As a doctor who drives, uses public transport and cycles (albeit in the
UK) I
take issue with your statement "...legitimate primacy of motorists in road
occupancy". This legitimate primacy is based on what criteria? Can you
expand, as I am struggling to think of any. I don't understand why you
wouldn't offer a cyclist sympathy? You might offer someone who smokes,
who drinks too much or who is obese sympathy, as I would, yet these are
all
choices we are free to make. Cycling, unlike these other choices, is
positive
and life prolonging.
Cyclists should feel free to cycle without reproach or aggression where
ever
they like, providing I do so within the laws of the land. Cyclists reduce
traffic
on roads, improve their own health, create jobs and support a global
industry, how is this selfish? Nobody is perfect and a minority of
cyclists may
run red lights, blaspheme and break the law but is this not the same of
motorists. What health benefits does motoring offer?
People cycle in groups for reasons of camaraderie, to conserve energy and
most of all, because they feel safer. They feel unsafe due to their
inherent
vulnerability (70kg flesh vs 1500kg steel) the large volume of motorised
traffic currently on our roads and a minority of motorists who like to
intimidate them.
It is not cycle paths we need but courteous and careful motorists, who
cycle,
walk and use public transport, thus understanding first hand how
vulnerable
other road users are and how frightening cars can be. Cyclepaths encourage
an "us and them" mentality, create an illusion of safety, are ignored by
motorists (and cyclists) and crucially, deskill both cyclist and motorist
in
dealing with the other. Of course a group of cyclists should never hold up
the
emergency services (they should pull over, like a car), but a large
peloton will
make a motorist take note, wait for a suitable gap and overtake widely,
not
squeeze past fast and close.
This use of terminology such as "seething mass of........machines and
aggression" can serve just as equally for motorists and their cars.
I speak only of my experience in the UK and perhaps you feel I am speaking
out of turn, but all the cyclists I know are also motorists also and don't
think
themselves as morally superior. They cycle as it is cheaper and more
convenient than driving, the health and environmental benefits are a
bonus.
If by "morality of the ethical medical practitioner" you refer to
environmental
concerns, health promotion, air pollution, weight reduction etc I think
that
you will find 4 wheels lacking.
Rapid Response:
I, 21st Century Cyclopath.
Dear Dr Walters,
As a doctor who drives, uses public transport and cycles (albeit in the
UK) I
take issue with your statement "...legitimate primacy of motorists in road
occupancy". This legitimate primacy is based on what criteria? Can you
expand, as I am struggling to think of any. I don't understand why you
wouldn't offer a cyclist sympathy? You might offer someone who smokes,
who drinks too much or who is obese sympathy, as I would, yet these are
all
choices we are free to make. Cycling, unlike these other choices, is
positive
and life prolonging.
Cyclists should feel free to cycle without reproach or aggression where
ever
they like, providing I do so within the laws of the land. Cyclists reduce
traffic
on roads, improve their own health, create jobs and support a global
industry, how is this selfish? Nobody is perfect and a minority of
cyclists may
run red lights, blaspheme and break the law but is this not the same of
motorists. What health benefits does motoring offer?
People cycle in groups for reasons of camaraderie, to conserve energy and
most of all, because they feel safer. They feel unsafe due to their
inherent
vulnerability (70kg flesh vs 1500kg steel) the large volume of motorised
traffic currently on our roads and a minority of motorists who like to
intimidate them.
It is not cycle paths we need but courteous and careful motorists, who
cycle,
walk and use public transport, thus understanding first hand how
vulnerable
other road users are and how frightening cars can be. Cyclepaths encourage
an "us and them" mentality, create an illusion of safety, are ignored by
motorists (and cyclists) and crucially, deskill both cyclist and motorist
in
dealing with the other. Of course a group of cyclists should never hold up
the
emergency services (they should pull over, like a car), but a large
peloton will
make a motorist take note, wait for a suitable gap and overtake widely,
not
squeeze past fast and close.
This use of terminology such as "seething mass of........machines and
aggression" can serve just as equally for motorists and their cars.
I speak only of my experience in the UK and perhaps you feel I am speaking
out of turn, but all the cyclists I know are also motorists also and don't
think
themselves as morally superior. They cycle as it is cheaper and more
convenient than driving, the health and environmental benefits are a
bonus.
If by "morality of the ethical medical practitioner" you refer to
environmental
concerns, health promotion, air pollution, weight reduction etc I think
that
you will find 4 wheels lacking.
Competing interests:
See text
Competing interests: No competing interests