I initially thought that the RHA might actually have done something sensible for once and allowed Guardian cycling columnist Matt Seaton to write a piece on the dangers that cyclists face on the roads. It is a nicely written article, explaining neatly why cyclists should never undertake a lorry but also asking truck drivers and operators to always check and double check to make sure there's no rogue cyclist lurking in the left-hand blind spot. The gist of his message is that cyclists are sometimes unpredictable and you can't assume that they won't do something daft or that they have seen your indicators or have correctly anticipated your next movement.
To sum it up - we all have to share the road and look out for one another: "This is not about antagonism or competition between cyclists and truck drivers: we have a mutual interest here. Nobody wants even the suspicion of responsibility for a road death to fall on them, just as nobody wants to be dead."
Now that's the positive bit. Just when I thought that the normally responsible RHA was getting all progressive on us, the organisation reverts to its reactionary worst.
In a side panel tagged Editor's Note, the article initially praises Seaton for his balanced approach and then bemoans the fact that when the RHA approached Transport for London in a bid to spread the trucker's message further afield it was turned down: "TfL told us that none of the cycling publications it approached were prepared to publish our views or advice."
(Heaven forbid that you pop down your local WH Smith to find which publications might be suitable and then attempt to contact them yourself of course).
Apparently this smacks of arrogance and an attitude that says HGV operators have a duty to protect cyclists despite their own "arrogance and dangerous practices".
This leads on to its grand finale: "Motor vehicles pay through the nose to use the highways. Their drivers and riders have to undergo formal training and pass a test. Maybe it is time that cyclists were tested, taxed and obliged to have insurance. Just to make the point that using our roads safely must be a shared responsibility."

Oh give it a rest.

This is just the sort of anti-bike drivel that regularly gets dredged up every time there's a debate like this. It's the equivalent of a child trying to take his ball away when he's not happy with the scoreline. I might grudgingly agree with the training angle but I'm at a loss to how exactly insurance and taxation would help stop bike-truck accidents and ultimately cyclist deaths. Let's remember why cars and trucks are so heavily taxed - it's because they produce pollution and damage the roads - it's that societal impact that people bang on about. Bikes have an impact so small it barely registers, so why on earth would you tax them? Not to mention that it's virtually unenforceable and counter to every current environmental initiative going.

Yes we all have to do our bit to share the road safely and responsibly, no-one disputes that, but there's nothing to be gained from such a knee-jerk reaction to the problem.
But let's be honest, truck drivers do have a duty of care to other road users simply because of the size and weight of their vehicles. And operators have a duty of care to ensure their drivers know to use those fancy blind-spot mirrors they've had fitted and to stop driving with a mobile phone clamped to their ear and so on and so forth.

It was a wonderful opportunity for the RHA to offer a conciliatory gesture and say 'Yes, we know there's a problem, we want to help sort this out, but you have to do your bit too'.
Instead - 'tax the buggers off the road, that'll sort them out'.

Incidentally last time I heard the argument regarding bikes and road tax it was being advanced by a 15-stone, shaven-headed builder who was also telling me he would "punch your f*cking teeth in" after I'd reacted to him nearly sideswiping me with his pick-up. Apparently my lack of a road fund licence made my opinion - about turning me into a bloody smear on the asphalt - somewhat invalid.