Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Grenville on 4 January 2008 at 5:38pm

he raised some good points? really?

The article was an unjustified vitiolic attack followed with a grudging apology. The thrust of his article that cyclists throw fizzy drink cans into hedgerows was plain wrong and used as a justification for stringing piano wire across country lanes. ha ha ha - funny? no - not funny at all. Especially when you read how this has actually been done with the inevitable gruesome consequences.

Articles threatening or inciting people to attack cyclists, ‘humorous’ or otherwise, should not be tolerated. According to the CTC, the Press Complaints Commission received over 200 complaints from individual cyclists.

Yes there are some cyclists who are a danger to themselves and pedestrians, but this is far exceeded by the number of car drivers who are a danger to cyclists, pedestrians and indeed other drivers. Anyway, just because someone gets on a bike, why should we expect them to obey all the rules suddenly.

As to going through traffic lights, this is a more complex topic. Whilst I usually wait at lights, I often start off when the other lights have turned red so that I can have a head start and not have cars revving up my bum as I try to gather speed.

Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other newspaper, the CTC has said it will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Ayers on 4 January 2008 at 6:42pm

OK, so maybe my post was a little provocative but I have noticed more than a creeping arrogance among city cyclists. I am not so blinded by my loyalty to cycling as to not acknowledge that fact. You see, being a PR chappie I am of the belief that we have a lot of work to do in improving the attitude towards us and thus improve our fairly piss poor lot. A lot of city cyclists in particular are behaving in a way that is detrimental to this cause. (From what I gather, the attitude of many of those influential peeps in Government is that cyclists don't deserve the parity with the car that we so often cry out for). Parris was wrong to joke about taking cyclists out with piano wire. He was probably wrong to blame cyclists for all the rubbish in the hedgerows. But his claim that cyclists "curse at you or whir their angry little bells, as though it’s your problem that they need to clear the way" is pretty accurate on the evidence I have seen. As I have mentioned in other posts elsewhere, I have seen some shocking examples of cyclists disregarding the safety of pedestrians, particularly at pedestrian crossings and red lights. And I have seen cyclists blow their stack at pedestrians and drivers who have right of way. It's sad to see.
Indeed, last year a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist riding on the pavement. This belief that the law doesn't apply to cyclists can in some way I believe, be attributed to the sense of self righteousness Parris points to. Granted, provision for cyclists is woefully inadequate and cycling is a more eco friendly form of transport etc etc, but that doesn't excuse law breaking. I am in a very small minority of London cyclists who routinely stop at red. I believe that obeying the basic road rules is the only way to be able to take the moral high ground in the battle for better provision. That's what I was getting at and I should have explained in more detail in the post. That's the trouble with posting in a hurry.
As for creeping ahead at the lights to get ahead of the cars, it makes sense to me. I do it too...that scenario is also very unlikely to wipe out a pedestrian.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by qian on 4 January 2008 at 6:24pm

What's most surprising to me is that it seems he didn't realise there would be such a backlash by publishing such a article. The pretext flimsy at best, and to me the humour crude, if humour it can be so called - but admittedly I lack the subtle intellectual refinement & sensibilities that must be prerequisites to the full appreciation of such literary effulgence.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Grenville on 4 January 2008 at 6:25pm

Mat Seaton has also commented on the Parris article which has had the effect of drawing out many anti-cyclist comments.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_n...

Commenting HowardPeel (Comment No. 1027803) has listed some of the press articles in a similar vein:

To get her off a serious driving charge Emma Parker-Bowles, writing in The Sun in 2006, called for the "humane extermination" of cyclists.

Tony Parsons ("I have always thought that it should be cyclists that are chained to lamp -posts, and not their bikes... Bicycles are like masturbation - something you should grow out of");

David Thomas of The Daily Mail ("Why I really hate cyclists" being typical of his oeuvre );

Jeremy Clarkson (who wrote in The Sun that cyclists should stop at red lights otherwise "if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun". On the other hand stopping would also seem to be a bad policy as he added that if any cyclists were to stop in front of him at lights he would "set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my wheels" concluding "You are a guest on roads that are paid for by motorists so if we cut you up, shut up");

Bryan Appleyard (whose "One day I'll kill a lycra lout" was yet another anti-cycling piece printed in The Times );

M.P. Kate Hoey ("The real menace on our roads are selfish, aggressive, law breaking and infuriatingly smug lycra louts" was the Mail On Sunday headline which summarised her rant);

Jasper Gerard of The Daily Mail ("With the possible exception of Osama Bin Laden, the greatest terrorist threat facing this country is from cyclists.");

Damian Whitworth (motoring editor of The Times who described cyclists as "a common pestilence" and argued that the lycra-wearing cyclist should "pedal off to a shrink" in order to "explore the reasons for his perversion at his own leisure and expense");

Bonnie Greer (who has said of cyclists "they are PESTS, they are RODENTS".

Richard Tomkins (the chief features writer of The Financial Times) apparently thinks would also be a good solution for the 'cyclists question', with Tomkins writing in the FT on 26 October 2007: "Some while ago I read a newspaper story saying male cyclists who rode a lot risked impotence because of the damaging effect of the saddle on their reproductive organs. It quite made my day. In my opinion, anything that stops cyclists breeding is to be welcomed as an unmitigated good."

In conclusion he adds: In reality such comments are exactly the sort of material one would expect to see printed in the mass-media in a car-centric country dominated by right-wing hierarchical-authoritarian 'values', such as Britain.


he "Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report" published by the Department for Transport shows a very different picture:

Another comment by Regulator (Comment No. 1027637) produced some interetsing stats:

Pedestrians killed following collisions cyclists: 3
Pedestrians killed following collisions with motor vehicles: 672
Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with cyclists: 48
Pedestrians seriously injured following collisions with motor vehicles: 5,821
Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with cyclists: 151
Pedestrians slightly injured following collisions with motor vehicles: 21,642

2006 was acknowledged as an odd year. In the preceding 3 years, there had only been 1 pedestrian fatality following a collision with a cyclist. And it should be noted that these figures are about the outcomes of collisions - they are not about who is to blame.

In the last five years only 2 cyclists have been proven to have been responsible for the deaths of a pedestrian.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by joe on 16 March 2008 at 9:43pm

He is an ex MP who now earns a crust with a a column for The Times. He has some commonsense views and is quite well informed on science and technolgy (pretty unusual for someone in politics). In order to keep readership up he needs to controversial once in a while. Lets not condemn him for a bit of poor judgement, there are worst crimes in life.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Flak Monkey on 17 March 2008 at 5:31pm

I disagree, condemn him out of hand for taking the lazy way out by plagiarising what countless other half arsed journo's have said before him when they can't find anything interesting to write about.

It's articles like his that are a major contributor to people's negative attitude towards urban cycling / cyclists and we could well do without it.

Mike Grenville's post says it all really, far too many column inches are given to the anti cycling lobby when there is no substance behind the drivel they write.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Ayers on 17 March 2008 at 10:25pm

I am not sure Paris couldn't find anything interesting to write about. He was just pissed off. I agree with you Flak Money that there is a negative attitude towards cyclists but cyclists have got to take at least part of the responsibility for that. I don't say that lightly...I'm passionate about cycling and rights for cyclists and have been cycling in the city for years...certainly long enough to get more than a good lungfull of particulates! What worries me is that the twats who cane it along the pavement and over pedestrian crossings are going to ruin it for the rest of us...and before long we'll all have to be registered, taxed and god knows what else......

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Flak Monkey on 18 March 2008 at 5:39pm

Yes Ben, sadly, I have to agree that a minority of arrogant pedal pushers do make our life hard when they hit the headlines every time something bad happens involving an inconsiderate cyclist but it is the journalists who blow these occurences up out of all proportion. 'Little old lady threatened by lycra terrorist !' is after all far more attention grabing copy than 'Drunken pensioner steps out in front of paper boy' :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Time Out on 2 May 2008 at 11:59am

At Time Out, we've dedicated an issue to biking in London: the pros and cons, the arguments mounted by both impassioned drivers and cyclists. You can join the great cycling debate online and hear what readers have said at:

http://www.timeout.com/london/features/1711.html

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Ayers on 2 May 2008 at 12:17pm

Thanks Time Out. Will check it out...in the meantime how about a bit of link love eh?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Time Out on 2 May 2008 at 12:38pm

Hi Ben. Definitely - we've recently set up a new section called 'The Big Smoke' with links to selected sites and blogs. Our team are setting up a link to yours now:

http://www.timeout.com/london/big-smoke/blog/

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Time Out on 2 May 2008 at 12:54pm

Hi Ben, all sorted - you can see the link up there now. Thanks

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2