Saturday, 26 January 2013
The following letter was for internal consumption in answer to Lincolnshire Echo's stance on cycling. However they published it.
Re the Boris Bikes & the Echo comment.
For some time I have been aware that politicians, some with an anti driver ideology, others desperate to mitigate the economic mess we are in, have been encouraging cycling as if it can replicate 300,000,000,000 driver miles a year, in the minimum time and the transportation of large loads or or numerous people. Of course it is utter nonsense. It is also nonsense to promote cycling, not necessary for the survival of the community, as if on an equal basis and at the expense of 35 million drivers without whom , including private, the economy would collapse over-night and all of us would die very rapidly from lack of basics; including food, water, heat & medicine. Quite simply, drivers & walkers are entirely necessary for the survival of all and other road users simply aren’t. Think about that.
So in view of this I have been asking a simple question. Would we normally or under any other circumstances tolerate unprotected humans mixing, mingling and often competing with large pieces of heavy fast machines operated by people of various, mostly poor ability, unless it was extremely crucial that they should? It’s a fair question. Now please look at http://bit.ly/VNby9D & http://bit.ly/KEfqjh clearly cycling on roads is very dangerous. It is only healthy if not killed or turned into a paraplegic as people often are.
In promoting cycling, Is the Echo going to take responsibility for the next Lincolnshire cycle fatality? I certainly believe the politicians who have been exploiting cyclists for their own agenda should feel guilty when one dies or is seriously injured; don’t you?
Don’t let’s look at danger through rose coloured spectacles. We need to re-think what roads are for; it’s no longer 1920.
Saturday, 19 January 2013
May I take issue with the adverse comments in response to the sentencing of a taxi driver after an horrific accident. (19/1)
Whilst I have every sympathy for the bereaved relatives, bereavement's no qualification of road safety and sentencing. On the contrary road safety and sentencing cannot be based on raw emotion at all. As for BRAKE, apart from their declared green environmental policy against motor transport, what exactly is their qualification in road safety and sentencing? In their predictable and shrill demands for tougher sentencing of drivers, they ignore some perspective which, In fairness to your readers, needs some balance.
If it were not for drivers, the economy would collapse over-night and we would begin to die in large numbers from lack of basics like, food, water, heat, medicine, healthcare and so on. So drivers keep far more alive than they kill and are not the enemies of the State that anti drivers claim. In fact there is less death on the road, from all causes, after 300 billion driver miles a year than from accidents in the home. Are there such shrill calls for imprisonment for home owners then? Of course not! So clearly this concern for life is selective and against drivers.
Why should one driver have an accident where, for just bent metal, the police are not even concerned but from exactly the same scenario and actions, by virtue of the terrible coincidence that human flesh intervened, there are calls for heavy terms of imprisonment? Thank goodness the courts are beginning to understand this it seems.
The fact remains that when society, from necessity, encourages humans to operate dangerous machinery with other humans intermingled accidents and bad things will happen. Can we really incarcerate people for doing their best but still making mistakes and getting it wrong? If that were so we would all be in jail for mistakes. Although convicted of careless driving, which is not based on fact but subjective opinion, unlike evidence of murder for example, this was still an unintentional accident in a scenario that society allows.