Daily Mail in cycling shocker!

This photo makes me want to move abroad. Whoever gave this eyesore the go-ahead needs to be put down.

I cycled down there a couple of weeks ago when I managed to get lost on the way to polo. They are ugly but I assumed they were to stop kids on mopeds rather than cyclists. Reading the article you can see the residents' concerns; it is a narrow road, the garden gates open straight on to it and a speeding cyclist would be very dangerous. Just like the twats who cycle on the pavement outside my house are; the hedge means you can't see them before you step out and it's really risky. There are places where it's dangerous to other people if we cycle; we needn't be defensive or refuse to accept that. That the Mail has used it to further it's unpleasant campaign is neither hear nor there.

that fucking chef cunt is behind this ^

As it's not a footway (i.e. not a path by the side of a carriageway), I see no reason why cyclists are not allowed on it, unless there has been a specific byelaw or TRO* made by the local council.

Which makes me wonder if it wouldn't have been a better idea just to either pass a byelaw preventing cycling, or paint a cycle path instead.

• I'm not even sure if TROs cover paths, to be honest.
  
  

Is the article wrong then?

But residents say the move on the pedestrian-only backstreet...

Wouldn't suprise me if it was, and to be honest, I'm more inclined to believe someone who at least sounds like they know what they are talking about rather than the Mail.
What's a TRO?

Whilst at a Greek airport yesterday coming back from hols, I made the mistake of picking up a day old copy of the Daily Express and leafing through the utter crap that is this shit excuse for a paper. I came across this article by none other than Richard & Judy of the telly.

It was nowehere near as bad as the James Martin article, but nonetheless it was a badly structured and poorly reasoned rant against cyclist. The cheek of them. To be fair it all sounds like the doing of the floppy haired cnut Madeley. Judy probs has a hybrid she potters round on.

The article.

<--- twat

This is a quote of what Richard does not like, which I think you will find does not include cyclists. In which case Judy wrote it and she was probably so pissed up she did'nt know what she was saying:
"His dislikes are many and include squirrels, tap dancers, turnips, rosy cheeked farmers, hostage situations, El Greco, Bulgaria, Tony Robinson, ear wax, the word ‘humungous’, Tetley tea bags, North Korea, Eric Clapton, suffragettes, mimosa, beard trimmers, duck tape, manilla envelopes, and 60s pop sensation Lulu."

Whilst at a Greek airport yesterday coming back from hols, I made the mistake of picking up a day old copy of the Daily Express and leafing through the utter crap that is this shit excuse for a paper. I came across this article by none other than Richard & Judy of the telly.

It was nowehere near as bad as the James Martin article, but nonetheless it was a badly structured and poorly reasoned rant against cyclist. The cheek of them. To be fair it all sounds like the doing of the floppy haired cnut Madeley. Judy probs has a hybrid she potters round on.

The article.

I hope his lush of a daughter gets pissed up decided to take the car out and gets caught yards from their door.... oh wait

<--- twatS

Fixed

Ha! exposed the hypocrite, here's Judy with her bike, the bloody turncoat

Edit, shes actually quite hot... i hope she dates a nodder

I hope his wifes huge unsightly boobs fall out on national televeision reavealing to the world what saggy unsightly bbobs his wi.........

....Oh.....

"Cycling England turns out to be a quango that gets £47million of our money every year"

WTF is he talking about?

Fucking quangos taking all of MY money!!!

Of course, Cycling England seem quite reasonable when you put it another way...

Cycling England is an independent, expert body, working to get more people cycling, more safely, more often. Established in 2005 by the Department for Transport, we promote the growth of cycling in England by championing best practice and channeling funding to partners engaged in training, engineering and marketing projects. With the Department for Transport’s continued support and funding we work tirelessly to make the case for cycling, showing how the humble bicycle can transform the way we travel to create a greener, healthier nation.

To quote:

***"That’s right: no collision, whether it be with a car, bus, motorbike or pedestrian, would ever be the bike rider’s responsibility. This, he calculates, will encourage more people to take up cycling.

Let’s consider a few scenarios. Cyclist jumps a red light and crashes into your car. Whose fault? Yours. Cyclist shoots out of a blind alley without looking left or right and ends up under the wheels of a passing bus. Whose fault? The bus driver’s.

Drunk cyclist wobbles wrong way up one-way street and even though you stop your car in time, he still thuds into you. Whose fault? See above."***

All relevant. I HATE cars in cities, but taking it as a given for moment I think motorists are right to be sceptical of this legisation.

"Many cyclists, particularly in cities, already see themselves as either above the law or victims or both."

Whilst cyclists are undeniably under catered for, this is actually true. Forgiving the articles obvious and revealing vitriol towards cycling and its representative organisations, it's on the money as far as I can see.

I should that in my opinion anyone who uses the term 'lycra lout' with a straight face deserves to have their face unstraightened by a well-aimed boot.

To quote:

***"That’s right: no collision, whether it be with a car, bus, motorbike or pedestrian, would ever be the bike rider’s responsibility. This, he calculates, will encourage more people to take up cycling.

Let’s consider a few scenarios. Cyclist jumps a red light and crashes into your car. Whose fault? Yours. Cyclist shoots out of a blind alley without looking left or right and ends up under the wheels of a passing bus. Whose fault? The bus driver’s.

Drunk cyclist wobbles wrong way up one-way street and even though you stop your car in time, he still thuds into you. Whose fault? See above."***

All relevant. I HATE cars in cities, but taking it as a given for moment I think motorists are right to be sceptical of this legisation.

"Many cyclists, particularly in cities, already see themselves as either above the law or victims or both."

Whilst cyclists are undeniably under catered for, this is actually true. Forgiving the articles obvious and revealing vitriol towards cycling and its representative organisations, it's on the money as far as I can see.

I think I've posted about this elsewhere, but just to re-iterate: This gets misreported all the time (often probably intentionally). It is not proposed to make motorists at fault in all collisions. Rather, it is proposed to create a legal presumption that a motorist will bear the burden of proof to show that they were not at fault. Hence, the cycling bogeyman suddenly jumping a red light would still be at fault (and in most cases, it would be easy to demonstrate that they were at fault).

A full briefing is here:

http://www.roadpeace.org/documents/Strict%20liability%20discussion%20paper.pdf

Until this sort of quality information becomes available more widely, rather than being blocked by politically-motivated gutter journalism, this will continue to be misunderstood and misreported.

Thanks for clarifying Oliver. I had realised that it wasn't as simple as that though. Of course no-one will read or care about the smallprint- it's easier to just take shorthand. motorists always wrong + cyclists always misbehave = all cyclists are ****s. It's not because the information isn't available, it's because it's more convenient to get pissed off about it.

+1

Surely it can't be allowed to completely fabricate whole elements of the proposed legislation in a newspaper? And it's not just leaving out the small print, it's completely misrepresenting what is being proposed. There is a serious debate to be had about this kind of law, and I'm not 100% in favour, but if the papers can just print anything they like it makes it so much more difficult.

+1

Surely it can't be allowed to completely fabricate whole elements of the proposed legislation in a newspaper? And it's not just leaving out the small print, it's completely misrepresenting what is being proposed. There is a serious debate to be had about this kind of law, and I'm not 100% in favour, but if the papers can just print anything they like it makes it so much more difficult.

It's intensely frustrating and happens all the time, quite often in the name of 'freedom of the press'. :(

Until this sort of quality information becomes available more widely, rather than being blocked by politically-motivated gutter journalism, this will continue to be misunderstood and misreported.

Totally agree Oliver.

All relevant. I HATE cars in cities, but taking it as a given for moment I think motorists are right to be sceptical of this legisation.

Hmmm......

Thanks for clarifying Oliver. I had realised that it wasn't as simple as that though. Of course no-one will read or care about the smallprint- it's easier to just take shorthand. motorists always wrong + cyclists always misbehave = all cyclists are ****s. It's not because the information isn't available, it's because it's more convenient to get pissed off about it.

Indeed

It's not because the information isn't available, it's because it's more convenient to get pissed off about it.

No doubt that's the case with some people, but you'd be surprised how many people will listen when they hear what's actually being proposed.

Fucking quangos taking all of MY money!!!

Of course, Cycling England seem quite reasonable when you put it another way...

Best bit about that link in the quote is that the girl on the right has a pink thong on ...

Hmmm......

Indeed

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at...?

I received the attached document today.

1 Attachment

• Various v The Mail on Sunday.pdf