MP’s safer cycling call angers drivers

[Alien8]

Calls by Cambridge MP Julian Huppert for tougher punishments on drivers who injure cyclists have sparked fury among motorists.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/MPs-safer-cycling-call-angers-drivers.htm

 

[PpPete]

Looks like Mr Huppert needs every bit of support we can give him.

As a motoristy as well as a cyclist I find the comments from the "RAC Foundation" disgraceful.

 

[Dan B]

The full speech is here: http://www.bikehub.co.uk/uncategorized/cycling-agenda-pushed-in-parliament-by-cambridge-mp/

Couldn't see much of anything divisive in there: I rather suspect the RAC foundation rentagob didn't even read it

 

[mark barker]

As a motoristy as well as a cyclist I find the comments from the "RAC Foundation" disgraceful.

May I ask why?

But his comments have been branded “divisive” and “righteous” by a motoring charity, which accused him of driving a wedge between cyclists and motorists.

A spokesman for the RAC Foundation said: “Mr Huppert’s motives might be honourable, but rather than encouraging harmony between cyclists and drivers he risks widening the divide

“The reality is there are reckless elements among all groups of road users.

“He is right to say tough action needs to be taken against offenders, but wrong to seek to establish a hierarchy of the supposed righteous.”

I think thats a pretty reasonable approach. The rules of the road are there for everyone, and if they're adhered to then we'll all be fine. If they're not, then the offender should be prosecuted, regardless of their choice of transport.

 

[DrSquirrel]

Looks like Mr Huppert needs every bit of support we can give him.

As a motoristy as well as a cyclist I find the comments from the "RAC Foundation" disgraceful.

The RAC comment wasn't that bad actually...

A spokesman for the RAC Foundation said: “Mr Huppert’s motives might be honourable, but rather than encouraging harmony between cyclists and drivers he risks widening the divide

“The reality is there are reckless elements among all groups of road users.

“He is right to say tough action needs to be taken against offenders, but wrong to seek to establish a hierarchy of the supposed righteous.”

Which is right, all offenders need to. Granted Mr Huppert's point is regarding lack of prosecutions etc, and he should quote more examples really so he cannot be misrepresented.

 

[Dan B]

Can anyone point me at the part of Huppert's speech that "seek to establish a hierarchy of the supposed righteous”, because I'm not seeing it. The RAC man is saying he's doing something that he's not, and the Cambridge News is reporting that as "sparking fury amongst drivers" - now who exactly is responsible for "widening the divide"?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The problem is that the RAC Foundation "spokesperson" has simply inferred from Huppert's comments that he believes cyclists to be blameless. Hence the description of him/cyclists as "righteous".

Does Huppert think that? Almost certainly not.

He was talking about a specific problem of motorists - in his eyes - not being sufficiently punished for inattention/carelessness. Which is a legitimate issue, and quite separate from the issue of punishments for cyclists.





So this is the usual bollocks, in other words.

 

[Dan B]

The problem is that the RAC Foundation "spokesperson" has simply inferred from Huppert's comments that he believes cyclists to be blameless. Hence the description of him/cyclists as "righteous".

Does Huppert think that? Almost certainly not.

If Huppert thought that he probably wouldn't also be seeking assurances (in the same speech!) that Bikeability funding would be protected, because why would blameless and righteous cyclists need training...

 

[numbnuts]

maybe we should give him some support by sending him emails
julianhuppertmp@gmail.com

 

[turnout]

The RAC Foundation oppose stiff penalties for killer drivers, according to their spokesman.

And it is utterly ridiculous for them to try to blame cyclists when they are rarely at fault in bike/vehicle collisions, dangerously pig-ignorant.

 

[Alien8]

One of the other stories today was "Almost 2,200 people were caught not wearing a seatbelt while travelling on the county's [Cambridgeshire] roads last year - including 130 children."


This has attracted comments from Joe Public such as "Nice little money maker for the cops, surely." and "Another £129,300. Money for old rope this Policing lark.".


I guess you have to remember that there are some some furious dim-wits out there.

 

[John the Monkey]

Look how sparsely attended the chamber is too. Good to know that our elected representatives take the issue seriously, isn't it?

 

[jig-sore]

A spokesman for the RAC Foundation said: ...

“He is right to say tough action needs to be taken against offenders, but wrong to seek to establish a hierarchy of the supposed righteous.”

gotta say this is a fair comment.


but the change needs to be made on a much higher level. we need to stop the mind set that motorists own the road and all other users are just in their way, this is so not the case. a good strong TV campaign that makes things clear about so called "road tax" would be a start

 

[turnout]

gotta say this is a fair comment.

Wrong. The heirarchy already exists, in law, drivers have to comply with a lot more regulations before they are allowed to drive because the law recognises the greater responsibility they have compared with cyclists.

 

[Browser]

Dare I say we also need tougher penalties, or tougher enforcement of existing penalities, for offending cyclists as well e.g. ninjas, RLJ'ers, pavement cyclists etc.