The war on Britains roads, 5th Dec BBC

rml380z

So the people on a sensationalist programme are regarded as being extreme. Who would have thought?

However, there were no mentions of cycle-helmets being compulsory, so in my opinion that made the programme balanced.

msmancunia

56 complaints on the BBC overnight audience log - vast majority from cyclists complaining about:
1) bias,
2) using the alleycat footage which a few have pointed out almost certainly breaches Ed Pol,
3) sexism - almost exclusively male, apart from female cyclist who died.

mrjamesc

whitebait01 wrote:

mrjamesc wrote:

What was that guy called, the one with the website?

Gaz?

http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/

The black chap who left cards with people

rick_chasey

vermin wrote:

I don't get it. Struck me that if you just 'looked' at it, without thinking about the story being told, then yes, it was sensationalist and nothing more. If you actually immersed yourself in it and let the storyteller tell his story, then it ran much deeper and actually worked. Maybe I'm just much cleverer than everyone else. Or something.

I'm sure your mother thinks you're special .

mrjamesc

theotherjake wrote:

mrjamesc wrote:

What was that guy called, the one with the website?

Traffic droid?

Thats the one, cheers!

pinarello_fan

notsoblue wrote:

Did you see the clip?

Yes

notsoblue wrote:

Did you see how much space there was between the cyclist and the lorry?

At the time, plenty, but don't road conditions change, traffic moves etc?! The Cemex driver in his 'Wheeled Death' was giving his opinion. Did you also see the comment from the taxi driver who's grandson was killed on his bike about the city gent who was RLJing? Was that wrong too?

notsoblue wrote:

Just how far out would the cyclist have had to swerve (without looking) to have been a danger?

Is that relevant?

notsoblue wrote:

I know that bit of road, and I'm not sure what kind of danger there would have to be along there that would have me constantly checking over my shoulder.

Haven't asked you to throw lifesavers all the time - I have merely stated that wearing headphones affects the ability to hear what's going on around and thus the ability to react to danger.

notsoblue wrote:

Besides, aren't motorists meant to give bikes enough room to account for swerving to avoid danger?

Are you serious?! If everyone did everything they were supposed to do, this programme wouldn't have been aired and we'd all love each other!

cookdn

meanredspider wrote:

Green Brompton wrote:

We should get helmet cams and show people what our commute is really about - getting from A-B quicker than most other modes of transport, comfortably and enjoyably.

What - like mine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Qs5gMz8cM

Wouldn't make great prime-time action viewing - needs Kate Humble to add interest

Now you are just trying to make all us southerners jealous.

Kieran_Burns

cookdn wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Green Brompton wrote:

We should get helmet cams and show people what our commute is really about - getting from A-B quicker than most other modes of transport, comfortably and enjoyably.

What - like mine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Qs5gMz8cM

Wouldn't make great prime-time action viewing - needs Kate Humble to add interest

Now you are just trying to make all us southerners jealous.

I'll add to it http://youtu.be/GCtHmrDU8YE?hd=1 :P

TheStone

msmancunia wrote:

56 complaints on the BBC overnight audience log - vast majority from cyclists complaining about:
1) bias,
2) using the alleycat footage which a few have pointed out almost certainly breaches Ed Pol,
3) sexism - almost exclusively male, apart from female cyclist who died.

I don't get that.
It's a TV program. Wasn't anywhere near as bad as I expect.

90% of it was on cyclists side (... with some very odd characters) and 10% was against.
Only an idiot would judge all cyclists by the alleycat lot or all drivers by the bloke who (sort of) punched the cyclist.

notsoblue

pinarello_fan wrote:

Haven't asked you to throw lifesavers all the time - I have merely stated that wearing headphones affects the ability to hear what's going on around and thus the ability to react to danger.

:roll:

You see, this is the thing - Theres the automatic assumption that cycling is so incredibly dangerous that something as innocuous as wearing headphones puts you at huge risk.

bigmat

TheStone wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

56 complaints on the BBC overnight audience log - vast majority from cyclists complaining about:
1) bias,
2) using the alleycat footage which a few have pointed out almost certainly breaches Ed Pol,
3) sexism - almost exclusively male, apart from female cyclist who died.

I don't get that.
It's a TV program. Wasn't anywhere near as bad as I expect.

90% of it was on cyclists side (... with some very odd characters) and 10% was against.
Only an idiot would judge all cyclists by the alleycat lot or all drivers by the bloke who (sort of) punched the cyclist.

Lots of idiots will have watched though...

How sexist? Given it was compiled from helmet cam footage, are there any female commuters whose helmet cam footage was ignored? Strikes me that its a bit of a male thing to do (well certain types of male anyway - not my bag!) which is why the talking heads were all blokes.

msmancunia

BigMat wrote:

TheStone wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

56 complaints on the BBC overnight audience log - vast majority from cyclists complaining about:
1) bias,
2) using the alleycat footage which a few have pointed out almost certainly breaches Ed Pol,
3) sexism - almost exclusively male, apart from female cyclist who died.

I don't get that.
It's a TV program. Wasn't anywhere near as bad as I expect.

90% of it was on cyclists side (... with some very odd characters) and 10% was against.
Only an idiot would judge all cyclists by the alleycat lot or all drivers by the bloke who (sort of) punched the cyclist.

Lots of idiots will have watched though...

How sexist? Given it was compiled from helmet cam footage, are there any female commuters whose helmet cam footage was ignored? Strikes me that its a bit of a male thing to do (well certain types of male anyway - not my bag!) which is why the talking heads were all blokes.

Haven't seen it yet - was travelling back from London, but people did comment that all the cam footage was from guys, and very few women were involved in the programme. But yeah, you could be right - cam stuff could be more of a bloke thing.

pinarello_fan

notsoblue wrote:

pinarello_fan wrote:

Haven't asked you to throw lifesavers all the time - I have merely stated that wearing headphones affects the ability to hear what's going on around and thus the ability to react to danger.

:roll:

You see, this is the thing - Theres the automatic assumption that cycling is so incredibly dangerous that something as innocuous as wearing headphones puts you at huge risk.

Cycling is not incredibly dangerous, but just as when driving, walking, having sex :oops: etc, you have to take precautions or suffer the consequences! Simple as really

sneill

I couldn't watch it all, maybe it improved but from the outset it was like an episode of Road Wars (maybe I should of known with such similar titles!?).

All this programme did in the first 15minutes was to show d1cks on the road, whether they were on a bike or in a car. The only person to talk sense was the old cabby, the one who said he was spat at? That shocked me, what **** spits at someone! So the main part I watched was Gaz vs Silver Cab, which I just thought was unnecessary. Yes the cab driver was too close, but Gaz is a complete moron and wound the cabby up. When it went into a montage of fists being raised and general road rage I stopped watching.

sneill

notsoblue wrote:

pinarello_fan wrote:

Haven't asked you to throw lifesavers all the time - I have merely stated that wearing headphones affects the ability to hear what's going on around and thus the ability to react to danger.

:roll:

You see, this is the thing - Theres the automatic assumption that cycling is so incredibly dangerous that something as innocuous as wearing headphones puts you at huge risk.

Wearing headphones isn't going to hurt anyone, but it will dull your senses/reactions and I generally think its stupid to be listening to music while cycling through London. There are enough hazards out there as it is, why add to the risk at all? Cycling isn't incredibly dangerous but I think some think there is no danger at all!

bails87

My commute isn't through the middle of London, I skirt the edge of a city, go through the suburbs/countryside then back into a pleasant town, so things aren't as hectic. But still, I don't understand the problem with headphones. I don't use them, but the automatic assumption that you can't hear anything (who here really wouldn't hear a lorry horn from a few feet away, even with headphones in?!) is a bit dramatic. By the same logic anyone who drives around with their windows closed, or with the radio on is putting themselves at risk. I'm not sure I've ever made a move on the road based on what I could or couldn't hear behind me, I look, it's much more reliable. Maybe people with headphones look more, I don't know.

We don't know that the cyclist in the vid couldn't hear anything(typical ipod headphones keep out virtually no noise), and I do think the driver was over the top in his criticism.

mtbcommuter

sneill wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

pinarello_fan wrote:

Haven't asked you to throw lifesavers all the time - I have merely stated that wearing headphones affects the ability to hear what's going on around and thus the ability to react to danger.

:roll:

You see, this is the thing - Theres the automatic assumption that cycling is so incredibly dangerous that something as innocuous as wearing headphones puts you at huge risk.

Wearing headphones isn't going to hurt anyone, but it will dull your senses/reactions and I generally think its stupid to be listening to music while cycling through London. There are enough hazards out there as it is, why add to the risk at all? Cycling isn't incredibly dangerous but I think some think there is no danger at all!

Surely if the inability to hear dulls your senses/reactions then we should all have hearing tests prior to being allowed to cycle, cleary anyone with a hearing impairment should be automatically prevented from becoming another dangerous road user?

Whilst we're on about it, as well as being a cyclist (and car/van driver) I also enjoy motorcycling, before putting my helmet on I push foam ear plugs into my ears (like the vast majority of other motorcyclists) so surely I'm increasing my risk?

It is a matter of personal choice whether cyclists listen to music, the statisticians will claim an increase in cyclists being injured whilst listening to music using headphones..........and that no doubt relates directly to the increase in availability of Iphones and similar to play music whilst cycling.

I have on many occasions listened to music whilst cycling and have yet to feel that I am unaware of my surroundings due to it.

t4tomo

bails87 wrote:

My commute isn't through the middle of London, I skirt the edge of a city, go through the suburbs/countryside then back into a pleasant town, so things aren't as hectic. But still, I don't understand the problem with headphones. I don't use them, but the automatic assumption that you can't hear anything (who here really wouldn't hear a lorry horn from a few feet away, even with headphones in?!) is a bit dramatic. By the same logic anyone who drives around with their windows closed, or with the radio on is putting themselves at risk. I'm not sure I've ever made a move on the road based on what I could or couldn't hear behind me, I look, it's much more reliable. Maybe people with headphones look more, I don't know.

We don't know that the cyclist in the vid couldn't hear anything(typical ipod headphones keep out virtually no noise), and I do think the driver was over the top in his criticism.

No its quite different, as
A) whilst a car radio is a source of noice, its not so close to your ears that you block out other noises.
a car has 3 mirrors to help you see what's around you, a bike doesn't - so being able to hear every noise around you helps.
C) as far as I'm aware listening to music doesn't improve your ability concentration on the task in hand, it distracts from it.

If people want to cycle with headphones thats their choice, but lets not try to defend it or claim its a "good" thing to do.

iPete

I unconsciously do less life saver checks and zone out if I've not got some music in my left ear keeping me sane. So yes, you can claim it is a good thing. The fact that it keeps me from finding 2+ hours a day riding similar routes dull is a good thing.

3 years, enough miles to ride the globe as the crow flies and 0 incidents related to having music on makes it a 'risk' I'm happy to take. Sure beats the sound of the wind and getting ear worms that would make any sane man cycle off a bridge.

rjsterry

bails87 wrote:

My commute isn't through the middle of London, I skirt the edge of a city, go through the suburbs/countryside then back into a pleasant town, so things aren't as hectic. But still, I don't understand the problem with headphones. I don't use them, but the automatic assumption that you can't hear anything (who here really wouldn't hear a lorry horn from a few feet away, even with headphones in?!) is a bit dramatic. By the same logic anyone who drives around with their windows closed, or with the radio on is putting themselves at risk. I'm not sure I've ever made a move on the road based on what I could or couldn't hear behind me, I look, it's much more reliable. Maybe people with headphones look more, I don't know.

We don't know that the cyclist in the vid couldn't hear anything(typical ipod headphones keep out virtually no noise), and I do think the driver was over the top in his criticism.

I dunno: my eyesight isn't that great, particularly in relation to judging distance at close quarters (don't have proper binocular vision, so have to rely on perspective cues, hence my filtering fu is weak), but my hearing is pretty sharp, and I'm conscious of using it a lot when cycling. The last couple of days when I've had the ear warmers on, I've felt unpleasantly detached from what's going on on the road. Also, don't kid yourself that your eyes are necessarily more reliable than your ears - remember the optical illusion thread a couple of weeks back? You often see what you expect to see, rather than what is actually there. Still, the point about other road users not being able to rely on hearing is well made.

sneill

iPete wrote:

I unconsciously do less life saver checks and zone out if I've not got some music in my left ear keeping me sane. So yes, you can claim it is a good thing. The fact that it keeps me from finding 2+ hours a day riding similar routes dull is a good thing.

3 years, enough miles to ride the globe as the crow flies and 0 incidents related to having music on makes it a 'risk' I'm happy to take. Sure beats the sound of the wind and getting ear worms that would make any sane man cycle off a bridge.

Can I ask if you always just have music in one ear? I presume that is to keep the other ear unhindered? I actually enjoy the sound of the wind and my wheels, I'm used to running without headphones too and enjoy the quiet, so I can't relate to going insane without some sort of input.

I didn't mean it is a risk having headphones in, just that it adds to the already present risk that we cannot deny is on the roads.

Coach H

t4tomo wrote:

No its quite different, as
C) as far as I'm aware listening to music doesn't improve your ability concentration on the task in hand, it distracts from it.

Interesting as I thought it had been proved that background music does aid concentration. When I had a shoulder operation the surgeon even told me what he would be playing throughout the surgery in case a had a memory of it and couldn't understand why my post-op earworm was the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms album!

Maybe he didn't think it was a complicated enough surgery to bother concentrating in :shock:

iPete

Yes, always the left ear, this way I can hear everything, keep concentrating for the hour + commute but don't rely on it & still feel fully aware. I personally wouldn't stick noise cancelling headphones in both ears for example but each to their own, you can still ride safely.

rjsterry

Coach H wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

No its quite different, as
C) as far as I'm aware listening to music doesn't improve your ability concentration on the task in hand, it distracts from it.

Interesting as I thought it had been proved that background music does aid concentration. When I had a shoulder operation the surgeon even told me what he would be playing throughout the surgery in case a had a memory of it and couldn't understand why my post-op earworm was the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms album!

Maybe he didn't think it was a complicated enough surgery to bother concentrating in :shock:

I have an image of a surgeon, scalpel in hand, air-guitaring to the Money for Nothing intro.

CiB

Are we allowed to listen to comedy podcasts in open countryside? How about light acoustic music, or single-voice compositions? Etc.

vermin

iPete wrote:

Yes, always the left ear, this way I can hear everything but don't rely on it & still feel fully aware. I personally wouldn't stick noise cancelling headphones in both ears for example but each to their own, you can still ride safely.

Ditto, left ear only for me too. And usually listening to either R4 or Google navigation (I have no sense of direction). :roll:

notsoblue

The headphone debate is almost as bad as the helmet debate.

vermin

rjsterry wrote:

Coach H wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

No its quite different, as
C) as far as I'm aware listening to music doesn't improve your ability concentration on the task in hand, it distracts from it.

Interesting as I thought it had been proved that background music does aid concentration. When I had a shoulder operation the surgeon even told me what he would be playing throughout the surgery in case a had a memory of it and couldn't understand why my post-op earworm was the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms album!

Maybe he didn't think it was a complicated enough surgery to bother concentrating in :shock:

I have an image of a surgeon, scalpel in hand, air-guitaring to the Money for Nothing intro.

With blisters on his thumb and little finger, presumably.

cjcp

vermin wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Coach H wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

No its quite different, as
C) as far as I'm aware listening to music doesn't improve your ability concentration on the task in hand, it distracts from it.

Interesting as I thought it had been proved that background music does aid concentration. When I had a shoulder operation the surgeon even told me what he would be playing throughout the surgery in case a had a memory of it and couldn't understand why my post-op earworm was the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms album!

Maybe he didn't think it was a complicated enough surgery to bother concentrating in :shock:

I have an image of a surgeon, scalpel in hand, air-guitaring to the Money for Nothing intro.

With blisters on his thumb and little finger, presumably.

Good job he's not installing microwave ovens, then.

cjcp

That's really not an album to inspire the patient, is it?

Imagine the doc chatting to the paitent:

"Hey, wanna see my Latest Trick?"

"Or, c'mon, Why Worry?"

"And, let's do the Walk of Life."

*Patient rips off the drip, leaps off the oeprating table and legs it down the corridor before he even mentions the title track*