Editorial Bear

These days, people take health very seriously.

Smoking is banned from public places. Doctors are able to refuse medical attention to those suffering from obesity or illness caused by alcohol.

If this trend continues, I look forward very soon to the government tackling the problem of cyclists.

It is a proven fact that two wheels are considerably more dangerous than four. Motor cyclists are given the morbid nickname “organ donors” in emergency rooms and collisions between cyclists and automobiles never end well.

For many years, it seems the onus has been on the car driver to protect cyclists. However, I think it’s about time somebody faced up to reality and told cyclists that they should be responsible for their own safety.

I reached this conclusion observing cyclists in Winchester. As a small, compact city, a bicycle seems like a logical way to avoid traffic and travel cheaply and quickly across town. However, the reality is that our medieval streets were no more designed for two wheels than they were for four.

What I propose is simple. Ban the bicycle.

The fact is: Bicycles are dangerous. Cyclists are a danger to motorists. They’re a danger to pedestrians. Most importantly, they’re a danger to themselves.

Most of these dangers are created by the cyclists themselves. A few moments observation will confirm that barely any cyclists in Winchester deem that the Highway Code applies to them. If a car driver was to speed down the pavement, turn on a red light or create their own lane of traffic, they would quite rightly be banned or jailed. However, cyclists do these things on a regular basis and still feel arrogantly qualified to criticise motorists.

By doing so, they place themselves in considerable danger. Bicycles are small and move faster than the normal flow of traffic. They are difficult for even the most conscientious driver to see. Yet if a cyclist cuts up a driver and gets involved in a collision, the immediate instinct is to blame the motorist.

Combined with the danger of bicycles is the inconvenience. Bicyclists snarl up the traffic. While one cyclist struggles up a hill, an increasing flow of traffic builds up behind. Should a driver overtake, they face oncoming traffic or risk upsetting the wobbling cyclist. Winchester’s roads are already unsuitable for vehicles. Don’t compound the problem by encouraging selfish and dangerous cyclists.

Their mode of transport is unnecessary. Winchester already has a very efficient public transport system in place. It’s called walking. My wife walks forty minutes to work each morning and is fitter and brighter as a result. Why can’t the cyclists?

Perhaps to compliment our existing ‘park & ride’ scheme, we should offer something similar for cyclists. They can stow their cycles outside the city walls and walk the rest of the way. I think it should be called ‘Park & Walk.’