- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist crossing box junction (copyright Simon MacMichael).PNGFair Fuel UK founder accuses Jeremy Vine of “Fuelling a war between drivers and cyclists”
Fair Fuel UK founder Howard Cox has accused Jeremy Vine of “politicising” cycling and “fuelling a war between drivers and cyclists” – an interesting take given that just last week, an All Party Parliamentary Group published a report written and paid for by his organisation that was highly critical of government transport policy that it claimed focused on the “privileged cycling few.”
Cox made his claims in an interview yesterday with Colin Brazier of GB News in response to a Twitter post by Vine earlier this week showing footage of bike riders quite legally riding four abreast.
The broadcaster, whose video was filmed by dashcam from the car he was driving – yes, cyclists and motorists are more often than not one and the same person – explained in a voiceover: “This is exactly how cyclists should ride, they are calming the traffic behind them, we won't overtake unless we have a really wide clearance.”
Referring to the footage, Cox told Brazier: “Blocking a road will make people take bigger risks and lead to worse accidents – it’s ridiculous. Vine is fuelling a war between drivers and cyclists,” he insisted.
“This is part of a long-term anti-driver rhetoric that he’s been going on about – he is encouraging cyclists to act as roadblocks to stop drivers overtaking.
“The Highway Code states you should never ride more than two abreast and preferably ride in narrow or single file,” Cox continued, quite correctly. “This advice is not a legal requirement, it's advice, so how can we police this?”
He added that “most cyclists are very, very good” and “very kind people,” before railing against “these cycling zealots which are led by Jeremy Vine.
"He may be a national treasure but I am afraid he is hellbent and I think he is politicising this against the BBC’s code of ethics!”
Cox’s appearance on GB TV comes just days after Fair Fuel UK paid for and produced a report on behalf of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Fuel for UK Motorists and UK Hauliers entitled What does the 2030 fossil fuelled new vehicle sales ban really mean to the economy, environment, and UK’s 37m drivers?.
> Cycling UK accuse Fair Fuel UK of running ‘how much do you hate cycling’ survey
There are repeated references throughout the report to it aiming to give a voice to “the UK’s 37 million drivers” – described as “hard-pressed” and “perennially demonised,” and all for the benefit, apparently, of cyclists, supported by the policies of a “virtue signalling government” and a “political bias … towards cyclists, particularly in urban areas.”
“It is critical a long-term road transport strategy is put together that benefits and unites ALL road users with an emphasis on public transport and freeing up our congested roads,” the report says.
“Residents, businesses, motorists are incensed with current political policies such as the discord created by Local Traffic Neighbourhood schemes and Cycle Lanes causing blockades, congestion, and deferred pollution,” it claims.
“The APPG and Fair Fuel UK call on the Government [to instruct local authorities] to build new cycle schemes away from existing roads,” it continues, saying that “The growing conflict in road policy is being fuelled by a laudable but mistaken belief that cycling is the ultimate transport solution.
“While drivers and motorcyclists pay for all road space, the recent allocation of many existing urban highways is mostly for the benefit of a few who are ‘unrepresentative of the population at large’,” the report claims – even though road building and maintenance is financed from general taxation.
Cox writes in the report “I am on record asking cycling leaders to work with Fair Fuel UK to create a long-term road user plan that benefits all road users, the environment, road safety and the economy.”
That’s difficult to square, however, with the recommendation that the government “Instruct local authorities to build new cycle schemes AWAY from existing roads” – without suggesting how that might be achieved in reality, nor the likelihood that such routes would of necessity go round the houses and be ignored by people simply wanting to get from A to B by bike in as direct and as safe a manner as possible.
Take the London junction where Dr Marta Krawiec died last week while riding to work on one of the busiest cycling corridors in the capital, where cyclists make up more than half of rush-hour traffic yet there is no dedicated cycling infrastructure, and where there is simply no alternative route where it could be put; many would view one subtext of the report as being that the roads would be better with no cyclists at all on them.
> London Cycling Campaign launches petition demanding action on capital’s lethal junctions
“Drivers were happy to coexist with cyclists, even though many on pedal power ignore the rules of the road,” Cox insists – although government statistics it was speeding motorists, not cyclists, who were responsible for 12 per cent of road deaths in Great Britain during 2018, for example.
“Cycling had a chance to prove it could make a meaningful contribution to travel in this country if only its advocates would cut out their belief that they have a majority right to road user-ship,” he continues – despite the fact that what campaigners are calling for is infrastructure to encourage people to be able to make a decision about which mode of transport best suits their journey and if that choice is by bike rather than car, to feel safe while doing so.
Cox is keen to blame what he terms “a ‘them and us’ struggle” not only on Vine, but on “a very highly vocal minority of militant cyclists,” as well as the policies of central government led by Boris Johnson and, in the capital, the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and claims that “perennially demonised drivers are calling for common sense to close the divide once and for all.”
The evidence from articles in mainstream newspapers such as the Mail or Express and the comments below them, or remarks made by motorists calling radio phone-in shows, suggests otherwise.
> 10 of the most hysterical anti-cycling Daily Mail headlines
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Surreyrider 2 sec ago
Not so long ago you could get Muc Off for £12 in one of the many sales - £30 is off the scale ridiculous greedflation in action.
- john_smith 10 min 26 sec ago
Maybe you should have started off by saying a group of people had tried to murder you. Then plod might have understood the seriousness of the...
- quiff 27 min 22 sec ago
Also, she's 12! But agree with the sentiment
- Bungle_52 1 hour 41 min ago
I was implying that if Southport were still in Lancashire then this would have beene NFA and the driver would carry on putting cyclists lives in...
- Sriracha 1 hour 51 min ago
Haha, try floating that notion in The Torygraph!
- David9694 2 hours 2 min ago
Where's Cycling Mikey when you need him??
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 5 min ago
A good summation of her attitudes from Peter Walker here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/jul/20/londons-to...
- giff77 2 hours 44 min ago
A friend of mine who immigrated here from a commonwealth country also happened to drive for the military. When sitting his hazard test he was...
- Hirsute 2 hours 50 min ago
"Corten steel. Lovely rusty sharp edges to scratch your lovely bike."...
- brooksby 3 hours 43 min ago
So even the market for bikes which don't can't ever leave the house is tanking?
Add new comment
62 comments
“I am on record asking cycling leaders to work with Fair Fuel UK to create a long-term road user plan that benefits all road users, the environment, road safety and the economy.”
...Translation: We want more money and funding to misrepresent ourselves and others and spread misinformation, continue our war on cyclists, and also none of this funding should go to cyclists or cycle infrastructure.
Sounds like removing cars from the roads in all urban areas, will benefit all road users by freeing up space, the environment and road safety are axiomatic, economy will benefit will people are not wasting their time in traffic jams and suffering the ill health of polluted cities.
The laws of supply and demand suggest fuel will become cheaper when there is less demand, so it seems to solve ALL his objectives.
Can I ask if the host pressed him on his plans to achieve the phased removal of private cars from urban areas?
That's actually the opposite of how it works. Demand creates supply, not the other way around: Demand creates supply - which creates competition (Everyone wants a piece of the market) - which lowers prices (Everyone wants the biggest slice of the action).
If there's less demand, then companies pull out of the market, and the remaining suppliers have no reason to offer low prices, since they're making less money now from the smaller market = so they increase prices, which in turn makes the market even smaller. Eventually the market may get so small that no one sees the point of entering it and fighting over it.
Oh, and it gets worse. When the market for petrol and diesel declines over the coming decades things will really kick off in the Middle East; in the form of rampant war and political instability. You can't lose 80% of your economy and expect the people to stay docile and compliant...
If the temperature over there goes much higher (specifically the wet-bulb temperature), then the whole region may well become un-livable (at least without access to air conditioning or cool caves etc).
Star Trek - post scarcity - if there is absolutely plenty of everything then everything technically has no value. People do stuff because they like it, not because they are paid well to do it. If fossil fuels become harder to get, then their price WILL increase. Should be already, IMO.
There was a story recently about how asteroid mining is starting to gain traction from investors. They're foaming at the mouth over the idea of rocks valued around $40 quadrillion, and how they can make everyone rich...But that's not how it works. If that kind of mineral value suddenly started flooding onto the market at even 100th the timescale they're expecting they'd make the minerals so common and undervalued that they wouldn't be worth anything. Not many articles seem to be addressing the latter part worryingly.
Exactly. If they want to make a particular mineral more expensive then they either hoard it or otherwise make it hellishly difficult to obtain.
If we suddenly discovered Voga the Planet of Gold then gold would become ridiculously cheap.
Hydrocarbon fuel pricing is set by a few things.
The price of crude
Refining margins
Distribution and retail margins
Tax
The first three should follow supply and demand rules, bur the crude price is manipulated by OPEC.
Demand for fuel is lower than normal at the moment due to the pandemic and fewer flights, yet the price of crude has risen steadily over the last few months. Biden called yesterday for the OPEC countries to increase supply which they choked off last year. Interesting development today as the Scottish Government called for decisions to allow exploration oil field licences to be reviewed.
Refining margins are extremely low in Europe and have been since the pandemic started. Almost all refineries in Europe are losing money, but staying in business hoping others will close to balance supply and demand in this part of the chain. The distribution/ retail sector isn't driving the price.
Tax. The fuel escalator was abandoned years ago. At some point this tool will be used again to push the move from fossil fuels to electric. Don't see it happening soon though.
So in the medium term will the price of fuel go up or down? I think it depends on OPEC and the tax the UK Government sets at least as much as the rules of supply and demand.
So the price of oil fell during covid and is now rising because....? Stopping driving in urban areas should be a relatively small impact on total fuel use bcause (hopefully) most miles are driven between towns and cities rather than in them.
Although you could see a lot of urban petrol stations going bust and the few that remain having no competition.
Agree on the impact on the middle east when oil revenues reduce.
The Covid price drop was because the production had already started to meet what was expected to be demand which suddenly wasn't there. So there was a massive surplus of fuel across the world. However once that was cleared, prices then rocketed back up to normal initially as the amount produced was reduced. And is now higher again as demand is out stripping supply again.
So Jenova is right that in a world where there isn't a sudden unforseen drop in demand, then prices will not really change from the suppliers if they follow it the trend and supply less.
Um, no. It recommends riding single file in certain specific circumstances, but it doesn't make it a general recommendation.
indeed because most UK roads fall into the critical width, understood by dutch road designers. A width which is not sufficient to allow safe passing within the lane, but wide enough that drivers are tempted to attmept an overtake.
Riding single file in most locations makes a safe overtake harder, and a dangerous squeeze past easier.
I had to re-read that too. I think the punctuation has gone awry and "quite correctly" was meant to belong with the second sentence, not the first, i.e :
(1) "The Highway Code states you should never ride more than two abreast and preferably ride in narrow or single file,” [which is, as you say, incorrect - but I don't doubt it was said]
(2) Cox continued, quite correctly. “This advice is not a legal requirement" [which is indeed correct because rule 66 (in its accurate form) is only advisory.
Checks for his own punctuation going awry...
I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that, knowing the propensity for fat-fingered article writing around these parts.
;o)
"Fair fuel".
Hmm - he ought to be campaigning for stopping the massive taxpayer subsidies which keep the price of fuel so low then, oughtn't he? Or perhaps encouraging the Government to remove the freeze on fuel duty of the last ten years? After all, that would be only fair.
Except, I suspect that what he means by "fair fuel" is very little to do with being fair.
Even if we accept that "fair fuel" meant "cheap fuel" this already exists and it's taking off. It's called electric and guess what, win/win, you don't have to pay "road tax". Perhaps he should start campaigning for more affordable electric cars. The trouble is he won't, because despite the title he's really just lobbying for the oil industry.
On Tuesday all the msm lead with stories on climate crisis The same msm now need to call the pro car lobby to account and ask them to address the elephant in the room. Effectively, they are now the new covid denyers or vaccine conspiracists how much air time have these loons been given?
“Cycling has a chance to prove it could make a meaningful contribution to travel in this country"
It already did. And then Henry Ford came along...
Parked cars and vans block the part of the road that cyclists use, forcing them to swerve into the middle of the road.
"Cox's appearance on GB TV......"
What are you worried about? Nobody saw it.
They have higher viewing figures than BBC and Sky News most days, some days higher than both combined...
Evidence?
According to https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-viewing-summary-new/ they have more viewers than BBC Parliament, but I think you've been misinformed about their popularity.
Yes, there are stories in the Express and the like that Farage has drawn more viewers than some of the News channels.
Just shows nobody really watches any of the rolling news channels of any description at 7pm weekdays.
Meanwhile, it appears that GB News have dropped below Cobol y Cwm: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/gb-news-viewer-ratings-plummet-20915015
Whilst searching for info, I saw that Sainsbury's have pulled advertising from GB News due to Farrage's toxicity (most likely due to him having a pop at RNLI).
(I'm not convinced that the Express is a particularly accurate source)
I am not promoting it as a good source. The article I looked at was clearly slanted to make a point that doesn't stand up well. Even if their numbers are accurate, at evening peak viewing time, they might be getting a 100,00 viewers.
I don't think the BBC needs to worry about that yet.
“Blocking a road will make people take bigger risks and lead to worse accidents".
If drivers are taking big risks, any disastrous consequences are a long way off being "accidents".
Clearly drivers only take bigger risks when the vehicle blocking the road is a bicycle; not if it's another car.
Not that Cox is a publicity whore who will say anything for his two minutes of fame.
note Cox states drivers will take "bigger risks" so he already admits drivers are routinely taking big risks. Surely reducing this is where energy should be expended?
The word hypocrisy no longer needs a definition. Just point a link to the output of this creature and say, "This".
“This advice is not a legal requirement, it's advice, so how can we police this?”
You don't. You don't police things that are not illegal.
Examine the play book:
“most cyclists are very, very good” and “very kind people,” before railing against “these cycling zealots which are led by Jeremy Vine."
In other words, good cyclists kowtow to the mighty car; bad cyclists speak up against us. Be like the humble example we paint, not the people that speak up against bad driving.
Then, to cap off counter-argument, the "them and us" culture is brought in to play any time somebody tries to argue against the "reasonable position" of the uberlords.
Pages