GMTV Reporters are Knobs

seataltea

I'm lates today so was at home when GMTV featured the increase in commuting on bikes over the last year.

They wheeled out Quentin Wilson and the whole crux of the feature was geared towards how bad the behaviour of cycle commuters was, that insurance and test should be compulsory and accidents had risen.

I'm a radio 4 person normally but suffered this rubbish as my daughter had it on before school.

A very shoddy, tabloid report and another reason not to watch again.

gtvlusso

seataltea wrote:

I'm lates today so was at home when GMTV featured the increase in commuting on bikes over the last year.

They wheeled out Quentin Wilson and the whole crux of the feature was geared towards how bad the behaviour of cycle commuters was, that insurance and test should be compulsory and accidents had risen.

I'm a radio 4 person normally but suffered this rubbish as my daughter had it on before school.

A very shoddy, tabloid report and another reason not to watch again.

I am very surprised......that someone was watching GMTV. Personally, I prefer to clean up puppy poo......

Anonymous

More on this stupid report here:
http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/news ... ouse-19970

singlespeedexplosif

GMTV watchers are knobs also. What do people expect?

dodgy

Some figures.

• Average of 570 (about 11 each week) people are killed by drink drivers every year
• Cyclists, pedestrians and motorbike and moped riders account for 45% of all deaths (1,420 deaths in 2006)
• 300 people are killed each year as a result of a driver falling asleep at the wheel
• 3,172 people were killed on Britain’s roads in 2006
• A further 28,673 people were seriously injured in road crashes in 2006

Last year, I can only find one instance of a cyclist causing death. On average, we get one cyclist killing a pedestrian per year, and when it happens, it usually makes front page news.

Given the figures above, it is surprising that cyclists are seen as the problem. Today, about 10 people will die on our roads, and the only cyclists involved will be those under the wheels of cars.

Strange isn't?

I think it's a classic case of blame transferrance, people don't like taking ownership of problems, they usually look to transfer the blame...

Slow Downcp

They ran a similar report 3 months ago - must be a slow news day

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... light=gmtv

visual-hybrid

ITV... nuff said

at least it wasn't that crust bag Judy Finneagan presenting her ignorant rant as usual.

idiots should be encouraging cyclists

girv73

Let's get this straight - GMTV is mindless tabloid tat for people who buy X-Factor albums and read about celebrity diets. Yes the figures on which the report is based are probably exaggerated. Yes they tar all cyclists with the same irresponsible-coloured brush and paint motorists and pedestrians as put-upon innocents. Yes it's a button pushing issue that polarises opinion and is guaranteed to get a response.

Ignore all that. Ignore also the cries for cyclists to "pay road tax" (leave it) and have compulsory insurance.

At the heart of it, do they actually have a point about the raft of new-year-new-me and financially motivated novice cyclists who, let's be honest, can barely ride a bike and haven't a notion of how to behave properly in the dangerous road environment? You just need to look in the Rants and SCR threads here to see endless mention of (other) people RLJing, pavement hopping, riding in stealth mode etc. It annoys us as much as other road users I think.

Wouldn't some basic training help at least some of them?
Are you so sure there's nothing you can learn from a proficiency course?
Wouldn't fewer two wheeled numpties help us all?

FWIW, on the GMTV site there's a page looking for comments on "should [cyclists] be forced to take a proficiency test?":
http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=32853

Rich158

girv73 wrote:

At the heart of it, do they actually have a point about the raft of new-year-new-me and financially motivated novice cyclists who, let's be honest, can barely ride a bike and haven't a notion of how to behave properly in the dangerous road environment? You just need to look in the Rants and SCR threads here to see endless mention of (other) people RLJing, pavement hopping, riding in stealth mode etc. It annoys us as much as other road users I think.

Wouldn't some basic training help at least some of them?
Are you so sure there's nothing you can learn from a proficiency course?
Wouldn't fewer two wheeled numpties help us all?

FWIW, on the GMTV site there's a page looking for comments on "should [cyclists] be forced to take a proficiency test?":
http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=32853

A fair point, how many novice cyclists end up under the wheels of a car because they've done something stupid? Lets be honest the roads are dangerous even for experienced cyclists, let alone a complete newbie. The trouble is once you introduce a proficiency test you've started on the rocky road that could lead to all cyclists requiring a license.

always_tyred

Rich158 wrote:

girv73 wrote:

At the heart of it, do they actually have a point about the raft of new-year-new-me and financially motivated novice cyclists who, let's be honest, can barely ride a bike and haven't a notion of how to behave properly in the dangerous road environment? You just need to look in the Rants and SCR threads here to see endless mention of (other) people RLJing, pavement hopping, riding in stealth mode etc. It annoys us as much as other road users I think.

Wouldn't some basic training help at least some of them?
Are you so sure there's nothing you can learn from a proficiency course?
Wouldn't fewer two wheeled numpties help us all?

FWIW, on the GMTV site there's a page looking for comments on "should [cyclists] be forced to take a proficiency test?":
http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=32853

A fair point, how many novice cyclists end up under the wheels of a car because they've done something stupid? Lets be honest the roads are dangerous even for experienced cyclists, let alone a complete newbie. The trouble is once you introduce a proficiency test you've started on the rocky road that could lead to all cyclists requiring a license.

All we have to do is ensure that the cycling proficiency test stops instructing people to turn right by getting off and walking and/or from the left lane of roundabouts (and other nonsense).

From what I recall, the cycling proficiency test appeared to have been written by a non-cyclist, and was not quite as helpful for survival and or progressing at a reasonable speed as "Roadcraft".

simple_salmon

Always Tyred wrote:

From what I recall, the cycling proficiency test appeared to have been written by a non-cyclist, and was not quite as helpful for survival and or progressing at a reasonable speed as "Roadcraft".

The new training appears to be better. From February 1st we will be offering two hours free tuition to all our staff who want it. The trainers are from a local cycling compnay called Cyclemagic and they are certainly not non-cyclists.

Slow Downcp

As I've said before, training and a test won;t make any difference. Drivers have to pass a driving test, but still speed, jump lights etc after they've passed. You'd still get the same cyclists riding on pavements, without lights etc. Only way to stop this happening is for the police to start prosecuting.

squeeler

Do kids still do a cycling proficiency test? I remember doing one when I was about 10 yrs old, 22 years on having both a car and motorbike license I wouldn't fancy having to take another test just to ride my bike!

dodgy

I'll happily do a proficiency test if it shuts all the bleating drivers up.

simple_salmon

Many schools now offer Bikeability training. I don't know if there is a test or not but the idea is to make them better and more confident cyclists.

Personally I can't see a problem with that (so long as it's not compulsory).

Slow Downcp - I think you're wrong. Young cyclists need practise and training to improve their skills. Without being shown how to do things safely they will be at a greater risk on the roads. Some, but not all, will still choose to break the law but many of those, given an understanding of why the rules exist, will choose to abide by them. Without training they would never even have a chance to make that choice.

Slow Downcp

People know they shouldn't ride on paths, and should use lights at night - just because they've been told by a training organisation and passed a test won't make any difference.

I agree with helping kids with basic roadcraft, but most of the people regularly being accused of RLJ'ing etc are adults.

Re kids with no lights, I wouldn't let my kids ride in the dark without any - I guess that's a parent issue.

simple_salmon

Slow Downcp wrote:

People know they shouldn't ride on paths, and should use lights at night - just because they've been told by a training organisation and passed a test won't make any difference.

I agree with helping kids with basic roadcraft, but most of the people regularly being accused of RLJ'ing etc are adults.

Re kids with no lights, I wouldn't let my kids ride in the dark without any - I guess that's a parent issue.

I agree with most of that but:

Given how often (around here anyway) the cycle paths hop on and off the pavements I think that many people could easily be confused about what they can and can't do.

SOME (most?) children given good basic skills are more likely to become adults with good basic skills.

Have you ever met some of the parents? I think we owe it to the kids to give them a fighting chance out there because there are way too many parents who won't be.

Cheers.

soy_sauce

Slow Downcp wrote:

People know they shouldn't ride on paths, and should use lights at night - just because they've been told by a training organisation and passed a test won't make any difference.

I agree with helping kids with basic roadcraft, but most of the people regularly being accused of RLJ'ing etc are adults.

Re kids with no lights, I wouldn't let my kids ride in the dark without any - I guess that's a parent issue.

totally agree. also i never see any kids cycling on the road as most (if not all) of them cycle on the pavement. i don't mind people cycling on the pavement if they are in a slow speed and be careful but some chavs just pi55ing me off!!! doing a wheelie on the pavement in the main street at rush hour (p.s. behind a old lady too!!)?!! that just not on. :evil:

about the test for commuter, how are they gonna know who had the test or not? have the same system like cars and motobikes, have a regestrated number plent or some thing at the back and front of the bicycle? so only people had done the test can be regestrated and stuff?

richk

I find it interesting that GMTV use the word "they" (my bold)

The continuing quest to save money has led to a surge in cyclists taking to the roads but should they be forced to take a proficiency test? Let us know your thoughts

basically shows which side their bread is buttered

redvee

Saw the report on this at 7am and they havd a couple of people interviewed, C+ editor and some boffin type stood at the roadside who said "cyclists have better all round vision it is OK to RLJ but doing this upsets car drivers"

girv73

LV=, speaking about the number of cyclists involved in accidents, say this:

...7 per cent of these took place in the last six months = 150,434 accidents. In the year six months previously 4 per cent of all accidents took place = 85,962 accidents. There has therefore been a 29 per cent increase in accidents.

I read that as a 29% increase in accidents in the past six months (winter) compared to the previous six months (summer). I'm not sure I understand what "...the year six months previously..." means though.

CTC, refuting the above, say this:

...there are typically around 175 casualties a month in the summer months April to October (rising in some months to over 200), whereas figures in winter are around 125 a month (and sometimes below 100). The 29% increase nothing more than the normal difference between the summer and the winter months.

CTC, and the DFT report they take their figures from, would appear to show a decrease into winter?

What am I missing?

downfader

Locally it has ALWAYs been a drop in the number of cyclists I see as many wont commute in the dark and cold. Therefore if there has been an increase in accidents I would say that is partly down to driver error, partly some cyclists not using lights or putting themselves in danger... its not 100% one way or the other.

The whole LV article is bunkem designed to scare people into cars and pay for car insurance. :? Is this REALLY how we want our country to turn out? Fatties paying a fortune to drive no where fast.

downfader

I have sent an email to LV over this and suggested that they help matters rather than simply pointing fingers (I said they should consider offering free cycling lessons to their insured drivers and add cover for cyclists into the car insurance contact)

I have also sent a comment to GMTV stating the obvious, lol. I would hope that any other law abiding cyclist would also do the same. Get political people!

laughingboy

RichK wrote:

I find it interesting that GMTV use the word "they" (my bold)

The continuing quest to save money has led to a surge in cyclists taking to the roads but should they be forced to take a proficiency test? Let us know your thoughts

basically shows which side their bread is buttered

Talking of bread, car adverts are a considerable part of ITV's income.

Sadly, unless cycle manufacturers begin to spend money on TV adverts we can't be sure that this cash has any effect on ITV's editorial line. But we can hazard a guess...

symo

Rich158 wrote:

girv73 wrote:

At the heart of it, do they actually have a point about the raft of new-year-new-me and financially motivated novice cyclists who, let's be honest, can barely ride a bike and haven't a notion of how to behave properly in the dangerous road environment? You just need to look in the Rants and SCR threads here to see endless mention of (other) people RLJing, pavement hopping, riding in stealth mode etc. It annoys us as much as other road users I think.

Wouldn't some basic training help at least some of them?
Are you so sure there's nothing you can learn from a proficiency course?
Wouldn't fewer two wheeled numpties help us all?

FWIW, on the GMTV site there's a page looking for comments on "should [cyclists] be forced to take a proficiency test?":
http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=32853

+1
This test would be the thin end of the wedge. The road tax arguement does not work against us as it does not pay for any road maintenance anyway.

A fair point, how many novice cyclists end up under the wheels of a car because they've done something stupid? Lets be honest the roads are dangerous even for experienced cyclists, let alone a complete newbie. The trouble is once you introduce a proficiency test you've started on the rocky road that could lead to all cyclists requiring a license.

+1
Thin end of the wedge a test like would turn out to be.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Bring on bi-annual (or so) car and motorcycle liciense renewals, so that people have to demostrate they are safe to drive a motorised vehicle beyond their initial test (which I would guess is usually in their late teens)...

Then get back to me about legalised pedal cycle useage!