The Conservative Party posted a tweet today, which sparked outrage amongst cyclists after they suggested that they were cracking down on dangerous cyclists to protect the "most vulnerable" road users.
The tweet, which has now been deleted, probably wasn't the wisest decision to make, and I feel the wording was incorrect. The "vulnerable" road users referred to in this tweet, are, in fact, pedestrians. The relationship between cyclists and car users is still very much a separate debate that has seen devastating consequences for cyclists, and the need for safer cycling is definitely a priority, to ensure the roads are safe for everyone.
However, and this is where my gripe with cyclists comes in, this is about the relationship between the lycra brigade and everyday people walking in the street, the pedestrian.
In 2016, 44-year-old Kim Briggs was knocked over and killed by a bicycle courier who was travelling on a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes.
Charlie Alliston, who was 18 at the time, was jailed for 18 months after being found guilty of 'wanton and furious driving' - a Victorian offence first introduced to cover reckless horse-handling.
The fact we have to use Victorian law because there's no law on cyclists is preposterous and embarrassing, and shows the government's failure to administer laws to make pedestrians safe.
A new law should be introduced to govern this correctly, to ensure the safety of pedestrians and to give some - not all - cyclists the means to improve the equipment they're using and fully understand the law of the road.
The problem I have is a lot of cyclists' disregard for traffics lights and zebra crossings; I've been hit by a cyclist on more than half a dozen occasions because they think they're above the law, as they cycle around the capital city like it is Tour de London.
It's happened more than I'd like to admit, especially where I've been crossing at a pair of traffic lights when the green man has appeared, because as you know, it's the green man, and it means I can cross the road safely, and whizzing out on the other side of the bus, an aluminium ring covered with rubber whacks into my foot and I fall to the ground, with the cyclist blaming me for a wrongdoing.
Of course, I reply with an angry insult, but I know, like others around me saw, I had every right to walk into the road at that point. Luckily, I walked away with bruising to my foot, but if I broke a bone, this person has just broke my foot and got away with it.
How is that fair? If a car runs over my foot, or knocks me down there's means of tracing that person and prosecuting them for dangerous driving.
This is an occurrence that I know has happened to other people when it comes to trying to cross the road safely. You wouldn't expect a car to suddenly drive through a red light. It's more frequent than is reported, and the most of the media attention solely focuses on cyclists trying to tussle with cars, buses and lorries.
Again, zebra-crossings see the same issue. If you're in a car and you fail to slow down, or worse hit someone who is crossing at a zebra-crossing it's an 'absolute offence', and you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing. If you failed to do that in your driving test, you'd instantly fail, so why is it okay for some cyclists to not adhere to this?
A bike can cause damage to a human being as much as a car can, yet there's nothing in place to penalise these people if they cause harm, and in the 2016 case, actual death.
I've been hit on a zebra-crossing by a cyclist, and again, this person stayed on their high-horse and blamed me for walking out, when a car had already stopped, and I had right of way. This is the issue - the sheer arrogance of some of these Sports Direct Chris Froomes.
Essentially, there's road safety laws to keep people safe, and the second people think they're an exception to the rule is when fresher regulations need to be brought in to ensure the well-being of everyone.