TERRORISTS IN LYCRA SHORTS

Helpless pedestrians are being victimised by

lawless cyclists. James Bartholomew

proposes some solutions

WHO are the dashing heroes of our age? They are the brave, free spirits who progress by their own power and quickly. They are greener than thou, and holier too. They are healthy, fit and, above all, they are victims — for in our decadent cul- ture nothing is so heroic as a victim. They are bicyclists.

In the popular imagination — at least in that of the media and many bicyclists themselves — cyclists are an oppressed people. They are persecuted like a reli- gious minority merely because they wish to enjoy free, environmentally friendly lives. They are tortured by cars making heartless left turns, and poisoned by toxic fumes. Sometimes, to resist this airborne death, they place filtration masks over their mouths and noses. It is their stigmata, the symbol of their suffering.

However, I am afraid that there exists another view of bicyclists. Before describing it, let me emphasise that I have nothing against cycling per se. I used to cycle myself. I don't wish to add to the suffering of cyclists. Indeed, some of my best friends are cyclists. Nonetheless, there is, as I say, another view.

Cyclists are a subset of Britons among whom unpunished Iaw-breaking is out- standingly common. A large proportion of cyclists break the law every time they climb on to a saddle. These law-breakers can be divided into three categories, depending on their knowledge of the law and their attitude to it. They are the didn't-knowers, the don't-carers and the cyclo-terrorists (those who know the law, but break it as a political statement).

An increasingly high proportion of bicylists routinely go through red lights, cycle on the wrong side of the road, ride in parks where it is expressly forbidden, and — this is the most common illegal act of all — cycle on the pavement. Not everyone knows that cycling on the pavement is ille- gal, but it most certainly is. It was made illegal in 1835 under the Highways Act, Section 72. The law is so obviously sensible that it has lasted all these years.

There are several explanations as to why illegal pavement-riding has become so widespread. One is that roads have far more cars on them. Cyclists find pavements tempting because they are often less crowd- ed and therefore safer. They also find pave- ments easier to mount and dismount since the introduction of smooth ramps designed to help people in wheelchairs and the blind or partially-sighted. These ramps have become take-off runways for pavement- cycling. Another explanation is that people are generally more selfish, less public-spirit- ed and less law-abiding than they used to be. Cyclo-slobs are merely the two-wheeled version of ordinary slobs. The police, mean- while, ignore widespread public anger and do virtually nothing to stop it.

By invading the pavement, cyclists are now victimising pedestrians in the same way that they themselves feel victimised. The sudden arrival of a cyclist — whether wob- bling or fast-moving — makes life for pedes- trians far less relaxed and pleasant than it might otherwise be. It is particularly disturb- ing for the old, the disabled and those who have children. Children move in an unpre- dictable way, and can easily step into the path of a cyclist. It is just not safe for small children to walk independently on the pave- ment if cyclo-slobs are about.

The growing lawlessness of cyclists has had a measurable result. While the number of accidents on the road is in general going down in relation to the number of miles travelled, the number of those involving bicyclists are going up. In 1988, bicyclists had 494 casualties for every 100 million vehicle kilometres compared with 578 in 1998. If this trend has been continuing — as it surely has — then bicycling will by now have over- taken motor-bicycling as the most dangerous of all forms of travel. This is surely a direct result of the vogue for going through red lights, mowing down walkers, and so on.

Hi! I'm on the choo-choo.' Some cyclists would doubtless offer a dif- ferent interpretation of the figures, blaming car drivers for the rising trend in bicycle accidents. But if the bad behaviour of cars were the problem, then the frequency of accidents among motorcyclists would have been increasing too. It has not. It has been decreasing. The difference between cyclists and motorcyclists is that the latter are obliged to take a test and get a licence. And, before they take the test, they have to learn the rules. They study the Highway Code. The upshot is that they generally do not go on the pavement or drive through red lights.

I suppose that, in a political magazine such as The Spectator, one is expected to come up with policy-making prescriptions when a problem such as this is identified. I am fempted to suggest that bicycles should have to be licensed, too, and bear promi- nent number plates. Their riders should also have to pass tests. Riding on the pave- ment should be punishable by flogging.

For those wanting something more mod- erate, I might reluctantly go so far as to pick up a few tips from the Dutch. In the Netherlands, far more people cycle, and do it without frightening the walkers. As far as I can tell, there are three keys to this. The first is that virtually every child in the Netherlands is taught how to cycle at the age of about 12, and takes a test. It is true that they are allowed to cycle even if they fail. But at least they learn at an impres- sionable age what they are meant to do.

Next, they have proper cycle lanes in Hol- land. In Britain we have narrow little strips which are shared with buses and which often abruptly come to an end in a main road or through the intervention of a parked car. Dutch towns have wider lanes, which are not shared with buses and which boast raised edges that deter cars from straying into bicycling space.

Finally — and, my goodness, what rocket scientists they must be to have thought of this — the Dutch have traffic police. Younger people in Britain may not under- stand the term 'traffic police', never having seen them. Traffic police are police officers who sometimes guide traffic and always ensure that the traffic laws are obeyed. Among other things, they stop bicyclists breaking the law by driving without lights at night or riding on the pavement. Bril- liant, isn't it? Probably too difficult for Britain to manage.

Incidentally, you might think that cyclists are too difficult to arrest because they can dodge from the pavement to the road, and then down a narrow alley. Policemen, glued to the insides of their cars, would never be able to follow. But the Dutch police have another brilliant wheeze. They ride bicycles, too. Bicycling police officers are the best people to arrest bicycling law-breakers.

PS. Is there anything in our new Euro Human Rights Act about people having the right to 'peaceful enjoyment of walking along the pavement'? One for the Prime Minister in Nice, perhaps.