At 12pm on BBC Radio 4 is the latest episode of 'AntiSocial' with Adam Fleming, a show that is self-professed "peace talks for the culture wars".
"In an era of polarisation, propaganda and pile-ons, Adam Fleming helps you work out what the arguments are really about," the BBC's website promo explains. Today, the topic is — yep, you guessed it — cyclists, a producer for the show suggesting it will be about "the debate between cyclists and motorists on how best to share" the roads. So, what is this "peace talks for the culture wars" episode called then? Erm... *checks and double checks notes*... "Should cyclists stay in their lane?"
In more detail, the episode description adds: "Cyclists shaming drivers online, fights over bike lanes, and the politics of pedal power.
"TV and radio presenter Jeremy Vine posts a video of a car failing to give way to him while he's riding a penny farthing. Cue angry comments hurling insults and telling him he'd be safer in a car — and sympathetic responses from fellow cyclists. What does the Highway Code actually say about priorities on the roads? What are the stats on cyclists and safety? And how and why has cycling become such a toxic topic?"
Unsurprisingly, the title of the episode has raised some eyebrows this morning (as has the producer's numerous messages to a wide array of potential guests, from anonymous anti-LTN (low-traffic neighbourhood) social media accounts to newspaper columnists responsible for such an award-worthy anti-cycling bingo full house as the one below...)
> "2014 just rang, asking for their comment piece back": Telegraph columnist completes anti-cycling bingo with "nonsense" piece "whipping up hatred"
Earlier this week, we accepted an invitation to go on the show, an invitation that has since gone cold. But don't fear, live blog readers, thankfully, we were promised the show aims to take a step back to explore the facts, the context, and the differing views in detail, all in the hope of cooling things down, and is the opposite of the shout-y slanging matches often seen elsewhere during cycling discussions. We've got high hopes...
In fairness, during the social media dissection of the title, the Richmond coordinator for the London Cycling Campaign, Tim Lennon, said he's listened to the show before and it does tend to be a "pointing out the actual facts, rather than just being a two sides thing", so who knows? Maybe we will all be quite impressed come 1pm.
For now however, much of the online discussion is about the episode name, The Ranty Highwayman calling it "unhealthy" and "the type of show that gets people hurt on the roads".
We've been here before with cycling coverage on the BBC and how it's communicated with a title. Back in November 2022, Panorama aired an episode, which despite doing a good job of showing just how vulnerable people riding bikes can be, was called "Road Rage: Cars v Bikes", something the presenter we spoke to at-length during and after filming explained was a decision out of their hands, made pre-broadcast.
> "Road rage" on BBC Panorama: fuelling the fire or raising awareness? We interview the presenter on the road.cc Podcast
Some of that TV offering was actually solid enough, so maybe we'll be back in the same position later today with "Should cyclists stay in their lane?". Either way, from what we've seen people saying online, hopes aren't high.
Add new comment
70 comments
Just asking out of interest, does anyone know of a galaxy that isn't far, far away?
Depends if you're a Cosmologist working in light-years or a civilian working in terrestrial units..
I though those in the business used parsecs - or MPc / GPc for the intergalactic? The andromeda galaxy at 0.78 Mpc is right next door!
EDIT - and of course redshift when you get really far away.
The Milky Way's fairly close
Getting there e.g. to the middle would be more than an Audax. On the plus side air resistance is less of a worry but I think grip would be lacking. And a shortage of cafes and petrol stations for refueling.
Here's a great website showing the different scales of stuff in the universe: https://scaleofuniverse.com/en
Unfortunately, they missed out the distance that a typical UK driver would be prepared to walk
I see it had hail, but I couldn't find snowflake. Google does confirm he's 1.73m though.
Notice a common theme when motorists are 'disadvantaged' for the benefit of road safety? Comments such as "angry" and "frustrated" are liberally bandied about by those motorists. Strikes me that those are two qualities that tell me those people shouldn't be allowed in charge of a tonne or more of lethal machinery in need of careful use...
You've lost me - who's 1.73m?
Farage.
This one.
Isn't that basically what we did to our High Streets & Main Streets in the 1960s?
It would have been fine, except the stupid council put in a couple of cycle hoops.
… and they only left it there for a minute while the TIE fighters got back on board.
Of course there is ... it's called a "cycle lane"
I'm guessing that Hierarchy of Responsibility didn't appear...
Danielle Griffith, deputy practice manager at Kinfauns, in The Street, Little Clacton, raised £1,115 by clocking up 40 miles on a static bike while colleagues and clients chucked cream pies at her.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24259150.clacton-vet-practice-manage...
I'm more than willing to sponsor the road.cc team for this ! Or will Rendel step up ?!
I'm game, 100 miles, 100 pies has a ring to it...
BBC in incorrect language/bad reporting (regarding cycling) shocker...
Not.
"TV and radio presenter Jeremy Vine posts a video of a car failing to give way to him while he's riding a penny farthing..."
should be
""TV and radio presenter Jeremy Vine posts a video of a DRIVER failing to give way to him while he's riding a penny farthing..."
Unless of course the car was autonomous/self-driving.
http://rc-rg.com
You should know by now that drivers are never responsible for their vehicles - just look at the results of court cases.
The Sentencing Council has decided that the harm of causing death with a deadly vehicle is trivial so custodial sentences to be exceptional, not an aggravating factor.
This is why being a cyclist must become a protected characteristic so that discrimination law applies..
20 MPH outside schools and hospitals.
Question: Where are children and poeple that go to hospital, when they are not in school or crossing the road to the hospital?
Answer: They use all the other roads / pavements not outsire schools and hospitals
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent.
Of course, enforcement is another thing..
Yes, this "outside schools and hospitals" is so stupid it beggars belief...
I'm not sure I do agree with 20mph outside schools; they used to just have flashing lights saying 'slow'. If you do have a 20 limit past a school, at least make it part-time; otherwise, you have a limit that changes at other times for no reason. The more that limits change for no apparent reason or in arbitrary locations, the more likely drivers are to dismiss them as irrelevant or not even notice them. If you don't know when to slow down past a school, you shouldn't be driving.
I've driven past schools at school times before, and even doing 20 quite naturally does not feel safe. There's lots of kids about, lots of pedestrian activity, and many parked cars blocking my view. I could then drive past the same spot late at night at 30mph.
If I were assessing someone who drove past a school at school times at 30mph, that would be a major driving test fault and an instant failure. If the same person drove past that school late at night at 20mph and held up traffic, that would also be a major fault and an instant failure.
You have never been able to drive 30mph, bowl over a child then claim in court 'I wasn't speeding'. The same could be said for any narrow side street lined with parked cars; try doing 30 down there if you dare. Anyone doing that would fail a driving test also.
There used to be far more emphasis on better driver behaviour and not a drive-by-numbers mentality. Could you drive safely if your speedo broke? The fastest speed you can go varies widely; speed limits are meant to assume ideal conditions, and this is why there are reckless and dangerous driving laws on top of speed limits. If people aren't able to judge their speed correctly for the conditions, don't give them the licence in the first place.
You do know that 20 is the upper limit? You don't have to drive at 20 if the environment doesn't feel safe at that speed...
I remember my motorcycle instructor doing a ride review with me and saying, "We got to that school zone with a 20mph limit, you went down to 19..." "Yes," I said, thinking I was going to be praised for awareness and doing the right thing. "It's literally a hundred metres, why not go down to 10/12 mph for a few seconds?" Twenty-five years ago but never forgotten it.
With speed limits it's the "anchoring effect" - so they become targets!
I think this illustrates a common heuristic of "law abiding" - ultimately not limited to driving of course. Something like:
"obviously I wouldn't break laws for the sake of it but it would be weird to be pedantic about things like speed limits. After all 'everyone does it' and 99% of the time it's fine. I'm a good driver, after all. So I ease off a bit if I see the kids outside the school - but mostly they're not so why not crack on? As long as it's not 'taking the piss' like doing a ton on a motorway, or too far above 40/30 mph in a 30/20 zone (I do try to keep up but you can't blame yourself if you occasionally get distracted) or going through a red light once it's 'established'..."
Also "...but holding up traffic". "Don't hold up traffic" almost seems to be an axiom in the UK! There are technical reasons for questioning this of course (e.g. the phenomenon of induced demand. Make more space to avoid the traffic holding up the traffic, get more traffic). However I think choosing lower speeds in some places is more of a value choice.
That is - bringing down speed limits (and - as has been measured - often speeds) in certain places allows for several things. (Which may require additional measures of course - but would be much more difficult or not be possible without reduced motor traffic speeds). "Nicer places" as well as safer streets, plus less suppression of active travel etc. [1] [2].
However the counter argument (apologies - I'm simplifying this) certainly applies a direct calculation "if minute is worth x pounds, thus delaying y drivers by z minutes costs money - and more money that what we calculate we're saving in terms of the cost of road casualties".
Pages