It's a question of whether the impact is disproportionate, isn't it? If it costs a bomb, is restrictive on liberties or puts people off, then the question is whether it is worth it for the purported (not demonstrated) effects.
That would be my main concern, if such a law was passed, fewer people would see cycling as a viable alternative to other modes of transport.
Really flagged up the Daily Mail for the headline, what a shitpit of a newspaper it really is.
It's a question of whether the impact is disproportionate, isn't it? If it costs a bomb, is restrictive on liberties or puts people off, then the question is whether it is worth it for the purported (not demonstrated) effects.