- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Outer Circle, Regent's Park (via Google Street View).PNGMisleading press pictures of Regent’s Park cyclists reportedly lead to aggression from drivers
Misleading pictures published by a number of media outlets of cyclists apparently riding in groups in London’s Regent’s Park, supposedly in defiance of rules of social distancing, are leading to an increase in aggression against riders by motorists, according to a group that represents cyclists who use Regent’s Park. The Royal Parks, which is responsible for the park, is reportedly discussing with media organisations the issue of how cyclists riding there are portrayed.
As we highlighted on Monday, a number of media outlets including The Times, Mail Online, The Sun and The Mirror have used what appear to be deliberately misleading photos purporting to show cyclists riding closer together than is in fact the case.
Some of those images were taken in Regent’s Park, while The Times used one taken on Box Hill in Surrey, which is owned and managed by the National Trust.
> Times latest newspaper accused of trying to shame cyclists with dodgy telephoto pics
In each case, however, the use of a telephoto lens to take a picture of a group of riders heading towards the photographer had the effect of making the cyclists look closer together than the 2 metres the government requires people to observe.
Justin McKie from Regent’s Park Cyclists told north west London newspaper The Ham & High that the pictures had led to “a spike in aggressive driving” against cyclists riding in the park, as they are permitted to do under government rules allowing one form of exercise per day.
> Mail accused of distorting truth in “MAMIL madness” Regents Park cyclists story
Referring to one photo that appeared in the press over the weekend, he said: “The photographer used a very long lens to take this picture, which compresses the image and makes the cyclists look like they are closer than reality.
“The photograph was taken at the traffic lights, where cyclists were diligently waiting.”
Another park user, Adrian Jackson from the group Parks for the People, said that he had seen cyclists complying with the rules.
“I was in the park over the weekend and what I witnessed was a lot of good behaviour,” he said.
“People were trying their absolute best. There’s obviously occasional bad behaviour from all sides, but the cyclists are following the two metre rule,” he added.
As we highlighted on Monday, a number of media outlets have used what appear to be deliberately misleading photos purporting to show cyclists riding closer together than is in fact the case.
According to the Ham & High, the Royal Parks – which besides Regent’s Park is also responsible for Hyde Park, Green Park, St James’s Park and Kensington Gardens in central London as well as Richmond, Bushy and Greenwich Parks, has contacted national media regarding the depiction of cyclists using the parks.
All of those parks are currently open to all cyclists other than Richmond Park, which can only be used by NHS workers travelling to or from their place of employment, and children aged 12 and under.
However, a spokesperson for Royal Parks said that it continues to review the situation in other parks and that restrictions could be introduced should rules on social distancing not be adhered to.
The spokesperson said: “The parks are strictly open for exercise only. No matter how sunny it is, please don’t be tempted to come for a picnic or to soak up the rays.
“The government has clearly said exercise outdoors will be stopped if people don’t follow the rules.
“Please stay local and don’t drive to the parks: all our car parks are now closed.
“Stay at least 2m from others, don’t gather in groups and use the parks for exercise only. No sunbathing. No picnics.”
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-responsibly-time-pandemic-272119">Cycling dos and don'ts - cycling responsibly in a time of pandemic</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://road.cc/content/news/daily-exercise-rules-current-cycling-dos-an...">Daily exercise rules: current cycling dos and don'ts</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://road.cc/content/news/how-much-distance-should-you-leave-cyclist-..." target="_blank">How much distance should you leave to the cyclist ahead in a time of pandemic?</a></strong></li>
</ul>
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Matt Page 7 sec ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- rct 10 min 7 sec ago
I'll admit to wearing black socks, under tights and over shoes this time of year.
- eburtthebike 11 min 44 sec ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 19 min 53 sec ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 21 min 27 sec ago
"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ... we have to because some numpty destroyed the roll of names"....
- Spangly Shiny 38 min 58 sec ago
Dare I say, "Haar, haar?"
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 26 min ago
Looks like some Barton Hill residents don't want the Liverpool Neighbourhood or at least not Marsh Lane to be a no-through-road:...
- David9694 3 hours 13 min ago
"After a two-hour long meeting, the panel voted 9-2 to resolve that the majority of the panel supported the introduction of the charges but was ...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 51 min ago
It's just easier to "negotiate" when both parties are much more similar in vulnerability, manoeuvrability, speed, width, etc. than those in motor...
Add new comment
29 comments
Anyone else read that as aggressive driving being a government-sanctioned exercise?
I wasn't going to comment, but there has to be something in the comment section, so this is it.
Who isn't p#ssed off with ALL of the media in this Covid crisis, including the supposed unbiased BBC. Heaven knows how this lot would behave if they were sent back in time to WW2.
The BBC has displayed strikingly obvious bias since the Brexit referendum campaign all the way through to the December 2019 general election. I wouldn't trust their coverage more than anyone else. Nigel Farage has appeared on Question Time, Today and other programmes a ridiculous number of times.
There's always the option of ignoring most of the media. I scan the Guardian's headlines once a day in the evening, that's enough for me. I'd be very happy if The Sun and The Mail and their hypocrisy and hate-filled spewing of bile became a thing of the past.
Brexiteers say exactly the same thing, but about bias in the opposite direction, so the BBC must be getting the balance about right.
I can think of better ways of getting balanced news coverage than scanning the headlines of a newspaper that is openly left leaning.
Have to admit, I read (online) the Grauniad and then balance that by reading the Sun's headlines. The most left newspaper, cut with one of the most right.
Eek! I wouldn't describe that as balance. The Sun shows scant regard for facts and is written to appeal to the primitive part of the brain in politically gullible people with a reading age of 8.
The Mail pretends to be written for more intelligent readers but that has the effect of giving it some legitimacy, which makes its lies and vitriol even more toxic.
I don't disagree, but it is kind of interesting to read how News International thinks it has to spin stories for its target readership. Just to read something from out of my own echo chamber/bubble/enclosed volume metaphor.
(I don't read the 'who is sleeping with who' type stories. The Graunaid rarely covers them anyway
)
I'm left-leaning so I prefer it to the (mostly right-wing) gutter press. It's not my only source of news but I'd trust it before something owned by Murdoch, the Barclay brothers et al. It also doesn't peddle hate. As it is generally somewhat critical of the government it is at least holding them to account instead of being a mouthpiece and it has been critical of Corbyn and Labour's left wing in the last few years.
It's not easy finding genuinely unbiased or 'balanced' news as every outlet has an agenda.
The Guardian is just as duplicitous and misleading as the other newspapers.
The only way to try and get unbiased information is to read multiple papers and compare their coverage, this has to include reading viewpoints you disagree with.
During the Brexit post referendum shenanigans it was amazing to see the stories that the Guardian completely neglected to cover. Likewise, but not as bad IMHO, with the Telegraph.
You see a similar, but not as polarised, difference with coverage of Coronavirus.
The Guardian peddles hate: hatred of the nuclear family; hatred of national sovereignty; hatred of tradition; hatred of capitalism; hatred of free speech; hatred of white, middle aged men; hatred of having a different point of view. It's just the flip side of the Daily Mail.
Mate, it really doesn't. Calm down.
Really? I've never picked up on them using hatred in their articles. Just because they're discussing more left-wing views doesn't mean that they do so out of hatred.
Besides, it's well known that reality has a left-wing bias.
They do so quite subtly, certainly far more subtly than the Mail/Sun etc.
A year or two ago they ran an interview with a buy to let landlord after slowly stoking the hatred of that group of people for years.
The comments section was awful and the woman got doxxed and threatened.
The Guardian knew full well what they were doing when they ran the interview.
Their treatment of landlords reminds me very much of the treatment of cyclists in the Mail.
Every paper has its 'out groups' and they all indulge in the two minutes of hate style of journalism.
They just have different targets.
Crikey those are a lot of strongly asserted "facts".
Can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions? Maybe just one link to an article in the Guardian per item of hatred, just as starter?
Thanks, otherwise it would be a shame to think you are just making random comments with no basis in reality...
It started long before that, like Laura Keunsberg in 2015 altering an interview with Corbyn, fitting one answer to a completely different question. In any reputable media organisation, she would have been fired on the spot, but no, she's still the BBC's Political Editor.
It's funny you should say that because those of us who voted to leave the EU in the main found the BBC to be very, very, pro-Remain. The Guardian probably reinforces your own views in the same way the Telegraph does for others. Subjectivity, eh?
Hates 'biased' BBC.
Reads Guardian instead.
Fantastic, I am going to come back and read your comment every time I need a laugh!
I think part of the problem is that we have political journalists covering an event that would really benefit from being covered by specialist health journalists. The questions posed in the daily presser are toe-curling and rarely add any useful insight. Robert Peston, Laura K, Beth Rigby - none of them have the qualifications and experience necessary to really engage with the scientists put in front of them every day, nor do they seem able to construct an argument that troubles that day's cabinet member. Proper journalism is dead.
"The Royal Parks, which is responsible for the park, is reportedly discussing with media organisations the issue of how cyclists riding there are portrayed."
Presumably patting them on the back and giving them tips on how to make cyclists look worse.
Probably not, no. Keep stoking the fires though, world needs more of that.
I'm sure the park managers read this site, so consider fires firmly stoked. Or perhaps you think that totally biased behaviour should be ignored because it might antagonise them? In my experience, calling a spade a spade is a pretty useful way of dealing with things, but maybe you prefer sweeping things under the carpet.
It's not the park managers - you don't stoke support amongst your opposition. You talk about division and group generalisation, but it's invariably your modus operandi. The park services have been a pain in the ass, blaming groups, over generalising - just like you do - but that doesn't mean that every thing they do is inevitably plain wrong. Even you get it right sometimes. Totally biased behaviour ? You called it.
So I'm being biased by pointing out biased behaviour in others? Of course I should have just ignored it, an approach with a 100% record of success.
Your bias appears to be a lack of critical examination, fitting announcements to your particular view on things. Being objective is hard, and hardly foolproof, and probably no-one every gets it right; but it's better than just grandstanding or knee-jerk reactions - IMO anyway. YMMV.
An unordered list (UL) within a P tag has resulted in the page's html becoming visible.
Editors who don't review their work are the bane of my life.
Typical press bollocks, fanning the flames of hatred against cyclists.
It would be nice to think there was some kind of agenda behind all this, some sinister objective, but it's purely about clicks and revenue, because hating on cyclists is popular and many readers are too thick to question.
Shameful really and has to be a major reason behind the lack of investment, lack of take-up and poor attitudes to cycling in this country, all so media companies can make a bit of money.
/rant
A question. There is so often a bit of a rant from someone who plainly have a political bias towards the left/socialist/ so called working class. Might I ask why there is the assumption that even mildly left wing politics go with the so called working class? As an example above, its is implied that the Sun is a right wing paper yet it really is the true working class paper whereas the supposedly leftist Guardian is most definitely only read by the educated middle class. Hmm something not right here. A bit like the idea that those with opinions insisting on freedom of speech are usually the ones who actually reject it as they object to any free speech that opposes their own ideas. Makes you wonder a bit.
No, not really, the Sun doesn't serve / represent the working class, it feeds the working class with sensationalist, populist opinion... it does this to play to, and thus reinforce certain views that raise emotions, which ultimately sells more papers, and generates revenue.
The Guardian will do the same for its chosen readership, again for nothing more than to sell newspapers.
What you read is no qualifier as to the motives behind your beliefs. If you lean to the left you tend to believe society has a responsibility to all its citizens, if you lean to the right you belief it's up to every citizen to look after themselves.
The relevance of the above does not change by the name of the paper you read