The Telegraph – a newspaper that has built a reputation for being somewhat liberal with the truth when it comes to its reporting about cycling and cyclists in recent years – appears to have backtracked on a headline that originally claimed that cyclists are “waging war on pedestrians”. The article is now titled “Cyclists injuring record numbers at pedestrian crossings”, with the reason for the edit unclear thus far.
From inaccurate claims of cyclists riding at 52mph, to a warning that taxpayers will be made to fund “bikes for refugees and pensioners” in the Cycle to Work Scheme, The Telegraph has previously not held back on publishing critical or misleading stories about cyclists.
> “More traffic, more crashes. Who knew?” Telegraph ridiculed for Tube strike bike “chaos” story
This story was an analysis of a small section of the latest road casualty figures from the Department for Transport, which revealed a record-high number of casualties involving cyclists and pedestrians in 2024. This much appears to be correct, as the Telegraph reported, because the data reveals that there were indeed 603 incidents where a pedestrian was injured in a collision with a cyclist in 2024, an 18.9% increase from 507 injuries recorded in 2023.
Other figures point to an uptick in incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists on pavements and pedestrian crossings. More than half of incidents in which a pedestrian was injured in a collision with a cyclist, 321, occurred on either a pavement or a pedestrian crossing, a 9% rise from 2023. The majority of incidents were shown to occur in Central London, with Newcastle city centre recording the most reported collisions outside the capital, with 14 incidents over the same period.
While all this is unwelcome news, to claim that cyclists in general are “waging a war on pedestrians” is very difficult to quantify, and puzzling when put into context and analysing the data involving other modes of transport.
The same statistics show that there were 14,727 pedestrian casualties involving car drivers in 2024; a slight improvement on 2023 (14,982) but still 24 times the number of incidents involving cyclists. Pedestrian casualties involving buses/coaches (712) and HGVs (238) actually increased, however, making it even more difficult to suggest that cyclists are “waging a war” on pedestrians exclusively. Pedestrians killed by car drivers also increased to 274 in 2024, up from 268 in 2023.
The article also says that injuries to pedestrians involving cyclists have “doubled”; however, this particular comparison is with the year 2020 (308), a low point in recent years.
It’s not the first time a major news publication has backtracked on a headline involving cyclists. Last month, the BBC amended its coverage of a collision in Scotland which it originally claimed involved the rider of an e-bike, when it was in fact a high-powered electric motorbike. The Telegraph itself eventually edited the headline on its infamous article that claimed that some cyclists in London were riding at speeds of up to 52mph in their quest to top Strava segment leaderboards. The publication changed the headline to ‘How cyclists are turning UK roads into death traps’, after a ticking off from the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).
No explanation has been given by the Telegraph for the headline change in its cyclist-themed article. The URL remains ‘how-cyclists-are-waging-war-on-pedestrians’ at the time of writing.
road.cc has contacted The Telegraph for comment.
47 thoughts on “Telegraph accuses cyclists of “waging war on pedestrians” in story on rising pavement collisions – but later backtracks and changes headline”
If pedestrians stopped and
If pedestrians stopped and looked carefully before crossing the road, the number of pedestrian/cyclist collisions would be reduced.
.
I’ve always got a finger on
I’ve always got a finger on the bell if there are pedestrians around.
Another can of worms… but
Another can of worms… but better to have someone complaining about the way you alerted them (or “told them to get out of the way”) than occasionally have to take avoiding action and/or have the odd close- quarters situation maybe?
(From my own experiments I’m still not decided on the overall effectiveness of different methods of avoiding “conflict” of various kinds- using voice, bell, noisy drivetrain or simply being prepared to do more slowing down / waiting / early avoiding action. My vote would be for much more clearly-marked separate space for each mode and more cyclists!).
chrisonabike wrote:
Cycling home from work in the dusk last night along a shared path with dog walkers, regular walkers and joggers and I had to think a lot about how to approach a number of groups. I had multiple lights, hi-viz and plenty of reflectors, so I had a lot of people getting out of the way without prompting, especially those coming towards me, but it was hard to make out how many people were in each group, how spread out they were, or even which way they were facing until I got quite close.
I try not to be too cavalier in my use of the bell, but it is much harder to make those kinds of judgements based on vague shapes. Of course it’s going to get even harder when it’s fully dark, and I am quite anxious that a lot of pedestrians on these shared paths have no understanding of just how invisible they, their dog and their dog’s lead can be to cyclists in the dark (and rain).
The noisy free hub and
The noisy free hub and slowing down well in advance works 95% of the time for me. A polite ‘excuse me’ or a similar shout, ‘morning’ etc works, 4% of the time, but 1% of the time I have to stop 😐
I don’t have a bell on any of
I don’t have a bell on any of my bikes but both my BMX bikes have loud freewheels and my MTB has a squeaky back brake that no amount of tweaking seems to address.
I’ve got a squeaky rubber
I’ve got a squeaky rubber duck thing that can be deemed as less confrontational than a bell, although not be every pedestrian obviously. It can also send dogs a bit loopy but it’s nice to get the occasional friendly remark from a pedestrian and even a grumpy frown when you can see they want to say something but can’t really justify it.
Perhaps Trotify is the way
Perhaps Trotify is the way forward?
So no mention of fault. And
So no mention of fault. And the original ehadline should surely have said “drivers waging war on pedestrians”.
Luckily, the won’t have any readers soon.
They’ll be calling for
They’ll be calling for Cycling UK to be listed as a proscribed terrorist organisation next.
Don’t give them any ideas.
Don’t give them any ideas.
Two things missing from all
Two things missing from all that data: exposure and responsibility.
If there are more cyclists then the exposure increases and the figures could reflect that change. If there are more pedestrians mobile phone walking, that would also contribute to the rise, and have nothing to do with reckless cyclists.
Fortunately, nobody with an IQ in double figures reads the torygraph.
As ever, cyclists and peds
As ever, cyclists and peds are left to squabble over the little bits of space not dominated by cars.
Now I am intrigued on how the
Now I am intrigued on how the “car driver / passenger” was killed by the cyclist and how many?
I believe the data this comes
I believe the data this comes from records recording “involved in” – so (though I’ve no idea) I believe this could cover a driver being “killed by” the remnants of a cyclist still attached to the front of the truck that flattened the car.
Or even just a driver who hit
Or even just a driver who hit a cyclist and then drove into a wall.
Good spot.
Good spot.
Either an incident in which a pedal cyclist was deemed to be “at fault” (so it goes in their row) which resulted in a driver/passenger being killed through subsequently hitting e.g. a tree, or maybe a cyclist going through a windscreen resulting in a fatality inside the car being reported as pedal cycle being the main driver (pun not intended) of the accident?
You’d think that’s the sort of accident which would actually get reported in e.g. the Torygaph (and almost certainly on road.cc)?
I looked into it a while back
I looked into it a while back. For that instance the stats19 form was filled in incorrectly – driver hit a cyclistn (they were only slightly injured according to reports)- as with 2 of the others. Sometimes, the officer writes a 1 instead of a 3 (slight injury or death!) and sometimes I. The wrong column. In 2019 the stats19 data for cyclist being involved in fatal collisions had a 33% error rate! One collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist recorded the pedestrian as dying when it was the cyclist instead (which across Europe is almost 50/50 when collision do happen).
Bonus fact, the only death recorded in 2018 recorded by a cyclist, was actually someone on an illegal motorbike, but stats19 were not revisited post event (until recently)
I was wondering if they were
I was wondering if they were counting illegal electric motorbikes as ‘bikes’. It certainly suits the Telegraph to pretend they think such vehicles are bikes.
THe data is the government’s
That data is the government’s of course, not the Telegraph’s. It’s a good question to ask what illegal E bikes count as – I suspect they’re counted as cycles and so blackening the picture for cyclists overall and consequently shaping the way the government responds to the data…
One scenario, the driver
One scenario, the driver pulled out from a side road and the cyclist went flying through the open passenger window. I suppose there’s a few possibilities but they probably start with a driver doing something to the cyclist 🤔
And that’s just via collision
And that’s just via collision. Needs a column for “lung disease probability-weighted to have been caused by emissions in cities”.
On that: mea culpa. I drove a diesel car into a major city for a while having believed the “modern diesel engines are fine” mantra – put about by … er … car manufacturers selling diesel-engined cars with manipulated test results to prove it …
David9694 wrote:
And you never see them foaming at the mouth about the fact that drivers kill and injure other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in far greater numbers than anything.
Almost all deaths and injuries are caused by a motor vehicle, even when a pedestrian or cyclist is deemed to be at fault. It’s the size, weight and speed of the huge moving metal thing that does all the harm.
At the top right of the PACTS graphic you’ve used are these 2 bullet points:
In the light of this it is perplexing that are speed limiters, lower speed limits, enforcement of existing speed limits, driving bans etc etc resisted so strongly (and many serious offences treated so leniently) when the motor vehicle speed and driver behaviour is such a huge factor.
It seems that treating public roads as one’s personal racetrack is perfectly acceptable if you’re in a car but try pedalling quickly on a bicycle and you’re labelled a ‘hooligan’ and a menace to society.
Comparing different data
Comparing different data sources is never ideal, but cycling rates are apparently down 2.6% since 2023. The picture is more subtle though, since most collisions are happening in Central London, where cycling rates are up 11.6%. The increase in collisions is still higher.
According to The City of
According to The City of London Corporation, cycling rates are up 57% between 2022 and 2024 in the City, including 4x the number of dockless ebikes. I’d be willing to wager that riders of such bikes are responsible for a disproportionate number of collisions with pedestrians at crossings.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/bikes-cars-city-of-london-square-mile-cyclists-b1224006.html
As ever, cyclists and peds
As ever, cyclists and peds are left to squabble over the little bits of space not dominated by cars.
As ever, cyclists and peds
As ever, cyclists and peds are left to squabble over the little bits of space not dominated by cars.
You can say that again!
You can say that again!
[Snip] Fortunately, nobody
[Snip] Fortunately, nobody with an IQ in double figures reads the torygraph. [Snip]
Unfortunately, this level of IQ only read the headlines and will be served just these based on their social media feeds.
Equally unfortunately, these low IQ knuckledraggers also drive motor vehicles.
The headline is enough for many of these digleberries.
If cyclists are “waging war”
If cyclists are “waging war” on pedestrians, then presumably similar overheated language has motorists committing genocide?
In fact it’s really remarkably safe on UK roads (in global terms) – although there isn’t necessarily a continuous upward trend. What *is* the case is that growing demand for driving over the decades has:
– gobbled up a great deal of space – and that continues as a greater fraction of people motor vehicles.
– made walking and cycling substantially less convenient and pleasant
– measures brought in for the safety of vulnerable road users have often been at the expense of serious inconvenience, or social safety (grotty underpasses).
– measures brought in for the safety of motorists (wider roads, multiple lanes, traffic lights at junctions) also haven’t helped everyone else.
The biggest casualty has been the free mobility of *children*. Fortunately with “stranger danger”, gaming and the Internet there are other causes we can ascribe that to…
The Telegraph forgot to write
The Telegraph forgot to write an article about the 7 per cent increase in drink driving deaths over the last 10 years.
They forget to write a lot of
They forget to write a lot of articles.
I think they didn’t forget,
I think they didn’t forget, it’s just that to write such an article might have involved them having to do some actual research.
The way pedestrians walk
The way pedestrians walk straight infront of me as I approach a zebra crossing, in a way that they would never do with a car, no longer surprises me but never ceases to annoy me.
I wonder how many of these accidents are as a result of pedestrian behaviour in the presence of less experienced (not as ancient) cyclists.
Youre supposed to give way at
Youre supposed to give way at a zebra crossing, so you should be aware of a pedestrian approaching it and if they look like they might be about to cross. More of an issue is the number who cross contrary to the lights at other pedestrian crossings if it’s a bicycle rather than a motor vehicle, particularly raised crossings.
Then there are those who just walk out into the road completely oblivious.
The biggest problem I find is
The biggest problem I find is pedestrians walking along the pavement in the same direction as the nearside traffic who then take an abrupt right turn over the crossing as they reach it, without stopping and with only the most cursory glance over their shoulder. Joggers who don’t wish to break their stride are particularly prone to doing this in my experience; the trouble is that if you look over your right shoulder the field of vision is such that you can only see the middle of the road and are very likely to miss the cyclist on the left-hand side of the lane. Coupled to the fact that they (joggers) are frequently wearing headphones so can’t hear warning bells/shouts, I would reckon at least 75% of my near misses with pedestrians result from this cause.
Yup – looking with their ears
Yup – looking with their ears. More and more I’m considering Trotify for use in quieter places where this happens.
I would wonder about figures for people doing this in front of electric cars – only at almost all UK driving speeds ( > 20mph) these are a similar volume to ICE ones I believe.
Also I doubt there’s any interest in trying to tease out those numbers – what are we going to do about that, keep ICE cars? Of course we *could* mandate some sonic skeuomorphism and eg. add engine noise back in – manufacturers would no doubt complain about added costs but shouldn’t be too hard. But I suspect people probably wouldn’t approve en-mass.
chrisonabike wrote:
Grandmother to child yesterday as I cycled past just as they started to step into the road: “that was a quiet bike wasn’t it?” Delivered with a slight tone as if I had done something wrong, when really she meant “oh shit, I should have been looking not just listening”.
I think it’s already mandated that EVs have to emit a noise below speeds where tyre noise makes them audible, which has led to manufacturers trying to inject some brand identity into their manouvreing noises (though they’re often quieter than the noise of the brakes, which are surprisingly loud when there’s no ICE to compete with). I think Hyundai also has options to choose from a variety of “engine” noises on its performance EVs, and in recent years some manufacturers started playing augmented “engine” sounds into the cabins of ICE cars too. Neither of those for the benefit of pedestrians of course.
About 18 months ago I had a
About 18 months ago I had a chap screaming at me in fury after I had (somewhat adroitly, even if I say so myself) swerved around him when he stepped into the road in front of me without looking (him in all black clothing on a dark and rainy night, me, as is my wont, lit up like an exhibitionist Christmas tree): “Fucking cyclists, you zoom along, no bell, completely fucking silent, and you’re blaming me?” I pointed out that he had over-ear headphones on with the music so loud that I had no trouble hearing it clearly from the safe distance of five metres away that I had stopped. Apparently, “That’s not the fucking point.”
quiff wrote:
Hmm – I thought there was something like this but I can’t recall hearing this. Of course “not listening for it” so perhaps I have been fooled!
The notion of being able to pick what sound seems fun but of course the point is people are listening for *ICE engines* really so that’s what they should sound like. Although I imagine the noise of eg. a large steam locomotive getting going would attract attention pretty well…
The one that lives next door
The one that lives next door to us* makes a sound like a UFO coming in to land.
[* With apologies to Mitsky**]
[** Not really]
Seems reasonable.
Seems reasonable.
I got caught out like that
I got caught out like that about 12 years ago. I managed to slam on the brakes and there was only a minor collision and we both apologised to each other, so there was no real problem.
And this is exactly why I
And this is exactly why I cancelled my subscription to the Telegraph last year. I cannot understand why this paper (and indeed pretty much the entire British media) are so vehemently against something that has so many proven and documented positives.
I cannot understand why this
I cannot understand why this paper is so vehemently against something that has so many proven and documented positives
I can- it’s because so many of their targeted readers are so vehemently against etc. etc.
wtjs wrote:
Also advert buying car companies.
Can’t have people spending less on cars and instead cycling…
I didn’t think it would ever
I didn’t think it would ever be possible to write this, but the Telegraph now really is as dispeputable as the Daily Mail!