The cyclist may just be the best example yet of that self-righteous arrogance that has spoiled Britain over the past 20 years.

I tended to believe that the militant anti-smoker represented all that was worst about this country.

And be clear here, I mean the irritating, supercilious ANTI-smoker as opposed to the far less dangerous NON-smoker, who accepts that people have different ways to live their lives and that compromise is one of the best attributes a person can possess.

That holier-than-thou mentality runs so deep in these people that I have discovered over the years that the ANTI-smoker normally has a string of other unreasonable intolerances that mean he, or she, is not a person with whom I will choose to spend my free time.

They represent the worst of PC Britain and those people like fundamental Christians (well fundamental anyone really) who simply believe they are right because it’s too difficult to reconsider or admit you’re wrong (anyone who took huge, spiteful delight in the law against smoking in public places).

But the militant bicyclist has come up on the outside and is now proving to be the most dangerous green Nazi in existence.

We have spent millions of pounds in local taxes and Lotto grants to build them a network of cycle paths across our fair isle.

But that’s not good enough. Now Cycling England – an agency we fund thought the Transport Department – wants the civil law to be changed so drivers are automatically liable in the event of crash. No matter who is at fault.**

Our foreign chums in Germany, Holland and Denmark already have similar laws.

So the Lycra Louts – who ride like they own the road, ignoring traffic lights and using the pavement when it suits them, especially in big cities – will have even less reason to be careful.

They’ll be secure in the knowledge that when they do smash head-on into a truck as they go the wrong way down a one-way street (which is another change to law being considered), while they are recovering in hospital, at my expense, they will also know that compensation will be on its way from Mr Truck driver who is automatically to blame.

Surely this is madness.

Cyclists are at best a bunch of well-meaning folk who think that a mode of transport invented in 19th Century has a place on our busy 21st Century roads.

Incorrect for so many reasons.

At worst they are hoodlums who disregard the Highway Code believing they have the moral high ground because they are not polluting our planet.

Witness the ridiculous anger they have shown over London Mayor Boris Johnson’s sensible plan to open bus lanes to commuters on scooters and motorcycles. Absolute common sense and yet they have protested with a vehemence  that hasn’t been seen since the last anti-foxhunt protest outside Parliament.

When cyclists start paying road tax and have to pay insurance, then they deserve a voice, until then, ignore them and tell them to use the cycle lanes we have built for them.

**rjk74@ntlworld.com has asked us to point out specifically that drivers would not be automatically liable. In fact he says the Department for Transport funded Cycling England is actually seeking "The proposed change is to a position of 'presumed liability' ie the driver will not be automatically held to be liable, they will be presumed to be liable but will have full opportunity to prove liability against another party."

I hope that makes the situation clearer. In fact we now understand there is very little chance of such a law ever being passed. But it's good to know our money is being well spent at Cycling England, considering these options.


Note added September 25, 2pm: Following the comments below, mostly from organised cycle group members it seems.

I think you are all a bit worried that people might start demanding bicycle riders are all properly insured and registered? Don't worry, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until  this Government gets around to you.

Just for information, I am a motorcyclist of 30 years and certainly don't need lectures on the inadequacies of many car drivers. I have written several times about better training and re-testing for drivers rather than lower speed limits and safer cars.

But I have also witnessed first-hand the behaviour of militant cyclists in London since Mayor Boris opened bus lanes to motorcycles (an election campaign promise remember) which demonstrates all that is worst about pushbike riders.

Cycle protest groups are well organised, but have little to complain about, so in London they are looking to end the sensible additional use of bus lanes by motorcyclists before it has had a chance to work.
The implications for city centre congestion across the country are enormous. Take a look at Europe and you will see motorcyles using cycleways.

Personal insults among the comments demonstrate anger but no clear objection but for your information I used to be a cyclist, then I grew up and had the chance to obtain a driving licence.

I would cycle the four miles to my office but without a shower at the other end, I wouldn't wish to spend a day at work.

Yes, yes, I know most of you don't mind the smell of good honest toil, it fits with your green credentials after you gave up using aerosol deodorant as part of your campaign to save the planet.

But that's just one of the reasons normal folk don't come near you... and you thought it was just because they weren't interested in talking about tyre pressures and Derailleurs.

What's this blog REALLY about Gary? Got some issues you'd like to tell us about?

That particular rule seems to work OK in Holland - and the lycra louts will be responsbile by default if they hit a pedestrian. That may make them re-consider.

The cycle lanes you refer to might be better than nothing, but sometimes not.  They're frequently poorly thought out and if motorists had any sense, they'd question where their road tax goes - it mostly isn't on road.

Finally, some cycling organisations include 3rd party insurance cover as a membership benefit. 

I'm torn here, on one hand I do ride pushbikes, as do my boys, and I tell them to cycle on the path, it's safer, yes there are moron cyclists who insist on riding in the most inappropriate fashion in busy areas, but then there are idiot car drivers who think they have the god given right to be in the space you already occupy, I was nearly knocked off my bike by one of these idiots when I was carrying my son in a child seat, no thought was given, so how is that right? There was no cycle path to use, does it mean I have less rights because I don't pay road tax?
Road tax is not a right to drive like an idiot.

The bit about smoking, well like the other chap said, have you got issues?, I detest smoking, but don't want to see an outright bad as such, I reserve the right to exist without breathing some elses cigarette smoke, which causes me harm, even more so being an asthmatic, those idiots who say don't got to places where there is smoke miss the point, you wouldn't say to a bloke in a wheel chair don't go in there mate there are stairs would you?

If anything the right to air your views as you have are a symptom of the liberal pc society we live in, not things like smoking bans.

Get over yourself, people with views such as yours, make people like you the ones I would not choose to mix with, people like you often think your opinion is the only valid one, when normally you might be talking rubbish but are too narrow minded to see it.

All the best,
Simon

First of all Gary, while you are welcome to your views, as far as I am concerned they represent all that is wrong with the gutter journalism in this country. As a cyclist with 35 years' experience of riding and obeying the rules of the road, allow me to correct you a a number of points. Regarding the proposed change in liability law, in other, arguably more civilised European countries where it has been introduced, it has had a beneficial effect - both in terms of making the roads safer for the most vulnerable groups (cyclists and pedestrians) and in terms of encouraging more people out of their cars, as well as making drivers take more care. Accident rates have fallen as have levels of obesity (witness the 'school run' in Holland - not a car in sight). Furthermore, to clarify the proposal, as the law stands the onus is on the more vulnerable group to prove they were not at fault - this despite most accidents involving cars and cyclists/pedestrians being the driver's fault (around 75-80%). All this does is shift the onus to the person operating a potentially lethal piece of machinery. Remember cars can kill - cyclists and pedestrians don't. Now as for your 'road tax' baloney, remember this is now vehicle emissions duty so is based on the emissions produced - why should a cyclist pay when they don't pollute? The roads are themselves paid for out of general taxation anyway - and we all contribute to that. Finally, remember most cyclists are also drivers, so will be paying tax/insurance - although lest we not forget there are two million people driving around this country without. Something which should be of much more concern, given this group's disproportionate involvement in hit and runs etc. Still far easier for you to have a go at cyclists isn't it?

Your comments regarding cyclists are in my experience quite true, many times have I seen cyclists riding through red lights or the wrong way down a one way street and even on pavements - terrorising pedestrians.

I do think they justify it to themselves in some way and so perhaps by getting them to contribute financially to the upkeep of roads etc they might take the laws that car drivers and motorcyclists abide by, seriously.

I'm not anti cyclists by the way and I'm not anti smokers - they should be able to enjoy what they do in the same way that drinkers can.

 

 

Gary - if you're writing this nonsense in the vain hope of landing a shockjock job at your local radio station, think again. Cyclists are this weeks Muslims, or single mums, gays, lesbians or Jews, or whoever people like you, the 'Angry Tendency', take exception to.

Your readers will know that three people a week - pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, passengers - die at the hands of uninsured drivers. Now if you care about road safety you might want to consider that, and you might want to vent your spleen in the direction of the man who buys a car for fifty quid, and doesn't bother to maintain it, MOT it or  insure it, knowing full well that it's cheaper to see it crushed, and pay the £200 fine

Have a nice day, or, if it's not happening for you, have a lie down.....

I cycle regularly as it is the easiest way for to get around town. Little did I realise that my use of a mode of transport would make me any type of  "Nazi".

If the author could get past his rather obsessive loathing, which must be going nothing good for his blood pressure, and actually investigated the recommendation in the report he is citing, he would find that the proposed change would only place onus on the motorist in civil law (not criminal). Thus where the cyclist is at fault, the cyclist would found at fault. This really isn't too difficult to understand, and I doubt it would suddenly make me reckless - the pain of a crash with a car somewhat outweighs civil legal considerations.

I would urge Mr Wright to try cycling from time to time. It can be quite theraputic, and might even help in the anger management issues from which  he appears to be suffering. Although, unfortunately, I doubt cycling could help the quality of his journalism.

Gary: bless. Let's look past the hyperbole, bias and vitriol in your ill-considered piece and instead deal with the inaccuracies:

"So the Lycra Louts – who ride like they own the road, ignoring traffic lights and using the pavement when it suits them, especially in big cities – will have even less reason to be careful." - those infractions by cyclists result in as many incidents involving pedestrians, for which a cyclist will automatically be at fault, as they do collisions with motor vehicles. So what's your basis for saying the laws will make cyclists less careful. Also, riding "like you own the road", by which I assume you mean taking up a lane, is the single one thing that a cyclist can do to decrease the risk of an accident. That's the safe way to ride, and you want cyclists to ride safely, right?

"while they are recovering in hospital, at my expense" - you're paying a good deal more to those hospitals to treat obese people and car crash victims. Cycling has been shown through various studies to have a net benefit as regards healthcare: the more people cycle, the less you pay.

"Cyclists are at best a bunch of well-meaning folk who think that a mode of transport invented in 19th Century has a place on our busy 21st Century roads." - That's exactly what we think, and we have the force of the law behind us. Until the law changes, your attitude needs to, not ours. You might think bikes don't belong on the road, but that doesn't really matter. They do. Read the same Highway Code you're imploring us to.

"When cyclists start paying road tax" - cyclists don't pay road tax, and neither do you: it was abolished in the 1930s, ironically because the government at the time decided they didn't want motorists to feel like they 'owned the road'. You pay vehicle excise duty, which is a general tax not ringfenced for transport. We all pay for the roads, but bikes don't break them: perhaps we should get a refund? Anyway, nearly all cyclists have a car too, so your invalid argument is also moot.

This article may just be the best example yet of that self-righteous arrogance that has spoiled Britain over the past 20 years.

Oh and there's no such thing as Road Tax, it's called VED.  Perhaps you should do your research flaunting your ignorance quite so publicly.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_excise_duty#History

Quote "self-righteous arrogance"

Are you talking about yourself.

Short sighted, blinkered article that is a perfect example of all the author says is wrong with modern life!

Even Edd Burns would think this was ironic!

This is a marvellous piece of journalism at its worst - a prejudiced rant with no understanding of the the relevant facts.

The comment by Helen completely eviscerated all of his arguments and restored my faith in humanity at the same time. Thanks Helen.

*sigh* Gary, Gary, Gary.... please get your facts straight before you start casting aspersions about cyclists. The proposal is not the presumption that motorists are at fault when in collision with a cyclist, just that they are suspected to be the ones at fault. It still needs to be proven either way. (although it is unfair to allocate any blame up front)... and yes, a minority of cyclists will ignore some of the rules of the road. Exactly the same way as a minority or motorists ignore speed limits. When all you motorists are perfect little angels, feel free to pick on other peoples short-comings... now, please stop trying to emulate the legend that is Jeremy Clarkson and stop venting your anger at the nearest easy target. God bless you.

Lulllllllllllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.