The Daily Mail and The Telegraph have today published opinion pieces slamming the incoming Highway Code changes, and launching outspoken attacks on cycling in Britain.
Florida resident and Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn’s work is headlined: ‘Bike lane Britain…the Great Leap Backwards. Under cover of Covid, officials have turned our city centres into crazy golf courses giving priority to Lycra-clad lunatics on racing bikes’.
In which he blasts the “mutton-headed communists” and “Genghis [Sadiq] Khan” for supporting cycle infrastructure, while also ripping into cycle lanes built during the pandemic, “Lycra-clad lunatics”, “suicide jockeys”, two abreast riding, the new ‘Hierarchy of Road Users’ and the regularly mythbusted road tax.
The Guardian’s political correspondent Peter Walker called the column “unhinged, error-strewn and downright weird […] which adds in elements of racist banter for good measure. All involved should feel deeply ashamed,” and awarded Littlejohn the “cycling myth media bingo contest for all-time”.
The writer drew analogy between Britain’s cycling infrastructure and Chairman Mao’s ‘kingdom of bicycles’, and accused UK transport policy of ruining 21st-century Britain.
Littlejohn claimed city centres are now “crazy golf courses, intended to frustrate freedom of movement by giving priority to Lycra-clad lunatics on racing bikes and suicide jockeys on e-scooters.”
Commenting on the Highway Code changes coming into effect this week, he wrote: “Bikers are encouraged to ride two or three abreast in the middle of the road, deliberately to slow traffic to a crawl. Motorists will be expected to cede to both bikes and pedestrians when turning left.”
The Code actually states riding two abreast “can be safer to do so”, but that cyclists should “allow them [drivers] to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so”.
Walker also disputed the claim, amongst many, that “pro-bike extremists were given a blank sheet of paper to write their own rules.”
Also: LittleJohn’s claim cyclists were “given a blank sheet of paper” to rewrite Highway Code notably echo comments of @IAMRoadSmart on radio yesterday. It’s not true, and such sentiments have probably helped make life on the road for me & loved ones a bit less safe this morning.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) January 25, 2022
It is not the first time the Mail has been accused of misrepresenting Highway Code changes.
Last week, a MailOnline story told readers that one new rule “tells cyclists to pedal in the middle of the road” when in fact it provides advice about road positioning in certain situations such as on quiet roads or in slow-moving traffic, and riding in primary position has been encouraged by cycling instructors for decades.
> Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
The Telegraph too published a provocative opinion piece this morning, titled ‘Pedal-pushers have taken over British roads – even as a cyclist, I think it’s time to rein them in’.
The introduction read, “The Highway Code’s new hierarchy of road use (sic) is taking things a bit too far in favour of the smug ‘bikeltons’ who manage to annoy everyone.”
Last week, the Evening Standard was accused of running a misleading headline on a story titled, ‘New Highway Code rule will fine drivers £1,000 for opening door with wrong hand’.
The Express went for ‘POLL: Do you support new fine for opening car with wrong hand as cyclists given priority?’
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the national cycling charity, told road.cc: “A government led public awareness campaign should have started by now, with simple, accurate and memorable messages.
“Instead, less than a week before major Highway Code changes are being introduced, too many people are hearing about them through inaccurate news reports like this from the Evening Standard.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
128 thoughts on “Highway Code changes: Daily Mail publishes “error-strewn” Richard Littlejohn column attacking cyclists”
Nothing to see, just Mr
Nothing to see, just Mr Littlejohn playing to the gallery of bigoted little Englanders.
That said, I quite like the picture, of the cyclist astride his red steed, leaving the motorists stewing in their grey traffic jam.
The bicycle looks like one of
The bicycle looks like one of those drawn by someone from memory by someone who doesn’t own one, instead of looking at a photo. Vertical seat stays are a somewhat rare design detail. It’s a good one for this gallery–in fact, it’s a lot like the first one.
https://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/19/velocipedia-project-hopeless-bicycle-drawings-life-digital-renders-gianluca-gimini/
Jack Taylor “Flying Gate” for
Jack Taylor “Flying Gate” for sale on Ebay now if you want it…
Also available in larger size
Also available in larger size and alternative colours…
andystow wrote:
I was slightly concerned about the bike’s geometry, but then I saw the cyclist is actually rather Picasso-esque. Perhaps its an impressionist bicycle.
Richard “ALL LAZY, WOKE
Richard “ALL LAZY, WOKE SNOWFLAKES NEED TO GET BACK TO THE OFFICE!!!! Oh btw I’ve worked from home for 30 years” Littlejohn has an opinion about cyclists, does he?
I’m delighted that he took
I’m delighted that he took time to share it with us from his gated mansion in Florida, it gives me an opportunity to actively ignore him rather than the more passive approach I usually take!
Instead of angrily dismissing
Instead of angrily dismissing the multitude of critics rightly taking these changes to task, isn’t it instead time to see their side?
As I’ve pointed out time and time again, left-wing types like the Guardian are using cyclists as expendable pawns – cannon fodder – in a culture war against common sense and democracy. You’ll note that the Telegraph is paywalled yet the Guardian is free.. I think that in itself reveals the underlying quality of the journalism of the respective papers.
See their side?
See their side?
I guess you mean (paraphrasing TriTaxMan above)
“A motorist’s time is more valuable than the life of a vulnerable road user”
We are looking at ‘their side
We are looking at ‘their side’ Nigel – and it’s mostly lies and misinformation.
Oh, and by the way – The Guardian is subsidised by a growing number of ‘supporters’ via Direct Debit, so that there is at least some balance against the predominantly right-wing press bias in this country.
Also, the Guardian is owned
Also, the Guardian is owned by a not for profit foundation that has no input into editorial direction. I would contend it isn’t quite the same at the Telegraph.
Very good article here from
Very good article here from the leftie wokie Spectator for you to read Nige 🙂
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/entitled-motorists-have-ruled-the-roads-for-far-too-long
It’s always good to see
It’s always good to see alternative viewpoints and vigorous debate – that’s what sets us apart from the “hive mind” mentality, and it’s good to see the Spectator giving balance.
Only a “hive mind” mentality
Only a “hive mind” mentality would write this nonsense Nige mate
“As I’ve pointed out time and time again, left-wing types like the Guardian are using cyclists as expendable pawns – cannon fodder – in a culture war against common sense and democracy.”
Feel free to delete your road.cc account any time. Thank you.
Well he’s changed names at
Well he’s changed names at least five times and flounced at least once (for about three hours)…
sean1 wrote:
WT actual F? did it really write that? Fack me it must have been practising
Garage at Large wrote:
You do understand that it isn’t really a “debate” when one side is wilfully misrepresenting the facts in order to create clicks/outrage/arguments, right?
Tell me you at least understand that much?
Of course, you do, but you are only here to create those reactions yourself anyway, aren’t you?
Garage at Large wrote:
This isn’t the argument you think it is. The Daily Mail is also free. However, unlike the DM, the Guardian is mostly funded by donations where the DM is mostly funded by adverts…
sapperadam wrote:
… MailOnline adverts next to titillating pictures that the print version (catering to a different demographic) argues against. Cake, eat.
(No subject)
So the DM have managed to
So the DM have managed to turn something as pure and simple as basic road safety into an attempt at culture war in the name of clicks. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
“You couldn’t make it up”. Apparently you can.
‘Error-strewn’? Is that the
‘Error-strewn’? Is that the euphemism we’re going with these days?
As in
“The Prime Minister was error-strewn when he said he was not aware of any parties in Downing Street”?
“Lance Armstrong was error-strewn when he said he never took performance-enhancing drugs”?
The biggest majority of the
The biggest majority of the criticism being levied at the changes to the Highway Code can be, in my opinion summed up as follows
“As a motorist my time is more valuable than the life of a vulnerable road user”
Look at most of the arguments being put against the changes
‘Its going to cause more road rage’ – Why? Because drivers are being asked to have a little bit of patience and possibly be held up for a small amount of time.
‘Its going to cause more accidents when cars unexpectedly stop to let pedestrians across the road’ – Why? Because drivers are too fixated on getting from A to B in the shortest possible time without leaving sufficient reaction time for a potential road hazard.
‘Motorists are being asked to check to see that they are not going to cut up a cyclist, who could be filtering or using a cycle lane, when they are turning’ – Why? Because it means drivers actually have to spend a fraction of a second checking to see that they are not going to run a vulnerable road user over.
I think you’ll find it’s a
I think you’ll find it’s a continuation of the war on motorists.
What selfrespecting, hard working motorist going about their busy day shouldn’t be allowed to use their judgement about speed?
I think 163 mph is perfectly acceptable
https://goshorty.co.uk/blog/speed-camera-hotspots/
(no details on the 191mph so I have left that out)
We’ll have the answers to
We’ll have the answers to whether these ideologically-driven changes are a good idea in the KSI statistics next year.
The two questions to its supporters are:
This is being framed by zealots as “caring people” vs “mean motorists”, but the fact is that both sides of the debate want safe, considerate roads. Pantomime villains only exist in pantomimes, no matter what the Guardian tells you to think.
As I said before I am not
As I said before I am not going to engage with you as you are a serial lair
Garage at Large wrote:
Thereby incentivising lower driving standards and more deaths (for the “supporters” on that side of the “debate”)?
Responsibility for road safety rests with drivers as well as more vulnerable road users. Despite what Nick freeman tells you to think.
Garage at Large wrote:
The decision to move so many shops and other facilities (even hospitals) out of town was an ideological decision.
The decision to privatise and defund public transport while freezing fuel duty for private vehicles is an ideological decision.
I could probably go on, but I imagine I’m banging my head against a brick wall…
Ridiculous allegation!
Ridiculous allegation! Governments don’t take these decisions nor should they of course! These changes were all driven by the market. So that’s what the people want – it’s monetary democracy! Or are you a (Chinese?) Communist or something?
(Leaving another obligatory link to https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ and other points of over a century’s worth of motor vehicle / transport planning history e.g. Traffic in towns, Roads for Prosperity. Not getting into the turnpikes and the railways!)
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yes, exactly, an ideological decision.
Garage at Large wrote:
At which, he disappeared in a puff of self-denial.
I actually don’t think we
I actually don’t think we will see an increase of KSI’s of any significance. The vulnerable road users will continue to use the roads with caution and will not use the new rules as a caveat to be irresponsible. The media keeps forgetting the clause in the introduction of The Hierarchy that we all have a responsibility to use the roads safely.
Every single article that has come up on my newsfeeds regarding these changes has been misleading and presenting wrong information. One example is the £1k fine for using the wrong hand opening a door when dooring has been an offence under the RTA1988. The comments from many make you wonder how they managed to pass their practical and theory driving tests as their knowledge of road craft is seriously lacking.
The ire seems to be coming mainly from motorists who claim to not understand the new guidelines which mainly are better wording and they’ve been too lazy to look up the proof copy and relied heavily on badly written columns.
I have just come out of an
I have just come out of an industry meeting at which the representative from the Road Haulage Association quoted the door opening thing.
I hope you pointed him to the
I hope you pointed him to the RTA 1988 and said that surely he doesn’t need the highway code to tell him how to open a door safely?
SimoninSpalding wrote:
What industry and how was it quoted? Satirically or sensibly?
SimoninSpalding wrote:
I feel your pain. Did you correct them?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
Most of these changes to the HC are simply adding to the HC things which any reasonable or conscientious road user ought to have been doing anyway (don’t run someone over, watch out for someone about to cross that zebra crossing, don’t just pull away if your stationary traffic queue starts moving but check if someone’s crossing or about to cross, someone’s life is not worth you getting there ten seconds earlier, that sort of thing).
Many of them are already in the HC and the intention has been to make it a bit more explicit because apparently “good old British common sense” is a myth and people can’t be trusted to be sensible or to be nice to each other.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Someone on twitter argued that not overtaking cyclists within 1.5m would lead to perishable goods rotting in the vans.
Sorry, that’ll be my fault.
Sorry, that’ll be my fault. Due to advancing years and expanding girth I can only average 16mph on a good day, and most of your fresh produce comes from ’round ‘ere!
That’s impressive with the
That’s impressive with the Fen Blow.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Priceless, bless their cotton socks….
It’s not just the DM; local
It’s not just the DM; local newspapers, Facebook and ranting app, Nextdoor, are constantly generating ant-cyclist sentement based around LTNs, better walking/cycling routes, Clean Air Zones and changes to the Highway Code. To the minority (I hope) ranting NIMBYs, whatever their alternative solution is, it’ll always be unrestricted and unhindered use of motor vehicles…….which is the nub of the problem; but for some reason in the UK (and I include contoversial issues beyond this subject) they seem to always hold sway.
Serious question, is there no
Serious question, is there no action a representative body can take to challenge blatent lies and inaccuracies in our “free” press?
Less serious comment, he looks like he would benefit from some active travel.
Press regulator is toothless.
Press regulator is toothless. The best campaign (hacked off) hasn’t really worked because Leveson was rejected by politicians in bed with journalists (literally, in some cases).
Under current regulations, a complaint to the regulator would get nowhere – the piece would be portrayed as satire or humour, and thus the factual inaccuracies are comic exaggerations.
It’s under the guise of an
It’s under the guise of an “opinion piece”. So basically means journalistic integrity is out of the window & you can write whatever inflammatory rubbish you want safe in the knowledge that you’ll never get taken to task for it (or any of the consequences that others are on the end of).
Bit like a Minsiterial Code of Conduct in that regard.
Clem Fandango wrote:
And Boris breaks both of them with impunity. And the law.
You can contact the IPSO
You can contact the IPSO https://www.ipso.co.uk/complain/our-complaints-process/
They do recommend that you contact the editor of the guilty publication. Though as RLJ is a satirist the editor will be justified in letting it go. It’s disappointing to see that the comments are not moderated and some of them are quite inflammatory and deserving of a Public Order Offence
I agree there’s not much that
I agree there’s not much that can be done to correct opinion pieces. However, I would have thought that the DfT and DVSA would be interested in the misrepresentation of their work.
More to the point, shouldn’t
More to the point, shouldn’t the police be investigating these publications for inciting hatred against a group of people?
Surreyrider wrote:
No, the police should be out catching criminals
Inciting hatred is a crime,
Inciting hatred is a crime, dickhead!
MattieKempy wrote:
Not that kind of crime….
Quote:
Erm – I think it’s the motor vehicles and their drivers who have taken over British roads, tbh. Imagine if our city centres were full of canals populated by maneating crocodiles, with beg-button bridges to be able to safely get around.
Can’t make up my mind if
Can’t make up my mind if garageatlarge is a troll or an Alan Partridge type character. They have given me lots of laughs today.
Troll. Definitely troll
Troll. Definitely troll
I think a quote from today
I think a quote from today gives you a suggestion:
…to which we can reply “Oh no they don’t!”
chrisonatrike wrote:
His comment being self-referential oxymoron.
sjplake wrote:
Give it time….
The Telegraph too published a
“The Telegraph too published a provocative opinion piece (link is external) this morning, titled ‘Pedal-pushers have taken over British roads – even as a cyclist, I think it’s time to rein them in’.
The introduction read, “The Highway Code’s new hierarchy of road use (sic) is taking things a bit too far in favour of the smug ‘bikeltons’ who manage to annoy everyone.”
I’m a bikelton that annoys everyone. Wow! And some troll thinks this is quality journalism that is rightly behind a paywall?!?!?
Tbf it’s a shame it is behind
Tbf it’s a shame it is behind a paywall as the Telegraph piece is one of those misleading headline hooks, no doubt the subeditor chose it rather than the author as the article actually tackles the subject from why do people get so antagonistic about cyclists in these debates when the stats show such anger is entirely misplaced, and at no stage does the article demand cyclists be “reined in”, it simply wishes cyclists were less smug which is more a lament about being stuck in a car I think. It’s nothing like the Littlejohn piece or previous Telegraph anti cycling pieces.
I always wonder how they know
I always wonder how they know I’m smug. I mean, I sometimes am, but do I somehow project it as I cycle past? Am I emitting smugness rays? I’m not blowing raspberries, pointing, or laughing.
andystow wrote:
It’s that Ford emoji jacket you’re wearing.
Ignore Littlejohn. He’s just
Ignore Littlejohn. He’s just a better paid version of this site’s own would-be agent provocateur. They’re both far less smart than they think they are and usually neither makes much sense. Ignore and do not engage in either case. Your life will be better for it. Their lives, however, are improved by a reaction. That’s desperately sad for them, but it’s not our place to make them feel better about the gaping holes that exist for them in their pitiable existences.
Sadly there are many
Sadly there are many thousands of people out there driving on the UK roads that DO read the crap that Littlejohn and his ilk put into print. For many of them it simply reinforces and supports their downright dangerous attitudes towards people on bikes. As for our own resident shit stirrer, I have simply decided to not read any of his posts, and not even any of the replies to his posts for fear of being sucked in!
Maybe more troubling, as an
Maybe more troubling, as an opinion piece is just an opinion piece however objectionable it is, is how many saw Mike Grahams appearance on GMB today and now believe his completely mad take on the roundabout rules, which I’m assuming went completely unchallenged. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1555360/Highway-code-change-cyclist-row-GMB
“But the problem with these
“But the problem with these new rules is, it creates a lot of doubt for people so, for example, I spoke to a lawyer about this yesterday.
“If you are on a roundabout in a car and a cyclist wants to come onto the roundabout from one of the entrances, you have to stop in the middle of the roundabout and let the cyclist out.
How the hell did anyone come up with that nonsense?
Unless it was a top lawyer and road safety expert.
Edit: the rule for roundabouts should simply say you must not enter or drive around the roundabout at high speed like a complete idiot.
hirsute wrote:
You only need to have a look on Youtube for UK Dash Cam videos to see how badly drivers deal with roundabouts. Videos of roundabouts make up a pretty big percentage of the submissions….
Most of them are drivers approaching a roundabout at breakneck speed (Car A), then blaring their horn when a vehicle (Car B) enters the roundabout in front of them…… even though Car A still hasn’t got to the roundabout…. normally accompanied by shouting “give way to cars from the right”
I’m getting addicted to those
I’m getting addicted to those !
There are also loads of bad lane changes on the roundabout leading to collisions.
I stole this from the car hits building thread
hirsute wrote:
https://youtu.be/lTHzg_q5HXY?t=142
That particular clip had me shutting my eyes….. No doubt the Daily Heil readers would be blaming the solo cyclist in the clip
well it would be reasonable
well it would be reasonable to assume it was our favourite road safety lawyer, but how on earth either of them came up with that interpretation I dont know.
and I watched the segment and no he wasnt challenged on that assertion at all, instead Ed Balls goes off a mini rant about cyclists on pavements and cyclists jumping red lights and how do pedestrians on the ‘roads’ cope with that, with Mike then complaining there are too many cyclist traffic lights and pedestrian traffic lights in London.
I mean Ive never watched GMB, I dont ever intend to again. Im just apalled this is what passes for journalism on our tv screens now.
Nice to see The Spectator
Nice to see The Spectator giving a good write up on the new Highway Code.
“At last, the Highway Code appears to have caught up with standards of behaviour that would be treated as normal in any other sphere of human activity…”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/entitled-motorists-have-ruled-the-roads-for-far-too-long
Nigel’s brain will explode when he sees this…..
That’s a really good article,
That’s a really good article, thanks.
I particularly like the description of the Alliance of British Drivers as “the trade union for Mr Toads” 😀
I’m a little blown away to
I’m a little blown away to see something I agree with in The Spectator!
Indeed. Usually they are
Indeed. Usually they are more off the scale than the Daily Fail…
So, FLORIDA-resident Richard
So, FLORIDA-resident Richard Littlejohnson is up in arms about what the HC changes has done to “OUR city centres”?
hmmm, will other Floridians even know what the Dutch-reach method is?
Isn’t it how they put their
Isn’t it how they put their suncream on, due to obesity issues?
They’ll probably think it is
They’ll probably think it is some Marine slang that you shouldn’t mention in front of your wife.
Florida consistently tops the
Florida consistently tops the list as the most dangerous state to ride a bicycle in the USA. It’s too bad, as it has some of the best weather and terrain for practical cycling, with no real winter, and a high point of 345 feet (105 m) for the entire state!
“and a high point of 345 feet
“and a high point of 345 feet (105 m) for the entire state!”
If they had mountains as well it would be too grossly unfair.
marmotte27 wrote:
From down here in the Fens, 105m sounds like a mountain!
Littlejohn is just another
Littlejohn is just another Boris the Liar. I look forward to him coming over to be PM when we finally kick out the latter.
Good grief…I’ve just seen
Good grief…I’ve just seen the torrent of hate towards cyclists on both the Daily Mail and the Telegraph pages re the new Highway Code cycling rules/advice…no wonder this country voted for both Brexit and Boris. Pig ignorance is obviously in fashion!
Kermit77 wrote:
Kermit complaining about pig ignorance.
Well it made it me laugh.
Steve K wrote:
What’s green and smells of pork?
Kermit’s finger.
I did wonder if all this
I did wonder if all this recent vitriol in certain news outlets was the reason a van driver swerved at me whilst beeping his horn yesterday.
Front and rear video has been submitted to the police, I’ve been given a reference number and looking at their ‘solvability matrix’ it would be hard to argue against taking some action.
HoarseMann wrote:
let us know hw this turns out, so we can score their mental gymnastics
Will do. I don’t report many
Will do. I don’t report many incidents (this is only the fourth over several years), but this was quite bad and clearly intentional. If he’s doing that to me, he’s probably doing it to almost every cyclist he comes across. This is one that I will chase up.
@hoarseman, what camera
@hoarseman, what camera equipment are you using please? Always curious to know what others are using – GoPro battery life poor, cycliq units seem plagued with ongoing quality issues and poor customer service, and the cheaper end bullet-cam unit I bought has good battery life but no stabilisation so despite what the UK seller would say, footage is pretty much useless – despite quality of capture being ok if it wasn’t for so much vibration being captured).
thanks
It’s just the original Cycliq
It’s just the original Cycliq Fly12 and the Non-CE Fly6. Apart from having to DIY replace the battery in the Fly6 after 14 months use, they’ve given me years of trouble free service. Easy to use and great battery life. Image quality is ok in the right lighting conditions (i.e. not into sun or at night).
I don’t find that stabilisation helps much. The two cameras I have don’t have stabilisation. I find it’s the speed of the object vs the lighting levels (exposure time) that is the problem. Here’s an example, the vehicle at 40mph is fairly clear, the one at 60mph quite blurry.
Davidb67 wrote:
that’ll be one of those teleporting pedestrians/cyclists, you know the ones that “came out of nowhere” i.e they weren’t there when the driver SHOULD have looked, and then when it was too late, suddenly they saw them.
Do they think if we could beam down, we would choose to materialise halfway home, instead of at out destination?
Here’s an example of a sunny
Here’s an example of a sunny day, same road. Front camera has no chance for this vehicle at 50mph, but the rear camera gets it and has a much sharper image than the one taken on an overcast day (exposure time will be shorter as there is much better light).
Speaks volumes of the
Speaks volumes of the standard of driving that many claim drivers will hit the car in front when they stop unexpectedly as a result of the HC changes.
hirsute wrote:
I was just driving along, minding my own business, and then – out of nowhere – someone changed the Highway Code and I stopped dead…
mdavidford wrote:
Stopped dead? there I have you. What red blooded British motorist stops, or even slows down, when they’re unsure.
Foot down, it’s safer to accelerate out of trouble than to brake.
mdavidford wrote:
Was it wearing hi-viz and a helmet?
Yeah, this sort of comment is
Yeah, this sort of comment is driving me mad – “I’ll get rear-ended if a pedestrian crosses and I have to slam the brakes on”. What speed are they approaching turnings at?! And has it caused them a problem for the rest of their driving lives, given that the rule already applied to pedestrians who were already crossing?
That one had my spinning as
That one had my spinning as well. In fact all the rants have my head spinning. How on earth did any of these people pass their theory (post ’96) and practical tests.
giff77 wrote:
They told a few Boris truths.
First time post from a lurker
First time post from a lurker. I came across that Littledick article on next door. It was posted on a thread where a group of people are protesting about a safer streets consultation.
The thread has all the usual suspects including how the ‘new’ primary position guidance is dangerous on a narrow street.
I looked at the article and cannot believe that vile shit can be published in a reasonable society… wtf was the ‘chinese minds’ about.
The Heil will almost certainly defend any complaint on the basis that no reasonable person would believe it. Though the comment (over 3k at 13:00) suggests the readership is full of non reasonable people given the highest rated were racist, celebrating people dying and fully subscribing to the lies in the article.
I sent my first ever complaint to IPOS. Then I asked Club Med how they felt about paying for advertising next to that shite, and whether they want their holidays filled with Heil commentators.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
I can only wish that all first posts were so positive and constructive. Thank you and please continue posting.
Nice summary. Littlejohn and
Nice summary. Littlejohn and his like are just trolling and playing to their assumed audience, aren’t they? Which doesn’t make it better but living in Florida and given his political views, there’s statistically a high chance he’s not covid jabbed and is in line for a messy demise quite soon. Shame.
I didn’t realise Richard
I didn’t realise Richard Littlejohn actually lives in Florida now. That being the case, it’s rather ironic that he’s waffling on about road safety. Florida has one of the worst records on road safety of any state in the US and is up there with the likes of North and South Carolina and Montana for bad road crashes. Drink driving is a really big problem in Florida.
The road safety record of the US is poor to start with, with 11 deaths per 100,000 of population in 2019 (pre pandemic) compared 2.8 deaths per 100,000 of population in the UK for that year. And in the US road deaths of vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) actually increased in 2020 as the pandemic started due to an increase in speeding and DUI. I haven’t seen the preliminary stats for the US in 2021 yet but I doubt they’re any better. People in glass houses and all that…
As an update on my previous
As an update on my previous post and to highlight the US problem on road safety, I saw some really scary stats earlier today. In 2021 there were over 1,700 people killed in crashes in North Carolina. Bear in mind that NC has a population of 10.6 million. In the UK last year preliminary data suggests around 1,500 people died in road crashes, and the UK has a population of 67 million.
Watched Ashley Neal’s spin on
Watched Ashley Neal’s spin on it all earlier today. He was actually really good and the comments in general are positive and even the negative ones are calm and rational with the commentator happy to interact.
The real problem isn’t the
The real problem isn’t the rabid anti-cycling rhetoric of the gammons, it’s that the msm ignores their ranting. It’s become normal and accepted to rave at cyclists and no-one says a word, no-one points out that these people are irrational, demented, hate-filled, pompous gas bags, or that if they said anything like that about any other group, they would be ridiculed, taunted and possibly prosecuted.
But it’s ok when they denigrate, condemn and threaten cyclists.
As an outsider looking in,
As an outsider looking in, these rabid mouth frothing displays of confected outrage are hilarious. I mean he’s basically labelled the Tories as a bunch of Communists and Boris as Chairman Mao, I don’t know how Littlejohn can wear shoes if he can’t tell left from right!
These same papers spent
These same papers spent decades printing all sorts of lies and misinformation about the EU – and people swallowed it. So why not people who ride bikes? Why does the UK press hate cycles so much? Why do so many people in the UK show such open hostility towards cycles? I live between the EU and London and I can’t speak for every EU country but those that I am familiar with do not have such an active and ongoing hostile campaign against citizens who ride cycles.
Where I live someone has
Where I live someone has posted that bikes should be banned from the high st.
The speed limit is 20 and traffic is restricted so I don’t know how these ‘ideas’ come to light.
It is genuinely frightening
It is genuinely frightening that there are so many people out there behind the wheel of a car that genuinely have no clue about the highway code or laws is staggering.
Just had this priceless dialogue on Facebook
Them “Most motorists don’t know they can pass a cyclists no matter what the road markings, you get the old folk sitting for miles behind a cyclists all because of the centre road markings, being solid white, they think they are not allowed to pass”
Me “Thats not what the law says…..’quotes law’ it says that you can only overtake if a cyclist is going less than 10mph if you have a solid white line against you”
Them “it the law if you Don’t know what you’re actually allowed to do , give up driving or cycling”
Me “I understand what the law says and it’s not what you think”
Them “all vehicles can pass a cyclist look it up its on google”
Me “I literally quoted the law from the legislation.gov.uk website and I trust that more than what google says”
Them “How would a driver know how fast a cyclists is going , this is why you can legally pass if it’s safe to do so”
Me “you have this magical device called a speedometer that tells you how fast you are going…. maybe you should take your own advice as you don’t know what you’re actually allowed to do.”
It is genuinely frightening
It is genuinely frightening that there are so many people out there behind the wheel of a car that genuinely have no clue about the highway code or laws is staggering
Is Them the police?
wtjs wrote:
Nope just some random person who think that they know the rules of the road because google told them so
For many people, though,
For many people, though, asking Google and picking the first hit no matter what is how they do serious research nowadays.
brooksby wrote:
It gets better, in defense of their case they posted a link (under a separate thread) to this article https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7496912/when-you-can-legally-cross-double-white-lines-road/
Apparently that article says that cyclists can be overtaken anywhere…… except it really doesnt…
I’m guessing that was the extent of their google research
A bold claim at the top of
A bold claim at the top of the article:
In my experience, most drivers haven’t got the first clue.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Yes, but is Them the Police?
Quote:
They’re right – I mean, it’s not like cars have speedometers right there on the dashboard, is it…?
They’re right – I mean, it’s
They’re right – I mean, it’s not like cars have speedometers right there on the dashboard, is it…?
They do know, it’s just that they and the police (at least, in Lancashire) don’t think it’s a law that should be taken seriously and Parliament can get st****d. This is Transit lorry MF64 WEO
I’ve lost track of all the
I’ve lost track of all the ill informed threads I’ve been caught up in of late. If anything the current ‘discussion’ has revealed how little knowledge people have of the HC or how much they’ve forgotten. It also demonstrates how poor their understanding of road craft is and their Inability to grasp these very basic driving concepts. It’s like cyclists- the law breakers actually have a better understanding of the roads then the fully trained and licensed individuals out there.
giff77 wrote:
Yes it does reveal that, and one of the big drivers for a lot of this are the local rags that are publishing “major changes to the highway code” articles… for example about the fact that cyclists “can now stay in the left lane on the approach to a roundabout and go all the way round”…….. it’s almost like the journalists never knew what was there in the first place….. the fact that the HC has said for years that cyclists can stay in the left lane and continue round a roundabout.
but in some ways its not
but in some ways its not surprising when the media they consume is pushing out this daily diet of stuff thats a load of codswallop on the HC.
how is the average person supposed to deduce Mike Graham is talking nonsense about the new rules with roundabouts, or Howard Cox hasnt read the specific part that accounts for speed and passing distances of cyclists, that Nick Ferrari talking about how he’d like to go and stroke his favourite cycling lane in a discussion on the HC is “just ‘aving a laff”.
These people are presented as “experts” by the media, they arent challenged, they arent corrected when they demonstrably get things wrong, and then their misinformed views get consumed by people who for whatever reason no longer have that questioning outlook to information they are presented with they just consume it, and then repeat it to their friends and family and it extends from there till its like group think.
Unfortunately, pantomime
Unfortunately, pantomime villain and road safety sabotouer Nick Freeman may be correct about one thing. We all saw how nasty some people got when asked to wear a facemask in public spaces, to the point that even though a legal requirement, many high street shops instructed staff not to engage or attempt to enforce the policy due to threat of physical and verbal assault.
I imagine those same people who are willing to punch a shop worker for asking them to mask up will have no hesitation on the back of being wound up by ill informed crap on talk radio or the hilighted Mail opinion piece in seeing it as their public duty to essentially conduct a campaign of terror against any person on a bicycle who has the misfortune to cross their path.
Those of an uneven temper are
Those of an uneven temper are going to bark and bite as always. But agreed – there is a question. Are they significant enough to derail efforts to make positive change (in number, volume or potential negative actions)?
So far no-one killed me on the roads and I’ve not had enough bad experiences (or bad enough ones) to stop me. Others certainly have been discouraged by crashes, aggression or just the threat and unpleasantness of mixing with motor vehicles. Even if it’s but one of the many reasons most people aren’t cycling or even walking much.
Can these folks just be ignored? Getting into a contest would seem counter-productive. That’s a favourite narrative e.g. “culture war” / “war on the motorist”. Or do we have to win them over, accommodate them etc. until either there’s a cultural shift or we somehow get sufficient good infra so they’re much less relevant?
Some people are just unhappy and will kick out at anything. For most there are no complaints about something as long as they feel they’re fairly provided for.
chrisonatrike wrote:
how much more do we have to give to accomdate them?
It’s like 80% iof the public space in any road being devoted to motor vehicles, and then claims that pedestrians should compromise about pavement parking
Amazingly I did my normal 25
Amazingly I did my normal 25 mile lunchtime ride today and had – as pretty much always – no issue at all with any motorist.
As is often the case, I think you’re worrying too much about silly newspaper headlines. Most people aren’t going to care about these new rules and will continue to cycle and drive in exactly the same manner they always have. I certainly won’t be adjusting my behaviour either as a cyclist or as a motorist.
Of course, the caveat is that if you look for trouble, you’ll likely get trouble. Politeness and courtesy are the bywords for mutual respect.
Interestingly I did my usual
Interestingly I did my usual 3.5 km commute home today and got very close passed by a vehicle which almost immediately turned off into the hospital near my house. By overtaking me dangerously they saved themselves a maximum of 10 seconds. I followed them in and spoke politely to the driver, who said that she had gone slowly past me and she had left “plenty of space”. I pointed out that as there was a stream of cars in the other direction there was no way she could have given me anything like enough space .
She took this on board and said something about the highway code having changed. I explained that it hadn’t actually changed Inthis respect and we agreed that she would give people more space I future
Seventyone wrote:
I broke my usual rule about non-engagement today with a very similar incident. A van close passed me, parked cars both sides, on a bend and with an oncoming car (who had to stop abrubptly), only for them to immediately turn left up a dead-end.
So I had a polite chat. Apparently I was too far out from the parked cars and he had no idea a car was going to come around the bend! Door zone explained, pointed out I had cameras, asked to be more careful in future. He seemed ok about it, but who knows.
I agree mungecrundle. I mean
I agree mungecrundle. I mean some of the posts that I have come across :-
“I need bigger bull bars on my motor. Stupid rules.”
“Can see my horn getting more use”
“No insurance no leeway”
“Points are going to go mental for Lycra biker clipping, Game on!”
No surprise from the daily
No surprise from the daily Heil, even so whatta W⚓