The Australian ran an anti-cyclist editorial this morning. We’ve freshened it up by replacing “cyclists” with “cars” (and a few other tweaks).
The menace of Chris Mitchell
The arrogant sense of entitlement in our inner cities is also evident in the ever-growing number of cars … clogging up lanes on our congested roadways.
The problem of cars reached their apogee in Melbourne this week when a cyclist was “doored” on busy Collins Street, after a passenger opened a taxi door and a rider crashed into it. Neither the taxi nor the cyclist could be deemed at fault …
For too long, authorities have bowed to the demands of selfish cars and their lobby groups. Truth is, our cities are dominated by cars because they are sprawling. We have no equivalent of a giant car park for 23 million people and should stop pretending we do.
People should be encouraged to cycle in our cities. Cycling reduces congestion, pollution and noise, is good for people’s health, and means less of our precious city space is turned over to car parks.
Our cities have been largely designed for cars, and that’s creating problems and conflicts as more people ride. Yes, many cyclists do the wrong thing at times, but that’s in part because the system doesn’t work for them. We need to overhaul our roads to encourage cycling and make it safer. This will take time and money and will cause frustration for motorists. And when the roads are altered to give them a fairer go, cyclists must stop cutting corners.
Common sense dictates that we can’t keep running a road system that incentivises millions of people to drive solo in 1.6 tonnes of metal, fired by fossil fuels, as they go about their daily business.
So we’re inviting Chris Mitchell to take a ride with us, to experience the joys and tribulations of cycling first-hand. We’ll even lend him a bike.
You can’t even use the dead tree version of the Australian for toilet paper because the shit’s already on it.
The other side of the story is the poor pedestrians terrified by lycra clad aggressive bike riders who pedal as fast as they can along footpaths where they have no legal right to be – or try to make our parks unpleasant by speeding along shared pathways. Question them and the response is sheer aggro. In cities that really use bikes, like Amsterdam, they do not ride racing bikes and they move about at a civilised pace, and show appropriate dress sense. Interestingly, none of them wear helmets…
Cyclists are damned whatever they do, Hector Christopher. Shared paths are a flawed solution where they are the main commuting route for cyclists trying to get to work on time whilst local take the dog (off-the-leash) for a walk along the same path or women’s walking networks conduct a talk-fest right across the path and don’t hear the bell, or anything until you yell at them from right behind. All groups can be at fault – the time-trial and thoughtless cyclists, the dog walkers and the pedestrians who don’t leave room for anyone to get past.
The solution is abiding by the rules of traffic – keeping left, overtaking when clear and above all having good manners. What would be even better is having dedicated bike lanes on or off the road. But even where they exist in some parts of Melbourne, you will find the joggers and dog walkers on the dedicated off-road bike path rather than on the walkers’ path.
Once again,
NOT everyone CAN use a bicycle, and fewer by the year in terms of % of population.
When cyclists pay a registration fee and the dross who give them a bad name can thus be identified, THEN one might be able to say ‘our’ roads.
Meanwhile… could we perhaps have bicycles (and mobility ‘craft’) allowed to travel on one of the two ‘footpaths’ on each road… Car users look out for motorcyclists on the roads, and Bicycle riders look out for pedestrians on footpaths… problem solved!
JMNO #2… yep… with you on good manners helps… but cyclists insist thy need dedicated lanes on roads whilst resisting registration and thereby regulation…
If one footpath on each road were for the use of cyclists and mobility scooters… done, little expense, all happy.
Cyclists would need to look out for thoughtless pedestrians and geese who think their dogs should be allowed anywhere (whom I don’t excuse and whom are a danger for motorists as well… ).
Motorists would have to watch for motorcyclists, pedestrians, everyone crossing everywhere as they do now… solved!