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
Agreed, jaywalking isn't a law in the UK, but we do live with the underlying principle that roads belong to drivers and that pedestrians are interlopers who should get out of the way.
The history of jaywalking in the US shows that this is no accident: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
Jay walking is an offence in Northern Ireland. It is covered by Article 38 of the Road Traffic (NI) Order 1995 which states "If a pedestrian through his own negligence on a road endangers his own safety, or that of any other person, he is guilty of an offence."
100's of fines have been issued annually, though that has dropped to roughly 50 each year since around 2018. It would take a rather zealous and officious officer to issue a FPN though.
Years ago a friend serving with the RUC fed up with solicitors using the defence of 'out walking the dog' during a riot started to charge individuals with a jaywalking charge. This would have been in the days before FPNs and he managed to rattle quite a few through the system.
:0
I knew the North was a place apart in many ways, but I am constantly amazed at how out-there it is!
Yep! It's also still an offence to not have a bell on your bike. Though I know of no one who has been fined for this. My dad was given a summons and fined 7 and 6 when caught by an eagle eyed peeler back in the sixties.
Also the Republic has a jaywalking offence which even specifies the distance from an official crossing to give the Gardai even more ammunition to fine you. So basically if it's within 15metres you get done or if you're irresponsible while crossing with no crossing nearby you get done!
Personally, I'd be OK with that, if it was implemented as stated. Any road user who negligently endangers people's safety ought to be guilty of an offence*. However, simply walking in the (main carriageway of the) road isn't, in and of itself, endangering yourself or anyone else. In most cases, there would be plenty of opportunity for those in/on vehicles (who should, power hierarchy of road users, be taking greater care) to avoid you without harm.
* Though the punishment for said offence ought to be proportionate to the level of reasonably foreseeable harm, which is likely to be much lower for pedestrians than anyone else.
I agree with much of what you say.
However, Hogan-Howe uses his prominent public platform to propagate a lot of abusive fairy tales from his endless well of ignorance, and has not acquainted himself with basic facts such as that a large majority of cyclists have 3rd Party Cover. *
Such public posturing to demonise cyclists creates a permission structure which gives a perception of "this is OK" to those, for example, lunging their cars at women riding cycles (who get intimifated more than men).
Lord HH also has weird ideas about "behaviour of motorists having improvded". Is he on Tamazepam?
* Free with the vast majority of contents policies for the household, and 70% of households have such insurance.
'Jaywalking'. That would be an American idea pushed by the automobile companies back in the early twentieth century, because all the motorists were sick and tired of people acting as if the roads were a common resource…
I've read the entire debate now, more reasonable and balanced than I feared. Except for Lord Birt, who managed to cram in every single anti-cycling cliche there is.
I have myriad examples, but just in the last few days I saw a bike rider weaving around pedestrians on a walkway, neither hand on his handlebars, sitting bolt upright, holding up and studying his mobile phone.
Is weaving in and around possible without having at least one hand on the bars?
I think I be found the culprit...
Would that be the same John Birt who was head of that bastion of cycling advocacy the BBC.
I'm shocked.
That's my impression.
There were more debunking voices than there were back in May when Hogan-Howe was putting out his gormless fairy stories about people who ride cycles not having 3rd Part Insurance.
We all get it with our House Contents cover for the whole household, and 70% of households have such insurance.
It's just a pity Hogan-Howe, "plague of mosquitos" Hastings, and Birt aren't hereditary peers.
Demonstrating his ignorance when he says, "With electric assistance, that [riding at 30 mph on the flat] is even easier". Does he understand the existing law?
No. He's not done any homework.
Pages