What is it about cyclists that attracts such incoherent rage from a normally relatively sane person? Matthew Parris wrote an extraordinary column in The Times a couple of days ago, arguing – I kid you not – for stringing up cyclists on the nearest tree because they throw drinks cans and other litter on the narrow lanes where he walks. You can see the offending piece at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece
Quite apart from the fact that most of this litter is bound to come from car drivers and their loutish occupants, what on earth made Parris so angry about cyclists, compared with say 4 x 4 drivers who take up far more road space than normal motorists and, of course, contribute much more to the degradation of the environment? I have a theory that the hatred of cyclists by the likes of Parris, who is not alone in the irrationality and extremeness of his views, is to do with the fact that these commentators think we cyclists get a free ride. We don’t pay taxes to ride a bike and I reckon I save over £1,000 per year in fares through cycling round London, at a conservative estimate.
Moreover, it is true that we don’t always obey traffic rules, but then do motorists? Find me a driver who says they don’t break the rules, especially speeding, at times, and you will have found me a liar. It is, too, that cyclists on occasion have a sanctimonious air about them, but then we deserve to. We are part of the traffic and environmental solution, not part of the problem like the Clarksons and Littlejohns of the world. Previously I had not thought that Parris who is normally witty and elegant in his writing, fitted the mould of those two, but clearly he is aspiring to join them. Clearly a boycott of The Times is called for!
This is definitely my last blog of the year, so, readers, have a good 2008!
Irrational attacks on cyclists
Monday, 31 December 2007
posted by Christian Wolmar at 10:51
4 Comments:
I too find it outrageous. Outrageous that he has decided to apologise for offending the obviously frail sensibilities of this arrogant bunch. There's a sort of sense of self fulfilling prophecy about the number of complaints received from this unsocial group, and I find it disgusting that Parris has backed down over an article which was so obviously designed to be humorous.
What's the point of The Times giving column inches to someone who runs for cover when one of the most basic of journalistic duties is challenged - that of creating outrage through humour.
www.charlesletterman.com
But it was neither funny, nor accurate. Surely it is not witty to say people should be strung up? Parris is such a good writer that he could have done it a lot better,and I suspect he is now embarrassed about it.
Exactly. I hate 4x4s but would hesitate to say their owners deserve to be executed, even in jest.
OK, some cyclists are anti-social - but I'd rather have such anti-social beings in charge of 10Kg of bicycle than 3 tons of Range Rover.
I find the whole factionalisation of road users very depressing. Beneath the shielding layers, be they metal or lycra, we are all really just vulnerable travelers, not road warriors. Individual behavior is a separate issue. I am sure Matthew would agree.
But for fun, I would make the old observation that the roads are provided for the free use of pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists, while others are required to obtain permission in the form of a licence to share our space.