We need to look at motorists
I AM forced to write in response to the recent outrage surrounding pavement cyclists.
The way these stories over the last month have repeatedly been reported lack any genuine perspective and simply keep asking the wrong questions.
It should not be how do we get cyclists off of our pavements but why it is that cyclists have to go on pavements in the first place?
Is it because on British roads there has been a notable increase in death and serious injuries amongst cyclists (an 8% year on year increase to be exact- see Department of Transport official statistics) or is that we have incidents that see motorists torment and attack cyclists on a daily basis?
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
For example, in Bristol alone, just in the past year, The Post has reported on two separate incidents that have seen a bus driver purposely using his vehicle as a weapon against a cyclist and a moped rider shouting abuse at a cyclist and then attempting to ram into them.
From my own personal experiences as a cyclist, I, on average, receive abuse ranging from motorists speeding up behind me, beeping at me, shouting at me and making comments about my cycling that makes me feel that I am a nuisance on the road.
This abuse is particularly worse if you are a young woman as sexist comments are often a part of these daily experiences.
Ultimately, this can make the roads feel very dangerous and risky for the everyday cyclist making the pavement a very tempting alternative.
In order to see any real change we need to stop blaming the cyclist and finally look towards the motorist. This would see a change in attitudes towards the cyclist and lead to motorists being more respectful towards them.
As part of these changing attitudes perhaps The Post would think more carefully about writing articles that further perpetuate negative attitudes towards the cyclist in an already hostile environment.
Negative attitudes surrounding an issue that Mayoral candidate, Jon Rogers, claimed actually only reflected 5% of the cyclist community in Bristol (as reported by The Post).
Yet, this still makes front page news demonstrating, in my opinion, quite clearly the prejudices that surround the cyclist.
Ultimately if cycling on pavements is a safety issue then surely this is again why we must look towards the motorist.
On average a car accident will happen everyday and the amount of damage and destruction cars have caused and will continue to cause will always outweigh anything a bike could ever do.So why is there not more outrage over this? Is it because it is a part of our everyday experience that it simply just goes unquestioned? Probably.
So really what I'm asking for is some perspective over the real problems that surround this issue.
This means moving away from campaigners taking pictures of the 'culprits' on pavements and starting a more sustainable campaign that would see fewer cars on the road and more people cycling. Surely this would lead to less car accidents, safer and quieter roads and more positive attitudes towards the cyclist that would ultimately keep cyclists on the road. This would quiet all those outraged people and provide a deeper understanding over why cyclists are tempted to use the pavement now and again.
Natalie Bennett
Bristol
Comments
by A_Mushroom
Thursday, September 06 2012, 2:02PM
“As much as I think that The Post's editiorial bias against cyclists is just plain wrong, I think it is unfair to blame them for reinforcing an anti-cyclist culture.
Let's face it, reports of road rage, accidents and prosecution of road users sells newspapers. If it were all harmony, safety and respect on the roads then there would be no public interest.
The real problem lies with a wider intolerant road user culture in this country. There is a significant number of bus drivers, lorry drivers, van drivers (particularly), car drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and even pedestrians who can't accept that the road is shared. Some take the view that the bigger their vehicle or the more they pay for a vehicle licence, or the greater the hurry they are in, the more right they have to use the road. The truth is that we all have same right.
I take up no more of the road than the next man. My CAR may take up more space on then planet than his BIKE and can travel at a higher top speed, but I accept that my lump of metal, glass and plastic carries no rights, legal or otherwise, that allows me to threaten others.
This culture of road user intolerance won't be stopped by The Post or by cyclists staying off the pavements. It runs deeper than that.”
by mark1864
Thursday, September 06 2012, 1:28PM
“Thankyou Natalie for a nicely balanced letter about this issue. It astonishes me how much prejudice there is on the road. I have noted that it seems to be for the following reasons:
1. Motorists mistakenly think that they exclusively pay for the roads via 'road tax' which was actually abolished in 1937:http://tinyurl.com/6gq5m88 Therefore, they like to moan about what they see as 'freeloading' cyclists. Bicycles are actually zero rated for Vehicle Excise Duty, since it is based on emissions (so are electric cars and oddly,the royal family)
2. The roads are so congested by motor vehicles (ever been stuck in a bicycle jam?),so frustrated motorists see cyclists as soft targets and often blame us for delays which, are actually caused by the sheer density of cars and everyone's desire to drive.
3. Poorly designed cycling facilities. Infrastructure seems to be designed with the car first and pedestrians and cyclists last.
4. Poor privatised public transport wjhich can be expensive over short distances. Why not have a congestion charge and use it to subsidise cheaper buses etc?.
5. In Bristol, the local media :), is 'hostile' to the cycling city project (these words are from an official report, not mine. The late Venue magazine - owned by guess who? - then published a satirical article suggesting that the Post was responsible for the 'failure' of the project).
It certainly doesn't help when the local tabloid decides to demonise cyclists while ignoring the law-breaking of motorists. This in turn, give some 'clout' to the anti-cycling brigade who frequent these pages and the public perception of cyclists in general. Incidentally, the Post is owned by the same media group as the Daily Mail, who would seem to dislike cyclists also:
http://tinyurl.com/d6yu2pc”