There is the perception thing- sometimes you can be approaching a walker having seen them a mile off, with loads of time and room to slow, but as far as they’re concerned you’re a speed crazed maniac who’s going to hit them if they don’t jump out of the way.

As ever…

Standard click bait, bother his editor, contact PCC… But I doubt much will actually happen, has any journalist actually been sacked for simply being a prick? Its tough enough to touch them when they are actually breaking the law, just so they can spy on famous people…

Come on, think of the riders – imagine what damage an extendable lead could do to you at twenty million miles an hour!

It’s the people that read this tripe and believe it that worry me.

To be fair, it just reads like a Jeremy Clarkson tirade, and most of you lot are fans of the curly mopped oaf are you not?

It just depends where your allegiancies lay. Some people just dont ‘get’ bikes/cycling.
Thats the saddest thing of all.

I live on the edge of the new forest, I can confidently say its full of twunts like him and his tac dropping pals. Now, I’m a fairly mellow guy these days tbh, haven’t punched anyone in the face or damaged anyone’s car for years….. Id hate to have to “report back…”

No one has commented on the irony that he rants against cyclists on bridle ways because of the danger to walkers, then insists cyclists should be forced to ride in and amongst pedestrians on shared use paths instead of getting in his way on the road.

Not often I feel the need to call someone a bearded cockjockey, but I shall make an exception in his case.

You kind of feel sorry for people like that… so wrapped up in their existential anger that they think time spent writing such an article will somehow make them feel better. It doesn’t, of course…

A bit like the passenger of the speeding car last Bank Holiday Monday. If you’re in a moving car, there’s no point shouting abuse out of the window at me, I can’t catch a word of it but you’re still angry 😀

As a New Forest villager (yes i have webbed feet :lol:) all I can say is that claims of the forest being overrun with cyclists is massively exaggerated. Likewise the claims that the Wiggle rides are a massive inconvenience and a risk to lives are also totally unfounded.

Also i can’t remember the last time I had any kind of run in with a dog walker or horse rider. Plenty of space for everyone, as long as you are considerate to others.

Although most of the trouble with locals seems to be in the south of the forest and I live in the north.

Just for the record there are bridleways etc within the national park, although not that many given the size of the place.

I’ve received a reply today from the PCC. Guess what their decision is? 🙄

FFS

Well post the reply so we can all see it.

[/quote]

Commission’s decision in the case of
Various v Western Daily Press

The Commission received a number of complaints about an opinion piece by Chris Rundle, in which he expressed his opinions about cyclists and suggested action which could be taken against them. The complainants considered that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
The Commission turned first to the complainants’ concerns about the accuracy of the article. Clause 1 (i) of the Editors’ Code of Practice states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures”. The complainants stated that the article had misrepresented the Highway Code, in suggesting that it obliged cyclists to use a cycle path when one was available. They also objected to the suggestion that cyclists had an “enshrined belief” that traffic regulations did not apply to them, and stated that the writer was confused about the difference between bridleways and footpaths and road and mountain bikes.

The Commission made clear that, under the terms of Clause 1 (iii) columnists are entitled to express their personal views and comments – however robust or controversial they might be – provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. The Commission understood that many readers had disagreed with the columnist’s views on cyclists. However, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and, indeed, in accordance with his right to freedom of expression, he was entitled to air his forthright views. It was for the Commission to establish whether readers would be misled by the article.

The column was written in the first person and readers would understand that it reflected the personal views and experiences of the columnist. The Commission acknowledged that the complainant strongly objected to the suggestion that cyclists were regularly contravening the Highway Code and the flippant remark that they might be jabbed with a billiard cue; however, it was satisfied that readers would be aware that this reflected the journalist’s own opinion, expressed in a manner intended to be humorous, rather than an assessment of road laws, or a genuine suggestion that readers should attack cyclists. The article had referred to cyclists exercising “their right to disrupt traffic,” making clear that cyclists were legally allowed to ride on the roads, but the author objected to them doing so. The Commission did not consider that readers would be misled by the article and as such did not establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code. Clause 4 relates to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process and is intended to protect individuals from repeated unwanted approaches from the press. It does not concern the manner in journalists choose to report on issues. While the Commission noted that the complainants were concerned that the article suggested that people scatter drawing pins on the road or attack cyclists with billiard cues, it did not consider that the terms of Clause 4 were engaged by this. Further, it was satisfied that this suggestion was intended to be facetious, and was not intended as a serious piece of advice to readers. There was no breach of the Code on this point.

The Commission noted the complainants’ position that the article, in suggesting that cyclists be treated differently from other road users, was discriminatory towards them. Under Clause 12 (i), newspapers must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The Commission also made clear that the terms of Clause 12 do not cover the mode of transport which individuals choose to use. Further, it wished to emphasise the tongue in cheek nature of the piece. It noted that the complainants had been offended by the commentator’s views on cyclists but was unable to establish a breach of Clause 12.

Our references: 141968-70/141987-93/142104-05/142107-11

Same result as Various V Matthew Parris from about 6 years ago then?

I’m sorry but I don’t remember that so could you elaborate please?

I find it extremely worrying that a thinly veiled threat of violence is not taken seriously. Can we therefore look forward to another piece of low-grade numpty journalism aimed at cyclists from this scum bag?

Parris suggested garroting cyclists with wires stretched across paths iirc.

Thanks gwaelod.

FFS! So basically the PCC finding was ”it was a joke, y’know, like on Top Gear”. 👿

I was under the impression that Freedom of Speech ended at the point where it got to Advocating Violence. Apparently not.

I look forward to my copy-and-paste response. 🙁

Sorry, M.P. was the journo that started anti-cycling pieces and made other hacks at minor local papers realise that they could stir up the anger of a minority group without any comeback by having a dig at cyclists, then reap the ad revenue and media traffic that it generated as links were passed around. Many have followed in his path and we can look forward to many more. As the link GrahamS posted on the prev page says, it’s easy.. it’s also easy to ignore it, once you’ve read one of them you’ve read them all.

it’s also easy to ignore it,

It would be far more fun to go round and jab him with the business end of a billiard cue though….you know, just in a tongue in cheek kind of way.

I agree entirely with his view point.

I got cut up by a car whilst out on my bike the other day. I think all cars should be banned from the road forthwith, leaving the roads free for us peace loving cycling types.

Im not the violent type, but anyone in car, id’e like to burn their children with acid.

The trouble with this article is that its 2 seperate things

In my experience some Mountain Bikers ride inappropriately on bridleways. I have no idea if this mans story is an example or not

But the idea that cyclists loose a moral or legal right to use a road if a cycle path is present is clearly madness. To the sugest that people who should be subjected to violence when he can find no fault with their riding is horendous

Mehhh, while the author is clearly an odious toad, the PCC is correct.

It’s an oppinion, it’s not harrassment, and it’s not discriminatory.

Not sure I agree with you TINAP

Whilst everything he spouts up to the last paragraph does indeed place him in the cheap laughs/poorly researched/lowest common denominator category that so many hacks fall into – the last paragraph could at worst conceivably induce violence towards cyclists and at the very least adds to the vast body of work out there which normalizes aggression towards us. The PCC should have noted this and asked for removal of the last paragraph from the article.

The PCC exists to protect the press not the public.

Shame Chris dosen’t highlight where his close encounter took place or more info on where abouts the cycle lane is.

There is an attempt at some cycle lanes around Minehead, some are shared on pavement but clearly divided by a white line as to which side your supposed to be on.
No one has instructed pedestrians on this 🙂
The one running from the Ellicombe roundabout out into carhampton is duel use footpath that’s a narrow for 2 way traffic.

I wonder if he had his encounter up on North Hill or Dunkery way.

Might ask him if i bump into him around Minehead 🙂 will put a bell on my bike…..or one of those sonic weapon nawfangled people scarers.

Is Minehead in the New Forest these days then?

Nope but the journo comes from there.

I may have misread the article, he dosen’t state where his encounter happens ? and he “felt the pain of those in the New Forest”

It read to me that he was comparing incidents in 2 places.

Apologies, I’d forgotten the exact article’s contents as it was I while since I read it. For some reason I thought it was in the Southampton Daily Echo, doh!

FFS! So basically the PCC finding was “it was a joke, y’know, like on Top Gear”.

I think someone should write a parody piece threatening violence towards them and we can send it to them and see how much they laugh at it

Roll on levesson

In the UK, any regulating body or authority, set up to govern the misbehaviour of the press, local politicians, national politicians, the NHS or whatever it might be, is there principally to protect those institutions or individuals from any blame or shame their actions might have caused. Regulating bodies are NOT there to punish them for misbehaving nor are they there to try to right the wrongs done, nor are they there to try and ensure it doesn’t happen again. They are there to maintain the Status Quo.

And that is why this country, for all that I love it, is such a depressing and corrupt stinking hole of a place to live in.

But that doesn’t mean we should stop “sticking it to them”….we absolutely should do so with renewed vigour…..so that they feel as uneasy as they have made us feel

1381….but do not make the mistake the peasants made at Smithfield

Surely inciting violence / hatred is a police matter not PCC?

In the UK, any regulating body or authority, set up to govern the misbehaviour of the press, local politicians, national politicians, the NHS or whatever it might be, is there principally to protect those institutions or individuals from any blame or shame their actions might have caused. Regulating bodies are NOT there to punish them for misbehaving nor are they there to try to right the wrongs done, nor are they there to try and ensure it doesn’t happen again. They are there to maintain the Status Quo.

Couldn’t agree more as I found out when I complained to the Financial Ombudsman about Av*va insurance company selling my personal details. My complaint was rejected despite it being bleedin’ obvious that it was an inside job.

Has anyone else received a reply? Are you going to accept it or write further?

“I don’t mind sharing footpaths with other walkers.”

How awfully generous of him…

Was out walking on Dartmoor at the weekend with the dog,walking from Ivybridge to Princetown. The mountain bikers we encountered with the most polite and cheery people we met all weekend. Every single one smiled, said hello and thanked us when we stepped to the side of the trail to let them pass.

No worries Bigyinn 🙂 , i only skimmed through the article.

On a side note, and back to minehead area. The dog walkers are a pain up on the hill, cyclists and other walkers have reported dog owners for uncontrolled dogs off the leash chasing them, few minor bites, and then getting abuse from the dog owner for winding the uncontrolled unleashed dog up ? haven’t heard of any horse riders having problems yet.

So the original article can be summed up thus:

‘NIMBY dickhead wandering along like a tit in a trance is jolted out of his reverie by some cyclists passing him’

He then takes offence and posts a click-bait article that does no one any good and makes him look a total twunt.

Move along now, you’ve seen all you need to see here…….

Just got the same copy-and-paste reply from the PCC. 🙁

On reflection the ruling seems to be “It’s probably just a joke you sensitive little flowers. We don’t think he’ll really hit you with a billiard cue as he drives past. Or put tacks on the road in front of you. And his readers probably won’t either. Beside cyclists aren’t really a proper minority are they?”

I get the feeling that if he’d made exactly the same kind of “jokey” threats against people based on their sexuality, religion or ethnicity then the commission wouldn’t be quite so quick “to emphasise the tongue in cheek nature of the piece”.

But cyclists are fair game eh?
Quite right too. They don’t pay road tax y’know. And they all jump red lights…

👿

Surely inciting violence / hatred is a police matter not PCC?

I suspect the Police would say exactly the same thing.
“You’re not a proper minority.”

(despite, y’know, being a smaller group which is easily recognisable and distinct from the larger majority)

Perhaps we need to get cycling declared as a religion?

We could nominate Woppit as our spiritual leader – I think he’d like that. 😀

Has anyone else received a letter from the Press Complaints Commission requesting feedback on their service?

Well, they’ve asked for it so just need to come up with some hard-hitting moans about their failure to protect the public. Please inspire me!!

Yeah, can’t be bothered though.
I suspect our moans won’t meet their Moaning Guidelines or something.

That’s disappointing Graham.