I imagine every week or so, some mysterious (or unlucky) soul is forced to walk around the Daily Telegraph’s offices, Claudia Winkleman in the Traitors style, and tap an unsuspecting columnist on the shoulder.
‘You have been chosen. You will write our next anti-cycling opinion piece. Feel free to copy word-for-word the last one, but make sure bike insurance, number plates, and the word “rogue” are all included. Here’s your cloak, now off you pop to the motorist’s tower.’
> Latest Telegraph column claims AI-traffic lights to prioritise cyclists over drivers will make “entitled cyclists even more insufferable”
After Clive Aslet, Celia Walden, and countless others gave it a go this year already, this weekend saw the turn of Sunday Telegraph stalwart Simon Heffer (you know, the guy who wrote a flattering 1,024-page biography of Enoch Powell, him.)
Fair play to Simon, he didn’t let the Telegraph’s finest honour pass him by, hitting every anti-cycling beat imaginable over the course of his nine paragraphs – red lights, “whizzing past” pedestrians, “entitlement”, licence plates, insurance, a call for all cyclists to pass a proficiency test.
Hell, even Ed Miliband got a mention for some reason.
“There are those who argue it is perfectly harmless to jump red lights: tell that to someone injured as a result,” Heffer furiously argued in his column.
“The last thing society needs is more regulation, but if a substantial minority of cyclists and scooterists are determined to endanger the lives of pedestrians, and in some cases motorists, then they must be as identifiable by the law as anyone else.
“Motorists who kill or injure cyclists are severely punished, as they should be. All that is required is to make all road users equal under the law, and end this illogical, and dangerous, special treatment for cyclists.”
Not too sure many road.cc readers would agree with the claim that dangerous drivers are “severely punished” on a routine basis, but we’ll move on from that.
> “Wait until you hear about cars”: Cyclists respond to Telegraph’s latest story claiming “more than half of cyclists” in London jumped red lights at rush hour
Anyway, while Heffer’s column was the usual boilerplate anti-cycling spiel published by the Telegraph almost every weekend, some cyclists on social media were more concerned with the photographed used as the main image, with showed blurred – read ‘dangerously fast’ – cyclists on a road in Regent’s Park.
Luckily for us, cycling lawyer Rory McCarron was on hand on Saturday when the Telegraph’s photographer was out shooting his images of these “rogue, speeding” cyclists:
And it turns out, shockingly, that cyclists in the area weren’t riding so fast that they passed by a startled professional photographer in a flash, leaving him only with one blurry image for his story.
Oh, and the stars of the Telegraph’s blurry photo, the Regent’s Park Rouleur Club, also posted their morning ride on Strava – which saw them average a blistering, unthinkably fast… 14.6mph.
Those rogue, dangerous, 14.6mph cyclists tootling along in the small ring!
“From the same paper that brought us 52mph cyclists,” said Dolphy, referencing the Telegraph’s infamous – and now quietly redacted – front page headline claiming cyclists were riding at 52mph around London chasing Strava segments.
> "People won't bother reading the truth, the damage is done": Cyclists frustrated Telegraph newspaper not required to put "52mph cyclists creating death traps" correction on front page like original headline
“On a road with no cars or pedestrians in sight?” added Matthew.
Meanwhile, Rory said it was “time to start regulating ‘photojournalism’” instead.
“Taking photographs of innocent and law-abiding people exercising and accusing them of being the ‘scourge of rogue cyclists’,” the cycling lawyer wrote.
And finally, David Belcher said: “From the newspaper that brought you ‘lunchtime boozing is an economic necessity’ and ‘what’s wrong with 50-somethings doing coke?’”
Same again next week, then?
Add new comment
57 comments
It's only a few people at The Telegraph who are writing the anti-cycling rubbish (and at the other newspapers as well) there are about 6.5 million cyclists in the UK.
I nearly spat out my tea when I red
“Motorists who kill or injure cyclists are severely punished..."
Surely in the future AI should highlight statements like that as fake news and the "journalist" would expect a reprimand...
Well the threat of theoretically * "losing your licence" - even for a short period - is to many "cruel and unusual punishment". Akin to e.g. having your legs temporarily amputated (how will you accomplish basic tasks unaided like getting to work, taking the kids to school, shopping...?) Or your nose cut off (how will you function in society if you're not able to drive to activities, events, see friends ...?)
* Because you can just keep driving, and the odds are that nobody will stop you. And even if they do you can generally expect to be solemnly told not to do it again, on pain of being told not to do it again, again.
Unfortunately, the AI is more likely to look at the weight of people expressing that opinion and considered it gold standard truth.
Welcome to the future, where facts are what you make them...
I don't think the fine toilet roll holder is made of an old chainset, looks more like the two biggest rings on a carrier from a cassette, my 9 speed xtr's 6 largest rings (maybe the ti ones...) are built in doubles like that. It even has the bigger notch at about nine thirty. For a while you could buy individual parts to keep the cassette going, until they became shockingly pricey. Makes cleaning them easier too.
The important question is do you have to break the chain every time you need to replace the roll? Could become onerous, even with a quick link.
Quick link.
Telegraph!
Cough, cough
=Foreign agent.
Cough cough
Bikes v cars: backlash after Ontario premier threatens to tear up cycling lanes in Toronto
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/18/ontario-toronto-bike-lanes
... but for Others, extra regulation is OK; as long as it favours us.
The Telegraph sees itself as a hammer of perceived threats to the elderly (many of whom form its core readership). I can't understand why it wasn't more critical of Boris Johnson and his dithering, politically driven policies during the COVID pandemic. Not to mention Partygate.
Did this one get picked up yet? (Not that we really need more).
https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/16/a-cyclist-knocked-disabled-son-uttered-wo...
Her examples near the end are all a bit rubbish, though - I don't think she understands either how the law works, or how frequently motorists get away with stuff…
Yep. Anyone who thinks the 2 yr max for wanton and furious driving is inadequate should have a look at some of the sentences actually imposed for death by careless / dangerous driving. However, also agree with notMyRealName below.
Wow! This Metro looks just like the hyper-junk Mail. As for 'what about the penalties inflicted on red light offending drivers'! I'm prompted to paraphrase what Gandhi was reputed to have said when asked about Western Civilization: 'I think they would be a good idea!'
It's owned by the same company.
It is hyper-junk.
Yikes, that's awful behaviour by the cyclist. Some people (including some cyclists) are definitely dickheads.
I really don't think there's any productive way to reply to something like that, though --- as a parent she had a real valid concern of a serious injury to her child. I believe she's mistaken about best course of action, of course, but arguing that point just makes one seem unempathetic and callous.
Wasn't there a segregated cycle path along there that kept cyclists and pedestrians safe ...
I wonder if it's still there ....
... but apparently after a majority said they were in favour "advisory cycle lanes" are coming.
I always feel that making a bike lock which is dependent upon a phone app just seems like it's making it all unnecessarily complicated. YMMV.
I go with the Lock Picking Lawyer on this one - almost every example of "lock plus computer" or even just "lock plus electronics" shows the absense of any understanding of physical security. And in fact very often the digital / electronic side is not great either...
In this case, though, it doesn't seem too unreasonable, because it doesn't seem to be dependent on it - the stands still look perfectly usable on a bring-your-own-lock basis, but have the option of using the pre-installed lock if that suits you better. Certainly a lot more sensible than the space-age looking nonsense that was on the blog on Friday, anyway.
Could have spent the cash on a bar across the Sheffield making it a) slightly harder to steal a bike locked with two locks (need to cut two places) b) slightly more faff to fix the stand ahead of time so you can remove it (again if locked twice you'll have to take the stand along with the stolen bike).
Fine for private landlords to use this, but beware creeping privatisation of public space (of course this is happening anyway) and/or them trying to get council cash for these.
The latter would be wasting cash - we just need more humble Sheffield stands (with cross-bar). Or for when we have problems of success - the Dutch double-decker bike rack *. Those are quite sufficient for the next century of cycle parking in the UK - we just need more! (Well, perhaps helping get parking mandated / retrofitted in terraces and flats, and maybe eventually some of these in town...)
* Properly done that is. A tale of two (Edinburgh) stations - the ones at Haymarket are fine (albeit the area's now pretty insalubrious), the ones at Waverley look similar but have multiple major failings and are a PITA.
Well yes, but that's a bit beside the point. They've just followed the standard set by most Sheffield Stands that are out there in not having the bar. And there's no reason they couldn't have done both; no reason to think that the lock is the reason the bar isn't there. In fact, looking at the picture, it appears that these may well be installed on pre-existing stands (that already didn't have the bar).
True - but the lock is beside the point if you ask me.
But then I'm not in the market. Paying someone to outsource my security (which I already manage) via something which is guaranteed to be less reliable than ... just a lock without doodads (because theirs has extra things to fail, never mind how good of a lock and chain it is).
Again - don't wish 'em ill with the private contracts but don't want to see any tax money spent on it.
Great start to road safety week then
Let's play motorist bingo:
Speeding, drink driving, running red lights, no insurance, no MOT, no VED, bald tyres, cracked windscreen, defective brakes, misuse of horn, driving on the pavement to park, overtaking on the left, drifting, doughnuts, ram raiding post offices, car bombing, making of without paying for fuel...
no insurance, no MOT
Yes, let's! M200 MLP: there's no possibility of cap-doffing Lancashire Constabulary troubling a toff over a trivial offence like that!
... providing the foundations for gluttonous resource consumption...
Dr. Heffer might benefit from getting out more, maybe a few laps of the park on a Chopper for charity.
Pages