Aggressive

Apparently I have been 'aggressive' in emailing someone about cycling, and possibly been the 'final straw' to stop a contributor blogging about 'Cycle Chic' in Edinburgh. Interesting. There was a little back and forth after a pic I took last week of someone dressed in awfully chic clothes, but on the pavement. And the Cycle Chic response was that this was an indication of people feeling unsafe and therefore shouldn't be look to address this? I was slightly taken aback (there was a further comment that sometimes civil disobedience is right to highlight an issue).

Anyway, I got an email thusly:

"The issues you have raised with the use of images showing cyclist riding
on the pavement are [not] straight forward and not easy to discuss in 140
characters over twitter. We don't feel that the Edinburgh Cycle Chic
blog is the right place for a discussion of the issues, as that isn't
it's intended function. It is really to celebrate ordinary people riding
bicycles in normal clothes, and sometimes in less that idea conditions.

However, it is an issue which could do with an airing, would you be
interested in having a piece in .citycycling discussing the issues?"

My (aggressive) reply went into a bit more detail:

"I'd love to.

I agree that 140 characters is inadequate. In essence the issue I have is twofold. Firstly someone cycling on the pavement, thereby committing a criminal offence, because they feel the roads are too dangerous is excused because they think the roads are too dangerous; whereas someone wearing a helmet because they think the roads are dangerous, not an offence in any sense, is chastised because it's not that dangerous. Should you not, therefore, be saying to the pavement cyclist that things aren't so dangerous that they need to be on the pavement, and if you agree with them that the roads are too dangerous does the helmet wearer (whether lead by incorrect effectiveness assumptions or not) therefore have the right to take what steps they deem necessary for their own safety?

As you know I don't wear a helmet to commute, but I find the evangelism on both sides of the helmet debate rather distracting and, in their own way, both are off-putting to potential new cyclists.

My other problem is with the notion that there is a 'place for civil disobedience'. This pre-supposes that if a group of people feel that a certain law is stupid, or shouldn't apply to them, then they should be able to break that law to make the point as long as they can do so safely. The problem is, if you're breaking the law and therefore acting outside the remit of deemed behaviour, then exactly 'who' says that it is being done safely? Presumably the person indulging in the unlawful activity to make their point. Where am I going with this? Well, with the debates recently on increasing the speed limit to 80mph on motorways there are numerous drivers and organisations saying that not only is it safe, but people are breaking it anyway, and therefore the law should change. That is absolutely no different whatsoever to people riding on pavements or through red lights, having decided for themselves that that particular law should not apply and that they can break it 'safely'.

Undoubtedly we can point to statistics to show that laws on driving are more necessary because of the much greater damage that can be, and is, caused. But again where is that line then drawn on unlawful behaviour being allowed to make a point? Who says which statistics then make that behaviour okay, and others not? Yes, indeed, the law is a blunt instrument in a lot of cases, but if we were to try and apply it to every single nuance then the statute book would be the size of Wales. Equally, if we say there is discretion in all cases (whether for the police, the fiscal service/CPS, or the courts) then we end up no further on because, let's face it, the law-makers and enforcers are more likely to be motorists and not cyclists. It HAS to be blunt so that everyone knows where they stand, but it means there is something definite to argue against and seek to change, because changing 'discretion' is pretty much impossible.

I'll reiterate. I want more people on bikes. I couldn't care less what they wear, whether they have helmets or not, what type of bike they are on. But anyone, ANYONE, who has tried to campaign for cycling will know that the argument they come up against from Joe Bloggs every time they try to say that the lot of cyclists should be changed is that cyclists ride on pavements and run red lights. It's a stupid, utterly barmy, counter, but again I know from lots of personal experience that it is an opinion that is so so difficult to shift. Their opinion doesn't change because the person on the pavement isn't in hi-viz or wearing a helmet; it doesn't change if it's a ned on a bike and not a 'proper' cyclist. We are all seen as one great big blob of 'cyclists' who are constantly breaking the law.

Does that mean we're under an unequal burden to show ourselves to be in the right? Yes, of course it does. That's not fair. But it IS reality.

Yeah. That kinda proves 140 characters isn't enough."

Now I can see that I was 'strong' in setting out my stance, but I tihnk every point is up for debate, and I'm not so sure I'd go as far as to say it was aggressive (feel free to disagree and put me right on this!). I should add that on Twitter there were quite a lot of messages on this that lead up to the email, so none of this was out of the blue.

Interestingly, the very original Cycle Chic manifesto (drawn up by Mikael Colville-Andersen in Copenhagen, a chap I've met and have a lot of time for) has as one of its key points, "I will respect the traffic laws"

#60 Grey Wagtail
#61 Lesser Black-Backed Gull