Cyclists!

Not a particularly new topic for discussion here. Many have written on the subject; probably with more intelligence and more humour that I will but here's my opinion anyway. To start with, let me say that I believe (for the sake of my faith in humanity as much as anything else) that it is a minority of cyclists giving the rest a bad name. Their antics such as ignoring red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling in the middle of the road or two or three abreast, cycling up the inside of larger vehicles and ignoring one-way signs range from infuriating to dangerous to themselves and those around them.

Recently, I was crossing a pelican crossing with the green man showing when a cyclist ran into me at full tilt. To compound matters, he then gave me an ear-full of verbal abuse for having the temerity to block his passage. Now in this case, he ran into a big, ugly Scotsman. As a result he went flying off his bike at whatever speed he was doing and got grated along the road for a few feet; I got a bruise on my leg and a couple of scratches on my hand. It's safe to say he came off worse (karma perhaps?). However, if he ran into my mother who is a lot smaller than me, I'm willing to be she would be the loser in that encounter but would escape with minor to moderate injuries. If he ran into someone more frail than either of us, the results could easily be fatal. If a car had been involved, there would almost certainly have been criminal action. As a cyclist was involved, he got up and cycled away.

What shocks me is the type of people that commit this behaviour. I have friends that will freely admit to running red lights when they would otherwise class themselves as having unimpeachable integrity; they wouldn't dream of lighting up in an indoor space and tell shopkeepers if they have been given too much change. I have lost a lot of respect for them. Some of the justifications given for breaking the law defy belief (again from supposedly intelligent individuals). Examples are, "It takes ages to build up momentum on a bike." Surely that is a known consequence of their chosen form of transport? To my mind, that logic is as flawed as those that refuse to pay for petrol because it's quite pricey (or demanding that employers shouldn't expect cyclists to work as many hours because their commute takes longer than it otherwise would). Such things should be taken into consideration when making a choice as to which form of transport to use.

In my mind, there is a fairly straightforward answer. Introduce mandatory identification of bicycles with associated competency testing and mandatory insurance: essentially number plates and cycling proficiency tests. To start with, the licencing of motor vehicles means we already have the infrastructure to produce number plates and monitor ownership. Doing this would hopefully end the effective immunity cyclists have from the law at the moment by allowing offenders to be instantly and easily identified. This in turn should allow police officers to enforce the laws regarding cycling and citizens to report any abuses they see with a fair hope of identifying the culprit. Punitive measures aside, hopefully it would cause the cyclists breaking the law to realise their actions have consequences.

As well as promoting legal use of the roads and allowing the smoother flow of traffic (less sudden breaking because a cyclist has just flown up on the inside) these measures would reduce the number of accidents both caused by the careless cycling and caused by emergency vehicles racing to get to the scene of said accidents (rare but they do happen despite the excellent training given by ambulance services). Would this in turn not have a positive effect on the country as a whole: fewer people grieving the loss of a loved-one, fewer days work lost to the economy due to injuries, NHS savings from not having to piece an unfortunate cyclist back together, savings by the state as fewer people need long term care due to disabilities caused by cycling injuries. These are a few advantages that I see. There are probably many more, some obvious, some less so. The conclusion remains the same. Regulation of cycling seems the only sensible option in this day and age. It would increase the number of people cycling sensibly with a raft of other benefits.

Hopefully someone will see this and either be in a position to make it happen or provide an explanation of why it wouldn't work (and saying it could result in fewer people cycling is not a reason. If that means fewer morons endangering themselves and others then that is a worthwhile end in its self).

JR