As we all know, cyclists are one of the greatest scourges of modern life.

Despite there being no evidence whatsoever to prove it, acts of wanton cycling, such as riding through red lights, down one way streets or a short dash along a pavement to miss a dangerous junction, are more than likely responsible for the meltdown of the global financial markets, the rise of binge drinking and the MPs expenses scandal.

And it will come as no surprise to some if it transpires that cyclists were stood on that Grassy Knoll, are the reason men go bald, and faked the moon landings.

It’s heinous acts like these that’s made it particularly grating for readers of the Daily Mail that a “complete waste of my hard earned tax payers money” quango has recommended vulnerable road users – such as cyclists – should be greater protected as they go about their destruction of society by the introduction a “strict liability” policy in the UK.

The bastards!

Strictly Come What?

In short, “strict liability” takes the onus off the most vulnerable road user to prove that they weren’t at fault if they’re involved in an accident. For more accurate information about it, check out Road Peace’s web site.

So that’s it. Nothing too controversial there. Defending the vulnerable is a noble and worthy cause, wouldn’t you say? Well, somewhat surprisingly for the internet, there’s been an ill-informed shitstorm whipped up by this suggested change, and that’s all it is – a suggestion. Shockingly, the Daily Mail has been in the eye of the storm and chose to lead their coverage with a sensationalist headline to report the, erm, report:

“Motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault, say Government advisers.”

As Roy Walker more than likely didn’t say when he probably didn’t read that “It’s close, but it’s not right”.

Not happy with one misleading headline, to really fire up the mob, the Mail also published an ignorant opinion piece by Robert Hardman about what an “undeserving bunch of lawbreaking shits cyclists really are” – I’m paraphrasing there –  which amusingly includes the phrase “Lycra Louts” in its title.

Go on, read it. I dare you.

Despite opening his “strict liability” bashing piece by describing a situation in which he himself would actually have benefited from the change in the system, what really caught my eye was Hardman’s lovely comparison of cyclists and African paramilitaries:

“I prefer to think of them as the Mai-Mai, the Congolese militia who believe that they are endowed with magical qualities making them immune to bullets.”

OK, OK, Robert’s trying to be funny. I know. I know. Cyclists think they’re invincible which is why they all ride so recklessly. Very good. But all the same it’s a little strong to slyly compare people commuting to work (sometimes illegally on the pavement) with terrorists. I suppose I should be glad that he didn’t go the whole hog and call us “Nazis on Bikes”:

The healthier way to go to war.

The Cycling Terrorists Club

After reading Hardman’s article and once I’d finished my self-righteous, teeth-grinding, head-shaking and tut-tutting, I drew up my own, mercifully short, list of cycling terrorists organisations (just when you thought it Hardman’s article couldn’t do any more harm, hey?).

So, strap yourselves in for some fairly horrific pun based terrorist action:

Shining Cycle Path
Even Peruvian Communists enjoy a good bike ride, you know.

Real Tyre.A
Dissident group fighting for the freedom of Irish cyclists.

Cycle-Qaeda
Riding bicycles into buildings is so much less destructive.

Raleigh-ban
Bike brand specific cycling hardliners. Very keen on compulsion.

And you can open your eyes again now.

On the off chance that you’ve not laughed up too many of you major organs please feel free to add any of your own in the comments below.