log in
register

Road.cc fights the good fight – why don’t some of the others?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • November 14, 2018 at 8:03 pm #29141
    Stef Marazzi

    I was filling in the Road.cc survey and it really made me think what I liked about the site.

    I think one of the best things about it, is the fact it “stands up” for cyclists. i.e. all the coverage of unecessary deaths on the road, reporting on near misses, and close passes, on Chris Boardmans initiatives, West Midlands Police initiatives, etc etc, the list is massive.

    Then I thought about the Road.cc competition on other websites and Youtube channels I regularly look at. Mainly GCN and Bikeradar.

    I suddenly realised that I could not remember ever seeing anything similar on GCN or Bikeradar, that stood up for cyclists rights, or our safety on the roads. Maybe they do cover it, but I cant ever remember seeing it. And if they do, its definitely not a regular feature.

    I love Road.cc standing up for cyclists, but considering GCN and Bikeradar probably have a large readership/Viewership as well, they don’t seem to do it much, or at all. Which doesnt really go anywhere towards improving conditions on the roads for cyclists at all.

    Why is that, do you think?

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 4 replies - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • November 15, 2018 at 10:08 am #931509
    0
    Rich_cb

    You will often see people
    You will often see people passionately arguing that anything that makes cycling seem like a dangerous activity will reduce rates of cycling.

    They also argue that reduced rates of cycling reduce the ‘safety in numbers’ effect and therefore make those of us who continue to cycle less safe.

    Near miss of the day makes cycling seem like Death Race 3000.

    It gets a lot of clicks and a lot of comments so it’s lucrative for road.cc but I doubt it does any good for cyclists generally and it could even be making things worse.

    November 15, 2018 at 9:54 am #931507
    0
    Jimmy Ray Will

    Personally speaking… when I

    Personally speaking… when I stop and think about it, I think the sites focus on poor driving, failings in the judicial system, highlighting danger on the roads, the prejudice against cyclists, is a negative thing.

    As already commented, by definition the audience here are converted road cyclists, so really the only thing this coverage, in this environment, can achieve, is to increase safety fears and feelings of resentment towards other road users. 

    Personally, over the past two years I have become more aware of poor and aggressive driving on our roads. This has reduced my enjoyment of cycling, and has seen me start to avoid using certain roads where I was previously comfortable.

    Now, here’s the rub. If I stop and really think about it, driving standards haven’t really changed, they have always been as they are. Attitudes haven’t changed, they have always been poor. All that has changed is my awarness of attitudes and a change in my mindset to now actively look out for, acknowledge, and be offended by episodes of poor driving. 

    Now, the site is not exclusively to blame, far from it, the media in its various guise has identified the clickbait appeal of cycling and its everywhere, however I am convinced that if I ignored all of this coverage, within 12 – 18 months, my enjoyment of cycling would only improve.

    Now… if I believed this coverage could change mindsets, and could be used as a catalyst for change, I would feel differently, but it doesn’t. Nor does it encourage those negatively affected to stand up, lobby and become a catalyst for change. No, what happens is that this site, social media groups, etc. become echo chambers, where we all vent our frustrations to like minded people, difuse our frustrations, and carry on as we are.

    Ultimately the only way to improve our lot is to get more people riding bikes. More cyclists means a louder positive voice. In that respect GCN et al, have it right. 

     

     

    November 15, 2018 at 5:42 am #931505
    0
    davel

    Mathemagician wrote:

    Mathemagician wrote:
    I tend to disagree that the road.cc coverage of cycling related accidents/near misses/close passes etc. is “standing up for cyclists”, as the coverage doesn’t really reach a wider audience. I’m willing to bet close to 100% of readers are regular road cyclists, and so such coverage is really just preaching to the converted. Standing up for cyclists would be campaigning to a wider, none cycling audience, which I accept isn’t exactly something road.cc should particularly be interested in- it’s a news/magazine site. Personally I tend to find the daily close pass thing tedious, clickbait akin to a “2 minutes hate” practice. Honestly, what does anyone get out of it apart from a rant at yet another bad driver? Who really learns anything from any of the video clips? How many said bad drivers have looked at one of the clips and changed their ways as a result? The last question should be the most pertinent as that should be the whole point of “standing up for cyclists”, but I’m guessing the answer is close to none. I don’t necessarily blame road.cc for their approach, journalism of this sort is pretty difficult to fund these days as nearly everyone expects to be able to access it for free. Daily close passes always seem to be the most commented on and hence probably most viewed articles, so why change a winning formula? But let’s not equate it with some kind of morally laudable campaign, when no one else is even listening.

    I disagree that it doesn’t reach a wider audience.

    Firstly, the ‘close pass’ type stuff travels well via twitter etc.

    Secondly, the trolls and one-and-done posters those types of threads tend to attract are evidence that they are reaching motons who not only have very different perspectives, but are motivated to register on here to get that perspective across. I’d suggest that for each one of those, there are many others who shrug it off/can’t be arsed to register/don’t see the problem. 

    I have no idea how effective the preaching is, but that is some evidence that it is getting out there, and the point of the OP was that other sites don’t even make anything similar to *put* out there.

    November 15, 2018 at 5:11 am #931503
    0
    Mathemagician

    I tend to disagree that the
    I tend to disagree that the road.cc coverage of cycling related accidents/near misses/close passes etc. is “standing up for cyclists”, as the coverage doesn’t really reach a wider audience. I’m willing to bet close to 100% of readers are regular road cyclists, and so such coverage is really just preaching to the converted. Standing up for cyclists would be campaigning to a wider, none cycling audience, which I accept isn’t exactly something road.cc should particularly be interested in- it’s a news/magazine site.

    Personally I tend to find the daily close pass thing tedious, clickbait akin to a “2 minutes hate” practice. Honestly, what does anyone get out of it apart from a rant at yet another bad driver? Who really learns anything from any of the video clips? How many said bad drivers have looked at one of the clips and changed their ways as a result? The last question should be the most pertinent as that should be the whole point of “standing up for cyclists”, but I’m guessing the answer is close to none.

    I don’t necessarily blame road.cc for their approach, journalism of this sort is pretty difficult to fund these days as nearly everyone expects to be able to access it for free. Daily close passes always seem to be the most commented on and hence probably most viewed articles, so why change a winning formula? But let’s not equate it with some kind of morally laudable campaign, when no one else is even listening.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 4 replies - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.