The month of May keeps throwing one curveball after another, as this Tory government (on its way out, some would argue) seems quite intent on legislating laws for cyclists.
The ‘dangerous cycling bill’ was first agreed to be passed by ministers in the House of Commons last week, amidst severe backlash and criticism from cycling and walking charities and campaigners, and then disregarded after PM Rishi Sunak decided to call a general election on the 4th of July, leaving the Lords with not enough time to pass the bill and make it into a law.
And now yesterday, another hot topic — insurance for cyclists was debated in the House of Lords, with Lord Hogan-Howe expressing his feelings about why it should be legislated. He said: “Over the last 20 years injuries of pedestrians hit by cyclists have drastically increased — more than doubling. Every day, we see people ignoring one-way signs, going across pedestrian crossings, through red lights and across pelican crossings while pedestrians are on them.
“Cyclists are not even governed by speed limits in the way that motor vehicles are. Has not the time come for the Government to consider insurance to compensate people for the damage that cyclists can cause, and for registration marks to identify those who have committed an offence and deter those who might?
“Finally, where a cyclist commits an offence and has a driving licence, their licence might be endorsed with points for the offences which they have committed as a cyclist. Many may consider this to be a vote loser, but I think it is a vote winner.”
Fortunately, there was hardly in agreement with Lord Hogan-Howe. Lord Davies, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Transport, replied saying that “dangerous cycling puts lives at risk and is completely unacceptable” and “cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law”.
> Grant Shapps: Cyclists should have number plates, be insured and subject to speed limits
However, he added that the government had considered mandatory registration and insurance for cyclists as part of a comprehensive review in 2018 and decided against it “as the cost and complexity of introducing such a system would far outweigh the benefits”.
I wonder if the government had already reviewed the proposal in 2018, why did former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps raise the issue again in the summer of 2022, leading to his now-infamous backpedalling, a U-turn so sharp and quick that it would put the best bike handlers to shame.
The issue of bike insurance also came up in the news on Sunday, as the Spanish city of Zaragoza launched an ordinance that could make it mandatory for cyclists to have an insurance and carry that with them at all times, with the police having the power to stop anyone and ask them to show it. Even children learning how to cycle would legally be required to have an insurance.
> “Pure bile and prejudice”: Cyclists slam local government’s proposal to introduce “mandatory bike insurance” and urging cyclists to “encourage overtaking” in Spanish city
Meanwhile, a number of other Lords were also in agreement that introducing a mandatory insurance for cyclists would be detrimental and not cost-effective, the feistiest of responses in yesterday’s debate came from Lord Ian Austin of Dudley.
“My Lords, this is utterly ridiculous,” he said. “Everybody using the roads should abide by the rules, but the figures bear out that many more pedestrians are hurt by drivers than by cyclists. Frankly, every day I see cars jumping red lights, speeding and going across pedestrian crossings, and the police are not able to enforce all of those at the moment.
“The best way to make our roads safer is to get more people on bikes. That would improve the environment and public health. Is the Minister not completely right to say that this will cost a fortune, be incredibly complex and massively bureaucratic and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, knows better than anybody, with the pressures that the police are already under, be utterly unenforceable.”
“Hear, hear,” the chamber echoed in unison.
Add new comment
43 comments
Hogan-Howe who as Met police commissioner was so competent that in a staff survey only 20% of officers said they had confidence in the leadership of the force? That Hogan-Howe?
That Hogan-Howe is the former Met police chief. So he, with all his experience of policing the nation's capital, has decided that us cyclists are what needs to be legislated against.
Thank God he's no longer involved in policing if that's indicative of his grip on reality.
As Ian Austin said, if they can't (afford to) enforce existing laws for motorists then they ain't going to do it for cyclists.
if they can't (afford to) enforce existing laws for motorists then they ain't going to do it for cyclists
Well, they might in areas with a lot of cyclists, in order to garner 'likes' from hyper-junk press readers, especially in Tory, anti-LTN areas, while benignly ignoring serious offences by drivers This doesn't apply in North Lancashire as there aren't any cyclists. As for the 'can't enforce', it's more an absolutely determined 'won't enforce': kickass '4x4 Response' WT16 ATX is here parked on the pavement opposite Garstang High School (although it's not one of the regulars- at kicking out time it's nose to tail pavement parkers obstructing buses etc.) and failed MOT 28.2.24 for a bumper crop of major defects- most recently identified and reported parked in the centre of Garstang 100 yards from the police station on 27.4.24. Previously reported on 4.10.22 during a previous long 'No MOT, No VED' spell. Never any response from Lancashire Constabulary. Bent police forces are not averse to using their powers to choose who to prosecute and who to forgive, on entirely ignoble grounds, such as 'we hate cyclists'
"As Ian Austin said, if they can't (afford to) enforce existing laws for motorists then they ain't going to do it for cyclists."
I think they are going to do for cyclists because it is easier since they go slower (contrary to what you might read in the Telegraph). I note the article citing that police are trialling the EM pulse device against cyclists on illegal e-bikes yet why isn't such technology used routinely for motoring offences?
I'd guess that the e-motorcyclists are younger and less likely to have a pacemaker or defibrilator fitted which could be very problematic if an EM pulse is fired towards them. I hope it's very directional as you wouldn't want bystanders being affected.
yes it will be the cyclists who they can stop... as we have seen with those stories about Grimsby and Colchester.
can we expect any more after all didn't Met Police chief Cressida Dick proclaim that it was too dangerous to cycle on London's streets, displaying no awareness that part of the role of the organisation she was in charge of is to ensure the streets ARE safe. Oh, to have been a journalist at that press conference and press her on what her plan was for rectifying the failings of her leadership.
Oh well, only 6 more weeks of this BS.....
Unfortunatley the Lords is unelected and is filled out with cronies of the multitude of former tory PM's who have wandered through in the past 14 years. I would assume Sunak will also get to dump a load more in there.
It is good though that often the lords do stand up to the government even with Tory against Tory.
A plea from those of us out in the sticks:
Please do not be complacent about the outcome of the election. I am still surrounded by folks that will vote Tory, in the hope that the party "sees sense" and gets rid of "that immigrant" in charge and brings back Boris or Liz.
Around here even if Reform split the right wing vote 50:50 sensible politics still doesn't get a look in.
Oh I'm not. IF they were to get back in, they'd drop it immediately anyway given their record on delivering anything they've promised. My point is, the anti cycling culture war nonsense will no doubt escalate through the election campaign & then die off. For a year, when like clockwork, the right whinge press will seize on an opportunity to distract from some Tory sh1tshow or other by making a splash about RLJing/speed limits not applying/helmets/road tax/insurance* (insert lame trope here) -ie business as usual
100 % agree large parts of rural Britain especially here in the East it's like the Tory holy land. Don't take anything for granted !
Pages