The Big Smoke

What you said | Have your say

A very aggrieved cyclist turned up on BBC Radio 4 last week. He was upset about London cyclist deaths, in particular the number of cyclists killed by lorries that turn left at junctions and fail to see riders who are often trapped between the vehicles and safety railings against which, with woeful irony, they are crushed.

This is an extremely dangerous situation that should be stopped but, as well as being outraged by it, the man was clearly dangerous himself. In a tremulous, public-school voice on the edge, it seemed, of tears, he openly admitted that he ignored traffic signals: ‘It doesn't matter if the light is red or not, I’m just bothered about seeing a space in the traffic ahead and slipping in to it.’

This neatly turned what was his and other cyclists’ problem into our problem. And by ‘our’ I mean the great majority of us who attempt to walk around the city every day and don’t want to be hit by cyclists ignoring red lights. The man could make his outrageous admission so easily because, in his and other cyclists’ world view, plebs who walk don’t matter. We are mere obstacles in the way of the divine right of an athletic, clean-living few to cycle wherever they want.

In the past, cyclists would at least be shame-faced enough about their aggression to lie: ‘Bikes are allowed on the pavement’; ‘we’re being forced on the path by the roadworks.’ Or they would blame us for being on the pavement in the first place: ‘The pavement doesn’t belong to pedestrians, it’s ours as well’ (well, yes it does, actually, and no it isn’t).

But now the London cycling community – privileged, white, self-absorbed and arrogant – can’t be bothered to make stuff up any more and is taking to the airwaves to encourage its members to break the law (and just to be clear, it is against the law to deliberately ride through a red light).

The arrogance of London’s rogue cyclists is as extreme as their appearance. Go to the website of the London Cycling Campaign (www.lcc.org.uk) and on the homepage you’ll find a picture of a grown man in a yellow anorak and tights riding his cycle across the pavement.

He’s coming up behind a lumpy male pedestrian in a baseball cap who has no way of knowing the cyclist is behind him because cyclists – around the time they started to dress in leotards and Waffen SS helmets – abandoned the traditional, and useful if you’re going to drive through a group of people, bell.

Lumpy men in baseball caps are ridiculous, laughable even, but not having thunderous thighs and a cagoule doesn’t justify physical assault. Yet. The worship of the (white) male human body, the disdain for the lower orders, the generally humourless attitude (seen any laughing cyclists recently?), we’ve been here before haven’t we? In fact we fought a war to stop it. Did London survive the attentions of the Luftwaffe only to be overrun by a new pack of two-wheeled fascists?

The original London fascists, Mosley’s blackshirts, survived on handouts from the aristocracy but modern pedestrian-hating cycling groups are allowed to register as a charities (the LCC is Registered Charity number 1115789). Worse, the government actually gives our money to the new fascists; funding for cycling has doubled in the last two years and there is now a Cycle to Work scheme to provide VAT-free bicycles. Why should pedestrians’ taxes pay to put more cyclists on our paths and support organisations committed to making our lives harder?

LCC has direct links with Sustrans, a group that is dedicated to turning country lanes into cycleways, forcing the ordinary hikers that traditionally use them out of the way. If successful, Sustrans’ s campaign will undo the radical work of the last century when mass trespasses won ordinary people access to the countryside. Quiet lanes and tracks where women, children and pensioners can dawdle along enjoying the flora and fauna would become noisy cycleways plagued by mountain bikes and bellowing male riders in neon body stockings.

In town and country then, the pedestrian is under assault from cyclists. Given the ferocity of the assault, letting tyres down and bending mudguards whenever the opportunity arises doesn’t seem an adequate response any more. So what are we going to do about the new fascists?


What you said

Not once but twice, Michael Hodges decides to castigate and pigeon-hole all London cyclists as white in his column. The last time I walked around Soho dodging cycle couriers hell-bent on saving 2 micro seconds on their ride by shaving pedestrians at every turn, I noticed just as many black riders breaking the law, red light jumping and unnecessary speeding, endangering pedestrians.

Why so embarrassed to say that black riders too, are just as ignorant as their white cycling peers?
Bangerbhoi

I am a cyclist myself travelling to and from work 14 miles every day and am also sick of other cyclists taking the p*ss, especially since we all get tarred with the same brush as the morons Mr Hodges speaks of. I can be found waiting patiently at a red light with other traffic (as that's what we are part of the traffic, not pedestrians) shouting 'tosser' to every other cyclist who accelerates past me ignoring the signal. What's the hurry?, why put yourself at risk let alone others who can be harmed, do these ridiculous all in one Day-Glo shiny leotards they wear make them think they are superhuman?

Maybe a few more of them need to be mown down by traffic they sneak into before they get the message, but this would only traumatise the driver involved so hardly fair! The police need to take more action when rules are ignored, I have known one cyclist hit with a £30 on the spot fine, this needs to be more prevalent, in the meantime I would encourage drivers and pedestrians to give the rule breakers as much grief as possible
J Dyson


We did not appreciate your ill-thought out article on cyclists. You may appreciate the 10 commandments of cycling to help you in future.The Admiral Melson
Click here to read The Admiral Melson's Ten Commandments for the London Cyclist


A few years ago I'd have agreed that the stereotypical cyclist was arrogant and sanctimonious, but now they're just the lunatic fringe. Most of the thousands who have taken to two wheels in the past five years behave as well or as badly as any other road user.

If you want to take a pop at sanctimonious, turn your attention to pram pushers. Sorry, they tend not to be white and male, but boy do they throw their toys around when their little bubble of virtue is challenged.
David Love

Apparently you condone Michael Hodges 'call to arms' against cyclists. I felt sickened when I read his diatribe against cyclists on so many levels. Firstly, does your magazine really support the hate fuelled suggestions that people vandalise cycles and cyclists in London? Secondly, using a word like 'fascism' so loosely is insulting to all who have been the victims of true fascists.

I am greatly disturbed by this article and will, sadly, have to cancel my subscription to an otherwise excellent magazine, as I cannot in good conscience support this type of stirring up of hatred and violence.
Julia

Michael Hodges' usually spot-on Slice Of Life column contains a puzzlingly blinkered observation: "the London cycling community - privileged, white, self-absorbed and arrogant". To tar (to Tipp-ex?) the capital's bike users with the same brush is flagrantly untrue. I am constantly run off the pavement by wobblingly-slow-moving, distracted kids on BMXs, almost every single one of whom is black. True; light-jumping, self-righteous, dayglo lycra-clad cyclists are predominantly white and overprivileged, but the swervers of the sidewalk are pretty much all black.

My point is this: Don't mention the colour of the offending road/pavement users, as the point it attempts to prove falls on deaf ears in the majority of readers who have ever been forced off the pavement by cyclists in London. Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" epithet simply does not apply here.
Justin North

When I see yet another article attacking cyclists three words come to mind, to borrow a phrase, "pot, kettle and black".

It wouldn't surprise me if Michael Hodges is the same person who shouted at me last week for cycling on the pavement when I was actually on a path that was coloured green and had a bicycle symbol painted on it.

Perhaps he is one of these motorists who have caused us cyclists to put up with speed humps everywhere because he can't stick to the legal speed limit? Maybe he's one of these motorists or motorcyclists who stop in the ASL and then regard the green light as the signal to use our roads as a race track.

Can I point out, as a considerate, law-abiding cyclists that my only accidents in the last five years have involved pedestrians who have stepped onto the road or into a cycle path without looking where they are going?

The bile he spews out is extraordinary! Did he proposition a woman this week and get turned down (and the woman was a cyclist)? What's wrong with this man? He surely has some psychological issues that he needs to get sorted out.

His use of the word "fascism", meanwhile, is intolerable. This is a word that has been overused and incorrectly used far too often. Fasicism does not involve the odd cyclist going onto the pavement or going through a red light. It usually means the wholesale extermination of a whole race of people for various dodgy ideological reasons. Reading the bigotry in Hodges' column, however, I'd say he is very familiar with the kind of hatred usually espoused by true fascists.

I am cancelling my subscription to Time Out until the time that this cretin is no longer employed by your previously highly-regarded publication. Mind you, with what I get on the internet these days who needs to buy a magazine which gives space to small-minded bigots?
Murray Abisch EC1

Having given up my car two years ago in favour of public transport and walking, I’ve never been much interested in the war between cyclists and motorists that sometimes graces your fair pages.

However, now the water main replacement work on Cable Street has started, which has closed the cycle lane, I’m beginning to look at cyclists with a motorist’s hatred. Each morning I am confronted by these storm troopers in lycra on the pavement hurtling at speed.

What part of “Cyclists dismount” don’t they understand?

Anyone remember Ken’s 1980’s “Pavements are for People” campaign?
Debbie Gorringe, E1

Your article about cyclists was spot on. The combination of extreme arrogance and amazing stupidity exhibited by cyclists in London just
boggles the mind. Frankly those cyclists being crushed by lorries are usually asking for it. Let's call it Darwinian Theory at work -- if you are really ignorant enough to pass a large vehicle on the inside or run a red light in a busy intersection (usually without wearing a helmet) then
you really should not be breeding. I'm so disgusted by these rude 2-wheelers that I've started cheering every time I see one hit the pavement.
AR, W1

I tentatively tried cycling to work in January with the best intentions of obeying the law and the highway code. I quickly learned that to cycle in London means being quick-witted from the minute you climb aboard: not easy first thing before work. The second thing I learnt was that red lights are more optional than I ever thought possible.

My journey to work is precisely 2.4 km. There are 14 sets of lights and 3 zebra crossings, that's one every 140 meters. Several are begging to be ignored by a cyclist, such as the intersection of a big downhill and a big uphill. If a cyclist has to stop then start again it literally causes him pain. It's human instinct to avoid doing that unnecessarily. Red lights were not invented for cyclists. We have to put up with a system that in most every way is designed for cars with the very occasional concession to our vehicle.

Bikes are not cars. They are much shorter in length, go slower, stop quicker - and because they're not faceless they can say 'Sorry!' quickly if they misjudge something. Cyclist have the all-round visibility to make accurate calls on red lights. And if a cyclist goes through a red light and gets it wrong, it's often himself that will come out worse. That's not the case for cars.

I'm no anarchist, but I faced a decision between stopping every 140 meters or giving up the most environmentally-friendly, fun, fast way to work. I chose to ignore the occasional red light.

As a cyclist I attack London: you're right, Michael. Cars, lorries and pedestrians are, not enemies, but obstacles. But then I attack London as a pedestrian, too. Do you see Londoners patiently waiting for the man to turn green before crossing.. at 3am, when there's no traffic?

The third thing I learnt, by the way, was that cycling as personal transport, even in London, is fast, life-affirming and easier than people think. So long as red lights are optional.
Adam (white, male, athletic and clean-living) Knowles, NW1

What’s with Michael Hodges? His diatribe against cyclists was an example of polemic at the last chance saloon. If he wants to have a good moan about the difficulties of pedestrian use of our streets why not pick on the never-ending road works that make crossing roads so difficult why not pick on the vast numbers of lorries and vans tearing down our streets. But no, instead his method is that age-old refuge of the reactionary ~ pick on an easily identified minority, make it sound as if they are a coherent group, (cyclists are all white middle-class, wear helmets, and tight shorts and are therefore fascists) their guilt by association is obvious, it is quite legitimate to carry out criminal damage to their bikes in order to drive them from the road.

These arguments are tired and silly. Cyclists need to be aware of pedestrians, and vice versa. The real danger to pedestrians or cyclists is from vehicles not from each other. We need better cycle lanes, we need better footpaths, especially by the way in the countryside. If the government is spending money on both I’m happy.
Jim Pfister

I am writing to convey my regret at the opinions expressed in your pages by your ‘editor-at-large’, Michael Hodges, under the heading ‘Slice of Life’ in the May 2-8 edition. This piece is laughable, containing as it does both viciously unpleasant opinions and numerous factual errors. It is clearly written by someone who nurses a hatred of cyclists, and who is therefore incapable of writing a balanced article.

Such an article might reasonably have pointed out that some cyclists ride on footpaths, and that some, perhaps the same people, jump traffic lights and generally ignore the rules of the road, and that since these acts are against the law, those who commit them should receive suitable punishment. On the other hand, many more cyclists do abide by to the law, as can be seen on any cycle commute through London. They ease traffic congestion, lessen pollution, reduce overcrowding on public transport, save themselves money and enjoy a measurable improvement in health and fitness compared to sedentary commuters.

At least Mr Hodges labels the objects of his tirade as ‘rogue cyclists’. However, he then goes on to imply that the London Cycling Campaign condones and even encourages law breaking. I have copied the LCC’s ‘Good cycling’ guidelines for cyclists, with relevant passages in bold. These clearly refute the implication. Mr Hodges seems to believe that cycling is an activity enjoyed only by white males, describing the ‘London cycling community’ as ‘privileged, white, self-absorbed and arrogant’. It is hard to see how he came to this conclusion, since it is not true, but the use of the phrase ‘the worship of the (white) male human body’ suggests that his motives may be questionable. As indeed does the linking of cycling to the politics of fascism.

Mr Hodges throws in a rant against Sustrans, asserting that this organisation ‘is dedicated to turning country lanes into cycleways’. His ignorance of the subject is complete. Sustrans is involved in creating the National Cycle Network, comprising routes to be used by non-motorised traffic. These routes have been created by reclaiming facilities such as disused railway lines. An organisation called the National Byway is dedicated to mapping routes on country lanes suitable for cyclists who wish to ride in the countryside away from heavy motor traffic. In neither case is the aim to create ‘cycleways’.

Presumably Mr Hodges does not object to sharing his country lanes with cars. Come to think about it, the tenor of his article has much in common with the views recently expressed by Nigel Havers in a similar attack on cycling, albeit from the view of the petrolhead motorist. What fine bedfellows they make. People are taking to the bicycle in ever-increasing numbers, which, given the human desire to travel further than is possible on foot alone, is arguably a good thing even from the pedestrian point of view. Provided they ride within the law, of course.
Richard Hallett, Editor, RoadCyclingUK.com

I was the 'very aggrieved cyclist' that got up Michael Hodges nose this week. However he is quite wrong to say that I approve of cyclists ignoring the rights of pedestrians. I know that pedestrians have more right to be on the road than cyclists. I always yield to pedestrians; I would never put another person's safety at risk.

I am against cycle lanes that take space away from pedestrians, and publicly opposed the siting of a bike lane on Blackfriars Bridge that would have done exactly that.

But even the most cursory examination of the facts would shown that cyclists are not a threat to the safety of pedestrians. In 2004 over 600 pedestrians were killed on the roads in the UK. 1 died as the result of a collision with a cyclist, which took place neither on a crossing or a footway.

Something else Michael got wrong: I do not have a'public-school voice'. I was educated at a state school.
Bill Chidley, Editor, Movingtargetzine.com, the world's most useless bicycle messenger 'zine

I appreciate that Michael Hodges is paid to be a prick, but his stereotyping of ALL cyclists as pavement peddlers was surely a misprint?

Somewhere in a parallel London universe and the Evening Standard celebrates cycling, whereas Time Out pollutes its pages with Petrol Head rhetoric.
Jason Cobb, SW8

Michael Hodges (Slice of Life TO 1914) managed to unleash all my pent up emotions about cyclists. My morning walk through Greenwich Park to the Riverboat is like dicing with death. Not only do the (yes, Michael) mostly white, mostly male cyclists –of- a- certain -age speed down their own dedicated lane faster than the cars on the adjoining road, they then hop onto the pedestrian paths and the pavements to avoid the queues of traffic in the town centre. Then to add insult to injury they cycle across the cobbles by the Cutty Sark, take up all the space in the tunnel lift and cycle along what is laughingly called the FOOT tunnel.

Once I arrive at Blackfriars Pier, I then have to dodge members of the cycling liberation movement swerving on and off the pavements and riding through red traffic lights in Farringdon Road – the Mecca of bicycling couriers and sandwich deliverers.

Woe betide any pedestrian who has a disability, is elderly, is pregnant or can’t get out of the way fast enough – the cyclists have decided they have a right to run you over!

I think Ken and TfL should insist all cyclists have registration plates and pay road fund tax. In that way I could vent my spleen more successfully than I do now. Rather than shouting at them to get off the pavements I can report them – I would very much enjoy that?..
Sue Johnson, SE10

I have just read your article more or less overtly comparing cyclists to nazis and can't leave this piece of drivel unanswered, although it more
rightly deserve nothing more than silent contempt.

I am no cyclist myself; a simple pedestrian and public transport user. I have no particular interest in supporting cyclists but I see no reason for
the insulting, ignorant, wide-sweeping hatred that you display towardsthem.

In your article you claim that cyclists are humourless and immediately procede to demonstrated that you yourself are not a stranger to this
condition. If you were so deluded as to imagine that your quips were witty, I would like to remind you that fascism and what it did is hardly
laughing matter and certainly not something to be used to score easy cheap points and imagine that this can make you look good in anyone's eyes but your own. I find your whole article utterly offensive and unfounded.

As for the question you ask at the end of your diatribe, you obviously seem to have found the answer yourself (turning yourself into even more a dispicable character than the chimeras your overheated brains have just cooked up).

Do you really think that this sort of inflamatory crap will do anything to improve the pretend situation you deplore? I very seldom see cyclists on the pavements and they usually are young kids who probably know no better.

Yet another example of your stupidity, I suppose.
Nicolas Chinarded

I'm assuming the "let's beat up cyclists" implication of "letting tyres down and bending mudguards whenever the opportunity arises doesn't seem an adequate response any more" wasn't one you deliberately put there. Was it?

(Yes, I cycle to work, but I don't whizz through red lights, and it pisses me off to see how many people do.)
Peter Robins

Why don't we create a hierarchy of idiocy? Top of the list culled from Slice Of Life (TO 1915) would be lorry drivers who turn without looking for cyclists. But who then? The cyclists Hodges hates so much for disobeying red lights and riding on the pavement? They rarely hurt anyone doing so, but are admittedly annoying. Or the columnists who have made encouraging dangerous attitudes towards cyclists a recent hobby? And, of course, those attitudes lead to cyclist injuries and occasionally fatalities.

On your bike Hodges... actually, that's something I'd like to see your "priviliged, white, self-absorbed and arrogant" columnist do.
Simon Munk, E17

As a subscriber, I'm not going to waste all day on this, as I'm not even sure if you were joking or not. If you were then I suggest you get your old (amusing) self back, because it was bluntly not funny. It was racist, implying that black people do not cycle, and classist, suggesting only middle classes cycle, particularly coming from someone who I suspect is middle class and white themselves (apologies if not, I wouldn't want to insult you) . It seems a weak target to criticise cyclists, who are saving on needless car journeys, thus addressing the most serious issues facing us, i.e. the build up of carbon-based 'greenhouse gases'. Cyclists are sometimes forced to go through red lights/mount the pavement, due to selfish drivers and attain a safe head-start on traffic. As far as I can see they generally do so safely and are taking responsibility for themselves (a rare thing I know). So next time you describe someone concerned about fellow cyclists being killed as a fascist, take a long hard look at yourself and, in this instance, mindless column
Tom Hocknell

As a (white) non-Lycra wearing, red traffic light obeying cyclist, I'm in broad agreement with much of Michael Hodges' concerns about cyclists' lobby groups (Slice of Life, May 2-8). But why the bizarre obsession with skin colour? Do non-caucasian cyclists behave any differently, or is this just the writer's attempt to inject some new controversy into a tired old debate?

By the way, I find by far the biggest threat to my safety when cycling in London comes not from the traffic, but from jaywalking pedestrians. Most of them share a skin colour - black. Doesn't really help the argument, does it?
Michael Hollick, SW2

Since Michael Hodges prefers to tar all cyclists with the same brush, perhaps he would like to compare notes with the moronic lorry driver who, apoplectic with rage, was intent on running me over last Saturday, whilst I tried to navigate the Aldgate one-way system. He was not only furious that I should be on the road at all, he decided to conclude his purple spitting tirade of abuse with the fact that he saw all cyclists as f---ing w---kers, braking heavily diagonally in front of me with the departing 'now where you gonna f---ing go!'

London cyclists have to put up with this kind of abuse daily, the last thing we need is one more journalist trying to milk the same tired 'anti cyclist' subject.
Marc Snell

I’ve read your article regarding the ‘new fascists’ and could not help but take umbrage at your sweeping generalisation of London cyclists. In a city where cars and lorries pay absolutely no heed to the pedestrians attempting to cross a road, and where it can take 30 minutes to drive from Fulham Palace Road to Wandsworth Bridge because of the volume of vehicles on the road, you decide to aim your sites on those who choose to be healthy (I have little sympathy for the ‘lumpy men’) and reduce emissions by cycling to work (or where ever they may be going). While no doubt there are cyclists that flaunt the rules of the road, there are just as many pedestrians and drivers that do the same. It’s neither fair nor productive to single out cyclists. Furthermore, you may incite people to accost cyclists by your comment ‘so what are we going to do about the new fascists?’

In fact, just last night as I road home from work on Fulham Road I approached a pedestrian cross walk where the light was red. As I approached I saw that no one was crossing within the walk and did not slow down, anticipating the light to change. Just then a female pedestrian began crossing the road approximately 10 feet in front of the cross walk. I swerved to the right, back to the left and passed through the cross walk before the light changed to green. Just then, a rather large man, at least 6’ 5”, walking with his female companion, accosted me, shouting about ‘cyclists being wankers’ and that I was ‘a cock, an asshole’ for nearly hitting the woman, who was not close to the cross walk, and passing through red light. I stopped to listen but chose not to argue, simply allowing him to berate me (he had a rather large size advantage to my 11 stone frame) before telling him to 'get a hobby' and riding off.

So, be fair in your criticism; point out that there are considerably more cyclists that are law-abiding than are not. And also note that not all dress as if they were attending the Halloween Parade in downtown New York City. Some prefer a pair of shorts and windbreaker…
Guy Prochilo

Michael Hodges apparently tongue in cheek article clearly has a real anti-cyclist message and is part of a growing problem in London for
cyclists, with bus-drivers, taxi-drivers and pedestrians all out to take a pop (verbal or physical) at the hapless cyclist. I don't know what cyclist hasn't nearly been run off their bike, had to slam on their brakes for a pedestrian that think bikes don't have right of way on the road or had to suffer some sort of verbal abuse for simply existing. Despite this I love cycling in London and only hope that Michael's article might somehow encourage more people to get on their bike in their lycra and day glo!
Jo Hill, E8

In likening bicycling with fascism, Michael Hodges (Slice of Life, TO 1915) neglects the long history of cycling in progressive politics. Bicycles played an important role in the birth of feminism in the late Victorian era. In the twentieth century cycling, socialism and anti-fascism were linked and found an embodiment in the National Clarion Cycling Club. The bicycle made possible the daring acts of the French resistance and the Viet Cong used bicycles to move arms and supplies along the Ho Chi Minh trail. José Antonio Viera Gallo, a member of Salvador Allende’s government in Chile, said that "Socialism can only arrive by bicycle".

The embodiment of affordable mobility, it is hard to conceive of a more egalitarian invention. Cycling has always been popular amongst revolutionaries, writers, artists and dreamers from Alfred Jarry to Jeremy Deller. As H.G. Wells said, "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of mankind".

Hodges's article was very silly, taking a contrarian view far beyond the point of absurdity.
Jack Thurston, The Bike Show, Resonance 104.4fm

Being from Camberwell I normally enjoy Michael Hodges Slice of Life. But his diatribe on cyclists (quote 'dressed in leotards and Waffen SS helmets') brought to mind Goebbels use of propaganda to attack a different segment of society.

We're not all hyper-aggressive day-glo-lyrca-wearing loonies Michael. With cycling to work in London up 70% on last year its clear many very normal people are quietly taking it up. You don't notice us because we stop at red lights, let people cross, and don't try to 'own the road'. Don't judge us till you've tried it!

As Ghandi might have said; 'I am a cyclist ... and a pedestrian ... and a car driver'. So come on Michael - less of the Goebbels please, more of the Ghandi.
Luke, Surbiton

I applaud the article in last week's Time Out about aggressive cyclists. Everybody seems to champion the "poor" cyclist without any thought about the impact on those who use the pavements. I walk from the station at Hammersmith to work and every day am confronted by cyclists travelling at speed on the pavement or riding through red lights. If I challenge them all I get is abuse as if they have a right to endanger others. Neither the police nor Hammersmith Council appear interested in doing anything about this. Now the Evening Standard seems to be supporting this behaviour. Thanks for the timely article.
David Philip

I couldn’t agree with you more. I live on a no-through road, although a cycle lane runs through it. I have nearly been run over by these aggressive cyclists when leaving my house more times than I care to remember. They cycle far too fast, never use their bells and seldom have lights on their bikes, even when it is night time, and, if I have the “cheek” to get in “their way”, they scream obscenities! Small children
play on our road, and I fear it is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or even killed by these arrogant twerps on two
wheels. They are no better than drunk-drivers or people who drive vehicles without licences. Also, the fact that they see themselves above the law (and woe betide anyone who questions them for cycling on the pavement or through red lights), confirms they are nothing better than common crims in my opinion. I do not drive, I am a pedestrian, so feel I am doing my bit for the environment too. The best way these idiots could help the environment would be to cycle to Dover and not look back. Tougher regulations need to be put in place. Thanks for highlighting this issue.
L Woods

Hi - as a London pedestrian, car driver and cyclist it is plain to see that there are dickheads who do stupid things in each of these groups - surely common sense could tell someone that ? But it seems you don't get paid for rational comment, what with 'privileged, white, self-absorbed and arrogant' being much more your style

Cyclist are fascists ? That's really really offensive, no doubt your intention but it's not big or clever to offend people just because you've got a column to write. It just makes you look like Richard Littlejohn.
Pete Reilly

As an experienced cycle-commuter myself, I am only too aware of the 'self-absorbed and arrogant' cyclists that Michael Hodges describes in Slice of life, as they frequently whiz past me whilst Iwait patiently at red traffic lights. Furthermore, since I occasionally travel the streets of London as a pedestrian, I can also empathise with Michael's anger towards cyclists who think it is acceptable to ride on pavements.

So imagine my surprise when I was involved in a bicycle accident last Friday afternoon, that was caused neither by myself or another cyclist, but in fact by a pedestrian. As I rode along the Mall not twenty yards from an operational Pelican Crossing, the individual ran into the road without warning, causing an unavoidable crash. After we had peeled ourselves off the road she was extremely apologetic, and explained that she had been in a hurry. Such a hurry, in fact, that she continued on her way almost immediately. In addition to some cosmetic injuries, I was left by the side of the road with a snapped collar bone.

Perhaps more disturbing than the incident itself, however, was the time spent waiting at the side of the road after I had phoned for help. During that fifteen minutes or so, not one passer-by asked if I needed assistance, despite some obvious and very bloody facial injuries. I can only assume that everybody on the Mall that afternoon had read Michael's jingoistic article, and that upon seeing my crumpled steed they felt quietly triumphant that a pedestrian had scored a point against a 'fascist' biker.
Pete Hatton

I’m sure Michael Hodge’s Slice of Life colun was calculated to get hundreds of letters from irate cyclists, but I’m going to ignore that fact and write anyway.

I think his column misses the point. Every day I see the vast majority of my cycling colleagues flouting the rules of the road, often creating dangerous situations because of their carelessness.

But a leaked Transport for London report two weeks ago (reported in The Times) came to the shocking conclusion that cyclists who stop at red lights are more likely to be killed on the road than those who don’t.

Many pedestrians put themselves and others into danger by dashing across the road in front of cars and stepping out when they aren’t looking. But when do you hear the whole class of pedestrians being vilified, except perhaps by Jeremy Clarkson?

Law-abiding “good angel” cyclists don’t deserve death on the roads just because fellow cyclists don’t obey traffic signals.
Ailis Kane, SW8

Ten Commandments for the London Cyclist

1 Once a human steps into a car they cease to be human. Their strength is magnified beyond their effective control. They become heavy, polluting and dangerous. They are the enemy of the cyclist. A battle line is drawn between the car driver and the cyclist. The cyclist is responsible not just for his own survival but for the effective representation of all fellow cyclists. To this end the car driver must be antagonized and challenged constantly.

2 Traffic lights are designed for large heavy vehicles that have catastrophic effects when they collide with a human. They are not relevant for human-scale transportation devices. When a cyclist reaches a red light and all the cars are sat still belching fumes. She is duty bound to cross the red light. This is one way of making it clear to a driver how inappropriate their vehicle is for a dense urban setting.

3 When a driver passes too close to the cyclist the cyclist should follow the car until the next light and shout in the window at the driver. Appropriate comments include "get out your car and get some exercise… you are rotting in there and those fumes are killing the rest of us". Should the driver be of the aggressive, anti-cyclist variety things can heat up quickly. Be ready to make a quick exit.

4 Pedestrians are like cyclists but without a bike. They should be viewed with sympathy and always given room for safe passage. However, on pelican crossings they do not need the entire strip for their safety. As discussed in 2 the bike is light and nimble. A cyclist can circumnavigate a pedestrian without total stoppage. If they have problems explain how traffic architecture is designed for the car not the bike.

5 Slip streaming increases the efficiency of cycling in London. If cyclists in the front do not like it they can signal and shift left allowing others to take the lead. Cyclists should help each other at all available opportunities. Competition between cyclists is natural and healthy. However, never forget, it is the car driver who is your enemy.

6 Death is a real prospect for all London cyclists. Around 20 are killed every year by cars. It is useful to meditate upon death for at least 5% of all cycle journeys. Imagine being hit by a car and falling into an on coming bus. Imagine your relatives weeping. Then take care and assert yourself boldly to the car.

7 Car drivers get angry when they cannot pass you. They will normally rev their engines releasing excess fumes. When they can pass they will do so at unnecessary speed. Usually they will break soon after as they approach the next light/bumper of the front car. As you pass them shake your head and tap your head. These people are dinosaurs.

8 Sometimes the only safe way to continue your journey is to mount a pavement. Some pedestrians feel threatened by this. It is important they understand that pedestrians and cyclists are extremely closely related. They are of the same scale and both can move slowly and carefully. They need to understand that it is the car that: congests cities taking space away from other crucial needs of citizens; causes increases in asthma, lung cancer, brain damage and other illnesses caused by pollution; hit and wound 2 teenagers per week; contributes to soaring obesity and heart disease by promoting inactivity; prevents school children walking to school because of car-danger; leads to the delocalization of our basic needs leading to the death of local shops and the genesis of out of town shopping hell zones and also… contributes to global warming. Never accept that a bicycle is a threat when there are cars in the vicinity. By removing cars from London, cyclists and pedestrians could easily co-exist in peace.

9 The government pays billions of pounds every year to subsidize the car. They do this through road building, traffic management devices, police fees etc. the police are employed by the government to maintain a dangerous, potentially catastrophic system. Reasoning with policemen is not known to ever have worked. They should be treated with extreme caution.

10 Cycling is joy available to nearly all of us. It is amongst the most ingenious of all humanities inventions. Love your bike. Love your fellow human. Love this precious earth that we were inexplicably born onto.

The Admiral Melson