Emmissions: We will now embark on what some may see as a very rash move. Firstly, I find myself obliged to publicly contradict a recent editorial in The Irish Times, which will hardly help my career. I find myself at odds with objections to EU-wide proposals to hold motorists and their insurance companies liable in all incidents involving cyclists, writes Killian Doyle.
It argued such a law would be unworkable here.
Secondly, in voicing my objections, I must come clean on an issue that will no doubt damage my credibility among regular readers of this column.
For I am proud to say I am one of those who enjoys cycling. I am one of the hardy few who are driven to risk life and limb in this most unfriendly of cities by a mixture of frustration at public transport, an effort at staying fit in this desk-bound world and a resignation in the face of the exorbitant costs faced by the Irish motorist.
An editorial colleague informs us that in Stockholm, Amsterdam or Brussels "cyclists obey the rules of the road," but "rarely" do so here. Is this an irrefutable fact, one without exception, I asked myself? I was once flattened by a drunken Dutch mountain-biker in Amsterdam. Does that not count?
Branding all cyclists as law-breaking maniacs over the antics of the few seems irresponsible. It is not an a priori truth that to be an Irish cyclist is to be largely indifferent to the law. The same logic, if applied to asylum-seekers or Travellers, would lead to far more serious accusations.
Any cyclist worth his trouser-clips knows how vulnerable he is, and is thus doubly aware of how foolhardy taking risks in an environment that is so vehemently anti-cyclist can be. I myself am reminded of witnessing the bloody aftermath of two fatal incidents involving trucks and bicycles anytime I'm tempted to flaunt a red light.
Some readers may have been influenced by a recent RTÉ programme showing a gang of cycle-couriers racing headlong through the streets, apparently tanked up on various substances, with no regard for either their own or the public's safety.
One of these adrenalin junkies was flattened by a jeep for his troubles. "I knew the risks, man," he said stoically as he was being scraped off Baggot Street. One imagines the jeep driver was somewhat less blasé about the incident.
These nutcases are surely not representative of all cyclists, in the same way as those convicted of drunk or dangerous driving are not a true reflection of all motorists.
Now, I am not implying the average motorist would ever mow down pedallers with impunity, but the realisation that there will be consequences if they do hit someone will make life safer for those on two wheels. The argument is that granting immunity to one category would be an injustice to law-abiding road-users. I agree.
But surely the converse - to refuse law-abiding cyclists protection because of the actions of a few - would be equally unjust?
It seems logical that it is in the interests of the Government to embrace any moves to make the pedal option more attractive in the city at least.
Well, I'd better be off, I have a desk to clear out.