- 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
metal wire - via Flick Creative CommonsEdinburgh council leader probed for tweet taking aim at pop-up infrastructure critics
The leader of Edinburgh City Council is being investigated by an ethical standards in public life watchdog after sharing a tweet of a cyclist injured by a wire stretched across a popular cycle route.
Sharing a tweet linked to an STV report about the incident in March, SNP councillor Adam McVey said: “Those spewing a poisonous campaign against children cycling safely & #SpacesForPeople projects need to take responsibility for their behaviour, reflect & change.”
The is appalling.
Those spewing a poisonous campaign against children cycling safely & #SpacesForPeople projects need to take responsibility for their behaviour, reflect & change. https://t.co/WPMQB819yM
— Cllr Adam McVey (@adamrmcvey) March 19, 2021
His tweet sparked furore among opponents of pop-up infrastructure including Conservative councillors, with their leader on Edinburgh City Council strongly criticising his remarks in a column for the Edinburgh Evening News.
Now, the same newspaper reports that following a number of complaints made to the Ethical Standards Commissioner, an investigation is to be launched into Councillor McVey’s tweet, which followed a 47-year-old cyclist being injured by a wire stretched across a path on a cycle lane in Newcraighall public park.
> Cyclist seriously injured as wire strung across Edinburgh cycle path
The Leith councillor’s tweet followed months of opposition to the city’s Spaces for People initiative, brought in as a response to the coronavirus pandemic, and aimed at giving over more space to cyclists and pedestrians. The measures may become permanent subject to the outcome of a consultation.
Referring to the watchdog’s investigation, Councillor McVey said: “Unfortunately I’m not allowed to comment at this stage but I look forward to doing so when this concludes."
In his column for the Edinburgh Evening News published in March in response to Councillor McVey’s tweet, Conservative leader Councillor Iain Whyte, wrote: “If we take his argument to its logical conclusion what are the results?
“Does he think that youths terrorising Lothian Buses staff and passengers are a politically driven guerrilla brigade of anti-public transport activists?
“Is their ‘opposition’ to public transport somehow inspired by ‘Tory Scum’?”
Often, traps laid for cyclists, whether on cycle paths or mountain bike trails, are assumed to be the work of antisocial youths, and at times police appeals even refer to the perpetrators of such incidents believing that they are engaging in “a harmless prank.”
However, over the past year, with some politicians, both local and national, as well as elements of the press whipping up opposition to active travel measures such as low traffic neighbourhoods or pop-up cycle lanes, it is clear that some of the more extreme opponents to such initiatives are prepared to take matters into their own hands.
For instance, in a number of London boroughs including Hackney and Ealing, planters used to mark out LTNs have been vandalised or overturned, and CCTV cameras used to enforce them destroyed, and there have even been death threats made against councillors.
> Hackney councillor sent death threats over support for low traffic neighbourhoods
We have also reported in two cases in recent months in which traps were set for cyclists which, far from being the work of unruly youths, were actually carried out by older people – including one last month in Glasgow in which a couple admitted laying traps on a path because they “didn't want cyclists in the park.”
> Glasgow “pensioners” admit laying traps for cyclists in park
Meanwhile, we have also seen a complaint against a column by Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times in which he said that it was “tempting” to string piano wire across roads used by cyclists at neck height, defended by the newspaper which said it was “not intended to be taken seriously.”
> Sunday Times says Rod Liddle “piano wire” column “not intended to be taken seriously”
The fact is, however, that such traps can maim or even kill, and one interpretation of Councillor McVey’s tweet is that rather than associating them with all critics of cycling and other active infrastructure, he was highlighting how such opposition can embolden some to take the law into their own hands, and that the sometimes toxic language employed can have real-life consequences.
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
- Daclu Trelub 3 hours 48 min ago
A bit like underarm, surely?
- hand0j1n 5 hours 3 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 53 min ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 5 hours 38 min ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 5 hours 47 min ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 6 hours 25 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 6 hours 34 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 7 hours 11 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 7 hours 31 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
- mattw 8 hours 19 min ago
I've only just spotted this....
Add new comment
34 comments
The same deadbeats keep turning up, pandering to Mail/ Express/ Sun etc. readers who think it's hilarious to advocate seriously dangerous anti-cyclist traps- Liddle is a serial offender. Many will recall the haggard 'fashion journo' (can't remember which paper) writing in favour of 'kill the annoying cyclists' and then, like such scum always do, weaselling by claiming it was obviously just a hilarious joke. It is difficult to fail to despise these people, and I'm not going to try.
Hopefully, the Ethical Standards Commissioner will fall about laughing at the absurdity of this nasty, spiteful, politically motivated complaint, before dismissing it out of hand. I'd say it was good to see the snowflakes are alive and well, but it isn't.
Former Monitoring Officer here - robust, forthright language, but well inside acceptable parameters in my view.
More broadly, I treat the article, trying desperately to make the tweet into more than it is, as a squeal of pain from the enablers and encouragers of the so-called thuggery - called out. Thuggery, yes, but it's often targeted, often takes its cue from the perceived climate - e,g. That it's OK to abuse cyclists, be on the take, wolf-whistle women from your white van, etc.
The headline should read: CRIMINAL ACT 'BAD THING' : COUNCILLOR
Where are all the "free speech" and "anti cancel culture" enthusiasts when we need them?
They're only in favour of free speech for them, not anyone else.
Sorry? He said that the act (of setting the wire trap) was appalling. He then said that those responsible for poisonous campaigning should think again.
I fail to see vitriol or ridiculousness. If he'd said that about anyone campaigning against cycle infrastructure, in such terms, you'd have a point. But he didn't, and you haven't.
You do and he does.
Well actually I was just constructing my argument and showing you exactly where I disagree with you. But whatevs.
As far as I can see from this, it was Iain Whyte who mentioned Tory scum, not Adam McVey. So Cllr Whyte assumed that Cllr McVey was referring to Tories when he mentioned "a poisonous campaign". That conflation (in the mind of a Tory) seems a bit of a giveaway to me.
I still fail to see how you can find vitriol there. I'm against torture and think those who do it are poisonous in their behaviour. Does that make me ridiculous and vitriolic?
Great. But I was hoping for a bit more than a grumbling statement from an pseudonomyous reader, rather perhaps some action from the free speech union or an article in the Times lambasting Iain Whyte for oppressing free speech by trying to cancel McVey.
As you seem more tuned into the free speech scene, can you start such an action, get the free speech action groups on board and campaign for McVey's right to say what he thinks?
Thank you very much!
Chickening out? So free speech isn't so important to you then?
The tweet was apparently important enough for an official investigation that can damage McVey's career, but too trivial for the free speechers. Ok, understood.
FWIW, I too would be scratching my head if someone told me I was morally obliged to defend a loose moral stance by starting a petition or writing to the press. Double standards help no-one.
I would suspect it rather trivial to be investigated. The complaint was mischievous.
So, as a society do we want to be going around laying traps and injuring random people whilst also clogging up the roads with cars that poison our air? Or do we want to encourage active travel so that people get healthier and the roads are not seen as "too dangerous"?
We need to get these selfish, malicious people out of positions of responsibility.
"Conservative leader Councillor Iain Whyte, wrote: “If we take his argument to its
logical conclusionabsurd lengths what are the results?"FTFH. Reductio ad absurdum. Take a valid point then extend it to absurb levels. #toryscum indeed.
The fact that this going to the standards committee is malicious and absurd.
Beneath an article drawing attention to the dangers of vitriolic language you make this comment.
You are part of the problem.
Does it seem abit double standards though. PM tries to make points on climate change by unneccasrily equating it to bunny hugging or a point on Mulsim Veils by mentioning Letter Boxes or a point on African people by mentioing Picannine Smiles and the defence is he is not racist or denigrating the people involved. A councillor mentioning cyclists can get hurt when people try to turn others against cyclists and cycling infrastructure is supposedly saying "ToryScum" and being investigated.
I can't really tell what point you're trying to make?
The complaint is not that he's saying 'Tory Scum' although that does seem to be the insult de jeur on these boards at the moment.
The complaint is that he is conflating democratic opposition to active travel schemes with abject criminality.
The original article that road.cc cut and pasted has a reasonable explanation of the above from another (Conservative) councillor.
For some reason road.cc chose not to include that bit.
FWIW I support active travel schemes and oppose abusive language.
The conservative councillor somehow forgot to mention that another conservative Concillor, John McLellan, continuously attacks proponents of safer streets in the most vitriolic ways, including calling them "transport taliban". Feels a bit hypocritical to complain about being criticised then.
If that is the case then it would seem a referral to the standards officer would, ironically enough, be appropriate.
Have you set up another account so that you can like your own posts?
No, would you recommend it?
One of these likes is from me, if that helps?
Is that the Councillor who does state a reasonable....
“Sadly, due to their intransigent approach the debate has become somewhat polarised and it is incumbent on us all, especially those in leadership, to ensure our language is measured and actions are reasonable and mature."
The trouble with that is when he means "Leadership", he means the council majority only and not his own minority leader for stoking it further. But as with the PM, it is ok for the conservative leader to be worse in the languages used as "he is only trying to make this point".
"What he means" aka Your subjective opinion.
His actual words are perfectly reasonable.
He makes a dig at those in 'leadership' positions, why could that not include the Conservative council minority leader?
Because his next words in the articles equates that with ....
“It is absolutely outrageous and unbefitting for anyone to equate peaceful democratic opposition to aspects of Spaces for People which is impacting on their daily lives with totally unrelated acts of irresponsible behaviour and criminality."
I'm not seeing "and as for my colleagues article then conflating matters instead of calming them......"
Of course the line “Rather than being inflammatory, comments should be based on evidence." does seem very rich coming from someone whose leader is Boris Johnson and whose office seems to be very shy on giving out evidence and facts when requested or whose Government deems following the Ministerial code is no longer a requirement if he deems it so.
That's your subjective opinion based on your own biases.
I personally think it's likely that the first paragraph was worded in such a broad way quite deliberately.
If he'd wanted to exclude his own leader from criticism he could have easily done so, the fact he chose not to is quite telling.
Of course it is my opinion the same as yours is your opinion based on your biases.
However I can point his comments and state all I see is criticism of the orginal tweet and I can't see any crisitcism of the follow up article, and all you can point to is one vague word in Leaderership which you think might be a dig at his own person when 99% of people stating leadership in a council debate mean the ruling party.
(Unless you mean the comment on Using Evidence in the main Government which is rich on the day Hancock is accused of making things up on the Indian Red List Decisions based on publically available evidence.)
"It's incumbent on us *all*, especially those in *leadership*"
You may interpret that sentence as focusing on just one person but it's equally possible to interpret it as applying to everyone, especially those in *any* leadership position.
That's why it's cleverly worded.
Would have been very easy to explicitly make the council leader the subject.
He chose not to do so.
He made the Council Leader the subject. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I've not really in the mood for juvenility today.
Let's agree to disagree.
Pages