Chris Boardman has shut down any residual attention on the idea that cyclists should need registration numbers and licences to use the roads, and stressed "regardless of the headlines" people want to see more cycling and walking.
Speaking to BikeBiz magazine, the National Active Travel Commissioner said the best way to approach talk of licences, registration and number plates is simply to avoid giving the debate any air time — "You don't answer stupid questions," he concluded.
> Is there anywhere cyclists are required to be licensed, and how has it gone in the past?
Boardman's comments come a couple of months withdrawn from the height of the summer heat, kicked up by then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps' words in the Daily Mail (and subsequent backtracking) suggesting he would like to see stricter rules for cyclists.
Nonetheless, U-turn or not, Shapps' damage was done and prompted a string of frontpage splashes, talk show specials and TV 'debates' digging up culture-warring divisions now centred on the UK's roads and who should get to use them, and how.
> "No plans to introduce registration plates" for cyclists, insists Grant Shapps
Boardman suggests the best way to deal with the noise is simply to shut it out – "I just focus on the fact that we know, regardless of the headlines, 70 per cent of people want to see more cycling and walking – even if it requires road space giving over," he told BikeBiz.
"But a lot of the time the strategy has to be: just don't give it any air time. You don't answer stupid questions and perpetuate the argument about something that's not important. The Department for Transport knows that putting licences on bikes and enforcing these mandatory things doesn't get the outcomes, and so we don't need to speak to that kind of stuff."
Boardman added that he remains optimistic cycling will continue to grow, something he will hopefully oversee in his newly-appointed role at Active Travel England.
"Whether you like cycling or not, it's cheap. It's nine times cheaper than running a car. And that really matters right now. It's super-reliable, it's equitable. [It addresses] all of the big issues that you face," he continued.
> Third of Brits want to cycle more, many to cut their fuel spending
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we drive a lot less. And the only politically palatable way to do that is to give people a viable, attractive alternative.
"Active travel is so incredibly robust. [Where will we be] In five years' time? It's here. We've joked several times over the years that we should get a t-shirt that says: 'Cycling. The least shit option.' Because even if you hate it, you've almost got to back it. So I'm optimistic in that respect. I'm not sure if that's optimistic or pessimistic. I think it's realistic."
Add new comment
48 comments
According to the AA over 1 in 40 motorists drive without a license.
1 in 12 are driving on false cloned plates.
In any sensible persons mind, It would make sense to ensure all motorists are legal first, considering the 500 pedestrians and cyclists killed & 8000 seriously injured by motorists in an average year.
Yet all you want to worry about is a few people on bikes? You need to give the Daily Mail a rest for your own mental healths sake buddy.
and there are a million uninsured drivers. which probably exceeds the total number of cyclists, never mind those who don't have third party insurance through BC or CUK or other means
You got a source for that? If there are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists, that would make for a fantastic bit of ammo for the anti-cycling arguments I constantly find myself getting drawn into.
Motor Insurance Bureau estimate (they pay out for uninsured drivers):
https://forcescompare.uk/guides/how-many-drivers-are-not-insured-in-the-uk/
2,000,000 vehicles seized for no insurance 2005-2020:
https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2020/february/police-seize-the-...
https://forcescompare.uk/guides/how-many-drivers-are-not-insured-in-the-uk/
Hilarious This website states:
It is illegal to drive any vehicle on UK roads without valid insurance, whether it is a car, bike, van, motorhome or tractor – because of the risks it poses to third parties and to maintain a high standard of driving and safety. In some instances, the police may fine you a £300 fixed penalty along with 6 penalty points
We have to assume they're only referring to motorbikes, but we all know the police don't do any of this. People driving cars with no MOT for years have no insurance, but the police won't lift a finger to do anything about them
I absolutely agree they don't do nearly enough but that second link, showing 2 million vehicles seized in a decade and a half, shows that at least they do something!
Using the MID, police ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras can scan passing vehicles’ licence plates to see if they appear to be uninsured and make further enquiries at the roadside.
Once a driver is found to be without insurance, they can have their vehicle seized and can face court with an unlimited fine and a driving ban amongst the possible outcomes.
They can, but they don't. Not in Lancashire, anyway. I have shown here, more times than enough, MV57 GXO parked outside The Old Garstang Police Station on the main road the police use to get into Garstang, It wouldn't matter if it was parked outside The New Garstang Police Station, they still wouldn't do anything about it.
It's just the bald statement but on the AA's site:
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/continuous-insurance-enforcement
RAC have an article about a FOI request - this also gives a breakdown (in 2020) of e.g. no licence and uninsured, no licence and under 16 etc.
https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/2020-saw-jump-in-number-of-provisi...
Can't see the original FOI but I think you can search for those.
It's just the bald statement but on the AA's site:
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/continuous-insurance-enforcement
It's not only bald, but completely without substance and dated over 5 years ago. The DVLA doesn't even detect vehicles on their own website, loads in Garstang alone, with no VED for months and years, no SORN but which have passed MOT within the last few months
Its a difficult one.
~70% of UK homes have contents cover; Almost all home contents cover includes public liability that covers cycling (more expensive to define a bicycle for exclusions (without also defining wheelchair (illegal) than to just cover it). So most cyclists are probably insured.
There are estimates on how many uninsured drivers there are (~1 million according to MIB).
Gov stats claim there are ~6 million cyclists; But this defines cyclists as someone who has used a bicycle twice in the last month.
So per gov stats there are probably more uninsured cyclists than uninsured drivers. But it wouldn't surprise me if you could give plenty of other sane definitions of cyclist than has gotten on a bicycle twice in the last month that would result in far, far lower numbers.
And where are those people getting on bikes and cycling? No numbers I'm aware of but I bet a lot is "round the park" or "along the path to the supermarket" - or at least not down the road. Not that that necessarily absolves of the need for insurance, but it's not quite the same as driving on the road.
Those numbers, if accurate, are completely insane
Is a 'Boaring man' one who snorts a lot and can always find truffles?
Hairy with a big nose, can move surprisingly fast and you don't want to get in his way?
Massively unwelcome half-witted bigotry. Go back to Facebook please and never darken our pages again! Begone ye Doddypoll
You should write to your MP about it. That way even more people can ignore your opinion, but at least you can stop moaning about it eh?
Only in NORTH KOREA. Try reading the article below:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/17/north-korea-where-bicycle-...
So, where would stick a licence plate on a horse or e-scooter? Boardman's absolutely correct - it's a no-debate issue. Are the police going to be expected to stop and check cyclists...in the manner they stop and check car drivers etc. That's potentially far more dangerous a situation than stopping cars. It's a bizarre caucus of those who resent authority applied to them and see any other group, no matter how dissimilar, as being obliged to having the same rules applied to them. It's the envious and mean who begin these issues and the Daily Mail, the paper for those who know their rights and point out everyone elses wrongs, who take up their self-righteous causes.
Pages