Last week I wrote about a scumbag in the US who deliberately drove into a group of cyclists then argued that he shouldn’t be punished for it, and how sections of the media across the pond seem to share the same beliefs. 

Fast forward a week, and in the UK most of us have probably read about the horrific details surrounding the murder of Michael Mullins, the much-loved headteacher who was cycling home from Stretford Grammar School when he was struck by Simon Richardson. 

35-year-old Richardson – who had 28 previous convictions including a string of serious driving offences – ran Mullins over, then dragged him for over a mile whilst he was trapped under the vehicle. Yesterday Richardson was handed an (exceedingly rare) lifetime driving ban and a minimum jail term of 25 years after being found guilty of murder last week. 

In 20 years of cycling journalism, it is undoubtedly the worst case I have seen about violence against cyclists. There have been many people who have killed cyclists with their cars in the UK, with around 100 cyclists killed by drivers each year over the last two decades. This one, however, hit differently for me: more callous, more barbaric, and more sadistic than anything that has come before.

I think it has come across in the coverage of this incident. I haven’t seen anybody trying to use this as a kick-off for another ‘should cyclists be licensed’ or ‘drivers vs cyclists’ section of a drab morning TV slot, where they wheel out ‘Mr Loophole’ to spray his shit-eating grin about as he laments the plague that is cycling, while Timmy Mallet sits on the other sofa like a polka dot voodoo doll chosen to silently take the flagellation on behalf of all cyclists. Instead, broadcasters and journalists seem to have understood that the man killed was a human after all, and his death is so obviously horrific that you can’t simply label him a ‘cyclist’ and be done with it. 

It’s not just in the direct coverage either. Having scanned a lot of social media posts about this crime from places where you might expect to find a lot of anti-cycling sentiment, out of thousands of comments I didn’t come across a single one that could be perceived as classically ‘anti-cyclist’. Nobody mentioned jumping red lights or cycling on pavements, or that wearing Lycra makes you a target. That’s pretty much unheard of. 

If you want to see just how much this has impacted parts of society that have traditionally pushed the anti-cyclist agenda, look no further than The Spectator. It is far from the worst offender on this, but has stoked a lot of anti-cyclist hatred with stories such as ‘The ceaseless self-pity of cyclists’ and ‘Beware the Lycra louts’.

The Spectator’s last two cycling-related stories, both published this week, were titled ‘The war on cyclists is costing lives’ and ‘It’s time to stop demonising cyclists’ – the latter a comment piece by none other than Chris Boardman.

I even looked at The Telegraph’s coverage, a publication I think may have done more than any other to spread hatred against cyclists in recent years. In its comments section underneath the coverage of this awful story, not once does anyone try to claim it was the cyclist’s fault, mention red lights, or any other of those tired boring tropes. In fact, a large number of people seem to be talking about this case in the same way they talk about the worst crimes in history, extolling the death penalty and how we shouldn’t have to pay for Simon Richardson to be incarcerated. 

So, are we actually at a turning point? Will this have a material impact on how people perceive cyclists? Some in The Telegraph comments section, who I seem to remember calling for extreme punishments to be doled out to cyclists in the past, seem to have had some kind of conversion: “After previously reading about Mr Mullins appalling death I cannot get behind the wheel of my car without thinking about him”, one wrote.

“I’m also now more than ever [aware] of how vulnerable cyclists are. How that murderer can live with himself I will never know.”

Maybe the public outcry over this case will make people understand that when we are cycling on the road, we have no idea who is in the car behind us. At any time, if somebody wanted to, they could just run us down in exactly the same way. Even if 99.9% of the population would not do it, we have seen time and time again that it still happens, even when people don’t have the intention to kill. 

Sometimes I think cycling on the roads today is the equivalent of walking around a town where every person who walks past you is holding a gun with their finger on the trigger. Most wouldn’t dream of shooting you and are careful not to; others will be careless, and their gun will go off and come close to hitting you; some will be careless and shoot you by mistake; then every once in a while, somebody will point their gun directly at you and deliberately fire. As you walk past these people, you have no idea who has which intention, but you do know each has the capability to shoot you in the head if they want to. 

A big issue is that we have irresponsible people in the media who care more about engagement and othering a group than the lives of cyclists, and think nothing of spreading hatred against us. It means that when we complain about close passes, people just see us whining. When a cyclist is killed, people find a way to blame the cyclist. When people take actions to decrease the chances of cyclists being killed, they are criticised for political gain. 

It takes somebody actually going through with what cyclist-hating fantasists in The Telegraph comments section have been suggesting for those very people to open their eyes, and understand how callous and dehumanising their language is. In reality, the murder of Michael Mullins is the end result. 

Perhaps after this horrific incident, we might finally see the tide turning against the dehumanisation of cyclists. I won’t hold my breath though.