Beware ‘groupthink’ on cycling benefits
GROUPTHINK is a word that I have only come across recently as a number of national columnists have based articles around the word. Basically, it describes an idea that becomes widely accepted and adopted without rational consideration. Some of the adopters then go on to promulgate and promote their issue with varying degrees of extremism to the rest of society. The Insulate Britain fanatics being an example of those at the extreme end of the extreme scale.
However, I wish to add support to the recent letter from Ric Wharton [Guernsey should follow on climate, not be a leader, 13 January] asking that we apply a bit of common sense and factual analysis to the drive for net zero emissions that obsesses many, from some of our deputies and civil servants, down to we ordinary mortals.
Of course, we want to set an example of being a responsible society but even if we adopt everything that is asked of us, in my opinion, the effect will be less than trying to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool with a thimble. I look forward to someone proving me wrong.
I would also like to highlight the other side of the coin in relation to ‘active travel cycling’ which is a typical example of groupthink. I am quite happy for people to use their bikes for pleasure or as their means of transport but I do not want this thrust down my throat as saving the world.
I do not want the infrastructure of our lovely island to be distorted for this minority activity. Cyclists may be saving emissions on their own journey, but is there a driver in Guernsey who has not been in a dawdling queue of cars and lorries stuck behind a cyclist?
Every time a vehicle has to brake to follow a cyclist perhaps going at 10mph, they then need to use extra energy to regain their speed of say, 25mph. Those vehicles could range from a Mini to a Ferryspeed articulated lorry so we are talking of many, many tons every day that require extra energy to reach their destination because they are delayed by cyclists. In fact, I now call some of them roadblockers. This is to say nothing of the time wasted by delays to drivers’ journeys.
The previous States Assembly distinguished itself with the Richmond Corner traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing at a reported cost of £80,000, as well as the subsidy for purchasing electric bikes, some of which rumour has it are now residing at second homes in France. I wonder how many of the others are still used regularly?
Some months ago, you featured an article about a proposal to spend £30,000 on cycle shelters and other facilities for cyclists around the island. Even if the States could afford this, I sincerely hope that groupthink doesn’t get the better of them.
GEOFF DOREY