A new website has been launched which lists many of the arguments commonly given for not providing safe space for cycling, and then sets about ‘debunking’ each one.
Produced by campaign group The Cycling Embassy Of Great Britain, Cycling Fallacies is being promoted as a ‘one stop shop’ to support campaigners for active travel.
The ‘myths, misinterpretations and misunderstandings’ listed on the website include ‘our roads are too narrow’, it’s too hilly here’, ‘cycling isn’t safe’, ‘I’m too old to cycle’ and ‘liability laws will make drivers considerate, and cycling safe’.
In response to ‘our roads are too narrow for cycling lanes’, the website says: “It is true that some roads may be too narrow to accommodate cycling infrastructure, alongside other uses like parking and multiple lanes for motor traffic.
“However, it may well be the case that cycling infrastructure is a more beneficial and productive use of road space than parking bays on both sides of the road, or multiple lanes of motor traffic. A road can be made one-way for motor traffic, for instance, or one of two rows of parking on both sides of a road could be changed.
The website also provides links for more information, and supporting images to help people looking to promote cycling.
Mark Treasure, chair of the Cycling Embassy, said: “We get regular enquiries about all sorts of well-known myths, misinterpretations and misunderstandings – not paying road tax, not being Dutch, and so on. We looked at the ‘Your Logical Fallacy Is’ site and really liked it, so thought a cycling equivalent would be a great idea.
“We hope the clear explanations of why such claims are mistaken will make this new website a great resource for people who come up against the same arguments time after time. We also hope it will enable people to engage in positive debates about cycling as a mode of transport for the future.”
There are cycling fallacies (and weak arguments) that ‘anti’ groups put forward, many of which are listed on the new website. However, as a pro-cycling website it is not surprising that the answer the website provides to “our roads are too narrow” (for example) only gives part of the answer -the part that puts a purely pro cycling case. Some pro cycling ideas have significant consequences for non cyclists – some intentional, some not. There is always a balance to be struck. As this is lacking from this website I’ll personally classify it amongst many many other groups under the ‘not – neutral’heading- which includes both for and against.
Pat , Wales
--2