- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
London cyclists at traffic lights (copyright Britishcycling.org_.uk).jpgChris Boardman calls for end to drivers v cyclists rhetoric as British Cycling reveals two-thirds of bike riders say roads no safer than five years ago
Media coverage that promotes a “turf war” between people in cars and those on bikes is “divisive, unhelpful and only serves to fuel the problem we have on our roads,” says Chris Boardman, as British Cycling publishes a State of Cycling report which finds that more than two-thirds of its members who responded to its survey believe that conditions have not improved for cyclists within the past five years.
The report, which you can find here, makes for depressing reading. Among the key findings of the research, based on 15,000 respondents to British Cycling’s survey – the largest such exercise it has ever undertaken and equivalent to one in ten of its current membership – are:
70 per cent do not believe that conditions have improved in the last five years
66 per cent are concerned about their safety when riding on Britain’s roads,
87 per cent of cyclists are ‘close passed’ at least once a week
The three most common hazards encountered by people on bikes are close passing (79 per cent), unsafe road surfaces (68% per cent) and vehicle speed (34 per cent)
76 per cent of British Cycling members do not believe that cycling is taken seriously by their local authority, while 81 per cent say the same of national government
77 per cent say their employer could do more to encourage people to cycle to work.
Boardman, who remains a policy advisor to British Cycling in addition to his role as Greater Manchester cycling and walking commissioner, said: “Five years ago I appeared on breakfast television to talk about what would make people on bikes safer, and caused uproar on social media for having the cheek to wear my normal clothes, and not hi-vis and a helmet.
“Despite the evidence repeatedly telling us that it’s sustained investment in better infrastructure that keeps people safe, for 20 years society has continued to tell us that the answer lies in safety equipment.
“It speaks volumes that 96 per cent of those surveyed do wear a helmet on the road, and yet today's report still reveals the shameful fact that the vast majority don’t feel safe.
“I sincerely hope that this will act as a wake-up call for us, to let evidence lead our decision-making and make bold decisions on funding and investment, rather than simply taking the easy option and telling people to look after themselves.”
Some elements of the mainstream media – for example, the Sunday Telegraph last month – continue to report on cyclists and motorists as though they are two mutually exclusive groups, but as British Cycling points out, nine in ten of its adult members hold driving licences.
The governing body’s research resulted in a couple of near-identical levels of response regarding its members’ views of some road users – whether behind the steering wheel, or riding a bike – that could perhaps erroneously reinforce that perceived division.
Those were that while 71 per cent agreed that drivers are often hostile towards people on bikes, 72 per cent said that they often see people on bikes riding in a way which puts themselves in danger.
The government’s review of cycling safety launched in the wake of Charlie Alliston being jailed for causing the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs, leading to calls for an offence of causing death by careless or dangerous cycling, is still ongoing.
Perhaps mindful of that, Boardman, who rejected the divisive language often employed by the media and, acknowledged that people riding bikes needed to do so in a responsible manner, but said that punishment of law-breaking road users needed to be “proportionate.”
He said: “The idea of a turf war between motorists and people on bikes is divisive, unhelpful and only serves to fuel the problem we have on our roads. We know that 90% of our adult members are also drivers, and we are all at some point a pedestrian too.
“We all need to take responsibility for our own actions on the road – whether you’re a cyclist skipping through a red light or a motorist using your phone at the wheel – we need an enforceable commitment to punish people in a way that is proportionate to the danger they pose.”
The three key recommendations of the report, based on the research, which British Cycling believes would “help individuals, businesses and policymakers drive a cultural shift in the future state of cycling in this country,” are:
A public mutual respect campaign for all road users
Ring-fenced funding for cycling and walking in line with levels suggested by the Walking and Cycling Alliance
The establishment of a national network of major employers by the Department of Transport to better understand how the Government can help small and large businesses to get more of their employees riding to work.
British Cycling’s chief executive, Julie Harrington, commented: “Both the growth in our membership and the response to this survey reflect the evolution of the role which cycling plays in Britain today.
“While we have achieved great things within the sport, our biggest battle lies ahead in the towns, cities and communities we are seeking to help transform, and the support of our members is absolutely vital in helping us to drive that forwards.”
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.
Latest Comments
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 sec ago
isreal has been brutally killing children for 6 months. Over 14000 children have been burnt, crushed, bombed, shot in the head, killed by missiles,...
- marmotte27 4 min 8 sec ago
The change in running shoes has come in the last five years or so, the TdF alanlysis goes until 2010, so before, as I pointed out above....
- Rendel Harris 50 min 30 sec ago
At the given time of day on that date (8:15 am August 22nd) in that location the sun would be at 53° north, so you'd have to be driving at least...
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 35 min ago
It's not censored if you just pirate it
- stonojnr 7 hours 40 min ago
an example of Kesgraves "best cycling infrastructure in the country" https://maps.app.goo.gl/GsCMbzDUTPdq59qS9
- wookey 7 hours 48 min ago
It turns out that that is national police policy. We found out from this process that there is national 'secured by design' policy which causes...
- mtbtomo 8 hours 27 min ago
Been available for quite a while, full GRX mechanical 12 speed. Probably around the same time as 105 mechanical 12 speed if I were to guess.
- TheBillder 8 hours 33 min ago
Less harmful citrus degreaser is easy to find at £8 or less for 5 litres. Works ok for me, even diluted up to 4:1. Both paraffin and white spirit...
- Veganpotter 8 hours 39 min ago
Nope, it's to keep your straps down and quieter. Plus most sunglasses are polycarbonate and aren't going to shatter like glass anyway
- Steve K 9 hours 10 min ago
And, more seriously, where's the coverage of the closure of the cycle lane which forces you to cycle on the Totton bypass.
Add new comment
55 comments
The problem is a media in the UK for which 'a “turf war” between people' is their bread and butter and for which division brings more readers than information.
This was a very good analysis of the problem:
https://www.monbiot.com/2019/03/28/bring-on-the-clowns/
"If our politics is becoming less rational, crueller and more divisive, this rule of public life is partly to blame: the more disgracefully you behave, the bigger the platform the media will give you. If you are caught lying, cheating, boasting or behaving like an idiot, you’ll be flooded with invitations to appear on current affairs programmes. If you play straight, don’t expect the phone to ring."
The media drive conflict between motorists and cyclists because it makes money for them.
So... the us vs them mentality only arose with the growth of, and is stoked by, on-line media on the world wide web?
Bollocks. I was getting called a farkin cyclist cnut by nobber drivers more than 30 years ago. Used to get abused on the basis of "You lot want farkin...." whilst riding legally and safely in London in the late 90's well before the bomb-dodgers fuelled the boom in cycling there.
Cyclists are an out group regardless of what the media says. When I "delay" a nobber driver by riding in primary on a country lane when there are cars coming the other way their frustation isn't informed by the media, it is informed by their overweaning sense of entitlement, and the voices in their heads screaming "MUST GET PAST!"
I believe that a very large part of the problem is a basic ignorance of, indeed unwillingness to engage with what might be termed "facts". Go to any website discussion about cycling and the same old tropes will be posted; Jumping red lights, pavement cycling, riding 2 abreast, cyclists holding up traffic, road tax, insurance, licencing and all the other dribble. The same counter arguments will be put forward that debunk the outright myths and explain the relevant sections of the highway code and yet you will see the same postings from the same contributors in the very next similar discussion thread. Very rarely is there reference to evidence, best practice advice or statistics from reliable sources in either the lead article or in the comment responses.
There is also the effect that, just like you only need a few arseholes to tar an entire group with a certain reputation, you only need a few loud voices to hijack any discussion that frankly vast swathes of the population really care very little about, but those few can certainly create the impression of tribes at war to further their own agendas.
I know that people have opinions about anti cycling clickbait articles in national and local media but I find the discussions on this forum often include some very concise, factual, powerful arguments with links to authoritative sources of evidence that would be useful to compile into a resource for use in those online comment sections.
Facts seem to be discarded by most people.
There's a beautiful short story by Ted Chiang that investigates "facts": The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling: https://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall-2013
You can read it online here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140222103103/http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of_fact_the_truth_of_feeling_by_ted_chiang
hawkinspeter, that is a fine Guardian video, well posted. I also dared to look at the helmet one after, shockingly balanced.
Though a bit disappointed in the lack of squirrels.
The problem lies with drivers and their feeling of entitlement and security. Its not about drivers and cyclists.
Only last night was I walking my daughter back from school with our dog on quite a narrow pavement, very wet road. 30 limit village road. A grey Skoda (so there goes the white Audi myth) passed us at 60mph+.
I literaly howled with rage and would have lobbed a used doggie bag at the oncoming car if I'd thought quick enough.
Such people are thoughtless, ignorant and dangerous, and I sincerely hope he finds himself upside down in a ditch in the near future.
I'll just leave this here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2019/may/09/do-cyclists-think-theyre-above-the-law-and-does-it-even-matter-video
#5
It's really astonishing that after reading an article from a cycling ambassador that suggests divisive 'us and them' rhetoric will only make the situation worse – a good proportion of forum contributors fell compelled to reply that it's 'them' not 'us' that causes the problems on the roads.
As others have pointed out, it is a mistake to believe that in every debate, each side of the argument has exactly equal merit.
What you fail to understand is that the important arena is 'on the road' not 'on a forum'. And on the road, people riding bikes are intimidated (and in millions of cases, bullied off the road altogether) by people driving cars. Not the other way round.
I think government have 'lost control'/'are scared stiff' of motorists; feels like we're getting to 'peak car' and something has to give.
Was at a friends house recently and the subject of the environment came up; his 17 y/o daughter was pretty vocal on the subject (fair enough). Almost as soon as this conversation came to an end the subject of the negotiations over her getting a car after passing her test came up. Me: (thinking 'WTF'!!). Couldn't afford a car until I was 23, even then it was only when I was offered a cheap, low mileage car from an elderly relative who'd stopped driving.
"Mutual respect". It's that equivalence thing going on again.
"They" will kill two of "Us" this week.
"They" will also kill at least a pedestrian a day, for some reason that appears to be a silent slaughter, and the word war does not seem to be used. Perhaps if pedestrians started to become a bit more vocal about it.
"They" do quite a good job at killing themselves, each other and vehicle occupents too.
Mutual Respect ..... more and more education is the answer for new drivers. There should be a dedicated and comprehensive cyclist module in the driving test which needs to cover all the hazards of being a cyclist. Need everyone to contact the road safety charity Brake.
Likewise, all people buying new bikes in shops etc need to sign declaration re responsible cycling. Newbies should be encouraged to take a course in road safety on a bike.
I've been reading a few articles about this today and the one in the guardian sums up how I feel quite well
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/may/09/the-uks-fe...
Feral is probably the way to describe roads. There is no enforcement of traffic laws; aggressive and bullying driving is the norm.
A few years ago I finally got round to passing my driving test. The examiner commented that by not accelerating all the way to the 40mph limit on the 250m between two roundabouts I could be antagonising other drivers, at the same time he had to tick a box saying that I had demonstrated driving economically. At the time I had shrugged it off, after all I had passed my test. But the message he gave was that 40mph was the speed I had to do on that stretch and anything less would annoy other drivers and then anything could happen - it would be my fault.
Since passing my test I've driven a couple of times but the levels of aggression make it more stressful than its worth. I've seen how people I know change when they get behind the wheel. There is no room for the weak and feeble out there on the roads, they will be bullied, cut up, sworn at and intimidated. Doesn't seem to matter if you're in a car driving at a reasonable speed, on a bike or on foot - if you're in somebody's way you are a problem.
On a bike I get close passed almost all the time, I've become immune to that. I probably have one or two passes a day that are close enough for me to freak me and change speed or direction, one or two a week that cause an emergency response and add 50bpm to my heart rate. About 6 months ago I got a set of cameras thinking I could help do something about these people. A few attempts at submitting videos to Thames Valley Police and I've given up.
I'm a bit stuck now, two really scary passes at the weekend made me wonder if I should just give up, get a turbo and join the ratrace. But do I really want to be part of the problem?
No, don't give up. Report the close passes. Even if (as is likely) you get no result from the police, if you don't report it there's no evidence of a problem. Certainly don't stop riding - because (a) you like doing it so why should the brain-dead bullies stop you; and (b) the more of us that do it the more aware the (non-cyclist) drivers will have to be, whether they like it or not. Ride all the more if you can. Despite many people's disgraceful attitudes on the road, and whilst I certainly don't wish to dismiss or minimise your rough recent experiences, cycling is statistically a safe activity.
deleted duplicate. Note sure what happened
It's really astonishing that after reading an article from a cycling ambassador that suggests divisive 'us and them' rhetoric will only make the situation worse – a good proportion of forum contributors fell compelled to reply that it's 'them' not 'us' that causes the problems on the roads.
Similarly, many media outlets cheer loudly when some guy splats an egg on a right wing politician and everybody shouts 'yeah right on' – giving no thought at all to that fact that all they're doing is making it publicly acceptable to splat an egg on any public figure anywhere, of any persuasion. But really, how does this type of moronic mud-slinging advance any type of reasoned argument that might actually improve a situation?
Respect starts with me, not others.
As I said - this bogus 'false equivalence' tactic gets applied to many topics. You seem to be getting close to that here.
Only one side is killing the other, only one side is putting the other in hospital.
And on top of the physical harm they way people drive is causing millions of people who would like to cycle more to say they are too afraid because the roads (i.e. drivers) are too scary.
No, I don't.
I drive, I cycle and I walk. What I see every day is drivers being selfish and endangering other road users including other drivers. I was diverted round a head-on crash yesterday morning, there was a fatality on the road near our office in the afternoon and was subjected to a dangerous overtake last night. All while driving my car.
How is publicising bad driving perpetuating the problem?
I have never tarred all drivers, and I am sure that I am subjected to fewer close passes than I used to (though that doesn't include the knob in a Royal Mail van who couldn't wait 10 seconds this morning). But there is a widespread problem of open contempt for cyclists and other vulnerable road users and some of us are frankly sick of it.
Anything that serves to highlight this problem can hopefully be used as evidence to demonstrate that it's not some bleating 'snowflake' cyclist rhetoric but a serious issue.
In what way have the NMoTD articles and road.cc coverage contributed to the problem?
Do you not accept that NMoTD may have helped push some police forces to start accepting video footage? Or perhaps you agree that we shouldn't see the CCTV images of the cyclist hit on Swains Lane recently?
What alternative approach are you proposing to of highlight the issues and shine a spotlight on dangerous or aggressive drivers?
Why do BC members think the roads would be any safer than five years ago?
The government has done nothing and meanwhile the media has gone to town on "rogue" cyclists, Charlie Alliston and cyclists in general as being 'sub-human'.
Many police forces have often been obstructive or reluctant to act, dismissive of cyclists' complaints and slow to adopt the use of camera footage. Meanwhile dangerous, aggressive drivers too often get away with it and the courts hand out lenient sentences while uninsured illegal and banned drivers or those with more than 12 points are too often still driving.
This is not about cyclists v drivers or bikes v cars, it's about some people having no respect for anyone else and specifically for another group of road users.
My employer dropped cycle to work (governmental employer as well) as the dumbos in finance said it was too complicated to administer. After the fact they have then hilariously tried to get people to cycle to work or car share.....
I don't think knowledge of what cyclists are allowed to do would make a huge diffrence. Respect is a huge part of it. Cyclists do have a part to play, but from drivers side people need to stop making up rules. I have pointed out to people before that cyclists are allowed to cycle in the road and cycle lanes are not always approprite. I then get replies about "sharing space" and "courtesy" and the like, basicly claiming that cyclists are in the way and should move out of the way. It's the same behavior that leads to people "letting drivers out of side roads" i.e. slamming their brakes on and flashing their lights. It is the same behavior that leads to idiots pootling down slip roads assuming that everyone will move out of the way rather than them getting up to a sensible speed.
I would say it makes things worse. It is this kind of funding that results in 10 meter strips of cycle lane, shared use spaces that don't work or are inaccessable and narrow strips of white paint. All add to the councils claims of being cycle friendly and mean that they can charge employee costs to that and shave a few more pounds off spending.
Ironic that we are talking about mutual respect and you start name calling. Any salary sacrafice is complex to administer, and C2W is made more complex by the fake rental and buy back bit, rather than just being a simple(ish) before tax loan. Even if it is simple it is still an admin overhead, and when budgets are tight continuing to support a nice to have employee benefit is the first to be dropped when you have legislative requirements like IR35, making tax digital, pension auto enrolement and loads of other pressures mean that something has to go. Something that is not a legal requirement or business critical is going to be high on the list of places to reduce workload in the face of a headcound freeze or cut. Blaim austerity and the tory belife that the public sector is lazy and inefficent. I have worked in both and the main problem is the public sector is not allowed to invest in the future.
I agree with the Guardian article already posted (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/may/09/the-uks-feral-roads-deter-cycling-we-need-enforcement-not-calls-for-respect) - I don't particularly care about a driver's opinion of me as long as they're not driving aggressively or shouting out of their window at me for using a road as the nearby cycle path isn't suitable.
I don't dissagree that enforcement is needed, but I also think this is a tool for forcing people to treat other road users with respect. My quibble was more over the question of knowing the law. I think most drivers do know what the law says, they just think they are more important and start picking on details and willfully missusing parts of the highway code. There are many areas where drivers do not understand the law (passing on double white lines for example) but I do not think they don't know the law on close passes or cycle lanes. What I think goes through most bad drivers heads is "I'm held up for two seconds. The highway code says that you should not hold up other road users, therefor I can ignore the rules on giving space".
72 per cent said that they often see people on bikes riding in a way which puts themselves in danger.
I wonder how much of this is because motorists don't know
1) why cyclists take certain road positions
2) what cyclists are legally allowed to do in the first place
There are probably quite a few people that think that unless a cyclist is hugging the gutter or using a cycle lane, then they are putting themselves in danger...
As in any number of "See-You-Next-Tuesdays" who drive according to their PERSONAL invention of what the Highway Code SHOULD be, to fit their fat-arsed ignorance.
As in any number of "See-You-Next-Tuesdays" who drive according to their PERSONAL invention of what the Highway Code SHOULD be, to fit their fat-arsed ignorance.
What we need here in Australia are drivers to actually learn about and be tested on giving space to cyclists in their driving test, and for harsh penalties for drivers that hit/injure/kill a cyclist and are found to have driven the vehicle in a negligent manner. A car is a weapon. Until a driver gets 15 years in prison for hitting a cyclist due negligence or aggression, nobody will view the matter as important. Only then will cyclists be given the respect to be seen and treated as a fellow human.
Unfortunately, these days the courts give suspended sentences and community service, and we as cyclists may as well be a stray witches hat left on the side of the road.
Unfortunately it is not "rhetoric",the" us and them" mentality exists
Indeed.
It's fuelled by irresponsible publications/websites on both sides.
GCN rightly called road.cc out on this the other day.
Pages