I quote this blog that appeared on Mr Brown.
After a particularly unpleasant commuting experience, I wrote to the Straits Times Forum about two idiots who violated bus lane hours and passed me way too closely. Surprise, surprise, one response was the ‘you don’t pay road tax so get off the road’ argument. I’ll accept the argument the day when you stop polluting the public air, raising the collective air temperatures of the island, increasing noise levels on the island, and killing people. None of the road taxes you pay goes towards removing your negative influences on our shared environment. It only goes towards building more roads and hence encouraging more pollution.
And another ‘if other people swerve to the right to avoid you they endanger other people and it’s your fault’ comment. Right. If it’s not safe for you to either pass me without swerving or swerve to the right, yet you choose to swerve to the right, it’s my fault?
It’s funny how people can think that they own the entire damn road just because they pay road tax. I guess it’s not an abstract idea that public road is a public good, regardless of having road tax or not. Tax is just a mechanism for the government to increase revenue and add on to the cost of owning motorized vehicle in this tiny sunny island. If i follow the flawed arguement of keeping off the road if you did not pay road tax, i guess there should not be any marked crossing on the road since you and i who cross the road may not have paid road tax. Or should i propose gantry at the crossing and some form of ID for road tax payer who are allowed to pass the gantry, while you and i who are not paying the tax should use other overpass or underpass.
While the public good cannot be excluded from anyone’s use, laws are in place to ensure proper use of the public facility for the greater good of the society. Since the law allows and requires bicycle of travel on the road, who are we to complain and harbour resentment towards cyclist?
Disclaimer: the author is an avid cyclist who wishes he has more opportunity to cycle to school without incuring more nagging from Mrs Chongky.
good on ya
What was more disturbing, to me, was that the commenters on my letter felt they were justified in putting cyclists’ lives in serious danger just because we slow them down by 30 seconds. I was accused of having an overblown sense of entitlement; on the contrary, I think it’s obvious to those not immersed in their righteous driver-arrogance who has the ridiculous sense of entitlement. I am not asking them to slow down to a crawl on their whole commute; merely to wait till it’s safe to pass me, especially when traffic in the other lanes is going reasonably fast anyway. It seems to me to be an eminently reasonable request of members of a civilised society that we refrain from trying to kill one another.
Imho, it’s not an overblown sense of entitlement. of course i would also expect to be respected as a road user when i’m on my two wheeled vechicle on the road. many a times, many car drivers do not regard bicycles as a legit road vehicle, which is certainly frustrating. if the constitution and law gives the bicycle the rights on the road, i guess there’s certainly no more ground for arguement that bicycles DO NOT belong on the road.
i have often heard comments on that cycling on the road is dangerous and why the cyclists are stupid enough to risk their lives instead of that $20 fine for cycling on the pavement. then again, the law requires bicycle to commute on the road, and besides, it’s the other road users that made it dangerous for the cyclists. riding a motorbike is dangerous as well => it’s the lack of respect for the entitlement and rights of two wheeled vehicle, with motor or no motor.
despite us being able to also travel at more than 30 or 40 km/h on the left most lane, which is definitely close to the legal speed limit on Sg roads, cyclists are still regarded as slow. i guess cyclists do not mind being overtaken, it’s just being overtaken and put into danger at the same time.
i have read about your suggestion for a critical mass. and the pink run. i last read that pink run continued after some particulars taking. i reckon there could be other more organized manners of educating and publicizing the rights / plight of cyclists. i read about critical manner on the wiki page on critical mass. that sounds more peaceful and less rebellious. but probably should tie in as a proper event with sponsors and permit etc, with a festival at the end of the race (similar to our heartland activities format). LOL.
Chongky,
I agree Critical Mass in Sg will have to ‘peaceful’. For one, we should probably not run red lights like in other cities and we’d probably get into big trouble if we take all the lanes of a road (maybe just one or two?). We would also have to tone down on political slogans. The problem with making it into a festival-thing with permit is that it would be difficult to hold it frequently — you’d have to re-apply for a permit each time and I can’t imagine the traffic police being really sympathetic to roads being clogged by cyclists once a month (or even once every two months). The permit may be granted for an annual event, but probably not for a monthly event. And an annual event would be easily forgotten and hence not very useful for getting the message out — might as well take part in a triathlon. Besides, there is already the Ride of Silence. The thing about CM is that it spreads the word to the people on the street, and hence is much more of a culturally infectious thing than something like the Ride of Silence. I have personally witnessed many people who were sceptical about bike commuting until they saw CM riding through their streets, decided to join in, and got addicted. This kind of bottom-up cultural change can be powerful — strength comes with numbers.
Sorry for rambling. Anyway, at the moment I still haven’t made enough willing cyclist-friends to guarantee some kind of minimal turnout for a mass, so it’s still a latent idea.
Do count me in. At least now you’re one closer to target.