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!

Whatever happened to the fuel protests? Or rather didn’t. What a wonderful damp squib they were, attracting fewer people than the average village Women’s Institute annual general meeting. What a contrast with 2000.
Was it the juxtaposition of the protests with the climate change talks in Bali, which made people too embarrassed to come out to support them. I doubt it. It was probably a combination of cold weather, Christmas and general apathy, but nevertheless the failure should be celebrated. Certainly it made for some seasonal cheer.
It would be comforting to think that this will embolden politicians and that ministers will realise that it is now possible to implement policies that may not be opposed by the AA and the RAC, let alone Captain Gatso. There would be a neat symmetry if, just as the fuel protests of 2000 led to the scrapping of any policies that even begun to limit the environmental damage caused by transport, then the failure of the 2007 protests would have the opposite effect.
Fat chance. There is, so far, no sign that ministers are considering reimposing the fuel tax escalator, and national road charging seems to have slipped off the agenda faster than cars have gone off the road in the recent icy conditions. If one had to score the present government’s policy on climate change out of a hundred, it would be difficult to mark them into double figures.

The climate change discussions in Bali are clearly a stitch up. There is a pattern to this – the Europeans and most of the rest of the world put forward radical proposals while the US take a very hard line position. Then ‘negotiations’ take place and we get some sort of feeble compromise that does not really do very much to stem the flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The truth is that governments are reluctant to face up to the fundamental fact that capitalism, with its emphasis on continued need for growth, is the root of the problem. No government has ever dared to set out an agenda of limited or zero economic growth. Yet, it is difficult to envisage how the climate change process can be reversed without it.
At least, though, we could try. There are a myriad things that could be done in this country relatively quickly, from stopping the building of more runways and roads to reducing speed limits and imposing rises on the price of fuel. Outside of transport issues, we could have a national programme of loft insulation and a rapid tightening up of building standards.
I was talking to an architect yesterday who said that when she refurbished a Victorian house in North London recently in a conservation area, she was not allowed to put in double glazing at the front of the house because it was out of keeping with the historic environment. Well, the flooding that is made more likely by such decisions won’t be in keeping with the historic feel of the area either!
There is, still, no sense of urgency about this issue despite the warnings of scientists and some enlightened public figures. Arguments about green issues have become just another source of party political point scoring when, in fact, they are far too important for that. Give it another five years, and some major environmental catastrophes, and then it will get on the political agenda. Until then, we fiddle as the world floods.

I was at the launch of Nicholas Faith’s book on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link(which we are now supposed to call High Speed One), On the Right Line, at the House of Lords yesterday (Dec 3rd) at which that old stager Michael Heseltine gave a wonderful speech.
He explained how, given the non-interventionist policies of Thatcher’s government, he was struggling to find a way to persuade her that the CTRL should be built. Fortunately he bumped into Reg Prentice, a former Labour MP who had defected to the Tories, claiming he was hounded out by leftwingers (in fact, he was a nasty right winger who was long past his sell-by date). Prentice gave him some advice and Heseltine went back to Thatcher:
‘I fully back your non-interventionist stand’, he said ‘but these East End councils – they are all run by Communists’. It did the trick. Anything to stop the Red menace.
It’s a nice story because it shows the extent to which we simply do not do infrastructure in this country. There has to be some other reason to get it built. The Treasury finds any excuse to withhold support, asking for inane business plans which make no sense to anyone who is economically literate and the Department for Transport is often all too ready to cave in to that sort of pressure.
Look at Alistair Darling’s tenure during which virtually every major project was stalled. He seemed to take a particular delight in doing nothing which is why I am so enjoying seeing his discomfiture. He was determined not to leave any trace of his existence, something he achieved successfully. What I can’t understand is why people like that go into politics.
It is, therefore, surprising that anything gets built in this country because we are so imbued with the laissez faire culture. As I recount in my book on the history of the Underground, the Subterranean Railway, the Underground extensions built between the wars only happened as a job creation exercise and even the Victoria Line was given the go-ahead for the same reason (which was a mistake since there was a boom in the late 1960s when Labour was scarce).
At the launch, John Prescott, who was the other politician who ensured the Link was built, made the point that the media are always ready to criticise any whiff of overspending, which is another barrier to getting things done. Too true as the current fuss about the Olympics shows. Sure, there may be some money wasted – and it is sensible not to spend millions on temporary facilities for marginal sports like fencing (which could probably be held in a school hall) – but overall there will be fantastic regeneration value. Look, for example, at the hated Millennium dome which has now become the most popular concert venue in Europe – I still think it was the wrong project, but nevertheless it has now, belatedly, been successful.
Remember, too, the fuss over the British Library, a fantastic building which no one would now criticise. And yet there were countless articles in Sunday papers about the cost overruns and what a disaster it all was. Same goes for the Jubilee line Extension.
It is a combination of the civil service culture and a hostile media which ensures that politicians like Darling thrive while those taking a risk are likely to be thrown to the wolves. That’s just one of the reasons why we will never get a High Speed Two.