The most ridiculous article ever on #Cycling in #London appeared in the increasingly absurd Tory Weekly, The @spectator ... by Paul Burke. ( @paulburkeradio) - an advertising copywriter.

And it's just so laughable it deserves a thread to debunk it's idiocy.

"Of course cycling is inherently right-wing"

He's not even trying to be ironic. He means it.

The 'Right Wing' can claim to ownership of many activities .. cycling is not one of them.

I have no data either way but my experience is that cyclists tend to be centre or left-ish.

Cyclists apparently "terrorise motorists with violently bright and flashing lights .."

Not ever seen this. Ever..

Perhaps he means legally safe, approved and recommended lighting, ideal for catching the attention distracted car drivers on their phones ....

Cyclists apparently "terrorise motorists with violently bright and flashing lights .."

If he dislikes 'violently bright lights' perhaps he should campaign against the Xenon HID's increasing fitted to new cars.

No? Okay then. Thought not.

"Cycling is the exclusive preserve of the very few and the very able .."

This is where I started laughing.

Cycling is accessible to all, anyone who has a spare £20 to buy a clunker off eBay from kids to septagenarians.

It is the least ''exclusive'' of all modes of transport.

"As for cycle lanes, which pander to a tiny and privileged elite .."

Tiny ? A huge increase in cyclists and cycling miles since 2005.

Unprecedented since the 1930s.

"Privileged elite" ? .. it was at this point I realised he was serious ... or at least trying to be.

"As I sailed down a wide and empty cycle lane .."

Ah, the increasingly heard 'empty cycle lane' argument. No, that won't wash either. It wasn't empty, Burke, by your own admission ... *you* were using it.

"As I sailed down a wide and empty cycle lane .."

Lots of roads are empty, too.

Perhaps we should dig them up .. or turn them into cycleways ? Now that's an idea.

Because a cycle way is empty at his chosen point of snapshot' does not an argument, make.

Car drivers "squashed against their will into 50 per cent of the roads they paid for .."

I don't think it's against their will. I haven't asked them all, but I doubt it.

And they have quite a bit more than 50% of the road. ...

Car drivers "squashed against their will into 50 per cent of the roads they paid for .."

Car drivers didn't pay for the roads - we all do, through general taxation.

Yes, even cyclists (of whom 65% own a car) (2019 data)

"They Don't Pay Road Tax" is a Myth busted since 1937.

Car drivers "gridlocked and trapped .."

Indeed.

Car ownership has doubled in the UK since 1990.

I think there's your answer, Paul.

Car drivers "might be teachers ... NHS workers ... firefighters ... paramedics."

They might indeed be. So might quite a few of the cyclists.

Regardless, getting stuck in traffic is actually the fault of, er, traffic. I.e. : Pretty much everything on the road except cyclists.

"And as we’ve all seen many times, cycle lanes lay largely empty."

So do many roads.

Oh, and some cycle lanes carry more traffic than the roads they run alongside.

Blackfriars Bridge is famous for it - 75% of the people crossing it at rush hour are on 2 wheels, not 4.

"During a 15-minute period on the Euston Road in London ... just seven cyclists used the cycle lane."

I went there this morning (in response to this piece) at 10.30am (not even rush hour) and checked.

I logged 83.

Perhaps Paul did his count at 3.00am, he doesn't say.

"more than 400 vehicles were crammed into what was left of their road space"

Euston Road had one lane, two in some sections. It now has .. still one lane, and two in some sections.

The lane(s) is/are just a bit narrower - and not by very much.

"If they were to measure the pollution, it will be infinitely worse than before cycle lanes were put there' .."

Burke quotes the opinion of Dorothea Hackman and calls it "Evidence, if any more were needed."

No, Burke, such a comment is not 'evidence'. #facepalm.

"astoundingly expensive cycle lanes? .."

As actual road closures are not generally required for construction, cycle lanes are considerably cheaper (and quicker) to build and maintain than the roads themselves - which are in fact, "astoundingly expensive", to use your words.

"Quite simply, not enough people want to cycle .."

*Cough* ...

"Savvy cyclists avoid main roads. Their bicycles allow them to weave safely through parks and side streets .."

Indeed. Good job cycle lanes do just that. Track any of the Cycle Superhighways, and they go through those backstreets, parks and side streets when they can.

Cyclists "neither need nor want cycle lanes all over their cities."

Sadly I was not at the meeting where Burke was elected as a spokesperson (no pun intended) for cyclists, nor where he gets this data from.

Cyclists "neither need nor want cycle lanes all over their cities."

He most certainly does not speak for 'cyclists' - nor understand them.

I belong to five cycle clubs / groups and their collective view is : More cycle infrastructure, not less.

Cycle lanes are "privileges bestowed on an already fortunate elite .."

Ah, he comes back to this.

Well, as a cyclist (mostly a motorcyclist but often on unpowered two wheels ) I NEVER KNEW I was one of the *cough* "privileged elite".

I wish someone had told me earlier ...

"Our roads should be for the many, not the few .."

Actually, our roads should be for *all*. Says so in the Highway Code. Neither four wheels nor two has any absolute right to *all* the road. Cyclists just want enough of it to be safer. And it works.

I've never, ever actually come across an article so full of busted myths, false claims and errant 'data' on cycling.

But then Burke's occupation is an advertising copywriter, so I suppose his day-job is creating lies.

- END -

Cyclists actually come in all shapes, ages, fitness levels and degrees of enthusiasm.

Few (about 6%) wear lycra. The #Myth of the #MAMIL is just that, a myth.

All we ask is ....