Howard Peel on Parris and anti-cycling media

Worth re-posting:



Taken in isolation it might be possible to write off Parris' comments
as an aberration which merely reflect on Parris himself. However, this
is not really possible given that, firstly, it is printed in one of
the country's leading papers, secondly it is just one of a constant
stream of similar articles in the British media and thirdly, going by
many of the comments posted in response to the article on The Times
and other websites, it expresses views which many support.

It is worth bearing in mind that others (usually with right-wing
political opinions) have also written about cyclists in a manner which
advocates a terminal 'final solution' to the 'cyclists question', if
only as a rhetorical device.

For example, shortly after using Nick Freeman ('Mr Loophole') to get
her off a serious driving charge Emma Parker-Bowles, writing in The
Sun in 2006, called for the "humane extermination" of cyclists.

Similarly rabid comments could be added from a wide range of people
such as Tony Parsons ("I have always thought that it should be
cyclists that are chained to lamp -posts, and not their bikes...
Bicycles are like masturbation - something you should grow out of");

David Thomas of The Daily Mail ("Why I really hate cyclists" being
typical of his oeuvre );

Jeremy Clarkson (who wrote in The Sun that cyclists should stop at red
lights otherwise "if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down,
for fun".
On the other hand stopping would also seem to be a bad policy as he
added that if any cyclists were to stop in front of him at lights he
would "set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my
wheels" concluding "You are a guest on roads that are paid for by
motorists so if we cut you up, shut up");

Bryan Appleyard (whose "One day I'll kill a lycra lout" was yet
another anti-cycling piece printed in The Times );

M.P. Kate Hoey ("The real menace on our roads are selfish, aggressive,
law breaking and infuriatingly smug lycra louts" was the Mail On
Sunday headline which summarised her rant. Hoey also confessed to
using her vehicle as a weapon to bully cyclists off the roads.);


Jasper Gerard of The Daily Mail ("With the possible exception of Osama
Bin Laden, the greatest terrorist threat facing this country is from
cyclists.");

Damian Whitworth (motoring editor of The Times who described cyclists
as "a common pestilence" and argued that the lycra-wearing cyclist
should "pedal off to a shrink" in order to "explore the reasons for
his perversion at his own leisure and expense");

Jeremy Vine; Andrew Marr; Jon Gaunt; Nigel Havers; author Ruth
Brandon; Shelia Hancock; Nina Myskow; Bonnie Greer (who has said of
cyclists "they are PESTS, they are RODENTS".

Mmmm now who else was it who described human beings as being
'rodents'?) and so on ad-infinitum.

Such attitudes have even entered into British popular 'culture' as
with the alien-like 'The Cyclists' in the animated series 'Monkey
Dust'.

Of course, whilst all of these writers would apparently like to see
'strict discipline' and 'harsh punishments' for cyclists, not all are
prepared to 'extend the logic' of their beliefs to the extent of
freely and easily using terms such as 'extermination'. Then again
certain other movements with their roots in hierarchical-authoritarian
psychology only came upon such a 'final solution' by degrees, with
sterilisation also being a popular option.

Appropriately, this is something which Richard Tomkins (the chief
features writer of The Financial Times) apparently thinks would also
be a good solution for the 'cyclists question', with Tomkins writing
in the FT on 26 October 2007:


"Some while ago I read a newspaper story saying male cyclists who rode
a lot risked impotence because of the damaging effect of the saddle on
their reproductive organs. It quite made my day. In my opinion,
anything that stops cyclists breeding is to be welcomed as an
unmitigated good."

In reality such comments are exactly the sort of material one would
expect to see printed in the mass-media in a car-centric country
dominated by right-wing hierarchical-authoritarian 'values', such as
Britain.

Hence all those articles one sees which demand 'zero tolerance'
policing and 'harsh punishment' of low-status social 'out groups',
such as cyclists, whilst at the same time it is argued that the
enforcement of the law as it affects drivers (as a higher-status and
socially dominant social group) amounts to the "persecution of the
beleaguered motorist".

Even the Transport Research Laboratory have concluded that the way
cyclists are treated in Britain is best explained in terms of the
irrational prejudice directed at'out groups' who are perceived as
challenging the social 'norm'.(Report 549 'Drivers'perceptions of
cyclists').

To claim that all these anti-cycling comments are intended as 'jokes'
is as disingenuous as arguing that the 'comedy' of people like Bernard
manning was not racist. Perhaps such people would benefit from
watching that old Sheena McDonald documentary 'Five steps to tyranny'
and reading up on the work of Adorno and Jane Elliott!


Taken from:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...taime_pas.html

spindrift wrote:
Worth re-posting:

In what way?

Diatribes such as that simply provide more excuses to disrespect
cyclists, for those who seek them. Didn't you read any of the
follow-ups referring back to it???

--
Matt B

Another example from today's Evading Standards:

Fund chief's widow pleads for witnesses to accident

Evening Standard
04.01.08




The wife of a fund manager who died after being hit by a cyclist in
Holland Park has appealed for witnesses.

Father-of-three Nick Bancroft, 64, was walking to work when the
accident happened last October.

Police have not been able to establish exactly how it happened
although the cyclist claimed Mr Bancroft walked out in front of him
without looking.
Mr Bancroft's wife, Nicky, said: "It's an unbelievable tragedy. Our
lives have been blown apart. My husband was just wonderful and it's
very hard to handle something like this."

Mr Bancroft, who worked for Mayfair wealth management company
Rathbones, was hit at about 7.30am on 24 October at the junction of St
Ann's Villas and Royal Crescent. He suffered massive head injuries and
died a few days later. An inquest has been opened but cannot be
concluded until the police investigation is finished.

Mrs Bancroft said: "Someone must have seen what happened. At that time
of day everyone's going to work and it's on a bus route. We don't want
this to drag on forever.

"My elder daughter is getting married in the summer and now has no
father to walk her up the aisle. Her wedding plans are on hold."

Police have only the 26-yearold cyclist's account of the accident.
Sergeant Donald Simpson, of the Met's collision investigation unit,
said: "I am very disappointed by the lack of response.


"We desperately need witnesses to come forward. At the moment there is
no suggestion the cyclist was speeding. But there are always two sides
to a story and sadly Mr Bancroft isn't here to give his. If we could
work out the speed it would help us to see if there's any culpability
from the cyclist's point of view."


Anyone with information should call the witness line on 020 7388 6806.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ent/article.do

A couple of things struck me about this article.

1/

Cyclists cannot speed - there is no such offence.

2/

I have never, ever seen an similar police appeal when a driver kills a
cyclist. Read that quote again "We only have the cyclist's word".

WTF?

The assumption that a surviving participant in a fatal RTA is lying is
a good one, let's have it with drivers to, mmm?

Sympathies to Mr Bancroft's family, but what a strange article.

My beef is that the assumptions implied by the cops do not apply when
the boot's on the other foot.

Take Rhyl, for instance, the driver absolved before the vehicle was
even inspected. Or the girl killed and her Ipod blamed even though
there was no proof she wore her Ipod as she cycled!

Another example, the article doesn't say Mr Bancroft "collided with" a
cyclist, as the press state in cyclist deaths.

In article 9f41f6ff-8ded-47fc-800c-d27b6c7fb334
@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com, spindrift
says...

"We desperately need witnesses to come forward. At the moment there is
no suggestion the cyclist was speeding. But there are always two sides
to a story and sadly Mr Bancroft isn't here to give his. If we could
work out the speed it would help us to see if there's any culpability
from the cyclist's point of view."

The small group huddles around the table, hushed, the only light a few
flickering candles. "Mr. Bancroft" a woman intones, "How fast was the
cyclist going?". A barely audible gasp as the glass starts to move,
hesitantly at first then gathering speed as it spells out the reply:
"W h at cyclist?".

spindrift wrote:
Another example from today's Evading Standards:

Another example of what - of "Howard Peel on Parris and anti-cycling
media"???

Fund chief's widow pleads for witnesses to accident

Ah. No - it's nothing to do with this thread (am I surprised?).

[...]
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ent/article.do

A couple of things struck me about this article.

1/
Cyclists cannot speed - there is no such offence.

Cyclists can, and often do, exceed the speed limit. Are you suggesting,
after years of asserting that breaking the speed limit is implicitly
dangerous, that it is _only_ dangerous if it is also illegal?

2/
I have never, ever seen an similar police appeal when a driver kills a
cyclist. Read that quote again "We only have the cyclist's word".

Police generally appeal for witnesses after a road crash which results
in casualties, and particularly if one of the casualties dies.

WTF?

The assumption that a surviving participant in a fatal RTA is lying is
a good one, let's have it with drivers to, mmm?

Like these, so far, from January 2008, you mean:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7174666.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7174575.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7174537.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7174481.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7174481.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7171233.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7169935.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7169296.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7169223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7167529.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7166630.stm

Sympathies to Mr Bancroft's family, but what a strange article.

My beef is that the assumptions implied by the cops do not apply when
the boot's on the other foot.

What, you think they don't look for witnesses when a police driver/rider
is involved?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7095611.stm

Take Rhyl, for instance,

Was the driver there a police officer, and weren't witnesses sought?

Or the girl killed and her Ipod blamed even though
there was no proof she wore her Ipod as she cycled!

Was a police officer involved in that one, and no witness appeal?

Another example, the article doesn't say Mr Bancroft "collided with" a
cyclist, as the press state in cyclist deaths.

If when you say "the press", you mean "all of the press always", then
you are wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7174604.stm

If OTOH you mean "some of the press occasionally", then the same is also
true of collisions between a cycles and pedestrians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3667513.stm

--
Matt B

On 7 Jan, 10:27, Rob Morley wrote:
In article 9f41f6ff-8ded-47fc-800c-d27b6c7fb334
@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com, spindrift
says...

"We desperately need witnesses to come forward. At the moment there is
no suggestion the cyclist was speeding. But there are always two sides
to a story and sadly Mr Bancroft isn't here to give his. If we could
work out the speed it would help us to see if there's any culpability
from the cyclist's point of view."

The small group huddles around the table, hushed, the only light a few
flickering candles. *"Mr. Bancroft" a woman intones, "How fast was the
cyclist going?". *A barely audible gasp as the glass starts to move,
hesitantly at first then gathering speed as it spells out the reply: *
"W h at cyclist?".


At least the cyclist remained at the scene:

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/east...led.3614952.jp

Hit-and-run girl jailed - Worthing Today


Read this !

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/...7-12-05a.284.2
Thank you, Mr. Williams, for giving...: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall
debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

spindrift wrote:

(big snip...)

To claim that all these anti-cycling comments are intended as 'jokes'
is as disingenuous as arguing that the 'comedy' of people like Bernard
manning was not racist.

Thirty years ago the saloon bar tories would bang on about "sending blacks home" or
"castrating pooftas", now that such talk is beyond the pale their racism is deflected
onto unprotected groups.

A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:
spindrift wrote:

(big snip...)

To claim that all these anti-cycling comments are intended as 'jokes'
is as disingenuous as arguing that the 'comedy' of people like Bernard
manning was not racist.

Thirty years ago the saloon bar tories would bang on about "sending
blacks home" or "castrating pooftas",

Your evidence being?

now that such talk is beyond the
pale their racism is deflected onto unprotected groups.

/All/ unprotected groups, or just cyclists?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:

Thirty years ago the saloon bar tories would bang on about "sending
blacks home" or "castrating pooftas",

Your evidence being?

My evidence being that I bloody heard it for myself! And when challenged, the "only
joking" defence was invariably trotted out.

now that such talk is beyond the pale their racism is deflected onto
unprotected groups.

/All/ unprotected groups, or just cyclists?

Welsh (but borderline racism so only for the bolder types or the publicity seekers),
xxx-spotters (where xxx = train/bus/plane etc) and there's plenty of female chauvinism
about.

spindrift wrote:

A couple of things struck me about this article.

1/

Cyclists cannot speed - there is no such offence.

No, but there is appropriate and inappropriate speed for the circumstances.


The assumption that a surviving participant in a fatal RTA is lying is
a good one, let's have it with drivers to, mmm?

It would be nice if the police could get interview both sides to find
out what happened. Unfortunately they cannot interview Mr Bancroft.

Sympathies to Mr Bancroft's family, but what a strange article.

My beef is that the assumptions implied by the cops do not apply when
the boot's on the other foot.

IMHO it is good that the police and media try and take a neutral
approach when reporting things like this. Perhaps in the future they may
do with motor vehicle vs. cyclist.

Martin.