[Closed] BBC stirring the cycling pot again...

Most of it is just common sense tbh.

That seems pretty even handed to me.

You see the one the otherday on the beebs site where the boy in the van trys to sqeeze the bike off the road at a traffic island .... Bike holds his line and van has to brake ... Boy comes past boxes the bike in gets out and ****s him.

All on headcam. What a dick.

Boy comes past boxes the bike in gets out and * him.

He *ed him?

All on headcam. What a dick.

Impressive or not, that's assault.

A well-balanced article. Can't see any problem here.

Just had a read, seems reasonably well balanced and quite knowledgeable. Certainly not cyclist bashing at all.

I thought it was excellent, I hope some good comes from a bit of exposure for the reasons behind claiming the lane and the like.

My only tiny niggle was the bit in the middle that had a few mentions of "cars" doing stuff, not "drivers", but it doesn't detract from the whole gist of the article.

I found that to be pretty well written and balanced.

Although I agree that helmets should be personal choice, I'm surprised that it's not been made compulsory yet when it is for 50cc scooter riders who travel at similar speeds to someone on a road bike.
I'm not saying it should be btw, just that i'd have thought the choice would have been taken away long ago...

Not sure I agree about the balance. All of the 5 changes they've chosen are things cyclists should do differently, not drivers. There's a big box quoting the relevant parts of the highway code for cyclists, nothing for drivers. A couple of lines say stuff like "some people think the culture of road use needs to change" but nothing about what that culture is or should be.

So a BBC article no doubt inspired by Chris Boardman's recent TV bits for the BBC has managed to ignore what he actually said and reinforce the same old stuff. Another missed opportunity.

Could they really have not put in a line pointing out that drivers have no greater priority on the road than anyone else, despite what taxes they think they pay? I think just taking opportunities to remind people of things like this on mainstream media would have a far greater effect on cyclist safety than banging on about whether lights should be set to flash or not.

This stuff is actually symptomatic of the whole issue IMO.

Whilst none of those things are terribly contentious, the overall tone suggests that cyclists need to act differently than the other legal road users, because, well, they're cyclists and other road users have greater rights.
Someone at work has put round an interesting website which has graphical representations of various data. [url= http://luminocity3d.org/Transport.html#car_journey_to_work_2011_trip_destination/8/52.489/-1.252 ]Journeys to work [/url]is interesting with only 7 conurbations in the UK with less than 60% of journeys to work being made by car.

I think even if you think its one sided or not it continues to raise awareness of the issues which is a good thing. Even if one driver learns that I'm allowed to be in the middle of the road to 'stay safe' then it is a worthwhile article.

Last night in freezing rain, riding on narrow well used unlit roads with deep puddles at the curb I was more primary position than secondary and the more drivers that know about this being allowed/recomended the better.

I wish somebody would actually do a TV advert showing why cyclists do the things they do. road position and how to overtake are my main gripes. If I can smack the side of the white van with my fist, he's too bloody close. And when I catch up with him at the next lights I will tell him.

Whilst none of those things are terribly contentious, the overall tone suggests that cyclists need to act differently than the other legal road users, because, well, they're cyclists and other road users have greater rights.

Is that not the whole point of the article? These are the things cyclists are told they should do to make themselves safer, would they work?

Issues surrounding cycle safety are often divisive. Here are five of them.

I think even if you think its one sided or not it continues to raise awareness of the issues which is a good thing.

Is it? The issues mentioned in that article are for the most part the very ones that Boardman (rightly IMO) points out are obstructing any real progress on cycling safety, so you might argue that there is an awareness that's being [i]maintained[/i], and that is that if those cyclists want to not get hurt they'd better think about what they wear. Everybody else can carry on as normal.

Even if one driver learns that I'm allowed to be in the middle of the road to 'stay safe' then it is a worthwhile article.

I'd like to see 5 things drivers could do differently to protect cyclists, just for a bit of balance.

I thought the point was well made that in most health and safety improvement initiatives you start by trying to remove the cause of the hazard (possibly car speed, poor driving / drivers / driver training?) and protective clothing, though sometimes sensible, is well down the list.

ERICPD - protective equipment is P, second last.

really? Well balanced?

Most of them are above and beyond what is required of me to ride on the road. I actually do all of them but feel no safer for it.

It can quite easily be read by a bike hating car driver that well he has got headphones in, its his fault, no helmet, his fault, no high vis well he isn't doing all he can.

The biggest thing to improve saftey on the roads is a bit more space when overtaking and for [b]all [/b]road users to be more aware of each other.

Proportionate liability, which operates in most European countries, offers cyclists more protection that doesn't seem to be discussed much over here. Is it on anyone's agenda as I think that would really help bikes out.

Thought it was very balanced, another one from down under and a normal cycle hating paper
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2650709/riding-on-the-verge-living-on-the-edge-video/
They got the reported to head out on a group ride early one morning, needless to say he was a little scared.
The only down side to this is that they kept riding on the shoulder (mostly as the guy was probably scared and hiding) just reinforced to people that cyclists should get out the way.

Yeah, it's all reasonable stuff.

Apart from the headphones bit, which I think is utter bollocks. Ok, so maybe you don't, but I don't care. As I've said before, in 20+ years of commuting, never been a problem, help, or hinderence to me or other people.

[i]It's important to be able to hear sounds like the change in tone as a driver accelerates.[/i]
Rubbish. I've been hit 4 times and in no way whatsoever would hearing more clearly have avoided the incidents.

[i] "To be distracted in any way through headphones is a big mistake."[/i]
I am not distracted from safe riding by wearing headphones.

Others may disagree until they are blue in the face, but I'll still wear headphones. (And I won't tell [i]you[/i] what you should be doing (or not doing)!

Others may disagree until they are blue in the face, but I'll still wear headphones. (And I won't tell you what you should be doing (or not doing)!

Tell you what - yesterday my (emergency) front light failed.. now that was bloody scary! Even though I have an extremely bright rear light and only had about 3 miles to go...
How the hell do people ride around with no lights?? Their self preservation brain cells must be non-existent!

Am I the only one who thinks its pretty easy to see unlit riders and pedestrians in urban streetlit environments. Coincidentally my high Vis orange top is rendered a bland grey under streetlights too.

[i]Am I the only one who thinks its pretty easy to see unlit riders and pedestrians in urban streetlit environments.[/i]

Not through condensation covered car windows it's not.

Its always sad this time of year to see the more casual riders without lights. I usually cheerily suggest lights if I pass them. I wish my local shop offered me discount stickers, stick it on their handlebars and they get discount.

and yes DezB, I do also disagree. My ears are essential when riding in traffic. Your life, your choice. Good luck to ya.

Does anyone proof read these BBC articles?

[i]The Highway Code gives rules for cycling in England, Scotland and Wales - and includes the following legal requirements:

-At night your cycle must have white front and red rear lights lit. It must also be fitted with a red rear reflector
.
.
-You must ensure your brakes are efficient; at night, use lit front and rear lights and have a red rear reflector.[/i]

No headphones for me either. I tried riding with them and found that I had to do more looking behind me. Not sure if it had an impact on safety but it made me feel less comfortable. But I agree that headphones, along with helmets, high viz, etc etc are a stupid distraction from what should be the main point of the argument - people should stop driving like ****s

Headphones is controverisial but it shouldn't be.

For example why does a cyclist need to hear what the cars behind are doing but a car driver listening to the radio is fine?

The reason being able to hear as a cyclist is percived to be more important than a car driver being able to hear is that it seems intuative that a cyclist needs to be able to avoid being put into danger by a car and being able to hear helps this.

But that is arse about face.

It should be the car drivers perogative to avoid putting the cyclist in danger and therefore it matters not whether the cyclist can hear or not.

So as an individual cyclist does it make sense for you to choose not to use headphones? Yes as you can keep yourself safer. Should a cyclist using headphones be pilloried for doing so? No, they aren't going cause an additional hazard to anyone else by using them.

It should be a non issue but it just part of the victim blaming culture behind high vis and helmets as well.

Did anyone see BBC breakfast news yesterday? A widow of a cyclist killed in a crash with a car is campaigning for tougher sentences for drivers who kill cyclists.

The article started with the facts of the case: Driver was drunk, twice the limit. Driver was speeding at 70 mph, in a 30mph zone. found guilty, 4 years in prison.

first question to the widow "what clothes was your husband wearing, was he clearly visible?". I nearly put my foot through the TV.

For example why does a cyclist need to hear what the cars behind are doing but a car driver listening to the radio is fine?

It should be the car drivers perogative to avoid putting the cyclist in danger and therefore it matters not whether the cyclist can hear or not.

Cycling on the road means you accept that not everyone is perfect, look after yourself, be aware of your surroundings and remember the only one who is really looking out for you is you.

I get why people pick on headphones even if I don't agree with them, consider the following:

If you think it is dangerous to be using headphones while on a bike then you probably fall into one of two camps...

[b]Camp A:[/b] you [i]can't hear[/i] when using them and therefore you can't hear what is going on around you.

My counter to this is that firstly, you [i]can [/i]hear when using headphones at a sensible volume, and motorcyclists can hear, yet they have a chuffing great padded hat on! Secondly, when travelling at speed on a bike wind noise in your ears drowns out a lot more than headphones do/would. Thirdly, this [i]implies [/i]that you believe it is impossible for a deaf person to safely cycle on the road. If you're in this camp then you're also going to have a hard job convincing me that it's not also a good idea to mandate that in cities people drive with their car windows down so that they can hear what's going on around them as well, because intentionally reducing one of your senses by putting nice insulating panels of glass in the way would be madness right? 😉

[b]Camp B:[/b] you think it is [i]distracting [/i]and therefore dangerous becasue you're not paying enough attention.

If that is the case then your argument is against distraction, not specifically headphones. It may seem like being pedantic but it's an important distinction, because if your argument is that [i]distractions [/i]are dangerous then the logical companion to this is that you should also be in favour of banning radios, satnav, (and talking passengers?!) in cars, and possibly cycle computers/garmins on bikes as they are arguably just as distracting and the consequences of a being distracted when operating a 1+ ton metal vehicle at speed are a lot greater than a bicycle at comparatively low speed.

FWIW, sometimes I use headphones, sometimes I don't, it depends on the situation and what level of impact/risk I think it will have. and I should also add, I only have one working ear and even when using headphone(s) I can still hear what's going on around me traffic wise.

Banning them wouldn't really achieve anything, but if I cranked it up to 11 so I couldn't hear a thing except the wailing of Justin Bieber and cycled off into the traffic then that wouldn't be all that clever, but banning idiots is a lot harder 😉

My counter to this is that firstly, you can hear when using headphones at a sensible volume,

and motorcyclists can hear, yet they have a chuffing great padded hat on!

Secondly, when travelling at speed on a bike wind noise in your ears drowns out a lot more than headphones do/would.

Thirdly, this implies that you believe it is impossible for a deaf person to safely cycle on the road.

Also in a black and white world like the one you describe it means to me that needing to listen to something while doing an activity means you are easily bored and probably not paying any attention to your surroundings.

not at all, just that being able to hear will improve your chances of noticing that something is about to swipe you or drive through you.

I'm not sure if I'd prefer to see something or not before it ploughs through me 😕

Thats good, if you have them at a sensible volume

Sounds like you're making a big assumption that all/the majority of headphone wearers are listening at a non-sensible volume, give people some credit, they're probably not. See my point about banning idiots!

Whenever this topic comes up, people who use headphones remind us that they don't listen at excessive volume, and then we get the "well you're ok then" remarks like above, the reality is that most people who use them are aware of the effect it has and listen at an appropriate volume, the assumption rhat they're listening at excessive volume is false, and if you agree that listening at appropriate volume is OK, then that diminishes the argument for banning them, you might as well juat bad listening at excessive volume, howver you might try and define that!

Every now and again there is a tragic story about a pedestrian being hit while crossing the road or train tracks while wearing headphones, and in some cases you then get people suggesting blanket bans, would never work obviously, but it always strikes me that these people must have been distracted, rather than unable to hear, as you don't cross the road/rails without looking, even if you can hear.

In the same way you don't pull up alongside a tipper truck indicating left becasue you can't hear, you dot hat because you're distracted or don't realise the dangers.

And you don't get hit from behind because you can't hear, you get hit from behind because the driver was distracted. Yes you might, in some very small number of cases, have been able to take avoiding action if you had heard them, but honestly how many collisions do you think actually happen because a rider was unable to hear, and in that same situation had they been able to hear would have been able to take avoiding action. my estimate is 'vanishingly small'.

ball cocks! at 60 Kph I can still hear cars etc.

I didn't say you couldn't still hear the traffic, I said wind noise is greater than the effect of headphones. This is true for me, anything over about 17/18mph (less in a headwind) means I can't hear my music well at all, and if I remove the headphones it actually gets louder as there's no longer an earphone blocking the wind. Maybe my ears stick out more than yours?

Also in a black and white

My world really isn't black and white, I'm just suggesting that the arguments are absolutely NOT black and white and that often those staunchly in favour of banning headphones or other activities have not really thought about the other comparable things that they dismiss.

Why wouldn't you want to try to remove distractions in cars and also increase their aural awareness by driving with the windows down?

means to me that needing to listen to something while doing an activity means you are easily bored and probably not paying any attention to your surroundings.

on the contrary, I find it helps me relax, stop thinking about work/home/jobs (other distractions) etc. and actually focus on what I'm doing, the music is merely background.

My initial though on reading that is that all responsibility is shifted onto the cyclist.

Car is king, again. Hand licences out like toilet paper, and then don't take them away again no matter how poor your driving is. You should see how badly I drive and I have zero points!

Anyone who wears earphones on a public road is an arse. Same territory as no lights at night. Why would you?

I think the article is reasonably balanced, arguments for and against the statements "what can cyclists do to make themselves safer". As mentioned above it would be nice to follow up with what drivers (not cars) could do to make cyclists safer.

Top of the list would be "don't hit me with your car please?"

Headphones are an annoyance for me. I have tried to ride with them on, but I needed to turn the volume up loud to hear them over traffic, wind noise and my heavy breathing. So I don't use them. If headphones were made illegal then it should be for pedestrians too.

a lot of it reminds me of this
[img] [/img]
Control what you can control

So I don't use them. If headphones were made illegal then it should be for pedestrians too.

That exact point is made in the video embedded in the article by someone from the CTC.

edit: I think, anyway. It looks like the report I saw this morning but have no sound at work.

i'm ****ing useless with headphones. The amount of times i've walked across a road without looking because i'm concentrating on the music instead of where i'm going - there's no way i'd trust myself to have them on at 20mph in the flow of traffic!

For example why does a cyclist need to hear what the cars behind are doing but a car driver listening to the radio is fine?

Because driving along the road in a car and riding along it on a bike are two very different things?

On a bike you are far more likely to have someone make a chancy move from behind you than you are in your car when (say) approaching a junction on the left. The way you are treated is totally different, which makes a big difference before you get to mirrors etc.

Anyone who wears earphones on a public road is an arse.

Why are they an arse? which camp do you fall into from above?

Same territory as no lights at night. Why would you?

really? listening to music makes it more difficult for other road users to see you does it?

The two are not even remotely comparable.

I think even if you think its one sided or not it continues to raise awareness of the issues which is a good thing.

Even if one driver learns that I'm allowed to be in the middle of the road to 'stay safe' then it is a worthwhile article

Bez has done a piece [url= http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/the-sounds-of-science/#more-871 ]about headphones[/url]. I don't use them during commutes but still think they are inconsequential, hearing can be pretty deceptive especially on busy roads, sight is much more reliable and visual checks should be routine - I still do "lifesavers" on offroad night rides 🙄

i'm ****ing useless with headphones. The amount of times i've walked across a road without looking because i'm concentrating on the music instead of where i'm going - there's no way i'd trust myself to have them on at 20mph in the flow of traffic!

Are you the same in the car with the radio on?

At least we know that for you it's about distraction not hearing, and you have sufficient self awareness to realise it affects you and act accordingly.

I think we should also ban daydreaming, and thinking about what you're having for dinner tonight, or what you need to do tomorrow while driving/riding/wealking, at the end of the day that's what it comes down to focus on the task at hand.

[i]Anyone who wears earphones on a public road is an arse.[/i]

did someone say that? What an arse! Can't be bothered to scroll back and see which ARSE it was.

Top of the list would be "don't hit me with your car please?"

I like this;

[img] [/img]

where did you find that wwaswas?

Looks like a fun fake

Are you the same in the car with the radio on?

pretty much! In urban areas i'll turn the music down to the point where I can barely hear it, or off altogether. i'd rather not have music on at all than not be paying proper attention to it.

Also (not remotely related to safety!) - I don't think I could actually do my commute without music. I find road riding bloody tedious and just to have the woosh woosh of cars going past would drive me nuts! Would rather be in the car.
Anyway, that's me 🙂

I always wonder what headphone-haters do with the extra information they get- "Ah there's a car behind me, I'll stop weaving mentally all over the road"? I don't ride with headphones because it's added faff and cables and stuff but while hearing gives you lots of information I don't find it to be useful information (except for mechanically- ooh that gearshift was orrible, better have a look)

Looks like a fun fake

no doubt, but amusing all the same 🙂

[i]where did you find that wwaswas?

Looks like a fun fake [/i]

Twitter (@carltonreid)

and

Yes, but a surprising number of people seem to think it's real and are further outraged as a result.

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.

So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible.

Yes but no, it would make more sense to educate drivers to look properly.

I can only envy these cyclists whose incredible hearing allows them not only to filter out all noise other than that of the specific vehicle engine approaching from behind, but then to be able to spatially position the approaching vehicle without seeing it, determine its rate and exact trajectory of approach efficiently enough to allow a calculation of imminent likelihood of collision that can be undertaken at such a speed as to allow time for an escape plan to be formed and then executed in time to avoid being wiped out by a distracted driver travelling at twice the speed who hasn't seen them until its too late.

The bit where one of the contributors is quoted as observing that "drivers expect to overtake cyclists as of right" sums it up in essence for me...

A crass analogy I know but isn't suggesting cyclists are less likely to be hit by motorists if they wear helmets and high vis a bit like suggesting women are less likely to be raped if the avoid lipstick and short skirts?

Victim blaming in other words.

I can only envy these cyclists whose incredible hearing allows them not only to filter out all noise other than that of the specific vehicle engine approaching from behind, but then to be able to spatially position the approaching vehicle without seeing it, determine its rate and exact trajectory of approach efficiently

If your hearing doesn't allow you to do that to at least some extent maybe you should get it checked!

Sure you don't know 'exact trajectory' Daredevil style but personally I find it can occasionally give me a bit more information about what's going on that I can't see in front of me.

Try it with one working ear! Directionality is a massive struggle to me as I can't tell the difference between on the 'left but far away', and 'on the right (deaf side) but closer', put something behind me and it gets even worse!

[i]Here lies Poor Johnny
Died on the moral high ground[/i]

Cycling on the road means you accept that not everyone is perfect, look after yourself, be aware of your surroundings and remember the only one who is really looking out for you is you.

Yes, as an individual you should do that, I do that, it would be mad to go looking for trouble.

However the point is that the popular retoric is that cyclists shouldn't wear headphones as it reduces their ability to get out of the way of car driving maniacs trying to kill them is distracting from the important issue.

The important issue being, "car driving maniacs are trying to kill cyclists and money needs to be spent on stopping them".

Not "a small minority of cyclists may or may not have slightly impaired their ability to avoid an accident that someone else has caused"

Because driving along the road in a car and riding along it on a bike are two very different things?

On a bike you are far more likely to have someone make a chancy move from behind you than you are in your car when (say) approaching a junction on the left. The way you are treated is totally different, which makes a big difference before you get to mirrors etc

Yep - When you are riding a bike you run the risk that some **** in a car will crash into you.

The point is that is not your responsibility on the bike to get out of the way, it's the drivers responsibility to not hit you. Personally you may want to get out of the way but policy should be focused on stopping the car driving **** having the oportinity to kill you, not making it easier for you to get out of the way.

Phew, this arse made it home for the 6354 time with some great tracks coming from my iPod... 🙂
Interestingly, I could hear a couple talking in a car as I went past them on the cycle lane. I didn't die, so something was right.

Exactly, if there was a spate of hooligans running around behind people in the street yelling 'Boo!' Before punching them in the back of the head you wouldn't be advising pedestrians not to wear headphones so they have more of a chance to hear hem and duck, you'd be screaming for the police to do something about the hooligans punching people in the back of the head.

You might still choose to not wear headphones until they'd been caught and dealt with but I bet you wouldn't be too pleased if he media were focusing on your headphone wearing.

So here we are, arguing amongst ourselves about the details while the motor industry and drivers stand back in their - on the whole - united grouping and laugh at us.

Again.

Unless we all start to pull together on this, it isn't going to get any better anytime soon.

And yes, I will very occasionally ride with music in [u]one[/u] ear. But not in busy urban areas.

So maybe a bit of give and take for other peoples views and experiences might help us find a middle ground we can at least agree to disagree on, and then we can get involved with organised groups and unite to fight for better driver training, better law enforcement, better road design.

Once we've got the big issues sorted to stop us getting hit in the first place, then will be the time to argue about what we should have been doing/wearing when we get hit!

MCTD x10 Good man!

I can't listen to Radio 4 on headphones when cycling home as the traffic noise is to much. People inside cars have very little appreciation of how much noise they are making

MoreCashThanDash

Well said sir, you get my vote!

I've said this once and I'll say it again : I'M NOT BLOODY ARGUING!!

A fair article, and those saying otherwise are just looking for a reason to argue in my opinion.

It gives evidence for and against high vis clothing, helmets, flashing or steady lighting, and concludes with acknowledging that drivers attitudes towards cyclists need to change. For the mainstream "biased" media I think they've done a good job.

For those who want facts rather than their own opinion, here are some free scientific articles:

http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/pgas/cycling

Enjoy.

For those who want facts rather than their own opinion,

You're new here, right?

I shit you not but I was behind a car this morning and I thought their music was a bit loud tbh considering all their windows were up and I was wearing Bluetooth earphones an a buff and helmet 🙂

I'm sure it helped them concentrate on the road but I was happy to be behind.

For those who want facts rather than their own opinion,

You're new here, right?

We all, well not ALL, started out naive and full of the belief that everyone was really, truly, good deep down.

It will all end in tears. 🙄 😉

A fair article, and those saying otherwise are just looking for a reason to argue in my opinion.

In so far as it goes it's not hugely biased, but in context I think it demonstrates that the BBC's reporting of cycling issues is far from fair and balanced. I think the spoof that wwaswas posted actually does a great job of highlighting what the BBC *could* be reporting against what they choose to "report".

a well written article - shows what a pile of "tell people what they want to hear" crap the daily dross from Manchester this week has been

Interesting statistic that 80% of "accidents" happen in daylight - get fed up with the moaning about cyclists without lights, yes it is a problem but no driver has actually been injured avoiding an unlit cyclist - have started counting the number of cars I see without lights on in the evening (after dark) and most of the time see more cars without lights on than cyclists without lights

and this.... "What worries me about night-time visibility is how preposterously brightly-lit cars are becoming," adds Walker. Coupled with other dazzling, distracting city lights, it's harder to see cyclists and pedestrians, he says..."
yep spotting a cyclist in a line of traffic in the dark in the rain when most drivers are already pushing their skill limits isn't as easy as it could be

richmtb - Member
A crass analogy I know but isn't suggesting cyclists are less likely to be hit by motorists if they wear helmets and high vis a bit like suggesting women are less likely to be raped if the avoid lipstick and short skirts?
Victim blaming in other words.

In a world without rapists and murders women should be happy to walk anywhere anyway they like, once you fix that part of society then start work on drivers. Even when I'm driving I don't expect others to follow the rules use common sense or be predictable, I expect them to try and kill me and drive accordingly.

In a world without rapists and murders women should be happy to walk anywhere anyway they like, once you fix that part of society then start work on drivers.

Unfortunately it's quite clear that wearing no makeup and baggy, shapeless clothes don't prevent rape any more than wearing a helmet, no headphones and hi-vis stop you getting run over on your bike. There's a BIG problem in the UK with cars and bikes that doesn't exist to the same level in other places (in Europe at least). I've ridden my bike all over central Europe and car drivers are significantly less antagonistic than in the UK, be it in cities or the countryside.

The issue is STILL educating drivers and toning down the rhetoric in the media. There will always be tragic accidents but the level of aggression on British roads is way over the top for all road users but the squishy ones are the ones who suffer.

I think that even if you educate motorists and we all act accordingly, deaths will still occur. You'll never remove the human element from transport and everyone is capable of making a mistake.

Segregation is the most plausible way to achieve a near 0% casualty rate but it relies on the infrastructure being able to cope and cyclists actually using it. I envisage that even with segregated highways, some will still choose to share space with cars rather than wait at cyclist traffic light junctions or avoid wobbling tourists on Boris bikes.

People want to make progress and people believe that their journey is more important than the person next to them.

Have only skimmed this thread, will catch up later, so apologies if it's already been said. Those people suggesting it's well balanced are seeing it through the filter of the normalisation of victim blaming with cyclists. The subtle way in which the emphasis is in completely the wrong place is what we're used to seeing so it's deemed to be acceptable. If you think it's well balanced, try replacing "cyclist" with some other out group ("black", "women") who it is less acceptable to treat in this way.

My favourite comes near the end

But many motorists - and even generally pro-cycling London Mayor Boris Johnson - claim there are more than just "some" cycling fools. Johnson has even blamed risk-taking cyclists for causing many fatalities. It's clearly not just a one-sided issue.

No, on one side are the sensible people like John Franklin, on the other side are the complete idiots like Boris.

Bbc reporter guy nearly took out a cyclist live this morning. He was interviewing some sustrans lady on a shared use path. They were on the ped side. As the interview ended he stepped back into the cyclist side just as someone blasted past on a bike. 🙄

But some cyclists do take foolish risks that get them involved in accidents. We are just bickering about where we think the line for "foolish" should be drawn.

Rather than doing anything positive about the real issues and dangers.

exactly as MCTD says, there will always be silly people no matter what mode of transport they are using, what's wrong is the way the media is picking on the fringe cases and the contentious issues that will generate a bit of arguing and not on the real problems that need to be solved.

If we fixed all the silly risk taking cyclists, banned headphones, made plastic hats compulsory, painted everyone on two wheels in dayglo body paint and attached a dozen lights to each end, people would still drive their cars into them.

Is it only *then* that as a society we would start to address it?

Or would they find some other thing to pick on to get cyclists to fix...