Shocking how far off the ball they were yesterday in discussions about road safety. Boardman – MPs “should be embarrassed” & don’t “even know the most basic of facts” about cycling.

http://road.cc/content/news/100104-chris-boardman-says-mps-should-be-embarrassed”-don’t-even-know-most-basic-facts”

what is the ****ing point in a transport committee if they don’t understand the very basics!!!

Mind you I should also point out the COMPLETE lack of investment in walking and cycling in yesterdays government investment plan. Plenty for cars mind!

TBF even on threads here (see yesterday’s “who’s worse”) even those who cycle get distracted by the massively effective “don’t blame drivers” culture we have here.

Too bloody right cynic-al.

good luck to them enforcing that.

police couldnt catch a cold when i was younger – short of shouting OI you stop wheres your lights….

I can’t stand the ignorance, imagine if you were a relative or friend of someone who had died recently having to hear that rubbish.

At least Boardman is on the job and carries some clout.

I wish we could elect Boardman as some kind of independent cycling Czar – he speaks a LOT of sense.

even those who cycle get distracted by the massively effective “don’t blame drivers” culture we have here.

Indeed a large percentage of all road users ignore many of the rules but bad parking, speeding, not indicating at roundabouts and using your phone are Ok but not cyclists undertaking [ not illegal] is just not on

We need respectful shared use of the space with the realisation the big metal box drivers are responsible for most accidents and do the most damage.

Problem is we all drive and none of us want to accept we are part of the problem. its like fewer cars. We all know it would help but we also all mean someone else not driving not us [ generally]

Junkyard – lazarus
Problem is we all drive and none of us want to accept we are part of the problem. its like fewer cars. We all know it would help but we also all mean someone else not driving not us

Just seen the title, awesome!

If we are driving AND cycling, I’d say we are doing something about the problem – those solely driving are not.

Surely it falls within the remit of the transport select committee to discuss AND DISMISS all the crazy ideas that the electorate think would help? I haven’t seen the transcripts but is it not better that they ask:

“if helmets could be made compulsory” and get told the reasons why that is not the solution

“if the panel thought cyclists should “contribute” to the upkeep of the roads” and get told why that may or may not be appropriate.

“if a solution would be to force all cyclists to be registered, tested, and to put their bikes through a sort of MoT test.” and have it pointed out what the issues with that are?

Or should select committees only DISCUSS ideas that we agree with?

but is it not better that they ask:

“if helmets could be made compulsory” and get told the reasons why that is not the solutionthing is as Boardman seemed to be saying yesterday (and IIRC the scientists on the ACMD) is that the politicians don’t actually listen to the evidence and well reasoned arguments and instead decide stuff based on other factors (eg. will this get me:- A. re-elected B. a bung or C. a position on the board of a big company when I quit politics)

These things are committees of politicians, not experts in their field, and they are all posturing and points scoring as is politicians want. Don’t be surprised that this is what happens when they debate cycling – this is what happens whatever they are discussing at the time.

It’s like watching the Gadget Show when you assume they are telling you informative information on a product. They then do an article on an aspect of cycling and you realise they know nothing. You then realise as they know nothing abut bikes you can also assume they know nothing about anything else they report on either.

Video from yesterday’s meeting (2nd).
Transport Select Committee meeting 03-12-13

Much better structured so far (about 20 mins in).

should select committees only DISCUSS ideas that we agree with

I think , given there time is finite, they should at least screen out the utter bollocks first and discus ONLY the important and relevant stuff.

Or should select committees only DISCUSS ideas that we agree with?

No but it might be nice if they adopted the quaint notion of having the first idea of what they are speaking about before trapping off. For example: Road Tax….. No such thing exists, Not only that no road user directly contributes to the upkeep of the road network, it comes from general taxation, and EVEN if there were any possibility of cyclists being required to take part in the same taxation scheme as motorists they would still pay nowt being as it is, based on vehicle emissions.

So is it too much to expect a Parliamentry Select committee to only discuss things that they have the faintest idea about!! I would say surely its a minimum expectation isn’t it?

EVEN if there were any possibility of cyclists being required to take part in the same taxation scheme as motorists they would still pay nowt being as it is, based on vehicle emissions. it would still have absolutely nothing to do with road safety which is what they were supposed to be discussing

FTF-MPS.

Poly…

Or should select committees only DISCUSS ideas that we agree with?

The role of the government is to serve the public. To represent the public’s wishes. Governments role is to obey the people. That’s how democracy is *supposed* to work. Not in the UK of course where we, the people, obey the government and the ruling class.

So yes, the select committee had no place in discussing their own plans and opinions. There was a meeting. The agenda was clear, but once again, lame brain politicians decide among themselves that people are too stupid to make decisions on their own and they’ll consider foisting some on us.

The government would be better served by representing the will of the people and fulfilling their own obligations.

Not sure if it was here or road cc but a little while ago I suggested some PI ads on the basics would bring the biggest benefit for the least cost.

Something like..

Parking on pavements is bad
Riding on pavements is bad.
Riding two abreast is ok.
Running red lights is bad.
No one pays road tax.
Talking on the phone is bad.
Texting is bad.
Speeding is bad.
And so on.

I suspect it won’t happen though because the law is inconvientially not what people would like it to be.

Jim Dobbin is sitting on the Transport Select Committee and is my neighbouring MP. This is the e-mail i sent him after his poor showing.

Dear Mr Dobbin
Whilst i am not a constituent of yours i am a Labour voter in your neighbouring constituency in Rochdale.
As a regular commuting and leisure cyclist i was pleased to hear that a local MP would be sitting on the Transport Committee meeting to discuss cycling and the subject of how to make cycling safer and more accessible.
Imagine my displeasure and disappointment when i read the reports from the results of the meeting. I would like to ask why, when the representative from the Road Haulage Association made the claim that the six dead cyclists from London were all responsible for their own deaths, did none of the panel bother to demand evidence to support this accusation – especially since none of the Coroner ‘s reports are back yet.
Once more anecdote and opinion was offered instead of evidence being demanded and questions asked. If even MP’s cannot grasp the extremely simple point that ‘road tax’ was abolished in 1937 and that highways are funded via general and local taxation then why are they even sitting on such a committee.
I feel that you and your fellow committee members did cyclists and cycling a grave disservice by not even bothering to learn something of the subject before you attended the meeting.
Both this Govt and the last Labour administration have made noises about encouraging cycling yet once again we cyclists are faced with ignorance of our rights and an unwillingness to understand our requirements from our elected representatives. This is simply not good enough, people have died and this committee wasted time discussing paintwork damage to vehicles rather than addressing a most urgent point.
A very poor show all round.

Yours in despair,

*********

The politicians need to look at the facts and get to the point – actual road safety, which can only be improved by separating or at least creating greater space between HGVs and ideally cars in busy areas and dangerous junctions.

No amount of ‘bike road taxation’, cycle MOT schemes and even helmet wearing is going to save you from being crushed by a HGV. So they these MPs are uneducated time wasters.

@ muddydwarf……here here.

TBF even on threads here (see yesterday’s “who’s worse”) even those who cycle get distracted by the massively effective “don’t blame drivers” culture we have here.

You really missed my point on that thread, it seems.

Anyway – politicians in not knowing anything before sticking their oar in shocker. I’m sure a teacher will be along soon to comiserate.

They have to ask those dumb questions. The electorate demand it.

Very good Muddydwarf – I’ve just watched his performance in that meeting, some pretty misguided opinion and lines of questioning going on.

Strangely enough ive not heard back from him..

You really missed my point on that thread, it seems.

He was not alone – is it us or you?
I rarely know what your point is beyond taking a contrary view for the sake of
It is often impossible very difficult to see what “point” you are making and too often you dont believe it yourself.

Get an ally from your neighboring constituency Muddy to send the same email, he will then have to respond

Yeah, its not exactly far away and i do know people in monkeytown..

He was not alone – is it us or you?

Dunno, doesn’t matter does it?

My point was against tribalism. That we should not excuse bad cycling just because we are also cyclists. You took that to mean I’m anti-cyclist it seems.

Is that clear now?

My point was against tribalism. That we should not excuse bad cycling just because we are also cyclists. You took that to mean I’m anti-cyclist it seems

Perfect point
Riding a bike does not make you perfect and always right.
Driving a car does not automatically make you wrong.
It’s the people that are the problem not their mode of transport.

Riding a bike does not make you perfect and always right.
Driving a car does not automatically make you wrong.

True, but it does alter the odds a bit 😉

Still think we should whip up a storm via CTC, BC, Chris Boardman and whoever to try and get this bloody committee to spent a couple of days cycling in London with some of the Londoners on here – no Police escort, no Press pack following them, just normal daily journeys in London traffic.

Maybe then they will understand the issues a bit more clearly.

Dunno, doesn’t matter does it?

It probably does matter if you convey your thoughts so poorly that folk dont understand them.
No one said all cyclists are always right just because they own a bike. You defeated a point no one made.
Oh and the stats said that cars were about x3 – x 4 more likely to cause an accident than a bike but you spoke only of cyclists and suggested educating cyclists at one point as well.
Whatever your point, when you argue for affect, you dont do it well

BermBandit – No but it might be nice if they adopted the quaint notion of having the first idea of what they are speaking about before trapping off.

I’m not an expert in how select committees work, but I don’t think they are intended to be experts in the subject area; they are there to gather evidence on the topic, ask questions and apply reason to the answers. Provided they pay attention to the responses I see no problem with asking the questions that the dumb electorate are also asking.

No amount of ‘bike road taxation’, cycle MOT schemes and even helmet wearing is going to save you from being crushed by a HGV. So they these MPs are uneducated time wasters.

hopefully, the witnesses before the committee were able to deliver clear succinct answers like that? I’d be more worried if the experts before the committee were going off at a tangent than the MPs.

paddy – The role of the government is to serve the public. To represent the public’s wishes.

So yes, the select committee had no place in discussing their own plans and opinions. There was a meeting. The agenda was clear, but once again, lame brain politicians decide among themselves that people are too stupid to make decisions on their own and they’ll consider foisting some on us.

The government would be better served by representing the will of the people and fulfilling their own obligations. I don’t think you understand how select committees work. I didn’t see the Agenda, but I doubt it was so specific to preclude those questions being asked. I’m sure if you asked 1000 random voters than a significant number would mention some of the issues they raised. The ideas are stupid. The electorate are largely stupid too. MPs represent the electorate so it should be little surprise that many of them are also stupid. That is the whole point of select committees – that stupid ideas get discussed and dismissed based on evidence from subject experts, before it ends up in a parliamentary chamber where people vote based on party nonsense.

Even the “tax” question is legitimate as any infrastructure improvement carries a cost. I certainly want my politicians thinking (out loud if necessary) about how that is funded and why the benefits of cycling might justify the cost from general taxation.

If you are all really worried – go and see your MP at their surgery and discuss your concerns and educate them on why helmets or MoTs are not the solution. I suspect very few MPs read STW.

I find the whole anti cycling debate so depressing. I’ve said it before and will no doubt say it again but only mass private legal action by cyclists against the head of police (say), dangerous motorists, Highways authorities and dumb pedestrians (yes, them too) will bring any sense to the situation. I would put money into such a scheme by return.