Live blog – S Wales Police boss to meet Cardiff cyclists, Track World Cup for London, and more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Mon, Feb 12, 2018 15:00
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
19 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Blackthorne83 38 minutes ago
Of all the things to morally police on the internet this is a bit ambitious.
chrisonabike 48 minutes ago
@Blackthorne83 Come on. He's already on a fact-free transport diet...
chrisonabike 50 minutes ago
@mdavidford Good spot - it was my zero - one - many thinking there. And were things to get imaginary we could have drivers rotating around the complex plane...
Mr Blackbird 53 minutes ago
Jason Perry is a high functioning, dynamic achiever. And he is only 23. In addition to tackling such a high volume of active transport projects, he recently completed an Airfix B29 Superfortress kit - admittedly he did glue one of the wings on upside down with the engines facing backwards.
quiff 1 hour ago
Nick, brake to a stop. Now take your foot off the brake. No, don't put it on the accelerator. Now what speed are you doing? If it's more than 20, drive to a garage.
mdavidford 2 hours ago
@chrisonabike I think we probably do need a finer grained approach than power-of-ten speed limits, unless you're going to allow for fractional powers, which is going to put an excessive cognitive load on the poor old drivers...
mdavidford 3 hours ago
Were you always missing the first period?
chrisonabike 3 hours ago
@Rendel Harris indeed, but giving this a sympathetic reading it *is* a bit harder to see cyclists especially in low light conditions. I think this usually means "I was a bit startled when I noticed cyclists where not expecting them / so late that if I had needed to I wouldn't have had time for evasive action". That might be when unlit non-reflective cyclists appear from a side road - or where people are salmoning against traffic flow / on and off the footway. We all have tons of experience looking for motor vehicles and are familiar with where they'll be and how they will move. Cyclists are significantly smaller, have more complicated shapes and may not be exactly "where we expect the motor vehicles". They may be moving at unexpected velocities. Plus even if cars don't have their lights on they tend to reflect. I put this one in the "follow the opposite philosophy to 'shared space' for better safety" category. That is: safety between road users is enhanced when a) people can clearly see other road users b) and have as much time as possible to deal with them c) and know exactly where to expect them / what to expect from those other road users. Most humans perform very poorly when faced with the unfamiliar and worse when startled...
chrisonabike 3 hours ago
@ajuk.uk@gmail.com "There does seem to be evidence that 20 mph limits work on roads that already lend themselves to such low speeds, and I do think the lack of a 25 mph limit option is an issue for some roads." Again - not disagreeing that numbers alone are not the best way. But I ask: were people already doing 20mph or near that when those roads that "lend themselves" to that speed had a 30mph sign? I would expect in most cases the answer was "no, people saw thirty and that primed them for the 'expected' speed". Or perhaps "they hadn't noticed the signs at all but it seemed like e.g. a residential area and they recalled from all those years back 30mph probably made sense"? Since we've previously gone through the evidence * that merely changing a number on a sign *does* in fact change behaviour and lower average speeds, and AFAICS nobody has proposed a "a set amount" they hope it will constrain people to ... ... is it fair you're disputing the evidence because it doesn't fit with how you feel it *should* work / your local experience? Or do you believe that eventually everyone will revert back to the old speed or higher because 'freedom' or because nobody's actually getting nicked for ignoring the limit? (And if the latter - what's the point of proposing that the speed limits should help with policing, if there aren't the police?) While I can believe that the truly reckless and *some* less circumspect wrong'uns are more likely also to wildly speed, I think this assertion needs more scrutiny **. As for "forcing the police to target them" I think it's been amply illustrated on this site that many of the police don't feel forced into doing much if any enforcement on the roads (see wtjs etc.). Even where they are more active the level of enforcement isn't such to make many drivers worry about "what happens if I break the law *and* get caught?" I don't feel we need 25 or 32 or other intermediate speed limits. In practice where there's enforcement at all there *may* be the discretionary 10% + a few mph in play - so you might even be fine and not fined doing 35mph in a 30mph limit. But you're far more likely simply not to experience any enforcement. And even if you are detected it's still first chance, then maybe any number of 2nd, 3rd etc. with a reasonable lawyer / sympathetic magistrate. Although if you feel the most important thing is to identify indifferent drivers (and assuming we've got enough police / cameras / "spy in the car" black boxes from somewhere) then having lots of non-power-of-ten speed limit signs might be a way to spot who's paying attention or not. Or ... if we changed to km/h (imagine!) you get a finer-grained 10 / 20 / 30 etc. * The last time this topic came up, or the time before! ** I don't know if anyone has studied this, but I'm not sure of the relative amounts of harm caused by a) a small minority of reckless joyriders and "sod getting a licence" types (who *are* very likely to cause serious harm) and b) vastly more "average reasonable drivers" - who are human and thus cut corners and sometimes make unfathomable errors - who cause damage (up to killing people and destroying buildings) at a small but definitely non-zero rate overall. It wouldn't surprise me if the overall determinant of harm turned out to be simply proportional to the number of drivers times time driven for times some measure of speed. (Since speed reduces both time to do something about a situation and increases the harm, absent a lot of engineering to mitigate it - e.g. evidence shows motorways are statistically safe environments).
belugabob 3 hours ago
Now the wands are gone, I look forward to the cycling lanes being cleaned regularly - and not parked in (thereby leaving plenty of room for the buses and emergency vehicles) (all to delivered before Coventry win the FA cup again)
19 thoughts on “Live blog – S Wales Police boss to meet Cardiff cyclists, Track World Cup for London, and more”
The BBC is organisationally
The BBC is organisationally biased against cycling, with negative stories outweighing positive ones probably 50:1.
It isn’t as if there aren’t any positive stories, with the recent NICE report, and many dozens of others over the years, all extolling the virtues of cycling and how it is the answer to modern diseases, pollution and congestion. Mentions on the BBC? 0. If this had been walking or some unproven medical procedure, they are all over it.
I mostly listen to R4 and cycling is only mentioned to criticise it, tell us how dangerous it is, and how lawless cyclists are. There is no programme about cycling, but walking seems to feature every day.
Then there’s helmets. The BBC has been unashamedly running a propaganda campaign for the past thirty years promoting them, in the process breaking every rule in their own Editorial Guidelines, but despite overwhelming evidence, complaints are dismissed with a condescending wave of the hand.
burtthebike wrote:
Actually there is…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02pcb42/episodes/downloads
kevvjj wrote:
That’s R5, not R4.
burtthebike wrote:
Surely we are not judging the BBC on radio 4 alone? If we are accusing them of institutional bias then surely we need to look at the ‘institution’.
kevvjj wrote:
I can only judge them on what I see and hear, nobody could watch and listen to their entire output, and my experience is that there is incredible bias.
burtthebike wrote:
I think it’s pretty clear where the bias lies.
burtthebike wrote:
I recently complained about a ‘cycle helmet saved my life’ video report on the BBC and (eventually after 3 week delays) received just such condescending dismissals from management. I am afraid I gave up in the face of stonewalling, and their unwillingness to engage in a rational discussion.
This is it – I can understand the sentiment from the close family, but the lack of research of such an implausible claim by the so-called ‘journalist’, and the complete lack of balance appalled me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/42345928/girl-says-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory
No Sweat wrote:
Don’t give up! I and others complained about this very story and are taking it further. It doesn’t take much, just drop an email to ecu@bbc.co.uk, the editorial complaints unit, explaining that they have yet again broken every rule in their own Editorial Guidelines. When enough people complain, they might just change; they won’t if we don’t.
burtthebike wrote:
..probably not.
Quite a few – go have a search on their site, it’s quite easy to do.
I mostly listen to R4 and cycling is only mentioned to criticise it, tell us how dangerous it is, and how lawless cyclists are. There is no programme about cycling, but walking seems to feature every day.— burtthebike
Program dealt with further up, there’s also a dedicated cycling section – which is primarily sporting to be fair, but is prominant and active. Stories of walking and health every day ? No, not really – again, seem a few on the health benefits of walking, cycling and exercise in general but really can’t see some massive discrepency. Also think about the amount of people who walk and the amount that cycle as well, even in the heydays of cycling as transport.
For me, must be a fairly shite “propoganda campaign” if i’ve not noticed it – the occassional usual rubbish remark about helmets and general cycling safety, but hardly pushing it let alone a campaign… You having a bad Monday by any chance ?
fukawitribe wrote:
Not my fault if you aren’t very observant.
When I complained about the institutional bias in the BBC, I provided a list of over 40 programmes and articles which a brief search found, only one of which was even vaguely balanced, all the rest overtly promoted helmets.
This complaint was, of course, dismissed, with the observation that I hadn’t provided enough evidence. So I did a slightly deeper search and found over 80 articles, and again, I could only find a single one which was balanced. This complaint was dismissed on the grounds that they had dismissed my previous complaint.
Biased? Not much.
burtthebike wrote:
Maybe I don’t watch much television or spend that much time on their website digging through articles – I did, however, have a quick search before I posted and of the 20-30 articles I scanned I didn’t see the ‘institutional bias’ you claimed, or any really apart the odd ‘helmet saved my life’ click-bait. No systemic promotion of helmets, or guideline breaking propoganda; perhaps you could send me a copy (or post here) of the list of articles you sent – that might be useful. Also, perhaps you could reply to the point about there being zero mentions that link cycling to health on the BBC. Cheers
fukawitribe wrote:
I’ll just give you a couple of examples.
R4 has a programme “More or Less” which claims to debunk the modern myths by using actual data, and to be fair, they usually do. After I suggested that they look at cycle helmets, they did an article on them, and for the first and only time in the prog’s history, they didn’t look at any data, they just presented opinions. They did interview three people, two were helmet zealots and one was neutral, no opposing opinion. The programme’s presenter made his views absolutely clear, something prohibited by their Editorial Guidelines. Complaints of bias dismissed.
Then there was the coverage of the James Cracknell affair. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines have strict rules about featuring someone who is being sponsored by a manufacturer. Cracknell was sponsored by the helmet manufacturer, but this was never mentioned in any interview that I saw. Complaints dismissed.
Just google for “BBC cycle helmet” and you’ll find dozens of helmet saved my life stories, none of which point out that it is all assumption and has no basis in fact, and with no contrary opinions. The Editorial Guidelines specify that there must be balance, contrary opinions and facts.
There are constant calls for helmet laws, and in such cases of proposed legislation, the Editorial Guidelines become even stricter, except not in the case of cycle helmets, and they just keep refusing to feature data or contrary opinions.
It’s been going on for thirty years, with the R4 prog You and Yours featuring BHIT, with no contrary opinions or facts, that long ago.
As I’ve explained, I can’t watch/listen to all BBC output, but what I do see/hear doesn’t feature the overwhelming benefits of cycling to the individual and society or the facts about helmets.
BeSpoke is a Radio 5 podcast.
BeSpoke is a Radio 5 podcast. It’s great, but it’s not on Radio 4, and it’s about racing not everyday cycling.
I’m not usually into ‘Beeb
I’m not usually into ‘Beeb bashing’, but it seems to be the case that if they have the rights to show something, it’s the best thing going, if they don’t then it hardly gets a mention. Unless of course it’s a doping/abuse story then Dan Roan is all over it.
Recent example of this – NFL. Endless tweets and space on the BBC Sport website for Superbowl. I was glad when it was over, so we could go back to not giving a flying shite about it.
Rubbish, the Beeb has had
Rubbish, the Beeb has had some great coverage of events I’d have never got to watch otherwise.
Also – Jeremy Vine.
DrJDog wrote:
The BBC may well cover individual events, but everyday cycling is ignored, despite the overwhelming evidence of its incredible benefits for society in health, congestion, pollution and sustainability terms. As I’ve previously said, R4 seems to have a prog about walking every day, but never mentions cycling except to criticise it.
burtthebike wrote:
I’ve listened to “Ramblings with Claire Balding”. What other programmes are there about walking on R4? not trying to be awkward – i’m genuinely interested!
Deeferdonk wrote:
I’ve listened to “Ramblings with Claire Balding”. What other programmes are there about walking on R4? not trying to be awkward – i’m genuinely interested!
[/quote]
To be honest, I can’t remember, I just register that they are talking about walking again, contrasted with the fact that they never mention cycling.
Gardening is apparently worth £5bn to the economy, while cycling was worth £2.9bn in 2010, but gardening gets its own much repeated R4 prog, while cycling gets nothing except criticism. Cycling is increasingly popular, but the BBC just ignores it at best, and at worst, seems to want to destroy it.
On that Australian article,
On that Australian article, presumably that’s why there were signs on every bike stand within a couple of hundred metres of Bristol’s main war memorial on the Centre a day each side of last year’s Remembrance ceremony thing, saying you couldn’t park here?