Yes, that’s right – the Telegraph is at it again.
Just over a week ago, the newspaper was accused (once again) of promoting a “nasty, culture wars” agenda against cyclists, after its head of money claimed that “middle-aged men in Lycra earning six figures” were “shamelessly” exploiting the government’s Cycle to Work scheme to buy “fancy new toys”.
And now, the Telegraph’s senior money writer has responded to a campaign by a group of MPs – which seeks to rectify that apparent imbalance at the heart of Cycle to Work by opening it up to more people, tackling lack of access to active travel in the process – by branding it “bizarre” and warning that taxpayers will be made to fund “bikes for refugees and pensioners”.
Last week, we reported that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking (APPGCW) published a report assessing ‘social justice’ in active travel, including the obstacles, both literal and metaphorical, that prevent people from cycling, walking, and wheeling in the UK.
> MPs call for “urgent reform” of Cycle to Work scheme to tackle active travel inequality
As part of its recommendations to tackle active travel inequality, which also included clamping down on pavement parking and removing discriminatory access barriers on bike paths, the report also urged the government to reform the Cycle to Work scheme and reduce the financial barriers to cycling.
A rebranded ‘Cycle for Health’ initiative, the APPGCW said, would enable access for low-income workers, freelance workers, and pensioners, who are all ineligible for the current initiative.
Among the APPGCW’s other recommendations are the need to provide stable, long-term funding for grassroots organisations to increase participation, better data collection, ensuring UK-wide access to free cycle training, widening its current reach, communicating with diverse community voices when planning projects, and building social justice into performance management in local transport.
But, according to the Telegraph, these recommendations, designed to make cycling as accessible and inclusive as possible, mean just one thing: taxpayers forking out for refugees and pensioners, apparently.
“The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking has called on the government to ‘reduce the financial barrier’ which stop people getting on two wheels,” the paper’s senior money writer Joe Wright wrote.
“The bizarre campaign wants the taxpayer-funded Cycle to Work scheme to be revised so that it caters to ‘those who most need financial assistance’ including retired households, refugees, and those on low incomes.”
Yes, so “bizarre” that it’s the very thing your newspaper was calling for just a week before. Or maybe, just maybe, the Telegraph doesn’t actually care about reforming Cycle to Work, and instead just despises any initiative to increase the number of people riding bikes?
> Telegraph claims “rich, Lycra-clad cyclists tearing through red lights” are riding “hugely expensive” bikes paid for by taxpayer in “nasty” tirade against Cycle to Work scheme
In any case, the Telegraph’s tirades against bikes for rich people, pensioners, and refugees has certainly gone down well with its core audience.
“These MPs are totally insane! We are practically bankrupt and these idiots come up with even more ways to waste taxpayers’ money,” said Ann.
“Most pensioners are not able to ride a bike due to health and age,” noted a rather pessimistic Lynn. “It’s also not fair on taxpayers to fund the cost for refugees too.”
“MPs can fund it out of their own pockets,” suggested David, while Gary simply wrote: “No.”
Alright, who’s going to be next on the list of people the Telegraph don’t believe should benefit from Cycle to Work? Any takers?
Add new comment
21 comments
“The bizarre campaign wants the taxpayer-funded Cycle to Work scheme to be revised so that it caters to ‘those who most need financial assistance’ including retired households, refugees, and those on low incomes.”
Utterly disgraceful of course. It's people like the billionaire owners of the Telegraph who need financial assistance, not the poor. The poor would only waste it on buying a bike, keeping the local economy going and providing employement, whereas the owners of the Telegraph would instantly salt it away in an offshore account.
".........the paper’s senior money writer Joe Wright wrote." So Joe Wright wrote wrong: right.
The taxpayer is already funding the cost of refugees. By some £4.3billion. Got to keep those Hotel owners in business!
Leaving this here for no other reason than to mess with the minds of the 'institutionally anti-cycling BBC' crowd:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx27588lzydo
Duly triggered! (At least "it's comedy!" though).
"The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead" ... pretty sure any place / Council with "Royal" in the name (especially "Royal Borough") will be one of the last places to see a cycling revolution...
A comedian with a purpose can achieve more than the politicians e.g. Zelensky.
In case anyone was in doubt that the use of the word 'woke' has no meaning, I give you
Well I'm "woke", apparently and I certainly like a drink, but Russia has been a nation of topers since time immemorial, travellers in the 16th century were remarking how the populace seemed to spend most of their waking hours inebriated - was Ivan the Terrible "woke" too?
Maybe not all Putin's fault - perhaps he inherited some of that wokery from ... Lenin and Stalin!
The Soviet constitution was definitely down on religion, women were encouraged to be part of the workforce, abortion was legalised early (although was in and out) ... apparently even persecution of jews was out of favour - at least until the latter years of Stalin where he decided it was time to do away with them also (there was widespread popular antisemitism) [1] [2].
Nice to see Police Scotland clamping down on road traffic offenders
https://archive.is/BUiil
Oh wait, they just go after the vulnerable road users.
* Jumps red light
* Rides wrong way down a one way street
* Rides on pedestrian only pavement
If the rider is looking for sympathy, they'll find it between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.
Probably worth pointing out at some point that the Telegraph is on the Cycle to Work Scheme..
Telegraph in bizarre rant is no longer news but the default.
It shouldn't come as any surprise that the Tories/Telegraph writers loath cyclists, although seeing it so clearly stated is unusual. Seems like an unforced error.
Anything that gets in the way of motoring will get attacked by either group, but they have let something slip here to make it so obvious.
A trivial example near me locally is speed cushions which were surely invented by the Tories. They look like they might slow motorists down, but actually they make things worse. In my local side roads they come in threes: one on each side of the white line and one straddling it. On approaching them motorists veer into the centre of the road and thus the path of oncoming cyclists. Cyclists must either yield to belligerent motorists or have a head on collision. It is very rare to see a motorist yield to a cyclist in such a narrow section.
Exactly. What seems to be happening is that the Torygraph is opposed to ANY taxpayer money being spent on ANY cyclists.
Exactly. They hate cyclists. They don't care what they have to hang their hatred on and their average reader is too thick or doesn't want to see the contradictions in their positions that they will happily make within the same day.
Don't worry, in the not too distant future the Telegraph won't have any readers. Latest calculations suggest they only have 170,000 readers (they decided to make their circulation private in Decemebr 2019).
Notwithstanding its collapsing circulation, I still get it quoted to me as a source of news and information in my local Comments section. If I have this right, cyclists are constantly killing pedestrians.
When pressed for detail, it's either tumbleweed or I get cited a local fatal incident with a motorcyclist 4 years ago, a local non-fatal incident with pedestrian 12 years ago, Charlie Allison (2016) and that 2024 incident in Regents Park.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cyclists-crackdown-death-regent...
(With the possible exception of defence)
"Hammersmith Bridge demolition among new proposals"
Lets hope the go with option 3:
"Repair and restoration for pedestrians and cyclists only"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4n4kpwk0xo
I've already written to my MP and the DfT asking for just that.