On Monday, the scientist and Labour peer Robert Winston is to formally ask a question in the House of Lords about what assessments ministers have made “for requiring adults riding bicycles in city centres to have a licence and third-party insurance”.
Below is the entirely imagined response I would like the government to make to him.
There’s almost too many positive benefits of getting more people on bikes to list – safer, quieter, more socially connected towns and cities, less impact on climate change. And it’s a fair bet that imposing sudden restrictions on cyclists would depress the number of riders. Why would you want to do that? And how would such rules even work? Would the licensing and insurance be just for adults, or also children? If the former, what about teenagers – would they suddenly have to carry ID on the ride to school to prove they are under 18? How would the system even be enforced – would it also require bikes to be registered with number plates?
Finally – and this is perhaps the clincher – what would you hope to achieve by this? If you believe licensing transport users stops wrongdoing, can I point you to the statistics showing 86% of drivers speed on 20mph roads, and how a third admit to using handheld phones at the wheel. And on insurance, there’s the small matter of how even with laws mandating it there’s an estimated 1 million uninsured drivers on the road.
The other hugely important part of this is that when people break laws on a bike, yes, they can be irritating and even intimidating, but they very, very rarely kill or seriously injure other people. Of the 1,800 or so people killedevery year on the UK’s roads, between zero and two typically tend to be killed because they were hit by cyclists. It’s not because cyclists are uniquely virtuous, it’s just the very different impacts involved in being struck by a 100kg bike-and-rider combination travelling at 15mph, or a 1,500kg SUV doing 35mph.
周一，工党成员、科学家罗伯特·温森于上议院正式发声，质疑为何各部门要求成人在市中心骑车需获许可，并购买保险。
以下是我对于政府如何回应的一些猜测。
推广单车出行好处不胜枚举——更安全、噪音污染更少、更能推动城市融合并有利于减少气候变化的影响。既然如此，又为何做出种种限制，挫伤人们骑车出行的热情？这样做的初衷是什么？这些要求到底有多少可实践性？如果成人需要获取许可、上保险，那么儿童是否更应如此？如果成人和儿童都需要，那么青少年呢——他们是否在上学路上也需要随身携带身份证，以证明自己并未成年，毋需牌照与保险？这一套体系又应如何落实——自行车是不是也需要挂牌？
最后，也是更重要的一点是——这么做到底为何？如果你认为设立门槛能够有效减少骑车不规范，那么很可惜——数据表明，86%的司机曾经在限速20迈的路上超速，三分之一的司机承认在开车途中用手机；而保险的作用更是令人质疑——超过100万的司机未曾购买保险。
最重要的是，骑车的人即使行为不规，最多造成不快或给对方带来惊吓，很少会造成实质性的人员伤亡。每年英国的车祸会造成约1800人丧生，而其中只有1到2例是自行车车祸。这并非因为自行车车主品德更加高尚，而是15迈、仅100千克的自行车与车主所能造成的伤害，相较于1.5吨、行车速度达35迈的SUV实在不值一提。
单词注释：
the House of Lords 英国上议院
assessment 定价、评估
depress 使沮丧、压抑
license 许可、特许
number plate 车牌号
clincher 起决定性
wrongdoing 坏事、不道德的行为
mandate 授权、命令
irritate 刺激、激怒
intimidate 恐吓、威胁
virtuous 善良的、有道德的
SUV 多功能车
1. On Monday, （1）the scientist and Labour peer Robert Winston is to formally ask a question in the House of Lords about （2）what assessments ministers have made “for （3）requiring adults riding bicycles in city centres to have a licence and third-party insurance”.
（1）the……Lords：主句，表明工党成员的行为；
（2）what……for：宾语从句成分，表明罗伯特的问题内容；
（3）requiring……insurance：进一步阐述其所发问的具体内容；
2. Of the 1,800 or so people killed every year on the UK’s roads, （1）between zero and two typically tend to be killed （2）because they were hit by cyclists.
（1）between……killed：主句，表明死于自行车事故的人数之少；
（2）because……cyclists：原因状语，表明事故原因；
简说：自行车城市 难于上青天
在现代化的工业城市，人们只知修桥铺路难，却不知，真正打造自行车友好城市其实更难。因为如果真正推广自行车出行，需要的不仅仅是鼓励人们骑自行车，给予购车优惠，更重要的是要打造配套设施，真正做到“自行车友好”。在这一点上，我们也许能从自行车友好城市——哥本哈根上学习一二。在这座城市中，人们不仅可以寻找到自行车道，更能在GPS上定位到具体的自行车道路，建立了完善的自行车系统。因此只有从细节完善，才能真正打造“自行车之城”。
■雅思提分月计划课程（在线小班）
■雅思写作批改服务（48小时内回复）
作者：雅思小伦哥
来源：博珂英华（微信公众号）
博珂英华：专注财经以及英语的知识分享、教材编写和提升课程。