"People won't bother reading the truth, the damage is done": Cyclists frustrated Telegraph newspaper not required to put "52mph cyclists creating death traps" correction on front page like original headline

In the 24 hours since press regulator IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation) ruled that the Telegraph was in breach of its Editors' Code for an inaccurate story claiming cyclists are riding at 52mph in London while chasing Strava segments, many have expressed frustration that the newspaper was not required to publish a front-page correction, IPSO instead accepting that the original acknowledgement made six days after publication and in the Telegraph's "Corrections and Clarifications column" was sufficient.

The headline appeared on the newspaper's front page back in May and told readers "Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps" and riding at 52mph in London, which was in fact the result of dodgy GPS taken from Strava that would, if true, mean people are cycling at speeds faster than what Olympic track cyclists hit in the velodrome. Unsurprisingly, the story was much-criticised and ridiculed, Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman calling it "bonkers" and IPSO receiving 96 complaints.

Yesterday, the press regulator confirmed the newspaper had breached its Editors' Code 'Clause 1' regarding accuracy, which states the press "must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information".

IPSO concluded "the inaccurate information effectively formed the basis of the article and featured prominently in the headline, the front-page flag, and the text of the article itself" and stated it was an "error" that was "significant" and "in need of correction".

The Telegraph had already made the aforementioned correction in print and added a footnote to the online story [below], accepting that the data cited was "erroneous" and claiming it "cannot be checked or independently verified", even if it happens to be faster than what six-time Olympic champion Sir Chris Hoy says is his fastest ever speed.

The regulator, which can enforce more prominent corrections or fines in the most serious cases, did not deem that a "front-page correction or flag was appropriate" as this is "generally reserved for more serious cases".

"The Committee was satisfied that the corrections were therefore published promptly, and with due prominence," IPSO concluded. "Turning to the wording of the corrections, both made clear the correct position was that the data was 'erroneous' and that it had been taken from a source which could not be verified. The Committee was therefore satisfied they put the correct position on record."

"People won't bother reading the truth, the damage is done"

The publication of our story about the ruling has sparked discussion about the prominence of the corrections made, numerous cyclists and readers of this website questioning whether a 'Corrections and Clarifications Column' and online footnote would sufficiently notify the Telegraph's readers and wider public of inaccurate data which was originally published on the newspaper's front page.

[How the story looks online now, post-correction]

One road.cc reader told us: "The problem is that Telegraph readers will have read and absorbed the original article and believed every character of it, then used it as confirmation bias while relating other made up hypothetical scenarios to it."

Another, Paul Wheatley, said: "Doesn't matter if they retract their comments or apologise, people won't bother reading the truth, the damage is done."

"Corrections and retractions should be published in the same location and same size font as the original claims," a third told us.

IPSO states that "a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence", but adds "due prominence is not the same as equal prominence".

The regulator goes on to say: "If a correction or an adjudication is required by IPSO's Complaints Committee, this is usually published on the same page or further forwards than the original article. In the case of a significant inaccuracy being published on the front page or front cover of a newspaper or magazine, it would not always be appropriate for an entire correction or adjudication to be published here.

"Front pages and front covers are of particular importance to newspapers and magazines as they inform readers using limited space, of the main stories contained within that particular issue. Further, front pages and covers generally provide a publication with an opportunity to communicate with potential new readers. They are therefore valuable both commercially and editorially, as a means of expression.

"IPSO must act proportionately in deciding whether or not to require a front-page or front-cover correction or adjudication."

Two such cases where a front-page correction was required include when the Metro claimed deaths from illnesses other than Covid-19 had "rocketed" during lockdown, and an inaccurate Women's Own story regarding actress and TV personality Denise Welch.

"Front page and front cover corrections are generally reserved for the most serious cases," the regulator says.