Cyclists need protection from anti-social drivers

NEW laws have been introduced to target anti-social behaviour on our motorways – middle-lane hogging, tailgating. As a motorist, I welcome this. As I and my grandchildren cycle, without doubt we need new laws to reduce the intimidation and 20,000 plus cycling casualties – more than 100 fatals – which the UK suffers every year. Crazy but true: many a motorway hard-shoulder would make for safer cycling than some public roads.

If getting too close to the car in front (tailgating) on the motorway warrants a £100 fine and three penalty points, why does getting too close to a cyclist – especially at excessive or inappropriate speed – not attract the same?

Cycling surely has too much to offer – fitness; health; cheap/zero emission transport; reduced congestion; sport (Olympic Legacy) and more – for it not to be better protected from anti-social driving? Why do so many drivers not react well to cyclists?

Despite mobile phone use slowing driver reaction times by some 50 per cent and increasing the likelihood of a crash four-fold, the law says (for driver progress) that hands-free phoning is fine. While phoning/distracted drivers are protected by a steel cocoon, air-bag and all, what use a polystyrene helmet? With motorways so reassuring and safe, why not the same penalty for hand-held phone use as for drink/drug driving, to make cycling equally so?

Invariably, time and so called progress leads to changes in the law. At the simple end, it protects the wealthy from being robbed by the poor: if needs be, a rich man can kill to protect his “castle”. Why aren’t poor and vulnerable road-users fully protected from distracted drivers?

The bigger and faster the vehicle the more safety and space vulnerable road-users are being robbed of.