Umm... Velorution?

A clarification has been posted on the Velorution website: http://www.velorution.biz/?p=1453

Your clarification still carries with it the same confusion. Your argument is such a fog that people can read much into it that may or may not be there. It is so a poorly structured that it makes me think you would be better leaving these kinds of debates to someone who has a better understanding of how to communicate simple politics.

Your updated and embolded point reads:

"When we refuse to raise standards (or prefer to brush the issue under the carpet of political correctness), we let down vulnerable people including Africans, Jews, Cockneys and South Asians who wish to cycle but are prevented by cultural mores of their ethnic group."

Who are the 'we' who are letting down the groups you list ? And in what way would the 'we' be refusing to raise standards ?

What evidence have you that the groups you list are prevented from cycling by their culture ?

You make the most rudimentary mistakes when looking at naked data (here, Japan and Denmark's 'civility' towards cyclists) - and confuse correlation with causation. Taking Japan, for example, have you ruled out every other cause for this civility ? Including the history of how cycling has evolved there, the way the legal system deals with cyclists, with drivers who injure or kill cyclists, the road system and any number of possible influences causing or simply adding to a compound influence that may cause the civility you so readily attribute to cultural integration ?

You claim a desire to "work together to make London safer and more pleasant to ride in"

(So, dear readers, please lay down your venomous pens, and let’s work together to make London safer and more pleasant to ride in.)

And what do you offer to this debate to make London a more pleasant place to ride, what fix do you offer up for discussion ? Send them home, back to Mugabe and the Taliban.
When you typed that did it have the ring of a workable and onging solution for you ?

How would this work ? Would there be a hierarchy of law ? If someone from Africa cause a RTA - send them back to Africa, and if someone from Richmond or Camden causes a RTA, what then ?

I am sure in your stream of confused sentiment there may be a point, but if you think you have made that point you still have all your work in front of you.

What I think you have really done here is something we have all done in the past, ranted against something that has annoyed you, your attempt to pass it off as reasoned debate is not persuasive.