The RACF has commissioned a report which it claims is vital to road safety policy and that is to account for the 'antagonism that can seriously jeopardise road safety'. The report focuses on the attitudes of cyclists and drivers toward each other. See Item here Isn't it easy how something so apparently benign and constructive can actually be part of an already established attitude and policy? So let's look a bit deeper into their proposal to understand what is really behind it.
The reader can be forgiven for associating the RACF with the RAC.
They are two separate organisations. The RACF is not a pro-motoring group and in fact supports the prosecution of perfectly safe drivers by virtue of totally unscientific and arbitrary speed limits. Added to which they are not road safety or driving experts either. We can therefore be forgiven for asking what exactly is their CV to be making any statements on a life and death issue anyway?
But aren't they being totally fair and un-biased between driver and cyclists in their reports? Not exactly no! In fact they are all to the advantage of the cyclist by talking as though there were a level playing field.
And thus how smoothly we are all lead to think of all road users as equal when in fact that is not the case at all. So let's look again at this:
What is cycling? Well to put it crudely, it is to put oneself into the path of rather heavy fast moving machinery and plant; usually operated by any Tom Dick and Harry. Would any sane and right minded person wish to do that?
But B.J. isn't the only politician who wants to show off his cycle clips credentials is he?
And then there is Councillor Jane (the cycle clips) Urqhart of Nottingham tram fam
e.
e.So where are all these people so wrong?
Why are politicians falling over themselves to show off their cycling credentials when to do it is so nuts, that to place oneself in so much danger, would be an offence under some elf'n safety rule if it were anything else wouldn't it?
The RACF has really commissioned an anti car anti driver report and that is because there is no level playing field. Cycling is done by a tiny minority RACF. Whereas everyone depends on the 30 million drivers of this country and the economy would collapse without them, no-one would miss cyclists at all.
The push bike is a political menace simply because any politician who rides one is in a minority and as I have demonstrated, has to be mad.
Cycling, used to pretend to all of us that it can be an alternative to the car, is not only a lie but a menace to the 30million drivers that need the politicians to support them.
So when the media start promoting this RACF anti car propaganda, they will in fact be promoting madness!
Right. I have a buckled wheel to repair.
To FRC. Instead of simply being impolite please do enlighten us about any of the foregoing which is not a fact. You may then see your comments published.
ReplyDeleteKP
"The push bike is a political menace simply because any politician who
ReplyDeleterides one is in a minority and as I have demonstrated, has to be mad."
Minorities are a menace? Cyclists have to be mad? There's some twisted leaps of logic there. You're clearly barking. I shall follow, and see what other lunacy you come up with.
Makes my campaign for everyone to put "prince philip movement" under "religion" at this year's census look sane
"And thus how smoothly we are all lead to think of all road users as equal when in fact that is not the case at all. "
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ. As a former member of Her Majesty's finest, surely you are adept at looking into the grey areas of an issue, rather than viewing it in black and white?
I drive and I cycle. Does this mean I am 'better' when I am driving?
"What is cycling? Well to put it crudely, it is to put oneself into the path of rather heavy fast moving machinery and plant; usually operated by any Tom Dick and Harry. Would any sane and right minded person wish to do that?"
It is also a clean, efficient means of getting from A to B. It is a way of travelling at a slower pace and enjoying the journey. It is a very good way of keeping fit, thus reducing health problems in life. If more people cycled journeys under five miles the roads would be clearer, leading to less congestion, less pollution and more room for vehicles that can't be replaced by a bike, such as heavy plant.
I put it to you that cyclists are on the same 'playing field' as drivers, but there is a cultural problem that needs tackling which both drivers and cyclists need to be a part of. You say yourself that heavy vehicles are "...usually operated by any Tom Dick and Harry" which implies a low standard of training and awareness. Surely they are actually the ones that need educating the most?
I think you've nicely labelled all car drivers as absolute saints and all cyclists as mentally ill people, well done.
ReplyDeleteHowever I would add that the same people on bikes tend to own cars ( I have 2 and a motorbike ), therefore uniquely placed to comment on both experiences, I suspect it's possible 40 years since you rode a bike.
Everyone will be able to cite many examples of cyclists doing this that and the other, likewise everyone encounters terrible driving everyday, however you and people like you only remember and see fit to comment on cyclists behaviour as a way selective prejudice to get your own outcome. THis is clearly quite silly and immature.
My observations as a multi vehicle owner are quite simple.
1. There are complete idiots in cars
2. There are complete idiots on bikes
3. There are complete idiots on motorbikes
The differences are that an idiot in a car hitting a cyclist ( idiot or not ) or a motorbike usually ends up causing severe injury to that person and usually escapes relatively uninjured.
Therefore a more sensible approach would be to eliminate idiots from the roads whatever mode of transport they use.
Reading the RACF report I believe the point they are trying to make is not one road user over another but merely that moral codes and beliefs are the issues and the problem is changing that for all road users not merely cars. Cars are implicated as the problem as I have mentioned due to them being 1 ton of steel etc and not flesh on 10kg of flimsy bicycle.
GT
Please don't miss the point. I am not opining but stating three facts in response to the cockamamie notion that the country can afford us all getting on bikes or out of cars. This is not pro bike or anti bike but just pro driver. I am answering two posts here:
ReplyDeleteYes I do still ride a bike and was on mine today as it happens.
The three main points that the RACF report does not take account of are:
1) Only a tiny minority ride bikes, most never will and even those that do will cease to at some early point. ( Although at 70 I am grateful to still be riding mine)
2) Whereas if the 30,000,000 drivers stopped doing it the economy would collapse over night. Retail parks are surrounded by car parks not bike racks.
3) Human flesh among large pieces of moving machinery operated by any Toms Dicks and Harry's, under any other circumstances would have to be madness.
Now those are three facts, not my opinion so don't insult me, I am only the messenger. ;-))
I'm a driver too. Evidence points to a simple correlation the more cyclists there are, the safer each cyclist is on any given journey because motorists get used to looking out.
ReplyDeleteSecond, THE major cause of conjestion is circulating traffic as it seeks a parking space, which cyclists don't compete for.
Cyclists aren't the motorist's enemy. Bad drivers are - because the same idiots who hit cyclists are the ones who rear end you.
As I say J, this is neither anti bike or anti car but it is pro car. Politicians should not use bikes for nonsense anti car politics and the RACF are not pro car & their article was not balanced. There is no level playing field. There are 30,000,000 drivers keeping the economy going so their point is? Sorry to ask but we are a driver group.
ReplyDeleteMost Divine Pimp. Please read the post. It is merely pro driver and no, cycling is not 'cleaner' since most of the bikes and their parts come from China the most polluting country in the world.
ReplyDeleteFact is we are still in a tiny minority, the economy wouldn't notice us pack in, and human flesh amongst moving heavy plant and machinery has to be nuts. Only ardent bikers would deny all that and that is an even tinier minority.
Things have moved on for the worse here in Nottingham. Any driver does not need a great deal of experience to see that the latest project by the so called Road Safety team at the City Council are stark raving lunatics who will stop at nothing to do good for the cyclist or lets say potential cyclist which is nearer reality. See K Morgan chief cyclist planner (you tube)
ReplyDeletewhere he has £6 Mil to spend and roll out a system at road junctions that give cyclists priority because he quotes--- "cyclists travelling along the ring road "do not like stopping at junctions and find that a nuisance". So he has put double white lines for drivers to give way to cyclists although the cyclists cannot be seen by Motor cyclists or car and HG drivers. This is giving priority to any cyclist and yes the ones who will not hold onto the bars with either hand and also those who in any case will not use due care at any junction. Who are these people that dare to incorporate the word safety in their title when they do not know the meaning of the word.
I can state here and now that I have proof in black and white that the head of the Traffic Department Nottingham does not have a record of safety experience back in 1989 unless of course she has learnt better since. The local councilor is on the case but doubts these stupidly designed junctions will reconstituted to what they were. If there is an offence it is that the Council in their stupidity insight a danger to cyclists by giving them a false sense of security re bomb across these junctions & if you break your neck on a car bonnet you can claim from the driver he or she should have given way to you !