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

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...

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.

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.

Innit.

It's great that the BBC are giving cycling so much airtime - and they've done an alright job.

I'd like to see a bit more emphasis on telling drivers to be more courteous, but overall it's great the the issue is on the agenda and some prejudices are being challenged.

Not really my point, it was more that you should take reasonable steps to look after yourself, be aware, make sensible decisions and reduce risk

Nobody here is saying you shouldn't, in fact I think you'd find most of us would advocate it on a day to day basis.

What we are grumpy about is the way the media and society in general seems to be focusing on the lack of people doing this as the problem, and telling us ever more ways we can protect ourselves from the danger.

Just start dealing with the flipping danger!

without expecting other people to fix the problem of bad drivers.

Why shouldn't we expect people (goverment, cycling and driving organisations) to help fix it? I certainly can't fix them on my own, thats why I am part of those groups and we are trying to put pressure on government and the public to make a change.

In the mean time yes, I'll be wearing a helmet, using lights and not riding like a prat, just the same as I will when/if the roads are safer, but when that happens I'll hopefully also be enjoying a safer environment to ride in, which is what we want.

> A helmet might help me if someone drives a car into me
> A high vis top might make me slightly more visible to someone about to drive a car into me
> Listening and Looking and being aware of my surroundings might allow me to take avoiding action if someone is about to drive a car into me

I do all of those things already, but how about we also try and stop people driving cars into me? That'd be lovely.

Not really my point, it was more that you should take reasonable steps to look after yourself, be aware, make sensible decisions and reduce risk without expecting other people to fix the problem of bad drivers.

^^This.

amedias - Member

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

don't be silly, we'd have 'fixed' the problem, the end.

anecdote: last night, while waiting for roughly 1min at a pedestrian crossing, i counted 4 drivers on their phones.

exactly as MCTD says, there will always be silly people no matter what mode of transport they are using,

TBH I thought it was a reasonable enough piece the title for starters is: [i]"Would these five changes actually help cyclists?"[/i]
Not: [i]"CYCLISTS! Change Your Ways!"[/i].

And each point was discussed from either view point, using whatever evidence is available plus input from relevant "experts" the article title is a rhetorical question, and they resisted offering definitive answers...

What it also does is mention addressing drivers attitudes and cycling infrastructure, again without drawing any set conclusions...

It's a "discussion" piece not a fixed viewpoint bunch of "Answers" and it's not a Pro or Anti-cyclist rant. I do think some people are just hunting for things to object to in any piece written about cycling safety.

We're coming up on the peak time of year for cyclist deaths in that there London (other major conurbations do have traffic), as we all probably anticipate more cyclists being squashed by snoozy Lorry or Bus drivers the meeja revisiting cycling safety issues again isn't really a shock is it?

It's not anti-cycling, but it is another example of the type of mainstream media article where the focus is again in the wrong place.

It's not so much the content, it's the theme, and the wider bias in the media, they're still very much stuck in their ways and not pushing at the real problems.

We're coming up on the peak time of year for cyclist deaths in that there London (other major conurbations do have traffic), as we all probably anticipate more cyclists being squashed by snoozy Lorry or Bus drivers

Very much so, and this would be the perfect time to be doing a public information and education campaign aimed at all road users and how they can be safer and more aware in the winter gloom and in general.

Lets see if any articles pop up with 5 ways drivers could change their behaviour to drive safer shall we?

If they do I'll gladly eat this post.

We're coming up on the peak time of year for cyclist deaths in that there London

I've heard talk of ticketing, £100 and 3 points for driver asl infringment and £50 for cycle rlj, dunno how accurate that is tho.