http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... smash.html
A second experienced cyclist has died this year. And after the mess the BBC created after covering Gary Mason and the issue of cyclist-justice being a complete failure in places I think its important to target the media. If we could get them to make a short film about Lewis above, a small tribute perhaps, and address the issues of justice, the family impact, and some sound bites from road safety campaigners such as the CTC, Roadpeace etc, then I think this would be far more productive than the motorist-mouth they hired the last time around:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12149696
Adam Rayner appeared on BBC Wales, BBC 5Live etc too, still splurging the same nonsense and the BBC completely let him overshadow the real issues. So if you guys and girls have time, please could you email with a request for the above? Particuarly ask BBC Breakfast to tackle this, as the Beeb were the ones to make a hash of it first time around...
bbcbreakfast@bbc.co.uk
also please consider contacting Sky, ITN etc too if you have the chance (just cnp the same message I reckon): news@itn.co.uk and news@sky.com
Cheers!
Lets target the media for some coverage!
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Excuse me if I digress slightly, but I think that we are all pretty fed up with the way that a minority of motorists treat us. There are times when I would really like to shout it from the preverbial rooftops, which is what that lawyer cycle commuting into London did recently. But somehow I don't think that an individual banging on the door of his local rag or radio station, will really get the sort of appropriate exposure that is required. What occurred to me was, are the concerns that we raise on this forum brought to the attention of the powers that be in the CTC?
What does it take to organise national media attention to the dangers that we face on the roads?
What does it take to organise national media attention to the dangers that we face on the roads?
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Alan D wrote:Excuse me if I digress slightly, but I think that we are all pretty fed up with the way that a minority of motorists treat us. There are times when I would really like to shout it from the preverbial rooftops, which is what that lawyer cycle commuting into London did recently. But somehow I don't think that an individual banging on the door of his local rag or radio station, will really get the sort of appropriate exposure that is required. What occurred to me was, are the concerns that we raise on this forum brought to the attention of the powers that be in the CTC?
What does it take to organise national media attention to the dangers that we face on the roads?
I think, in all honesty, it will take a LOT of people airing their voice. This is not something the CTC on its own can do, and I think that if they did it would not have the same impact. The way I see it - one person repeatedly stating a truth is considered a crank.. many, many people are a force for change.
I know the CTC already commented several times (BBC radio and in the papers like the Indi) with Gary Mason. British Cycling have commented recently after the death of Balyckyi.
-
Steady rider
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/features/rea ... to_cycles/
the newspaper included a picture of the one man protest.
the newspaper included a picture of the one man protest.
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/MP ... rivers.htm
As I said on CChat it would be nice of local cyclists to chip in with relevant info to give moral support to the MP:
As I said on CChat it would be nice of local cyclists to chip in with relevant info to give moral support to the MP:
I think local, law abiding cyclists need to send emails of support to the paper. They also must challenge the RAC by quoting the DFT 2009 stats of 93% of cyclists not being to blame for collisions involving cycle and motor vehicle. You must write that you fully support bad cyclists being dealt with by the Police and that you're sick of being lumped in with them when in fact you behave.
Its not about being "righteous", its about making the roads safe and even enjoyable to use. Nobody hates drivers, its the bad guys who need to be dealt with, whatever mode of transport they use.
letters@cambridge-news.co.uk
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Off topic but I had to smile at this comment posted by "Bunny" on the Cambridge News site
"I drove through Cambridge last night and saw numerous cyclists without lights, helment, bright clothing, weaving across the road and cycling through red lights."
"Very hard to see at the best of times, ...."
Apparently not! (at least acoording to Bunny's own words).
There's also a depressing lack of knowledge of the laws relating to cyclists amongst those replies
"I drove through Cambridge last night and saw numerous cyclists without lights, helment, bright clothing, weaving across the road and cycling through red lights."
"Very hard to see at the best of times, ...."
Apparently not! (at least acoording to Bunny's own words).
There's also a depressing lack of knowledge of the laws relating to cyclists amongst those replies
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
sirmy wrote:Off topic but I had to smile at this comment posted by "Bunny" on the Cambridge News site
"I drove through Cambridge last night and saw numerous cyclists without lights, helment, bright clothing, weaving across the road and cycling through red lights."
"Very hard to see at the best of times, ...."
Apparently not! (at least acoording to Bunny's own words).
There's also a depressing lack of knowledge of the laws relating to cyclists amongst those replies
Myself and one of the old contributers on the Bikerader site when it first amalgamated into what it is now from the old C+ site both said it would be funny to try and write the most rediculous letter or email to a newspaper possible. I mean like so daft that it was a) funny and b) would make a point about the usual negative stuff they get and show it's writers up to be crude at best.
That Bunny though, what a Thumper, ahha!
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
After finally catching the BBC breakfast time article on i-player, I got round to composing a letter and sending it off to several national newspapers and to BBC Panorama.
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Alan D wrote:After finally catching the BBC breakfast time article on i-player, I got round to composing a letter and sending it off to several national newspapers and to BBC Panorama.
Thanks Alan, much appreciated!
Well in the past 2 weeks I have been in touch with the CTC and got two replies from Mr Geffen and one from Mr Peck.
They are already working on a couple of good strategies so I hope it works out. I also sent out about 10 emails to various newspapers to challenge some misunderstanding and support the concerns raised that we're not doing enough in the UK. Personally, justice wise and state wise.
EDIT: oh and I also submitted an official complaint about the BBC news peice on headcams. Whilst they did better in that the TV peice didnt go back to studio with a ranting motorist, their website didnt do much to preserve the concern as many of the usual idiots left comment that were along the lines:
- we deserve being run over
- we run the lights (again.. getting boring)
- "camera doesnt show how the cyclist flicked the driver off" kind of libellous comment
- pavement riding, lights at night, insurance, rego
- if you dont wear a helmet you deserve to die and should be forced to pay all the expenses (even those of the poor motorist who hit you)
So never mind the fact the people raising concern were law abiding and were victims of the actions of others or the system..
We just keep going around in circles. Oh and I was also told by a BBC moderator that there was essentially nothing wrong with the "deserve to die" kind of comment.
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Looking at the BBC website, I felt that Panorama offered the best prospects, so I contacted them under the premise of suggesting a pic for a future programme.
This is what I put. Let's see if it rattles a few cages.
Cycling has been very much in the news. When the BBC broadcast an item on breakfast TV (1st February 2011) concerning the dangers that a small minority of motorists present to cyclists, the follow-up article on the BBC website received a considerable number of viewers comments. Combine this with:
• The barrister Martin Porter QC asking for a case against a motorist who pushed him off his bike, to be referred to a more senior prosecutor when it was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. You can read Martin’s account at thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com.
• The Cycling Tourist Club (CTC) pushing for two elements to be included in the Department of Transports ‘Strategic framework for road safety’, due to be published this April. The CTC wants recognition that cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are; also incentives for Councils to tackle the fears that deter people from cycling.
• A motorist was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, rather than dangerous driving, for which he received a community sentence. The driver killed cyclist Cath Ward by driving into the back of her on a clear summer evening while she was correctly positioned on the road.
Several points come to mind from this.
The CTC is building up a dossier of cases where the Police or the Courts have failed to properly address the seriousness of bad driving and where drivers have escaped prosecution. The CTC is also addressing the idea that carelessness on our roads is not acceptable, by building up parliamentary support.
To use the word ‘accident’, either to describe a crash or as a defence, is a misnomer. An accident is an unforeseen event without apparent cause; an event that occurs by chance; something that could not be predicted or avoided. The crashes that occur on our roads are not accidents. Except for very rare freak failures with the vehicles, they occur because of driver failings; someone was inattentive or made a bad judgement call. To call an event where anyone is killed or injured an ‘accident’, is just devaluing it to the point where it is seen as acceptable. Similarly, to use the defence, “I didn’t see them” is also not acceptable. We have eyes and we are all responsible for looking and making sure.
How many times does this have to be repeated?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘ROAD TAX’.
Road Tax was repealed in 1937. The Vehicle Excise Duty is not a ‘Road Tax’, it is a taxation on exhaust emissions. Some drivers using the roads do not have to pay VED because their vehicles are zero rated; if a bicycle had to display a VED disc, it too would be zero rated. VED does not pay for the roads and does not confer a right to use the roads. It is a tax just like Income Tax or VAT and it goes to the Treasury. The roads are paid for by our local Councils, from money they get from our Council Taxes. So in response to those people who think that they have sole right to use the roads, we all pay for the roads and we are all entitled to use them.
I am shocked by the cavalier attitude that some motorists have expressed on the BBC website, also previously on various newspaper websites. All human life is priceless, yet some seem to think that cyclists deserve whatever they get and are quite willing to do something that may get one killed or maimed. This is someone’s beloved son or daughter. Is someone really willing to end the life of a person that may have a spouse or children waiting at home for them? And for what!!! Because they think it is more important to drive around as fast as they want and not have to worry that someone will get in their way and add vital seconds to their journey? Next time you meet a cyclist on the road, how long are you held up, ten seconds? A minute? Next time you are gridlocked in the middle of the city, or home late because your journey on the motorway was slow, what was it that held you up? Cars!
Another view expressed is that every cyclist goes through red lights and none of them obey The Highway Code? This is just a smokescreen. Sure, there are a few that don’t obey the rules of the road but they are very much in the minority and certainly not representative of the vast majority of responsible cyclists. Possibly youngsters, who are usually characterised by irresponsible behaviour. Most cyclists are responsible adults, many are also car owners, myself included. Speaking personally, I resent being unfairly tarred by this broad brush. No doubt any motorists reading this would resent it just as much if I were to accuse them of not obeying the speed limit, tailgating, not indicating, using the mobile phone whilst driving, behaving aggressively, illegally parking, jumping amber traffic lights, failing to give way when required, pulling out of turnings when it’s not clear, not using lights in poor visibility, overtaking on blind bends etc. etc. Of course, you are all faultless drivers and don’t do these things, but this is what I see constantly.
Also frequently expressed is that we have not passed a test and we don’t carry insurance.
I have already said that many cyclists are also car owners, so is a separate test really necessary? Also, I think you will find that many Local Authorities have a Cycling Instructor going into schools to take youngsters through the Bikeability course (this replaces the old Cycling Proficiency). With Government funding for Bikeability assured, this will continue. As for insurance, excuse me but those of us who are club members of organisations such as the CTC, do have insurance!
Let us also not forget that a cyclist has the potential to cause relatively little damage; compared to the motorist who is in control of a heavy blunt instrument travelling at high speeds and with the ability to kill and maim.
Besides, can you really tell parents, giving their young child a new bike, that it cannot be ridden until Junior has passed a test? That is not realistic.
“Cyclists are abusive and aggressive.” Since this is not normal, acceptable behaviour, have you stopped to consider what may have caused this cyclist to behave in this way to you? Perhaps he has had enough of motorists trying to run him down and hurl abuse at him. That only leaves the question of how are you going to react, keep it going by behaving aggressively to every cyclist that you meet perhaps? Mistreat someone for long enough and eventually they will learn to bite back.
Most of the motorists who pass me on my daily commute, do so safely and considerately. No doubt that is the same everywhere and for that I say ‘thank you’.
However, there are the few that do not; but please don’t think that a small number means a small problem. It only needs one for it to be ‘Game Over’ for me and at the moment I am getting one near miss a day. Many of the arguments that I have read from motorists just don’t stand up to reasoned consideration, I have just answered the most popular ones here. Throughout them runs a theme of prejudice, misunderstanding and aggression, not a good combination for someone controlling a deadly weapon.
I also often hear that many motorists consider themselves to be good, safe drivers with many years of experience. To this claim I would have to ask:
Against what absolute standard have you measured your ability objectively and which authority has confirmed your self-assessment?
With regards the years of experience, I would suggest that your meaningful experience was gained immediately following passing your driving test and that since then you have probably acquired years of dangerous, bad habits. You have just been fortunate with all the near misses.
I do wonder if this cyclist v motorist hostility is poorly described. You cannot put one group against the other like this. I think that there is something about sitting in a motor car that turns the most moderate, reasonable person into a bundle of stressed out aggression. If there were no cyclists to take it out on, then you would still be only too willing and capable of taking it out on each other, which I also see. To the moderates amongst you, I say ‘Peace’. To the aggressive risk takers, your next action could cost someone their life, and that will be on your conscience for the rest of yours.
I am a member of the Cycling Tourist Club and the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
This is what I put. Let's see if it rattles a few cages.
Cycling has been very much in the news. When the BBC broadcast an item on breakfast TV (1st February 2011) concerning the dangers that a small minority of motorists present to cyclists, the follow-up article on the BBC website received a considerable number of viewers comments. Combine this with:
• The barrister Martin Porter QC asking for a case against a motorist who pushed him off his bike, to be referred to a more senior prosecutor when it was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. You can read Martin’s account at thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com.
• The Cycling Tourist Club (CTC) pushing for two elements to be included in the Department of Transports ‘Strategic framework for road safety’, due to be published this April. The CTC wants recognition that cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are; also incentives for Councils to tackle the fears that deter people from cycling.
• A motorist was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, rather than dangerous driving, for which he received a community sentence. The driver killed cyclist Cath Ward by driving into the back of her on a clear summer evening while she was correctly positioned on the road.
Several points come to mind from this.
The CTC is building up a dossier of cases where the Police or the Courts have failed to properly address the seriousness of bad driving and where drivers have escaped prosecution. The CTC is also addressing the idea that carelessness on our roads is not acceptable, by building up parliamentary support.
To use the word ‘accident’, either to describe a crash or as a defence, is a misnomer. An accident is an unforeseen event without apparent cause; an event that occurs by chance; something that could not be predicted or avoided. The crashes that occur on our roads are not accidents. Except for very rare freak failures with the vehicles, they occur because of driver failings; someone was inattentive or made a bad judgement call. To call an event where anyone is killed or injured an ‘accident’, is just devaluing it to the point where it is seen as acceptable. Similarly, to use the defence, “I didn’t see them” is also not acceptable. We have eyes and we are all responsible for looking and making sure.
How many times does this have to be repeated?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘ROAD TAX’.
Road Tax was repealed in 1937. The Vehicle Excise Duty is not a ‘Road Tax’, it is a taxation on exhaust emissions. Some drivers using the roads do not have to pay VED because their vehicles are zero rated; if a bicycle had to display a VED disc, it too would be zero rated. VED does not pay for the roads and does not confer a right to use the roads. It is a tax just like Income Tax or VAT and it goes to the Treasury. The roads are paid for by our local Councils, from money they get from our Council Taxes. So in response to those people who think that they have sole right to use the roads, we all pay for the roads and we are all entitled to use them.
I am shocked by the cavalier attitude that some motorists have expressed on the BBC website, also previously on various newspaper websites. All human life is priceless, yet some seem to think that cyclists deserve whatever they get and are quite willing to do something that may get one killed or maimed. This is someone’s beloved son or daughter. Is someone really willing to end the life of a person that may have a spouse or children waiting at home for them? And for what!!! Because they think it is more important to drive around as fast as they want and not have to worry that someone will get in their way and add vital seconds to their journey? Next time you meet a cyclist on the road, how long are you held up, ten seconds? A minute? Next time you are gridlocked in the middle of the city, or home late because your journey on the motorway was slow, what was it that held you up? Cars!
Another view expressed is that every cyclist goes through red lights and none of them obey The Highway Code? This is just a smokescreen. Sure, there are a few that don’t obey the rules of the road but they are very much in the minority and certainly not representative of the vast majority of responsible cyclists. Possibly youngsters, who are usually characterised by irresponsible behaviour. Most cyclists are responsible adults, many are also car owners, myself included. Speaking personally, I resent being unfairly tarred by this broad brush. No doubt any motorists reading this would resent it just as much if I were to accuse them of not obeying the speed limit, tailgating, not indicating, using the mobile phone whilst driving, behaving aggressively, illegally parking, jumping amber traffic lights, failing to give way when required, pulling out of turnings when it’s not clear, not using lights in poor visibility, overtaking on blind bends etc. etc. Of course, you are all faultless drivers and don’t do these things, but this is what I see constantly.
Also frequently expressed is that we have not passed a test and we don’t carry insurance.
I have already said that many cyclists are also car owners, so is a separate test really necessary? Also, I think you will find that many Local Authorities have a Cycling Instructor going into schools to take youngsters through the Bikeability course (this replaces the old Cycling Proficiency). With Government funding for Bikeability assured, this will continue. As for insurance, excuse me but those of us who are club members of organisations such as the CTC, do have insurance!
Let us also not forget that a cyclist has the potential to cause relatively little damage; compared to the motorist who is in control of a heavy blunt instrument travelling at high speeds and with the ability to kill and maim.
Besides, can you really tell parents, giving their young child a new bike, that it cannot be ridden until Junior has passed a test? That is not realistic.
“Cyclists are abusive and aggressive.” Since this is not normal, acceptable behaviour, have you stopped to consider what may have caused this cyclist to behave in this way to you? Perhaps he has had enough of motorists trying to run him down and hurl abuse at him. That only leaves the question of how are you going to react, keep it going by behaving aggressively to every cyclist that you meet perhaps? Mistreat someone for long enough and eventually they will learn to bite back.
Most of the motorists who pass me on my daily commute, do so safely and considerately. No doubt that is the same everywhere and for that I say ‘thank you’.
However, there are the few that do not; but please don’t think that a small number means a small problem. It only needs one for it to be ‘Game Over’ for me and at the moment I am getting one near miss a day. Many of the arguments that I have read from motorists just don’t stand up to reasoned consideration, I have just answered the most popular ones here. Throughout them runs a theme of prejudice, misunderstanding and aggression, not a good combination for someone controlling a deadly weapon.
I also often hear that many motorists consider themselves to be good, safe drivers with many years of experience. To this claim I would have to ask:
Against what absolute standard have you measured your ability objectively and which authority has confirmed your self-assessment?
With regards the years of experience, I would suggest that your meaningful experience was gained immediately following passing your driving test and that since then you have probably acquired years of dangerous, bad habits. You have just been fortunate with all the near misses.
I do wonder if this cyclist v motorist hostility is poorly described. You cannot put one group against the other like this. I think that there is something about sitting in a motor car that turns the most moderate, reasonable person into a bundle of stressed out aggression. If there were no cyclists to take it out on, then you would still be only too willing and capable of taking it out on each other, which I also see. To the moderates amongst you, I say ‘Peace’. To the aggressive risk takers, your next action could cost someone their life, and that will be on your conscience for the rest of yours.
I am a member of the Cycling Tourist Club and the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
-
Elizabethsdad
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: 15 Jan 2011, 7:09pm
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Go the whole hog - everyone from the CTC write to the BBC requesting a regular TV program covering all aspects of cycling to encourage more people to take up cycling and who knows perhaps even educate one or two motorists as well.
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
WaterLab Rat wrote:Go the whole hog - everyone from the CTC write to the BBC requesting a regular TV program covering all aspects of cycling to encourage more people to take up cycling and who knows perhaps even educate one or two motorists as well.
A standard letter/email? Something like:
Dear BBC
As a long time viewer and/or licence fee payer I enjoy your programming scheduling. However as a committed leisure and/or commuting cyclist, and knowing many others in the same position, I feel left out. I do now strongly feel it is time to schedule and produce a program dedicated to not just cycling, bicycles available for purchase, the issues around cycling, but also the fun and attractive side of the activity!
Programs such as Top Gear remind us how much fun can be had when driving, in the right settings. Cycling, too, can bring great joy and if the Tour De France is anything to go by, can be great to watch.
I look forward to your inclusion of all things bicycle shaped in the near future!
Mr D
I did hear a small rumour that Channel 5 were considering a Gadget Show style offshoot into cycling. The Gadget Show has many parallels with Top Gear, over-enthusiastic presenters who poke fun. The reviews are never all that serious, and there are always challenges. Not sure if this info is true, might it be worth telling the Beeb a rival might pip them to the post?
Re: Lets target the media for some coverage!
Just had a reply on the Adam Rayner bit on the BBC where I complained. The issue was touted as being about the recent failures of justice for cyclists but they decided to have the usual nonsense motorist v cyclist style debate. My complaint highlighted that they distracted from the real issue they were supposed to be covering, and gave the overall impression (with the help from Rayner) that we are all a bunch of lawbreakers.
I sent a reply to this stating that it was not about what Batstone has described. He appears to have not seen what they previewed the show with.
Dear Mr
Thanks for your email concerning the BBC Breakfast discussion aboutcyclists and motorists. The purpose of the discussion was to highlightthe divergent opinions about road use and the disagreements betweencyclists and motorists. Both the guests were given ample opportunity tovoice their opinion and even found some areas of common ground. It is inevitable when you present an issue by means of a debate betweentwo people with strong views that it will provoke a strong reaction andit does not surprise me that some of the views expressed have left someviewers feeling angry. However the important consideration is that bothsides of the argument were represented and both guests were given ampleopportunity to challenge the assertions made.
Yours Adam Batstone
Assistant Editor, BBC News website
I sent a reply to this stating that it was not about what Batstone has described. He appears to have not seen what they previewed the show with.