Until another lone wolf lost control of his van in the streets of Barcelona today, with evil alt-right bigots quick to blame ‘Islam’, the big news in the U.K. was how a ‘fixie’ cyclist had deliberately ‘mowed down’ a pedestrian in London. If anything, the latter incident is the more disturbing.
Charlie Alliston, 20, is one of a handful of cyclists over recent decades who have either killed or injured innocent pedestrians. What makes this homicide especially depressing is that Alliston was wearing neither a helmet nor hi-viz clothing at the time. Nor was Alliston’s ‘fixie’ bike equipped with a front brake which might otherwise have reduced his speed at the time of the impact from a shocking 18 mph. As the Guardian reports:
“A former bike courier accused of mowing down a mother-of-two on his bicycle has denied being a risk-taking thrill-seeker influenced by “dangerous” cycle race videos.
Charlie Alliston, 18, likened cycling without a front brake on his bike to starring in “alleycat” movies, films of informal races in cities around the world, the Old Bailey heard.
Alliston, 20, never wore a helmet when he cycled and took to the road on a track bike that had no front brake – thus contravening a legal requirement of which, he told the court, he was unaware.
Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, Duncan Penny QC, Alliston said: “I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe.
Alliston was 18 when he collided with Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street in London on 12 February 2016. The 44-year-old HR consultant, who had been on her lunch break, sustained “catastrophic” head injuries and died in hospital a week later.
Penny questioned Alliston over a tweet he sent in February 2015 that compared cycling without a front brake to being in a “Lucas Brunelle movie”.
Brunelle makes alleycat videos in which he rides around cities including London “doing dangerous stuff” such as weaving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes, the Old Bailey heard.”
Whilst we hope that the judge will impose the maximum possible jail sentence against this arrogant cyclist, we recognize that nothing will bring back the innocent pedestrian who was snuffed out in the prime of her life. At the risk of over-emphasis, we urge you to read the words of the article carefully: This was no accidental collision, the pedestrian was ‘mowed down’. The cyclist was also a white male. He is guilty. As Hell.
We do believe that lessons need to be learnt from this unfortunate episode, if only to ensure that this once-in-every-five years-incident never happens again. Whilst selfish cycling lobbies protest that cars are far more dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists, resulting in many more lives lost, we believe this is beside the point. Far more media attention has been given to the death of this particular pedestrian than any cyclist or pedestrian killed by trucks, cars etc. In other words, people have had enough of the cyclist menace. People naturally enquire: What will the government do to clamp down on cycling? How do we return our nation’s roads to law-abiding car drivers in their environmentally friendly vehicles?
As a gesture of respect to the innocent pedestrian who was ‘mowed down’, cycling itself needs to be banned. Whilst there will be a few selfish voices who will protest this proposal, cycling is an old-fashioned pastime which has outlived its useful shelf-life and – as we have seen – has proven itself to be outright dangerous. In the U.K., France, US, Australia and elsewhere, cyclists have become a menace on our roads. Riding sometimes three or four abreast, they prevent the normal circulation of road traffic (I.e. cars) and cause motorists to suffer raised blood pressure, anxiety, and even cardiac incidents due to drivers being unable to overtake cyclists within a few seconds of encountering them.
We have already reported how smart cars represent the future. Not only will smart cars allow their passengers to navigate safely from A to B, they also will provide our government agencies with important data on people’s movements, health and activities, thus allowing the government to raise the quality of life for all. The government will also improve ‘security, prevent ‘terrorist attacks’ in ways we have no business of knowing but to take it on simple trust. Sadly, the same cannot be said of cyclists, whose movements remain entirely unknown, unrecorded, and anonymous. Selfish in other words.
If a final argument against cycling was needed, we need only mention drugs cheat, Lance Armstrong. As recent revelations have shown, Armstrong was only one of many professional cyclists who cynically took performance enhancing drugs to gain an edge. Yes, he was singled out because a scapegoat was needed. The real truth is far more shocking. Here is the truth:
All cyclists are taking unaccredited drugs. From the old lady cycling to the post office to dispatch a birthday card to the professional cycling courrier delivering letters to Goldman Sachs: they are all on EPO. They are all potential killers of pedestrians. They need to be stopped now.
Cycling is not ‘freedom’. It is death.
postscript: we are aware of certain dissent in relation to this subject. Do we ban bikes or just white males? Marx was clear in the subject: two feet are all that are needed for transportation: