Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

[mattheus]

I'd love to know what the police think of this proposal.

Have to be careful what they say of course but surely they will be making representations?

Or at least asked for their view on the matter?

If they aren't asked, well what more need one say about how this has been thought through?

It's not a proposal, and it will never become a proposal. It's an attempt to garner support through publicising hatred of an out group - us.

true

+1

[ChrisButch]

When cUK dumped CJ, IRRC he was replaced by several media studies people. Perhaps they've now been dumped. In spite of the coincidence of the latest relevant legislation coming into force almost simultaneously not including more cycling offences, cUK has managed single-handed to add more fuel to Grant Shapps' spinning machine than the Daly Telegraph and Daily Mail together.

From Grant Shappes' POV, QED.

Could you elaborate? Which particular CUK action or statement has "added more fuel"?

[Tangled Metal]

Ignore the source of these stories and let's discuss the ideas behind them.

What are the pros and cons of cycle ID, mandatory liability cover, inclusion of speeding bikes into similar legislation as vehicles, etc. Do these have any merit? Are they in use elsewhere already? Any other country? Is it more important to increase cycle use without such regulation than putting in measures aimed at safer cycle use at lower levels? Of course assuming any of those measures will make cycle use safer.

[Jdsk]

I suggest using a different Subject for the thread if you want to discuss these important issues without them being linked to Shapps and the Daily Mail.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

When cUK dumped CJ, IRRC he was replaced by several media studies people. Perhaps they've now been dumped. In spite of the coincidence of the latest relevant legislation coming into force almost simultaneously not including more cycling offences, cUK has managed single-handed to add more fuel to Grant Shapps' spinning machine than the Daly Telegraph and Daily Mail together.

From Grant Shappes' POV, QED.

Could you elaborate? Which particular CUK action or statement has "added more fuel"?

I was about to ask the same question.

I've just heard Cycling UK's head of campaigning on The World at One. I thought that he did OK, but would have liked a stronger emphasis on the contribution of more cycling to better public health.

Jonathan

[stephen]

The Guardian has a piece about this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

[Jdsk]

The Guardian has a piece about this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

And the Government's comments from December 2021:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/585474

includes:

The Government considers that the costs of a formal registration system for cycle ownership would outweigh the benefits. The safety case for such a system is not as strong as that for drivers since, by contrast with motorised vehicles, cycles involved in collisions on the highway are highly unlikely to cause serious injury to other road users.

Cycling provides clear benefits, both for those cycling (particularly in terms of health) and for wider society (tackling congestion, reducing CO2 emissions and improved air quality). The introduction of a licensing system would significantly reduce these benefits, especially over the short term. Over the long term, it would deny children and young adults from enjoying the mobility and health benefits cycling brings until they were old enough to pass a formal test.

The introduction of a system of licensing would also be likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people cycling. This would be at odds with the Prime Minister’s plans to boost walking and cycling. The Prime Minister’s Cycling and Walking Plan (Gear Change) can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... or-england.

Furthermore, the National Travel Survey indicates that a very high proportion of people who cycle regularly also hold a driving licence. The absence of a licensing system does not prevent a cyclist from being liable for their actions. The police and ultimately the courts, can take into account all the circumstances of an incident and judge accordingly.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

I suggest using a different Subject for the thread if you want to discuss these important issues without them being linked to Shapps and the Daily Mail.

Jonathan

Well, I suppose that you’re correct but right now there’s a topical link via a newspaper (or should that be comic) headline.

The details as reported have next to zero merit and there will already be appropriate laws in place that aren’t enforced. If road safety is important (I think it is) then the vast bulk of fatalities are due to motorists so efforts should be focussed there rather than being distracted by the relative trivia of ‘dangerous cyclists’.

[thirdcrank]

When cUK dumped CJ, IRRC he was replaced by several media studies people. Perhaps they've now been dumped. In spite of the coincidence of the latest relevant legislation coming into force almost simultaneously not including more cycling offences, cUK has managed single-handed to add more fuel to Grant Shapps' spinning machine than the Daly Telegraph and Daily Mail together.

From Grant Shappes' POV, QED.

Could you elaborate? Which particular CUK action or statement has "added more fuel"?

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/trans ... fnANws6WSU

If I didn't make myself clear, I'm saying that that isn't the way to deal with this type of cynical spin from Grant Shapps. In short, by trying to fight on his ground it's just publicising what he's saying. This is why politicians are renowned for beginning answers along the lines of "What I think is important...." People may not like it but it works. At least, it works better than reiterating the other side's case point by point.

I've not listened to any of this on the radio or TV but if an interviewer did their homework to Emily Maitlis' standard, a cycling spokesperson would never get past questions based on this

We made it clear that we have no objection in principle to seeking greater parity between cycling and motoring offences. But the Government's proposed solution - namely to copy-and-paste the existing offence of 'causing death by dangerous driving' to create an equivalent cycling offence - was the wrong solution to a problem that only arises a couple or so times per decade. (My bold.)

Beyond that, requests for support in the form of things like response to consultation need to be clear and prominent, and not buried on the end of links.

I really do think that Grant Shapps will be pleased about the way this has gone for him

[Jdsk]

I suggest using a different Subject for the thread if you want to discuss these important issues without them being linked to Shapps and the Daily Mail.

Well, I suppose that you’re correct but right now there’s a topical link via a newspaper (or should that be comic) headline.

The details as reported have next to zero merit and there will already be appropriate laws in place that aren’t enforced.

And there's an active thread discussing both that topical link and the underlying issues:
[topics merged by moderator]

The intention of this thread as stated was to:

Ignore the source of these stories and let's discuss the ideas behind them.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/trans ... fnANws6WSU

If I didn't make myself clear, I'm saying that that isn't the way to deal with this type of cynical spin from Grant Shapps. In short, by trying to fight on his ground it's just publicising what he's saying. This is why politicians are renowned for beginning answers along the lines of "What I think is important...." People may not like it but it works. At least, it works better than reiterating the other side's case point by point.

The new story is Shapps' kite flying about registration and insurance. Are you saying that Cycling UK should ignore this, or that they should respond differently?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

The subject of registration plates for cyclists has arisen on here before and the main point is that the registration system for motor vehicle users is accepted as a necessary exception to a suspect's right to avoid self-incrimination. The present proposal is populist claptrap, IMO

My main point was and remains that it's easy to do Grant Shapps' purpose for him. That purpose being to distract public opinion from the mess the government is currently in.

[mattheus]

Ignore the source of these stories and let's discuss the ideas behind them.

What are the pros and cons of cycle ID, mandatory liability cover, inclusion of speeding bikes into similar legislation as vehicles, etc. Do these have any merit? Are they in use elsewhere already? Any other country? Is it more important to increase cycle use without such regulation than putting in measures aimed at safer cycle use at lower levels? Of course assuming any of those measures will make cycle use safer.

What ???

[Pete Owens]

The new story is Shapps' kite flying about registration and insurance. Are you saying that Cycling UK should ignore this, or that they should respond differently?

CUK should indeed ignore them.

As with all the culture war nonsense being spouted by government ministers they are not intended as serious proposals for legislation, but to provoke heated divisive arguments in which people tend to pick a side. In all cases the culture warrior will pick on a minority (whether that is cyclists, trans folk, Muslims, immigrants etc) so that they will appear to be on the side of the majority. In all cases they will pick an issue where their argument is expressed in simplistic, superficially justifiable terms - suitable for a soundbite on a broadcast interview, or social media or the DM, whereas the opposite case will usually be complex, subtle and difficult to explain and easy to misrepresent (think Keir Starmer being asked to define a woman).

[mattheus]

The new story is Shapps' kite flying about registration and insurance. Are you saying that Cycling UK should ignore this, or that they should respond differently?

CUK should indeed ignore them.

As with all the culture war nonsense being spouted by government ministers they are not intended as serious proposals for legislation, but to provoke heated divisive arguments in which people tend to pick a side. In all cases the culture warrior will pick on a minority (whether that is cyclists, trans folk, Muslims, immigrants etc) so that they will appear to be on the side of the majority. <... snippage... >

Yeah, I'd agree there's a strong case for ignoring them. BUT:
- the arguments are already out there. Look at any social media discussion about cyclists. Or just mention cyclists to a few random colleagues, or taxi-drivers, or journalists ... It doesn't need Shapps' populist publicity.
- CUK are damned if they do, damned if they don't here. I'll bet you a billion pounds I can find a counter-example on this very forum!