I regret to inform you all, but Jake Wallis Simons has been at it again.

The Spectator columnist, and author of such classic anti-cycling hits as “I’m a cyclist, but…”, “Cyclists already own the roads”, “Cargo bikes are dangerous”, and “Jeremy Vine is the real problem on the roads, not drivers”, has returned to the keyboard for another crack at generating anger on the internet.

Long-time fans of his work will be pleased to learn that Wallis Simons has returned to his roots, penning yet another column on how he belongs to the more considerate, driver-friendly breed of cyclist (and that he’s super quick too, just in case you weren’t aware), and that last year’s changes to the Highway Code (the details of which he appears to have just plucked from his imagination) have created a situation in which people on bikes “hog the road and treat motorists with disdain”.

It’s going to fly up the charts, Jake.

In this latest column (link is external), titled ‘Why do cyclists insist on making drivers angry?’, Jake kicks off by taking us to a sportive in the New Forest – a place where the local motorists have been famously welcoming to sportive riders in the past – where his attempt to finish ‘first’ in the ‘race’ was thwarted by a bunch of “plodders” riding two abreast (heaven forbid), and slowing up the traffic, and super-fast Jake, behind them.

“In spite of the traffic delays – which in my mind cost me my victory – I’d averaged 19.6mph over the 45 miles, which was a personal best. Go me,” he writes.

“But it was the behaviour of the bunch of plodders that rankled. They had been having a whale of a time, showing zero awareness of the inconvenience they were causing to the other road users. To be fair to the motorists, they were all extremely patient.

“Nobody honked, revved, or attempted a dangerous overtake. But a fair few of them must have cursed into their windscreens. And why shouldn’t they? Would it have been so bad for the racers to have dropped into single file to let them pass?”

Eh, I think Jake needs to take a look at the Highway Code. Oh, he has, apparently.

“Most cyclists are wonderful people, but some of them can be deeply inconsiderate,” he continues. “I fear the latest revamp of the Highway Code may have encouraged this by allowing riders to occupy the middle of the road, permitting them to position themselves two abreast, and giving them licence to ignore cycle lanes if they so wish.”

Yes, Jake absolutely – except your close reading of the Highway Code seems to have missed that cyclists are permitted to ride in the middle of the lane (“to make yourself as visible as possible”), not the road, that riding two abreast “can be safer”, and that cyclists “may exercise their judgement” when it comes to using bike lanes.

Not that any of that matters to keen cyclist Jake: “It’s obviously a good idea to keep cyclists safe. But when they abuse those rules to hog the road and treat motorists with disdain, the result is a pressure cooker on four wheels. There’s no more dangerous driver than a furious driver. That’s what worries me.”

Yes, there’s “no more dangerous driver than a furious driver” – so blame the vulnerable road user, of course.

Wallis Simons then goes on to ponder why cyclists who also drive seem to “exist in some state of double consciousness”, ignoring the possibility that people who have experienced life on two wheels may be more considerate and less “furious” when they’re behind the wheel of vehicles with four.

“Cyclists rightly demand that motorists drive with care and consideration,” he concludes. “But if the favour isn’t returned, the enmity only grows. If we want to reach a state of harmony between two wheels and four, this must be a two-way street.”

I think it’s safe to say that Jake’s latest attempt at anti-cycling bingo hasn’t gone down too well.

“Wrong question,” noted one Twitter user, referencing the article’s headline. “The question should be: what kind of motorist gets angry around other road users and are they fit to hold a driving licence?”

“Thanks for this, punishment pass expected on the way home now for merely existing…” added Cycling in London.

“Blaming other people for your anger is called projection,” noted Dave.

Others, meanwhile, were quick to jump on Jake’s somewhat flawed interpretation of the Highway Code.

“The Highway Code, police, and cycle training all recommend cycling abreast, which makes me wonder why you employed a journalist to write a road safety story when they don’t know basic road rules,” wrote Adespoto.

“Maybe it was to make drivers confused and angry so people get hurt..”

The same Twitter user later added: “’The Highway Code may have encouraged this by allowing riders to occupy the middle of the road’ – Nowhere does the Highway Code say this. What’s more, Simpson already knows this cos he was told last time he made that mistake.

“You're deliberately confusing drivers to encourage hate.”

The column was also heavily criticised by Dr Robert Davis, the Chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum.

“These comments feed into bigotry and exacerbate already excessive danger from drivers,” Davis said.

“Driving has an inherent element of danger to others (it’s why drivers have seat belts, air bags etc. in cars and highway environments are engineered to accommodate their danger).

“This is the third anti-cyclist piece he has come out with [fourth, actually]. I wonder if he has bothered to actually talk to any cycling organisations, or roads police [like] Andy Cox, like a journalist should?

“Unlike other prejudice/bigotry – we’re not so inherently likely to endanger other groups of vulnerable people in everyday life – this anti-cyclist bigotry has a specific danger involved. That’s why it's especially wrong.”

Not that the Spectator will listen, of course. Same time next month, Jake?

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-26-september-2023-304087#live-blog-item-49933