On 15 June, 12:18, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Doug wrote:
If cyclists were treated as normal road users, instead of as second
class road users, there would be no need for segregation. They would
be expected to travel in the middle of a lane, instead of in the
gutter, which unavoidably would delay faster traffic until it could
safely overtake. Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear
special clothing or protective gear like helmets unless drivers were
too.

If cyclists stopped believing they are victims then thier body language
would also be reflected in the way they cycle. Why should cyclists think
they are second-class? Why should cyclists also be led to believe they
are second-class by other cyclists? There is no special requirement to
wear fluoro/releflective or helmets but if all cyclists hear is 'It's
not safe, the big bogey man/driver/ truck from hell is waiting for you
to come out of your fron door' then, if they manage to pluck up the
courage to venture out on a bike, Chicken Licken has persuaded them that
they must go out wrapped in bright yellow.

Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go *'See, told
you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on the ng
are not dead and risen from the grave?
How come we are still alive after all these years?
How have we managed to happily cycle around without the constant
contest/conflict we are told we are undergoing?

It ceases to be a myth when you are hit by a car and deemed to be
culpable for your own injury because you were not wearing a helmet or
reflective vest, etc, etc.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.