[Shades]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000llw4

Interesting ‘take’ on why motorists hate cyclists; have a listen, only 15min long

Topic

[brooksby]

Tom_77 wrote:

a) Drivers hate anything that’s in front of them that’s moving slower than they are.

This is the main reason drivers hate cyclists, they hate being inconvenienced however trivially. Drivers hate caravans and tractors for the same reason, and also “Sunday Drivers” and Learners.

This is true.  All currently licenced drivers believe that they arrived out of the womb already having all of the necessary motoring skills hard-wired, so that they never ever actually had to learn to drive…

[pockstone]

You disqualified yourself

You disqualified yourself with ‘semi-coherent’. Aim for another 25% less coherent* and you may be in with a shot.

(* Broadcasters other than Radio 4 may have lower coherence thresholds.)

[Tom_77]

Why drivers hate cyclists:

Why drivers hate cyclists:

a) Drivers hate anything that’s in front of them that’s moving slower than they are.

This is the main reason drivers hate cyclists, they hate being inconvenienced however trivially. Drivers hate caravans and tractors for the same reason, and also “Sunday Drivers” and Learners.

 

b) Cyclists are perceived as smug and self-righteous.

Cycling is the transport equivalent of being Vegan. Thinking you’re better than other people just because you’re not killing the planet every time you go to work or pop to the shops.

 

c) Drivers pay for the roads and should have sole use of them.

This is a bit of a strange one given that roads are mostly paid for by Income Tax, Council Tax and VAT. Maybe this could be cleared up with an advert on the side of a bus.

 

If I can pad the above points out to a semi-coherent 15 minute rant do you think they’ll let me on the radio?

[Hirsute]

Wasn’t Shula the village

Wasn’t Shula the village bicycle ?

[David9694]

Does the BBC employ any

Does the BBC employ any cycling journalists?  They did according to W1A.

Not sure if cycling could ever make good radio. Maybe for balance one of The Archers could close pass a Cyclist pulling a sheep trailer and they could have an altercation about it; I always think it’s the fissure that might unravel a marriage, e.g. when you suddenly see a really ugly side in your partner. 

Road Transport is essentially boring – Top Gear was humdrum in its early guise – you have to make it sound interesting, usually by making it confrontational, or in the case of wretched Top Gear, not really about domestic cars at all. “Now over to Steve, who’s got a run-down of the new Orion’s safety features…” yawn.

[eburtthebike]

I listened to this, and the

I listened to this, and the podcast, and it is billed as thought provoking, but the only thoughts it roused in me were “Why does the BBC hate cyclists?” and “Who the hell commissioned this crap?”  The first answered the second.

I listen quite lot to R4, and for the past thirty years I’ve been asking them to have a prog about cycling, because they seem to have one about other means of transport.  We finally get one and it is bizarre rubbish.  They could have had one about the incredible benefits of cycling, individual, communal and global, but no, we get the assumptions of a motorcycling journalist.

[eburtthebike]

Awavey wrote:

not convinced myself, it sounded to me like the classic journalist picks a reason at random first, forms an argument to prove it and then just doubles down through the whole piece thus proving they were right,which seems to happen alot in cycling related articles.

I did email her and asked what the brief was; no reply.

[Sriracha]

hirsute wrote:

hirsute wrote:

I thought it was clear I had corrected it to ‘Arrogance’ and ‘Attitude'

You did, but our comments crossed (see the timings). Didn’t actually hear “Attitude” mentioned however.

But regardless of the exact words, they were from the mouth of the host, not the speaker, who then went on to gently qualify his comment by making exactly the same points as you do about primary positioning etc.

The host was only suggesting that the qualities of confidence and a certain arrogance might be required to assert their right to the road in the face of motorist hegemony. So really, not so different to what you say.

[Sriracha]

Achtervolger wrote:

Achtervolger wrote:

unfortunately, my take was that the speaker’s main point was that ‘sport’ cyclists are to blame for everyone hating all cyclists, which seems a bit unfair, to say the least.

She did sail perhaps too close to the wind there, suggesting that we ought to follow her example (wear civvies) instead to fix the problem etc. But I took her point to be not so much “blame” as “reason for”, and not a valid reason at that. If you look at any of the “isms” in society, there is usually a distinct physical appearance and often group identity or shared culture. It might be as simple as being picked on at school for having ginger hair. Nobody is suggesting it is the fault of gingers that they are picked on for having ginger hair. Having ginger hair is what leads to it in so far as if they were not ginger it would not happen. But the blame lies squarely with those who pick on them.

[Awavey]

which didnt make sense

which didnt make sense because hells angels bikers have never really been a big thing in the UK, its much more an American pop culture reference here rather than a movement of ne’er do well bikers, and the mods/rockers which was the other angle she tried to shove motorbikes in with happened nearly 60 years ago, it had died out pretty much by the time the 70s had started.

fwiw I find Im rarely overtaken well by motorcyclists, at least some car drivers get it right sometimes,  so that always disappoints me as I expect more from people on two wheels to understand road positions better, but

[Achtervolger]

Although to look at your

Although to look at your point from a different angle, it doesn’t seem as if acquiring a driving license gives a sigificant proportion of motorists any appreciation of road craft and law anyhow.

[Hirsute]

I thought it was clear I had

I thought it was clear I had corrected it to ‘Arrogance’ and ‘Attitude’.

I picked up on the licence thing because it seemed to suggest cyclists had no appreciation of roadcraft and laws as they did not need a licence. I think it is as important to demonstrate these have been acquired in another manner.

[Achtervolger]

Ah, so ‘arrogance’ rather

Ah, so ‘arrogance’ rather than aggressive, fair enough. 

[Sriracha]

Nope.
Nope.

“Confidence” and “a certain arrogance” were mentioned there. So firstly, commentary by someone else. Secondly, not actually “being aggressive”.

As to your disappointment regarding the no training or licence for cyclists, it is to be assumed they meant for cycling, not driving. The woman made a strong pitch against any suggestion that these obstacles should be placed in the way of cycling, and went on to say that the duty of care was very much upon motorists. I think that is far stronger than conceding the point by suggesting that some cyclists having a driving licence is enough.

[Hirsute]

Yep from 16:40

Just checked and it was ‘Arrogance’ and ‘Attitude’  –  from 16:40

Also disappointed when they talked about cyclists having no training or licence that one of them didn’t say 80-85% of cyclists are drivers.

[Author]

Replies