On June 15th, the Crimewatch episode airs. Mcveigh was given the first 6 minutes of a 40 minute show and a later feature was used to spread the HGV blindspot myth which undermines driver responsibility during prosecutions.

The narrative so far is seemingly a wronged and motivated “social media manager” determined to publicise her story with great success. Yet this doesn’t explain why Belfast in general and BBC Ulster specifically took such an interest. Mcveigh grew up in Belfast, works in publishing and has business links to the BBC having actually worked there repeatedly even getting her own dressing room on the Nolan Show who describe her as a “regular contributor”. Working in publishing links to others in the industry is perhaps unremarkable with Mcveigh mutually twitter following BBC’s Stephen Nolan, his producer VinnyBelfast, and many other people working at the BBC including well decorated BBC filmographer Eugene Mcveigh (who may or may not have family ties but did get to interview Col Gaddafi in 1986). A general nepotism may explain irish coverage and elevation to prime time TV coverage at the BBC but expanding scope to include the wider media context introduces a complexity this simple explanation cannot satisfy. There are 80 hit-and-runs on London roads each week, so again, what made Mcveigh special? What made her valuable to editors and producers?

A Hostile Press with an Agenda

During the period covered, there was another celebrity victim/villain pairing broadcast on TV, national and local press. On May 21st, The Dailymail shrilled about the “most callous cyclist in Britain [mowing]” down a toddler on a pavement then riding off. By lunch, the story was covered in the Indepedent, the Mirror, the Express, picked up by London Broadcast News, the Huffington Post, the Metro, the Dailystar, the Irish Independent, and beyond, even New Zealand. Yet the reporting doesn’t even pass basic fact checking containing inconsistencies but despite this the story “slipped” through the usual checks-and-balances which are said to exist and do exist for all other road offenses. The coverage was so hostile Andrew Holland the person cycling had been assaulted in the streets in the days after. The Dailymail would follow up the collision with his side of the story on May 24th and misrepresentation is clear. The reality is that a toddler ran out from behind a partition wall and was struck by someone illegally cycling on the pavement who had no time to react, leaving her with superficial cuts and bruises. The irony is that the parent’s large vanity 4x4 was blocking the road where Holland should have been. He stuck around long enough to be berated and be photographed, until being driven away by his father. After contacting police on the day, Holland took responsibility for his actions and reported the incident to the police in person the morning after. All was known on the first day of print.

From the CCTV footage released on the 21st it is evident the incident happened some days before on Monday May 18th, meaning Holland contacted the police on the day and on May 19th, two days prior to mass press coverage. This is confirmed by the police and reported by the media, yet the usual press conservativeness regarding legal proceedings is absent. Instead a ferocious attack on the character of Holland took place — a trial by media.

Picking at the source and it’s clear there was a conscious act for the story to go “viral” and no natural event. A kid knocked over on a pavement, minor injuries, and assailant already known to the police—no man hunt needed. This is a non-story, not international news. Public relations firms Ross Parry Agency Ltd with South West News Services (SWNS) who offer a “sell your story” service to companies and members of the public, made this happen along with the editors eager to syndicate the same story. (In 2013 SWNS would also push the viral video of a person cycling through a level crossing whilst a train was passing, up to national TV news broadcast.) Was this just sensational clickbait driven by commercial interests? Did the parents cynically cash in on the footage? What made editors receptive to such content? Quite who is the customer and who is the seller in publishing is not a straight forward affair with a complex of readers, advertisers, content creators, editors and media owners acting in both roles. “Pavement cyclist hits blonde female” seems to work for all involved and is a narrative which servers a wider agenda. Likewise, the Mcveigh story was not self contained and bridged to the wider media war on cycling.

On June 23rd Samantha Young employee of tacky celebrity magazine ikonlondonmagazine.com starts an underwhelming Change.org campaign petitioning the Department for Transport for mandatory “licences, licence plates and road insurance” and uses Mcveigh’s headshots as supporting imagery. (On twitter she would later cite both celebrity victims as motivation and be requested by Mcveigh to remove her photographs. Mcveigh claims no responsibility or affiliation with the campaign.)

On June 23rd Cyclophobe Boris Johnson would use a very public State of London Debate to propose that people who red light jump and cycle on pavements should have their bicycles confiscated.

On June 24th Talkback, another radio show for BBC Radio Ulster in Belfast, tweeted the following: “And, are you sick of cyclists on the footpath? Boris Johnson has a possible solution: he says we should impound their bikes.” At around 1pm they aired a 10 minuted feature based on London’s anti-cycling narrative. (The following day around midday, they would air a 20 minute feature on the concerns of taxi drivers not being able to use bus lanes.) From the 24th:

Malachi O’Doherty: Why are we talking about such a stupid idea? [Boris Johnson] even admits to not having thought it through. How many times am I going to sit in the studio at Radio Ulster defending cyclists? The reality is that cyclists are being turned into some kind of hate figure. If you go on twitter you can see the most ghastly stuff of people saying they are going to go out and run over a cyclist today.

On Jun 25th Banning bicycles made feature on BBC Kent and West Midlands. Danny Kelly presenter on BBC WM 95.6 had this to say about cycling:

Danny Kelly: Wanna ask you this morning, should dangerous cyclists have their bikes confiscated by West Midlands police? Have a little think about that please. 03453009956… Now I want to talk to you about a couple of stories that have caught my eye. A fella was jailed after he killed a pensioner in Hereford, he hit the woman whilst he cycled on the pavement. This morning our colleagues in the print media at the Birmingham mail have published the top ten most dangerous roads for cycling accidents. I’ll tell you those roads very shortly. They reveal over the passed three years they’ve been 1537 injury accidents involving cyclists in the West Midlands including 12 fatalities and 237 were seriously injured. […] There are four cyclists injured everyday! — on our roads, in the Westmids. Again there are calls for proper cycling routes to be introduced, the #spaceforcycling campaign wants to see 10£ per head per year spent on cycling infrastructure by the government. It’s an Age. Old. Problem. Isn’t it? In London, Mayor Boris Johnson, Bojo, has said he’s considering — LISTEN TO THIS — confiscating pushbikes from people who flout the law. If you shoot through red lights, cycle on pavements, and in his words — and I think he’s right — TERRIFY… pedestrians. Then you should have your bike taken off you. DK: The amount of times I’ve been — LISTEN — the amount of times I’ve been walking along the pavement minding my own business and then an almighty WOOOSH… of air as some headcase screams from behind me at about 20mph leaving me to think if I’d have just moved to my left or moved to my right… I didn’t know the headcase was screaming up behind me. And this is how that woman died in Hereford. Some lunatic on a bike went into her at 15–20mph. I see it all the time. 03453 009956… People like that should they have their bikes taken off them? Without a shadow of a doubt. Also there is a hardcore of loonies who believe that the highway code just doesn’t apply to them. I don’t know of many drivers who shoot through red lights, do you? If the cops see ya, they book ya, they give you three points, do it three more times they’ll take away your license. What can you take away from a cyclist? You can’t put points on their drivers license. You’ve gotta take away their pushbikes. The cops make a big deal of crushing uninsured cars on the tele so lets start [and said through gritted teeth] maybe making a big deal of crushing a load of bikes on the tele. Three strikes and you are back to being a pedestrian. 03453 009956… Should cyclists who flout the highway code have their bikes confiscated by West Midlands police? 03453 009956. DK: I’ve also noticed that some cyclists are becoming so territorial, aggressive and militant about their road presense on two wheels — GOD help you, you need God’s help if they perceive that a motorist hasn’t shown them sufficient consideration on the highway. Normally in my experience and this is just my experience, the really aggressive individuals are clad in tour de france lyrca, cycling shoes that bolt into the pedals, and must have that highdef Go-Pro camera bolted on their crash helmet. Now this is a true story, the other week I was moments away from the mailbox I inched out into the road to see passed the van that shouldn’t have been there — he was blocking my view of oncoming traffic — just in time to see a lanky fella in a highviz jacket, camera bolted to his helmet, scolding me, and gesturing with his fingers to open my eyes, as he shot passed me dramatically moving out into the middle of the road to prove a point how he was only moments away from death. I got the impression, this guy, the lanky fella, with the highviz jacket, and the security of having a camera bolted onto his helmet was looking for trouble. And I godda tell ya, I’m fortunate he didn’t stop, and persue it ‘coz he would have got the trouble he was looking for, then I would have been all over Youtube. 03453 009956. Let’s just take away their bikes if they flout the highway code, take away their bikes. Boris Johnson may have it right you know. DK: What is it about lycra clad individuals that can be so aggressive and territorially millitant? […] Simon’s in West Brom, Si good morning, a beautiful Summer’s morning. SI: Beautiful mate, beautiful. DK: And it’s the sort of morning that you actually wanna be on a push bike as well, get a bit of air… SI: No you don’t, no, no… DK: Oh, right. Go on Si. SI: …no. I hate cyclists mate, with a passion. DK: You can’t just hate a whole group of society, Si. SI: I can, at the end of the day you’ve just said these arrogant, lycra clad, they are, they’re terrible right? The thing is they wanna ride a push bike on the road, right, I think it should be compuslory that they are insured, they should pay some sort of road tax towards the upkeep of the road, and the cost of painting all these silly cycle lanes on the roads. Right, they don’t pay nothing.

On June 25th the Mcveigh story resurfaces again on the Nolan Show as a sub-narrative. The weird Change.org petition wanting cycle licensing started on the 23rd forms the whole premise of a 20 minute broadcast denigrating cycling, and this despite only having 4 signatures at the time. (Questions should be asked how this came about but Nolan Show producer, Vinny Hurrell has ignored requests for explanation.)

Invited to speak for the motion was taxi driver Ken Kelly, who like Mcveigh is a regular on the show having spoken on topics such as “Taxi licensing plans collapse” and “Is Belfast ready for Boris Bikes?”. Unsurprisingly, a man whose income is derived from transporting people around was aggressively against such a cycle hire scheme but for no good reason — it would just be a “vanity” where bikes end up thrown in the river. Kelly would vociferously demand cycle tests, licensing, insurance and registration plates. Invited to speak against was former Liberal Democrat MP and Director of Public Relations at Motorcycle Action Group, Lembit Opik, who has spent “a lot of time stopping the government from over regulating” powered vehicles.

This should be enough to objectively say the BBC stacked both sides of the debate with representatives of the motoring industry and the vaguest analysis of what was said is confirmation. Nolan himself would agree that cycling is a “plague”, that the area is being “tortured”, complain about a lack of submissiveness from people cycling, complain about a lack of cycle tax, advocate a blanket ban on all road cycling, and ask leading questions to callers like “do you think cyclists have an indifference to others?”. This obviously contradicts BBC guidelines on impartiality saying presenters “may not express personal views in BBC output” but this is a rule largely meaningless as producers always get to hand pick guests. To contrast Nolan would be reprimanded and forced to apologise for revealing he was an atheist during a discussion on religion. Rabid cycle haters were given most caller time, one even complaining about defiant “bicycle people” who waggle arses refusing to move out of his way. Some may say Opik brought balance to the “debate” but he did nothing of the sort. Opik would affirm every prejudice there is, even opening with the classic anecdote of a cyclist smashing into him cycling up the wrong way through a red light and would constantly refer to people cycling as “them”, “they” and “these”. He would also advocate for a greater police crack down on cycling and agree with a trucker that cycling has a “repect problem”.

I’m a central Londoner, I see these people acting like idiots — first of all it’s a small proportion of them — they are really annoying and they cycle up the pavement, they are abusive — but they are still going to do it even if you increase regulations. […] More regulation will not stop the nonsensical cycling we see all over the country.

From this episode of the Nolan Show, it more than suggests Mcveigh’s media connections were incidental. A personal experience became a misguided nationwide vendetta towards people cycling, inevitably increased the already high levels of animosity. Mcveigh — who now admits to yelling at people cycling — should be thankful she wasn’t hit by a car because she’d likely be dead and just another voiceless statistic ignored by the press. Various disingenous interests gathered round her cause because it aligned with their own agenda. It was not the victim that was on sale but the villain — that’s what piqued interest. We’ve already seen that London taxi associations mobbed to her cause and just like with taxi driver Kelly, there is a clear business interest that doesn’t really need explaining. Everyone who can cycle has access to freedom of movement and owes taxi drivers, bus companies, motoring organisations and the government nothing, but what is motivating the likes of Nolan, Danny Kelly, and the rest of the media and political class? Something other than shockjock prejudice is involved, each story conformed to editorial policy at each organisation. Why is banning bikes in cities now a mainstream talking point?

Why is Philip Scofield, Stephen Nolan, and the wider public and private editocracy, encouraging people to think of people cycling with cameras as “vigilante” thugs but when video is used against cycling it is a social good? Malachi O’Doherty, the northern irish journalist who appeared on Talkback, proposed the idea that the political and media class, specifically the Mayor of London, is “pandering” to the worst of human behaviour. However, this typical analysis has the tail wagging the dog. Public relations or rather propaganda as it was first called, is the business of managing public perception and driving public opinion. There wouldn’t exist a whole media class and advertising empire if peasant wants were the dominant politics. Another analysis may be founded around clickbait, ratings or advertising — but the BBC is supposedly protected from market influence and attacking cycling offers no obvious direct commercial gain.

Why have dozens of editors, producers, politicians and columnists decided that cycling is a national threat and not a series of audi drivers destroying buildings? (More audi drivers have destroyed buildings in recent time than pavement cycling has killed pedestrians.) Are we really to believe that Boris Johnson sees attacking cycling (which he has done so before) as a vote winner in a city where cycling is gaining popularity, and that taxi drivers or mouth frothing bigots without the ability to even explain their own hatred are driving editorial policy across the entire country? Does Tory policy pander to a mass of peasants who want to gut the NHS, bail out the banks and invade oil rich countries? As the media devotes so much time opining an NHS in turmoil, why isn’t cycling’s ability to reduce sickness and remove billions in health care costs loud in the narrative? Why did the BBC seek to exclude the Greens from public debate but not UKIP even though the latter had fewer MPs and smaller membership? Did the BBC spike investigation into Jimmy Savile because their was a disinterested mob demanding more focus on antiques and home-improvement shows? Does the BBC plan on scrapping the TV license because of mass protest or because they plan to incorporate the fee into council tax?

There is a far less fanciful explanation one in which these people — them editors, them producers and politicians — are responding to simple business class interests whilst convincing the public of a false reality. This will be the focus of future articles, there is a war on cycling and only one side knows they are involved.