# Daily Fail stiring up cyclist hate yet again.



## Gixxerman (7 Feb 2017)

Very poorly researched and biased click bait atricle that will give the Daily Fail regulars and good old moan.
Contains the usual comments about red lights and road tax.
Dissapointing to see that even the "jouranalist" (I use that word in the loosest possible way) thinks that we pay road tax.

http://archive.is/yW5xt (changed to avoid supporting the Daily Fail).


----------



## snorri (7 Feb 2017)

I have a few rules in life, one of which is don't click on Daily Mail links, they've never made me feel better about anything.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Feb 2017)

I've never understood why folk directly link to a deliberately inflammatory article which has, as one of its primary objectives, the increase of traffic for its vile publishers/owners. They're effectively doing the paper's job for them.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Feb 2017)

Let's not let the dm win.

Here's the text so you don't have to support them by visiting the site



> *Is ANYWHERE safe from the lycra louts? They've got cycle lanes galore. But now they're on pavements and jumping lights - and mowing down pedestrians*
> 
> By Brendan O'neill For The Daily Mail00:28, 07 Feb 2017, updated 08:11, 07 Feb 2017
> 
> ...



PS I didn't actually read it


----------



## Gixxerman (7 Feb 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I've never understood why folk directly link to a deliberately inflammatory article which has, as one of its primary objectives, the increase of traffic for its vile publishers/owners. They're effectively doing the paper's job for them.


Fair point - Link to cached page now.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (7 Feb 2017)

Ahh DM bottom feeders

I'm assuming, I never clicked the link


----------



## numbnuts (7 Feb 2017)

Written for people with half a brain and hate for anybody that doesn't use a car.


----------



## PeteXXX (7 Feb 2017)

You have to sign up there to post a comment.. I'd hate it to be on my CV that I have an on-line account with the DM 

Incidentally, Katie Hopkins is taking to to wheels today to see what it's like to be a cyclist in London.
~Twitter linkie~ if you're in the slightest bit interested.
I'm sure she'll have an opinion


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4671443, member: 9609"]What truth is there behind the increase in cyclists crashing into pedestrians whilst on pavements ?
I do think it is very shameful the speed and uncaring riding of some cyclists I have seen on footpaths (shared or not), if there is truth behind the article then something should be done about it.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, but would it not make sense to focus on the problem that actually kills thousands of people per year rather than one that saves exponentially more lives than are lost?


----------



## Johnno260 (7 Feb 2017)

Let them legislate for us to have tax, we can then say we told you so when we pay tax that equates to zero emissions and it costs the tax payer money, it's dumb stuff like this that people insist upon that has no benefit and costs money to implement.


----------



## r04DiE (7 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Let's not let the dm win.
> 
> Here's the text so you don't have to support them by visiting the site
> 
> ...


Or you can use this.


----------



## fixedfixer (7 Feb 2017)

numbnuts said:


> Written for people with half a brain (cell).........



Very generous there @numbnuts - so I corrected it for you. ​


----------



## J1888 (7 Feb 2017)

Just looking at this 'writer's' previous articles, this title made me chuckle; '

*'The sneering hatred of today's so-called comics for ordinary people is no laughing matter, writes BRENDAN O'NEILL'*


----------



## Jody (7 Feb 2017)

Johnno260 said:


> Let them legislate for us to have tax, we can then say we told you so when we pay tax that equates to zero emissions and it costs the tax payer money



And a reduction in costs to the NHS due to the health benefits of excersizing and staying fit.


----------



## Johnno260 (7 Feb 2017)

Jody said:


> And a reduction in costs to the NHS due to the health benefits of excersizing and staying fit.



Won't that be offset by the thousands of people we mow down on the pavement each year?


----------



## Saluki (7 Feb 2017)

That's journalism?
I think that the real 'story' is that the DM hasn't got writers that can write, they are not covering news and should be downgraded from 'newspaper' to 'comic' as soon as possible.


----------



## Jody (7 Feb 2017)

Johnno260 said:


> Won't that be offset by the thousands of people we mow down on the pavement each year?




That's only the odd sprained wrist for a ped


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4671501, member: 9609"]not quite understanding you - are you saying cycling on the pavements is exponentially saving more cyclists being killed and injured on the road than the pedestrians the cyclists are killing and injuring on the path?

If cycling on the road is too dangerous then that needs to be addressed, we can't start cycling on the pavements and say better an injured ped than an injured cyclist.[/QUOTE]

I was commenting that focusing on a few cyclists who ride like nutters on a pavement is a little bit crazy, when although it is anti-social the deaths are caused by motorists. Therefore, the author should focus his attention on the motorists (ideally the farkwitts) and not on cyclists. Cycling a whole is provides many health benefits compared to not cycling, so therefore should be encouraged not discouraged.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Feb 2017)

There is so much wrong with that article....i just don't know where to start.

It's overpoweringly, stupefyingly, cockwombleingly depressing to read.

I'm off to have a coffee and forget all about it.


----------



## Bollo (7 Feb 2017)

As always with a Hate Mail thread I post a link to one of the story generators on the web. This time, I fire one up and it comes up with this.



> *WILL CYCLISTS CHEAT THE MIDDLE CLASS?*
> The horror of Broken Britain continues this week.
> 
> First we learn that fighting the police is becoming ever more common, then we learn that homosexuals are binge drinking every day.
> ...


So, the crayon-wielding hack can't even compete with a basic Perl script.


----------



## chriscross1966 (7 Feb 2017)

Oxford can be a nightmare of bike lanes swapping on and off of pavements and road-side strips, compounded by pedestrians lane discipline being woeful in the bits where they've put a line down the pavement. I've had as many near misses with pedestrians swapping lanes in front of me as I've had cars not giving enough space when passing... The only red light I ever jump is on a junction near where I live where you can easily see both ways and I will have stopped... as far as I can tell the pressure sensor doesn't notice even a chunky bump like me on a bike so once I've sat there for 30 seconds or so at 10pm I will check both ways and if clear, then I will press on...


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Let's not let the dm win.
> 
> Here's the text so you don't have to support them by visiting the site
> 
> ...



It's a bit naughty, not to mention a breach of copyright, to cut and paste the full article.

Whatever you think of the Daily Mail and its staff, they are entitled to protection of their intellectual property in the same way as any other author or publisher.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...news/article-4197968/Is-safe-Lycra-louts.html


----------



## spen666 (7 Feb 2017)

I repeat my comments made in the identical thread in the politics section



> Rather interesting timing this article- 2 female cyclists killed in London yesterday and a teenager killed in Colchester whilst cycling over the weekend....yet cyclists are apparently the cause of the dangers to other road users


----------



## TheJDog (7 Feb 2017)

"Unlike motorists bikers don't pay road tax, so they can just ride away after a crash if they want"

I fail to see any logic or reasoning in the whole article.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Feb 2017)

spen666 said:


> I repeat my comments made in the identical thread in the politics section


So you have now shared the news of 2 cyclists' deaths in the politics ghetto and in a thread hating on the DM, rather than where it belongs in general or advocacy groups where someone might see it?

Great. You should be proud.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (7 Feb 2017)

Oh well, makes a change from another 'Donald Trump said something yesterday' story.


----------



## spen666 (7 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> So you have now shared the news of 2 cyclists' deaths in the politics ghetto and in a thread hating on the DM, rather than where it belongs in general or advocacy groups where someone might see it?
> 
> Great. You should be proud.


Grow up


----------



## jefmcg (7 Feb 2017)

spen666 said:


> Grow up


Yes, wanting to know things that directly affect my safety is very juvenile.


Edit: Just realised this came from the same person who worked himself into a tizz yesterday because he thought I was saying that male pensioners are not men.  Pot meet kettle.


----------



## spen666 (7 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yes, wanting to know things that directly affect my safety is very juvenile.




So why try to deflect the thread like a pathetic little child who is sulking.




In case it had slipped your attention, or you could not understand the long words I used.


I was commenting on the timing of the article in the newspaper blaming cyclists for dangers on the raod when the facts are very different and proved by recent stories.

Still if you want to divert the thread like a pathetic little spoilt child, then go ahead.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Feb 2017)

I am just suggesting that if you read something about cyclists dying in London, you share it where you think it may do some good, rather than using it to make smug points against the daily mail. 

The incidents you refer to have not been posted on CC except by you. I might have hoped they would have be disseminated more widely so that road users in London could be aware. I thought that the deaths of two women are more important than taking impotent shots against the daily mail.

But go on, making your smug points rather than trying to help or inform others. I won't see any more of them.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (7 Feb 2017)

Rubbish article from a tiny little angry shouty man. Funny how the comments keeps changing from 154 to 1500+ Like it's sibling, the Bristol Post, the site is so ad-heavy, if you must go there, get Ad Blocker installed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Feb 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a bit naughty, not to mention a breach of copyright, to cut and paste the full article.
> 
> Whatever you think of the Daily Mail and its staff, they are entitled to protection of their intellectual property in the same way as any other author or publisher.



I'd say it's fair use to enable criticism or review of the article quoted.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'd say it's fair use to enable criticism or review of the article quoted.



The legal concept of 'fair dealing' for the purpose of criticism is limited to extracts of the published work.

It has to be, otherwise a book review site could publish the full text of the latest best seller, which soon wouldn't be because no one would buy it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Feb 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> The legal concept of 'fair dealing' for the purpose of criticism is limited to extracts of the published work.



Since the entire article is a pile of shite, it's only fair to review the whole thing.


----------



## Inertia (7 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4671668, member: 9609"]I very much dislike the tone of the article, but I see nothing wrong in disguising cyclists causing problems on pavements in isolation to other events. I'm not a fan of the 'there is something worse happening somewhere else argument'.[/QUOTE]
Im not a fan of pavement cycling but its just another lazy anti cyclist rant with few facts. When they start their argument saying they would rather inhale toxic fumes from cars than some imagined moral emissions you know they are nuts. Where is his outrage at the deaths and injuries on the road caused by cars?

Its clickbait, nothing more.


----------



## Gixxerman (7 Feb 2017)

TheJDog said:


> "Unlike motorists bikers don't pay road tax, so they can just ride away after a crash if they want"
> 
> I fail to see any logic or reasoning in the whole article.


Yeah that bit was the most absurd bit in the whole rambling mess. It implies that paying road tax (even if it existed) somehow prevents a person from leaving the scene of an accident. Go figure.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Since the entire article is a pile of shite, it's only fair to review the whole thing.



You could try that defence in a breach of copyright action, but I doubt it would get very far.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Feb 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> You could try that defence in a breach of copyright action, but I doubt it would get very far.


The people who might get in trouble are me (unlikely) or @Shaun (more likely). So report my post and let the moderators decide. I nearly did that myself. 

Then let it go.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Feb 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a bit naughty, not to mention a breach of copyright, to cut and paste the full article.
> 
> Whatever you think of the Daily Mail and its staff, they are entitled to protection of their intellectual property in the same way as any other author or publisher.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...news/article-4197968/Is-safe-Lycra-louts.html


Its a bit naughty to create an article for the sole purpose of encouraging clicks to the website and then demanding personal information (that can be sold for profit) just so that you can comment.

I think their IP rights are pretty much washing along the gutter with the other turds.


----------



## al78 (7 Feb 2017)

I wouldn't worry about it, the DM have probably got bored with demonising immigrants, so they have pulled something else out of their collection of irrational primative tribal group hatred files, and it happens to be cyclists turn this month. Next month, they'll be back to demonstrating their complete ignorance of climate science, or demonising the yoof of today.


----------



## Tim Hall (7 Feb 2017)

It's by Brendan O'Neill. One of these new fangled libertarian, former Living Marxism, Revolutionary Communist Party bundles of joy.


----------



## Drago (7 Feb 2017)

We'll have the last laugh. In 20 or 30 years when cars are too expensive for the ordinary mortals, they'll be stuck at the bus stop while we go zipping past.


----------



## johnnyb47 (7 Feb 2017)

I don't understand the comment that bikes actually cause pollution by causing vehicles to come to a grinding halt by the massive influx of bikes and bike lanes. It may well be the case, that motor traffic could get held up by the increasing culture of cycling but in all honesty what are the alternatives. Would it be solved if every cyclist ditched there bikes and took the car. The roads would be bursting with the extra cars ,even if the cycle lanes were banished. The buses and tube trains are all ready full to the seams. The other scenario is that as more and more people take to cycling through the city streets there will be less motor vehicles on the road in which results in less congestion. If you are capable of cycling who in their right mind would what to endure using a car though London ,day in day out. High insurance costs, the congestion charge , extortionate parking charges ( that's if you can find one ) and travelling at a snails pace. Just imagine if private cars became a rare site in the city and was replaced by bikes. Quiet peaceful streets. No congestion, No pollution, and ample parking. 
It's in no interest financially for the government to promote cycling because they lose tax revenue but they do so none the less because it's the way forward for our crowded Streets. Every body has a choice in life. If they don't want to give up their cars then I'm afraid they will have to put up with traffic jams and all the other headaches that go with it.


----------



## vickster (7 Feb 2017)

It's not really private cars that are the issue nowadays in central London at least - black cabs, Ubers, buses, trucks, WVM, motorbikes/scooters seem to make up the bulk of the traffic, at least in the week (more private cars at the weekend when no CC and parking can be easier)

The majority, like myself, use public transport to get to work in the centre (buses, but also tubes, trains)

Sometimes cycling isn't a practical option for WVM


----------



## pplpilot (7 Feb 2017)

So many DM haters on this forum (understandable) Which is why I'm always surprised just how many threads are started with links to it. Just stop it. Ignore it.


----------



## postman (7 Feb 2017)

The capital has seen a spate of crime carried out on scooters in recent months, including smash and grabs on shops and bag snatches on pavements.

Part of a newspaper report.Shame nobody has decided to have a go at moped riders.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Feb 2017)

pplpilot said:


> So many DM haters on this forum (understandable) Which is why I'm always surprised just how many threads are started with links to it. Just stop it. Ignore it.


Will ignoring it make the stupid articles stop? I doubt it. Better to ridicule the articles on every media possible, to let its authors know that there are some people out there who think they're idiots for writing such rubbish.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Feb 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Will ignoring it make the stupid articles stop? I doubt it. Better to ridicule the articles on every media possible, to let its authors know that there are some people out there who think they're idiots for writing such rubbish.



Click bait doesn't care if you click out of love or hate, as long as you click. Ignoring is the only to stop it.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Click bait doesn't care if you click out of love or hate, as long as you click. Ignoring is the only to stop it.


That won't work. Ignoring it won't make the problem vanish, and the regular Daily Mail readers will just be all the more convinced the articles make sense. One way to combat that is to offer contrasting opinions. Some of the Daily Mail regulars might even listen to and agree with these contrasting opinions, and some might not. But it's certain that next to nothing will be achieved by ignoring these articles, because it will have negligible effect on the total clicks.


----------



## Drago (8 Feb 2017)

Ignore it - you can't teach dumb.


----------



## Cycleops (8 Feb 2017)

Agreed its fairly pathetic journalism but if you read the comments there's a reasonable ammont of opposition. One comments 'How many cyclists cause injuries and fatalities compared to motorists' which I think just about sums it up.


----------



## Gixxerman (8 Feb 2017)

Cycleops said:


> Agreed its fairly pathetic journalism but if you read the comments there's a reasonable ammont of opposition. One comments 'How many cyclists cause injuries and fatalities compared to motorists' which I think just about sums it up.


I added a few comments (Rasen Smiffy), simply because some of the drivvle irks me. Alas, I fear that it like trying to teach a dog to play chess, futile and infuriating. As people have pointed out, it is probably best just to ignore it. If only I could bring myself to do it.


----------



## Gixxerman (8 Feb 2017)

Best comment so far.

"I wonder how much the average DM readership IQ would increase if all the people who had been "nearly killed" by a cyclist had actually been killed?"

I do hope that is someone on here as that is simply brilliant.


----------



## Tin Pot (8 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Let's not let the dm win.
> 
> Here's the text so you don't have to support them by visiting the site
> 
> ...



Blimey, goes on a bit doesn't it?

I for one am glad that cycling angers Daily Heil readers - they are the root of all evil, after all.


----------



## bigjim (8 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Blimey, goes on a bit doesn't it?
> 
> I for one am glad that cycling angers Daily Heil readers - they are the root of all evil, after all.


I must be the devil incarnate then. I read tha Mail. also the Guardian, the Express, Telegraph and so on plus the local rags. Why should I limit my reading because I ride a bike? I don't find any paper to be independent. I like the Guardian articles, I don't like their bias. Not allowing comments on certain articles or slanting them to make a political point, but they do allow a lot of comments on some stuff. The Express is even worse for this though. The Mail is totally anti cyclist and some of their articles verge on criminality IMO, but they are more free with comments than other papers and therefore more entertaining. As long as you don't believe a word they say it's all pretty much ok.


----------



## Cycleops (8 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> I for one am glad that cycling angers Daily Heil readers - they are the root of all evil, after all.


Well, the OP read it and so did others who commented. Guess we have to be resigned to communing with Beelzebub.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Feb 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Will ignoring it make the stupid articles stop? I doubt it. Better to ridicule the articles on every media possible, to let its authors know that there are some people out there who think they're idiots for writing such rubbish.



Well ok, but every time you click on a daily mail link you are quite literally giving them money and also quite literally paying for further anti cyclist propaganda which can often come close to incitement to kill cyclists (supposedly just a joke). This is quite apart from casual racism, homophobia, sexism etc even though they may slightly downplay their former support for Hitler

Just don't click folks


----------



## Tin Pot (8 Feb 2017)

bigjim said:


> As long as you don't believe a word they say it's all pretty much ok.



I would pay them to make this their new motto!


----------



## Cycleops (8 Feb 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Just don't click folks


I think we're all old enough to make up our own minds.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Feb 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Well ok, but every time you click on a daily mail link you are quite literally giving them money and also quite literally paying for further anti cyclist propaganda which can often come close to incitement to kill cyclists (supposedly just a joke). This is quite apart from casual racism, homophobia, sexism etc even though they may slightly downplay their former support for Hitler
> 
> Just don't click folks


I was about to reply to the same post.

It's quite charming that someone thinks they can shame DM journos into better paper. They know what they do for a living, they know what the the newspaper is like, they know the editorial policies. If they were capable of shame, they would be doing something else.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Feb 2017)

Cycleops said:


> I think we're all old enough to make up our own minds.



Of course you can make up your own mind. I can't order anyone not to give money to encourage hatred and violence to cyclists ( amongst others)


----------



## Tin Pot (8 Feb 2017)

Cycleops said:


> I think we're all old enough to make up our own minds.



Is this a quote from US Election Day?


----------



## Cycleops (8 Feb 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Just don't click folks





Profpointy said:


> Of course you can make up your own mind. I can't order anyone not to give money to encourage hatred and violence to cyclists ( amongst others)


But you already have.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Feb 2017)

Cycleops said:


> But you already have.


It's not an order, because he obviously knows he doesn't command anyone around here. Use of the imperative for added force is part of standard English.

I can't even think how else he could phrase it. "Please don't click"? "Would you mind not clicking"?, "I'd be awfully happy if you didn't cllck"?

Edit: actually "Just don't click folks" is nearly as mild as my suggestions. I bewildered by the you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do reaction.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Feb 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Well ok, but every time you click on a daily mail link you are quite literally giving them money and also quite literally paying for further anti cyclist propaganda which can often come close to incitement to kill cyclists (supposedly just a joke). This is quite apart from casual racism, homophobia, sexism etc even though they may slightly downplay their former support for Hitler
> 
> Just don't click folks


Responding to that rubbish with counter-arguments is better than sticking your head in the sand. As for clicks giving the news company money: how much money would one click give them? Personally, I think it's better to try to educate people than to pretend a problem doesn't exist.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4673563, member: 45"]Who needs the DM when we've got cyclists on youtube doing the job for them?

https://www.youtube.com/user/uphillfreewheeler/videos[/QUOTE]


Make me shiver seeing that name. 
Along with those 2 other twits.


----------



## Johnno260 (8 Feb 2017)

Can't be bothered to respond to the article comments, at work I get loads of anti cyclist comments and people just aren't interested in listening to reason. 

Let the small minded tools think what they want.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Feb 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Responding to that rubbish with counter-arguments is better than sticking your head in the sand. As for clicks giving the news company money: how much money would one click give them? Personally, I think it's better to try to educate people than to pretend a problem doesn't exist.



How much money one click gives is obvioulsy not much, yet all the clicks entirely fund the site. They have no other income. By engaging you are funding them and specifically you are funding this kind of article.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Feb 2017)

Profpointy said:


> How much money one click gives is obvioulsy not much, yet all the clicks entirely fund the site. They have no other income. By engaging you are funding them and specifically you are funding this kind of article.


Yes, you made that point with the previous post, and I understood it then. There's no need to repeat the point.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Feb 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Yes, you made that point with the previous post, and I understood it then. There's no need to repeat the point.



Mmm, I seem to have made a hash of quoting so tidying up now


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Feb 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website


----------



## Profpointy (8 Feb 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website



Quite a measured and balanced article with smugness kept within bounds as well


----------



## Drago (8 Feb 2017)

Isn't that like Sweeney Todd banning Gillette?


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Feb 2017)

Profpointy said:


> How much money one click gives is obvioulsy not much, yet all the clicks entirely fund the site. They have no other income. By engaging you are funding them and specifically you are funding this kind of article.



Surely that depends if you have an ad blocker or not. I would assume that it is advert loads or click through that count, not page loads. If you have an ad blocker you could in fact be costing them money.


----------



## Lonestar (10 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> Isn't that like Sweeney Todd banning Gillette?



Yup all the media are full of bull.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (13 Feb 2017)

Let's rub it in a bit more, shall we? 

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher


----------



## Shut Up Legs (13 Feb 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ia-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable


----------

