Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Chris Boardman says MPs “should be embarrassed” & don’t “even know the most basic of facts” about cycling

British Cycling's policy champion slaps down "negligent lack of research and understanding"...

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.

Add new comment

73 comments

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to Simmo72 | 11 years ago
0 likes
Simmo72 wrote:

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.

all you're doing is reaching a queue at a different point in your journey. unless, once you get to town, all those cars are magically transported somewhere else. they'll get in to town before you, tail back and you'll be behind them. the fact that you were stuck behind a cyclist for 30 seconds earlier on won't make a second of difference to your journey time in most cases. especially at rush hour.

i see this all the time. people overtake me, i overtake them, they get cross that they have to overtake me again, then i overtake them again, they get more cross, etc, etc. the fact is that your journey time in your car is almost entirely unrelated to what i do on my bike because the speed of my bike journey is almost entirely unaffected by traffic volume. you keep having to overtake me because my average speed is the same or better. if you just sat behind a bike instead of having to overtake it, a lot of the time it wouldn't make any difference at all.

bikes aren't the problem in cities. single-occupancy cars are the problem.

Avatar
koko56 replied to dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:
Simmo72 wrote:

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.

all you're doing is reaching a queue at a different point in your journey. unless, once you get to town, all those cars are magically transported somewhere else. they'll get in to town before you, tail back and you'll be behind them. the fact that you were stuck behind a cyclist for 30 seconds earlier on won't make a second of difference to your journey time in most cases. especially at rush hour.

i see this all the time. people overtake me, i overtake them, they get cross that they have to overtake me again, then i overtake them again, they get more cross, etc, etc. the fact is that your journey time in your car is almost entirely unrelated to what i do on my bike because the speed of my bike journey is almost entirely unaffected by traffic volume. you keep having to overtake me because my average speed is the same or better. if you just sat behind a bike instead of having to overtake it, a lot of the time it wouldn't make any difference at all.

bikes aren't the problem in cities. single-occupancy cars are the problem.

Yeah that's the idealistic approach but it's easy to see how drivers are tempted to "yo-yo overtake" in slow traffic because if anything, it gives a more consistent spread of progress when stewing a traffic jam.

But single occupancy cars... mayyyn. It just occurred to me lately how perverted the idea is. Upwards of 1000kg of metal to move just ONE person, often over pretty small distances. Comes across very grim.

There is undoubtedly a use for cars, lol, but I guess the ever increasing petrol prices might be an opportunity to publicize cycling more as a way of getting around.

It all boils down to perception and awareness - even the best shops/services/products are of little use to someone if they are looked at from a skewed angle and/or people don't know about them.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Simmo72 | 11 years ago
0 likes
Simmo72 wrote:

'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.

Often on any journey I make (other than the middle of the night) I am delayed by huge queues of traffic (often with cars alternately at the kerb or further out, thus making filtering on either side very difficult). The congestion is due to cars being too large and too numerous for the road (and they have gotten wider on average over the last couple of decades).

They drive down side-roads, overtake me, and then find they can't pass the car coming the other way, for example, and make me wait while they stop and try and maneuver past each other.

Its the cars that delay _everyone_. The idea that bikes significantly delay cars and cause more CO2 is nonsense. Its overwhelmingly the other way round. Cars constantly stop and start due to lights and other cars.

Perhaps VED should be rolled-up into fuel tax, I'm not 100% sure on the relationship between fuel-consumption and emissions though (I guess it must be a simple one for CO2, as the Carbon in petrol hasn't got anywhere else to go, but there ought to be a cost for all the other crap cars put out, and surely that can vary depending on the engine?).

But there also needs to be an element of congestion charging, because emissions is one cost, but the use of in-demand roads by such large vehicles is another. I think that is actually a more important issue than the cost of wear-and-tear. That roadspace is a scarce resource.

Avatar
Neil753 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I've just watched the entire two hours of this Transport Select Committee hearing and, despite the distinct lack of knowledge shown by some MPs, I'm impressed by the depth of understanding demonstrated by all the "witnesses", including those from the "hgv side".

Some interesting points heard:

10,000 London cyclists have now taken part in the "Changing Places" scheme, where cyclists get a chance to sit in an hgv, and that a large number were "shocked" to discover how limited the view of cyclists appeared to be.
Members of the Road Haulage Association specifically made a representation, highlighting that their biggest concern was cyclists moving up on the inside of members' lorries, exascerbated by filter lanes that encourage cyclists to put themselves in danger.
A peak time lorry ban would increase London transport costs by 30%.
A peak time lorry ban would channel Hgvs onto streets at the "exact same moment as pensioners keen to avoid the rush hour".
There was much talk about the unreliabilty of "sensor sytems" currently being tested.
Also, "risk compensation" was discussed, whereby cyclists get closer to lorries if they think they're being "monitored".
The Road Transport Association voiced concerns about "information overload", citing an example where a driver was having to look at "six mirrors and four tv screens".
Both sides seemed to agree that infrastructure needed improvement but, for the moment, the overiding message was to "stay back".

All in all, despite some numpty comments from MPs, a very useful hearing.

Avatar
georgee | 11 years ago
0 likes

Here's a goody... Wasn't my fault gov, I'm quite amazed he even bothered responding...

Thank you for your email.

I am very well aware of the funding mechanism for our road system. My clear intention was to challenge the witnesses – who were arguing for more spending on cycling infrastructure - to state whether or not the cycling community should make a specific contribution to this infrastructure. I was neither expressing support or opposition but seeking the view of witnesses.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Vickers

Member of Parliament for the Cleethorpes Constituency

Avatar
Simmo72 replied to georgee | 11 years ago
0 likes

I got exactly the same response from MP Vickers. Basically the MPs are there to throw in an idea (probably thought of by someone else), and if its a flier then they will take the credit, if its a duffer then issue statements such as these.

To be honest it sounds like a blinding job!

Avatar
Kapelmuur | 11 years ago
0 likes

'put their bikes through a sort of MoT test'  24

Avatar
ragtimecyclist | 11 years ago
0 likes

Boardman sticking his head above the parapet and getting well stuck in...nicely done!

Avatar
ragtimecyclist | 11 years ago
0 likes

Boardman sticking his head above the parapet and getting well stuck in...nicely done!

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 11 years ago
0 likes

I like it when Chris gets angry. It's just a shame the general level
of discourse is pushed onto the irrelevent hobby horses such as taxing cyclists and making them wear helmets. From parliament through Jeremy Vine - who as a cyclist should know better - to the anti cycling morons on Twitter, it's the same obfustication and muddying the water.

Maybe Chris can alter the media slant with the help of someone who sponsors a pro team and happens to be inheriting a media empire. Of only such a person existed....  39

Avatar
RPK | 11 years ago
0 likes

God, I hate politicians.

Avatar
headfirst | 11 years ago
0 likes

I've tweeted Jason McCartney asking him if he's still "proud"to have sat on the inquiry following Boardman's comments

Avatar
Dizzy | 11 years ago
0 likes

I recently attended a meeting of Worthing council, as there was a discussion/vote on local cycling facilities - Pretty much the same happened here.
Sat in the public gallery How I refrained from shouting out I have no idea - I'm not normally known for my restraint

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 11 years ago
0 likes

If I turned up to an important meeting - a project steering committee say - and led it off on time wasting tangents, spouted uninformed babble that demonstrated I didn't know anything about the project, and generally failed to achieve the stated aims, I would be removed from it sharpish, replaced, and probably under threat for my job come next review time.

And people wonder why the City runs rings around Government.

Avatar
Argos74 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Dunno which scares me more. That they're making decisions that affect our daily lives (or, er, deaths), or that we're paying for these clueless halfwits.

Avatar
Mart | 11 years ago
0 likes

I watched this debacle and I was cringing. These people run our country and they couldn't even do some background investigation beforehand. How can they not know about how VED works?
Feels like they are just going through the motion of caring about the loss of life on British roads but ultimately they just want to make sure their commute is not disrupted. I was shocked at the cost of blue paint, £1 million per km is disgusting. That was just for the painting.
It was an opportunity for some progress and understanding, but ultimately wasted.
I can only hope they take a long look at themselves and do some basic research in future. But I doubt it as many think they are infallible.

Avatar
Neil753 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Some good, hard hitting comments from Mr. Boardman, and rightly so. Truly excellent, in fact, and a great cycling "czar" he would make, in my opinion.

But if he himself wants to avoid demonstrating, er, "a lack of research and understanding", then he should avoid calling for a peak time lorry ban, the considerable and numerous adverse effects of which he has hitherto appeared to comprehend.

Avatar
A V Lowe replied to Neil753 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Precisely @Neil753 must catch up with you sometime. I was wincing and shaking my head at the lack of any proper structure or briefing to this - it was rushed, it was grandstanding, with both the cycling panel and the hauliers panel having prepared well.

I was especially interested by to point that Jack Semple of RHA managed to get in despite the committee failing to ask the question. Two thirds of the operators called in for formal interview and (usually) some form of sanction being imposed on their licence are operating on a restricted licence - they don't have to have a CPC qualified transport manager, and are often in the waste management sector (ie skip lorry operators) .... speaks volumes?

Also had a useful piece of feedback - many are embracing the LCC proposal to design a truck which does not need a small forest of mirrors to actually see what is happening immediately beside the cab because the driver has direct vision of that area. Refuse trucks are widely being specified with 'walk-in' cabs that have the driver's eye-level just 2 metres above the road - practically in line with an adult pedestrian on the footway - look in from outside and you'll see the driver from bonce to bum and they will see you.

But this type of truck is not primarily being specified because of the lack of blind spots. A major source of crew injury on refuse collection is slipping and falling when climbing up or down from the 'classic' high cab. So I asked the MPA guy after the session if their members had any similar issues on tipper operations and guess what - tipper drivers are getting injured in exactly the same sort of incidents. So what of logistics and distribution?

I've also seen at least two recently registered 18T box trucks on logistics/parcels work (TNTPost and DHL) with the footwell part of the n/s door panel as a glazed area. Are we being listened to at last? (Unfortunately both sightings in traffic and at night so no opportunity to grab a picture)

Your thoughts also on the fact that a lot of muck shift and other construction haulage is very sporadic as sites start, finish, etc, and driver pool is often as transient as the work, with a possible bias to Class C's, as they are more readily available?

Avatar
A V Lowe replied to Neil753 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Precisely @Neil753 must catch up with you sometime. I was wincing and shaking my head at the lack of any proper structure or briefing to this - it was rushed, it was grandstanding, with both the cycling panel and the hauliers panel having prepared well.

I was especially interested by to point that Jack Semple of RHA managed to get in despite the committee failing to ask the question. Two thirds of the operators called in for formal interview and (usually) some form of sanction being imposed on their licence are operating on a restricted licence - they don't have to have a CPC qualified transport manager, and are often in the waste management sector (ie skip lorry operators) .... speaks volumes?

Also had a useful piece of feedback - many are embracing the LCC proposal to design a truck which does not need a small forest of mirrors to actually see what is happening immediately beside the cab because the driver has direct vision of that area. Refuse trucks are widely being specified with 'walk-in' cabs that have the driver's eye-level just 2 metres above the road - practically in line with an adult pedestrian on the footway - look in from outside and you'll see the driver from bonce to bum and they will see you.

But this type of truck is not primarily being specified because of the lack of blind spots. A major source of crew injury on refuse collection is slipping and falling when climbing up or down from the 'classic' high cab. So I asked the MPA guy after the session if their members had any similar issues on tipper operations and guess what - tipper drivers are getting injured in exactly the same sort of incidents. So what of logistics and distribution?

I've also seen at least two recently registered 18T box trucks on logistics/parcels work (TNTPost and DHL) with the footwell part of the n/s door panel as a glazed area. Are we being listened to at last? (Unfortunately both sightings in traffic and at night so no opportunity to grab a picture)

Your thoughts also on the fact that a lot of muck shift and other construction haulage is very sporadic as sites start, finish, etc, and driver pool is often as transient as the work, with a possible bias to Class C's, as they are more readily available?

Avatar
mlimburn | 11 years ago
0 likes

I was disgusted as i listened into this. I would complain to my MP, but when i contacted her after appearing on local tv saying she wouldn't cycle in Plymouth, i never heard anything back. must contact her next rival to see where he stands on cycling!

Avatar
kitkat | 11 years ago
0 likes

From the BBC article:

Quote:

Committee chair and Labour MP Louise Ellman said: "Yesterday's evidence session was only the start of an inquiry into cycling safety, at the end of which the committee will be seeking to produce a balanced report. Tomorrow we are taking oral evidence from the minister, Robert Goodwin."

The saying "start as you mean to go on" may have some relevance here, rambling ministers give their 2 pence worth.

The MPs have an opportunity to deliver a report that really could save lives directly and indirectly as well as save the country a fortune in healthcare. I hope they can see that and not focus on their trivial personal observations.

Thank you to Chris for flagging this, I hope the profile of this case remains high with Road.cc reporting through out and that enough media attention is garnered to let MPs feel the pressure of delivering something that will help cyclists.

Avatar
MadDog Madill | 11 years ago
0 likes

Have tweeted Cloe

https://twitter.com/ChloeSmithMP (apparently a good discussion

Go on.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 11 years ago
0 likes

Wow, Chris Boardman didn't spare them his opinion. I agree with everything he said. None of this shower is my MP, but there's no harm in writing to them anyway. If that's the best they can do, they clearly aren't fit for purpose and need to be replaced with others who understand the basic issues and are prepared to listen to expert opinion, which this all-party bunch of duffers clearly aren't.

Avatar
joemmo | 11 years ago
0 likes

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.”

Absolutely. Most of these people couldn't hold down a job in the real, fact based world.

If you are being employed at the public's expense and as part of that job are expected to make decisions based on facts, statistics and evidence then you ought have to pass a test of competency proving you are able to do this. Politics, however seems to place greater weight on opinions, beliefs and 'the narrative' so we shouldnt be surprised when they just revisit the narrow range of issues being churned over and over in the media.

The problem is that 'the narrative' is now well established and it's overwhelmingly negative and divisive (road tax, helmets, RLJ etc.). People are comfortable with it because it gives them excuses not to really think about the issues. What is needed is for someone to create a new narrative that offers some compromise and a way forward and the bravery to push it. Until then we're going to be going over and over the same old shit forever

Avatar
Some Fella | 11 years ago
0 likes

That would be climate change denier Graham Stringer then?

http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/Climate-Change-Received-Wis...

Avatar
koko56 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Not to be unnecessarily divergent but so many cases where it's just akin to racism.

Cyclist dead - yeah, but you know, he's a cyclist so don't worry too much.

Endangering life by shit driving and deciding to not admit mistakes and turn it around on the cyclist.. yeah sure not a problem - it's only a cyclist.

The general ignorance of some people is shameful. They simply have no clue at all of how their driving can potentially impact things around them and this is not the first time that MPs etc have shown just how pathetic their attempts at cycling discussion are - worse than some 7 year old trying to wiggle out of not doing homework and that's without mentioning the recent deaths. This is absolute ignorance and lack of any engagement or morality.

Avatar
durrin | 11 years ago
0 likes

The more I've heard from Boardman over the past few years, the more I like the guy!

Avatar
Wolfshade | 11 years ago
0 likes

The "debate" can be found here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14361
I believe the term "omni-shambles" would suffice. I decided to watch the whole session to see if it was just reporting bias, alas, it was not.
The MPs showed themselves to be completely out of touch of the realities of the situation. Trotting out the same old lines.
One of my favourite lines, a panel was questioned about the compulsory use of helmets and said something along the lines of "there is nothing that is going to save you if you are crushed under the back wheels of an HGV".
My second favourite, a panelist was asked if cyclists should pay for the road upkeep, the person questioned answered with an emphatic "They do!".
But it was trite we had the whole lot of them: headphones, hi-viz, helmets, licence, tax, registration, insurance. None of those things would have prevented any of the deaths on the road. In the same way in car collisions having any of those things do not prevent fatalaties.
A waste of time, money and opportunity.

Avatar
MadDog Madill | 11 years ago
0 likes

Nice one Farrell!

Pages

Latest Comments