Martin Lewis polls Twitter over Lord Winston's call for cyclists to be licensed and insured - and is surprised by the replies

Municipal Waste wrote:

This week the WHO released a study showing there are 11,000 new cases of childhood asthma linked to vehicle emissions PER DAY worldwide. Scale the incidence rate of 29 new cases per 100,000 per year in the UK up too the size of the whole population and that's almost 20,000 children a year in this country alone getting diagnosed with asthma per year.

But yet the discussions around transport are still 'do cyclists needs number plates?' S

It's not just asthma, as I'm sure you know. The true cost of motoring is massive.

There are the thousands of road casualties year after year and the huge financial, psychological and social burden they bring.

The massive and growing health time bomb due to inactivity.

The far bigger time bomb of climate change, which is threatening our very existence.

The loss of freedom, for adults as well as children (it has curtailed my own two kids' ability to explore their surroundings, even now in their mid-teens, like I did when I was young).

The aggression shown by some drivers to other road users and the fear of traffic that deters people from riding or prompts them to ride on the pavement.

Hugely expensive road building projects that don't solve anything and the cost of maintaining the existing highways while cycle infrastructure is pathetic yet arseholes on twitter like Julia Bradbury still think it's OK to whinge about the "millions being spent on cycling superhighways" (which amounts to about 10 miles in London).

I'm sure there are plenty other issues too but the media love to demonise out-groups.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I really don't have much faith in 'education'.  It just doesn't seem to work.  'Setting examples' is even more useless.  Where has that ever worked for anything?

 

I used to think the only solution was better infrastucture, which would create a virtuous-circle by allowing more people to feel able to cycle and thus creating a larger lobby for more and better infrastructure and taking more space from motorised vehicles.

But (partly thanks to Khan - whose name I feel should only be uttered with an anguished shout in the style of Shatner's Captain Kirk) that seems to have stalled completely.

 

So now I mostly think it's a bit hopeless and maybe we just have to wait for the oil to run out or for cars to become so large none of them can move and there's no room for anything else in our cities.

Could we at least try 'education' and see if it has any effect?

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I really don't have much faith in 'education'.  It just doesn't seem to work.  'Setting examples' is even more useless.  Where has that ever worked for anything?

 

I used to think the only solution was better infrastucture, which would create a virtuous-circle by allowing more people to feel able to cycle and thus creating a larger lobby for more and better infrastructure and taking more space from motorised vehicles.

But (partly thanks to Khan - whose name I feel should only be uttered with an anguished shout in the style of Shatner's Captain Kirk) that seems to have stalled completely.

 

So now I mostly think it's a bit hopeless and maybe we just have to wait for the oil to run out or for cars to become so large none of them can move and there's no room for anything else in our cities.

Could we at least try 'education' and see if it has any effect?

Don't let me stop you - knock yourself out!

(Er, not meaning to start a helmet argument)

But what would 'education' consist of?  Don't, for example, all those speed limit signs count as 'education' as to what the appropriate speed is?  The give way markings, etc?  Without enforcement people come to ignore such things.  Why would signs telling people to be nice be any more succesful?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But what would 'education' consist of?

I did get one success fromo this image

hirsute wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But what would 'education' consist of?

I did get one success fromo this image

Fair enough as far as individuals arguing with those they know, but I am still very skeptical that sort of thing can be scaled-up and then shown to have much of a real-world effect.  Those who aren't ever going to listen, even if a minority, can cause a massive amount of harm.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Fair enough as far as individuals arguing with those they know, but I am still very skeptical that sort of thing can be scaled-up and then shown to have much of a real-world effect.  Those who aren't ever going to listen, even if a minority, can cause a massive amount of harm.

I think I should have emboldened the word 'one' previously.

Actually my success was on an anonymous forum, so I have no idea who it was.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I really don't have much faith in 'education'.  It just doesn't seem to work.  'Setting examples' is even more useless.  Where has that ever worked for anything?

 

I used to think the only solution was better infrastucture, which would create a virtuous-circle by allowing more people to feel able to cycle and thus creating a larger lobby for more and better infrastructure and taking more space from motorised vehicles.

But (partly thanks to Khan - whose name I feel should only be uttered with an anguished shout in the style of Shatner's Captain Kirk) that seems to have stalled completely.

 

So now I mostly think it's a bit hopeless and maybe we just have to wait for the oil to run out or for cars to become so large none of them can move and there's no room for anything else in our cities.

Could we at least try 'education' and see if it has any effect?

 

Don't let me stop you - knock yourself out!

(Er, not meaning to start a helmet argument)

 

But what would 'education' consist of?  Don't, for example, all those speed limit signs count as 'education' as to what the appropriate speed is?  The give way markings, etc?  Without enforcement people come to ignore such things.  Why would signs telling people to be nice be any more succesful?

I was thinking more of public service adverts. A long, long time ago there were lots of "Think Bike" and "Clunk, Click, Every Trip" adverts. How effective they were is arguable but they were at least memorable. Start with that and then ramp up enforcement.

Sriracha wrote:

So of the total respondents 2/3 agree with Lord Winston. Of those who agree, just shy of 1 in 5 are themselves cyclists. And of cyclists in general, just over 40% agree with Lord Winston. So we can argue about the questionnaire design, the demographic of his followers, the guilt of the non-participants, the merits of the proposal, or the character of Lord Winston and Martin Lewis. Or we can ask ourselves, how can we address the situation where so many have this view of cyclists.

The (cheapest) answer is education.

What we should have is some public service type of adverts that address issues such as two-abreast cycling, close-passes. filtering through traffic and why cyclists may choose to not use unsafe "cycle lanes" or indeed use the pavement in preference to the road.

Maybe have sound-bites at the end such as "Cyclists - they don't foul the very air you breathe".

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So of the total respondents 2/3 agree with Lord Winston. Of those who agree, just shy of 1 in 5 are themselves cyclists. And of cyclists in general, just over 40% agree with Lord Winston. So we can argue about the questionnaire design, the demographic of his followers, the guilt of the non-participants, the merits of the proposal, or the character of Lord Winston and Martin Lewis. Or we can ask ourselves, how can we address the situation where so many have this view of cyclists.

The (cheapest) answer is education.

What we should have is some public service type of adverts that address issues such as two-abreast cycling, close-passes. filtering through traffic and why cyclists may choose to not use unsafe "cycle lanes" or indeed use the pavement in preference to the road.

Maybe have sound-bites at the end such as "Cyclists - they don't foul the very air you breathe".

Totally agree. But "telling them" is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example. The best is for those we seek to educate to themselves become cyclists following our good example, to learn by experience. But it may be that we have to settle for second best whilst hoping for the rest. Pointing the finger at other road users (even though they may be guilty) is guaranteed not to work.

Sriracha wrote:

Totally agree. But "telling them" is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example.

What does that even mean?  I really don't understand your point.

I mean, every day I set an example by not stabbing anyone on the streets of London.  But that doesn't seem to be working, and the crims continue to kill people.

Sriracha wrote:

Totally agree. But "telling them" is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example. The best is for those we seek to educate to themselves become cyclists following our good example, to learn by experience. But it may be that we have to settle for second best whilst hoping for the rest. Pointing the finger at other road users (even though they may be guilty) is guaranteed not to work.

Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?

Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?

Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don't want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?

What good examples do you mean? I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving along.

hirsute wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Totally agree. But "telling them" is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example. The best is for those we seek to educate to themselves become cyclists following our good example, to learn by experience. But it may be that we have to settle for second best whilst hoping for the rest. Pointing the finger at other road users (even though they may be guilty) is guaranteed not to work.

Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?

 

Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?

 

Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don't want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?

 

What good examples do you mean? I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving along.

I don't think it means any of those things. Just as there is no law against towing caravans, considerate caravanners will help traffic get by them when safe and possible. Others just crawl along mile after mile with an ever longer queue building behind them cursing their existence.

I have been out on group rides where the cyclists travel strung out in one uninterrupted line of 10-15 bikes, along narrow lanes. They leave no gaps to help cars overtake - their choice is to chance overtaking all 15 in one charge, or wait. Or they cycle two abreast as if they own the road and have no need to share, mile after mile. It's not the two-abreast that irritates, it's selfishly ignoring the needs of other road users. That will colour their judgement of cyclists. If we want to change that judgement we need to do more than blame others.

But I think the thing that riles others the most is people who jump red lights and flout the highway code. There is no excuse. If cyclists don't want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others. But they don't. That other road users are not blameless is not the point.

"I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving"
True enough. I'm not suggesting we educate car drivers about their behaviour. I'm suggesting we educate them about ours, that we are not in need of any measures to 'hold us to account' (reg numbers etc), because we have no case to answer. The thead was about those measures being applied to cyclists.

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Totally agree. But "telling them" is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example. The best is for those we seek to educate to themselves become cyclists following our good example, to learn by experience. But it may be that we have to settle for second best whilst hoping for the rest. Pointing the finger at other road users (even though they may be guilty) is guaranteed not to work.

Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?

 

Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?

 

Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don't want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?

 

What good examples do you mean? I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving along.

I don't think it means any of those things. Just as there is no law against towing caravans, considerate caravanners will help traffic get by them when safe and possible. Others just crawl along mile after mile with an ever longer queue building behind them cursing their existence. I have been out on group rides where the cyclists travel strung out in one uninterrupted line of 10-15 bikes, along narrow lanes. They leave no gaps to help cars overtake - their choice is to chance overtaking all 15 in one charge, or wait. Or they cycle two abreast as if they own the road and have no need to share, mile after mile. It's not the two-abreast that irritates, it's selfishly ignoring the needs of other road users. That will colour their judgement of cyclists. If we want to change that judgement we need to do more than blame others. But I think the thing that riles others the most is people who jump red lights and flout the highway code. There is no excuse. If cyclists don't want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others. But they don't. That other road users are not blameless is not the point. "I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving" True enough. I'm not suggesting we educate car drivers about their behaviour. I'm suggesting we educate them about ours, that we are not in need of any measures to 'hold us to account' (reg numbers etc), because we have no case to answer. The thead was about those measures being applied to cyclists.

how many people who have been using their phones while driving have seen another road user, cyclist or otherwise, who is not using their phone at the time, and put their phone down, thinking "That person isn't using their phone, but I am. What an excellent example they're setting - I will immediately stop using mine.".

Supplementary question: is the number less than, equal to, or greater than the number of people who've put their phone down when they've spotted a police officer perambulatin' in the vicinity m'lud?

Answers on a postcode, please, addressed to "Sriracha, 13 Underbridge St., Cloud-Cuckoo-land".

ConcordeCX wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Totally agree. But "telling them" is actually not a very effective method of education, nor the cheapest. Far better is showing, through everyday personal example. The best is for those we seek to educate to themselves become cyclists following our good example, to learn by experience. But it may be that we have to settle for second best whilst hoping for the rest. Pointing the finger at other road users (even though they may be guilty) is guaranteed not to work.

Does this mean I have to use a totally unsuitable cycle lane that is just a bit of marked section on a crappy bit of road full of detritus, just to stop people moaning?Or should I try to explain why cycle lanes are in the main wholly unsuitable and give reasons?

 

Should I ride in single file even though it is harder for drivers to overtake and increases the risk for cyclists? Or should I explain why it is safer for all to ride in a bunch?

 

Should I no longer use primary in locatiosn where there is a hazard and I don't want a risky overtake? Or should I explain that trying to vertake just before a narrow blind bend is a bad idea?

 

What good examples do you mean? I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving along.

I don't think it means any of those things. Just as there is no law against towing caravans, considerate caravanners will help traffic get by them when safe and possible. Others just crawl along mile after mile with an ever longer queue building behind them cursing their existence. I have been out on group rides where the cyclists travel strung out in one uninterrupted line of 10-15 bikes, along narrow lanes. They leave no gaps to help cars overtake - their choice is to chance overtaking all 15 in one charge, or wait. Or they cycle two abreast as if they own the road and have no need to share, mile after mile. It's not the two-abreast that irritates, it's selfishly ignoring the needs of other road users. That will colour their judgement of cyclists. If we want to change that judgement we need to do more than blame others. But I think the thing that riles others the most is people who jump red lights and flout the highway code. There is no excuse. If cyclists don't want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others. But they don't. That other road users are not blameless is not the point. "I don't use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but this doesn't stop drivers using them whilst driving" True enough. I'm not suggesting we educate car drivers about their behaviour. I'm suggesting we educate them about ours, that we are not in need of any measures to 'hold us to account' (reg numbers etc), because we have no case to answer. The thead was about those measures being applied to cyclists.

how many people who have been using their phones while driving have seen another road user, cyclist or otherwise, who is not using their phone at the time, and put their phone down, thinking "That person isn't using their phone, but I am. What an excellent example they're setting - I will immediately stop using mine.".

Supplementary question: is the number less than, equal to, or greater than the number of people who've put their phone down when they've spotted a police officer perambulatin' in the vicinity m'lud?

Answers on a postcode, please, addressed to "Sriracha, 13 Underbridge St., Cloud-Cuckoo-land".

Once again, I am NOT suggesting you can teach others (eg car drivers) how to behave. Your excellent example will not teach them. So at least we agree there.

I am suggesting we teach them that we are not a bunch of selfish arrogant inconsiderate road users in flagrant breach of the highway code in urgent need of regulation and licencing. That we (might) do by our example.

Another poster (FluffyKitten...) suggests that is pie in the sky, he believes there is scant chance of cyclists as a group (he argues they are not) reforming their collective ways. He may be right. In fact, judging by the many threads on this site, there is zero chance of some cyclists taking any ownership.

S/He cites "self-induced pressures that cause them [motorists] to be antagonistic towards cyclists" (I'd add the same of cyclists towards motorists).

S/He has a point. Divide any peaceful bunch of ordinary people into two groups with their own identity and you will breed tribal conflict. The woeful roads infrastructure pits them against each other.

But the attitude of many posters on this site speaks volumes. Naked hostility, sarcasam, infantilism, denial, anyones fault except the cyclists. If that is generally what underlies their attitude to other road users then Lord Winston's job is easy.

Sriracha wrote:

If we want to change that judgement we need to do more than blame others. But I think the thing that riles others the most is people who jump red lights and flout the highway code. There is no excuse. If cyclists don't want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others.

I thought maybe you had some original argument, but it's the same old 'giving us a bad name' foolishness.  Are you saying "everyone who ever uses a bike" consitutes some collective hive-mind that can 'decide' to behave perfectly...and that then all motorists will magically forget the entirely-self-induced pressures that cause them to be antagonistic towards cyclists?

Nah.

It's not only impossible to achieve, it won't work even if it miraculously happened.

"Education" via, I dunno, poster campaigns and TV adverts or lessons in schools, or improved driving lessons (though you'll have to educate driving instructors first) is a more plausible idea than that (even if I still don't believe it).

Sriracha wrote:

If cyclsts don't want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others.

Except that most cyclists do leave those things to others, and still get tarred with that by brush, so your prescription doesn't work. You're making the mistake of thinking that logic and reason are involved in these opinions.

Sriracha wrote:

If cyclsts don't want to be tarred with that brush they should leave the red light jumping etc to others.

I'm really bored of this bullshit argument. Your posts on this thread are rubbish.

Do all teenagers/youths get maligned because of a relatively small number of stabbings? No.

Must all Muslims suffer abuse and violence because a tiny number of people support ISIS? If so then can we should do the same to all white British people as some of them are racists / EDL / hard right / neo-fascists.

And why do black footballers (and black and minority ethnic people in general) still get abuse even though they have done nothing?

Red light jumping by cyclists may be wrong but it is NOT the problem. It's the media and attention-seeking 'personalities' like Robert Winston, Julia Bradbury and many others that are doing the tarring. THEY are the ones causing the hardening of attitudes towards people on bikes and refusing to debate the real issues.

When I'm cycling lots of drivers are considerate. Posters, adverts and asking nicely to "share the road" won't work on the entitled, angry minority who show no respect for other road users.

The only way to get them to behave is punishment and unambiguous explanation of how they should be driving. WMPRHRT is the template every force should follow, not nicking a Dad for cycling at walking pace with his 2 year old in Peterborough.

We need the media on-side for things to change, to reinforce the message that what all of us experience sometimes is unacceptable. But looking at the headlines in the press - local and national - and the noise on social media, we're a bloody long way from that happening. And while idiots like Sriracha blather on about RLJ it can only get worse.