Cyclists endangering motorists? Me on my little metal frame is somehow a danger to basically a tank, yeah no, not buying that one. And speeding? Do you know how difficult it is to get above 25 on any bike?
What an absolute shit rag.
It’s a pro cycling article that’s complaining about another article, which they have a screenshot of.
The article they’re complaining about explicitly says the cyclists are a danger to pedestrians in the headline
So yes.
What an absolute shit rag.
I agree OPs link is fucking horrible and not based on reality
They just know a lot of road cyclists are rage addicted and won’t bother reading. They’ll get mad and share the story to other cyclists who won’t read it but still get mad.
The article they’re complaining about explicitly says the cyclists are a danger to pedestrians in the headline
Weird, here is says drivers.
Cyclists certainly can be a danger to pedestrians, personally I’m super careful when pedestrians are around, and when I’m walking on a designated shared path (probably most paths in my city now), I’ll stick to one side because I know I’m not the only type of path user out there. Also, knowing cyclists go at speed, I try not to do really unpredictable things.
If you cycle with care, you probably aren’t part of the demographic of careless cyclists.
Here is the article in question:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/lets-get-tough-on-the-scourge-of-rogue-cyclists/
Quotes from it:
The survey results included a photograph of a child being hit by one of these moronic cyclists. One could observe that if this continues unchecked someone will get killed, but it is too late: pedestrians already have been. In 2022 there were 462 reported collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, up from 308 in 2020. Some of the ugliest involved pensioners, and as well as jumping red lights, cyclists were seen breaking the speed limit and riding on pavements.
The article is behind a paywall, but it almost exclusively focuses on the danger posed to pedestrians, and not only from cyclists, but also from scooters (which seem to be the worst) and motorists.
Weird, here is says drivers.
The headline for the article posted says drivers.
It has a screenshot of the article it’s complaining about, and says right there in black and white the danger is from cyclists to pedestrians.
I thought since this wasn’t a community specifically for cyclists that people would be able to see what is happening…
But apparently you all will just keep finding this days later and letting me know you only read the headline and comments
It’s an article about some drivel from the telegraph, why would I read that?
14.6 mph is pretty fast when you don’t obey stop signs, stop lights, or any other traffic law, and refuse to wear any high vis safety equipment…
Also, the original headline says theyale it unsafe for pedestrians.
But then, the biking website you link just flat out fucking lied about that, even tho they have a screenshot that shows that they lied about it…
The irony of complaining about only looking at screenshots when you clearly did not read the article.
Quoted from the article itself: “[…] if a substantial minority of cyclists and scooterists are determined to endanger the lives of pedestrians, and in some cases motorists […]”
The biking website didn’t lie, they referenced what the original author wrote.
The article did cherry-pick, twist and misconstrue what was in the article, ignored the cited study that was the actual basis and instead chose to focus on… the photo?
Journalists nowadays tend to use barely-related stock photos for most articles anyway and besides, average speed does not equate to following speed limit, particularly in an urban environment which dictates frequent stops and slowdowns - as cyclists complaining about dangerous drivers should be well aware of.
Road.cc is chronic for that kind of thing. They have a “near miss of the week” section on their site - they thrive on being exactly the sort of irritating cyclists people get annoyed at.
Their primary product is rage bait and mediocre review content.
