- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Daily Mail story Richard Littlejohn Highway Code changes: Daily Mail publishes "error-strewn" Richard Littlejohn column attacking cyclists
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."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- jaymack 26 min 57 sec ago
Well done Laura top work, the facts don't care a jot for the dotard's feelings.
- Wheelywheelygood 46 min 53 sec ago
At last a councip with sense
- anagallis_arvensis 1 hour 53 min ago
Good job it's not Thames Valley police as it's not a close pass according to them if you can't see the bike in the video
- stevemaiden 3 hours 29 min ago
Guys (including girls ofc) we are missing a trick here with the proposed legislative change. We should actively encourage stricter punishments for...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 49 min ago
Clearly the poles should have priority in this situation so the cycle path is at fault. Although perhaps like redder lights maybe they have to be ...
- john_smith 4 hours 2 min ago
Converting soonness to conspicuity is far from trivial when you are using imperial units.
- OldRidgeback 4 hours 51 min ago
He's doing such a great job
- brooksby 7 hours 15 min ago
You don't?
- chrisonabike 7 hours 35 min ago
Good thing he didn't paint a bike shed on that...
- Hirsute 7 hours 59 min ago
Given you have to go on a £146 course to hang baskets off lamp posts, I wonder what electrical safety testing will be required and what checks and...
Add new comment
123 comments
“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.
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 !
There are also loads of bad lane changes on the roundabout leading to collisions.
I stole this from the car hits building thread
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 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.
"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 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'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.
It's that Ford emoji jacket you're wearing.
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
I think a quote from today gives you a suggestion:
...to which we can reply "Oh no they don't!"
His comment being self-referential oxymoron.
Give it time....
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.
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. 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 "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.
And Boris breaks both of them with impunity. And the law.
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 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 the police be investigating these publications for inciting hatred against a group of people?
Inciting hatred is a crime, dickhead!
Not that kind of crime....
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.
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 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)
As I said before I am not going to engage with you as you are a serial lair
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.
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...
Pages