Let's face it, despite relentless culture war noise around cycling in recent times, cycling and active travel were never prominent during the election campaign. With that said, it would be remiss of this live blogger to miss the opportunity to dig deep into the road.cc archives and pick out some of the politicians we've reported on during the last four-and-a-half years and see how they got on.
It's our (at times tenuous) cycling election round-up. We'll start with the most recent Transport Secretary.
Mark Harper (Conservative) LOST
The final Tory Transport Secretary lost his Forest of Dean seat to Labour (you'll be hearing more of that) in one of the tightest results of the night. Harper's majority from 2019 had been more than 15,000, but in a disastrous night for the former minister for transport, a huge swing to Labour, plus Reform taking 17 per cent of the vote, saw him lose his seat in Parliament by just 278 votes.
> "For most people, the most important mode of transport remains the car, the van, the lorry, the motorbike": Transport Secretary Mark Harper says the Conservative party is "proudly pro-car", as Chris Boardman admits concerns
In more recent times, as one of his last acts in the role, Harper agreed to a proposal to introduce tougher laws for "dangerous cyclists" who kill or injure, as he said "it's only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law". That legislation was not passed in time, due to Rishi Sunak calling the election, although during the campaign Labour pledged to introduce it in the next Parliament.
Grant Shapps (Conservative) LOST
Where do you start with Grant Shapps? Another former Transport Secretary, Shapps' time was, from the viewpoint of a cycling website's interests, defined by that mad week in August 2022 when he proposed number plates, insurance and speed limits for cyclists... before making a rather quick U-turn. Shapps lost his Hertfordshire constituency of Welwyn Hatfield to Labour after his share of the vote plummeted 19 per cent.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative) LOST
North East Somerset and Hanham also went to Labour, Jacob Rees-Mogg presumably already banging on the GB News studio doors shouting to be let in. We've had less involvement with Rees-Mogg than others, although his opposition to a bike lane in Keynsham and use of an "extremely offensive racist term" while talking about "lunatic" cycle lane plans earned him some road.cc time.
Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative) WON
The former Conservative leader spearheaded the campaign to introduce the aforementioned new 'dangerous cycling' laws. Iain Duncan Smith kept his Chingford and Woodford Green seat, in part due to the opposition vote being split between the former Labour candidate Faiza Shaheen (who was replaced and subsequently ran as an independent) and the then-instated Labour candidate Shama Tatler.
Philip Davies (Conservative) LOST
During the campaign we heard from a reader who accused Davies of "massive prejudice against cyclists" after "angry email rant" to constituent who questioned his "contradictory" road safety views and number plates for cyclists stance. That was the least of Davies' problems when it transpired he was one of those who'd been down the bookies to bet £8,000 on the election date. It's always the ones you least expect. Anyway, Davies will presumably be joining Rees-Mogg down the GB News job centre having also lost his seat last night.
Nick Fletcher (Conservative) LOST
The Conservative former MP who was criticised for touting a known 15-minute city conspiracy in Parliament, and who later claimed cycling routes have turned his city into a "ghost town", lost his Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme seat to Labour last night.
Thérèse Coffey (Conservative) LOST
Thérèse Coffey, the Conservative politician who for a brief period during the autumn of 2022 served as health secretary during Liz Truss' stint as prime minister, lashed out at an active travel project in her Suffolk constituency, claiming that it is "anti-driver". Last night, Coffey lost her Suffolk Coastal seat to Labour, her share of the vote down a third on 2019.
Nigel Farage (Reform) WON
During his years of opportunistically jumping from issue to issue, Farage has unsurprisingly had a pop at cycling a couple of times, perhaps most famously in 2021 during a rant about "insane" cycle lanes. And no, you probably don't need me to tell you in this case "insane" isn't a positive adjective...
> Nigel Farage forges new career as anti-cycling bingo caller
Louise Haigh (Labour) WON
The shadow transport secretary easily kept her seat in Sheffield, so we're assuming Louise Haigh will be the next head of transport now her party is in government. In November, concerns were expressed after Haigh began to outline her stance on active travel policies, 20mph speed limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods.
> Labour's shadow secretary for transport rides a bike and offers support for cycling infrastructure… gets accused of photo-op (and for riding without helmet)
However, she later insisted that active travel is "essential for economic growth" and "every pound invested delivers a huge return in benefits". She also said comments about Sheffield being too hilly to cycle in were a "light-hearted joke".
And finally, anyone know how this guy got on last night? At least he'll have a driver taking him everywhere from now on...
> Sir Keir Starmer was 'making U-turn' when he hit cyclist, says witness
Add new comment
33 comments
Pushed off a mountain...?? Please don't feel the need to resort to clickbait
Is this anyone's bike ?
https://youtu.be/EbOkmhSnpYU?t=488
Does that 'P' stand for 'Passed on the 60th attempt'?
Julien Bernard has also been handed a fine for a similar heinous crime as Davide Ballerini. How dare he stop and kiss his wife. Very unseemly.
At the end of the day, they are all lying scum
Tory apologist alert! We've had Johnson and Truss, we've had the bent betting on the election date, country will be destroyed by Labour 'spend, spend, spend' doom-mongering etc. etc., so Tory Damage Limitation BlackOps launches 'they're all as bad as each other' in a futile attempt to cover-up the truly monumental scale of the Tory misdeeds.
Stonking good TT stage today, engrossing to see a full set of Galacticos up against each other.
A very enjoyable watch on a great day.
The Election looks positive to very positive.
But there's a hell of a lot of lobbying work for us to do, starting with getting the 2014-promised review of road safety kicked off in the first King's Speech.
Now is the time to start.
Pity about Labour splitting their own vote and letting IDS back in.
The aggressor in the pushing incident certainly wins hypocrite of the day, the guy running alongside the cyclists was running in the same channel as the aggressor was standing, so if the runner shouldn't have been there the aggressor shouldn't have been standing there either. Yes the idiots who run really close to the cyclists are a scourge, but this one looks fairly innocuous compared to many. The fact that the aggressor didn't just grab the runner but threw him off the side of the drop and then started swearing at him makes one suspect that he's one of the distressingly common type who thinks he's a bit tasty and loves an opportunity to use violence against others in a situation where he can claim he was acting in the interest of the riders.
These incidents can be interperated in so many ways
I feel the shover was at the side of the road cheering and encouraging, he had space to step back safely if required. The runner was moving rapidly without paying attention to where he was going.
The shove was an understandable defensive reaction to someone who was in the process of running into the shover, if he hadn't pushed he would have been knocked over by the idiot who wasn't looking where he was going.
Although he was more interested in hurling abuse at the other guy than doing so, and nearly took a rider out as a result.
As you say, the "shover" did have space to step back safely if required so he could have got out of the runner's way rather than take the violence option. If you look at the runner before he reaches the shover, he's actually tracking in a straight line very close to the edge of the road and not interfering with the riders at all, it's only the shover's decision to stand his ground and push the guy over that creates a problem and nearly interferes with the riders.
I agree. Looked more like an instinctive push to protect himself. The swearing possibly very much the same.
I wouldn't hold your breath. I don't remember the previous Labour government being that favourable toward cyclists. Active travel (like other green measures) is cheap which means it ain't great for either GDP or tax and, like the government that has just been kicked out, Labour governments run out of money. Hope I'm totally wrong!
The last labour government set a target of halving road deaths in 10 years. Everyone scoffed and laughed. They hit the target in 9 years, in the face of wailing about speed cameras being there solely to collect revenue.
I've also just seen Starmer's speech. Basically, his won't be a government of culture wars. As cyclists and active travel have been the 'enemy' in these culture wars, this is very, very welcome news. I'm sure Starmer's government will let me down on active travel and other issues - but they will be much, much better than the last lot.
I wouldn't trust Starmer as far as I could throw him.
Has he stop flip-flopping over what a female is?
At the end of the day, they are all lying scum.
Yup! It's many of the same people that voted Conservative last time that voted for them, Im sure they don't think the Great British Public has had a conversion experience! (They just grew tired of the last lot and Labour slipped on some bluer clothes and moved to meet them).
I think some longer term labour folks also have aversion to the bike - or rather they note the "unfair" class complaints eg. the rich are still driving but we can barely afford it! Or want to appear supporters of the "working man" (and it is usually gendered thus) with van.
If people are fitter and healthier, they will need the NHS less so that will benefit the public purse.
"Aero socks"???
They only weigh 100g !
Surely at some point UCI will need to revisit their rules on items being commercially available, if this is the end result (see also £300 aero beaks and >£50k track bikes). It makes a mockery of the rule if a company can just list an item on a website with an outrageous price and claim that makes it "available" if the reality is no-one in their right mind is going to buy it.
That said, I'm not quite sure what the solution is.
In general it appeals that pros use equipment which is comparable to that which is accessible to ordinary people - I think it makes their achievements more relatable. I also wonder if it's better for the industry - even if you don't buy the exact same thing, if they are similar you can see more potential for trickle down benefits. For example, the "standard" Tarmac frame looks very similar to the S-works version, so you can imagine a lot of the R&D is shared between them. But when you consider something like Ganna's entirely 3D printed Pinarello track bike, it's reasonable to question if that has anything in common with the off-the-shelf Bolide.
I did wonder about something along the lines of a requirement to sell a minimum number to the general public, or a requirement that the item be commercially viable (i.e. profitable based on sales to the general public). Although I don't know how that could work for items that are new (pros will be using them before they have gone on sale to the general public).
To add to your point - the lower tier Tarmacs come out of exactly the same mould, but use older FACT10 generation carbon layup techniques initially introduced in earlier S-Works models. There's very little difference in frame weight but there is a small noticeable difference in stiffness/compliance.
Are they faster than the £30 socks, or any of the other brands aero socks costing less than £100? A gold-plated bike could cost a fortune, but would that be an issue, or only if a pro rode it?
You pay £30 for socks?
Or give the teams a budget cap that has to be accounted against full RRP, so anything priced unfeasibly high to prevent normal people buying it also has the same effect on them.
And if the socks are so good that spending a grand on them really were to be better value than spending it on something else, then they can still do that.
And you end up like F1 or football where you just need a good accountant who knows the loopholes in the rules.
Cycling teams always tell us how poor in terms of cashflow they are anyway, none of them spend this kind of money on this stuff, it's gifted by sponsors.
RIP "Plan for drivers"...hopefully.
Unlikely: Labour has said the same.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893
Also “the only party on the side of drivers”.
Maybe not over bike-bashing - but no additional help and being patronised? Sure.
At least they've said they'll "Give mayors the power to create unified and integrated transport systems, and to promote active travel networks" - although some places appear to have already set about that! So it doesn't exactly promise anything new? And what you get very much depends on the mayor!
Although 'we need to reflect on that' often means 'this is really difficult but we hope if we ignore it long enough it'll just go away'.
Maybe. "the only party on the side of drivers" probably doesn't mean "...but we are on the side of cyclists more" though!
We'll see. Now they can do what they like will they keep to "tory-lite" or bring in somet new thinking? There will be some big issues to deal with - will they find time for a serious look at transport apart from "renationalise the railways" and "how can we get the 'road tax' tax back from electric cars"?
Generally I expect little from the top. Hopefully more local authorities can realise it's to their advantage to find money and put it into cycling, rather than just dumping it into holes in the ground or speculating to try to bring in more income.
Pages