# lord winston calls for cycling licences to improve road safety



## clid61 (19 Mar 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47616286


----------



## Phaeton (19 Mar 2019)

I like this bit *'Unnecessary regulation'*


----------



## rogerzilla (19 Mar 2019)

Advice for Lord Winston: don't hate cos you ain't.


----------



## Cycleops (19 Mar 2019)

Maybe the the pedestrians are an accident waiting to happen for the cyclists?


----------



## DRM (19 Mar 2019)

For an exceptionally intelligent man, that is such a stupid statement to make, how many commuters have chosen to leave a car at home and use a bike instead, hasn't it dawned on him that when you learn to drive, you also learn the rules of the road too, indeed some of those commuters may also have gone on to an advanced driving course or be HGV/bus drivers who have taken a further test, what a complete numpty.


----------



## DCBassman (19 Mar 2019)

DRM said:


> For an exceptionally intelligent man, that is such a stupid statement to make, how many commuters have chosen to leave a car at home and use a bike instead, hasn't it dawned on him that when you learn to drive, you also learn the rules of the road too, indeed some of those commuters may also have gone on to an advanced driving course or be HGV/bus drivers who have taken a further test, what a complete numpty.


"Intelligence" unfortunately does not equal "sense".


----------



## Moodyman (19 Mar 2019)

The Guardian published an imagined response to his comments yesterday:

You ask what assessments we’ve made for obliging cyclists to have licences and insurance. The brief answer is: none whatsoever. Nor do we have any plans to do so. In fact, if you hadn’t asked this question it’s entirely possible we wouldn’t have even given it a moment’s thought in all 2019.

Why? Again, the short answer is this: it’s an utterly silly, pointless thing to suggest, as evidenced by the fact that more or less no countries or territories anywhere in the world require cyclists to be licensed, or to have mandatory insurance. It tends to only ever be fringe voices with a wider, somewhat murky grudge against cycling in general. I note that you have previously made some slightly suspect claims about cycle lanes causing extra pollution – I do hope you’re not one of those people.

I suppose it’s only fair if I explain why licensing and insurance for cyclists is such a non-issue. It’s pretty simple: such plans would achieve pretty much nothing, while causing significant problems. More widely, any sensible, rational government will do everything in its power to get more people cycling, not to put pointless bureaucratic obstacles in their way.

Let’s just take one example, that most relevant to you as a doctor: public heath. As I’m sure you know, one of the many negative effects of a nation where the great majority of even short, one-person trips are made by car is an NHS likely to collapse before too long under the strain caring for an ageing, increasingly sedentary and overweight population. Inactive living is central to this – it’s estimated to cause more than 5m early deaths a year worldwide, and even a fairly brief daily bike commute can have near-miraculous benefits for people’s health.

And then of course there’s pollution, a major crisis of both health and social justice, which a study last week suggested kills more people than smoking.

There’s almost too many positive benefits of getting more people on bikes to list – safer, quieter, more socially connected towns and cities, less impact on climate change. And it’s a fair bet that imposing sudden restrictions on cyclists would depress the number of riders. Why would you want to do that?

And how would such rules even work? Would the licensing and insurance be just for adults, or also children? If the former, what about teenagers – would they suddenly have to carry ID on the ride to school to prove they are under 18? How would the system even be enforced – would it also require bikes to be registered with number plates?

Finally – and this is perhaps the clincher – what would you hope to achieve by this? If you believe licensing transport users stops wrongdoing, can I point you to the statistics showing 86% of drivers speed on 20mph roads, and how a third admit to using handheld phones at the wheel. And on insurance, there’s the small matter of how even with laws mandating it there’s an estimated 1 million uninsured drivers on the road.

The other hugely important part of this is that when people break laws on a bike, yes, they can be irritating and even intimidating, but they very, very rarely kill or seriously injure other people. Of the 1,800 or so people killed every year on the UK’s roads, between zero and two typically tend to be killed because they were hit by cyclists. It’s not because cyclists are uniquely virtuous, it’s just the very different impacts involved in being struck by a 100kg bike-and-rider combination travelling at 15mph, or a 1,500kg SUV doing 35mph.

So, to summarise: your mooted plan would be to introduce a hugely convoluted new administrative scheme that would most likely have limited effect on the behaviour of an averagely law-abiding group of transport users who very rarely harm others, and have a huge net positive impact on the nation, while putting people off from this type of transport.

I’m afraid I just don’t get it.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Mar 2019)

Moodyman said:


> Why? Again, the short answer is this: it’s an utterly silly, pointless thing to suggest, as evidenced by the fact that more or less no countries or territories anywhere in the world require cyclists to be licensed, or to have mandatory insurance.


Which begs the question, which countries or territories do?


----------



## DRM (19 Mar 2019)

DCBassman said:


> "Intelligence" unfortunately does not equal "sense".


 very true, common sense, unfortunately, is not very common.
I could be wrong, but I'm sure Professor Winston is a heart specialist, surely he realises that cycling keeps people healthy and out of hospital, this just shows how out of touch both houses are with reality.


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Which begs the question, which countries or territories do?



I don't know of any that require a licence - although Japan used to (and may still) require the bikes themselves to be registered. I think there are a few that have mandatory insurance, Switzerland used to be one of those, but most countries agree that cycling is a net benefit to the whole country so why put up barriers.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2019)

Lord Winston gives another excellent demonstration of why having a house of nearly untouchable lifetime parliamentarians mostly appointed by Prime Ministers probably isn't the best system!


----------



## classic33 (19 Mar 2019)

I get one, I can finally get the permit from the local council owned recycling centre. That's all I'm missing, a license for the class of vehicle in use.


----------



## Profpointy (19 Mar 2019)

mjr said:


> Lord Winston gives another excellent demonstration of why having a house of nearly untouchable lifetime parliamentarians mostly appointed by Prime Ministers probably isn't the best system!



I'm sure plenty of elected MPs have said equally stupid things. Didn't an MP recently propose that knives could have GPS trackers built in to help adress knife crime. In slight mitigation he did subsequently admit it was a shoot idea


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2019)

Profpointy said:


> I'm sure plenty of elected MPs have said equally stupid things. Didn't an MP recently propose that knives could have GPS trackers built in to help adress knife crime. In slight mitigation he did subsequently admit it was a shoot idea


Sure, but we have some hope of removing some MPs. Lord clowns are pretty much untouchable unless they commit crimes.

(ETA to add the underlined "some")


----------



## Phaeton (19 Mar 2019)

mjr said:


> Sure, but we have some hope of removing MPs.


That really is debatable in certain areas


----------



## slowmotion (19 Mar 2019)

Has he got a new book coming out?


----------



## fossyant (19 Mar 2019)

Oh dear.


----------



## icowden (21 Mar 2019)

I think also:

People who don't cycle tend to conflate different groups of cyclists. Those that travel at 20mph+ are not suited to cycle lanes for example.
Anyone over 35 didn't really have anything about cyclists in their driving test so they apply "their" rules to the road.
Cycling infrastructure needs to stop being quite so piss-poor. Painting a picture of a bike on a road is fairly pointless. Delineating a section of road for bikes is downright dangerous if it is not wide enough for bikes to safely travel down
So the "lycra" brigade don't upset pedestrians as they are on the road. The cycle lane cyclists rarely upset pedestrians as they are going much slower.
I do think more thought needs to be given to red lights and cycles, and there does need to be more prosecution of stupidly dangerous cycling BUT - it's usually the stupidly dangerous cyclist who is injured, not the bus / lorry / car.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Mar 2019)

icowden said:


> Anyone over 35 didn't really have anything about cyclists in their driving test so they apply "their" rules to the road.


Is this true?


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2019)

icowden said:


> People who don't cycle tend to conflate different groups of cyclists. Those that travel at 20mph+ are not suited to cycle lanes for example.


I'd agree with much of that but I suggest that the above should probably be "UK cycle lanes" because there's no real reason why they can't be suitable for fast cycling.

The UK has had a guidance design speed of 20mph for years which has rarely been achieved because local highways departments degraded that to 15, 12 or 10mph because it was only non-binding guidance, and the UK government once tried to issue a code of conduct saying that cyclists over 18mph shouldn't use cycleways. Compare and contrast our sorry state to neighbouring countries that are now building various sorts of Express Cycleways (Fietssnelweg/Radschnellweg/Réseau Express Vélo).


----------



## icowden (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton - before the written test came in 1996 I doubt anyone got asked a single question about bikes. I don't remember any discussion of cycles at all. 
I think now that there is a theory test there is at least some coverage of cycles.


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Is this true?


Generally, yes. I passed my driving test about 20 years ago and don't remember anything much about cycling in it. The roads used did not have much cycling on and I didn't need to pass the hazard perception video test (it was only introduced in 2002). There may have been one cycling-related question in the theory test but I doubt it. Friends who passed before me (before the 1996 introduction of the theory test) were surprised there was nothing about cyclists (they mostly took the test in MK, which has some cycling). So with the low cycling levels, there was probably 30ish years of UK drivers passing tests while not needing to do much about cyclists and lots of people taking their tests around ages 17-20, which would be a lot of drivers who are now aged about 37-75:





source


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2019)

Cycleops said:


> Maybe the the pedestrians are an accident waiting to happen for the cyclists?


Ban them from the pavements just like they woz banned from the road!


----------



## Ian H (21 Mar 2019)

Lord Winston has form for this kind of thing.

Here's a useful online link to various historical Highway Codes.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Mar 2019)

It wasn't so much as the fact it was not included in the test, it's the comment that anyone over 35 had total disregard for cyclists BECAUSE it wasn't included in the test. Which I personally think is a load of excrement, the test has nothing to do with attitudes, speed limits have always been included, yet under 35's still speed, mobile phones have been included for a while yet under 35's are the worst culprits (no figures, just observation)


----------



## winjim (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Is this true?





icowden said:


> Phaeton - before the written test came in 1996 I doubt anyone got asked a single question about bikes. I don't remember any discussion of cycles at all.
> I think now that there is a theory test there is at least some coverage of cycles.


I'm over 35, but I was over 30 when I passed my driving test about ten years ago. I don't recall there being anything at all about cyclists.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Mar 2019)

winjim said:


> I'm over 35, but I was over 30 when I passed my driving test about ten years ago. I don't recall there being anything at all about cyclists.


So do you ignore the hiway code & apply your own rules?


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> It wasn't so much as the fact it was not included in the test, it's the comment that anyone over 35 had total disregard for cyclists BECAUSE it wasn't included in the test.


I think that's only one interpretation of what was quoted.

Edit: and it probably should be "most" not "they". I strongly suspect if you quiz pre-theory-test licensees on the cycling bits of the HC, most will get stuff wrong.


----------



## winjim (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> So do you ignore the hiway code & apply your own rules?


In some circumstances, yes. Don't you?


----------



## Phaeton (21 Mar 2019)

winjim said:


> In some circumstances, yes. Don't you?


I don't think so


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> I don't think so


So you've a bell (rule 66) and pedal reflectors (rule 60) and always wear a reflective < sash? (rule 59) You never drink on the move or take a foot off a pedal (both rule 66)? You use cycle facilities (rule 61), only use the left lane at roundabouts (rule 77) and only park your bike in conspicuous locations? (rule 70)

Let's be frank, there is quite a lot of evidence-free shoot in the current highway code.


----------



## winjim (21 Mar 2019)

mjr said:


> So you've a bell (rule 66) and pedal reflectors (rule 60) and always wear a reflective < sash? (rule 59) You never drink on the move or take a foot off a pedal (both rule 66)? You use cycle facilities (rule 61), only use the left lane at roundabouts (rule 77) and only park your bike in conspicuous locations? (rule 70)
> 
> Let's be frank, there is quite a lot of evidence-free shoot in the current highway code.


Yes, those are the rules I was referring to. But my earlier point was that beyond a general familiarity with the HC, there was nothing specific about cyclists in either my driving lessons or test.


----------



## classic33 (21 Mar 2019)

mjr said:


> So you've a bell (rule 66) and pedal reflectors (rule 60) and always wear a reflective < sash? (rule 59) You never drink on the move or take a foot off a pedal (both rule 66)? You use cycle facilities (rule 61), only use the left lane at roundabouts (rule 77) and only park your bike in conspicuous locations? (rule 70)
> 
> Let's be frank, there is quite a lot of evidence-free shoot in the current highway code.


And you wear_ "a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened"_?

*Rule 59*


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2019)

classic33 said:


> And you wear_ "a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened"_?


I decided to stick to the more controversial ones and avoid getting binned off to the ghetto


----------



## classic33 (21 Mar 2019)

mjr said:


> I decided to stick to the more controversial ones and avoid getting binned off to the ghetto


Covered by* Rule 59*, which says you should.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Mar 2019)

Is he proposing that it will be necessary to obtain and hold a cycling licence for 10 years before you can apply for a driving licence? So if you get a cycle licence aged 18 you have to wait till 28 before you can apply for a provisional driving licence? May raise better driving habits amongst those who wouldn't normally have cycled at all.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Mar 2019)

No surely if that was the case, then it ought to be 3 years on cycle, 3, years on moped, 3 years on a motorcycle less than 33bhp, then 3 years unlimited motorcycle then you can apply for your car license,


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> No surely if that was the case, then it ought to be 3 years on cycle, 3, years on moped, 3 years on a motorcycle less than 33bhp, then 3 years unlimited motorcycle then you can apply for your car license,



You missed out ebike


----------



## lane (21 Mar 2019)

Because police have nothing more important to do at the moment than enforce this.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Mar 2019)

lane said:


> Because police have nothing more important to do at the moment than enforce this.


You could say that about a lot of things


----------



## lane (22 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> You could say that about a lot of things



You could - but my point is why bring in some new pointless regulation that the Police do not even have the resources to enforce?


----------



## Phaeton (22 Mar 2019)

lane said:


> You could - but my point is why bring in some new pointless regulation that the Police do not even have the resources to enforce?


It's not my idea, I was being facetious maybe I missed the  or  or  or  so you understood

You may want to check out https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/l...s-to-improve-road-safety.247091/#post-5572198


----------



## icowden (22 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> It wasn't so much as the fact it was not included in the test, it's the comment that anyone over 35 had total disregard for cyclists BECAUSE it wasn't included in the test.



That was absolutely *not* what I said. I said that pretty much everyone over 35 who drives applies their rules and (unless they are a cyclist) tend not to know about

wide passing,
cycle lanes are optional,
peletons cycle like that for safety,
if a cyclist takes prime it is likely to be for safety and usually the cyclist will try to get out of the way as soon as it is safe to do so
The road may be dangerous for cyclists due to poor surface repair
just cos the sign says 30, it doesn't mean that you have to drive at 30
if you overtake a cyclist on the run up to traffic lights expect them to tootle back past you
always check mirrors before opening doors
etc etc. There is a good post on the safety board at the moment where there was a close pass by an HGV. The driver likely thought nothing of it as the bike was in the bike lane and he was in his lane. I am much more careful and courteous to bikes now that I cycle than I was 20 years ago when I didn't. Cycle awareness should be part of the driving test, and it definitely wasn't "back in the day".

Don't forget that there are still people driving (e.g. the DofE) who like my 100 year old nan may have failed their test for not practicing due care when overtaking a horse-drawn carriage.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Mar 2019)

icowden said:


> Anyone over 35 didn't really have anything about cyclists in their driving test so they apply "their" rules to the road.





icowden said:


> That was absolutely *not* what I said. I said that pretty much everyone over 35 who drives applies their rules and (unless they are a cyclist) tend not to know about


Yes it is see your own quote nowhere there doesn't it say 'pretty much'
But for info I found it highly insulting, as somebody who is 59 this year, it will be 43 this year since I passed my first test, I am one of very few people who passed his Moped test even when there was no real need, I also have a full Motorcycle license along with an advanced IAM, I also hold a full Car license & have in the past held LGV & PSV licences which I only allowed to lapse on age.

So just to confirm thought you believe that because the under 35's had a hazard perception test it makes them better drivers?


----------



## snorri (22 Mar 2019)

DRM said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm sure Professor Winston is a heart specialist, surely he realises that cycling keeps people healthy and out of hospital,


Perhaps it's concern for the hearts of the impatient drivers further stressed by the sight of cyclists making faster progress through congested motorised traffic that is motivating the esteemed Lord ?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Mar 2019)

But Conservative peer Lord Robathan, the former chairman of the All Party Cycling Group, said: "Should we not consider whether we wish to encourage cycling for the health benefits that it gives, and indeed the advantages to reducing congestion, or whether we wish to deter cyclists with unnecessary regulation which will keep the police busy for the next 100 years?"


----------



## Phaeton (22 Mar 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> But Conservative peer Lord Robathan, the former chairman of the All Party Cycling Group, said: "Should we not consider whether we wish to encourage cycling for the health benefits that it gives, and indeed the advantages to reducing congestion, or whether we wish to deter cyclists with unnecessary regulation which will keep the police busy for the next 100 years?"


He's clearly too sensible to be listened to


----------



## icowden (22 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> So just to confirm thought you believe that because the under 35's had a hazard perception test it makes them better drivers?



You seem to be drawing your own conclusions here. I didn't make any evaluation as to whether they were better drivers. I opined that they are more likely to have had questions about cyclists in their driving tests given that they do a theory test and hazard perception test. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

What I was trying to intimate is that if you don't cycle, you *probably* don't think twice about cyclists other than to try to make sure you don't run them over. This *may (and probably should) *be different for younger drivers who receive a much more rigorous driving test. It would actually make enormous sense if drivers had to have a refresher test every 5 years or so, so that they can ensure that their knowledge and skills are up to date.

All of the above statements are of course generalisations and there will of course be many exceptions. You yourself apparently found my comments insulting, but given that you are on a cycling forum, I presume you cycle? Given that likelihood, none of the generalisations applied to you.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Mar 2019)

icowden said:


> You seem to be drawing your own conclusions here.


Nope I'm taking your biased points I take it you are under 35? When I was taught to ride/drive we learnt about cyclist because they was far more of them, there wasn't Sat Nav's to play with, mobile phones that demand attention & must be answered by under 35's at all cost at all times, Oh these are just generalisations by the way so that makes it alright. 

Anyway I think you're incorrect I genuinely believe the standard of driving is going down the extended test has done nothing to improve it.


----------



## icowden (22 Mar 2019)

Nope I'm approaching 45. Again, I said nothing about the standard of driving. What I said was that I believed that younger drivers receive more information about cyclists than older drivers did, based on the fact they now have a written test and hazard awareness rather than "name these 5 signs".


----------



## Randy Butternubs (24 Mar 2019)

I only passed my car driving test about 5 years ago and I don't _remember _anything about bicycles.

Sure, there were probably one or two obvious questions about them slipped into the theory test but unless you are going to hammer in the point that cyclists are a) valid road users, and b) human beings who would rather like not to die, then you are just pissing in the wind.

The only thing relevant to bicycles I actually remember from my training is the occasion when I was nervously following a cyclist on a tight London suburban road and was mildly berated by my driving instructor for not overtaking him.


----------

