"Hate Crime " campaign

Campaigners are trying to ban the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to
describe speeding cyclists – and even stop the likes of Jeremy Clarkson
poking fun at them.

Under proposed media guidelines, abuse of cyclists would be treated as a
'hate crime' and they would get the same protection as domestic violence
victims and refugees.

Newspapers would also be gagged from stating if an injured cyclist was
not wearing a helmet or high-vis clothing.

Instead, they would be urged to shame 'criminal' motorists for accidents
involving bicycles.

The controversial media code is backed by Impress, a state-approved
regulator funded indirectly by millionaire former Formula 1 boss Max
Mosley's family charity.

a person riding a bicycle on a city street: Campaigners want to ban the
use of the term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists (file)©
Provided by Daily Mail Campaigners want to ban the use of the term
'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists (file)
It regulates just over 100 media titles, mainly small hyper-local
outlets or trade press.

The guidelines were drawn up by the University of Westminster, the
National Union of Journalists, road safety charities and other experts.

They say the word 'accident' should be banned in reports of crashes –
even though 'road traffic accident' is the legal term recognised by
police and courts.

The report says cyclists are 'frustrated by road deaths being portrayed
as unavoidable 'accidents' rather than by 'very avoidable criminal
behaviour'.

It says: 'All traffic collisions involve some form of misjudgement by
error or outright downright dangerous action by one or more drivers.'

The move was criticised last night. Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK,
which campaigns for motorists, said: 'Motorists will be repulsed that
militant, urban-based cyclists want drivers to take the blame in any
report of an accident.

Jeremy Clarkson standing in front of a window© Provided by Daily Mail
'It is the latest attempt to re-write the road-user handbook by the
Lycra-clad liberal elite. They are not interested in being fair. Now
they want to muzzle the Press in their continuing hatred of motorists.'

The term 'Lycra lout' was coined to describe cyclists who race through
red lights or speed along pavements. Jeremy Clarkson has often vented
his fury at them.

In 2014 he tweeted a photo of a cyclist whose face was 'twisted into a
contorted mask of pure fury' after the TV presenter overtook him.

The former Top Gear host said he was 'amused' by the cyclist's rage. It
prompted BBC Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine, a keen cyclist, to call Clarkson
a 'muppet'.

The guidelines follow a boom in cycling. Many town hall chiefs have used
the pandemic to create extra cycle lanes, leading to complaints of
traffic chaos.

The 'Road Collision Reporting Guidelines' say cyclists are 'dehumanised'
by media coverage which is in favour of speeding motorists. When a
cyclist was in an accident with a car, the media should state they had
been 'hit by a driver, not a car'.

The report also questions the use of the word 'cyclist' itself, arguing
it 'can engender negative connotations'.

Under the code, cyclists who claim they have been insulted will be able
to make formal complaints on the grounds that it 'provoked hatred'.

The report was written by Westminster University 'Active Travel
Academy', including Laura Laker, who writes on cycling for The Guardian,
and Adam Tranter, the 'bicycle mayor for Coventry'.

On 01/10/2020 19:58, colwyn wrote:
Campaigners are trying to ban the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to
describe speeding cyclists – and even stop the likes of Jeremy Clarkson
poking fun at them.

Under proposed media guidelines, abuse of cyclists would be treated as a
'hate crime' and they would get the same protection as domestic violence
victims and refugees.

Newspapers would also be gagged from stating if an injured cyclist was
not wearing a helmet or high-vis clothing.

Instead, they would be urged to shame 'criminal' motorists for accidents
involving bicycles.

The controversial media code is backed by Impress, a state-approved
regulator funded indirectly by millionaire former Formula 1 boss Max
Mosley's family charity.

a person riding a bicycle on a city street: Campaigners want to ban the
use of the term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists (file)©
Provided by Daily Mail Campaigners want to ban the use of the term
'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists (file)
It regulates just over 100 media titles, mainly small hyper-local
outlets or trade press.

The guidelines were drawn up by the University of Westminster, the
National Union of Journalists, road safety charities and other experts.

They say the word 'accident' should be banned in reports of crashes –
even though 'road traffic accident' is the legal term recognised by
police and courts.

The report says cyclists are 'frustrated by road deaths being portrayed
as unavoidable 'accidents' rather than by 'very avoidable criminal
behaviour'.

It says: 'All traffic collisions involve some form of misjudgement by
error or outright downright dangerous action by one or more drivers.'

The move was criticised last night. Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK,
which campaigns for motorists, said: 'Motorists will be repulsed that
militant, urban-based cyclists want drivers to take the blame in any
report of an accident.

Jeremy Clarkson standing in front of a window© Provided by Daily Mail
'It is the latest attempt to re-write the road-user handbook by the
Lycra-clad liberal elite. They are not interested in being fair. Now
they want to muzzle the Press in their continuing hatred of motorists.'

The term 'Lycra lout' was coined to describe cyclists who race through
red lights or speed along pavements. Jeremy Clarkson has often vented
his fury at them.

In 2014 he tweeted a photo of a cyclist whose face was 'twisted into a
contorted mask of pure fury' after the TV presenter overtook him.

The former Top Gear host said he was 'amused' by the cyclist's rage. It
prompted BBC Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine, a keen cyclist, to call Clarkson
a 'muppet'.

The guidelines follow a boom in cycling. Many town hall chiefs have used
the pandemic to create extra cycle lanes, leading to complaints of
traffic chaos.

The 'Road Collision Reporting Guidelines' say cyclists are 'dehumanised'
by media coverage which is in favour of speeding motorists. When a
cyclist was in an accident with a car, the media should state they had
been 'hit by a driver, not a car'.

The report also questions the use of the word 'cyclist' itself, arguing
it 'can engender negative connotations'.

I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that bit.

There are probably better words to describe cyclists, though cyclists
might find some of them less accentapble than "cyclist".

Under the code, cyclists who claim they have been insulted will be able
to make formal complaints on the grounds that it 'provoked hatred'.

The report was written by Westminster University 'Active Travel
Academy', including Laura Laker, who writes on cycling for The Guardian,
and Adam Tranter, the 'bicycle mayor for Coventry'.

Hilarious.

You couldn't make it up.

But someone, it seems, has done just that.

On 2/10/20 12:17 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 01/10/2020 19:58, colwyn wrote:
Campaigners are trying to ban the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to
describe speeding cyclists – and even stop the likes of Jeremy
Clarkson poking fun at them.

Under proposed media guidelines, abuse of cyclists would be treated as
a 'hate crime' and they would get the same protection as domestic
violence victims and refugees.

Newspapers would also be gagged from stating if an injured cyclist was
not wearing a helmet or high-vis clothing.

Instead, they would be urged to shame 'criminal' motorists for
accidents involving bicycles.

The controversial media code is backed by Impress, a state-approved
regulator funded indirectly by millionaire former Formula 1 boss Max
Mosley's family charity.

a person riding a bicycle on a city street: Campaigners want to ban
the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists
(file)© Provided by Daily Mail Campaigners want to ban the use of the
term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists (file)
It regulates just over 100 media titles, mainly small hyper-local
outlets or trade press.

The guidelines were drawn up by the University of Westminster, the
National Union of Journalists, road safety charities and other experts.

They say the word 'accident' should be banned in reports of crashes –
even though 'road traffic accident' is the legal term recognised by
police and courts.

The report says cyclists are 'frustrated by road deaths being
portrayed as unavoidable 'accidents' rather than by 'very avoidable
criminal behaviour'.

It says: 'All traffic collisions involve some form of misjudgement by
error or outright downright dangerous action by one or more drivers.'

The move was criticised last night. Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK,
which campaigns for motorists, said: 'Motorists will be repulsed that
militant, urban-based cyclists want drivers to take the blame in any
report of an accident.

Jeremy Clarkson standing in front of a window© Provided by Daily Mail
'It is the latest attempt to re-write the road-user handbook by the
Lycra-clad liberal elite. They are not interested in being fair. Now
they want to muzzle the Press in their continuing hatred of motorists.'

The term 'Lycra lout' was coined to describe cyclists who race through
red lights or speed along pavements. Jeremy Clarkson has often vented
his fury at them.

In 2014 he tweeted a photo of a cyclist whose face was 'twisted into a
contorted mask of pure fury' after the TV presenter overtook him.

The former Top Gear host said he was 'amused' by the cyclist's rage.
It prompted BBC Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine, a keen cyclist, to call
Clarkson a 'muppet'.

The guidelines follow a boom in cycling. Many town hall chiefs have
used the pandemic to create extra cycle lanes, leading to complaints
of traffic chaos.

The 'Road Collision Reporting Guidelines' say cyclists are
'dehumanised' by media coverage which is in favour of speeding
motorists. When a cyclist was in an accident with a car, the media
should state they had been 'hit by a driver, not a car'.

The report also questions the use of the word 'cyclist' itself,
arguing it 'can engender negative connotations'.

I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that bit.

There are probably better words to describe cyclists, though cyclists
might find some of them less accentapble than "cyclist".

Under the code, cyclists who claim they have been insulted will be
able to make formal complaints on the grounds that it 'provoked hatred'.

The report was written by Westminster University 'Active Travel
Academy', including Laura Laker, who writes on cycling for The
Guardian, and Adam Tranter, the 'bicycle mayor for Coventry'.

Hilarious.

You couldn't make it up.

But someone, it seems, has done just that.

Personally I do not mind being labelled "lycra lout" or whatever, as
long as the labellers do not threaten me with or actually cause physical
harm, injury, etc.
I am all for free speech using simple unambiguous language to describe
things. It makes for better understanding and communication between people.
To me, being described as a "lycra lout" or other epithets says more
about the describer than about me. It also narrows down my choice of
people whom I might call my friends.
Making mere hate speech a crime sets a dangerous precedent.

PS I do not wear lycra, but why let the facts spoil a good story?

On 02/10/2020 10:33, Peter Keller wrote:
On 2/10/20 12:17 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 01/10/2020 19:58, colwyn wrote:
Campaigners are trying to ban the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to
describe speeding cyclists – and even stop the likes of Jeremy
Clarkson poking fun at them.

Under proposed media guidelines, abuse of cyclists would be treated as
a 'hate crime' and they would get the same protection as domestic
violence victims and refugees.

Newspapers would also be gagged from stating if an injured cyclist was
not wearing a helmet or high-vis clothing.

Instead, they would be urged to shame 'criminal' motorists for
accidents involving bicycles.

The controversial media code is backed by Impress, a state-approved
regulator funded indirectly by millionaire former Formula 1 boss Max
Mosley's family charity.

a person riding a bicycle on a city street: Campaigners want to ban
the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists
(file)© Provided by Daily Mail Campaigners want to ban the use of the
term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists (file)
It regulates just over 100 media titles, mainly small hyper-local
outlets or trade press.

The guidelines were drawn up by the University of Westminster, the
National Union of Journalists, road safety charities and other experts.

They say the word 'accident' should be banned in reports of crashes –
even though 'road traffic accident' is the legal term recognised by
police and courts.

The report says cyclists are 'frustrated by road deaths being
portrayed as unavoidable 'accidents' rather than by 'very avoidable
criminal behaviour'.

It says: 'All traffic collisions involve some form of misjudgement by
error or outright downright dangerous action by one or more drivers.'

The move was criticised last night. Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK,
which campaigns for motorists, said: 'Motorists will be repulsed that
militant, urban-based cyclists want drivers to take the blame in any
report of an accident.

Jeremy Clarkson standing in front of a window© Provided by Daily Mail
'It is the latest attempt to re-write the road-user handbook by the
Lycra-clad liberal elite. They are not interested in being fair. Now
they want to muzzle the Press in their continuing hatred of motorists.'

The term 'Lycra lout' was coined to describe cyclists who race through
red lights or speed along pavements. Jeremy Clarkson has often vented
his fury at them.

In 2014 he tweeted a photo of a cyclist whose face was 'twisted into a
contorted mask of pure fury' after the TV presenter overtook him.

The former Top Gear host said he was 'amused' by the cyclist's rage.
It prompted BBC Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine, a keen cyclist, to call
Clarkson a 'muppet'.

The guidelines follow a boom in cycling. Many town hall chiefs have
used the pandemic to create extra cycle lanes, leading to complaints
of traffic chaos.

The 'Road Collision Reporting Guidelines' say cyclists are
'dehumanised' by media coverage which is in favour of speeding
motorists. When a cyclist was in an accident with a car, the media
should state they had been 'hit by a driver, not a car'.

The report also questions the use of the word 'cyclist' itself,
arguing it 'can engender negative connotations'.

I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that bit.

There are probably better words to describe cyclists, though cyclists
might find some of them less accentapble than "cyclist".

Under the code, cyclists who claim they have been insulted will be
able to make formal complaints on the grounds that it 'provoked hatred'.

The report was written by Westminster University 'Active Travel
Academy', including Laura Laker, who writes on cycling for The
Guardian, and Adam Tranter, the 'bicycle mayor for Coventry'.

Hilarious.

You couldn't make it up.

But someone, it seems, has done just that.

Personally I do not mind being labelled "lycra lout" or whatever, as
long as the labellers do not threaten me with or actually cause physical
harm, injury, etc.

Very sensible.

But I expect no less from you.

I am all for free speech using simple unambiguous language to describe
things. It makes for better understanding and communication between people.
To me, being described as a "lycra lout" or other epithets says more
about the describer than about me. It also narrows down my choice of
people whom I might call my friends.
Making mere hate speech a crime sets a dangerous precedent.

PS I do not wear lycra, but why let the facts spoil a good story?

:-)

On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 00:15:24 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are probably better words to describe cyclists,

'Law abiding citizens' are better words
'Overtaxed subsidisers of motorists' are also good words

On 03/10/2020 14:15, Mike Collins wrote:

On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 00:15:24 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are probably better words to describe cyclists,

'Law abiding citizens' are better words
'Overtaxed subsidisers of motorists' are also good words

You might think that.

Sensible people would think something rather different.

On 5/10/20 8:48 am, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2020 14:15, Mike Collins wrote:

On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 00:15:24 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are probably better words to describe cyclists,

'Law abiding citizens' are better words
'Overtaxed subsidisers of motorists' are also good words

You might think that.

Sensible people would think something rather different.

I do not care how I am described.
I just find that a bicycle is a delightful economical convenient viable
healthy means of transport for me and many things.

On 04/10/2020 20:48, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2020 14:15, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 00:15:24 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are probably better words to describe cyclists,

'Law abiding citizens' are better words
'Overtaxed subsidisers of motorists' are also good words

You might think that.

It is possible to prove or disprove things stated as fact...

Sensible people would think something rather different.

....whereas whether an opinion is sensible or not is an opinion.

On 05/10/2020 10:43, Peter Keller wrote:
On 5/10/20 8:48 am, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2020 14:15, Mike Collins wrote:

On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 00:15:24 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are probably better words to describe cyclists,

'Law abiding citizens' are better words
'Overtaxed subsidisers of motorists' are also good words

You might think that.

Sensible people would think something rather different.

I do not care how I am described.
I just find that a bicycle is a delightful economical convenient viable
healthy means of transport for me and many things.

And if that were the only issue, there would be no problems with
cyclists in the UK. They could still be seen by the majority with the
same detached bemusement as they were in (say) the 1960s.

But it isn't and they aren't.

I hope things are different in Oz.

On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 20:46:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2020 14:15, Mike Collins wrote:

On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 00:15:24 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are probably better words to describe cyclists,

'Law abiding citizens' are better words
'Overtaxed subsidisers of motorists' are also good words
You might think that.

Sensible people would think something rather different.

Most people may regard cyclists as baby eating scofflaws but them most people believe roads are paid for by road tax, which proves just how foolish they are.