BBC Sussex planning feature on cyclists' rights after social media backlash over "ill-judged" tweet

Just look at that - bloody cars holding up cyclists! 

so bbc posts video of driver trying to kill a cyclist to see if masses see it as ok.
this time it fails and they remove it. isnt it incitation to murder?
if there was no outcry theyd happily have kept it and pushed a story on how it's ok to push cyclists off the road because they took 5s to move out of the way. scary media world we live in. makes the dark ages look good sometimes.

It is blatantly clear the driver demonstrated intention to harm.  

Clearly that is a criminal offence when you use a motor vehicle as a weapon with intention to harm irrespectively whether he was harmed, injured or killed (he could have been).

If petitions such as this:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=debated

can get these responses how about starting something off along the lines of:

Death by dangeous driving does not adequately cover incidences where cycists are being killed on our roads esepcially where malicious intent is observed.  The offence of manslaughter should be the preffered charge when a cyclist is killed in a road traffic incident with the onus placed upon the defence to prove that all possible actions were taken by the defendent to avoid the incident. 

Most media platforms have long since given up reporting anything as inconvenient as FACTS. God forbid, someone might have to research them and interpret them and present them to the general public! You look at the general dumbing down of stories (especially science) and the way that reporting has changed from having a knowledgable [subject] correspondent to just snapshot interviews with some fuckwit "eyewitness" or "passerby".

Equally, the public have long since stopped taking any notice of a news story that's more than 30 seconds long or involves actual thought.

Far easier to nick a clip off YouTube and then invite comments from the great unwashed under the guise of a "balanced debate".

There's no debate to be had here. Imagine if that was a horse and rider or a slow moving vehicle like a milk float. There'd be no "who was right?" bollocks then, it would be presented as a dangerous road rage assault. This is a simple open and shut case. It's a road. Someone is on it, that someone is absolutely entitled to be there and to be using that entire lane. Don't deliberately swerve your van into them.

But oh no, "cyclist" = clickbait. Just depressing that even the supposedly reputable BBC has felt the need to go down that route - you expect it from the Daily Wail but not BBC. 

Typical BBC. Can't be seen to be taking sides, even when some murderous maniac's deliberately driven into another road user going about their rightful business. No reputable climate scientist has seriously disputed anthropogenic global warming in 15 years, yet when they run news stories about climate change the Beeb still puts up a global warming denier politico or journalist who thinks strato-cumulus is a 70s heavy metal band alongside a climate scientist who's spent 40 years studying global weather trends "to provide balance". I'd say the Beeb's reporting is hopelesssly inept, except I've seen the TV news in America so I know how bad it can be. Horrifyingly, the BBC is probably the best broadcaster on the planet. We're doomed...

Put it on Panorama with Jeremy Vine, invite Chris B, senior police, RAC/AA BCF possibly someone with a persepctive  from Holland, Chris Grayling  and others.

Put it on maintstream mid week tv at 8pm then we might beleive they have an interest in road safety rather than just knocking cyclists all the time.

I'm pretty sure the text "whose to blame?" Is pre-approved text that is in their news generation template. The same way that certain text must always be in quotes. Otherwise they could be sued for liable or even worse, be accused of bias. In many ways it is a rhetorical question.

Just to play devil's advocate, we don't know if the driver was unwittingly drugged or if it is some new fangled self driving white van or if it suffered a (series of) mechanical failure(s). Or if the cyclist and van driver colluded to make an interesting video. Okay, it's all highly unlikely, but that's not the same as impossible (or atleast legally proven).

Why is anyone talking about riders rights?

It's not up for debate whether it's OK to use a van to potentially kill somone.

Couple of things concern me about this story:

"The driver involved was sacked immediately when the incident..."  We don't know that, all we know is that it has been stated by  someone purporting to be the driver's boss, that he sacked him, in a letter which was as about as sincere as most drivers doing a SMIDSY.

"As a result, the Editor is now looking into the possibility of a feature on the radio station looking at all of this in more detail, so please be assured that your points along with the views of other listeners will be borne in mind."

The BBC has run a helmet campaign for thirty years, endlessly promoting them and exaggerating the risks of cycling, which goes against all their own rules, so they aren't exactly trustworthy regarding cycling.  If they involve Chris Boardman and Cycling UK and make it factual, showing that those with dangerous opinions about illegal behaviour are wrong, and don't feature the usual suspects, Sustrans, which doesn't represent cyclists, and British Cycling, which has a helmet rule, they might actually make something useful.  Otherwise it could turn out like the only episode of Top Gear I've ever seen, when they featured cycling, which was the most trite, disgraceful, ignorant piece of broadcasting I've ever seen, despite featuring CB, who also seemed disgusted.  I still can't believe that people watched it voluntarily every week.

i see the driver has been sacked but does anyone know if he/she is being prosecuted for this?

This is bullshit...

What can BBC Sussex bring to this situation? 

The only valid examination here is to simply outline cyclists legal rights... do that with no option for 'debate'.

Any 'debate' will simpyl be the usual knee jerk bullshit we alsways see. Thre should not be time given to enabling bullshit, opinions and media driven hate talk to be publicised. 

'Who's to blame here? The cyclist or the van?'

Neither - it's the cockwomble driving the van!

I think this is a good reaction to the negative reaction their Tweet caused.  I'm sure I will benefit from going over my rights as a cyclist, but it needs to be part of a wider debate about most people's lousy attitude to their driving.  It is not a right, it is a priviledge.  I'm talking about those who don't care how close they pass a bike so long as they don't hit it, because that might scratch their car.  I'm talking about those who say "Sorry I didn't see you" and think that is an ok response to their lousy driving.  

I accept there are cyclists who ride through red lights or who wizz along pavements, they need addressing too.  But the BBC don't need to bring that into this debate.

Let's hope that they talk to someone that has actually ridden a bike before they put something misleading out that makes things worse. Time for Chris Boardman to be involved??

"However, having subsequently reviewed the Tweet, the Editor of the radio station felt that the wording was perhaps ill-judged and so deleted the Tweet"

This is the problem. It isn't the wording  that is the problem. It is the premise that there is some sort of debate to be had at all. The BBC haven't apologised for it.

They wouldn't dare put out a story saying "woman going about her lawful business raped: who is to blame?".

Screw the BBC. By 'examine' they mean 'debate'. Just another way to get this feature in and get cyclists on-side. 

They could easily have run a feature on any angle about cycling, promoting it, instead of trying to cash in on the back of an off-putting run in, that will ultimately just polarise listeners.

#BBCpartoftheproblem

IF the BBC can offer a well-informed feature on this subject then it can surely only help to educate drivers about this.

We all know that whilst some motorists do know what rights cyclists have, others seem to be woefully ignorant. Education has got to be the way forward.

Quote:

"... It was also clear from a number of calls, emails and social media comments that there is still a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue and the legal rights of cyclists."

Should these people allowed to drive?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.