In the news

I agree with TheorySwine. To elaborate:

FFS, how can this tripe actually be in a 'legitimate' paper? It's ridiculous that this kind of article could somehow fall under the banner of journalism.

I find this article a lot more measured than the rather poor piece by Sebastian Shakespeare in the Evening Standard. The journalist has at least done a bit of research and tells an interesting story, which is something to build on. The nature of his mistakes is instructive:

Not long afterwards, I received a reply from the police which, among other things, said: ‘I have considered the circumstances of your collision and I have concluded that no further police involvement is required, as the details you have given to the police at this time do not amount to a reportable collision under the Road Traffic Act.’

I realised then that cyclists are effectively immune from legal action. And that is why I support the Private Members’ Bill by Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom to introduce a new traffic offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. A teenager in Mrs Leadsom’s constituency died after being hit by a cyclist.

Of course, he, probably genuinely, fails to appreciate that this sort of letter is a very common thing to happen following collisions. The circumstances here may be particular (related to whether or not there is a cycling ban on Manchester's Moseley Street) and different from the usual 'lack of evidence', but dozens of other crash victims, regardless of mode, receive such letters.

He then repeats the usual prejudice that 'few cyclists are insured', but he is certainly right to make this observation:

Since my accident, I walk the streets of Manchester observing cyclists routinely going through red lights, ignoring pedestrians crossing at the green man and riding at great speed along pavements. I am amazed at the number of near-collisions with those unfortunate enough to be travelling the streets on foot.

He fails to put them in their wider context, or to relate them to the general lack of compliance with road traffic legislation by road users irrespective of mode, but it is simply a fact that these events occur, largely because this country has a very immature cycling culture in which people get giddy with the freedom that cycling offers them, and they don't see that they will still get a wonderful deal from that freedom if they voluntarily stop at red lights, etc., in the process helping to defeat the prejudice that cycling is a lawless activity that only deviants or poor people take up. It's too convenient an excuse to leave it to all those people who are missing out on the enjoyment that cycling offers.

Finally, this strikes me as a perfectly measured conclusion:

[quoteHamish McGregor in the Daily Mail]Nobody is calling for a punitive crackdown on cyclists. We want the roads not to be a battleground, but to be safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike. Surely the law should be equitable, whether the victim is a cyclist killed by a lorry or a pedestrian killed by a bike.

Thankfully, deaths like the one that prompted Mrs Leadsom to introduce her Bill are rare, but that does not mean cyclists should be effectively immune from the law. Or that victims of reckless cyclists are denied justice.

I wish Mrs Leadsom the best of luck. I suspect she’ll need it – after all, didn’t I see a picture of David Cameron riding his bike through a red light not so long ago?[/quote]

You may disagree with the particular emphasis placed on cyclist involvement (I do, for the reasons given above and a lot of others), especially in view of the many victims we see week in, week out, who tend to end up more seriously injured than Mr McGregor, or indeed may be killed, but he didn't make that emphasis--it comes with the news context. And as far as this genre of article goes, it's a perfectly decent point of view. It's not excessively emotional, it's not shrill, it contains informative research, and certainly forms a decent basis for debate. You could engage with him over it and expect that he wouldn't mind discussing some of his points, or challenging his conclusion of support for the Leadsom Bill.

If anyone were to reform road traffic legislation, which is certainly very much needed, then they should obviously take a wider approach than the Leadsom Bill, but, in summary, this article expresses well what some people feel about this issue. This isn't particularly threatening. There used to be so little cycling in this country that cyclists were used to being under the radar. As the number of people cycling grows, that is changing, and such discussions are inevitable. It's growing pains, but not completely uncomfortable ones. Anything that can aim towards giving cycling status has to be welcome. I'm actually quite positively surprised by this article.