If this website has a pie-in-the-sky wish for 2018, it’s that the Daily Mail’s readership learns to question how the newspaper sources its information. (Similar but crueller wishes may well feature in the comments below this article.)
The Mail has today run a story headlined: “Dangerous cycling should be a crime, say two thirds of drivers amid claims they are treated too harshly.”
It is based on a survey about cyclists and, as ever in that newspaper, it plays on perceptions of fairness.
The survey found that 73 per cent of drivers said cyclists should be subject to similar legal requirements as motorists, and of these just under nine in ten called for a new law for dangerous cycling. (While people can already be prosecuted for dangerous cycling, there has been a suggestion that an offence of causing death by dangerous or careless cycling be introduced since the Charlie Alliston case earlier in the year.)
You can pretty much guess the rest.
Of the drivers who called for tougher legislation for cyclists, over 80 per cent also backed the introduction of compulsory insurance, while 73 per cent of them said cyclists should be required to wear fluorescent clothing.
It’s not entirely clear whether the statistics that follow are percentages of all of those questioned for the survey or percentages of the subset who called for tougher cycling legislation.
Not that it particularly matters. The message is the same, so read it however you want.
Seven in ten said cyclists should have to pass a road proficiency test and wear a helmet; 56 per cent said cyclists should be obliged to have a bicycle equivalent of an MOT; and 52 per cent want cyclists to have to pay road tax.
Almost six in ten drivers said that cycle lanes designed to alleviate congestion and increase safety for cyclists have failed to improve traffic flow, or made the situation worse.
The poll was of more than 10,400 drivers, which is significant. It was conducted by campaign group FairFuelUK, which also seems significant.
Launched in January 2011 to fight for lower fuel duty, FairFuelUK claims to represent “the real concerns of hard working motorists, families, small businesses, commercial drivers and hauliers across the UK.”
However, its emphasis is very much on commercial operations. FairFuelUK is funded by the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Association of Pallet Networks.
Unconcerned by minor details such as where the funding for roads actually comes from, campaign founder Howard Cox said: “What infuriates the highest taxed motorists in the world is what they see as the lack of fairness apportioned to all road users.
“They believe cyclists should be making some financial contribution to roads and increasing cycle lanes they currently benefit from.
“They also want to see the compulsory use of helmets, cyclists to be road insured, wear fluorescent clothing, pass a road proficiency test and more prosecutions for the increasing episodes of dangerous cycling.”
10 of the most hysterical anti-cycling Daily Mail headlines
The poll also found that 88 per cent of drivers believe that traffic has got worse over the last five years, with almost seven in ten saying that this is because there are more cars on the roads.
Roger Geffen, Cycling UK’s Policy Director, said: “If we want grandparents and grandchildren alike to be able to cycle safely and normally for day-to-day journeys, it makes no sense to impose unnecessary new rules and costs on would-be cyclists, particularly children.
“The top priority must be to create safe, cycle-friendly streets and junctions, while strengthening the enforcement of our existing traffic rules, rather than adding new ones.”
Geffen highlighted the fact that many of the proposals put forward in the FairFuelUK survey are simply unworkable.
“Cyclists can already be prosecuted for dangerous or careless cycling. However, the other proposals in the FairFuel UK survey would be very costly to implement, would provide few if any benefits and would seriously undermine efforts to attract new people to take up cycling, including children and their parents.”
The results of the survey are in stark contrast to Sustrans’ Bike Life poll which showed high levels of public support among UK city dwellers for significantly increased investment in cycling infrastructure.
44 thoughts on “Daily Mail survey on cyclists carried out by fuel price campaign group finds all the things you’d expect it to find”
How I would love to see that
How I would love to see that “newspaper” wiped from the face of the planet.
Somehow, it seems you can fabricate absolutely anything and pass it off as “news” or even as fact!
wellsprop wrote:
It happened to the News of the World, it can happen to the mail. They supported Hitler back in the 1930s, surely that’s go to set off jingoistic alarm bells in some of their readership.
Initialised wrote:
The Daily Mail can serve as toilet paper
OldRidgeback wrote:
It’s so full of shit, your arse would be dirtier after using it.
I could support the use of
I could support the use of fluorescents, if applied to all road users.
> “FairFuelUK is managed by
> “FairFuelUK is managed by TV Motoring Journalist Quentin Willson”
This is the same Quentin Wilson who bemoaned a new segregated cycle lane in London, tweeting a picture of it being completely empty. Only for someone to reply to him, asking why he didn’t mention that the cycle lane was, at the time the photo was taken, incomplete and closed to all traffic.
And this man calls himself a journalist. No Quentin, you’re just someone who used to be a bit famous. Being a bit famous doesn’t make you right.
In 2016 – 1,780 deaths on the
In 2016 – 1,780 deaths on the roads, 24,610 KSI, 187,050 casualties of all severity. (Gov UK)
Between 2010 and 2017, 37 people have been killed due to terrorism. (Wiki)
Deaths caused by cyclists between 2007 and 2016 averaged 3 per year. (Cycling UK)
UK air pollution linked to 400,000 early deaths per year (Royal College of Physicians).
Which one does the Daily Mail make a big deal about?
wellsprop wrote:
3 deaths caused by, are you sure about that, you mean deaths involving people on bikes right because even Allisten wasn’t officially at fault for the death of the pedestrian that stepped back into him otherwise the manslaughter charge would have stuck.
“The survey found that 73 per
“The survey found that 73 per cent of drivers said cyclists should be subject to similar legal requirements as motorists”
“They also want to see the compulsory use of helmets, cyclists to be road insured, wear fluorescent clothing, ”
Logically that means most of the respondents want compulsory helmets and fluorescent clothing for drivers. Sounds good to me 🙂
My bike is already taxed
My bike is already taxed according to current vehicle (not road) tax rules, given they are based on emissions.
Regardless of the survey source, this is a substantial number of ignorant people. It’s also a very worrying indication of the negative attitude towards cyclists.
I agree dangerous cycling should be better legislated for but it’s hardly a nationwide issue where thousands are killed or seriously injured each year, like say, motorists speeding.
“They also want to see the
“They also want to see the compulsory use of helmets, cyclists to be road insured, wear fluorescent clothing, “
So they want cyclists to be punished and dissuaded from cycling through mandatory measures which are expensive, unworkable and unnecessary. Of course they didn’t think of the actual benefits or costs to society just the reactive, jingoistic fuckwits who consume their “newspaper”.
– We are already ‘taxed’
– We are already ‘taxed’ fairly based loosely on emissions and environmental damage/cost. If the ‘highest taxed motorists’ see this as unfair, here’s a list of taxless/low-tax vehicles they can have a look at (excuse their use of the term ‘road tax’ as always):
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/exempt-road-tax
– Cyclists are already making ‘some financial contribution’ to roads and cycle lanes. Every bike and piece of kit we buy we pay VAT. Council tax. Income tax etc. It all goes into the pot. The difference is, we don’t then cost money by damaging the environment or roads with emissions or weight of vehicle. On a side note, most of the people I know who ride bikes are also in the higher income tax brackets so end up paying more into the pot- could make an interesting study.
– Helmets. I already wear them anyway just in case, but if it’s compulsory for cyclists it should be compulsory for all road users. Given that head injuries are the cause of death in most road fatalities and most road deaths occur in cars, helmet use should also be made compulsory for drivers. One rule for all. Interesting link here:
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/15-facts/506-the-horror-of-head-injuries
– Insurance. The misconception that most of us aren’t insured still rumbles on. Also, the strange idea that cyclist’s insurance would be used to compensate a driver in any way is quite odd and very rare. It usually pays for solicitors to claim damages against drivers who have driven their cars into/over us and our bikes.
Can’t help but feel this is purely a spiteful ‘if we have to pay it, they should too’ attitude but with no concept of why it is there in the first place. I haven’t seen many multi-vehicle pile ups, flattened bus shelters, death etc. caused by uninsured cyclists…..
– Flourescent clothing- I’m with lushmiester. All road vehicles and users covered in highly reflective coatings. If it was the norm it wouldn’t seem weird. Cars aren’t fashion accessories. 🙂
– Road proficiency tests…. does my driving license count? Because if it doesn’t I probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive my car either.
– As for the increased prosecutions for dangerous cycling, I’m all for that! I’ve seen at least ten incidents in my whole life and they all got away. I’ve also seen about a thousand involving dangerous driving…. and they all got away too! The difference is that the drivers were in control of 2 tonnes of metal that stand a damn sight higher chance of killing/maiming. That is the bottom line on all of this.
Quote:
‘Coz the driving test weeds out all the crap drivers, innit?
The good news is I got my cycling proficiency way back when and they won’t be asking me to resit it, will they? Or do they want retesting to apply to drivers too?
don simon wrote:
‘Coz the driving test weeds out all the crap drivers, innit?
The good news is I got my cycling proficiency way back when and they won’t be asking me to resit it, will they? Or do they want retesting to apply to drivers too?
I too passed a cycling proficiency and then a driving test. Does this mean that I am twice as qualified to Ride my bicycle on the road than most drivers are? Will we have to have a mandatory test to be able to walk safely across the road next?
Cyclists to have mandatory
Cyclists to have mandatory insurance, sure…As long as this applies to all the population.
I could have sworn I paid council tax ,NI , income tax, vat, ipt, excise duties all of which contribute to roads.
I take it pedestrians will be paying ‘road tax’ as they are always getting new crossings.
Just read the article and
Just read the article and some of the comments. It has just reinforced my opinion that DM journos (or this one in particular) and readers are arrogant, ignorant, stupid facist b’stards.
The survey shows 40% bemoaning potholes for increased congestion. It also quotes the usual ill informed ramblings asking for “road tax”, MOT, helmets etc to be made compulsory to satisfy their own agenda. Beggars belief.
FFS, think about motorised vehicle misdemeanours and get that house in order before starting on self propelled vehicles. DM is a sad excuse for an objective journalist mouthpiece. Showing the images of a snarling Charlie and smiling Kim to fan the flames of hatred is spiteful and unnecessary too.
90% of DM readers are either
90% of DM readers are either small-minded bellends seeking affirmation of their Little Englandisms, or vacuous fuckwits getting their Colleen Rooney cellulite fix.
The other 10% are tourists from articles like this one who, every so often, seek confirmation that such troglodytes still exist.
I made those stats up, but I’ve as much confidence in the veracity of them as the DM’s.
davel wrote:
Fundamental flaw in your terminology, you’re assuming that people who purchase the DM have the ability to read.
Fair Fuel UK is another of
Fair Fuel UK is another of those fake “grass roots” movements that has little to do with making fuel prices fair for the general public and is in reality another way for big corporations and other organisations such as the Road Haulage Associtaion to lobby government…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/nov/15/fuel-duty-campaign
ribena wrote:
quite agree, Im sure their name cropped up before when some MP was rambling incoherently about the same nonsense, sadly the list of MPs they claim support them is too long to remember which one it was.
but so whats their angle on this ? they primarily are focussed on cutting taxes for motorists, and cant seem to work out if they are fans of public transport HS2 etc (cuts congestion), or not (wasting motorists money).
so how does pushing an anti cycling agenda help their cause ? Id accept Im expecting logic to it which there might not be any, but even they cant be daft enough to think if you followed through with their ideas, youd increase congestion, increase wear on the roads, increase pollution and that would lead to higher fuel taxes
Why doesn’t the hateful Mail
Why doesn’t the hateful Mail complain about the millions spent on pedestrians: footbridges, toucan crossings, segregated pavements, zebra crossings, signal controlled crossings . . . . . . They don’t pay any ‘road tax’
There is a greater percentage
There is a greater percentage of cyclists who are motorists, so they already pay to use the roads when using their polluting vehicles, I am one of those.
The percentage of motorists who also cycle is a lot lower.
What we need is for all the cycling motorists to get together and point out they are already paying to use the roads.
The helmets and fluorescant clothing, nope. My choice. Same as it’s the moronic drivers choice to try and text, facebook or whatever whilst driving. Thus rendering the helmet and fluoro clothing pointless.
Also we should really stop reading, or mentioning the Daily Mail in anything. It is the lowest form of journalist who writes (I’m not sure the journalists there can really write but…) for them.
Quote:
Yep! I pay income tax too.
There will be some who say
There will be some who say this not the time to be unnecessarily offensive. They are the same people who tell me not kick someone when they’re down – when they’re closer to my feet, and hell I put them there first. Or not to speak ill of the dead, it’s not like they can’t sue for slander or libel no more.
This is exactly the right time.
Biggest pile of dried up monkey jism since the pile of last year’s Daily Mails on Nigel Farage’s sofa.
Argos74 wrote:
I think you mean monkey dust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfV3OuN57Bk
Quote:
Their agenda is one of power and influence. Increase readership through a couple of popular campaigns, then drip feed the ideas that the power brokers wish us to be governed by.
don simon wrote:
Their agenda is one of power and influence. Increase readership through a couple of popular campaigns, then drip feed the ideas that the power brokers wish us to be governed by.
thats the Daily Mail, which for all the opprobium it attracts is still the UKs top selling newspaper, so they just print stuff they know appeals to their readership, I meant the FairFuel mob, whats in this for them ?
Awavey wrote:
Fair enough, probably supported by the fuel companies who’d gladly see an increase in fuel prices.
Good of Howard Cox of
Good of Howard Cox of FairFuelUK to make his mobile & address publicly available. I wonder if he’d like to discuss his retarded comments in more detail?
email: campaign@fairfueluk.com
Contact and Media: Howard Cox 07515 421611
FairFuelUK Office, 1 Rammell Mews, Cranbrook, Kent TN17 3BQ. UK
If I had a wish for road.cc.
If I had a wish for road.cc. It would be that as well as flagging anti-cycling stories and providing a chamber in which we can vent. The site would do more to help with combating them.
When I’ve got the time my usual approach with idiocy such as this in the DM is to go to the offending article and then spend a little time countering and persuading in its comments section.
Sometimes it is quite fun, sometimes it can be difficult. Whatever. I believe I can positively influence more people by respectfully [0] engaging with them on their home ground. In a democracy by definition, if we want to change things we have to persuade those who are either undecided or disagree with us. (how many of those are likely to be here?)
Anyway, back to my point.
Many of the offending anti-cycling articles and their comments are comprised of a well-worn set of cliches. Well-worn or not, responding is both time-consuming and sometimes not as effective as it might be for Joe Normals such as myself.
road.cc employs (usually) eloquent and well researched professional writers. In my ideal world, along with the story, road.cc would provide more information, example replies, advice etc. In effect, road.cc would do more to coordinate and help improve the effectiveness of those of us attempting to fight cycling’s corner elsewhere.
[0] FWIW, the best piece of advice I have heard about persuading people was to imagine that I was talking to a Mafia Don [1].
[1] It helps suppresses the counterproductive but surprisingly strong impulse to call the other person an idiot, even as you know you are going to be asking them to do something for you later.
I completed this survey along
I completed this survey along with some of the Singletrack forum. I was not approached by the Heil for my comments, looks like some stats cherry picking went on. It’s basically a piece concerning the most anti-cyclist half-wit drivers comments.
Surely if they want all these
Surely if they want all these rules to ‘bring cyclists up to car standards’ then all cars must be limited to, mmm, 20mph? In the interest of fairness?
Other things I’d like to level the playing field. I’d like to see speed limiters on all cars to force them to obey speed limits, and I’d like to see seatbelts be banned and all cars to be made out of much thinner metal to give cyclists a fighting chance in a crash, and to make car owners realise that they aren’t indestructible and give them something to think about before they commit that stupid overtake that puts them, the cyclist, and the oncoming vehicle in serious danger. I’d also like to see fines for misuse of horns set at £100 and sent automatically upon pushing a horn, then the driver would be able to reclaim the money if they could prove they used the horn correctly.
Simontuck wrote:
Either abolish insurance all together or make it third party fire and theft only.
don simon wrote:
Compulsory, legally required, insurance for motor vehicles is third party only. The law doesn’t care if your vehicle bursts into flames or is stolen, as long as it doesn’t endanger a totally innocent third party. But it does insist that you have insurance for when you can’t be bothered to look and kill someone.
burtthebike wrote:
i think the point was to remove fully comp, so drivers could not be reimbursed for the damage caused by their own stupidity.#
Like if you leave your house unlocked and your stuff gets nicked, they won’t pay out, or iof you leave the car running on the drive to defrost they won’t pay out if someone takes it, BUT if you drive like a total moron and collide with a clearly visible car which was in front of you, the insurance will oay to fix both cars, why don’t they take a similar line about expected the insured to take reasonable precautions to prevent a loss?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Precisely this, but take it further to a personal obligation to pay out for third party damage too. I’ve said it before, but if insurance is optional, I believe that we’d all drive with significantly more awareness of the vulnerabilities of others (theoretically).
don simon wrote:
Stop being silly.
If when that driver fell asleep and derailed a train had no insurance, then the public including you would have to pay for all the damage he caused as no way could any normal person afford the £millions it cost. Instead the bill was sent to his insurance company who had to pay it. This is why third party insurance is compulsory.
If you run into another car the insurers will decide who is a fault and fix both cars but will increase your insurance premiums, for normally the next 5 years, regardless of whether of who was at fault. (This pisses off people who end up with no fault incidents but it is due to their risk profile changing.) However the person found to be at fault gets the bigger increase which is why people have dash cams.
Please select from the
Please select from the following totally-unbiased and non-leading options, so that we can scientifically determine what percentage of road.cc readers think Daily Mail readers should…
typical Daily Mail Readers
typical Daily Mail Readers being Daily Mail Readers. Nothing to see here.
If some of these arrogant mouthbreathing neckbeards actually spent a week or two commuting in the city to work or spending at least 1 or 2hrs per day cycling in the city then maybe they might learn a thing or two as well as having more respect for those who choose to cycle rather then drive a cage around polluting the environment while they are at it.
A car is a useful tool though, there is no denying that. Its great for school runs, Its great for picking the other half up for a movie, Its great for taking on the weekly shopping run. but a bicycle is often faster going through the city than a car.
I used to take the tube back and forth from work it would take me 40-45mins. But by cycling I can beat that by almost 15mins on a good day
we can always hope that Daily Mail Readers might learn a thing or two and learn to share the roads but then again, there are those people out there which ‘hope’ would be utterly wasted.
I seem to remember a while
I seem to remember a while ago on road.cc reading that the government was planning to change the way roads are funded so that it would actually be a road tax system rather than the vehicle excise duty system we have today. I think this was going to be around 2019. Anyone know if this will actually happen and if so when?
Rushie wrote:
Flat rate in year 2 for new cars of £140 but £0 for electric, so bikes not emitting pollutants would also pay £0 (if it ever came relevant).
Also ‘From the 2020-21 financial year income from VED in England will be hypothecated to a new road fund, to contribute towards the costs of the Strategic Road Network (SRN).’
hirsute wrote:
Except that the SRN is only the motorways and some but not all A-roads. So a kind of “some roads” tax. The majority of roads in the uk are still going to be funded by general taxation and the ones specifically funded from ring fenced VED are ones that in most cases cyclists aren’t allowed to ride on anyway…
brooksby wrote:
Thanks Hirsute and Brooksby. So I think that means my righteous anger when a driver shouts “what about road tax?” is fine until 2020, at which point if I’m on an A road I need to be a bit more circumspect.
God, it’s complicated.
Reading the daily mail causes
Reading the daily mail causes cancer.