Iain Duncan Smith wants cyclists to know "they're not above the law", makes latest call for new laws to punish dangerous cycling

My (maybe forlorn) hope is that the gouts of BS from shit-stirring fuckwits of the IDS stripe is that we are due a last burst of culture war then we will have reached a turning point.

Time will tell, but at least the voters shat the last Conservative Government down the toilet of history, and IDS and his fellow knuckle-draggers are mere opposition backbench shouters.

Cyclists want Iain and Duncan Smith to know that they're not above a kick in the bollocks. Iain and Duncan Smith's bollocks, that is.

I'm curious why IDS isn't quite so vocal on cracking down on his Tory chums who broke laws on partying during Covid but weren't charged for all the events they attended? In Westminster, the joke is that IDS stands for 'is definitely stupid'.

I listened to the interview with IDS on R4 this morning, as well as the interview before his with the police officer and both were guilty of describing illegal electric motorbikes/mopeds as ebikes. 

What hope is there for the general public to understand what a legal ebike is, and how that Deliveroo (other food delivery companies are available) rider speeding along at 30mph in the cycle lane without pedalling are definitely not riding one when those in authority don't know. 

And, to my eternal annoyance, the BBC journalists also make no attempt to address it. 

If it wasn't for Labour infighting, Iain Duncan Smith would've lost his seat back in July, when their two candidates (one pro-Palestine selected by the local Labour party, the other pro-Israel chosen by the national organisation) each got a little over 25%, to his 36%. So thanks for that, Labour, now we've got to put up with his crap for another 5 years. Even he would've been better off, as he could've done the lucrative US far-right media circuit, like Liz Truss, making up bullshit about "no go zones" in London, and dropping dark hints about "deep state" conspiracies. Instead the poor sod is stuck here, utterly powerless, pushing the only issue he can get onto the BBC to talk about, which is cyclist bashing.

It's inherently a contradiction to call for new laws in order to show people they're not above the law.

If people are obeying the law as it currently stands, then that's not "above the law".

And if someone does act as if they are above the law, then new laws wouldn't change that - they would just continue to ignore them.

Maybe he should let drivers know they're not above the law.

Yesterday I pulled up at a red light in my car. It had turned amber when I was about 10m away and was fully red by the time I got there. I was stopped at the light and another car passed me on my right on the wrong side of the road, on a normal road with one lane in each direction, went through the red light and turned right. I see crap like this every single day. Where's the enforcement? Where's the law?

On top of that we've got illegal motorcycles using the cycle lanes, legal motorcycles using the advanced stop box, and almost every single car out there seemingly driven by somebody who is in tremendous hurry and no regard for any of the rules. It's a joke.

IDS wrote:

In fact, there was one when I was bringing it in, a woman in Regent's Park who got knocked down by a cyclist that was over the speed limit and that was a pedal cycle, that wasn't even an electric cycle and we've seen many of these electric cycles going past us at incredible speeds.

Dear IDS -  those "electric cycles going past us at incredible speeds" ARE already illegal, in many cases.

It would be interesting to see what offences he actually wants introducing.  Would this simply be an offence of dangerous cycling or would there also be an offence of careless cycling?  Would there bre an option to reject jury members if they couldn't ptove that they were regular cyclists , obvious where I'm going with that one.  What sanctions could be imposed, if the judge decides not to impse a custodial sentence that would only leave a fine, no option for a ban as cycling isn't done under a licence, and what safeguards would there be to stop judges imposing custodial sentences on cyclists in circmstances in which a driver would get a fine and a ban?  Who would be responsible for saying what is careless or dangerous, goiung by the usual suspect media websites all cycists are a menace to society, the checks woud need to be very robust and not open to manipulation to suit the prejudice of "the silent majority"

Even if the new laws that he's touting were sensible and justifiable, their introduction would be pretty pointless (and therefore economically a waste of money) as long as we remain at the very low levels of law enforcement that seems to prevail.
Now, if only we could identify the reason for such poor enforcement levels ... Any ideas, IDS?

Personally, I think we need an amendment to the CJB to remind Members of Parliament that they are not above the law… 

Thanks for providing context with all the stats involving other forms of transport.

Given that IDS is singularly failing to do his job and wasting everyone's time, should he be required to walk/cycle everywhere to understand the difference in the level of danger presented by motorist v cyclists?
As opposed to being transported everywhere in what is almost certainly a small tank?

Or maybe all the stats should be presented in the form of GBP£ figures as the associated costs from KSIs via the different modes of transport would be eye-opening for those who don't have a clue?
After all, most politicians seem to worship money above all else.

Huge motorcycle test ? hardly !! if it was along time ago it was ride round the block and ride around a car park without falling over,usual mis information from yesterdays men  

Obviously what people say in an interview people doesn't necessarily sit together as a piece of logic in the way that e.g. they could muster in a speech or a law.  But there seem all kinds of issues with IDS's musings here.

As road.cc point out he's twice said cyclists need to be "within the Highway code" - there's all kinds of levels of misunderstanding here (or rhetoric ... or just trying to hit notes "common people will understand"?).

Plus all kinds of partial truths and some odd takes.  Apparently this is "we've had a number of deaths".

Now I'm all for tackling all road death and injury *.  Perhaps if there were more funding for road policing in general and better direction here that might help (whether tackling drivers or anyone else)?  I certainly think at looking at the e-whatevers is long overdue.  Especially since the authorities pretty much done nothing about regulating the use and sale of illegal electric motorbikes, motor scooters etc. (indeed essentially setting up trials which I suspect are to pave the way for "well, here we are"...)

... but apparently no, more resources for policing or getting existing laws actually enforced is not his concern.  (They are certainly enough to see cyclists prosecuted).

I was struggling for exactly what he was flailing about until:

Ian Duncan Smith wrote:

Matt Briggs who's the one that got me involved in this ...

Ah.

* Can we start saying "a safe system approach" or even better pointing to "Sustainable Safety" rather than "Vision Zero" - the latter seems to be more of a slogan but the former are philosophies backed by a detailed programme (literally road-tested for over a decade in the NL case).