More cycling coverage in the Daily Mail

Did you read through the comments after, "You're all a damn menace!" :lol:

Gota love narrow minded T*ats
 
i read it today aswel. what a pratt. what annoys me is how they lump all people who ride bikes together.

there is a big difference between "someone who rides a bike" and a "cyclist", and there always will be.

also do you notice that all these articles seem to come to from authors based in london. not really a fair representation of cyclists is it? when i ride in london on occasion i ride properly mainly because i value my life! but i do often see the fashion fixie brigade riding like idiots but also i see commuters who know the rotation of the traffic lights and sometimes ignore them, the point i'm making is not all cyclists are perfect but drivers can be utterly crap aswel and so can pedestrians, so why do these writers decide to pick on cyclists?

as for his comments about that guy trying to recommend that it is always the motorists fault in a collision, well of course thats stupid, fault is fault regardless of the type of vehicle, but why mention it? it'll never happen anyway! it was just chucked in the article to make the average non cyclist get on a high horse about!

as far as i'm concerned he is just another biggoted idiot commenting on something he knows nothing about.
 
Oh very smart Rob , touche .

Does the cycling press rise to this obvious passive attack and blatant call to defend our right to be on the roads ? As we should ; but i see no actual wrong doing on his part , he has spent too long carefully phrasing anything we could have a concern with . "If I'm about to turn left or right and I see cyclists in my wing mirrors tearing up from behind on either side, I pause to let them past". this could be any turning situation . Is he going across incoming traffic ? Thats not whats written , hes just given enough description to put the cyclists in the wrong but leave himself in the clear and how could anyone put his driving in disrepute when he would "rather not use my daughter as a roadblock" while out for a walk .

So now with the anti cycling stage set he steps onto the box to rally his troops and goes into the real point of the article . That first blurb was of course the editor telling Rob " that fat chef has shown were a bunch of arses , I need you to make drivers look like the angels of the roads with the cycling environmentalists endangering our children , make it pukka , fukka ; and make sure theres no recourse with this one , you have as long as you need "

And hes done just that . I cant see anything in the opening or latter parts that a cyclist could take offense to and argue without being whiney or looking a reckless fool and/or condoning the path riding and door kicking .

Aggravated driver is now set to read the real point of the article and any cyclists comments will just reinforce the mindset that we are anti car ranters , hell bent on carving through the streets in RoadRash rage .

"Now, if Mr Darnton was just another evangelical cyclist, I'd not be too bothered. " But hes not , hes a man in power with a big fat wad of cash that could actually make something happen and has people listening who would . So an article needs to be written in the national press posing all cyclists as vandalizing amoral warriors . Now a contingent of motorists need to be rilled up to oppose anything the bated cyclists say , all very smart , Clarkson might even be brought in on this one !

" Please sir , could you stop running us over in your 2 ton status wagons , we are but small and simple folk unable to afford the late model Range Rovers . Could you please become accountable for the mass you swath across the land ? "

" How very dare you ! hurumpff ; i read in the paper , a fine NATIONAL PAPER you tried to EAT POOR ROBBIE'S BABY , tried to snatch it from his golden pram and gobble it whole you did ! "

"Now I am certainly not antibicycle." cough , maybe not in the written word ; hes no fat chef and the whole daily drawl writing staff will have been briefed in not dropping clangers like his again . But certainly in the thought process .

Were going to have to take this one on the chin and play the " hey not everybody is a saint " card and hope the red light evaders and pavement riders don't lose us the chance of making the arrogant people in cars pay attention and acknowledge were there to stay .

Jamesinger_3-1-1.jpg
 
Instead of apologising for the shocking nature of one of their reporters,they write a story,attempting undermine the average cyclists character and no doubt therefore adding justification to their reporter Mr martin's criminal and anti-social behaviour

'He was frustrated'-Therefore his actions were justified.Lets see you argue that one in court :?

And what type of person believes a cyclist would attack a pram pushing pedestrian, just because he was blocking his route?
More likely he would stop,say sorry and look a bit sheepish and embarrassed and allow the baby in its pram go by unhindered.

Interesting choice of scenario.

Gutter journalism but at least it was interlaced with some important points


Cyclists dont want to act above the law,they just dont want to be deliberately run off the road by chubby egotistical short order cooks
 
This is the problem with cyclists being discussed in the media - especially for the likes of the Daily Wail.

Now I realise that cyclists in London and other major cities is more magnified than in other locations. But going back a few years, before I owned a car, I used to cycle everywhere - both for commuting and pleasure. I only bought a car and learned to drive (at the age of 26) when my place of work became impractical to cycle.

So up to that point, I cycled quite a lot. In that time, the number of times motor vehicles caused me direct risk or collision - around 5, during that time, the number of intances where I posed a direct risk to vehicles: 0.

Now true enough, there are cyclists who cycle irresponsibly. And there are motorists who drive irresponsibly. Looking out of my windscreen, every day, and I'd say most people should be worried about the behaviour of those who are driving sizeable chunks of metal at speed - because in my experience, they pose the significantly greater risk to society.

All these articles are, are cleverly (or in some cases, stupidly) worded articles, written to appeal to certain demographs and exploit some smoldering prejudice that needs the likes of the Daily Mail to stir up - 'cos that's what middle England likes to be - morally outraged at something.
 
The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned anyway, lies in the following statistics for 2007...

-The number of people killed in road accidents was 2,946.
-121 children died on the roads.
-There were 646 pedestrian deaths.
-The number of cyclists killed was 136.
-There were 588 motorcycle user fatalities in 2007.


Think about it;

Every 3 days a child was killed.

2 pedestrians were killed every day.

A cyclist was killed every 3 days.... by motorists.

In my mind, the occasional cyclist running the occasional red light pales into insignificance compared with the above figures

I'd like to see the Mail run a series on educating drivers exactly how dangerous they are. Maybe a centre page spread with photos of the 121 children that were killed in 2007. Interviews with their parents detailing the impact that losing their children has had on their lives. I suppose that would be too much like a real story though?
 
Back
Top