Why are cyclists above the law?

12:00pm Thursday 20th September 2007

Comments (3)   Have your say »

IT WAS 7pm on Tuesday this week, but suddenly it seemed like Christmas morning for me as I sat at the traffic lights next to the retail park at Wycombe Marsh.

A cyclist roared past the line of patiently-waiting cars and sailed through the red lights without a care in the world.

Not an unusual sight on our roads, I hear you cry, because large numbers of cyclists only think the Highway Code applies when it means cars having to give way to them. They don't believe they have to obey the same rules as us because they are using green transport and green transport saves the world.

But as wally bike rider shot past, a joyful sight, akin to Santa arriving with an armful of presents, suddenly sprang into vision.

It was a police car with lights blazing.

Oh wonder of wonders. Was a law-breaking cyclist at last going to be brought to justice?

My heart leapt as the cops zoomed towards him. And I'm sure I spied the rider look around nervously as the long arm of the law approached.

But just as I was celebrating him getting his just desserts, the police car drove right on past and disappeared, leaving the pedalling plonker free to carry on his merry way.

No, I'm not going to use this episode to bash the police. It's unlikely they spotted the offence and, even if they did, they were probably on their way to a 999 call that was a lot more important than stopping a rogue cyclist.

But this did reinforce a crucial point. If a motorist had committed the same offence, the police could have noted down his number plate and still carried on to their emergency call.

A motorist committing such an act could ultimately have his licence revoked.

But cyclists can't have their licences taken away or their number plates noted down. That's because they don't have licences, nor do they have plates.

Nor do they need any basic training or knowledge of the Highway Code before they are let loose on our roads.

It's possible that Tuesday night's cyclist didn't even realise he was doing anything wrong by flying through red lights.

Why should he have? Cycling is almost totally unregulated. There's no tax, no need to pay for insurance, and yet riding a bike regularly causes massive hazards on our roads.

I agree that cars are far more lethal. An irresponsible motorist is obviously a million times scarier than a reckless cyclist.

Bad car drivers endanger the entire motoring population, while dodgy bike riders are normally only a risk to themselves.

But that still doesn't make it right to allow any old twerp to ride on our public highways without the slightest training.

Motorists live in fear of a speed camera on every street. Eat an apple at the wheel or talk on a mobile phone and you'll likely end up before a beak with a hanging cap on.

Somehow, though, cyclists are immune when it's plain to see they need protection from themselves.

Every cyclist should be made to buy a licence and pass at least a simple exam. How about making them sit the theory part of the driving test?

By all means give them subsidies for this and make it dirt cheap. I'd be happy if my tax went to a system that regulated this type of transport.

Or how about paying for it with the money raised from fines issued to speeding motorists? There must be enough of that cash about these days.

I accept it would still be difficult to police the rogue riders. But regular spot-checks for licences, followed by stiff fines for offenders, would quickly weed out the law breakers.

Just because cycling is green doesn't mean that it shouldn't be safe as well. Green doesn't mean you can speed through traffic lights, or ride at night with no lights on your bike, or cycle two abreast on a busy main road, or fly down the A40 with your earphones on listening to music...

I might sound a fanatic, but I don't hate bicycles. Far from it. Make riders apply for licences and all my objections will end at a stroke. I might even take up cycling myself if they did that.