RHA magazine on cyclists

Can't believe they printed this: http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=other&pnum=9&refresh=7Wr0R15qbK19&EID=160784ef-bdab-4398-8b38-8bd2e8a786b4&skip=true&p=9

Read the section 'On Your Bike' on the mid right page. I always thought the RHA wanted to help prevent these deaths but then they go and print this type of shit.

Let's 'Share the road'!

Chief.

Is it appropriate to challenge him about his views?

Road Haulage Association – phone us first
For more details, contact RHA Scotland & N Ireland Director, Phil Flanders on . . .
Tel: +44 (0) 131 472 4180
Mob: + 44 (0) 7801 500713
https://www.facebook.com/phil.flanders
p.flanders@rha.uk.net
How can a man with such arcane views rise to a level of influence?

jesus. there really is fuck all hope.

Is it appropriate to challenge him about his views?

Road Haulage Association – phone us first
For more details, contact RHA Scotland & N Ireland Director, Phil Flanders on . . .
Tel: +44 (0) 131 472 4180
Mob: + 44 (0) 7801 500713
https://www.facebook.com/phil.flanders
p.flanders@rha.uk.net
How can a man with such arcane views rise to a level of influence?

he goes on in the very next para to try to debunk the idea of global warming. I'm not sure your voice will reach such giddy intellectual heights as this man is clearly operating from.

The bit about all other vehicle having to be fitted with indicators or other device, simply isn't true. Lots of classic and off road motorcycles don't have them and they are legally M.O.T.ed and insured to use public roads for example.

fuck him.

the most disgusting article i've ever seen on the topic. wafc.

He seems lovely. Whaddaguy!

I think he ticked every box, and in about 300 words

I like the "due care and attention" bit. SMIDSY = criminal offence? Although I struggle with evidence of dangerous driving being a rip off.

he goes on in the very next para to try to debunk the idea of global warming.

He goes on a couple of pages later to deny the holocaust.

Not really

In the mans defence he knows his audience.

i don't know about you, but that's the LAST time i buy the RHA magazine. consider my subscription CANCELLED, Sir.

/appalled, Tonbridge Wells

Good grief. Whatever this guy might personally feel about cyclists, surely in his professional capacity he could refrain from fanning the flames. His use of the word 'bleat' is particularly spiteful and inappropriate I think, bearing in mind that there's a death toll...

Don't get too upset about this stuff. It's generally good to bring views like this out into the open so that you can actually discuss them, although of course it's bad if people then don't actually want to discuss them.

Views like this are held widely throughout the population, in line with common immoral prejudices like 'might makes right', but also because there's been a pretty successful campaign for decades to make people feel that, if they cycle, they put themselves in harm's way and would precipitate their own death or injury, and that they should therefore stop, or that at least all sorts of obstacles should be placed in people's way so that they stop cycling. This has led to the sort of twisted 'caring' but patronising attitude you get in the article. 'Don't make me hurt you because of your own selfishness of setting yourself up as a future victim of abuse', or something like that.

People like him are victims of the prevailing conditions; forming this sort of opinion on the basis of very little knowledge and essentially under enormous stress of responsibility (people deny or try to push away responsibility onto others if they can't deal with it). It's a particular specialism of this country, although of course to some degree you find similar attitudes elsewhere. (A friend of mine was once hit by a driver who came out of a side street. He claimed in his defence that in his country the smaller vehicle had to give way to the larger vehicle.)

Anyway, you have to address his claims head-on instead of just trying to deny them and deal with the fact that such attitudes are widely held. People are generally open to persuasion, unless there's a serious underlying personal problem, but if you open the discussion by insulting them, you'll get nowhere. (You'll also find that a lot of lorry drivers, obviously, don't hold these views at all.)

which page is it on?

It's in the 'article' (series of thoughts) that the link opens on. Page 9.

I'm surprised that everyone is surprised at this.
A pro-cycling culture is a hard nut to crack, and there are muppets like this chap who don't even think we have a place on the road.
mega faceplam

You'll also find that a lot of lorry drivers, obviously, don't hold these views at all.)

You will probably find a few more that do hold this view now, readers of the mag, therefore drivers and operators, and that is deeply irresponsible.
He completely misses the point that he must take responsibility for the health of other people affected by his members and their business.
Nobody suggested insulting him, but I do agree it needs to be challenged, in that magazine if nowhere else.

That is really upsetting.

Nobody suggested insulting him, but I do agree it needs to be challenged, in that magazine if nowhere else.

I was referring to people insulting him on this thread.

I just couldn't help myself. Sorry, Oliver.

I wasn't even referring to you, but to other, earlier posts. You don't have to apologise to me, either. :)

We could have all the bells and mirrors and indicators and cycling tests in the world, won't stop his readers crushing cyclists. I'm sure he has strong, if curiously inconsistent, views on increased safety measures for trucks, too.