- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Petrol Station copyright Simon MacMichael .jpgDaily Mail survey on cyclists carried out by fuel price campaign group finds all the things you'd expect it to find
If this website has a pie-in-the-sky wish for 2018, it’s that the Daily Mail’s readership learns to question how the newspaper sources its information. (Similar but crueller wishes may well feature in the comments below this article.)
The Mail has today run a story headlined: “Dangerous cycling should be a crime, say two thirds of drivers amid claims they are treated too harshly.”
It is based on a survey about cyclists and, as ever in that newspaper, it plays on perceptions of fairness.
The survey found that 73 per cent of drivers said cyclists should be subject to similar legal requirements as motorists, and of these just under nine in ten called for a new law for dangerous cycling. (While people can already be prosecuted for dangerous cycling, there has been a suggestion that an offence of causing death by dangerous or careless cycling be introduced since the Charlie Alliston case earlier in the year.)
You can pretty much guess the rest.
Of the drivers who called for tougher legislation for cyclists, over 80 per cent also backed the introduction of compulsory insurance, while 73 per cent of them said cyclists should be required to wear fluorescent clothing.
It’s not entirely clear whether the statistics that follow are percentages of all of those questioned for the survey or percentages of the subset who called for tougher cycling legislation.
Not that it particularly matters. The message is the same, so read it however you want.
Seven in ten said cyclists should have to pass a road proficiency test and wear a helmet; 56 per cent said cyclists should be obliged to have a bicycle equivalent of an MOT; and 52 per cent want cyclists to have to pay road tax.
Almost six in ten drivers said that cycle lanes designed to alleviate congestion and increase safety for cyclists have failed to improve traffic flow, or made the situation worse.
The poll was of more than 10,400 drivers, which is significant. It was conducted by campaign group FairFuelUK, which also seems significant.
Launched in January 2011 to fight for lower fuel duty, FairFuelUK claims to represent “the real concerns of hard working motorists, families, small businesses, commercial drivers and hauliers across the UK.”
However, its emphasis is very much on commercial operations. FairFuelUK is funded by the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Association of Pallet Networks.
Unconcerned by minor details such as where the funding for roads actually comes from, campaign founder Howard Cox said: “What infuriates the highest taxed motorists in the world is what they see as the lack of fairness apportioned to all road users.
“They believe cyclists should be making some financial contribution to roads and increasing cycle lanes they currently benefit from.
“They also want to see the compulsory use of helmets, cyclists to be road insured, wear fluorescent clothing, pass a road proficiency test and more prosecutions for the increasing episodes of dangerous cycling.”
10 of the most hysterical anti-cycling Daily Mail headlines
The poll also found that 88 per cent of drivers believe that traffic has got worse over the last five years, with almost seven in ten saying that this is because there are more cars on the roads.
Roger Geffen, Cycling UK’s Policy Director, said: “If we want grandparents and grandchildren alike to be able to cycle safely and normally for day-to-day journeys, it makes no sense to impose unnecessary new rules and costs on would-be cyclists, particularly children.
“The top priority must be to create safe, cycle-friendly streets and junctions, while strengthening the enforcement of our existing traffic rules, rather than adding new ones.”
Geffen highlighted the fact that many of the proposals put forward in the FairFuelUK survey are simply unworkable.
“Cyclists can already be prosecuted for dangerous or careless cycling. However, the other proposals in the FairFuel UK survey would be very costly to implement, would provide few if any benefits and would seriously undermine efforts to attract new people to take up cycling, including children and their parents.”
The results of the survey are in stark contrast to Sustrans’ Bike Life poll which showed high levels of public support among UK city dwellers for significantly increased investment in cycling infrastructure.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- mitsky 14 sec ago
Probably worth submitting the footage to the police and DVSA so there is a record of the driver's mental state and standard of driving....
- Rendel Harris 5 min 14 sec ago
Hmm, the one who stole $105,000 or the one who effectively stole hundreds of millions of dollars ...
- hawkinspeter 22 min 29 sec ago
Well, a large amount of traffic going along e.g. Beaufort Rd would be people not living in St George but merely travelling through the area and...
- Steve K 1 hour 25 min ago
It is, apparently, "packed with high visibility reflective details on back and shoulder."
- Rendel Harris 30 min 15 sec ago
The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) was one of the most important battles of the ancient world, where 7,000 Greeks, led by the Spartans under...
- ktache 10 hours 47 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- biking59boomer 13 hours 24 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
Add new comment
44 comments
- We are already 'taxed' fairly based loosely on emissions and environmental damage/cost. If the 'highest taxed motorists' see this as unfair, here's a list of taxless/low-tax vehicles they can have a look at (excuse their use of the term 'road tax' as always):
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/exempt-road-tax
- Cyclists are already making 'some financial contribution' to roads and cycle lanes. Every bike and piece of kit we buy we pay VAT. Council tax. Income tax etc. It all goes into the pot. The difference is, we don't then cost money by damaging the environment or roads with emissions or weight of vehicle. On a side note, most of the people I know who ride bikes are also in the higher income tax brackets so end up paying more into the pot- could make an interesting study.
- Helmets. I already wear them anyway just in case, but if it's compulsory for cyclists it should be compulsory for all road users. Given that head injuries are the cause of death in most road fatalities and most road deaths occur in cars, helmet use should also be made compulsory for drivers. One rule for all. Interesting link here:
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/15-facts/506-the-horror-of-head-...
- Insurance. The misconception that most of us aren't insured still rumbles on. Also, the strange idea that cyclist's insurance would be used to compensate a driver in any way is quite odd and very rare. It usually pays for solicitors to claim damages against drivers who have driven their cars into/over us and our bikes.
Can't help but feel this is purely a spiteful 'if we have to pay it, they should too' attitude but with no concept of why it is there in the first place. I haven't seen many multi-vehicle pile ups, flattened bus shelters, death etc. caused by uninsured cyclists.....
- Flourescent clothing- I'm with lushmiester. All road vehicles and users covered in highly reflective coatings. If it was the norm it wouldn't seem weird. Cars aren't fashion accessories.
- Road proficiency tests.... does my driving license count? Because if it doesn't I probably shouldn't be allowed to drive my car either.
- As for the increased prosecutions for dangerous cycling, I'm all for that! I've seen at least ten incidents in my whole life and they all got away. I've also seen about a thousand involving dangerous driving.... and they all got away too! The difference is that the drivers were in control of 2 tonnes of metal that stand a damn sight higher chance of killing/maiming. That is the bottom line on all of this.
'Coz the driving test weeds out all the crap drivers, innit?
The good news is I got my cycling proficiency way back when and they won't be asking me to resit it, will they? Or do they want retesting to apply to drivers too?
I too passed a cycling proficiency and then a driving test. Does this mean that I am twice as qualified to Ride my bicycle on the road than most drivers are? Will we have to have a mandatory test to be able to walk safely across the road next?
"They also want to see the compulsory use of helmets, cyclists to be road insured, wear fluorescent clothing, "
So they want cyclists to be punished and dissuaded from cycling through mandatory measures which are expensive, unworkable and unnecessary. Of course they didn't think of the actual benefits or costs to society just the reactive, jingoistic fuckwits who consume their "newspaper".
My bike is already taxed according to current vehicle (not road) tax rules, given they are based on emissions.
Regardless of the survey source, this is a substantial number of ignorant people. It's also a very worrying indication of the negative attitude towards cyclists.
I agree dangerous cycling should be better legislated for but it's hardly a nationwide issue where thousands are killed or seriously injured each year, like say, motorists speeding.
"The survey found that 73 per cent of drivers said cyclists should be subject to similar legal requirements as motorists"
"They also want to see the compulsory use of helmets, cyclists to be road insured, wear fluorescent clothing, "
Logically that means most of the respondents want compulsory helmets and fluorescent clothing for drivers. Sounds good to me
In 2016 - 1,780 deaths on the roads, 24,610 KSI, 187,050 casualties of all severity. (Gov UK)
Between 2010 and 2017, 37 people have been killed due to terrorism. (Wiki)
Deaths caused by cyclists between 2007 and 2016 averaged 3 per year. (Cycling UK)
UK air pollution linked to 400,000 early deaths per year (Royal College of Physicians).
Which one does the Daily Mail make a big deal about?
3 deaths caused by, are you sure about that, you mean deaths involving people on bikes right because even Allisten wasn't officially at fault for the death of the pedestrian that stepped back into him otherwise the manslaughter charge would have stuck.
> "FairFuelUK is managed by TV Motoring Journalist Quentin Willson"
This is the same Quentin Wilson who bemoaned a new segregated cycle lane in London, tweeting a picture of it being completely empty. Only for someone to reply to him, asking why he didn't mention that the cycle lane was, at the time the photo was taken, incomplete and closed to all traffic.
https://twitter.com/quentinwillson/status/785556345495879680
And this man calls himself a journalist. No Quentin, you're just someone who used to be a bit famous. Being a bit famous doesn't make you right.
I could support the use of fluorescents, if applied to all road users.
How I would love to see that "newspaper" wiped from the face of the planet.
Somehow, it seems you can fabricate absolutely anything and pass it off as "news" or even as fact!
It happened to the News of the World, it can happen to the mail. They supported Hitler back in the 1930s, surely that's go to set off jingoistic alarm bells in some of their readership.
The Daily Mail can serve as toilet paper
It's so full of shit, your arse would be dirtier after using it.
Pages