The comments in a post over at highlight just how much disagreement their can be within the cycling community over seemingly simple things like helmet laws and bike lanes.  Like many debates, these are characterised by a false dichotomy of choices: that overturning helmet laws means banning helmets or quality bike infrastructure means cyclists can’t use the roads.

Why do people insist on shouting past each other and finding enemies amongst allies? Its all very Pythonesque.

The sad fact is that outside of continental Europe, people who ride bikes are a very small minority – less than 2%.

Turning that 2%  into 1% isn’t a very good way to create change. If we want any hope of making cycling a safer, perfectly normal activity, then we need to find common ground so we can act as one group; and we need to appeal to the middle 50% – the majority of people who want to ride but don’t feel comfortable doing so in the present environment.

Update: David Hembrow has a similar tongue-in-cheek post about British bike campaigns. It details the struggle between the Peoples Cycling Front of South Gloucester and the Popular Cycling Front of Gloucester.  Obviously another Python fan.