Journalistic Louts Drive me Crazy!

Occasionally you get to see the other side of the cycling to work issue, form the point of view of the motorists who you pass and who we moan about from time to time. Sometimes these are balanced and reasonable ideas formed into intelligent articles which highlight the problems caused by some inexperienced or less considerate cyclists. Sometimes, however, they come from the Daily Mail and are almost automatically shocking, inaccurate, and dangerous, as well as making me feel angry and less safe on the roads, if I have to share it with people who have the opinions the articles represented. I came across a piece like this yesterday (once again I warn you it’s from the Daily Mail so you might find it decidedly NSFW, if you want to still be seen as reasonable by your colleagues. I’ve warned you so anyone who finds a P45 on their desk shouldn’t blame me) so, this is where you can find it.

The whole article (and many of the comments on it) made me wonder about the state of society, but rather than preaching to the converted here, I thought I’d just simply highlight where Mr Hardman is wrong or particularly obnoxious, and let that stand for itself.

So, to start with, Hardman says, with reference to having a cyclist between him and the kerb when he wants to turn left:



When, in fact the Highway Code (which you can find here) specifically says that the onus is on the driver to look out for cyclists:


The Mail article then moves on to discussing the plans of


Yes, that would be Cycling England which is an independent organisation aiming to promote and encourage more widespread and safe cycling for everyone to help with health and fitness, and reduce congestion and pollution with the support of the Government. Truly an evil and despicable operation, obviously. Mr Hardman also seems surprised that the head of Cycling England has previously been involved in the bike industry. I guess he’d be as surprised to learn that anyone who knows what they’re talking about is chosen for any relevant job.

Next, the article dicusses the law that Cycling England have proposed to make less vulnerable road users more accountable for accidents, (and therefore make them more responsible in occasions where the car driver might feel a bump and a tightening of their seatbelt, while a cyclist is looking at a trip to Casualty).


Yeah, absolutely, because what’s stopping me taking risks on the road is my fear of getting prosecuted, and totally not the actual danger of being injured or killed. I’ll take great confidence as I’m mashed into a fence, that there’s no way I’ll end up in court for it. In fact, it’ll certainly make it hurt a lot less. I’ll probably be smiling.

Of course there are cyclists who break the law, as there are drivers who do as well, and these people should equally be discouraged. However, this article seems to me to do far more damage to any chance of sharing the road properly than it’ll ever save. In fact there’s even a distinct confusion as the author seems to support cycling while tarring all that do it with the same brush as irresponsible and dangerous.

The comments are a whole other matter. Take a look for yourself if you dare…

A