I have some sympathy with WFB's view of the Herald piece (though I'm not mystified by cyclists having bother on commutes - it might not be every day, but I can see there's a lot of aggression/impatience out there and some of it directed at me).
The article is perfectly well intentioned, and the writer is correct that it wants to put pressure on politicians to 'do something about it'. But it's a double-edged sword because people will often read into these things what they want. So I think there is scope for some politicians to react to this by thinking "helmets/hi-viz" because there's a sort of conditioning in that direction, and, perhaps most importantly, that's easy and costless compared to a re-allocation of roads budget to new infrastructure.
Another example of how to read thigns comes in lines such as, "... evidence suggests drivers are more often to blame for accidents because they frequently fail to see cyclists"
You and I will read that as 'drivers need to take more care to look properly'. The anti-cyclist brigade will say 'we don't see cyclists because they appear from nowhere, don't wear hi-viz, and don't use lights at night, so how can that be our fault?'.
To be honest I think the balance between saying that the roads are dangerous (people being killed, no matter how few it might be, backs this up as reality), and trying to encourage people to get out on bikes, is an almost impossible line to walk. It becomes a convoluted message of, "The roads are safe, but sometimes they're dangerous, but people should be able to cycle ont he roads, although we want quality infrastructure like Denmark, and let's not even go anywhere near 'safety' equipment".
I don't know the blogger's road in Glasgow, so can't comment - though if WFB's suggested alternative works then surely that has to be worth passing on (and is a huge echo of comments on here on another thread about a cyclist riding up the middle of Lothian Road when the 'correct' route suggested by a few was to go up Castle Terrace and onto the Bread Street contraflow). Interesting that in that case alternatives were suggested, then in the Glasgow case it's used as a 'she should be able to ride there' without alternatives being suggested. I presume it's just based on relative knowledge of the routes involved.
In short, the article makes some good points; reinforces some stereotypes; is unlikely to put off regular cyclists; is unlikely to encourage new cyclists; is pretty much definitely not going to inspire political change; but is at least a national media outlet looking like it takes things seriously and doesn't land the blame at cyclists.
posts
