[ad_1]

As you all probably know by now, British Cycling moved swiftly yesterday evening to remove a somewhat controversial piece of advice, placed on its website shortly after Queen Elizabeth II’s death on Thursday, which “strongly recommended” that all cyclists in Great Britain should avoid riding their bikes during Monday’s state funeral.

The national governing body’s rapid U-turn on Bank Holiday leisure cycling – which only came after a furious online backlash, of course, and doesn’t apply to extremely disrespectful club rides – has nevertheless failed to appease cyclists across the country, many of whom believe that the “damage was done” following the initial ‘advice’.

> British Cycling removes advice telling members not to ride during funeral for Queen Elizabeth II

To kick things off this overcast Wednesday, I thought I’d round up some of the reaction to British Cycling’s mark of respect/PR disaster.

Under our story yesterday, road.cc reader Mark Skinner summed up the general feeling within the cycling community to the governing body’s advice, writing: “I’m looking forward to the RAC’s ‘guidance’ telling motorists not to drive.”

eburtthebike concurred, describing British Cycling’s decisions as “utterly absurd, complete twaddle and well beyond their remit. 

“This is just pandering to the jingoistic populist patriotic DM reading elements in society and will gain absolutely no respect from anyone. 

“The Queen was the patron of Cycling UK and they have made no such comment, so I’m grateful I’m a member of them, not BC.

“Has the RAC or AA suggested that nobody drive at those times?”

Steve K, alluding to the viewpoint that the advice was based on the potential for backlash against cyclists seen riding outside on Monday, asked: “Surely anyone who might be hostile to cyclists riding at the time of the funeral will themselves be inside watching the funeral, so unaware of any cyclists out and about?”

On Twitter, where one user memorably described the advice as “worthy of the Stasi”, the reaction was as equally bemused:

And, finally, on a lighter (if slightly obvious) note:

 



[ad_2]

Source link