Peter Murray, in ‘Licence and Insurance for Cyclists’ (August 9), asked if a cyclist needs such provisions to ride on the road. The simple answer is no.

As explained to Murray on numerous previous occasions, both a motor vehicle driving licence and motor vehicle insurance are just that, only required for ‘motor’ vehicles.

Bicycle users have their own easily-accessible regulations, too large to reproduce here.

The reason why human-powered cyclists are treated differently is that the many ‘benefits of cycling’, as Murray inadvertently points out, extend to society as a whole. Simply put, cycling saved the EU €119 billion in 2012 and more lives than it kills. Making cycling more difficult just means you have to spend more to achieve a worthwhile modal shift.

This is the reason why Bicycle Advocacy Group’s target audience is licensed car drivers (who are already pay circulation/emissions tax), 26 per cent of whom (Electromobility survey 2012) stated they would swap to a bicycle, making even London’s modest five per cent 2025 mayoral target and Malta’s suggested 2020 general 20 per cent modal shift target somewhat achievable.

Statistical data elsewhere suggests that in 60-80 per cent of bike-car accidents, the fault is more often the licensed driver. In the light of the recent spate of flipped cars and spectacular car accidents, isn’t placing the onus purely on cyclists being somewhat obtuse? Moreover, any slight increase in bike-car accidents recently is due to the phenomena of ‘safety in numbers’. Something we had actually foretold and diminishes as drivers become more aware of cyclists as numbers increase, hence the letters.

Encouraging people to cycle safely is something that BAG takes very seriously and actively participates in despite very limited resources. The difference is we base this on an informed praxis of existing legal frameworks, current best practice and what actually works.