Spoke too soon: The Daily Mail wheelie hates cyclists

Following last week’s invective against anybody who owns a bicycle, the Daily Mail has clearly decided cycling – or rather its abolition - will be its new cause-celebre. We'll be saddled with this subject for a while then as the paper pedals it's unique brand of... ok, I'll stop with the cycling puns.

Writing today, Robert Hardman offers up an incoherent rant against cycling in which he also criticises arguments which are “either naive or deliberately misleading”. And so the irony begins:

“This weekend, the Government's chief cycling quango demanded that, henceforth, cyclists should be treated as blameless Kings of the Road…”

…er, no they didn’t.

“Philip [sic] Darnton, the chairman of something called Cycling England, has insisted that, in future, the car driver should be deemed the guilty party in any accident involving a car and a bicycle - or a pedestrian for that matter…”

…er, no he didn’t. Darnton said he would like to see measures such as a “legal onus placed on motorists when there are accidents; speed limits reduced to 20mph on suburban and residential roads; cycling taught to all schoolchildren; and cycling provision included in major planning applications”, but he will doubtless be aware of the need to draw a line in the sand and then begin ceding ground – such is the nature of negotiation. Fortunately the horse-trading that goes on when drafting new laws and legislation doesn’t begin and end with the Daily Mail’s point of view being universally accepted. Hence we have a multicultural society.

“If Mr Darnton was just another evangelical cyclist, I'd not be too bothered… but he is the chairman of a government-funded organisation which spends a hefty £47million a year of taxpayers' money to promote getting on one's bike. And very cosy it is, too, since he also happens to be a former chairman and chief executive of Raleigh, the bicycle manufacturer.”

Almost in the same breath Hardman has raised the issues of taxpayers’ money being wasted; while apparently criticising the government for hiring somebody because his CV suggests he’s well-qualified for the position.

“I call the Department for Transport. There, a spokesman says that it is 'absolute nonsense' to suggest that motorists will become 'automatically liable' in the event of accidents.”

…exactly. So your point was what?