What appears to be getting overlooked in this is the original Radio 4 programme where the CTC president is concentrating on how dangerous cycling is, how we need to be aggressive and how motorists have every right to feel frustrated about cyclists as we're extremely badly behaved... The Wail has not 'set up' Mr Snow on that one as far as I can tell.. And he has previous form on this too, as it's not the first time he's gone on about how dangerous cycling is. Does the CTC need a president to be emphasising just how terribly dangerous cycling is? Is that going to get the wider public interested in cycling? How about more emphasis on the positives of cycling?
And as for the Wail's 'set-up' of JS, and yes, the Wail is notoriously anti-cyclist, JS has already admitted that he was cycling on the pavement
http://road.cc/content/news/20885-daily-mail-exposes-jon-snow-serial-rule-breaker
but tries to excuse it in the article above
"“In the first picture I am leaving the hoops I had parked on. In the other pavement shot I am arriving at railings to which the photographer would have seen me secure the bike – you can see the top of my leg swinging over the saddle preparatory to parking. "
Yes, well, some of us dismount our bikes before walking on to the pavements, and walk out bikes from the pavement parking to the road before mounting the bike.
As for RLJ-ing, he's unrepentent here too
"“The red lights I was well past when they turned red and the ambulance I obviously stopped for. I regret nothing beyond the reality that in common with America and many other countries we need a serious national cycling strategy and REAL provision for cycle use.”
So did he go over on amber? Amber means stop too. And he repeats the justification for RLJ-ing he used in the Radio 4 programme, that it's allowed in America. Well here isn't America.
As for using the mobile, again, wriggling:
“It is alas NOT illegal to use a mobile on a bike (but should be!) "
He's right, it's not specifically illegal to be using the phone when cycling, but it's surely something a policeman may well take into account when deciding whether he's committed "reckless cycling" "careless cycling" or whatever the correct term is for this these days (it was such under RTA 1988). And if he thinks it should be an offence, why is he doing it anyway?
Sorry, but as much as the Wail is rabidly anti-cycling, JS has already effectively admitted much of the article but is exceedingly unrepentent about it.
And don't forget just how dangerous cycling is! We're all going to die horrible deaths: not!
