W
wafflycat
Guest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1671578,00.html
The last paragraph.
"Cyclists rightly want more measures and facilities in their favour, but as
these rights are granted, it is time to accept some responsibility.
Pedestrians and other road users deserve considerate, safe cyclists. Because
civil servants so long made cyclists second-class citizens by planning roads
that in effect designed us out of the system, we have acquired a tremendous
sense of self-righteous entitlement - even to behave badly. It's really time
we got over it. Taking a test would show we have."
He wants to take away our right to use the road. I am gobsmacked.
I have sent a response to Matt Seaton: -
"I usually enjoy reading your column in the Guardian each week, after all
it's not exactly commonplace to have media inches devoted to a cyclist. But
I have to disagree with your proposal that when we are in cycling mode we
should pass a test before being allowed on the roads. Lest you think I'm a
'Lycra Lout' who jumps red lights, rides on the pavement, has no lights at
night... I'm not. I do wear Lycra but I'm a fully paid-up member of the CTC,
and a cycling club local to me, who regularly cycles as a means of transport
for getting from A to B as well as cycling for fun. I've even been known to
venture to foreign soil to ride my bike. I stop at red lights, do not cycle
on the pavement and use lights (multitudinous ones and acres of reflectives
and fluorescents). I have many and varied steeds, all of which I love and
well, let's face it, one can never have too many bikes, bike bits and
accessories.
What I do agree with is cycling legally, safely and assertively, the
extension of good cycle training to do this and joining an organisation such
as the CTC if for no other purpose other than to get the free insurance and
legal assistance which is a part of the membership package. But to make it
mandatory to pass a test before you are allowed to use the road? The
effective licensing of cyclists? No sir!
Why? Well, here goes:-
Firstly, let's look at the actual level of danger cyclists pose on the road
to other road users and to pedestrians. In reality it is extremely small.
The perceived danger that cyclists pose, by worshippers at the Altar of
Clarkson and readers of the Daily Wail, is that cyclists are a huge danger:
they are not. The reality is the main cause of death and injury on road and
footpath is not cyclists, Lycra clad or otherwise, it is motorists. Yes, I
include myself in this as I am a motorist as well as a cyclist and a
pedestrian. So far I haven't killed or injured anyone and I'm trying to keep
it that way. You are probably aware of the figures; about 3500 people killed
each year and tens of thousands more injured by motorists. An average of 1
or 2 persons per year are killed by cyclists. The remainder, some 3498, are
killed by motorists. I hope that gives you a sense of perspective of the
reality of how dangerous cyclists are NOT. When cycling or driving I often
see red-light jumpers. The vast majority of them are fellow motorists.
Clearly having to take a test and be licensed has not dissuaded many a
motorist from jumping red-lights, breaking the speed limit and a whole raft
of other laws. I suggest that the vast majority of motoring red-light
jumpers do it because they can get away with it. Having to take a test and
be licensed has not stopped them from breaking the law. Do you think it
would be any different with cyclists? If cyclists really pose such a huge
danger to other road users do you think that the insurance we can get would
be of such low cost? Insurance is often free as a part of home insurance. It
is included in the more than reasonable cost of joining of joining the CTC
or British Cycling, so the level of risk posed by cyclists is low. If were
as high as the media often suggests, we would not be getting what is
effectively free insurance as insurance companies are not noted for their
generosity.
Secondly, as for facilities - well, no, I and many another card-carrying
bikie actually do not want the pathetic excuses of cycling farcilities
provided by too many a local authority. A white-paint outline drawing of a
bicycle on a footpath does not a facility make. There is already an
excellent network of cycle routes throughout the UK. These are surfaced with
black tarmac and called roads. I find they provide an excellent choice of
routes in getting from A to B and when exploring pastures new, I find an
Ordnance Survey map an excellent aid in working out which are likely to be
the best ones to use. Cycling farcilities on the other hand, and I include
Sustrans routes in this, rarely get me from A to B in a logical fashion,
they do not go where they are needed or wanted [1]. They are often designed
and maintained to such a poor standard that they are more dangerous than
using the road[2].
I am of the opinion that the cycle farcilities often provided by local
authorities and Sustrans actually encourage cyclists to break the law. How
is this? Well, Sustrans promotes facilities to move cyclists off the road
and on to 'facilities'. Local authorities will take a perfectly normal
footpath, paint an outline of a white bicycle on it and hey-presto, a
footpath becomes a 'shared-use facility'. What's a novice cyclist to do when
presented with such confusion? The Highway Code tells us it's an offence to
cycle on the pavement, yet more and more footpaths are seemingly allowed to
be ridden upon and where does the allowed bit start and end? Signage is
often confusing, badly sighted and sometimes, plain wrong[3]. This is why I
use the term cycle 'farcilities' as opposed to 'facilities' as farcilities
is what cyclists are usually provided with. No wonder many a cyclist thinks
it's okay to cycle on the footpath. It's where cyclists are increasingly
encouraged to go by the ever more frequently seen white paint on a footpath
and then cyclists face the wrath of the media for cycling on footpaths...
Thirdly, the main reason I am against what amounts to licensing of cyclists
before allowing them to use the road, is that as cyclists, we have a *right*
in law to use the road, just as pedestrians have. Mandatory licensing takes
away our right. I do not want to give up that right. Do you suggest that the
huge numbers of pedestrians who cross the road when the Pelican crossing
light is on red should have their right taken away unless they have passed a
test to show that they are capable of using such a crossing correctly? It's
the same twisted logic that's being argued for as regards the requirement
for testing of cyclists. I would fight tooth and nail to stop the *right* of
cyclists to use the road. I do not condone dangerous, illegal or
inconsiderate use of the road or footpaths by any user. Nor will I condone
the repression of cyclists' rights to use the road because some cyclists
choose to break the law through ignorance or deliberate action.
Fourthly, you have fallen victim to the bleatings of the worst of the media,
and I cannot overstate how dismayed I am by your column this week. By
suggesting that cyclists should be licensed in the same way motorists are,
you are sending out a signal that we present at least the same level of
danger to other road users as motorists do, when the facts state otherwise.
The main cause of death and injury on our highways is not the cyclist.
Motorists do kill and injure in vast numbers day in, day out, year after
year. When we are in motorist mode I believe we have a very particular duty
of care to those around us due to the very size we present and speed we
travel at.
Finally, I do not seek to excuse cyclists who break the law. I cycle safely,
assertively and legally, as does my husband and my son. I encourage other
cyclists to do the same. If a cyclist does break the law then he or she
should have no complaint when he or she is brought to book, unlike, I hasten
to add, the ever growing clamour in the media by those selfish apologists
for fellow motorists who think that motorists breaking the speed limits are
somehow unfairly taxed innocents. I have no problem with cycle training of
itself. Indeed it's a good thing as being taught assertive, safe and legal
cycling actively helps people stay safe on the roads. I do not thank you for
giving the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail yet another stick
with which to beat cyclists, overstating the risks cyclists really pose and
adding to the prejudice cyclists face on a daily basis, and now they have a
cyclist who agrees cyclists are uncontrolled louts!
I honestly feel you have done cycling harm with your article in today's
Guardian. You have added to the diverting of attention away from the real
danger on the roads: bad motoring.
Regards, Helen Simmons
[1] http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/farcilities-ncn13.htm
[2] See the excellent Warrington Cycle Campaign website at
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/
Also look at
http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farcilities.html
http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/daft-lanes-index.htm and there's
loads more on the Net
[3] http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/farcilities-signs-sustrans.htm
gives one example. "
The last paragraph.
"Cyclists rightly want more measures and facilities in their favour, but as
these rights are granted, it is time to accept some responsibility.
Pedestrians and other road users deserve considerate, safe cyclists. Because
civil servants so long made cyclists second-class citizens by planning roads
that in effect designed us out of the system, we have acquired a tremendous
sense of self-righteous entitlement - even to behave badly. It's really time
we got over it. Taking a test would show we have."
He wants to take away our right to use the road. I am gobsmacked.
I have sent a response to Matt Seaton: -
"I usually enjoy reading your column in the Guardian each week, after all
it's not exactly commonplace to have media inches devoted to a cyclist. But
I have to disagree with your proposal that when we are in cycling mode we
should pass a test before being allowed on the roads. Lest you think I'm a
'Lycra Lout' who jumps red lights, rides on the pavement, has no lights at
night... I'm not. I do wear Lycra but I'm a fully paid-up member of the CTC,
and a cycling club local to me, who regularly cycles as a means of transport
for getting from A to B as well as cycling for fun. I've even been known to
venture to foreign soil to ride my bike. I stop at red lights, do not cycle
on the pavement and use lights (multitudinous ones and acres of reflectives
and fluorescents). I have many and varied steeds, all of which I love and
well, let's face it, one can never have too many bikes, bike bits and
accessories.
What I do agree with is cycling legally, safely and assertively, the
extension of good cycle training to do this and joining an organisation such
as the CTC if for no other purpose other than to get the free insurance and
legal assistance which is a part of the membership package. But to make it
mandatory to pass a test before you are allowed to use the road? The
effective licensing of cyclists? No sir!
Why? Well, here goes:-
Firstly, let's look at the actual level of danger cyclists pose on the road
to other road users and to pedestrians. In reality it is extremely small.
The perceived danger that cyclists pose, by worshippers at the Altar of
Clarkson and readers of the Daily Wail, is that cyclists are a huge danger:
they are not. The reality is the main cause of death and injury on road and
footpath is not cyclists, Lycra clad or otherwise, it is motorists. Yes, I
include myself in this as I am a motorist as well as a cyclist and a
pedestrian. So far I haven't killed or injured anyone and I'm trying to keep
it that way. You are probably aware of the figures; about 3500 people killed
each year and tens of thousands more injured by motorists. An average of 1
or 2 persons per year are killed by cyclists. The remainder, some 3498, are
killed by motorists. I hope that gives you a sense of perspective of the
reality of how dangerous cyclists are NOT. When cycling or driving I often
see red-light jumpers. The vast majority of them are fellow motorists.
Clearly having to take a test and be licensed has not dissuaded many a
motorist from jumping red-lights, breaking the speed limit and a whole raft
of other laws. I suggest that the vast majority of motoring red-light
jumpers do it because they can get away with it. Having to take a test and
be licensed has not stopped them from breaking the law. Do you think it
would be any different with cyclists? If cyclists really pose such a huge
danger to other road users do you think that the insurance we can get would
be of such low cost? Insurance is often free as a part of home insurance. It
is included in the more than reasonable cost of joining of joining the CTC
or British Cycling, so the level of risk posed by cyclists is low. If were
as high as the media often suggests, we would not be getting what is
effectively free insurance as insurance companies are not noted for their
generosity.
Secondly, as for facilities - well, no, I and many another card-carrying
bikie actually do not want the pathetic excuses of cycling farcilities
provided by too many a local authority. A white-paint outline drawing of a
bicycle on a footpath does not a facility make. There is already an
excellent network of cycle routes throughout the UK. These are surfaced with
black tarmac and called roads. I find they provide an excellent choice of
routes in getting from A to B and when exploring pastures new, I find an
Ordnance Survey map an excellent aid in working out which are likely to be
the best ones to use. Cycling farcilities on the other hand, and I include
Sustrans routes in this, rarely get me from A to B in a logical fashion,
they do not go where they are needed or wanted [1]. They are often designed
and maintained to such a poor standard that they are more dangerous than
using the road[2].
I am of the opinion that the cycle farcilities often provided by local
authorities and Sustrans actually encourage cyclists to break the law. How
is this? Well, Sustrans promotes facilities to move cyclists off the road
and on to 'facilities'. Local authorities will take a perfectly normal
footpath, paint an outline of a white bicycle on it and hey-presto, a
footpath becomes a 'shared-use facility'. What's a novice cyclist to do when
presented with such confusion? The Highway Code tells us it's an offence to
cycle on the pavement, yet more and more footpaths are seemingly allowed to
be ridden upon and where does the allowed bit start and end? Signage is
often confusing, badly sighted and sometimes, plain wrong[3]. This is why I
use the term cycle 'farcilities' as opposed to 'facilities' as farcilities
is what cyclists are usually provided with. No wonder many a cyclist thinks
it's okay to cycle on the footpath. It's where cyclists are increasingly
encouraged to go by the ever more frequently seen white paint on a footpath
and then cyclists face the wrath of the media for cycling on footpaths...
Thirdly, the main reason I am against what amounts to licensing of cyclists
before allowing them to use the road, is that as cyclists, we have a *right*
in law to use the road, just as pedestrians have. Mandatory licensing takes
away our right. I do not want to give up that right. Do you suggest that the
huge numbers of pedestrians who cross the road when the Pelican crossing
light is on red should have their right taken away unless they have passed a
test to show that they are capable of using such a crossing correctly? It's
the same twisted logic that's being argued for as regards the requirement
for testing of cyclists. I would fight tooth and nail to stop the *right* of
cyclists to use the road. I do not condone dangerous, illegal or
inconsiderate use of the road or footpaths by any user. Nor will I condone
the repression of cyclists' rights to use the road because some cyclists
choose to break the law through ignorance or deliberate action.
Fourthly, you have fallen victim to the bleatings of the worst of the media,
and I cannot overstate how dismayed I am by your column this week. By
suggesting that cyclists should be licensed in the same way motorists are,
you are sending out a signal that we present at least the same level of
danger to other road users as motorists do, when the facts state otherwise.
The main cause of death and injury on our highways is not the cyclist.
Motorists do kill and injure in vast numbers day in, day out, year after
year. When we are in motorist mode I believe we have a very particular duty
of care to those around us due to the very size we present and speed we
travel at.
Finally, I do not seek to excuse cyclists who break the law. I cycle safely,
assertively and legally, as does my husband and my son. I encourage other
cyclists to do the same. If a cyclist does break the law then he or she
should have no complaint when he or she is brought to book, unlike, I hasten
to add, the ever growing clamour in the media by those selfish apologists
for fellow motorists who think that motorists breaking the speed limits are
somehow unfairly taxed innocents. I have no problem with cycle training of
itself. Indeed it's a good thing as being taught assertive, safe and legal
cycling actively helps people stay safe on the roads. I do not thank you for
giving the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail yet another stick
with which to beat cyclists, overstating the risks cyclists really pose and
adding to the prejudice cyclists face on a daily basis, and now they have a
cyclist who agrees cyclists are uncontrolled louts!
I honestly feel you have done cycling harm with your article in today's
Guardian. You have added to the diverting of attention away from the real
danger on the roads: bad motoring.
Regards, Helen Simmons
[1] http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/farcilities-ncn13.htm
[2] See the excellent Warrington Cycle Campaign website at
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/
Also look at
http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farcilities.html
http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/daft-lanes-index.htm and there's
loads more on the Net
[3] http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/farcilities-signs-sustrans.htm
gives one example. "
