Came across this article in ‘Today’.

Latest estimates put the population to 17 million. I have been to Beijing and I should say it is a pretty congested town. It seems like they go through extreme measures to keep the vehicle count on the road down (similar to our weekend COE idea).

China is probably the largest car market right now and there is obvoiusly lot of money to be made in selling cars (They can have a COE system and an ERP system and I suppose the demand for car would not go down. It will be a good revenue stream for the Beijing Municipality. They can build better roads and better Public transportation with that money.

But it seems like they are doing neither. Instead, they plan to inconvenience car drivers by bringing back bike lanes.

Makes me wonder. If China (who are fighting for their right to develop at a rapid pace) can think of solving their traffic and pollution woes by introducing bike lanes, why does Singapore think the other way around?

I am not saying bring us bike lanes. I am just saying divert your attention from cyclists (and educating them) to Drivers (and how they can be made responsible for their actions on the road).

It is how one views things. I saw this on one of my favorite blogs (ogle at hot, stylish girls on bikes – whats not to like).

I do not expect this to happen all over the world. However, it is a measure of how much the notion of cycling as a means of transport has seeped into the public conscience.

The problem as I see it in Singapore is that the authorities and public view cycling as either a sport or recreational activity or at the very most, a mode of transport for the extremely poor and dare I say it, foreign workers. The second part of the equation is the notion that the people who ride are unwilling to learn the local traffic rules and will flout the rules even if taught.

Now seen from such clouded perspective it is easy to understand why the authorities are trying to ‘fix’ the cyclist instead of the drivers and more importantly the infrastructure. The typical cyclist is viewed as one with low economical value and hence there is very little need to provide for them. This idea also spreads in other areas. A colleague commented on how someone from LTA was quoted as saying that providing amenities for handicapped people was cost prohibitive (I quote without basis here). The notion of economic value add is at play here again.

The same is true in the rest of the world too. I suppose Copenhagen city council is willing to invest in infrastructure since the ones cycling are teachers, lawyers, doctors and tradesmen, all contributing to the economy and it is ‘worth it’ to keep these lives safe.

I sound morose but I guess that is how things are.

Getting back, I am not expecting very fancy railings or segregated lanes (it will be great to have them and will encourage more cyclists). But I can live without some middle manager quoting to the media and media misquoting to rest of the world that cyclists are endangering their lives and others.

This is a real pity.

I quote from the Channel News Asia Article:

More often than not, cyclists are at fault when it comes to fatal or serious road traffic accidents involving them.

This has been the case in more than 50 per cent of such accidents between January and September of the last two years, said Senior Parliamentary Secretary of Home Affairs Masagos Zulkifli in Parliament on Tuesday.

Common causes for the accidents include changing lanes without due care, failing to keep a lookout, and failing to give way to traffic with right of way.

The rationale is akin to saying (for lack of a better comparison) that women with short skirts are at fault for being molested.

Oh Please this is an amateurish argument. If you cannot provide proper infrastructure, you might be better off keeping the mouth shut.

It is totally possible that this is simply bad journalism (from what I see being published on local news papers, I will not be surprised). It is also possible that the parliamentary Secretary is quoted verbatim. Either way, it is a step in the wrong direction.

I am not absolving cyclists of faults but any argument that blames the victims is a weak mechanism to shrug off ones responsibility and avoid a sensible debate.