Adrian Fitch highlights a refreshingly intelligent article which criticises the urban cyclist for actual wrongs, unlike the steaming pile of manure from Erin Baker last year. It’s great to see a journalist putting even a modicum of thought into an anti-cycling rant.
Brian Hennigan had a wonderful rant against what he described as antisocial cyclist s in TuesdayÃ¢â¬â¢s Edinburgh Evening News.
- Pavement cycling: Ã¢â¬ÅIf you donÃ¢â¬â¢t have stabilisers on, the road is the only place we should find you whizzing alongÃ¢â¬Â.
- Running red lights: Ã¢â¬ÅApart from anything else, your invisibility to other road-users might just be proven in a way you did not envisageÃ¢â¬Â.
- Those who cycle where it is prohibited: Ã¢â¬Åone day someone is going to get fed-up with your selfish behaviour and you will be amazed how far you can travel without a bicycle when someone jams a stick in your rear-wheelÃ¢â¬Â.
- Stealth ninja cyclists: Ã¢â¬ÅCycling without lights at night is not some environmentally courageous way of showing how you and the owls are as one; itÃ¢â¬â¢s a way of being on a bicycle that says: Ã¢â¬ÅI donÃ¢â¬â¢t care about anyone else other than myselfÃ¢â¬Â.
- And of course, helmets: Ã¢â¬ÅAnyone who thinks pedalling au naturale is fine deserves whatever non-indicating delivery van might lie in their futureÃ¢â¬Â.
It is a decently written rant. I’d agree with Brian on almost every point excepting the helmets issue. I think it’s not a simple argument, and I so believe it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether wearing ÃÂ£25 worth of potentially life-saving plastic is really that much bother. For me, there’s no question ð