Editorial in The Times – which in 2012 urged ‘Save Our Cyclists’ – calls for dangerous cycling law and riders to be licensed and insured

Hmm, as already commented, this looks like we are building up to the roll out for whatever was the trade for the new HC rulings... probably the introduction of dangerous death cycling laws, or mandatory use of cyclepaths, or insurance / taxation. Maybe all of it.

I'd suggest the press have been quietly steered towards building and concentrating populist momentum on this subject so that 'action must be taken'.

The cycling authorities and indeed all cyclists need to take stock and action - where possible - as none of these potential measures will deliver safety, or equity, or even satisfy the masses, the only deliverable will be less cycling.

There are plenty of powerful groups that would benefit greatly from cycling being removed from our highways, the most obvious being anyone associated with facilitating self driving technology. 

If you chuck in enough barriers, then kids won't start riding, and if you don't ride as a child, you are unlikely to ride as an adult. Problem solved. 

Self driving vehicles are far easier to implement, and the benefits greater, without slow moving organic matter in the way! 

'Mary Bowers, the Times journalist left with life-changing injuries when a lorry driver ran her'.. now there's an understatement; Bowers is now in a minimally conscious state and will spend the rest of her life in a care home; the criminal negligence of the Romanian truck driver was unbelievable.. he was behind her stopped at a traffic light and while talking on his phone, drove over the top of her when the light went green; he then stopped and got out, neglecting to apply the handbrake, which allowed the truck to roll back over Mary.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2022/jan/31/the-times-...

I've got an idea. Why not have the government provide third party insurance for all cyclists and pay for it from all the money said cyclists are saving the government by choosing to use a mode of transport that doesn't polute or cause wear and tear to the roads. Seems fair to me. Who could possibly not think that to be fair?

The effing idiots. What about pedestrians - why don't they pay 'road tax' then? they have loads more infrastructure than cyclists do - there are pavements, traffic islands, footbridges, toucan, pelican, zebra crossings, underpasses, pedestrian traffic lights . . . . Everywhere. Why don't pedestrians pay for those then? Or cycle licence and insurance? When? At the age of 5? Or maybe a ten year old should have a licence? Bu then mum and dad would have to pay for that, so let's say at 18. And would my mate have to be insured if he / she popped on my cycle down to the shops? The fuckin idiots. More read meat for the brexitty demographic to salivate over. 

The Times and the Torygraph, are simply the more 'respectable' versions of the Daily Mail and Daily Express. They're not even fit for wiping your @rse on.

I wish the editor of the Times would read out aloud the article and then realise how bad it is, we have nearly 1 million uninsured car drivers in the UK. Despite each car  displaying a number plate and thousands of cameras to read and track such plates. I would happily afford a small amount of money to ensure I can travel safely along roads but why not charge everyone which includes pedestrians? If we are applying such a principle, base it on the harm or danger created to individuals or society and the effect that vehicle has in damaging the road ? The BBC also has a more positive article on the new highway code changes, hopefully the pressure applied with people writing in about the more harmful articles and bias is having some effect ? Highway Code: How the update could improve road safety - BBC News

The Times doesnt normally play these games though, the audience who get outraged about things tend to read the Mail or the Express instead, hence why they could run the Mary Bowers cycle safety campaign and it not be out of step with the readership or get any blowback from them.

Yes we can cite two columnists in the past decade who wrote objectionable comment pieces on cycling, but other newspapers print equally hostile to cycling pieces on a near weekly basis.

So this is something different, I wonder if theres been a recent change in editors, though still typical of its dual headed approach to cycling they are just as likely to publish an article like air pollution is bad cycling is the answer,or Neah Evans says cycling is great you should try it, as they are "Killer Cyclists may be classed like motorists" https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/killer-cyclists-may-be-classed-like-m... or "Dangerous cycling needs stiffer sanctions and tighter regulation" editorial

the frustrating thing for me is how did we get from a national conversation about improving safety on the roads for vulnerable road users like cyclists, to end up in this Grant Shapps led cul-de-sac, who the Times say is a "keen cyclist" so clearly any bats*** crazy thing he proposes must be right I guess by their logic.

It even claims the "...problem of dangerous cycling on both rural and urban roads is known to every regular motorist."

yes I often think as Im passed within inches approaching a blind bend by a motorist travelling at near 60mph, Im the one causing the danger.

But this is basically a posh way of saying whataboutRoad Tax isnt it ?  "and it is reasonable to expect those who benefit from it to abide by its regulation and contribute to its upkeep."

and yet Im pretty damn sure my taxes that I pay, contribute to the upkeep of the roads already, and if they want to get picky, I just paid £155 VED on my car, because yes Im a cyclist and a driver, yet I rode twice as many miles as I drove last year, I paid taxes to the upkeep of the road and I lowered congestion, I lowered air pollution, I lowered the wear & tear on the roads by choosing to cycle instead of driving, frankly they should be paying me.

as for the abide by regulation stuff, well if you dont follow the rules on the road you are more likely to end up as one of those KSI stats, funnily enough the fear of permanent injury or death tends to focus the mind not to muck about cycling on the roads as its too dangerous to, if only that were the same for drivers.

The Times has gone over to The Dark Side to join the Mail, Express, Sun etc.- this may prove to be a mistake, as there are only so many crazed nutters to go round. Is the Times prepared to join the bidding war for ever more right wing misanthropic copy, when up against the real professionals at it?

Yet more proof, if it was needed, that rightwing and hypocrite are the same word.