"What a wonderful standard of debate there is in here. You are equal
to
the best on your "side" of things. "
I'm not on any side.
Someone on ACF put it better than I could:
Dear Sir
I recently happened to be referred to an essay published in the FT
magazine as part of its essay competition. This was Richard Tomkins'
essay 'Proper Rules for Cyclists', published on 26 October 2007.
I am amazed that the FT has published such an ill-conceived diatribe.
That such an error-laden diatribe was produced by the FT's Chief
Feature Writer is even more dismaying - one might expect to read such
a piece in the Sun or the Daily Mail, but not in the FT which is
supposed to aspire to serious journalism.
I would like to take issue with one or two of the assertions that
appear in Mr Tomkins' tirade:
"Their contempt for the law is breathtaking. They routinely ignore red
traffic lights, menacing pedestrians crossing the road when it ought
to be safe. They cycle the wrong way along one-way streets, notably
outside our local primary school where they play dodge 'em with the
parents and children every morning. They race over pedestrian
crossings and along the pavements whenever it suits them, the more
aggressive of them screaming abuse at anyone who gets in their way.
Yet heaven help anyone, car driver or pedestrian, who strays even
momentarily into a cycle lane.
Does it matter? Yes, very much. Obviously, cyclists' flagrant
disrespect for the law is a threat to public safety..."
Can Mr Tomkins produce anything other than anecdotal evidence to
support these assertions? If so, let him do so. The overwhelming
evidence from reputable sources, such as the police, RoSPA and the
government, would appear to show otherwise. That it is a minority of
cyclists who flout the law - just as it is a minority of drivers who
do so also.
One has only to look at the statistics to see the truth about what is
happening on our roads:
· In 2006 there were 189,191 accidents on the UK roads resulting in
258,404 casualties (3,172 deaths, 28,673 serious injuries and 226,559
slight injuries)
· There were 26,139 accidents in 2006 in which 30,982 pedestrians
were killed or injured
· Of the 26,139 accidents nationally only 202 involved a cyclist and
a pedestrian (resulting in 3 deaths and 47 serious injuries).
Cyclists are involved in fewer than 0.8% of accidents involving
pedestrians - so that means that the poor, hard done by motorists Mr
Tomkins refers to were responsible for more than 99.92% of accidents
involving pedestrians.
I would also suggest that cyclists are more likely to know the
provisions of the Highway Code than the average motorist - perhaps Mr
Tomkins would like to put this to the test? I'd be more than happy to
go head-to-head with him.
"More important, it is bad enough that a particular group of road
users should regard themselves as above the law; it is much worse that
the government and police should connive in it. Why should cyclists be
allowed to commit dangerous traffic offences at will while vast
numbers of police, traffic wardens and private sector contractors,
assisted by spy cameras and other technology, are ready to pounce on
car drivers for even the most trivial violations and punish them with
heavy fines, the confiscation of their vehicles or worse?
It is time London cracked down on cyclists' behaviour. I do not want
to stop people cycling but I do want them to realise that the green
halo hovering over their helmets does not put them in a special
category of road users to whom no laws apply, any more than cycling to
the supermarket gives them the right to shoplift with impunity."
Given that conservative estimates from the police and the Motor
Insurers Bureau is that there are approximately 1 million unregistered
motor vehicles on the roads in the UK and 5% of cars on UK roads are
uninsured, Mr Tomkins must have had difficulty in keeping a straight
face whilst typing those paragraphs.
"I realise the difficulty. At present, it is difficult to punish
cyclists for breaking the law. The police stop a cyclist for jumping a
red light, she gives them a false name and address and off she goes,
the wrong way up a one way street. There is nothing much anyone can
do."
"Licensing would transform enforcement. Cyclists would be required to
carry their licences with them at all times, providing proof of their
identity..."
Drivers are just as capable of providing false details as cyclists.
Mr Tomkin may be not be aware that motorists are already required to
carry their license with them at all time - but few do. Can Mr
Tomkins honestly say that he has had his license with him every time
he has been behind the wheel?
"This is not asking much when you consider that cyclists are otherwise
freeloaders on road infrastructure that is overwhelmingly paid for by
motorists."
Such ignorance of the funding of the road infrastructure is
breathtaking for somebody connected with a financially oriented
publication. Roads are funded through general taxation, not some
mythical 'road tax' that motorists keep harping on about (for your
information the 'road tax' was abolished in 1932!) This means that
adult cyclists will be paying for the roads that they use. Adult
cyclists are also likely to be car owners and paying Vehicle Excise
Duty, etc. as well.
And if you want to be fair, cyclists damage roads less than motor
vehicles - therefore, perhaps we cyclists should be looking for a
refund from motorists.
If the FT really wants to continue to be taken seriously, perhaps it
could refrain from printing such ill-thought out, poorly researched
and tabloid-esque articles in future. Don't forget - a large
proportion of your target audience are likely to be cyclists!
Yours sincerely
Gregory Price
****************************************************************
I wonder if I'll get a response...
