THE CASE OF THE CYCLIST
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—With regard to the article by your motoring correspondent in the issue of June 17th I fail to see how compulsory third-party insurance of cyclists will either prevent or reduce accidents— it will merely deal with the after results of accidents. The danger to pedestrians of cyclists is small compared with that from other drivers.
What has the proposal to register and/or license cyclists got to do with the avoidance of road accidents ?
A red rear reflector which complies with the required standard of optical efficiency is sufficient for all motorists who comply with (I) Statute and Common Law (2) the Highway Code, by driving at a reasonable speed during the hours of darkness. A decree that all cyclists must carry a red rear lamp would fail to achieve its object. According to the Ministry of Transport's Report on Road Accidents five cyclists were killed while carrying a lighted red rear light. The most frequent cause of fatal accidents attributable to drivers (other than pedal cyclists) was excessive speed.
There can be no objection to a requirement that cyclists report road accidents, but again, how will such a proposal prevent or reduce road accidents ?
The present law already enables prosecution of cyclists wilfully riding more than two abreast and overtaking on the near side. They can be charged with " riding to the common danger " or " obstruction."
Further legislation is not required—rather a better adminis- tration of the existing law and the honest and loyal adherence of all road users to road law and the Highway Code.—Yours
Previous page
