Protecting the Stupid

Why do so few Cambridge cyclists use the cycle lanes provided for them? I think I know the answer, and a solution to the problem

As far as truisims go, describing Cambridge as a 'bicycle friendly town' is something akin to describing Venice as 'great for gondalas'. Whilst it's apparently a fact that there are 'nine million bicycles in Beijing', and that Amsterdam probably qualifies as bicycling nirvana, it's very fair indeed to say that provisions for cyclists in Cambridge are pretty darn good. Well done, therefore to all those in Cambridge who's efforts have made it so. The various council bodies responsible for Cambridge and its environs should be applauded for their eco-friendly, safety first, pro-bike initiatives, not to mention the efforts of the pro-war bluestocking and 'bicycling MP', Anne Campbell (remember her, everybody!? No? Oh well).

Anyway, as a result of the work these people have put in, Cambridge is now criss-crossed with bicycle lanes and one-way or contra-flow precincts. All these are designed to encourage cyclists, by appealing to local residents' green friendly sensibilities, whilst providing convenient routes to areas across town. Not to mention safe havens from the depredations of the less attentive motorist, who are legion.

Cycle lanes are, in short, a great idea for which we should be grateful. Why then, do few local cyclists use them? As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian, every day on many occasions, I am witness to the sight of some idiot on his or her bike, not using the provided cycle lane. Instead you will find them snarling up the traffic on narrow roads, by preventing cars from travelling at 30 mph in areas where it is also impossible to overtake. Buses and cars are forced to trundle on behind whilst Johnny Lycra-Pants makes like some cut-price Lance Armstrong along the Milton Road. 'Get onto the cycle path and out of the way, you total idiot', are the words that so often, and so easily, come to mind in these circumstances. Why are they holding up the traffic along a busy urban clearway, when there are clearly marked cycle lanes about a yard to their left? Because they can? Because all motorists are incipiently evil and must be punished? Because it saves the enviroment a bit more, by not wearing out the pavement? Who knows, but personally I have my own explanation: because the cyclists in question are inconsiderate to the point of abject stupidity.

But merely slowing the traffic down a bit is dull sport, when you consider the thrills to be had on, for instance, the Madingley Road stretch of town. This is the 'xtreem' sport end of the stupid cycling game, where the truly dumb can pit their wits against a large number of lazy, bored, inattentive, half-asleep, irritable, poorly skilled and perhaps equally stupid motorists – who just happen to be sitting behind the wheel ('driving' is too generous) of two tonnes of hurtling metal and glass. Sadly, it only takes a regular glance at the pages of the local newspaper to see which of these two parties comes off the worse if and when a collision occurs. And yet there they are, desperately striving for the delirious 'King of the Mountains' adulation that presumably greets their heroic arm-pumping arrival at the office bike sheds.

Why, I ask myself, do these people risk their lives on the open roads at the hands of motorists (of all people) who they have never met, when they have the choice of using the cycle lane? I may refer you to the answer I gave above, and perhaps provide a simple solution to the problem: cyclists who do not use the provided cycle lanes should be given a heavy fixed penalty fine, both for blocking the public highway and, more importantly, for endangering the lives and well-being of themselves and others. If that seems strict, then consider it no more than a classic, if often unstated, function of government: protecting the stupid from themselves.