Stop wallowing in cyclist deaths

I’m getting sick and tired of the Evening Standard wallowing in every cyclist who dies on London’s roads. Where are the multiple-column write-ups about us pedestrians who get killed – at an annual rate of some 580% that of cyclists?

Is it because cyclists tend to be white, middle-class, affluent, aspiration and politically active whereas pedestrians tend to be none of them?

There are only a dozen or so cycling fatalities a year in our capital. That hardly justifies the huge fuss and even larger public expense thrown at them.

The tens of millions spent making the A11 “cyclist-friendly” is wasted money because they will still not look where they’re going, will still run red lights and will still ride on the pavements.

Just write the fatalities off as Darwinism in action and spend a few quid on squeegee mops.

Follow-up the day after:

I’m having an interesting discussion with my friend the letters editor of the Evening Standard. He suggested that readers might consider the tone of my rant yesterday rather brutal, and wouldn’t I think it better to emphasise that there are unreported pedestrian deaths rather than complain about over-reporting of cyclist incidents?

I replied: “Not really, no. There is a time and place for brutal – breaking through their over-developed sense of entitlement, for example. I don’t know how much walking you do around London, but I average 35 miles a week, according to my iPad, and the arrogance and dismissivness displayed by cyclists has to be seen to be believed.”

“They simply cannot seem to grasp that the Highway Code applies to them too, and that pavements are not for bikes. They treat traffic lights like Christmas decorations, River and canal paths as race tracks and pedestrians as mobile roundabouts to be shaved as closely as possible.”

“A little bit of brutal would do these people good.”

I suspect he won’t be running my letter this time!