A cyclist in Bradford frustrated by his MP's views on cycling and road safety reported receiving an "angry rant" from the politician displaying "raw prejudice" against cyclists having emailed him to discuss his attitude to making the constituency's roads safer and the topical debate around dangerous cycling proposals.
Sir Philip Davies has been MP for Shipley in Yorkshire since 2005, the Tory politician earlier this month stating that cyclists should have a licence and registration plates as a means of "tracking those that cause problems or flout the laws of the road". He has also written to Transport Secretary Mark Harper asking for the proposals to be implemented and his Twitter/X feed features numerous retweets of Harper communicating the government's intention to introduce "dangerous cycling" laws.
> 'Dangerous cycling bill' will not become law, after UK general election announced by Rishi Sunak
One road.cc reader challenged Davies on his cycling views, telling us that the constituency is "a bit of a hellhole for road safety" and that he has "never been terribly impressed by Davies' responses". The recent comments about number plates for cyclists and "enthusiastic" support of "dangerous cycling proposals" was the final nudge our reader needed to email his MP.
However, following multiple replies, much of which amounted to "an angry rant", the cyclist was left frustrated by the MP's refusal to "engage with the argument and facts", instead displaying "raw prejudice" and "completely misrepresenting my point of view".
In the first reply, Davies declines the offer to join our reader on a bike ride, and concludes: "I am not sure what the issue of licencing would be if cyclists are all saints as you seem to suggest. Perhaps you simply don't want cyclists to be held accountable for their actions for some reason. If you think that nobody has been seriously injured as the result of an irresponsible cyclist then I feel it is you in need of education rather than me."
In response, our reader pointed out obviously he does not, as Davies suggested, believe "all cyclists are saints", and accepted that cyclists can cause harm, going on to make the point that his argument is "about likelihood, magnitude and probabilities" where the "overwhelming danger is bad infrastructure and bad drivers".
"There are three areas of frustration," he later told us about the email exchange. "The first is he ignores the overwhelming cause of danger which is drivers of motor vehicles. The danger of cyclists to pedestrians and pedestrians to cyclists is just completely insignificant compared to that and that's just a matter of clearly available statistics and basic physics.
"The second point is that I've had collisions with pedestrians who ran onto the road and there's no protection for cyclists from dangerous pedestrians. I don't think there should be much because, you know, I got cuts and bruises but it's such a rare occurrence relative to the harms of motor vehicles as a cyclist. Pedestrians doing dangerous things is not my top worry compared to motor vehicles, but statistically you find it quite hard to say that cyclists are a greater danger to pedestrians than pedestrians are to cyclists. I think that was one of my points and he just refused to engage with that.
"My third frustration is with the tone of emails which I felt was very aggressive. He repeatedly says 'I bet you think that cyclists are all saints' and I repeatedly said to him 'no clearly some cyclists are dangerous idiots' and he just would not accept that I recognise the danger from cyclists. He was completely misrepresenting my point of view and not engaging with what I'm saying and I felt that he had this very prejudiced view of cyclists — that every single one is a menace, every single one is a danger and they can be studied and lumped together in a group, so therefore I'm trying to defend these dangerous cyclists or something. It was a fairly stupid thing to say on his behalf."
In response to our reader's latest email, Davies replied: "Perhaps you will come down to London sometime and stand by the pedestrian crossing outside the House of Commons and count the number of cyclists who drive through a red light. I can tell you now that it will be easier to count the number who stop for a red light. However, you can still believe that all cyclists are wonderful people who are always wronged and never wrong. The experience of the rest of us is very different whether you like it or not."
Again, our reader tried to reason with the MP, again accepting that there are people who ride bikes dangerously (just as there are "many dangerous drivers" and "dangerous pedestrians stepping out into the path of cyclists without looking"), but making the point that the statistics just do not point to cyclists being a major cause of road danger.
"I really do implore you to try cycling around your constituency," our reader told Davies. "Only then can you understand the implications of anti-cyclist infrastructure and culture. I have been assaulted, deliberately driven into, had things thrown from vehicles, all for the 'crime' of being a cyclist. Only then will you understand the (relatively small) dangers posed by pedestrians, and the massive danger posed by drivers of vehicles, and anti-cyclist culture."
Davies replied: "I am afraid that we are not going to agree about this, and based on the Q&A sessions I have with constituents, I am afraid it would seem the majority of my constituents don't agree with you either."
Speaking to us about the email exchange, our reader concluded: "I think he has just got massive prejudice against cyclists, that he won't engage with what cyclists are saying, he won't engage with the argument and the facts. It's really odd for him, because he's very keen on civil liberties and small states but he really wants to bring in this kind of state overreach into the area of cycling.
"It doesn't fit with his world view: light-touch small states, less regulation, people should be free from government interference, and then he wants to micromanage cyclists, it seems a bit contradictory for him. It was frankly an angry rant and it's not 'let's agree to disagree', I think it was just raw prejudice."
We contacted Davies, giving him the opportunity to explain his views on cycling further, but had not received a reply at the time of publication.
