The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

A biased and unsafe claim by The Daily Telegraph?

I have commented thus:

'I cycle on the road as if every driver is trying to hit me' 

That doesn't make sense. In that case why do it at all if it's that bad? It's a fair logical question. 

Dare I say that the collision isn't obviously deliberate but the actions after tend to support that conclusion. But even those could be those of a totally confused and bewildered frightened driver from the get go.

But wasn't this piece written by a cyclist? If so it can hardly be balanced rational reporting can it?

On the basis of this evidence, the police seem to be jumping to conclusions.

Millions of times a day, drivers are safely passing cyclists without incident and I am sure if there was mass attempted murder and murder by car going on the Telegraph would've been leading with all that now. But why foment a cycle war DT?

You are encouraging exposed humans of all ages, on two flimsy wheels and a slender frame, to mix and mingle and often obstruct and compete with, large essential machinery on the move and which is operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capability. Now can anyone deny that is what road cycling is? If it were invented now in 2014 it would be considered as a mad idea. 

See these instances DT and then tell us you encourage all this.  http://
 The list keeps growing.  and look at Top cyclists showing the more you do it. the more chance of being killed or aimed by it.

So Daily Telegraph, is that what you want to support? All these people out on a total limb?

Luckily most of the 65 million occupants of these islands don't think it's safe or viable either. So don't let's just pay lip service to a tiny minority and highlight the dangers instead shall we? 


  1. Hi Keith. Surely an article written about cycling is going to need to be written by, or feature heavy input from, a cyclist? It wouldn't be much good to ask someone who never cycles anywhere for their opinions on their cycling experiences now, would it?



    1. This wasn't about cycling but an accident. This cycling journo, in a pro cycling paper turned that into attempted murder. The Telegraph should be more responsible than to try to foment this ridiculous cycling war and used biased reporting to do so.

      Yes drivers are entitled to be angry or annoyed with cyclists. Cyclists don't have a monopoly on those types of feeling you know. So let's start accepting that this is quite normal and expected instead of painting images of a fictitious war.

      Cyclists need to understand that drivers and their metal are very frightening to be mingling with because it's a.............very risky place to be.

    2. Correction, it was about dangerous driving that resulted in a collision, no, motorists should be angry at THEMSELVES for holding THEMSELVES up, cyclists have a right to be angry at motorists who put their LIVES in danger, ANY sane person would use the road as if EVERYONE is a moron, even motorists, EVERY day this week, while I've been working, I have witnessed OR been involved in at least ONE near-miss EACH day and witnessed dozens of motorists using their phones while driving, EACH DAY, so really, things are just as bad for every road user, I also saw traffic holding up an AMBULANCE that was responding to a call, those minutes spent getting through could have been the difference between life or death, how would those motorists feel if they found out that their selfishness of using a 5 to 7 seat vehicle for just themselves, was the reason someone died because they made the help that person needed, arrive too late? Granted there are those who genuinely NEED larger vehicles, such as those making deliveries, those with wheelchairs/transporting wheelchair users, those of limited mobility, etc BUT the majority, do NOT need to use their cars all day everyday.

    3. What was all that about? And what is it to do with the fact that the pro cycling policeman and pro cycling journo are jumping to damaging conclusions that simply are not there? The point is drivers are human and all, even the best make mistakes. So why wish to be exposed among them at all? How does blaming them and being in the right justify your death an injury? Don't get annoyed with me for highlighting the risks of road cycling as shown in these two videos.

      The dangerous gambit of turning it all into deliberate anti cycling driver behaviour, fomented by The Telegraph and Edmund King etc is irresponsibly avoiding the reality of a very dangerous concept. It's like saying that running around a live firing range people are deliberately shooting at you. Wake up.