I was really annoyed by all of this reporting. However, what annoyed me the most was the assertion that cyclists break the rules for safety reasons. What utter, utter crap!!
Did the CT really say this? Does anyone have a link where the CTC are directly attributed to saying this? If so I will be writing a strong letter of complaint!
First off, as I have hinted above, the assertion (as hackbike so eloquently put it) is bo%%ocks! Cyclists who run red lights, pavement cycle etc do so, either because they can't be bothered to follow the rules, they are just plain ignorant about them or they are ignorant about the real risks and benefits of cycling on the road (when compared to pavements). I have never, ever, had to run a red light or cycled on the path because I felt it was safer. If you ride correctly there is no need to break any rules (I say this understanding that there are extreme cases where there are very fast, dangerous roads on which it is not safe to cycle. However, this is very rare and not the situation being eluded to by the reports and I fear, the CTC.)
The other and, probably bigger problem in taking a stance like this is that it will not win any friends in the motoring community. To ask for cyclists to be made a special case,
go on, let them run a red light, is incredibly naive of the CTC. Of course that is going to annoy drivers who hear of this.
I honestly think Saturday was a bad day for on road cyclists. Some drivers will hate us even more. On the news they talked of two tribes. The solutions were described as new rules allowing cyclists to jump red lights etc. How is this going to pull the two tribes together
P.S That helmet footage wasn't mine. The van driver was an idiot. The cyclist, although he did not break any laws did overtake dangerously IMO. He did not have a clear enough view of the road ahead, i.e if a car came towards him fast, could he have been sure of an escape route? Does anyone know who's footage this was?