Views ignorant and hypocritical

In her letter, Mrs E Owen of Bath goes to great lengths, laying out her case for why cyclists should be excluded from using the public highway.

I and many others take exception to every one of Mrs Owen’s points, calling out some as not credible, others as woeful ignorance of the law, yet others as blatant hypocrisy when made from the viewpoint of a motorist.

Of course Mrs Owen is entitled to her view.

What is distressing for the millions of all ages and backgrounds who cycle on our roads, is her breathtaking use of hate-speech terms and methods to portray cyclists as not deserving of road space or consideration.

And what is disappointing, is Somerset Live and The Chronicle’s publication of her claims.

Cyclists are truly the last remaining group in society who the media feels free to enable hatred against with impunity.

First let’s agree terms. In saying ‘hate speech’, I’m going with the Wikipedia definition that hate speech is “speech that attacks a person/group on the basis of attributes such as” - in this case being a cyclist.

So let’s look at the letter in question.

Firstly, application of some scepticism as to the veracity of the claims made:

“20 minutes clearing dirt and debris” - I find this very difficult to believe. A woman fell off her bike. At most, there’s a bike, pair of sunglasses and two water bottles to

collect. The claim they ‘stood around’ instead of moving ‘to a layby’ - maybe there was a spinal injury risk. The idea anyone would deliberately block the road putting themselves and the victim in ongoing danger for ‘selfish’ reasons is laughable.

“Why do the police, Department of Transport, and other road users tolerate these racing cyclists?”... because it’s enshrined in law, perhaps? Again the language of outgrouping, of disenfranchise, of delegitimising, of de-humanising.

“I’ll make one thing clear to start – I have no gripe with the ordinary cyclist”. Classic move there - claim

the high ground and position one’s motive as objective and beyond reproach.

“No, what I get annoyed about are the ones who are racing on the public highway” - If they’re racing, there would be labelled cars, motorcycle outriders, marshals, they’ll be wearing numbers and it’s a legally-sanctioned activity.

What she seeks to do is portray “illegality”.

Every time you venture out you see people choosing to drive their cars/motorbikes faster than what many would consider sensible, actually breaking laws & endangering lives in the process. But I don’t think an even-handed appreciation of relative risk to others is her strong point.

“This cycling has nothing to do with being ‘green’ or emissions... their cycles, lycra, accessories and hospital admissions probably incur a greater footprint than using the bus” - Unlike her car.

“It is a sport; should be treated as such and should take place on private ground with proper facilities. The road is not the place for it” - De-legitimise the outgroup. Remove them. Most importantly, out from her way - they don’t deserve the right to use roads they paid for.

“If my husband, my friends and I got into our cars and raced each other 2 or 3 abreast, as fast as possible, we would quite rightly be apprehended and fined. So why is it seemingly acceptable to do just that on a bicycle?” - Again positioning legal, safe behaviour as the opposite.

Finally, “It has to stop. These cyclists are a danger to us all”.

Drivers kill about 1,700 people per year and maim around 800,000 more. Cyclists, maybe one person per year dead, frequently their own fault for walking into the path of someone cycling. So where does the danger really lie?

Mike Stead Perthshire