The Times has apologised after labelling a graph of deaths and serious injuries suffered by cyclists in the UK as “deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists in the UK”. The graph accompanied the newspaper’s article about a 73-year-old woman who died following a collision with a cyclist on London’s Oxford Street earlier this week.
The graph was first brought to the newspaper’s attention by Peter Stuart.
Dear @thetimes, this graph is unforgivably inaccurate. Cyclists have not caused even 1/10th the KSI listed here @WeAreCyclingUK @beztweets pic.twitter.com/DauwUvIE62
— Peter Stuart (@PeterStuart3) September 14, 2017
However, the mystery was soon unravelled. As cycling campaigner Bez put it:
Details schmetails. @thetimes pic.twitter.com/g421dRYdoz
— Bez (@beztweets) September 14, 2017
Mark Treasure also spotted a problem with a second graph.
They’ve added up all the minor injuries and presented them as KSIs. pic.twitter.com/dB1WhIUBUm
— Mark Treasure (@AsEasyAsRiding) September 14, 2017
After this was pointed out, The Times removed the graphs from the article, initially stating that this was due to “scaling errors” before eventually revising this to just plain old “errors”.
And we’re there! Sort of! pic.twitter.com/MnwZdaBon8
— Mark Treasure (@AsEasyAsRiding) September 14, 2017
Interactive news editor at The Times, Sam Joiner, apologised for what he said was an ‘honest mistake’.
2/2 As a cyclist myself it’s very disappointing, and the charts were removed and the error acknowledged as soon as I was made aware
— Sam Joiner (@samjoiner) September 14, 2017
-300x200.jpg "Advanced Offroad Pro Gravel Apex AXS")
27 thoughts on “The Times apologises after labelling graph of deaths and injuries TO cyclists as ‘deaths and injuries caused BY cyclists’”
Instead of deleting it, why
Instead of deleting it, why didn’t they just correct it? Seems like a simple correction.
I guess it doesn’t match their narrative…
I have a more accurate chart
I have a more accurate chart that represents incompentant research & journalism.
There’s an anti-cycling
There’s an anti-cycling bandwagon. Facts, logic, and perspective aren’t allowed to get in the way.
Good that they removed the wrong and misleading graphs, but I suspect the damage has already been done.
Damage has been done, think
Damage has been done, think of the thousands that have viewed that and now uses it to justify their anger towards people who happen to ride bikes.
Got close passed today at a pinch point by a Rapid Response Paramedic (no flashing blues). Caught them up in traffic and the driver said I shouldn’t be on the road as we’re a menace to others as well as ourselves. Fellow paramedic in the passenger seat just grins like it was the highlight of his week.
NorthEastJimmy wrote:
You really, really need to report this.
I think what annoys me more than the actual incident is just sticking a report of it on the comments page. What on earth do you think you are going to achieve? Most of the people reading this have had similar experiences. Why bother telling us. Just record the incident, complain and let us know if anything posiitive happens.
NorthEastJimmy wrote:
In London we have single responders who use either push bikes or motorbikes as that’s the only way to get through congestion.
So these idiots think it is fair to run over their own colleagues?
“As a cyclist myself” is like
“As a cyclist myself” is like Big Ron Atkinson “I have many friends who are black”…
Maybe it’s just because it’s
Maybe it’s just because it’s Friday,drivers minds are wandering toward the weekend but it did feel drivers felt close passes were fair game again today ,& similar to the few days after the Alliston case,I particularly liked the truck who close passed approaching a red light,who as I repassed before turning right at the lights was driving one handed because his other hand was holding a cigarette out the window
If only there was a process
If only there was a process where, say, an Editor, check and approves the story before it’s published.
#alternativefacts #fakenews
Why haven’t they added the correct graphs?!
ChrisB200SX wrote:
They are part of News International. I presume you have heard of phone hacking? Well that shows how though their editors are…
Bluebug wrote:
Thorough
NorthEastJimmy – I hope you
NorthEastJimmy – I hope you got license plate and are going to report it. That is not the attitude for any driver, let alone a professional driver and at that one who could well be going to attend to a RTA.
And as said above, why remove
And as said above, why remove the graphs altogether rather than show the corrected ones? And the answer is obvious – that would not serve to further the anti cycling cause. Always show the information that suits your needs, not a reasoned argument.
Didn’t the Times run a Pro cycling campaign a few years back? Obviously who ever was behind that is long gone.
1961BikiE wrote:
My thoughts exactly!
That’s another newspaper I
That’s another newspaper I won’t be buying again. The list of acceptable ones is getting short…
Tynedoc wrote:
Who buys newspapers anyway?
Leviathan wrote:
I considered it one weekend, only to discover that one of those fat weekend editions was about £4!
brooksby wrote:
Really? My Sunday Times is £2:70 (although I pay only £2:00 on subscription)and lasts me all week.
I complained to The Times a
I complained to The Times a couple of years ago about the tone of one of their articles regarding cycling. They presented, in their defence, the “fact” that they were running a long-term campaign to encourage cycling.
They seem now to have abandoned this campaign, if it ever was a real thing, and joined the rest of the media in trying to convince the public that bike riding is cosciety’s current most severe evil and must be stamped out before it kills thousands.
My personal suspicion is that they were never in favour of anything to do with cycles.
severs1966 wrote:
A lot of these bicycle safety campaigns seem like a variant of “concern trolling”. If they can’t find a wicked cyclist out trying to mow down pensioners then they have to revert to worrying about how cycling (which is ballpark as safe as cycling and driving) is “too dangerous” and needs special helmets and special bikelanes.
severs1966 wrote:
It was a typical reaction when one of their own journalists was crushed by a lorry. It appeared to be a single-handed effort by Kaya Burgess.
“An honest mistake” – yeah,
“An honest mistake” – yeah, right…
An honest, but very annoying
An honest, but very annoying and potentially damaging mistake. Good that they’ve retracted and apologised.
Applecart wrote:
You actually believe that was an honest mistake? Bought any good bridges recently?
Just as well they did take
Just as well they did take the graphs down. Some people may have equated the drop in cyclist casualties since the 1990s as being due to helmets. Then where would we be?
What the chart handily shows
What the chart handily shows though with respect to KSIs of people riding bikes is that the numbers have gone up despite a lower level of increase in cycling (So safety in numbers is BS so far)This is in comparison to a decrease in pedstrian casualties over the same period (I’ll dig the chart out for that shortly). Funnily enough the start of the increase happened shortly after UCI and british cycling mandated helmet wearing and the big push by certain groups for everyone to wear them.
it’s not just the Times though, it’s all media outlets who make these ‘errors’ (yeah, whatever!) even the BBC misrepresent stats all the time in a way that shows a clear bias/agenda, they ignore complaints about them breaking their own code of conduct regarding such.
And my FB friends wonder why I get a bee in my bonnet about how people on bikes are treated.
The Times is no longer a
The Times is no longer a newspaper with any concern for the facts or important stories.
With NKorea in possession of nuclear weapons and launching intercontinental missiles, a bombing on the tube, threatened public service strikes, today’s headline was about a royal adviser.
No longer the Thunderer, not even the Whimperer, merely the Utterly Irrelevant.