Sir, – I am grateful to Dick Ahlstrom for highlighting the issue of cycling safety ("Why cycling safety is a two-way street", October 4th), but why does he feel the need to mention cyclist behaviour?
I am at a loss to recall any articles on motorway funding mentioning the high percentage of motorists who speed, use mobile phones, etc. This seems to be standard for any cycling-related piece. Why do media outlets feel that cyclists need to “earn” safer infrastructure? – Yours, etc,
BRIAN McARDLE,
Ashtown,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of injuries and deaths on Irish roads are as a result of driver error. I would suggest that until cyclists become responsible for a comparable number of tragedies, talk of misbehaving cyclists is treated as the distraction it is. In the meantime, how about we focus on the environmental, economic and welfare benefits that an improved cycling infrastructure will have on our country and its citizens? – Yours, etc,
PETER HUGHES,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – While I do not want to diminish the importance of road safety and the health benefits of cycling, I have to remind cyclists that it is motorists who bear the brunt of taxation in this area and effectively underwrite the bill to provide these facilities for cyclists. It is motorists who get hit for road tax, fuel tax and exorbitant insurance costs. Cyclists pay none of these. There’s never a shred of gratitude from cyclists for this largesse either. With a huge chip permanently fixed to their shoulders, cyclists are more than happy to hurl abuse at those who subsidise them should they perceive even a hint of inconsideration on the roads we are all being constantly urged to “share”.
In recent years cycle lanes have been provided on a level previously unheard of, yet in many cases cyclists, inexplicably, refuse to use them. Pedestrians, many elderly, need to be constantly mindful that part of the footpath may be designated for bicycles, or some speeding cyclist entering their personal space may quickly remind them of this.
A great many cyclists in Ireland want all the advantages with few responsibilities and need to bear in mind that getting from A to B isn’t a personal one-way street! – Yours, etc,
JD MANGAN,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Dick Ahlstrom, like many commentators, seems to imply that more funding and better cycleways should be contingent on cyclists being “good”. In the name of heaven, what have the transgressions of one lot of cyclists got to do with providing safe cycling infrastructure for all cyclists? Does your motoring correspondent propose that funding for the M6 or the M50 should be withdrawn because some motorists break the speed limit, or use a mobile phone while driving? Should the current Luas works be halted because some passengers engage in anti-social behaviour or fare-evasion? The only similar transport analogy I can think of that fits your columnist’s scenario is that sometimes a flight is grounded or delayed and a few hundred people inconvenienced because of the behaviour of one unruly passenger.
Please, could journalists writing about cycling learn to separate the issues of funding and infrastructure from those of illegal or boorish behaviour? It may well be that both issues need addressing, but separately, please! – Yours, etc,
JOAN SWIFT,
Sligo.