The war on Britains roads, 5th Dec BBC

mybreakfastconsisted

This sums it up best:

I do not care what happened after the black taxi driver who had cut up a cyclist had stopped and I care nothing for his acknowledgement in subsequent interview that he had overreacted.

Having tracked him down I would have liked the filmmakers to ask why he apparently makes a habit of passing cyclists with inches to spare and whether he has any familiarity with rule 163 of the Highway Code.

Above all I would like to know whether he acknowledges that even if, by some good fortune, he has yet to run into a cyclist, his behaviour contributes to intimidating would be cyclists off the road.

The unfortunate fact is that it suited the program's thesis better to portray the taxidriver and cyclist as two sides of a coin whilst both were standing on tarmac having a row, rather than beforehand when the driver was driving a substantial vehicle badly around vulnerable roadusers and the cyclist was not presenting any danger to anybody.


Sadly many people will take from this programme whatever they like to reinforce their own existing prejudices. My own view is that one group that come over badly are the Police, and particularly the Metropolitan Police.
-Why did Cynthia Barlow have to spend her money on a private investigator to find out what happened to her daughter?
-With all the clips of bad driving shown on that film, why is that only one has resulted in prosecution (and no, the one was not the dreadful tanker on the roundabout)? The black cab driver referred to above was guilty of driving without due care and consideration when he passed cyclists who had nothing to do with his subsequent confrontation. As it is he is left still believing that his driving is acceptable.

- Why did the police not investigate the Bexley assault properly, leaving it to the victims to identify the assailant?

- Why did the Cycle Task Force officer depicted (the one who did not hesitate to thread through a junction against a red light to catch an errant cyclist) allow a taxi driver, who had intimidated a variety of cyclists and passed close enough to have his cab bashed, on his way with reassurance he had done nothing wrong? (I thought the deferential tone adopted with the driver in contrast to the silly patronising 'get a whistle' tone he adopted with the cyclist spoke volumes). Unfortunately, as Sgt Castle of the Task Force explained to me when I met them, they do not believe in taking motorists up on close passes because they regard it as 'too subjective'.

There is no 'war' on the roads. There is however a battle in getting the authorities (who after all encourage us onto two wheels) to do sufficient for our protection.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... roads.html

Kieran_Burns

gtvlusso wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Do you also write angry little missives about the drivers you see on multiple-drink-driving convictions Alistair Stewarts'

STOP POLICE BASTARD

programme? After all, they too have let down the entire motoring community.

Not yet - Although I was arrested for doing over 130MPH in a 30MPH zone on a motorbike when I was 17. Went to court, let off on a technicality.

So, in all reality, I let down the entire country, in fact the whole of Western Europe and probably lowered the speed limit somewhere by my selfish and childish actions.

Sorry about that.

Watch this: http://youtu.be/7Ke2R4TJauA calm down (it's helmet camera footage, you may explode in a fit of duality) The music is pretty good as well....

dodgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

What I'm worried about is the nutcases, the would be villain to Gaz's urban crusader (guy has had death threats) who will want to combat this.

No he hasn't, unless you're getting your news from the Daily Mail or similar.

vermin

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

This sums it up best:

...

Quite.

The comment "Sadly many people will take from this programme whatever they like to reinforce their own existing prejudices." has been demonstrated amply in the last 15 pages of this thread. The programme highlighted not the 'WAR' but the pitiful state of affairs we are all in, when just a few insane idiots start to change the perceptions of the general public. What I struggle with is the fact that the cycling community at large doesn't seem capable of seeing that and embracing it. Instead, the cycling public has deemed the programme rotten on face value, because "it reflects badly on me" or "it makes cycling look too dangerous", rather than thinking about what it actually showed. It wasn't about CyclingGaz and his crusading, or the Droid and his vigilantism, or the ranting taxi driver or the psychopath who punched(ish) the lawyer. It was about highlighting how futile all of this behaviour is, and how it's all being fueled by just a handful of idiots. How the streets, particularly in London, ARE becoming more hostile for cyclists, and how the authorities (police, planners, DVLA, etc) are doing far too little to help resolve the issue. How we seem to be becoming ever more entrenched into gangs, whether we like it or not. I saw it as an opportunity to look at the situation through the other end of the telescope and see how ridiculous it all is and how dangerous it is to let the hostility continue to grow. I think it did a superb job of that. It was deeply uncomfortable viewing. If you couldn't see that, then there is no hope.

mybreakfastconsisted

vermin wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

This sums it up best:

...

How the streets, particularly in London, ARE becoming more hostile for cyclists,

That's one of the major problems I had with the programme, quite a few times they said "Things have never been worse" or "tensions have never been higher"

They offered no evidence for this whatsoever, because it's bollocks, cycling rates have doubled in London and the accident rate has halved in the last ten years.

vermin

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

vermin wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

This sums it up best:

...

How the streets, particularly in London, ARE becoming more hostile for cyclists,

That's one of the major problems I had with the programme, quite a few times they said "Things have never been worse" or "tensions have never been higher"

They offered no evidence for this whatsoever, because it's ****, cycling rates have doubled in London and the accident rate has halved in the last ten years.

I said "hostile" not "accident-filled"

mybreakfastconsisted

Things are better for cyclists in London now, the stats bear that out, the programme was scare-mongering, dishonest, short on any actual evidence and terribly unhelpful.

vermin

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Things are better for cyclists in London now, the stats bear that out, the programme was scare-mongering, dishonest, short on any actual evidence and terribly unhelpful.

Point proven.

mybreakfastconsisted

What's your evidence that London's more hostile for cyclists?

Kieran_Burns

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

What's your evidence that London's more hostile for cyclists?

Well you lot seem pretty p*ssed off.

rjsterry

vermin wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

vermin wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

This sums it up best:

...

How the streets, particularly in London, ARE becoming more hostile for cyclists,

That's one of the major problems I had with the programme, quite a few times they said "Things have never been worse" or "tensions have never been higher"

They offered no evidence for this whatsoever, because it's ****, cycling rates have doubled in London and the accident rate has halved in the last ten years.

I said "hostile" not "accident-filled"

I really don't find that to be the case. If anything, I'd say that things are less hostile now, although I'd admit that that view is just as subjective as yours. Like MBC, that was my main problem with the programme.

mybreakfastconsisted

Ten years ago we didn't have Boris bikes, Superhighways, half the current number of cyclists and double the accident rate. I'd say we've improved a great deal.

vermin

rjsterry, you're right, I suppose it's all just subjective really.

KB, nice.

Incidentally, the DFT figures show a steady increase in cycle accidents over the last 10 years in London, not that it matters.

mybreakfastconsisted

vermin wrote:

rjsterry, you're right, I suppose it's all just subjective really.

KB, nice.

Incidentally, the DFT figures show a steady increase in cycle accidents over the last 10 years in London, not that it matters.

Allowing for the boom in cycling the chances of getting hurt have halved. More cyclists=fewer accidents, the impression I got from the programme was that if I went out on my bike in London I'd be attacked by van drivers and thick aggressive cabbies all day long.

vermin

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

vermin wrote:

rjsterry, you're right, I suppose it's all just subjective really.

KB, nice.

Incidentally, the DFT figures show a steady increase in cycle accidents over the last 10 years in London, not that it matters.

Allowing for the boom in cycling the chances of getting hurt have halved. More cyclists=fewer accidents, the impression I got from the programme was that if I went out on my bike in London I'd be attacked by van drivers and thick aggressive cabbies all day long.

Wait, "if I went out on my bike in London"? Am I missing something, like maybe the bit where you have any experience of that about which you are professing?

More cyclists should equal more awareness, better infrastructure, better protection.

mybreakfastconsisted

E3 to E14 for 5 years, E10 to SE1 for 8, a total of around 80,000 miles in London. You?

vermin

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

E3 to E14 for 5 years, E10 to SE1 for 8, a total of around 80,000 miles in London. You?

Ok, then it comes back to subjectivity. But still, you prove my point, that you have taken a couple of clips at face value and assumed that everyone is daft enough to think they are representative of the whole. Something I just can't get my head around. No-one's that daft. Are they?

mybreakfastconsisted

Yep, subjectively you feel things are more hostile.

Subjectively, I think things are much better, and the evidence seems to indicate that things are a lot better than they were.

Admittedly this was from a low base, but I don't think the cycling cause is made better by those world-famous experts on road safety, the tv production team who make Cash In The Attic.

mybreakfastconsisted

vermin wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

E3 to E14 for 5 years, E10 to SE1 for 8, a total of around 80,000 miles in London. You?

Ok, then it comes back to subjectivity. But still, you prove my point, that you have taken a couple of clips at face value and assumed that everyone is daft enough to think they are representative of the whole. Something I just can't get my head around. No-one's that daft. Are they?

Oh, you edited. No, I didn't say that, I said at least three times in the commentary the voiceover said:

"Things have never been worse"

That's simply not true.

vermin

Maybe I give them too much credit, maybe you give them too little. Maybe it set out to be the dreadful sensationalist rubbish you saw, maybe it set out to be the grotesque reflection I saw (like most mornings).

Ron Stuart

Geffen has a pop at helmet wearers again... http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen ... we-respond

Geffen shows a still of the thug about to punch one of the riders and then he goes on to say "I also pointed out yesterday that – with the notable exception of Cynthia – the combatants in the BBC’s 'war' are all battle-hardened males, with the cyclists all wearing helmets and cameras. This is hardly the way to support the promotion of cycling as a safe and normal activity, which people of any age, gender or background can do in whatever clothing they would normally wear."

Doesn't Geffen get it? The only way that degenerate finally got brought to justice was because some cycling male wearing a helmet and cam filmed the attack the police didn't want to know about. The guy who was physically attacked by that thug was a guy just wanting to have a pleasant bike ride with his buddies, not someone looking for it as a "battle-hardened male" and horror of horrors he had a helmet on, Geffen thinks "looking for trouble" obviously.

mybreakfastconsisted

A lot in that synopsis didn't make it to the version I saw,including the wild victim-blaming.

jonny_trousers

Just watched it this afternoon on iPlayer. I thought it was an interesting and well balanced program all-in-all.

rubertoe

At the end of the day, we are all just trying to get from A-B, some people choose to use a car, some people go by bike and some people even chose to get ripped of on PT, everyone should be able to do that in as safe a way as possible regardless of the mode of transport.

We are all Human and unfortunately there is a very selfish culture out there when everyone is looking out for number one. Small things like manners and being courteous are sadly missing from society as a whole, whether that is helping old people cross the road or giving up your seat on the bus or just being a bit more patient.

The film for me highlighted these problems more than anything as a sad reflection on society as a whole.

Some people will always be c*cks and some of those people happen to ride bikes and/or drive cars.

tailwindhome

Watched it on iplayer just now.

Well that's a lie. Watched about half and hour of it then got bored. Seen all those clips before.

-Don't jump red lights
-Don't scream and shout like a maniac
-Yeah near misses make great uploads to youtube, but it's infinitely preferable just to concentrate on riding defensively
-Calm yourself down, it's not a war.
-Don't hit cars
-If you ride around looking for a fight, be careful - you just might get one.

In summary 'Don't ride like a dick'

If I'm ever in London I'll won't be bringing either the bike or the car. I'll probably just find a nice pub with decent Guinness and watch the world go by.

tailwindhome

rubertoe wrote:

At the end of the day, we are all just trying to get from A-B

This

veronese68

I watched it on iplayer with my 14 year old son. I said to him right at the beginning that it would show some rather extreme versions of things and would deliberately overdramatise things. It was worth watching by way of education for him. He's realising that it's possible to be taken out through no fault of your own, that roads are dangerous and should be treated with care, he's also more aware of the dangers of going down the left side of a large vehicle. I've already told him all of this many times, but the programme did help to reinforce it.
I thought most of the programme was entirely predictable unfortunately. I also wish both of the cabbies were told that if a cyclist can touch the cab you are probably too close, amongst lots of other things.

vermin

Veronese68 wrote:

I watched it on iplayer with my 14 year old son. I said to him right at the beginning that it would show some rather extreme versions of things and would deliberately overdramatise things. It was worth watching by way of education for him. He's realising that it's possible to be taken out through no fault of your own, that roads are dangerous and should be treated with care, he's also more aware of the dangers of going down the left side of a large vehicle. I've already told him all of this many times, but the programme did help to reinforce it.
I thought most of the programme was entirely predictable unfortunately. I also wish both of the cabbies were told that if a cyclist can touch the cab you are probably too close, amongst lots of other things.

Roads aren't dangerous, so I'm told. :roll:

And your son should be in bed.

veronese68

vermin wrote:

Roads aren't dangerous, so I'm told. :roll:

And your son should be in bed.

Ok, I probably said can be, just too lazy to type it all out. Trying to drum in a bit of awareness to a 14 year old is really quite difficult. I'd beat it into him but he's bigger than me now. I think I've even used the "assume everyone else is an idiot" line, a point a lot of that programme seemed to underline.

Widgey

Myself and Mrs Widge watched it. We didnt think it was all that bad, mostly due to watching most of the clips on Youtube already. For us it just showed peoples impatience and the need to be aggressive and antagonistic.

I dont think Gaz came off at all that badly, after all it is his life and he values it. Yes he did overreact with the taxi, he knows that too. Traffic Droid just seems like he wants to help which is nice to see, but him helping actually has a negative effect.

Mrs Widge drives to work, regularly saying how people beep at others for not going through a set of traffic lights and into a yellow hashed area, or just into an ASL.

People are the problem!