The great London cycling debate
-
By Derek Adams and Michael Hodges. Photography Rob Greig
Updated: Mon Aug 10 2009
Pity the cyclist, pleads Derek Adams
Don't pity the cyclist, snarls Michael Hodges
Londoners have one inalienable right: the simple liberty of walking along the pavement. This is where we meet people, exchange ideas, interact with other Londoners – take that right away from us and really, there isn’t much left. And yet one group of people seems determined to do just that: cyclists.
Cyclists say they have no choice but to ride on the pavement because of unthinking and dangerous drivers. They take a moral delight in it, as if the conflict on London’s streets were some kind of equivalent to the land disputes in Israel/Palestine, with cyclists in the role of Europe’s dispossessed Jewry and pedestrians as the land-deprived Palestinians. In this scenario, London’s pedestrians are actually the victims of victims and the real villains are car-owners, who have driven the cyclists out. This makes drivers the equivalent of the Nazis (portraying drivers as beasts is a common cyclist tactic).
Well, I don't buy it. I think cyclists go on the pavement because they are arrogant lunatics who suffer from smugness as unbearable as their attire. They believe their mode of transport signifies a caring modern egalitarianism, but its vague green self-righteousness simply fudges the fact that cyclists often hold political views that would actually increase inequality. No surprise that David Cameron and Boris Johnson ride bikes.
Feature continuesAdvertisementCycling is alien to the culture of London and always has been. London is a place for thinking, not for working out; the worship of the body rather than the brain, which is fundamental to cycling, is essentially at odds with what being a Londoner is all about. London is also a city for nipping across the road and between cars; impossible when silent bicyclists come charging through the gaps at speed. But most of all London is a city where you can wander along the pavement and think about things. In this creative reverie you will still notice a car or lorry but you will not notice a bicycle.
But ultimately the argument for or against bicycles in London comes down to one area of contention, that battlefield where the future of this city will be decided: the pavement. Ceding control of the pavement to cyclists is bad for our health (walking is much more likely to cut obesity levels than cycling, since it’s cheaper and easier), bad for our culture and immoral. I for one, have every intention of fighting back.
Read Michael Hodges' debate-provoking piece on London's 'Two-wheeled fascism'.- Add your comment to this feature
|
|
More ways to enjoy Time Out
-
Weekly London newsletter
The best of London in your inbox
-
Time Out Widgets
|
|
21 comments
What a boring argument - and all centred on the few cyclists who do ride on the pavement. He first attacks cyclists for being healthy in a city meant for thinking (he's not from London then, I guess) and then tries to also claim the high ground for health with the spurious argument that walking is cheaper and easier - ergo healthier. I cycle to get from A to B, not to work out. I slow down for pedestrians on the tow path. I chat to little old ladies with dogs, I get off and walk through pedestrian areas (even through Hampstead Heath, which really needs a north south cycle-way through it.). I think this antagonism is being blown up by the papers because they'd rather have a fight than look at the problem - how small-minded!
I'm a cyclist, a walker, a driver and a motorbike rider. Walkers get upset by bikes coming up close to them, and never think that it is exactly the same thing they do to us (as cyclists) when they have finished their 200 foot walk and are back in their cars. That said most of us, in whatever guise, behave well - there are some nutters in every category. As a cyclist I want to see more separate cycling lanes, and a sub-network of ways through London that use parks, canals and unused roads. And I want a law like the French have, whereby if a motorist hits a cyclist he is automatically in the wrong. And I think Michael Hodges needs to deal with his inner demons and calm down a little.
Two well-written and entertaining articles... But... It's pretty simple really, isn't it? The roads should be repaired, particularly in the gutters where they're always the worst, cycle lanes should be put in wherever possible, and drivers should stop trying to glue their smelly vehicles to the curb and driving into the cycle boxes in front of traffic lights.
HA! As if any of that's likely to happen soon! Maybe we should start an online petition for the next Mayor - how about that, Time Out?
Of pavements and stupidity: cyclists should avoid going on the pavements unless there's really no other choice - and then go slowly and carefully because of course pedestrians should have priority on the pavements. As for pedestrians crossing without looking, I'd say they deserve to get hit but we've all done it! And cyclists tend to come off worst in collisions with pedestrians anyway...
If only everyone could just be a little more respectful of each other what a wonderful world it would be (bleeuurrghh!).
I don't understand this rant. Cyclists ride on the road, on cycle paths and shared use paths.
how does that affect the pedestrian exactly?
if you mean people cycling on pavements, then you really need to be directing your ire towards those people.
most criminal activity is carried out by motorists or those on foot, I suggest you have a pop at these evil pedestrians and drivers.
now you see how stupid you are, two people to write such drivel? blimey, shouldn't you be doing homework or a paper round? leave the writing to the journalists.
The guy who wrote this is an idiot.
"London is also a city for nipping across the road and between cars"
Right so what were Londoners doing before cars then?
Get some original content FFS I've read all this a dozen or more times before.
I wouldn't mind if there was a touch of wit or wisdom, but this is just repetitive crap. Dull tedious, clueless wanker with minimal writing skills has a pop at cyclists. Stupid cyclist tries to muster sympathy without research or logic.
In a better, kinder, kinder world where I ruled, you would both be eviscerated and dipped in salt for your crimes against creativity.