A publicity hungry lawyer has taken another cheap shot at cyclists and cycling policy and as on other occasions, the Twittersphere (me included) is obligingly condemning him or blessing him for having the guts to say ‘what everyone’s thinking.’ (No, not everyone. Just a few of you)
After affording Mr Freeman the courtesy of reading the piece on his website this morning, IÂ joined in:
Rarely see such a poor conflation of points outside the Daily Mail. But it’s doing its #PR job https://t.co/t5hZP0t9EE #cycling via @roadcc
— Paul Parsons (@PaulPEsq) January 7, 2016
Out on a ride this afternoon with cars, trucks and buses squeezing past and cutting me up on a 2.5 mile stretch of designated trunk road that is accompanied by a dedicated cycle path just metres away, I got to thinking if I hadn’t been too hasty in my condemnation and promised myself another, more considered look at the piece to see if there was merit in it.
The article on Mr Freeman’s website says:
Cyclists should be forced to use designated cycle lanes, leading traffic lawyer Nick Freeman has said.
Whilst cyclists are encouraged to use specially marked sections of highways and footpaths, many ignore them, choosing instead to ride their bicycles on the main carriageway.
Here he uses the terms ‘cycle lane’ and ‘cycle path’ in a seemingly interchangeable manner. To me they’re different. Cycle lanes are marked sections of the roadway that are dedicated to cyclists. In general these offer cyclists the same flow and progress as motorists and motorcyclists enjoy. They also allow cyclists to get ahead at junctions to a safe space in front of cars, rather than being stuck between the kerb and vehicles. A cycle path (more commonly a’multi-user path’) is away from the road and users suffer the impeded progress of crossing side streets, poorly placed street furniture and parked cars that pedestrians experience.
I’m sure that ‘many’ cyclists, as I did this afternoon, choose to use the roadway. I’m also sure those acts are not cases of ‘ignoring’ the designated cycleway, rather an active and considered decision based on any number of factors. I’ve used the dedicated path there many times, but today I was out on my road bike (a clue there for the sleuths amongst you) and the designated route is a mostly a cinder path not suitable for that bike.
The article goes on:
[Mr Freeman] is calling on Transport Minister Patrick McLoughlin to make it mandatory for cyclists to use these facilities, which have been paid for from the public purse.
Mr Freeman cited London’s new super cycle highway as a classic example where £160m of public money is being spent to create this amenity, but cyclists’ will not be not forced to use it.
Once completed, this will lead to lengthy tailbacks for commuters each and every day, as roads have been narrowed to accommodate the new cycle path.
Mr Freeman’s call on the Government to legislate for the compulsory use of cycle lanes would be a real waste of the public money he seems so conveniently concerned with protecting. 160m is cheap as a means to make cycling safer and more attractive, enabling and encouraging more people to get to work more quickly and healthily (a drop in the ocean compared to £14.8bn spent on CrossRail)  And public money is cyclists’ money too. I’m a driver and a cyclist and a tax payer. I want the money I contribute to be spent on better, safer amenities for when I have to use a car and when I’m on a bike (as well as hospitals and fire officers and all the other important stuff).
The law as it stands recognises that not all cycle lanes or paths are suitable for all cyclists or bikes – for a start, they don’t go everywhere you’d want to – but perhaps we cyclists should get behind Mr Freeman’s call, as a precedent for compulsory use of other tax-funded amenities provided for the public good. Tracking and cautioning drivers for passing that expensive park and ride facility we’ve all paid for on their way into an urban area? Issuing fines for taking a car on a journey that could have been completed by public transport? Of course not, there’s as little logic in either of those as there is in his article.
It seems this is more like a pub rant than a serious contribution to any debate; the kind that would get you noticed and into an argument. And in that manner, I’m sure it’s doing the job Mr Freeman intends. If you’re like me, you’d expect more from a legal professional.
Was I too hasty in commenting on the piece? Not at all.