MICHAEL J. DUNNE,
Sir, - No, it's not April 1st. but, based upon your editorial comment of August 9th, one might concluded that we were enjoying the dog days of summer.
April fools are rare in August but it appears that more than "mad dogs and Englishment" have been out in the noon-day sun. It appears that your writer has too; albeit by the pool in some foreign hot spot.
My primary mode of transport is an automobile and I use a road bike for recreation. I have clocked over 5,000 miles in the past four years and coached many individuals to complete century rides for charitable organisations, and I ride a machine that cost over €2,000. If I was a competitive cyclist, I would be classified as a "master" based upon my age. In short, I am an experienced, mature cyclist who cares about safety and neither wants to be maimed, killed nor have my bike damaged by a motorist.
Your article paints cyclists as a new breed of Hells' Angels and provides solace, if not encouragement, to the motorists who read your columns. Just as one should never judge a country by its tourists, one should not judge all cyclists nor motorists by the behaviour of a few. Not all motorists are reckless just as not all cyclists are law-breakers.
In order to defend themselves and avoid causing traffic hold-ups, cyclists often violate traffic laws. Their lawless decisions are not to be condoned but, in some cases, should be understood. Motorists are always surrounded by steel, aluminum and air bags, while the cyclists contends with pot-holes, slick pavement and, on occasion, dangerous, aggressive drivers.
While ill-mannered cyclists and drivers are both to be deplored, the cyclists remain most vulnerable. When a cyclist delays a motorist, the driver experiences an extension of a few seconds to his/her journey. On the contrary, when a mororist races a cyclist to a stop sign or traffic light or cuts him/her off at a turn or on a roundabout, the cyclist may have their days ended. The degree of danger that faces a cyclist far exceeds the inconvenience to the motorist.
While I would not support legislation that places a motorist on the defensive on all occasions, that is currently the case for the cyclist. So why the outrage? Why should those who are most vulnerable not receive a more balanced fate? I write, not to encourage law-breaking nor bad manners by cyclists, but to ask motorists to use their brakes more often and to plead with cyclists to be courteous and considerate to all road users. Those who have no appreciation for the dangers of urban cycling should try mixing it with their fellow motorists and really experience what life is like on a bike.
Unless appropriate legislation is introduced, cyclists will go the way of the Dodo and become rare birds indeed. And, like the Dodo, they will have perished at the hands of those with whom they shared the planet. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL J. DUNNE,
Foxrock Village,
Dublin 18
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Imagine this situation. You have not broken any law. You have not been found guilty of anything. You are in no way at fault. You are blameless. Yet, you are to be penalised under the law.
This Kafkaesque scenario will become a reality if "An EU proposal to force motorists to pay compensation and damages in almost all accidents involving cyclists - irrespective of where the fault lies" (August 8th) is implemented in this country. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL K. POWER,
Sandyford Road,
Dublin 16
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Your editorial comment on EU proposals to place primary responsibility on motorists for accidents involving cyclists - already the norm in several countries, including the Netherlands - reflects widespread unimaginative and ill-thought out anti-cycling prejudices.
It should hardly need repeating, but cycling, from a social point of view, is a very desirable form of transport, and one to be encouraged. It is also the case that cyclists are dreadfully vulnerable on Irish roads, and regularly suffer horrific injuries and fatalities through no fault of their own.
Why do cyclists break the "rules of the road"? Simple, because the rules are not designed with them in mind. Almost all traffic regulation measures exist to counter the effects of motorised traffic. Cyclists, unlike cars, can pass freely in both directions on any street, so why forbid them to do so? Cyclists can easily turn left or proceed straight at t-junctions, so why restrict them purely because it is necessary to do so for cars?
Furthermore, even when cyclists (to the rage of traffic-bound motorists) break lights at crossroads, they generally do so having assessed prevailing conditions from a higher vantage point, with excellent peripheral vision, and with relatively unimpeded hearing, all advantages not available to the motorist in his car.
Enlightened administrations recognise these facts and do not attempt to impose inappropriate restrictions on cyclists. They also demand a greater awareness from motorists of cyclists and their position on the road. A culture of awareness and respect leads to fewer accidents and mutual acceptance of the roles of different forms of transport. - Yours etc.,
MICHAEL RYAN,
The Hague
The Netherlands