Almost 10 years to the day after it launched an award-winning campaign to make Britain’s roads safer for people on bikes, and on the eve of the introduction of changes to the Highway Code aimed at protecting vulnerable road users, The Times has today called for cyclists to be licensed and insured and for a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be introduced.
Launched on 2 February 2012 with a front page headline of 'Save Our Cyclists' accompanied by a picture of Mary Bowers, the Times journalist left with life-changing injuries when a lorry driver ran her over outside the newspaper’s then headquarters in Wapping, the Cities Fit For Cycling campaign set out an eight-point manifesto calling among other things for safety improvements on lorries and at junctions, the building of “world class” infrastructure, and for cities to appoint a cycling commissioner.
‘Save Our Cyclists’ – The Times launches major cycle safety campaign
The campaign sparked a House of Commons debate later that month, with the then All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group holding a six-week inquiry the following year which culminated in the publication of the Get Britain Cycling report.
https://road.cc/content/news/53285-parliamentary-debate-cycling-takes-ce...
> Get Britain Cycling report calls for 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike by 2025
Times journalist Kaya Burgess, who was heavily involved in the campaign, also spoke at a conference in Milan entitled Cycling and Road Safety in the City hosted by Italian sports newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport, one of whose journalists had been killed while riding to work in the Lombard capital in 2011.
> Kaya Burgess of the Times talks to road.cc about Cities fit for Cycling campaign
Then as now, the newspaper today made its current position on cycling clear through a strongly-worded lead article – although the contents of the two editorials published a decade apart could hardly be more different, with the latest leader entitled The Times view on dangerous cycling: Safety Standards.
Echoing comments made by Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps, who earlier this week called for an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be introduced, the newspaper described it as “a sensible proposal to deal with a genuine problem.”
> Grant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law
In response to his Shapps’ comments, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all.”
The Times acknowledged that of 146 reported deaths in collisions involving cyclists on Great Britain’s roads in 2020, almost all the victims – 141 – were bike riders, the editorial insisted that “It is not a plausible objection to new legislation that many more pedestrians are killed by motorists than by cyclists each year.”
Few legal observers would argue that it is unsatisfactory that the only options open to prosecutors in a case involving the death of a pedestrian are to charge a cyclist with causing bodily injury through wanton or furious driving – an offence under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 – or manslaughter.
However, such cases are rare – in England, there have been two successful prosecutions within the past five years with both cyclists receiving custodial sentences after being convicted of the former offence but cleared of the latter – and, as Dollimore points out, reform of laws regarding motorists who kill, many of whom even if convicted are given suspended sentences, should be the priority given the number of cases involved.
However, in its editorial, The Times insisted: “Legislation would not penalise cyclists but merely correct an anomaly whereby those who recklessly cause death on two wheels are treated differently from those who do so on four.
The newspaper continued: “It would further enhance safety and equity if cyclists were required to hold licences and take out liability insurance, just as motorists are.”
It said: “The overwhelming majority of cyclists are scrupulous in their road use and sensitive of pedestrians. The problem lies with a small minority who are aggressive and regard traffic signs, safety features, and a strict division between road and pavement as optional.
“No-one seriously queries that motorists should be required to hold driving licences and take out mandatory third party insurance, and have mandatory forms of identification, namely number plates. Requiring the same of cyclists is fair, and would deter antisocial and dangerous behaviour by the few who are tempted to engage in it,” said The Times – with no mention of the estimated 1 million uninsured drivers on Britain’s roads, let alone how laws against speeding or using a handheld mobile phone at the wheel have failed to curb such behaviour by a large proportion of drivers.
Moreover, the government has consistently rejected calls for cyclists to be licensed and insured, including in its response last month to a petition from the motoring lawyer Nick Freeman.
> Government confirms it has “no plans” to make cyclists wear identification numbers as it rejects ‘Mr Loophole’ petition
Laughably, The Times went on to say that requiring cyclist to have insurance, be licensed and have registration plates on their bikes “would also combat bike theft.”
It saved the best for last, though, suggesting that cyclists should pay to use the road, even though they are funded from general taxation.
“The objection that it would deter legitimate cycling is not persuasive,” it said. “The road network is a service available to everyone, and it is reasonable to expect those who benefit from it to abide by its regulation and contribute to its upkeep. The delicate network of relations between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists needs tougher legislation in favour of those on foot,” it added.
We can’t argue with that final sentence. But with drivers, not cyclists, involved in upwards of 99 per cent of pedestrian fatalities in Great Britain each year, it’s clear where efforts would best be concentrated.
Add new comment
48 comments
Well done with a clever and insightful comment that just owned all the commies. And people say that the art of debate is in decline and we've devolved into primates throwing shit at other groups because we don't like them being different.
I know a lot of knuckle dragging right wingers knocking about who can barely string a coherent sentence or thought together. So what's your point?
they should be careful what they wish for.
Licencing cyclists, would mean training and testing. As the national cycle standard advises not to ride in the gutter and when to ride primary, the net result of such a rule, would be a shift to the right (physically, not politically) in the average position taken up by cyclists.
I am pretty sure this is NOT what drivers want.
Exactly this. Everybody trained, everybody in primary. Reclaim the roads that we pay tax for.
Viva la revolution!
or
The top doner to the party in power wins the contract, does their own consultation and the training that will include showing you how to use the cycle lane, that the roads are only for normal people in cars.
When they say
“The road network is a service available to everyone, and it is reasonable to expect those who benefit from it to abide by its regulation and contribute to its upkeep. "
can they point to someone who lives in the UK who doesn't benefit from it , even if they don't drive or cycle, how do they survive without buying goods that are transported on that network?
If this is to be the argument that the Times rolls out then fine, start funding roads by taxing road users based on distance travelled (benefit) and vehicle weight and emissions (impact).
I would imagine that would be a nasty shock. Maybe time for cycling UK to prepare some defensive research, what would the actually cost to motorists be if roads were funded entirely through a tax based on a 'fair' use formula (noting that if everybody rode bikes, existing road network maintenance due to wear and tear could be halted immediately and new infrastructure would have vastly lower structural engineering and maintenance demands).
That might even force long distance goods transport back onto the railways where it belongs!
Will that mean that we can then seize the means of transportation and re-nationalise the railways?
Vive la révolution
"Requiring the same of cyclists is fair"
Yes because when a cyclist hits a railway bridge as they do 5 times a day causing delays and damage, it only makes sense that they should pay the same as drivers.
In fact there is a whole thread devoted to cyclist hits building in the forums. You can see the damage caused.
I apologise. In my defence, that bridge keeps looking at me funny.
Beware of people demanding laws for your own good; they are charlatans. So sad to see the Times so eaten up by populist petrolhead outrage that they attack the HC code changes by pointing over there and shouting loudly about dangerous cyclists.
Have they had a rational article about the HC changes?
The world must be in a state of almost perfect equilibrium and harmony if a national newspaper can devote so much time, space and effort into such a ridiculously miniscule subject. Or is this just more distraction from whatever Boris the Liar has done now?
Most of the MSM seems to be fuelled by anger. Although you're right that they want to divert our attention from stuff that is in the public interest. But perhaps it's also the sense that they have lost so much of their readership they are now struggling to control the narrative as they once did (which was the only reason those stupidly rich f*ckers own the newspapers in the first place).
Murdoch & co putting the Times and Torygraphy behind paywalls at least saves the rest of us from reading most of their self-important drivel. The infantile 'columnists' like Matthew Parris, Rod 'piano wire' Liddle and tinyDick Littlejohn add nothing and don't deserve a platform.
I feel sorry for any journalists with integrity or ethics, it must be horrible.
It's a desperate ploy to keep their audience when they know they're becoming more irrelevant to modern society. Their only hope is to try to secure the old, angry readers even though they're in dwindling supply. They're trying to compete with Meta/Facebook which is only going to end one way.
Yet again, the mean spirited and ridiculous notion of licensing and insuring cyclists is rolled out, this time for "safety and equity" reasons.
Insurance is readily available and many already have it. I believe that the Times, when it writes 'insurance' is just trying to use a more reasonable sounding argument to suggest a tax, which is what mandatory third-party insurance would amount to. There is a clear and simple path to mandatory cyclist insurance, presumed fault on the part of drivers.
I have yet to see any coherent safety argument that includes licensing or insurance in terms of incident reduction, and frankly the word 'safety', like the word 'dangerous' when applied to cycling by the press is being thoroughly mangled in attempts to link it to circumstances where it has no meaning. When you hear people taking about safety or danger in leisure or commuter cycling it always in the context of perceived inconvenience for drivers (two-abreast) or benifits for the 100kg cyclist (cutting across the pavement) being dressed up as a danger to, or caused by, riders.
As for licensing, the notion doesn't even pass the first hurdle in any practical way. How would it deal with children? You cannot drive without a licence in any circumstance, are children to be kept off bikes until they're driving age? What about tourists - quick trip to the dvcla before you take any bike rides?
All these editorials come down to one thing, preaching to their choir. By support taxing or licensing bike use, you're not just suggesting a mean-spirited charge to people in Lycra, you're also supporting the idea that children and the poor should pay to use the only form of transport they have, that people should pay to exercise and pay for zero CO² active travel.
When motorists say 'cyclists are a danger', they mean 'cyclists are an inconvenience'. The danger posed by a bike to a car is precisely zero. The danger from a 20kg bike + rider doing 20mph to other riders and pedestrians may exist, but it's vastly less then the danger from cars.
Re licencing. I wonder how an argument along the lines of passing a recognised cycle proficiency, basic roadcraft and practical test as a pre-requisite to applying for a driving licence would go down?
And it works for children by not working for them.
What responsible parent would place their child in such danger?
Pages