Ooh, fighting words.



As I've already said above, I wasn't suggesting you were trying to collect dead cyclists for 100 points each. You yourself said that, despite what the law says, cyclists should get off the road to make sure they don't slow motorists down. This means you regard the law as less important than your motoring convenience. Thus I think my comment was justified. I did say that people who thought this way were the reason so many cyclists get killed. But I didn't say anyone was doing it on purpose. It's the "I own the road" attitude that does it.




Bikes: invented 1817.

Cars: invented 1885.

Roads existed before cars did. And, in fact, before bikes did. So I think it's fair to assume that roads were not invented to serve motorists. They were invented so that people could get from place to place, by whatever means they might be using – foot, horse and buggy, bicycle and eventually car.

If roads were built specifically for cars and not for bicycles, explain, please, why bicycles are allowed on the roads. Not merely allowed, but required to go on the road. The people who order the roads built are the same people who make the rules about what gets to go on them. If they had wanted to ban bikes, they would have done so. Instead, they made rules saying motorists have to share the road with other, more vulnerable road users, and pay attention so that they don't hurt them. If you have a problem with that, you should not be driving a car on the roads those authorities built and maintain.



It's intriguing that you list a number of dangerous and illegal things which drivers sometimes do, and then blame the cyclists for wilfully creating dangerous situations. Don't you think maybe it's drunk, sleepy and phoning drivers who ought to change their behaviour?

In a 45mph zone, cars should not be going "at least" 45mph but at most 45mph. Speed limits are a maximum. You say that it's not a perfect world and people on roads will sometimes do things they shouldn't – fine, I get that. But why, in your scenario, is it the vulnerable, law-abiding person who's in the wrong, rather than the guy in the killing machine who's not paying attention?

As I have said before, it's usually not difficult to pass a cyclist. Today on my bike I overtook a bus which had stopped to drop off passengers. I managed to do so while staying on my own side of the road. At the same time, a car came the other way, overtaking cars parked against the kerb on his side. We passed each other without difficulty. American roads are much wider than ours, so over there it would have been even less likely to be a problem.

In the event that you can't pass immediately – well, I'm sorry, but you just have to wait, probably for less than half a minute. That's the law, which you undertake to obey every time you get behind the wheel on a public road. I will always do my best to give cars room to pass, because I don't like having them lurking behind me any more than they like not being able to pass. "Lance Wannabe", as you point out, can't get the bus, because there aren't any where he lives. This is not uncommon. Treadmills are not a particularly useful method of transport; and if it's just exercise he wants, then they're very expensive.



Are you seriously going to argue that cycling on a road infringes natural law? Because that's the only place you can go if what you said there is to have any point.

Some laws are morally neutral, but nonetheless very important. Many rules of the road fall into this category. For example, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether we drive on the left or on the right. What does matter very much is that everyone obeys the same rule.

Whether cyclists go on the road or the pavement is also such a rule. Either drivers have to beware of cyclists, or cyclists have to beware of pedestrians. Either way, inattention results in injury. Most governments have decided that it's preferable to give pedestrians a safe haven at the expense of cyclists, while some have decided the other way. The important thing is that people accept that them saving two minutes on their journey time is not more important than obeying the law and driving/cycling with due care and attention.



I have said any number of times in this thread that neither of us owns the road. We have to share it. Sharing means you don't get to completely deprive the other person of using the shared thing, which is what you want to do. You will not find a place where I have said cars should get off the road. That is because, contrary to your insinuation, I do not believe that cyclists own the road.

You talk about solving the problem. Research has shown that the more cyclists there are about, the safer they all are – a "safety in numbers" effect. The reason is that if there are only a few cyclists in the whole town, no-one ever expects to see them, and therefore drivers don't check their mirrors for cyclists when turning, etc. It's known as "SMIDSY syndrome" – "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". If, on the other hand, cyclists are everywhere, drivers can't fail to be aware of them.

Your comment about the stationary bike is just bewildering. The point of a bicycle is to go places. Why is this concept so difficult?

And besides, why do you care if I'm endangering myself? My bike isn't going to smash your car to pieces.