Boris Backies

[Roger Geffen]

Media reports that CTC had "criticised" Boris for giving his wife a 'backie' sparked a certain amount of controversy. When the Press Association phoned up for our reaction to this silly-season political knock-about story, we described it as "naughty", whilst stressing that CTC doesn't defend illegal behaviour by any road user. Yet some media outlets still managed to make us sound incredibly po-faced.

What we hadn't expected though was the number of people who felt we should instead of defended Boris's backie! And of course, it is legal - and perfectly normal - to give backies in countries like the Netherlands.

To be honest, I doubt that many people would argue that legalising backies is a terribly high campaigning priority when there is so much else that needs doing to make cycling in Britain as safe and normal as it is in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and even mountainous Switzerland. Still, it would be interesting to hear what others think of Boris's backie. Dangerous criminal or just a bit of a rogue - what does everyone reckon?

[Si]

discussion ongoing here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=98888

[mjr]

Media reports that CTC had "criticised" Boris for giving his wife a 'backie' sparked a certain amount of controversy. When the Press Association phoned up for our reaction to this silly-season political knock-about story, we described it as "naughty", whilst stressing that CTC doesn't defend illegal behaviour by any road user. Yet some media outlets still managed to make us sound incredibly po-faced.

I felt that CTC should have seen that one coming. Would it have been better to trot out the age-old "we wouldn't advise it, but surely everyone can understand why he did it"? Presumably CTC doesn't make that mistake when asked about other questionable legal offences?

What's this "CTC doesn't defend illegal behaviour"? I thought CTC set up a fund that defends justifiable illegal behaviour like http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/p ... st-dropped Has CTC now gone all wishy-washy and abandoned the radical law-challenging to CDF? At what point is a law so absurd that CTC would support civil disobedience?

Still, it would be interesting to hear what others think of Boris's backie. Dangerous criminal or just a bit of a rogue - what does everyone reckon?

Neither: perfectly understandable ordinary person, for once! I bet he wishes the so-called "Boris bikes" had rear racks!

Sorry to answer a question with questions. Thanks for posting here.

[Philip Benstead]

Media reports that CTC had "criticised" Boris for giving his wife a 'backie' sparked a certain amount of controversy. When the Press Association phoned up for our reaction to this silly-season political knock-about story, we described it as "naughty", whilst stressing that CTC doesn't defend illegal behaviour by any road user. Yet some media outlets still managed to make us sound incredibly po-faced.

What we hadn't expected though was the number of people who felt we should instead of defended Boris's backie! And of course, it is legal - and perfectly normal - to give backies in countries like the Netherlands.

To be honest, I doubt that many people would argue that legalising backies is a terribly high campaigning priority when there is so much else that needs doing to make cycling in Britain as safe and normal as it is in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and even mountainous Switzerland. Still, it would be interesting to hear what others think of Boris's backie. Dangerous criminal or just a bit of a rogue - what does everyone reckon?

It is a non story will forgotten tomorrow.

[thirdcrank]

I know from experience that there's a difference between preparing a press release, when there's usually time to think, and responding to a press query where they need a reply almost immediately for a story being submitted to meet deadlines. I've had a while to think about this, of course, but it needs something which pins it all on the cunning buffoon himself. How about

"At least it stops him using his phone .........." ?

[SA_SA_SA]

.....
What's this "CTC doesn't defend illegal behaviour"? I thought CTC set up a fund that defends justifiable illegal behaviour like http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/p ... st-dropped ....

Didn't that case involve the wrong signage on the contested section: ie in one direction was signed as shared use and the other separate use? Annoyingly I can;t fiind the appropriate link/pdf.

[gaz]

Annoyingly I can;t fiind the appropriate link/pdf.

Link to CTC article, the pdfs are a footnote.

[mjr]

Annoyingly I can;t fiind the appropriate link/pdf.

Link to CTC article, the pdfs are a footnote.

Did I miss where they mention what the various orders say? What was the actual situation apart from the rubbish design and botched signs?

My understanding was that was a technically-illegal action which is awkward to avoid and not in the public interest to prosecute.