The Times leader of 21 February 2007 questioned why cycling isn’t being considered more seriously as an alternative to cars.
“More than half of all car journeys in London cover distances of less than two miles. The car is a creature comfort, but the experience of a short drive in Central London is not necessarily a comfortable one. Many drivers endure grinding stop-and-start, culminating in fury at not being able to find a parking space. They are short of time. Yet many of those who are unemcumbered by children or shopping would save time — and money — by cycling.On an average journey of four miles in Central London, cycling is the fastest mode of transport. And, fumes and accidents apart, it is much healthier. Regular cycling is said to halve the chances of suffering from heart disease. Campaigners argue that regular cyclists can achieve levels of fitness comparable to those of noncyclists ten years younger. It is a way to reduce stress and demonstrate an environmental conscience at the same time. How modern.”
The article goes on to criticise the poor provision for cyclists in the capital and other British cities. When The Thunderer leads with something like this, it’s fair to say the tide is most definitely turning in favour of cyclists. And of course electric cyclists enjoy all these benefits, but arrive even sooner, less flustered and arguably more safely.