Formerly a “hip young gunslinger” covering punk rock at the New Musical Express, Daily Mirror columnist Tony Parsons has become the latest national newspaper writer to follow the terrible journalist’s guide to writing an article about bicycles and crank out an opinion piece full of the same old nonsense.
Shortly after Jan Etherington had a pop at cyclists in the Daily Telegraph, the 'As Easy As Riding A Bike' blog brilliantly lampooned her column with a how-to article on writing an anti-cycling piece.
Parsons has followed the template to the letter.
Step One, according the blog, is to hang your column on a recent news story involving a bike. Better if the bike is somehow central to the story, but as long as there's one in shot somewhere, just go for it. Here's Parsons right on script:
“There is an explanation for Andrew Mitchell’s sneering arrogance towards the police that has been overlooked – the creep rides a bicycle.”
On to Step Two, which is to say something positive about cycling, so you sound open-minded. Parsons writes:
“Don’t get me wrong – cycling is great. You help the planet, you keep fit...”
So far so good, right? But here it comes:
“... and, best of all, you are completely free to ignore the red stoplights that apply to all other road users.”
Groundwork laid that cyclists are bunch of dreadful lawbeakers, Parsons gambols off to Step Three, make it obvious that it is the use of the bicycle itself that has somehow precipitated the bad behaviour:
“As Mitchell would no doubt tell you, there is one set of rules for pedestrians and motorists but, conveniently, no set of rules for cyclists.”
He's in the home straight now, so all that remains is to trot out as many cliches about cyclists as possible.
Describing being missed by a cyclist who ran a pedestrian red light while he and his daughter and dog were crossing, Parsons describes cyclists as “moronic Lycra louts that, no matter where you live, you see every day of your life – riding on the pavement, ignoring red lights, screaming abuse at anyone who raises an objection.”
So that's “cyclists all wear Lycra”, “cyclists ride on the pavement”, “cyclists run red lights” and “cyclists are angry” all crammed into one sentence. A virtuoso moment in terrible journalists writing about cycling, we're sure you will agree.
To his credit, Parsons manages to come up with a new reason to hate cyclists. The “bargain basement Bradley Wiggins” who “nearly killed [his] family” (by, lest we forget, not actually riding his bike into them at all) “had the nerve to be wearing a helmet.”
Chapeau! The usual complaint is that cyclists have no regard for their own safety, so it's a truly inspired to complain about one who does.
Parsons then goes off on the political rant he actually wants to write , but not before dropping in this gem: “It would be illuminating to learn how many pedestrians are crippled or killed by cyclists every year.”
It would indeed be illuminating, because the answer is 'almost none', as even the tiniest bit of Googling would have revealed. Maybe Tony doesn't like Google either - we'll do the legwork for him. Last year according to the DfT's road casualty statistics (it's on page 133 Tony) two pedestrians were killed in single incident collisions with bicycles and 99 seriously injured - the figure includes collisions on pavements. That's two deaths and 99 serious injuries too many but as a comparison 393 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles last year and 4947 seriously injured..
Of course, if he'd had any facts, Parsons wouldn't have been able to lead into the terrible journalist's favourite cliché, that cyclists are all self-important: “The numbers must be mounting up – especially as cyclists become puffed up with post-Olympic self-importance.”
Glorious that isn't it? As a result of a few elite riders doing well, cyclists must have all started running down pedestrians.
Parsons wraps up with a final link between Mitchell's hissy fit and cyclists. “When he screamed swear words at innocent men and women from behind his little bike, he summed up everything that stinks about all those lousy cyclists.”
A nice combination of 'cyclists are angry' and 'cyclists are entitled' there, which is pretty remarkable coming from a man who was hired by Piers Morgan and whose job it is to be angry. But the plank in their own eye is always invisible to terrible journalists when they get desperate to fill this week's column and decide it's open season on cyclists.
Add new comment
65 comments
Probably as he is fed up with people moaning about red light jumping cyclists as soon as they find out he cycles.
just don't buy the newspaper ...
Do the Mirror have a toilet with a notice above the roll holder: "Tony Parson article, please tear one off and use appropriately", I wonder? In which case this one escaped the flush and ended up being published?
I turn this back on drivers who try this and point out that if I am responsible for RLJ's then they are responsible for drunk drivers, people with no license or insurance and those that kill people with their vehicles.
I am not responsible for other cyclists behaviour because I ride a bicycle, just as I am not responsible for others behaviour just because they wear green, as I do on occasion.
As for RLJ's, I look at it the same as presumed liability: If you want to jump lights into the path of vehicles, you'll come off worst and on your own head be it.
If you jump lights and its while pedestrians are crossing, all manner of hell and fury will be rained down upon you.
Spot on. It's this collective guilt nonsense again.
I thought Tony Parsons had died of insignificance during the 90's?
Spot on it may be, but it's not Alan Jay's fault that we all seem to get lumped together into a single amorphous blob of law-breaking fools, and consequently get zero consideration from a minority of motorists. (Beamer driver on Sat morning, I'm looking at you, knobhead!)
Zanf - stop being a dick! It's all of our responsibility to try to behave well on a bike and not add fuel to the flames of cycle-phobia and distrust. And if you see someone doing something that so obviously endangers people's lives (to say nothing of giving us a bad reputation), then (in the same snotty voice you clearly had in mind when you wrote the above) 'one has to ask, don't YOU feel it's necessary to say or do something?
Or are you suggesting that actually there's no harm in running red lights, and each to their own, and live and let live etc?
You're being an idiot. And you know it. Cut the holier-than-thou crap out.
I notice you didn't quote the next paragraph from Alan's post ...
Maybe he doesn't like watching people die? Just a guess.
Another sad old man that needs to get a life.
Yes, Tony's a tool, and I feel good about that rather than aggrieved. Well done for a nicely written piece John!
although I have only the vaguest awareness of who Tony Parsons I have to say I am completely outraged! I've decided to burn my house down, cancel my MP and write to the local newsagent to express both my contempt and disgust. After this I shall be orchestrating a social media campaign to highlight my outrageously contemptuous disgust and make sure that, by golly, someone somewhere does something about it.
Considering your immediate descent into an ad hominem attack, I'll say this:
Shut the fuck up!
Seeing as you cannot seem to grasp what I did write and miss out on some important parts yet insert your own, give your tired little excuse for a brain a rest. For instance, I never said:
So lay off the putting words where none existed and GTFO your high horse.
Are you implying that by not quoting that sentence that I do?
If people are going to jump red lights and risk their lives against a steel box hurtling across the same junction, then that is their choice. They are adults making their own decisions and its not for me to tell them what to do, whether I think that it puts me "as a cyclist" in a bad light in vehicular drivers eyes or not.
To begin doing so is no different to "getting into rows" with people about smoking, eating unhealthily, drinking excessively, pursuing dangerous sports, etc ad infinitum, as those activities kill more people each year than utility cycling does.
The best that you can do is advise, and some people do not take kindly to others doing even that. I have never known anyone to correct their behaviour because someone rowed with them. Its counter intuitive.
The fact of the matter is that RLJ is a bullshit smokescreen that continues to deflect attention away from the real issue and you all keep falling for it.
Crap out of bed too.
P.R.
Putting the ars(e) in Parsons.
I wouldn't even use the mirror to wipe my arse with let alone read or look at a copy!
But this parsons bloke can come and wipe my arse if he likes!
Stuff Parsons....Mail/Mirror all the same
No, that's just your paranoia.
You asked why someone might get into rows about RLJ'ing. It seemed pretty obvious what the motivation was in the text you chose not quote.
Whatever you think about RLJers and what (if anything) we should do about it, you can sympathise with someone who has witnessed a death, surely?
Parsons has always been a bedwetting little PR1CK, always will be!!
My question was not about why he might be motivated to do *something* but why choose *that* particular course of action considering that confrontation, aggression and argument are "hugely successful" tools in correcting and modifying others behaviour.
Never seen a motorist jump a red light? I would imagine it's pretty dangerous to cycle with your eyes shut.
I see it every day. Not infrequently it's the car behind me that overtakes to go through the red light I stopped for.
That is the funniest and most astute comment ever made on Road.cc. Class!
Very funny
THIS ^^^
Yeah, whatever Zanf. Running a red light can kill someone other than yourself. Excessive eating, drinking...yeah, sure - that's the same thing. Almost no difference...idiot.
As many people have pointed out - the first comment that you attacked gave a very good reason for trying to dissuade people from RLJ, but you chose to ignore it and make a fool of yourself. Still - as long as you're on here trying to defend the indefensible, pray tell us - what exactly is the real issue that we're all struggling to see behind the smokescreen?
Do so love it when someone like you teaches us a lesson we so richly deserve
Lacticlegs,
When you have nothing intelligent or of value to say, it is better to say nothing.
A genius put-down, and no mistake...
Parsons is just another sad journalist who tries to create a stereotyped view of people, cyclists, whatever. It's because he hasn't the talent to make sensible comments. My advice to him is this:
Better to be be silent and be THOUGHT of as a fool, than to open one's mouth and have all DOUBT removed. Hmmm, maybe a bit late for that!
Lacticlegs, seeing as you cannot grasp the fundamentals of what I have said, and yet again repeat your incoherent ad hominem filled rambling attacks, let me make things very plain and simple for you:
Many???
I counted one person aside from yourself. That clearly is not many. Stop sensationalising what others say because it does nothing for your cause.
Lets analyse your choice of language here and compare it with reality:
I did not in any conceivable interpretation of the word, "attack" alanjay16's comment. I asked him a question (which leads on to the next thing) about why he chose that particular approach in remonstrating with RLJ's, not why he chose to remonstrate with them at all. Again, you sensationalise and distort reality to fit with some bizarre, twisted representation of it that you seem to inhabit. All by yourself, Im guessing.
I did not chose to ignore it. I chose not to include it because it was not germane to the question. The only person making a fool of themselves here is you because instead of taking onboard what I had asked, thinking about it and possibly even contributing, you instead attack me with ad hominem insults, thinking that your snarly, sarcastic tone is really clever.
Again, you jump in with both feet and completely miss the whole basis of what I said and why I said it.
I made no such claim that RLJ was 'victimless' (Again, your invention). I was stating that I, nor anyone else, has the right to presume authority over others and tell them what to do, or how to behave.
Alanjay16 stated that he gets into rows with other cyclists for RLJ so therefore he has presumed authority over them. I wonder if he ever does the same with cars that RLJ? Does he chase them down on his bike, assume his authoritarian role and 'get into a row' in trying to correct their behaviour? Does he do the same when he is in his car, of both other drivers and cyclists?
I bet the answer to all of these is no and if it is yes, then I would suggest that alanjay16 has anger management issues.
My positon that I had stated was based along the same lines as 'presumed liability': If a cyclist wants to RLJ a junction and faces the risk of being hit by a car, then that is their prerogative, just as they can chose to overeat to the point of obesity, smoke themselves to asphyxiation or drink themselves until they have sclerosis of the liver and you cannot do a single thing about it (unless you have power of attorney). If they RLJ through a junction when pedestrians are crossing, as I said earlier:
Just because I chose cycling as my main mode of transport, that doesn't automatically make me 'one of the gang'; we are not some big club that owning a bicycle automatically makes you a member. Nor in turn does it make me directly responsible for how other cyclists behave, just as driving a car does not make every driver on the road directly responsible (and accountable) for every other drivers behaviour.
I am a road user. It is not defined by my mode of transport but merely because I am transporting myself.
It is remedial cliques like this that creates the 'us and them' divisions between cycles and vehicles that perpetuates the situation where ignorant journalists like Parsons write smarmy, spiteful articles like this.
And what you do Lacitclegs, is nothing but add to the problem.
An unpleasant fellow indeed. A couple of months ago he was spouting off in GQ about how men should always earn more than their female partners. The anti-cyclist bile does seem to be even weirder than usual, though.
P.S. His books are rubbish too, and his editors and publicists secretly loathe him.
Pages