Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01909-22 Walker v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. Peter
Walker complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Bike lane Britain... the GREAT LEAP BACKWARDS”, published on
25 January 2022.
2. The
article was a comment piece which stated the columnist’s opinion on cyclists,
the development of city centres to provide more cycle paths as a result of
Covid-19 and the changes to the updated Highway Code. When describing the
changes to the Highway Code the columnist wrote that: "All you need to
know about this madness is that the transport department's 'consultation
process' didn't include a single motoring organisation. Pro-bike extremists
were given a blank sheet of paper to write their own rules." The article
also stated that the “bike lanes built over the past couple of years 'because
of Covid' are deserted most of the time". The article described the
updated Highway Code as giving “priority to cyclists and pedestrians under all
circumstances"; that “Bikers are encouraged to ride two or three abreast
in the middle of the road, deliberately to slow traffic to a crawl"; and
that "Under the new rules, there is no requirement for cyclists to use
expensively installed bike lanes”. The article also stated that “Genghis Khan’s
London looks as if it has been hit by a cluster of neutron bombs, which has
left the buildings and bike lanes intact and laid waste to all commercial
activity” and referred to “Town Hall Guardianista polar-bear huggers in thrall
to cult of the great god cycling”.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Bike lane
Britain...the Great Leap Backwards. Under cover of Covid, officials have turned
our city centres into crazy golf courses giving priority to Lycra-clad lunatics
on racing bikes”, published on 24 January in substantially the same format.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
that it was inaccurate to report that no motoring organisations had taken part
in the consultation process over the Highway Code. He said that the
consultation was an open process, and specifically noted that a large motoring
organisation had confirmed their involvement with him, and others had published
their involvement on Twitter.
5. The
complainant also said that it was inaccurate to report that bike lanes built
within the past few years were “deserted most of the time." Whilst he
accepted that some recently built lanes were less well-used, he said that many
were very well used.
6. The
complainant also had concerns regarding the way the article presented the new
Highway Code. He said that it was inaccurate to report that the new Code gave
“priority to cyclists and pedestrians under all circumstances", and the
correct position was that it created a “hierarchy of road users”. The
complainant said that the hierarchy was a duty of mutual care and did not mean
cyclists and pedestrians had priority under all circumstances, but rather in some
specific scenarios. He also said that “priority” was a specific and quasi-legal
road traffic term, which should not be used interchangeably with the hierarchy
of road users.
7. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that cyclists were
"encouraged" to ride two or three abreast. He said the correct
position was that cyclists were told they could ride two abreast if it was
safer to do so, and noted the Highway Code did not refer to riding three
abreast, but stated: “You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so,
particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced
riders.” He also considered that, where there were large groups of cyclists,
riding two abreast could make it quicker for cars to overtake. He also said it
was inaccurate to refer to cyclists riding in the middle of the “road” as it
should have referred to the “lane” of the road instead.
8. The
complainant also thought it was misleading to state that "Under the new
rules, there is no requirement for cyclists to use expensively installed bike
lanes", as the previous iteration of the Highway Code did not require
cyclists to use bike lanes and this was not, therefore, a change to the rules.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article
should be read in its context: the opinion piece of a columnist who was well
known for his satirical style and for expressing his strong personal opinions
in a colourful way. The publication said that readers would be aware that much
of the content of his columns was his own comment.
10. The
publication said that it had taken care over the claim that no motoring organisations
had been included in the consultation. It noted that the day the article was
published online a public radio show had featured the Director of Policy and
Research at IAM RoadSmart, which the publication described as the UK’s largest
independent road safety charity. The director had stated that: “There is a lot
of ambiguity within these new rules because the rules were written by cycling
and walking organisations – they were given a blank cheque to look at this
about a year and a half ago. There was a consultation – that consultation
unfortunately was hijacked by the cycling lobby itself. They proudly told us
that of the 20,000 responses to the Highway Code Consultation, 16,000 came from
cyclists […] nobody from the motoring organisations was involved in the initial
consultation”. The publication said that the article had accurately reported
the statement from the radio show, and that it was entitled to rely on a public
statement from a senior director at such a charity.
11. The
publication did, however, accept that some motoring organisations had
participated in the consultation. Whilst it did not accept that this
represented a significant inaccuracy in the context of the overall article, it
offered to remove the following sentences from the article: “All you need to
know about this madness is that the transport department’s ‘consultation
process’ didn’t include a single motoring organisation. Pro-bike extremists
were given a blank sheet of paper to write their own rules”. It also offered to
publish the following clarification in its page two corrections and
clarifications box and as a footnote to the online article:
A column
on January 25 about updates to the Highway Code for cyclists said that the
“consultation process” did not include “a single motoring organisation”. While
this claim was made by a leading road safety charity about the initial
consultation, we have since been informed that several motoring organisations
were involved at a later stage.
12. The
publication said that the statement within the article that cycle lanes built
within “the past couple of years” were “deserted most of the time" was not
a strict claim of fact, which was apparent from the context of the article. It
said that the article was clearly a satirical comment piece in which the writer
often drew upon his own experiences and observations for humorous hyperbolic
effect. For example, elsewhere in the article, the writer said that: “Genghis
Khan’s London looks as if it has been hit by a cluster of neutron bombs, which
has left the buildings and bike lanes intact and laid waste to all commercial
activity” and referred to “Town Hall Guardianista polar-bear huggers in thrall
to cult of the great god cycling”. The publication said that, within the
context of the article, readers would understand that the writer was not
claiming he had closely studied every recently built bike lane, and considered
that it would be difficult to find a strict definition of a bike lane being
“deserted most of the time”. It said, however, that the point had a strong
basis of fact and provided IPSO with multiple articles which commented on
underused or empty bike lanes; examples of cycle lanes being removed or
reconsidered because they were unsuitable, ill-considered, or dangerous to other
road users; and a Facebook group dedicated to images and videos of empty cycle
lanes in London.
13. The
publication said that the new Highway Code featured a new “Hierarchy of Road
Users” which placed cyclists and pedestrians at the top. It said, therefore,
that it was not inaccurate to report that it gave “priority” to cyclists and
pedestrians above all other road users. The publication also said that the new
Highway Code had removed the old rule which stated that cyclists “never ride
more than two abreast” and had added a new rule for cyclists to “ride in the
centre of [their] lane” in some circumstances. It said that it was clear that
these deliberate changes had the effect of encouraging bikers to ride two or
three abreast in the middle of the road, which it considered would indisputably
slow traffic. The publication also stated that there was no significant
difference between the middle of the “road” and the middle of the “lane”. It
said that a person cycling in the middle of a lane, would also be in the middle
of the road - as opposed to cycling at its edge. The publication said that
where the updated rules did not require cyclists to use bike lanes, and where
the article did not claim that this had not been present in the previous
iteration of the rules, it was not inaccurate to report the under “the new
rules, there is no requirement for cyclists to use expensively installed bike
lanes".
14. The
complainant said that the correction offered by the publication was still
inaccurate. He said it was not correct that motoring organisations took part in
the consultation "at a later stage". He said that there was a
fixed-time consultation process, which everyone could submit their views before
the deadline including a number of motoring groups. He said that the term “at a
later stage” implied that motoring organisations had only taken part after
other groups. The complainant also said that the publication had only
demonstrated that some bicycle lanes were empty at certain points, rather than
all recently built bike lanes being deserted most of the time. He also
disagreed that the hyperbolic statements used as examples by the publication
were relevant to the claim that recently built bike lanes were deserted most of
the time. He said that these statements came earlier in the article, whereas
the phrase about deserted bike lanes came later, in the more serious and
factual part of the article.
15. The
publication said that motoring organisations had been involved in the public
consultation, which it understood to be the final stage of any consultation
process, and therefore did not consider the wording it had offered to be
misleading. However, it amended the offered wording to remove the reference to
“at a later stage” to state:
A column
on January 25 about updates to the Highway Code for cyclists said that the
“consultation process” did not include “a single motoring organisation”. While
this claim was made by a leading road safety charity about the initial
consultation, we have since been informed that several motoring organisations
were involved in the process.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
16. The
Committee firstly noted that the article under complaint was a comment piece,
and clearly distinguished as such by the tone, format and the by-line and
photograph of a well-known columnist. However, it also made clear that
newspapers have an obligation to take care not to publish inaccurate
information, even in comment pieces.
17. The
article had reported that “the transport department's 'consultation process'
didn't include a single motoring organisation”. Although it appeared in the
context of an opinion piece, this was clearly a statement of fact, which the
publication accepted was not accurate. The publication had reported the claim
as fact after a director of a road safety charity had spoken on a radio
program. The charity was not responsible for the consultation, nor did the
article attribute the claim to that person. Where the information about who was
involved in the consultation was inaccurate and given that accurate information
was in the public domain or available by contacting motoring organisations, as
the complainant did, this fell short of the publication’s responsibility to
take care under Clause 1(i). Where the central argument presented in the
article was that the thinking of policy makers, and particularly the revised
Highway Code, had been captured by the pro-cycling lobby at the expense of car
users, stating that no motoring organisations were involved in the consultation
was a significant inaccuracy that required correction.
18. The
publication had offered wording on this point which acknowledged the inaccuracy
and put the correct position on record. The wording was offered in the
publication’s first substantive response to the complaint after the complainant
demonstrated that motoring organisations had formed part of the consultation,
with the publication offering to revise the offered wording to reflect the complainant’s
later concerns. The wording was offered to be published as a footnote to the
online article, and in the newspaper’s established corrections and
clarifications box, whereas the original article had appeared on page 19; and
the publication offered to delete the sentences from the article. The wording,
therefore, was both duly prompt and prominent and there was no breach of Clause
1(ii).
19. The
article stated that “bike lanes built over the past couple of years 'because of
Covid' are deserted most of the time". The Committee considered the
statement in the context of the article – which was clearly a satirical opinion
piece. It also noted the articles and information provided by the publication,
which gave many examples of pop-up cycle lanes being underused or even closed.
Where it had been reported that bike lanes were not being frequently used, and
where the complainant accepted that several Covid bike lanes were not well used
and in the context of a hyperbolic comment piece, the Committee did not
consider the phrase “deserted most of the time” to be an inaccurate statement
of fact in the way the complainant suggested. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
20. The
complainant also had concerns regarding the way the Highway Code had been
portrayed in the article. The Committee considered that there was adequate
basis in the new Highway Code to support the publication’s characterisation of
the changes. On the first point, the new Highway Code featured a new “Hierarchy
of Road Users”, which placed cyclists and pedestrians at the top. Again, in the
context of an opinion piece in a newspaper, rather than a driving manual or
legal document, it was not inaccurate to characterise this as giving “priority
under all circumstance” to cyclists and pedestrians, where the complainant
accepted that the “hierarchy of Road Users” placed cyclists and pedestrians
above other road users, and this hierarchy was intended to help road users
understand and interpret the Highway Code. There was no breach of the Code on
this point.
21. The
Committee noted that the new Highway Code did not state that cyclists could or
should ride three abreast. However, it was not in dispute that the new Highway
Code had removed a prohibition on riding more than two abreast, while setting
out more specifically the circumstances where riding two abreast might be
appropriate. It also allowed for cyclists to ride in the centre of the lane.
For those reasons and in a comment piece that was clearly setting out the
writer’s concerns about the potential for cyclists to take up more road space
and potentially obstruct traffic it was not inaccurate to report that “Bikers
are encouraged to ride two or three abreast in the middle of the road”. In
addition, the columnist was entitled to state his opinion that this was
“deliberately to slow traffic to a crawl" – this was distinguished as
being his view by the use of the adverb “deliberately” being clearly satirical.
There was no breach of the Code on these points.
22.
Where the complainant did not dispute that the new Highway Code did not require
cyclists to use bike lanes, and where the article had not stated that this had
changed from the previous iteration of the Code, it was not inaccurate to
report that "Under the new rules, there is no requirement for cyclists to
use expensively installed bike lanes". There was no breach of Clause 1 on
these points.
Conclusion(s)
23. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
24. The
wording which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and was
offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 03/03/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/08/2022
Back to ruling listing