Gobsmacked

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...671578,00.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/cyclin...ties-ncn13.htm

[2] See the excellent Warrington Cycle Campaign website at
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co....-of-the-month/
Also look at
http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cyc...rcilities.html
http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cyclin...anes-index.htm and there's
loads more on the Net

[3] http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cyclin...s-sustrans.htm
gives one example. "

"wafflycat" wrote in message
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...671578,00.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."



Waffly bit snipped out


But I have already taken a test - it was my Cycling Proficiency Test some
time ago when I was approximately 10. I could probably find the
susstificate (or was it a badge?) if I looked hard enough.

John

Your obviously heartfelt letter is far too long for them to consider
publication. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Very best of luck though,

John


"wafflycat" wrote in message
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...671578,00.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/cyclin...ties-ncn13.htm

[2] See the excellent Warrington Cycle Campaign website at
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co....-of-the-month/
Also look at
http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cyc...rcilities.html
http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cyclin...anes-index.htm and there's
loads more on the Net

[3] http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cyclin...s-sustrans.htm
gives one example. "

wafflycat came up with the following;:

He wants to take away our right to use the road. I am gobsmacked.

I have sent a response to Matt Seaton: -

snipped a bit

What an excellent reply, nice one.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
ebay 8023391484

wafflycat wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...671578,00.html

He wants to take away our right to use the road. I am gobsmacked.

Put him in your "killfile", he /must/ be a troll.

--
Matt B

"Charlie" wrote in message
...
Your obviously heartfelt letter is far too long for them to consider
publication. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Very best of luck though,

John


It wasn't for publication. It wasn't to the letters' page, it was direct to
the author of the article.

Cheers, helen s

Matt B wrote:
wafflycat wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...671578,00.html

He wants to take away our right to use the road. I am gobsmacked.

Put him in your "killfile", he /must/ be a troll.

All newspaper columnists are trolls. It is part of the job to incite
and provoke.

...d

John Wilton wrote:



But I have already taken a test - it was my Cycling Proficiency Test some
time ago when I was approximately 10. I could probably find the
susstificate (or was it a badge?) if I looked hard enough.

John

I have both my certificate and my badge. As a 10,000 mile a year
cyclist, I choose not to use some facilities yet do use others if they
suit me. Just like roads. Not fair to say I don't want cycling
facilities. It's not worth getting het up about a test for cyclists, it
would take far too much organisation to set up and police, it'll never
happen. Even if it did, like the cat says it wouldn't make every rider
a courteous one and it wouldn't make every driver a courteous one
either, nothing would change, the authorities know this too.

In article .com,
David Martin ) wrote:

All newspaper columnists are trolls. It is part of the job to incite
and provoke.

One would hope, though, that as the author of "The Escape Artist" - one
of the better cycling books of recent years, Mr. Seaton would Know
Better.

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
Me, I wanna be an anglepoise lamp, yeah!

Charlie wrote:
Your obviously heartfelt letter is far too long for them to consider
publication. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Very best of luck though,

John


As Blaise Pascal said roughly translated "I have made this letter longer
than usual, because I lack the time to make it short"

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham