Cyclists horrified at “dehumanising” language in House of Lords debate, including comparing cyclists to “plague of mosquitos”; Mix-up at mixed relay time trial; Why should two people with two bikes need 30+ train tickets? + more on the live blog

The house of lords should most definitely be disbanded tax payer money will be saved on keeping a load of bloated lazy farts warm with a place to park their backsides all day long. Surely has to be the most over priced senior daycare centre in the country, send them home honestly no one will notice the difference!

Bicameralism is not a concept without merrits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism

Honestly the biggest issue with the Lords at this point is they're appointed by the PM and there's no way to get rid of them once they're too senile to be competent as in this case.

I'd strongly be in favour of a new independent appointment system that brought in actual experts.

That said anything is better than nothing and removing the Lords entirely would be a catastrophic mistake.

I don't understand that, when video of incidents like this or photos of obviously illegally parked vehicles are put out on the internet then why bother with blurring the numberplate?

As you say, showing the numberplate might make it a little easier to identify the vehicle and its keeper and thus find the passenger…

5 Things Cyclist Should Watch Out For

1. Right wing gutter press
2. twitter commentards
3. Internet Trolls
4. Police force submission portals
5. Anything with an engine and 4 or more wheels

I find I can cycle quite happily with no regard for the first four.

Mr Anderson wrote:

What do we think about the cycling debate in the House of Lords yesterday?

Transcript is here, haven't read it yet. I assume it's just the usual anti-cycling bollocks.

Tom_77 wrote:

Transcript is here, haven't read it yet. I assume it's just the usual anti-cycling bollocks.

I just skimmed through bits of it, but there do seem some well-reasoned pro-cycling responses too.

Not just anti-cycling. One of them even accuses pedestrians of jaywalking which, as far as I'm aware, is not actually an offence.

It's not an offence. It's  not even a 'thing'. Jaywalking does not exist in the UK.
It's worth noting the broader context of that particular Lord's message, and the fact that he is, in fact, Deputy Chair of the APPCG. Overall, his message was supportive of cyling.

I have to say I was mildly impressed with some of the comments even from Lord H-H, whose debate it was and who proposed registration, insurance and legislation reform. I disagree with his proposals, but he was fairly balanced in expressing them, unlike some subsequent proponents of the motion. He caveated the whole proposal with the overriding need to collect statistics more comprehensively on collisions, injuries and deaths.

I think there is a need to consider the scale of errors/offences by cyclists. That's not unreaosnable. But it has to be balanced with the actual harm caused to others and themselves by those offences. AND it needs ot be balanced with the need that those offences acutally indicate:-

• If cyclists are running red lights, is it simply antisocial, scoff-law selfishness? Or does it point to a need to be out of the junction before motorsts  get moving?
• If they are riding on the footway, does that indicate a lack of provision for safe cycling along the routes people need to follow? Does it indicate that indirect cycle provision along certain corridors is not a reasonable response?
• If they are cycling through no cycling zones, such as shopping centres, does it show the same thing, as well as a failure to disciminate between antisocial cycling and considerate cycling (so let's ban them all as a scattergun approach using draconian PSPOs or similar that don't require objective evidence).

Where Lord H-H proposed licences so that cyclists could be banned as points tot up, is he not aware that a court can already impose a cycling ban on an individual? Is he aware of the level of breaches by drivers whose licence have been suspended? His solution does not add anything to the process of enforcement or the risk of recidivism.

He proposed insurance for cyclists, and I saw a nodding head behind him as he pronounce that cyclists don't have insurance, so recovery of losses by third parties is a civil matter. I hate to inform him (so I'll just shout into this echo chamber here, for now):

• it is still a civil matter for motorists with (or the estimated 1 million without) insurance... it's just there is a mechanism to expedite the civil process;
• a healthy proportion of cyclists have at least some insurance, through domestic household insurance which usually bundles the  cover without additional premium;
• Members of CyclingUK, British Cycling, or affiliated clubs have some level of 3rd party insurance as an unitemised cost of their membership. The combination of these and household cover is several times the minimum cover required for a motorist in a fast, heavy car.
• Insurance companies themselves [Road.cc] don't think cyclists should be required by law to have insurance.

Cycling on the pavement (not itself an offence*) was raised as an issue - not just chhildren, but adults(!). Let's set aside the fact that some pavements are, in fact, shared paths (rightly or wrongly, in design/safety terms). But of those which are more correctly termed 'footways' (set aside for the use of pedestrians, including those in wheelchairs or some powered mobility vehicles), where an offence remains by cycling on them except to access properties served by dropped kerbs, just as with a motor vehicle:-

• Not much was said in the debate about the 40 people per year who are killed on footways and verges by motorists;
• Nobody referred to the introduction of FPNs for cycling on footways in July 1999...
• Accompanying that introduction, Paul Boateng (Lab), then-Minister for That Sort of Thing wrote to Ben Bradshaw (then-Chair of APPCG), saying, "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."  It remained an offence, but the threshold for enforcement was intended to be that some harm arose from it.
• At the beginning of 2014, Robert Goodwill (Con), then-Minister for That Sort of Thing re-iterated that message. Police should use their discretion. That is a fudge, of course: anybody who rides on the footway commits an offence, but the fear which causes them to do so is in the police officer's eye to behold, rather than being a matter in which a courteous cyclist may act with confidence. It belies the lack of infrastructure which causes the fear in the first place.
• The attitude that cyclists must not put pedestrians at risk, while perfectly appropriate in its own right, appears only to be expressed in its own right, while failing to express the same sentiment of how cyclists are treated by motorists in the same concern.

[* cycling on the pavement is not an offence. The modern legal term for that part of the road set aside for pedestirans is "footway". "Pavement" is technically ambiguous, may refer to footways, shared paths, or even non-specific surfacing (a la USA) and should be avoided, with the possible exception of '[avement parking'.]

As has been mentioned, I understand the government response to the debate has summarised that there is nothing to see here.

Good post. To pick one tiny part:

GMBasix wrote:

If cyclists are running red lights, is it simply antisocial, scoff-law selfishness? Or does it point to a need to be out of the junction before motorsts  get moving?​

Obviously it's a mix and varies across the country. But I can say that in the microcosm of my commute through central London, most of which is achieved on wonderful segregated cycle routes (i.e. where good infrastructure has been provided and so there is no such plausible safety justification) red light and pedestrian crossing infractions of the antisocial, scoff-law variety are endemic. It is a microcosm, but it's no doubt one which will be informing those in the Westminster bubble.    

There is of course not a fixed amount of antisocial, scoff-law selfishness. However i'd say there is bigger picture - how do you want your antisocial, scoff-law transport selfishness served?

We currently have trained, tested and licenced drivers with registered, tested motor vehicles with tax and insurance.
And yet there is certainly such scofflaw behaviour at red lights... What is far more prevalent is the almost standard disregard for laws like driving on the pavement (cycle facility) and "bending the rules" around parking and "loading / picking up".

In fact what is *technically* scoff-law selfishness (and is in reality for eg. those with mobility issues trying to navigate the pavement) will be minimised by people taking about this - until it becomes an "unwritten rule" (eg. get two wheels on the pavement to be pro-social to other motorists).

I think the Noble Lords will - if they're honest and observant - find antisocial, scoff-law selfishness everywhere. They'll find it from our system of mass motoring, they'd certainly find it in places where there is mass cycling (NL, parts of Scandinavia). It's a feature of humans. The question is how we manage it and how we can minimise the negative side effects. IMHO such behaviour from drivers of motor vehicles generally causes worse problems than from cyclists.

That of course depends on how we make space for cycling. It is obviously "worse" where we design crap facilities. Or set up conflict by making cyclists and pedestrians fight over scraps instead of finding space from motor transport.

Of course (a few parts of) London are just beginning a transition - which *might* lead to mass cycling there. So it shouldn't be a surprise that in fact it can be a bit "wild west". If it does surprise people then they haven't understood either cycling or humans - wishful thinking at best...

I watched about 2/3rds of the debate, as I discovered it when channel hoping.

Most of it seemed reasonably well argued. Lord H-H seemed surprised that the majority of the speeches did not support the idea of licencing or compulsory insurance.

I think greater emphasis should be made to the lack of resources for Policing the highway.  This is the crux of the whole issue about road safety.  By and large, we already have sufficient legislation in place, we just don't have the Police to enforce it.

I do wish they would get on with passing the "Kim Briggs" law ASAP, so we can all move on to the more pressing issues.  The proposed new offence of causing death or serious injury by negligent cycling does not impact 99.9% of cyclists.  Everytime this hits the news, its another opportunity at cyclist bashing!  Please, pass this law and let us focus on improving road safety!!

Mr Anderson wrote:

I do wish they would get on with passing the "Kim Briggs" law ASAP, so we can all move on to the more pressing issues.  The proposed new offence of causing death or serious injury by negligent cycling does not impact 99.9% of cyclists.  Everytime this hits the news, its another opportunity at cyclist bashing!  Please, pass this law and let us focus on improving road safety!!

Yes, the 'Kim Briggs' law won't make any difference to nearly all cyclists, but giving in to the anti-cycling lobby won't keep them quiet, but will instead embolden them to push harder for more anti-cycling laws. Every time this hits the news, it's also an opportunity to try to explain why encouraging cycling actually helps everyone.

Also, it's such a stupid reason for the law when Alliston got punished far more severely than any motorist would and he was found not-guilty of causing her death (assuming that a not guilty verdict for manslaughter would mean that).

The instances where a cyclist could be considered for such a law are so few, but meanwhile we hear frequently of drivers getting away with ridiculously light charges and penalties, even when they are behaving with far more recklessness and danger to others than Alliston ever did. If we're going to tighten up the law, then the careless/dangerous laws need to be applied consistently and meaningfully.

The proposed law regarding cyclists is very interesting, and possibly establishes an argument for a change to the driving equivalents.

"Causing death or serious injury, by careless or dangerous cycling" is proposed, as one all encompassing offence.  I have long argued the distinction of CDOSI by careless driving, or CDOSI by dangerous driving be abolished and replaced by one charge of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. Therefore, we remove the temptation of the Police and/or CPS for opting for the lesser charge.

Mr Anderson wrote:

"Causing death or serious injury, by careless or dangerous cycling" is proposed, as one all encompassing offence.

I don't know if the new government has proposed a new bill yet, but that's not how Iain Duncan Smith's amendment to the last bill worked - that created separate offences of (a) death by dangerous cycling, (b) serious injury by dangerous cycling, and (c) death by careless or inconsiderate cycling:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/stages/18470/amendments/10014573

They will be doing a fairly comprehensive review of road safety.

Which is why we need to stay engaged.

This Govt seem rational, and also strategic, unlike the last shower of shits, so I expect them to address weeping sores such as the drink-drive limit, the Exceptional Hardship loopholes, and other obvious things.

If we get some of what we actually need then a death by dangerous cycling offence is a small bone to throw to the dogs to keep them quiet.

The Telegrunt, Spectator and so on will keep routinely publishing lies, however.

mattw wrote:

They will be doing a fairly comprehensive review of road safety.

When? Is this the comprehensive review of road offenses they're rushing to get to after only a decade?

...or can we hope for something better - and actual look at "road safety" more generally? That still seems very unlikely to happen in UK politics. At best it seems governments are capable of legislating on new things after the fact; changing legacy stuff is clearly very hard and time-consuming.

Much of the UK's "road safety" approach seems to be reactive and legalistic, not proactive and "health and safety" based. I'd really love to see moves towards bringing in a "safe system" / sustainable safety approach nationally (the mothballed "Road Safety Investigation Branch" seemed a tensing start).

Probably that would require a government with that as a core policy and a big mandate though - it's a mountain to climb (even though at smaller level things already happen).

Mr Anderson wrote:

I watched about 2/3rds of the debate, as I discovered it when channel hoping.

I do a lot of that, hoping I'll find a good channel, but no luck so far.

Mr Anderson wrote:

I do wish they would get on with passing the "Kim Briggs" law ASAP, so we can all move on to the more pressing issues.  

Everytime this hits the news, its another opportunity at cyclist bashing! 

It won't make any difference, the haters will just find something else to hate us for.