I imagine every week or so, some mysterious (or unlucky) soul is forced to walk around the Daily Telegraph’s offices, Claudia Winkleman in the Traitors style, and tap an unsuspecting columnist on the shoulder.
‘You have been chosen. You will write our next anti-cycling opinion piece. Feel free to copy word-for-word the last one, but make sure bike insurance, number plates, and the word “rogue” are all included. Here’s your cloak, now off you pop to the motorist’s tower.’
> Latest Telegraph column claims AI-traffic lights to prioritise cyclists over drivers will make “entitled cyclists even more insufferable”
After Clive Aslet, Celia Walden, and countless others gave it a go this year already, this weekend saw the turn of Sunday Telegraph stalwart Simon Heffer (you know, the guy who wrote a flattering 1,024-page biography of Enoch Powell, him.)
Fair play to Simon, he didn’t let the Telegraph’s finest honour pass him by, hitting every anti-cycling beat imaginable over the course of his nine paragraphs – red lights, “whizzing past” pedestrians, “entitlement”, licence plates, insurance, a call for all cyclists to pass a proficiency test.
Hell, even Ed Miliband got a mention for some reason.
“There are those who argue it is perfectly harmless to jump red lights: tell that to someone injured as a result,” Heffer furiously argued in his column.
“The last thing society needs is more regulation, but if a substantial minority of cyclists and scooterists are determined to endanger the lives of pedestrians, and in some cases motorists, then they must be as identifiable by the law as anyone else.
“Motorists who kill or injure cyclists are severely punished, as they should be. All that is required is to make all road users equal under the law, and end this illogical, and dangerous, special treatment for cyclists.”
Not too sure many road.cc readers would agree with the claim that dangerous drivers are “severely punished” on a routine basis, but we’ll move on from that.
> “Wait until you hear about cars”: Cyclists respond to Telegraph’s latest story claiming “more than half of cyclists” in London jumped red lights at rush hour
Anyway, while Heffer’s column was the usual boilerplate anti-cycling spiel published by the Telegraph almost every weekend, some cyclists on social media were more concerned with the photographed used as the main image, with showed blurred – read ‘dangerously fast’ – cyclists on a road in Regent’s Park.
Luckily for us, cycling lawyer Rory McCarron was on hand on Saturday when the Telegraph’s photographer was out shooting his images of these “rogue, speeding” cyclists:
And it turns out, shockingly, that cyclists in the area weren’t riding so fast that they passed by a startled professional photographer in a flash, leaving him only with one blurry image for his story.
Oh, and the stars of the Telegraph’s blurry photo, the Regent’s Park Rouleur Club, also posted their morning ride on Strava – which saw them average a blistering, unthinkably fast… 14.6mph.
Those rogue, dangerous, 14.6mph cyclists tootling along in the small ring!
“From the same paper that brought us 52mph cyclists,” said Dolphy, referencing the Telegraph’s infamous – and now quietly redacted – front page headline claiming cyclists were riding at 52mph around London chasing Strava segments.
> "People won't bother reading the truth, the damage is done": Cyclists frustrated Telegraph newspaper not required to put "52mph cyclists creating death traps" correction on front page like original headline
“On a road with no cars or pedestrians in sight?” added Matthew.
Meanwhile, Rory said it was “time to start regulating ‘photojournalism’” instead.
“Taking photographs of innocent and law-abiding people exercising and accusing them of being the ‘scourge of rogue cyclists’,” the cycling lawyer wrote.
And finally, David Belcher said: “From the newspaper that brought you ‘lunchtime boozing is an economic necessity’ and ‘what’s wrong with 50-somethings doing coke?’”
Same again next week, then?
Add new comment
58 comments
I don't know what the maximum rider weight limit is for a Chopper but...
No wonder he thinks cyclists are another species from an alien planet
...and he's probably written some (awful) poetry about it...
Ode to the belly button fluff...
Challenge the ideas they hold, not the person.
He's an absolutely foul human being with disgusting views on virtually everything, both his ideas and him as a person should be challenged, they are inseparable.
There is no use to fat-shaming, and it adds nothing to the discourse. He won't hear you say it, but your friends and family who are overweight might, and it hurts and excludes.
When faced with someone like Heffer, whose written work absolutely revels in his gluttony for all manner of food and drink (though of course only good old English steak and kidney pie and so on, no foreign muck), who is attacking people who try and retain a modicum of health in their lives, I think it's entirely appropriate to point out the results of the lifestyle that he advocates. It's not fat shaming, it's greedy, gluttonous, sitting in your club swilling port and gorging yourself on stilton shaming, not the same thing.
You've definitely gone too far now. I'm not having this steak and kidney pie-shaming (or port and stilton-shaming for that matter).
Everything in moderation, my dear fellow.
And it's moderation, whether consumption of rich food or constructing a sensible argument, is not something Mr Heffer is familiar with. He's a caricature, I can't imagine that there are many people who take him seriously.
OTOH his fulminating anti-cyclist rhetoric is exactly the kind of thing that leads to the out-grouping and violence against people riding bikes (and we know the same applies to other groups). It's a pity that scum like him don't get clobbered for inciting it.
Oh come on! Still 37 days (many of them working) to go - that's just anti-social!
(Not that I have a club either but I'd be quite content with the pie, cheese and fortified wine wherever. Makes a change from the kale and tatties).
Uuurrrgh Uuurrath Aaah Mumble Mumble Mumble Cyclists mumble mumble, uuuurrrrgh mumble uuurrgh, lycra, mumble mumble <cough> uuaarr mumble grrrrr.
But of course, I was very, very drunk
If you think fat shaming's bad - I thought it was Boris Johnson after being through an AI aging algorithm, I don't know who I insulted more...
“There are those who argue it is perfectly harmless to jump red lights: tell that to someone injured as a result,” Heffer furiously argued in his column
Heffer really is a thick-headed pillock, as you'd expect from a Torygraph clickbaiter. However, those who believe RLJs are harmless include LancsFilth, who just ignored these, along with pretty much any offence committed by a motorist 'because everybody does it'
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/jo55chb_kiasportage_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/kl04ndo_vw_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/
etc. etc.
I was left bruised and battered when a pedestrian ran into the road without looking, when I was cycling along. I couldn't avoid hitting them, sustained about £1k of damage (broken phone, damaged bike, ripped clothing). Didn't get a penny off them.
When is Mr Heffer going to campaign for rogue pedestrians to be easily identifiable, if they are going to speed into the road without any consideration for vulnerable cyclists, and with a great sense of entitlement? Surely there should be a compulsory pedestrian proficiency test?
But did you swear at them ?!
I was left with 2 abrasions to my face when a pedestrian walked out into the road without checking if it was clear. I couldn't avoid hitting them as I ancitipated for them to walk faster and to be further across the road. I sustained £250 worth of damage (shifter bent, mount holding rear derailleur bent) luckily bike was aluminium so all bent back into place.
I agree with your second paragraph. Pedestrians are one of the biggest hazards while cycling. Walking without looking and just blindly following others. When I hit that guy those pedestrians were one of the most ignorant and entitled people. I tried to explain you can't walk out on a red man especially when it is dark and you can't see far. As it was a busy ring road you need to careful and if you get hit while crossing on a red man you only have yourself to blame. But nah they didn't ask me if I was alright. The police the joke that they are! Told me to wear high vis. The critical thinking they lack. If you don't look you can't see what's coming so what is high vis going to do. A flashing front light is necessary and effective but if people want to ignore that then it's their fault for walking out.
in my opinion there they needs to be reforms on pedestrian priority on crossings and in general. Pedestrians need to be held 100% liable for walking in front of cyclists without looking properly. And those extended crossings on busy arterial roads need to be banned. They give pedestrians a false sense of security which makes them cross without looking because others are crossing. Which makes the problem even worse as the pedestrians who crossed first don't take into consideration the other pedestrians who are following them blindly.
Or ... we could just fix it so people have their own spaces, and it's really clear where there's a cycle path and it's easy to cross it.
Still probably take a generation or so of collisions before everyone gets the idea though. Same as with cars - just a lot fewer deaths.
(I think these things always get sorted out by either simple "might is right" or social pressure and "danger" plus "strength in numbers". In NL I think cyclists often dominate the cycle lanes - so pedestrians stay out. And people over there are quite "straight-talking" and are happy to let you know if you're being an idiot by bimbling about in "bike space" for no reason).
I'm in favour of better road use education for all but I'm not sure we need any major changes to priority / responsibility - except actually making motorists accountable. (Because it's people who also drive who walk out without looking I think a bit more attention to driving standards might cue people that they need to look when they're out and about?) I certainly don't think some new kind of jaywalking-like idea would be helpful.
I was cycling home from work along a dimly lit lit shared path last week, while I was wearing hi-viz, and with lights, and the number of pedestrians dressed head to toe in black, with hoods up and head down, was remarkable. At least some dogs have flashing collars, so at least you spot them from a fair distance. But some folk insist on walking/running on their right hand side, hugging the grass and were effectively invisible until I was almost upon them. Perhaps they think the hierarchy of road users obliges me to go around them, so they don't need to give it any thought. And I don't mind doing that, but I can only do so if I see them, and would like to see them in enough time to check over my shoulder before I move into the path of a faster cyclist coming up behind me.
I usually try not to have my light too bright and tilt it downwards for that stretch so as not to dazzle people coming towards me, but I realise that I'm going to have to annoy a few people with the brightness of my light if I am to have a chance of see the people dressed as ninjas. Either that or heat vision googles.
Often the first indication of a dog walker I will have is the reflection in the dogs eyes.
Tbh I ride cautiously at night when in dimly lit areas. I do have very bright front and rear lights too. It is true that many people seem oblivious to their surroundings. Hierarchy of responsibility
though can be applied. This is one of the reasons why I pretty much take the lane.
Majority of roads it is sensible to do so and avoids dodging pedestrians.
"Motorists who kill or injure cyclists are severely punished, as they should be" - The Telegraph
LOL
Next
Today's local item
A VAN driver killed “one of the most generous and helpful people you could ever know” when he veered onto the wrong side of the road whilst reaching for a packet of chewing gum.
He was given a ten-month jail sentence suspended for 21 months, ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work, and banned from driving for two years.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24730000.man-sentenced-maldon-crash-...
A re-offender too, having been disqualified for speeding in the past. I don't believe in the "reaching for a chewing gum" bollocks either. More likely looking down and texting was the cause of that accident.
I'm sure this got called out on here once before - journalists taking a photo with a slightly slower exposure so that it looks like the cyclists are blurring past.
Or if you've taken an honest snap you can just apply the motion blur feature in Photoshop:
Can you make it blur only the cars?
They were using telephoto lenses to create fore-shortning to make cyclists look less than 2m apart during CoVid
Pages