for the first four.
What do we think about the cycling debate in the House of Lords yesterday?
Transcript is here, haven't read it yet. I assume it's just the usual anti-cycling bollocks.
I just skimmed through bits of it, but there do seem some well-reasoned pro-cycling responses too.
Not just anti-cycling. One of them even accuses pedestrians of jaywalking which, as far as I'm aware, is not actually an offence.
It's not an offence. It's not even a 'thing'. Jaywalking does not exist in the UK.
It's worth noting the broader context of that particular Lord's message, and the fact that he is, in fact, Deputy Chair of the APPCG. Overall, his message was supportive of cyling.
I have to say I was mildly impressed with some of the comments even from Lord H-H, whose debate it was and who proposed registration, insurance and legislation reform. I disagree with his proposals, but he was fairly balanced in expressing them, unlike some subsequent proponents of the motion. He caveated the whole proposal with the overriding need to collect statistics more comprehensively on collisions, injuries and deaths.
I think there is a need to consider the scale of errors/offences by cyclists. That's not unreaosnable. But it has to be balanced with the actual harm caused to others and themselves by those offences. AND it needs ot be balanced with the need that those offences acutally indicate:-
Where Lord H-H proposed licences so that cyclists could be banned as points tot up, is he not aware that a court can already impose a cycling ban on an individual? Is he aware of the level of breaches by drivers whose licence have been suspended? His solution does not add anything to the process of enforcement or the risk of recidivism.
He proposed insurance for cyclists, and I saw a nodding head behind him as he pronounce that cyclists don't have insurance, so recovery of losses by third parties is a civil matter. I hate to inform him (so I'll just shout into this echo chamber here, for now):
Cycling on the pavement (not itself an offence*) was raised as an issue - not just chhildren, but adults(!). Let's set aside the fact that some pavements are, in fact, shared paths (rightly or wrongly, in design/safety terms). But of those which are more correctly termed 'footways' (set aside for the use of pedestrians, including those in wheelchairs or some powered mobility vehicles), where an offence remains by cycling on them except to access properties served by dropped kerbs, just as with a motor vehicle:-
[* cycling on the pavement is not an offence. The modern legal term for that part of the road set aside for pedestirans is "footway". "Pavement" is technically ambiguous, may refer to footways, shared paths, or even non-specific surfacing (a la USA) and should be avoided, with the possible exception of '[avement parking'.]
As has been mentioned, I understand the government response to the debate has summarised that there is nothing to see here.
Good post. To pick one tiny part:
Obviously it's a mix and varies across the country. But I can say that in the microcosm of my commute through central London, most of which is achieved on wonderful segregated cycle routes (i.e. where good infrastructure has been provided and so there is no such plausible safety justification) red light and pedestrian crossing infractions of the antisocial, scoff-law variety are endemic. It is a microcosm, but it's no doubt one which will be informing those in the Westminster bubble.
There is of course not a fixed amount of antisocial, scoff-law selfishness. However i'd say there is bigger picture - how do you want your antisocial, scoff-law transport selfishness served?
We currently have trained, tested and licenced drivers with registered, tested motor vehicles with tax and insurance.
And yet there is certainly such scofflaw behaviour at red lights... What is far more prevalent is the almost standard disregard for laws like driving on the pavement (cycle facility) and "bending the rules" around parking and "loading / picking up".
In fact what is *technically* scoff-law selfishness (and is in reality for eg. those with mobility issues trying to navigate the pavement) will be minimised by people taking about this - until it becomes an "unwritten rule" (eg. get two wheels on the pavement to be pro-social to other motorists).
I think the Noble Lords will - if they're honest and observant - find antisocial, scoff-law selfishness everywhere. They'll find it from our system of mass motoring, they'd certainly find it in places where there is mass cycling (NL, parts of Scandinavia). It's a feature of humans. The question is how we manage it and how we can minimise the negative side effects. IMHO such behaviour from drivers of motor vehicles generally causes worse problems than from cyclists.
That of course depends on how we make space for cycling. It is obviously "worse" where we design crap facilities. Or set up conflict by making cyclists and pedestrians fight over scraps instead of finding space from motor transport.
Of course (a few parts of) London are just beginning a transition - which *might* lead to mass cycling there. So it shouldn't be a surprise that in fact it can be a bit "wild west". If it does surprise people then they haven't understood either cycling or humans - wishful thinking at best...
I watched about 2/3rds of the debate, as I discovered it when channel hoping.
Most of it seemed reasonably well argued. Lord H-H seemed surprised that the majority of the speeches did not support the idea of licencing or compulsory insurance.
I think greater emphasis should be made to the lack of resources for Policing the highway. This is the crux of the whole issue about road safety. By and large, we already have sufficient legislation in place, we just don't have the Police to enforce it.
I do wish they would get on with passing the "Kim Briggs" law ASAP, so we can all move on to the more pressing issues. The proposed new offence of causing death or serious injury by negligent cycling does not impact 99.9% of cyclists. Everytime this hits the news, its another opportunity at cyclist bashing! Please, pass this law and let us focus on improving road safety!!
Yes, the 'Kim Briggs' law won't make any difference to nearly all cyclists, but giving in to the anti-cycling lobby won't keep them quiet, but will instead embolden them to push harder for more anti-cycling laws. Every time this hits the news, it's also an opportunity to try to explain why encouraging cycling actually helps everyone.
Also, it's such a stupid reason for the law when Alliston got punished far more severely than any motorist would and he was found not-guilty of causing her death (assuming that a not guilty verdict for manslaughter would mean that).
The instances where a cyclist could be considered for such a law are so few, but meanwhile we hear frequently of drivers getting away with ridiculously light charges and penalties, even when they are behaving with far more recklessness and danger to others than Alliston ever did. If we're going to tighten up the law, then the careless/dangerous laws need to be applied consistently and meaningfully.
The proposed law regarding cyclists is very interesting, and possibly establishes an argument for a change to the driving equivalents.
"Causing death or serious injury, by careless or dangerous cycling" is proposed, as one all encompassing offence. I have long argued the distinction of CDOSI by careless driving, or CDOSI by dangerous driving be abolished and replaced by one charge of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. Therefore, we remove the temptation of the Police and/or CPS for opting for the lesser charge.
I don't know if the new government has proposed a new bill yet, but that's not how Iain Duncan Smith's amendment to the last bill worked - that created separate offences of (a) death by dangerous cycling, (b) serious injury by dangerous cycling, and (c) death by careless or inconsiderate cycling:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/stages/18470/amendments/10014573
They will be doing a fairly comprehensive review of road safety.
Which is why we need to stay engaged.
This Govt seem rational, and also strategic, unlike the last shower of shits, so I expect them to address weeping sores such as the drink-drive limit, the Exceptional Hardship loopholes, and other obvious things.
If we get some of what we actually need then a death by dangerous cycling offence is a small bone to throw to the dogs to keep them quiet.
The Telegrunt, Spectator and so on will keep routinely publishing lies, however.
When? Is this the comprehensive review of road offenses they're rushing to get to after only a decade?
...or can we hope for something better - and actual look at "road safety" more generally? That still seems very unlikely to happen in UK politics. At best it seems governments are capable of legislating on new things after the fact; changing legacy stuff is clearly very hard and time-consuming.
Much of the UK's "road safety" approach seems to be reactive and legalistic, not proactive and "health and safety" based. I'd really love to see moves towards bringing in a "safe system" / sustainable safety approach nationally (the mothballed "Road Safety Investigation Branch" seemed a tensing start).
Probably that would require a government with that as a core policy and a big mandate though - it's a mountain to climb (even though at smaller level things already happen).
I do a lot of that, hoping I'll find a good channel, but no luck so far.
It won't make any difference, the haters will just find something else to hate us for.
Pages