I sent the following letter to ST Forum today. If anyone on this list has any influence on getting it printed (or any other letter with a polite, reasoned point of view), please help. There are already a lot of inflamed arguments on the online webpage and I'd rather no one got killed.

Steve, hope your blood pressure has decreased!

MLNW Murli
(who knows what MLNW stands for? no, it's not "my legs nice, what"!)

Dear Sir,

 

I refer to the letter, “Curb recreational cycling on roads” dated March 1, 2011.

 

Even as a motorist myself, I fail to understand Dr Teoh’s argument.

• Is he saying that all road users not proceeding to work or back home must be banned from the roads, presumably including himself?
• If I were to commute to work by MRT instead of by road, would I have the right to order joyriders off the train for my personal comfort?
• The bicycle was invented before the motorcar and cyclists were on the roads before drivers —this right was not accorded recently, as Dr Teoh seems to say— so where would we be if cyclists reversed the argument and began ordering cars off the road?

The logic is unappealing. The roads are public property and no one person has any larger claim on them than any other.

 

If Dr Teoh were to recognise that he, like all other road users, is part of a system and equally responsible for traffic (or arguably more, since four cyclists occupy less space than a car), and if he were to suggest improvements for the system as a whole, I would support him completely. For example, he could agitate for wider roads, higher ERP charges, more flyovers, public transport improvements, higher fuel surcharges, etc. Targeting just one group is unfair and sets a precedent — tomorrow he may be the target of the next “improvement”.

 

Even if no such systematic changes are made, when faced with slower traffic of any kind, all road users have choices: overtake safely at an appropriate distance (1.5m is the legal requirement taught at driving schools for all traffic, not just cyclists), wait a few seconds to allow the route to clear, take a different route, commute at a different time, use a different form of transport, etc. I’m sure Dr Teoh exercises one or more of these choices when faced with large vehicles and taxis stopping for passengers — why not cyclists too?

 

I would thank the Straits Times not to print such inflammatory letters. We have enough accidental deaths on our roads not to add to them by inflaming people’s passions with misguided arguments.