I never said he thought it was OK to wilfully endanger cyclists. But he does seem to think it's not his duty to watch out for them and avoid negligently (as opposed to deliberately) injuring us. I recast his contentions in stronger language, which may have led to a slight exaggeration, but you're now exaggerating my recasting into "murderous intent" rather than "can't be bothered taking care".

Also, look up "flaunt" in a dictionary.


Not so. Roads are designed to be used by both at the same time. They would be better designed for that purpose if there were cycle lanes everywhere, but it's a cost/benefit thing as far as local authorities are concerned. American roads are much, much wider than ours – there is plenty of room for a car to overtake a cyclist except when there are parked cars all along the kerb and people coming the other way. In which case you just have to suck it up and wait for a gap. Ave's mountain road seems to be something of an exception (and very far removed from the urban context we were originally talking about) – it that situation I might agree, depending on the characteristics of the road, that it was dangerous to cycle there despite the tehcnical legality thereof.




OK, I could maybe have been more explicit there. As I understood them, MK's claims amounted to "Cyclists have no right to be on the road, and I have no duty to watch out for them". To which I say, "Not so – the law creates that right for them and that duty for you". Rights and duties are legal concepts and all come from the law, so to say "Despite what the law says, this right/duty does not exist" is nonsensical.

We could get into a very academic argument about natural law now, but I'd rather not as I don't think it's relevant to the rules of the road.



Oh sure, I'll just walk into work every day. Two hours in the morning and two hours back. Actually, no, I don't think I have time for that. But there are no buses where I live (or maybe like one an hour on weekdays). I'll get a car instead. Hmm, crap, I just spent my life savings on a second-hand Nissan. Oh well, there goes the deposit on my first house. And, shit, I now have to tax it (£200 a year), insure myself to drive it (£500), pay for parking everywhere I go (£a lot) and buy petrol (£fuckloads). There goes my monthly food budget. Oh, and I live in a city apartment so there's nowhere to park it except a disused supermarket car park. Whoops, there go my windscreen and tyres. Damn vandals.

I don't need to cycle in the same way that you don't need your car. You told Rebekah that it's not like food, water or shelter. Indirectly, it is, because if I can't get to work, I can't pay for food, water or shelter. You're making the same mistake as MK, thinking I'm just out enjoying myself on the roads, and don't care if I get in motorists' way because I'm having so much fun. But I'm not playing cricket in the street, I'm going to work.



OK, seriously, most roads even in this crowded country have room for two cars to go side by side in each lane (just). At most you might have to cross the centre line by about a foot, which isn't going to make you hit any oncoming traffic. If it's a bit tight because of parked cars or whatever, then take a deep breath and wait maybe thirty seconds, and lo, there will be an opportunity to get past me. I promise I will do everything to help you by moving as close to the kerb as I safely can.

And anyway, in a city it's often pointless to try and pass a cyclist, because in 50 yards you hit a red light and I'm in front of you again anyway. All you achieve by being impatient is to waste petrol speeding up and slowing down again.



Well, I'm glad we agree on something.



Not if drivers DO WHAT THEY'RE FUCKING SUPPOSED TO. The current system would work fine if nobody went around acting as though they owned the road and everyone else was a trespasser. (This goes for users of all types of vehicles, but it's more of a problem with drivers because (a) there are more of them and (b) they can kill you by accident.)

As several people have pointed out to you already, if everybody stopped cycling and then demanded cycle lanes everywhere, the response would be "What for? There aren't any cyclists". If loads of people started cycling, the council would say "Hmm, maybe we should think about putting a bike lane in there". But people won't, because they perceive cycling as unsafe. And as long as motorists go around yelling at cyclists to get off THEIR road, they'll be right.



Inconvenience – maybe, but not a very big one, and one that every driver simply has to accept as a part of life as a motorist. Endangers – sorry, but no. If the cyclist is whizzing around not looking where he's going and not giving way when he should, then of course that's different. And it's him that's going to get killed, not you. But if the cyclist is doing the right thing, then he is no danger to you as long as you are also doing the right thing.

In short: you don't own the road, and I don't own the road. We have to share the road. If we both obey the law and act considerately, we will all be fine.