Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Press watchdog slams “dangerous dickheads” anti-cyclist article

New Zealand’s Media Council says article was “inaccurate, unfair” and “unbalanced”

New Zealand’s press watchdog, the Media Council, has ruled that a newspaper article that appeared under a headline that referred to cyclists as “dangerous dickheads” was “inaccurate, unfair” and “unbalanced.” For those of us in the UK used to seeing regular anti-cyclist diatribes going unchecked in the mainstream media, it’s a refreshing decision, albeit one from the other side of the world.

The article was published in the New Zealand Herald on 23 October last year under the headline, “Dangerous dickheads”: Cyclists caught crossing centre line, taking up whole roads.

It was based on dashcam footage from a car, and quoted a passenger in the vehicle describing cyclists as “dangerous dickheads” and “ignorant assholes” because the cyclists were riding four abreast on a narrow, winding rural road, meaning the driver had to stay behind them “for a few minutes at less than 30km/h.”

According to complainant James Powers, the article was anti-cyclist and “plumbed new depths in aggression, non-facts, supercilious attitude and gutter journalism.”

He highlighted that the cyclists had not put other road users at risk and that the driver of the vehicle had clearly been made aware that it was unsafe to overtake, even if the cyclists had been in single file.

Citing road casualty figures that showed that 18 cyclists were killed and 556 were injured on New Zealand’s roads in 2017, he said: “In the light of this I don’t believe that close passes are justified and the Herald appears to be promoting this life-threatening behaviour.”

The newspaper said that it had attempted to contact local cycling groups both before and after the article was published, but the Press Council pointed out that there was no mention of that in the article itself and that “Readers were given no indication that the paper sought comment from anybody else.

“If anything it accentuated the sole viewpoint given by repeating another one-sided story about a similar incident earlier that month and effectively declaring it to be a matter of fact with an unattributed caption line reading: ‘Dangerous cyclists caught crossing centre line, taking up whole rural roads’.

The Press Council said: “It was stated the cyclists were riding four abreast, but the dash-cam footage showed the passing activity of one of the riders led to them being four abreast.

“The footage showed only one cyclist (rather than a number of them) briefly crossing the centre line and apart from that the group remained on the left hand side of the road and did not take up the whole road as was stated in the story.

“Were the cyclists riding dangerously? The passenger thought so and the paper was within its right to report her as saying so but there is nothing to indicate any attempt was made to balance the story.”

It added: “On these grounds the Media Council has found the article was in breach of principle 1 (accuracy, fairness and balance).”

The newspaper has published an article reporting the decision, but the original article – amended to reflect the upheld complaint – remains on its website.

==

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

7 comments

Avatar
richiewormiling | 5 years ago
1 like

Ludicrous attitude and percetption by the writer and the drivers involved . For a while it read like a Daily Mash article but realised it was real. The logic of some of them is breathtaking.

I agree the cyclists could have shown a bit more formation discipline for a least space for a car to overtake then come in, but hey ho, cycling is a spontanous pastime.

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode replied to richiewormiling | 4 years ago
2 likes

richiewormiling wrote:

Ludicrous attitude and percetption by the writer and the drivers involved . For a while it read like a Daily Mash article but realised it was real. The logic of some of them is breathtaking.

I agree the cyclists could have shown a bit more formation discipline for a least space for a car to overtake then come in, but hey ho, cycling is a spontanous pastime.

No, you're just completely wrong, how would having "more formation discipline" aid the driver to safely overtake when the road is winding with no view of the road ahead and the solid white line which means NO OVERTAKING? Did you even watch the video, if they had singled out the driver would have risked an overtake and then either smashed into the oncoming car or wiped out the cyclists or close passed them at best whilst trying to avoid a collision, they actually did the driver a favour and themselves to boot.

this is precisely why the Highway Code is complete nonsense when it says to single out on bends and narrow roads, I don't want some impatient W@@@@r squeezing past or worse driving into me at speed because there's an oncoming vehicle they have to swerve away from because they've risked an overtake in a situation they have virtually no control over because they can't see ahead far enough to judge a safe and importantly lawful overtake!

They have as much right to use the road as anyone else and not have to feel they have to conform to one overbearing criminal ridden group so they can travel at whatever speed they like whilst inducing fear.

The retraction article is complete pony, it still blames the cyclists, there's no understanding even by the commission that it was impossible to overtake safely at all over the period in the video footage and that the driver wasn't held up at all but had to drive to the conditions.

I've attached the reported link on the NZH page onto the first 20 articles on their FB page. 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12182002

Avatar
imaca | 5 years ago
0 likes

The problem is this was a lead story on their website, while a Google search is required to find their coverage of the finding. The herald is rabidly anti cyclist, pandering to a large irrational group of haters intent on quashing any kind of cycling friendly infrastructure. The prevailing viewpoint is that cycling is obsolete and all resource needs to be devoted to carparking and roads, even though 60 years of this has failed miserably. Sadly even the local green party is pandering, the leader, Jamie Shaw recently opposed a 1.5m safe passing law because separate cycling facilities will make it unnecessary, i.e. we want cyclist off the road also.

Avatar
imaca | 5 years ago
4 likes

The problem is this was a lead story on their website, while a Google search is required to find their coverage of the finding. The herald is rabidly anti cyclist, pandering to a large irrational group of haters intent on quashing any kind of cycling friendly infrastructure. The prevailing viewpoint is that cycling is obsolete and all response needs to be devoted to carparking and roads, even though 60 years of this has failed miserably. Sadly even the local green party is pandering, the leader, Jamie Shaw recently opposed a 1.5m safe passing law because separate cycling facilities will make it unnecessary, i.e. we want cyclist off the road also.

Avatar
jimmylas | 5 years ago
7 likes

This show's it's worth giving a formal complaint about the articles that incite agression toward people on bikes. The comments on this article were particularly nasty and contained death threats. It was clear that this was a campaign designed to increase site traffic by abusing an 'easy target'. It was particularly evident in the days after each article that the abuse on the roads would spike.

The ruling will make the herald think twice about running these articles in future, which will hopefully give everyone time to calm down so that this agression on the roads can be reduced.

 

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
7 likes

Well if we applied this decision to the UK media, the Sun, Telegraph, Mail and the BBC might as well shut down now.  They won't be able to afford the costs.

Avatar
zanf replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
3 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Well if we applied this decision to the UK media, the Sun, Telegraph, Mail and the BBC might as well shut down now.  They won't be able to afford the costs

Roll on Leveson2!

Latest Comments