Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
Martin Lewis polls Twitter over Lord Winston's call for cyclists to be licensed and insured - and is surprised by the repliesLondon cyclists at traffic lights (copyright Britishcycling.org_.uk).jpg

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

Money Saving Expert guy says last time he got a similar reaction was from cabbies when he ran a poll about Uber
by Simon_MacMichael
Thu, Apr 11, 2019 08:30
67

Martin Lewis, owner and founder of the website Money Saving Expert, got rather more than he bargained for when he posted a poll on Twitter asking people what they thought of Lord Winston’s call for cyclists to be licensed and insured – likening the response it provoked from some users of the social network to the one he got from members of the black cab trade when he ran a poll about Uber.

Since the Labour peer made his appeal, which has been rejected by the government, the subject has been covered across the national media including newspapers, radio and TV, receiving still more publicity after he claimed to have been assaulted by a woman he says was cycling on the pavement.

Lewis, who has more than half a million followers on Twitter, regularly posts polls to the social network on a whole range of issues, but few provoke the level of response this one has got, with more than 20,000 people having now responded.

He posted the poll this morning as made his way by train to an event in Cardiff – and it looks like dealing with the many replies from both the pro- and anti-cycling Twitterati took up a chunk of his time on the journey. Here’s a selection.

Here is Lewis’s final thought before he signed off Twitter earlier.

As for the poll itself ... well, at the time of writing 19 per cent of respondents said that they are a cyclist and disagreed, while 13 per cent said that they are a cyclist and agree with Lord Winston.

Of the other people replying to Lewis's poll, 14 per cent said they were a non-cyclist but disagreed, while a whopping 54 per cent said that they were a non-cyclist and backed Lord Winston's proposals.

Simon MacMichael

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.

Add new comment

67 comments

Avatar
lllnorrislll replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
8 likes
hirsute wrote:

54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.

Sounds a bit like brex.....

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
5 likes
hirsute wrote:

54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.

Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so ... let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
hirsute wrote:

54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.

Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so ... let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!

Exactly! A poll isn't of much use if it doesn't clearly and truthfully specify the costs/consequences of the choices.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
5 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
hirsute wrote:

54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.

Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so ... let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!

Exactly! A poll isn't of much use if it doesn't clearly and truthfully specify the costs/consequences of the choices.

That could be adopted as a general guideline for all such representative polls. Not just some bloke on Twitter but even - for examples sake - a government run referendum or plebiscite...

Avatar
HarryTrauts replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
hirsute wrote:

54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.

Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so ... let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!

Exactly! A poll isn't of much use if it doesn't clearly and truthfully specify the costs/consequences of the choices.

That could be adopted as a general guideline for all such representative polls. Not just some bloke on Twitter but even - for examples sake - a government run referendum or plebiscite...

I think that was exactly the implied point of @hawkinspeter's post.

Avatar
brooksby replied to HarryTrauts | 5 years ago
0 likes
harragan wrote:
brooksby wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
hirsute wrote:

54% showed they have no idea of what is involved or how much it would cost, not if there would be any benefit at all.

Tell them if every individual that wants it has to put £1000 extra tax per year toward the admin costs alone and an extra £5000 annually to police it properly, and they can get 30 million people to pay up they can go ahead. Then tell them that actually the money will get spent lining the pockets of the wankers in parliament/HoL and pissed up the wall on more vanity projects/roads so ... let them get a gov petition going so the government can extract the money directly from their pensions/salaries/bank accounts etc upfront, think that would shut the idiots up!

Exactly! A poll isn't of much use if it doesn't clearly and truthfully specify the costs/consequences of the choices.

That could be adopted as a general guideline for all such representative polls. Not just some bloke on Twitter but even - for examples sake - a government run referendum or plebiscite...

I think that was exactly the implied point of @hawkinspeter's post.

I *know*.  I was trying to play along with the "Don't mention the elephant in the room" but it clearly I needed to use a <sarcasm=on> marker... 3

Avatar
billymansell | 5 years ago
8 likes

Martin's poll should have been;

Should scientists, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and climate change deniers who make unsubstantiated claims that can be proven false be given equal publicity as scientists whose research is verifiable and peer-reviewed?

Winston has proved himself a post-truther and conspiracy theorist and shouldn't be given the oxygen of publicity on this matter. Shame on the media for pandering to these whack-a-doodles.

Pages

Latest Comments