BBC Sussex has deleted a tweet in which it asked “Who’s to blame here? The cyclist or the van?” in relation to an incident in which a van driver, who was subsequently sacked, was filmed forcing a cyclist off the road.
Footage of the incident received blanket media coverage over the weekend and as we reported on Sunday, once it came to the attention of the managing director of Vidette UK Ltd, the company the van belonged to, the driver’s employment was immediately terminated.
> VIDEO: Van driver forces cyclist off road; QC offers help to sue
Despite the company’s firm action and apology, BBC Sussex framed the incident on Twitter this morning in a way that suggested the cyclist, who managed to remain upright and escaped without injury, may have done something wrong.
Its tweet was condemned by a number of Twitter users, including cycling campaigners, media figures and even West Midlands Police, and was later deleted – but not before a screengrab had been taken of it by several Twitter users, including the Guardian’s Peter Walker.
. @BBCSussex seem to have deleted their absurd “who’s to blame?” tweet on van driver forcing cyclist off the road. Here it is for posterity pic.twitter.com/KptzUXyCeu
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) May 9, 2017
@BBCSussex @sussex_police Some say there’s no such thing as a stupid question @BBCSussex with a world first #partoftheproblem #findwallbanghead #helpusnothinder
— CMPG – Road Policing (@Trafficwmp) May 9, 2017
@BBCSussex You are irresponsibly promoting assault with a van as some sort of debate. Like @Trafficwmp say, you are part of the problem.
— Chris Gerhard (@chrisgerhard) May 9, 2017
After the original tweet had been deleted, BBC Sussex claimed it had been trying “to stimulate debate,” adding that “the wording was ill judged.”
CYCLING Thank you for comments about our earlier tweet. We are very interested in the cycling safety debate …. 1/2
— BBC Sussex (@BBCSussex) May 9, 2017
CYCLING …. but in attempt to stimulate debate the wording was ill judged. We are now removing it. 2/2
— BBC Sussex (@BBCSussex) May 9, 2017
However, a number of people replying questioned why the broadcaster even felt that there was a “debate” to be had in the first place.
@BBCSussex It is not the *wording* that was ill-judged. It was the premise.
— Jon (@ormondroyd) May 9, 2017
@BBCSussex Can you talk me through the thought process please? I’m not getting it. Would you do that for any form of assault not involving a vehicle?
— Cab Davidson (@gnomeicide) May 9, 2017
@BBCSussex You’ve apologised for bad wording, but you should actually apologise for thinking that there is something to debate here.
— Laura Smith (@laura_smythe) May 9, 2017
Here’s the footage that prompted BBC Sussex to ask who was “to blame.”
28 thoughts on “Van driver filmed forcing cyclist off road; BBC Sussex asks “Who’s to blame?””
next week’s debate
next week’s debate
man mugged for expensive phone or wacth – who is to blame mugger or fat cat flaunting wealth?
wycombewheeler wrote:
well, technically, the mugger succeeded in accomplishing his aim, so you can’t really ascribe the notion of fault to a successful act (unlike your attempt to spell the word watch) :p
I’m really not convinced that
I’m really not convinced that a debate about the rights, wrongs and methodology for using vehicles to attack other human beings is appropriate outside of special interest religious / quasi political groups using the dark web.
1. Why was the cyclist riding
1. Why was the cyclist riding that far over in the lane, even though there are no overtaking lines it won’t stop drivers overtaking.
2. Why does the driver feel he has the right to use the van as a ‘weapon’ and force the cyclist off the road? A 2 ton van can do a lot more damage than a ?kg bike (unless the cyclist catches up at the lights, gets off bike and smashes chainset into face of driver) ……I’ve calmed down now…….
steviemarco wrote:
If i thought it was unsafe for the van to overtake me I would move into the primary position. My thought would be that hopefully this would stop a driver overtaking and if a driver did try to overtake me there, at least I have some road to move into.
steviemarco wrote:
Strong crosswind or moving to the centre to avoid some potholes, then absentmindedly taking his time moving back (seconds)? Done it myself, but we really are taking about a few seconds, BBC Sussex are basically saying it’s ok to assault/murder based on a false pretext. They’re not asking for debate, they’ve decided they want click bait by blaming the victim.
steviemarco wrote:
They often do. Double solid lines can be a mixed bag, sometimes overtaking is a liability in terms of overtaking vehicles of a similar speed (presumably leading to the 10mph rule), sometimes its in the case of overtaking anything (and he’s not cycling that slowly).
There’s also a 10mph issue – if the vehicle you want to overtake is travelling at less than (or at ? – I forget) 10mph then the solid line can be crossed. Tho if it’s done unsafely that’d still probably be an issue.
Re a comment elsewhere – looks like the cyclist pulls back across pretty doon after the solid line on his side ends, not easy to spot exactly ‘cos the vans on his shoulder.
JonD wrote:
I spotted that too … he pulls back in by a good 12 inches.
With their Top Gear program,
With their Top Gear program, the BBC have a long history of promoting cycle hatred.
More surprising is that the
More surprising is that the BBC is still a thing.
Does BBC Sussex still ask the
Does BBC Sussex still ask the ‘who’s to blame here?’ question of rape and domestic violence cases in their locale or do they reserve their outdated thinking that those assualted ‘were asking for it’ for specific groups?
billymansell wrote:
d
indeed. Weirdly when Jeremy Clarkson attacked that producer I don’t recall them asking who’s was to blame then. I mean if the producer had got some hot food for Clarkson he wouldn’t have been punched, so who’s fault was that?
Had this been a hate / race /
Had this been a hate / race / religion… crime then I am sure the BBC would order their staff to attend a relevant course or lose their job. Either the BBC need to educate their staff or publicly sack them.
How many job losses could
How many job losses could come about as a result of this incident?
PaulBox wrote:
Probably just the one, and they’ll likely reinstate him next month when the fuss has died down. Since I suspect it’s really a company wide systemic problem, my preferred answer would be ‘all the managers at Vidette’, but guess how likely that is.
It would also be nice if the forkwit who twittered thus were sacked, but since this simply reflects Tory, therefore BBC, policy…
PaulBox wrote:
Hopefully, at least four: the driver, the driver’s boss, the BBC employee who put out the tweet, and their boss.
BBC Surrey and out trawling
BBC Surrey were out trawling twitter for phone-in nutcases too.
They framed it as “how can we ‘share’ the roads better?” but it ammounts to the same thing.
Apparently, the BBC do seem to think that the cyclist was at fault here and should have move out into the gutter.
It seems like an institutional problem.
lio wrote:
Well BBC Sussex & BBC Surrey used to be just a single BBC Southern Counties station, so still share alot of their resources & programming, I believe the ‘Danny Pike morning show’ this whole ‘sharing the road’ call in came from is broadcast on both stations & no doubt re-listenable in glorious iplayer quality…
The BBC has been rotten for
The BBC has been rotten for years with regard to cyclists. Does not surprise me at all. Every facet of their programming presents cyclists in a poor light.
dottigirl wrote:
Very true, and they have for the past thirty or so years, been promoting cycle helmets and portraying cycling as incredibly dangerous, whilst refusing to examine the evidence. And when I say “refusing” that is exactly what I mean.
Here’s an idea for the BBC,
Here’s an idea for the BBC, Next time ISIS affiliates drive a truck into a crowd, post the video and raise the debate “Who’s to blame?”
The Beeb didn’t even allow
The Beeb didn’t even allow the option of blaming the driver. Clearly the poor guy had nothing to do with this two-sided dispute between the cyclist and his van. I expect he was telling both of them to ‘calm down’ all the while.
Who’s to blame ? just ask
Who’s to blame ? just ask Jeremy Vines …
A lot of people here mention
A lot of people here mention blaming the “driver” of course in common with the reporting of most accidents the driver wasn’t even an option. You can choose between Van or Cyclist.
Just three days after BBC
Just three days after BBC Surrey Tweeted that the van driver was filmed ‘tormenting’ a cyclist!
https://twitter.com/bbcsurrey/status/860765975792291840
This was pure malice, but
This was pure malice, but with the growing number of vans on the road I am surprised that the Government hasn’t introduced a specialist licence for this vehicle category. It’s absurd that you can pass your test in a mini and then get into one of these things without any further instruction. Come on Government, you’re missing a trick here raising easy money…..What about a petition?
Check this out. From Houston
Check this out. From Houston Texas no less! A close pass scanner. Helps them collect evidence. WMP should get these and promote them to other forces
In Holland the van driver
In Holland the van driver would be prosecuted for attempted manslaughter. Incidents like this are very rare here though as every van driver is a cyclist too.
And no broadcaster here would ask such a stupid question. Long way to go for Britain to become a cycling nation.