BBC: Five changes to help cyclists

[in4]

Whilst finding the BBC's currency a tad devalued these days this caught my eye:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590

[honesty]

Generally well rounded article. A few issues, but surprisingly good for mainstream news. There was actually a good article in the Mirror as well yesterday about cycling. I almost fell off my chair.

[RobH]

A pity that all of these possible changes pertain to the cyclist and none to drivers of motorised vehicles.

[Audax hopeful]

Yes, if you read the whole article it is mostly balanced, (but you could quote from it in a very biased way if you so chose!), but only focuses on what the cyclist could or should do. The onus is always on ways for cyclists to minimise our risks, not how drivers should focus on safety when behind the wheel.

Some points are unarguable - lights at night is just obvious (and why not fixed and flashing?). But if cyclists should be banned from using headphones, then music and ANY communication in cars/lorries/buses should be equally restricted. And more motorists suffer head injuries than cyclists, so they too should be compelled to wear helmets - and perhaps pedestrians too! Just because something is a good idea for cyclists in a race dosen't mean it should be forced on someone going to the shop for a loaf of bread! Or perhaps (again) motorists (and even passengers) should be compelled to dress in the same manor as F1 drivers??!

What is really dangerous is the aggression in road users no matter what means of transport. If we could tackle that we'd all be safer! 

Nich
 

[DAntrim]

The article was a very interesting read and made the points in a unbiased manor

lights at night is just obvious (and why not fixed and flashing)

I use both for commuting and find that vehicles certainly give a wider berth than with just either one.

And I could not agree more with this.......

What is really dangerous is the aggression in road users no matter what means of transport. If we could tackle that we'd all be safer

[John Saxby]

Interesting piece from the Beeb, although its focus is limited to cyclists' behaviour.  There's a related thread on crazyguy, which also began with a Beeb article, this one asking whether cycling is safe. It's worth a read, & readers have added North American experience & information:  https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/forum/board/message/?o=Sh&thread_id=611096&page=1&nested=0&v=16  

Like so many things in life, our pastime/sport/obsession has a large element of risk management.  I've spent enough time on 2-wheelers, motorized and self-powered, to agree with Nich's post above -- I find that the the biggest single risk I face on 2 wheels is the culture of entitlement and aggro among far too many drivers.  In contrast, it was so enjoyable cycling in northern Europe in late Aug/early Sept -- no-one tried to kill me for three weeks!  Here, it happens about once a day -- no matter if the perps are unwitting/oblivious, as is often the case.  Domestic dialogue chez nous, late afternoon: "How was your day, dear?" "Oh, pretty much as usual. Two SUVistas tried to run me over at a red light."  Occasional answer: "Pretty good, had a nice ride to town and back -- no-one tried to kill me."

[Andre Jute]

Whilst finding the BBC's currency a tad devalued these days this caught my eye:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590

Thanks for a good link. The BBC used to be great but they killed their credibility by selling out their responsibility not to subscribe uncritically to the global warming scare and other trendy causes with zero scientific basis. The largest news organization in the world has become something of a joke when several parts of the Murdoch organization, and Al Jazeera (!), do a better job of coming home with the news. Back to cycling: this piece reverts to that cool balance for which Auntie was once deservedly famous.

For me the key paragraph in the entire piece is
"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says.

Cycling becomes safer in proportion to the number of cyclists, and for the number of cyclists to increase significantly, the car/driver culture has to be changed, as on the Continent it has been with varying degrees of success, high the closer one comes to the English Channel and the North Sea, declining to zero in Eastern Europe. I don't think bicycle apartheid is either desirable or practicable on the scale we would need to contemplate in order to make cycling a commonplace activity, as in The Netherlands.

I gave up the car altogether in 1992...

[honesty]

The global warming scare? Really??? 97% of the scientific community agree that man made global warming exists, but that's a scare?

[Mart]

You can't get away with the fact that bikes sharing roads with cars, lorries and buses is always going to dangerous - we're a lot squishier than them.

I live in Bristol which apparently has the highest number of cyclists per capita of any city in the UK by a tidy margin, yet the city centre is an absolute death trap! (Some nice routes out in to the countryside though)

And some cycle lanes are a bad joke - you can have a false sense of security that you're safe when in reality they're just where you'd normally ride but painted a different colour. Lots of ours are on already quite narrow busy roads where all the cycle lanes do is squeeze the traffic into narrower carriageways and many drivers just ignore them altogether. Ok, better than nothing you can argue but It seems that it's just paying lip service to cyclists on the cheap

anyway, I don't have the answers so maybe I shouldn't rant!

Martin

[il padrone]

Murdoch? You think Murdoch does news?

As an Australian I find him to be a HUGE embarassment.

[Andre Jute]

Murdoch? You think Murdoch does news?

The comparison was to the BBC, after it starting reporting what pressure groups "feel" as scientific news. Murdoch owns a vast range of journals, including for instance the British newspaper of record, The Times, the reputable Sunday Times, which broke the thalidomide scandal, the Wall Street Journal, and the Dow Jones financial information service. None of them report the "feelings" of pressure groups as scientific facts. Objectively, therefore, Murdoch "does news".

[honesty]

The IPCC is not a pressure group. If anything climate change is a perfect example of false balance the BBC does rather well. This is where a large scientific group or someone with relevant scientific knowledge (like the IPCC) is given equal footing in news sections as a wacko crack pot theorist (like global warming deniers). For example Nigel Lawson who has no scientific understanding or background was given equal footing to a scientist who has actually studied the subject.

[mickeg]

The global warming scare? Really??? 97% of the scientific community agree that man made global warming exists, but that's a scare?

I think it is closer to 99 percent.

The comparison was to the BBC, after it starting reporting what pressure groups "feel" as scientific news. Murdoch owns a vast range of journals, including for instance the British newspaper of record, The Times, the reputable Sunday Times, which broke the thalidomide scandal, the Wall Street Journal, and the Dow Jones financial information service. None of them report the "feelings" of pressure groups as scientific facts. Objectively, therefore, Murdoch "does news".

I am in USA, I used to read the Wall St Journal, but no longer look at it since it has lost all credibility in my view.  Instead I started to rely on the Financial Times and Bloomberg for most of my business news.  Most of the other Murdoch publications in the USA also are quite lacking in credibility.  I have no opinion on BBC since I only look at it a couple times a year.

When touring on highways, I always use a flashing red taillight, even in daylight.  I drove a motorcycle for over four decades on a regular basis to commute to work and it was my general observation that on sunny days the car drivers could see you pretty well.  But on cloudy or hazy days, even when I turned on my headlight and bright taillight the car drivers often did not see me as well.  My judgement is based on the close calls I had and what the weather was like at the time.  From that I started driving with an attitude that I was not seen by the other drivers on the road if it was hazy, only when there was bright sun did I feel confident that they saw me.

I always wear high visibility clothing on my bicycle. 

[JWestland]

<rant>

The UK onus on the cyclists, really really REALLY annoys me.

A car is dangerous machinery, hence the requirement for a license.
A helmet is tested for a fall with a speed of 12 miles an hour for a fall of a meter and a half. Not for wrestling with cars.

Now obv. I have lights (legal requirement) + hi-vis for certain weather/unlit roads + I stay out of blindspots + aren't cheeky when filtering. But I do the same in the car. Lights on, don't hang in blindspots, be aware of others, don't be cheeky or speed, it's not worth it.

But somebody dies in a collision between a bike and a car/van you can bet there's lots of post of "Well those cyclists...they jump red lights" (so do a lot of motorists!) and "wear a helmet" (dude, that won't help if your chest is crushed/you end up under a lorry/won't help against concussion even you still need to see a doctor as deceleration/acceleration can't be stopped by a helmet).

Yet...whenever something tragic occurs with driving there's no "but all the drivers". People of course break it down to stereotypes such as "young drivers/male drivers/SUV drivers..." but drivers as a whole don't get lectured on their behavior. And I see some idiot driving sometimes which would wipe out a few people, if the one person didn't keep extra distance. Nearly got wiped out myself too by an idiot. The worst a cyclist does to me in a car is leave a dent, yet we get all the misery heaped onto us.

The UK motorists have decided cyclists are an "out-group" and because we are an "out-group" everything falls on us and it's OK to see us as "cyclists" instead of "fellow road users".
Whereas car users are like other people... so they get the benefit of the doubt and don't get lectures everywhere.

</rant>

Ow well one day more people have a car and a bike and then the groups will merge
And we can all moan together about the crap UK roads

[Andre Jute]

But somebody dies in a collision between a bike and a car/van you can bet there's lots of post of "Well those cyclists...they jump red lights"

An additional factor is that in any serious incident between a motorist and a cyclist, the motorist is vastly more likely to be the only survivor, and it is then his version of the events which led to the demise of the cyclist which is the only one available.