I thought education gave people brains? Part II.

Source: E-Mypaper, p. A17

WHAT?

Koh better not be a führer anytime soon. His "final solution" to the cyclist-motorist problem is one based on outright bias and what's worse is that his arguments are quite insensible - and I don't say this because I am outrightly pro-cycling - Christopher Hitchens can be outrightly biased but he makes sense.

Let me explain. Cyclists on the roads pose a danger to both ourselves and motorists, sure without a shadow of a doubt. And so does Koh when he drives or ride a motorbike down the road. He poses a danger to himself and his fellow road users. As with anyone who gets in the car/motorbike/bike/on his two kahs (legs). Step on the road in whatever form, and you step into a dangerous street where the onus of safety is yours. I've always argued that it's not the medium that makes a commute safer or more dangerous to a larger extent, it's always the agent in the medium - that is, the driver/cyclist/rider/pedestrian.

Koh isn't too broad-thinking either, apparently. First, it's impossible to ban cyclists and banning cyclists be quite disastrous to our economy.

Cycling is not some foreign workers' mode of transportation from their dormitory in the outskirts of Singapore to their construction site/factory somewhere else. It's a million-dollar industry. Ban cyclists on the road? Say bye bye to Treknology, a shop which sells bikes that practically don't go anywhere but on roads. It has three outlets in Singapore, and, too, you can kiss goodbye to your friendly LBS.

Also, has Koh thought of the implications of the lowest-end of our workforce? The migrants? Does he have an idea how expensive transport can be when one's salary is three digit? I doubt so. What would happen? I can't predict anything, but I have a premonition that it isn't going to be good.

This is epic fail, again.