The War On Britain's Road - Drivers V Cyclists - BBC 1 9PM

Frasier

Early on you dived in to accuse me of 'false statement' and 'misrepresentation.' Hence I don't think a lecture on manners is really appropriate. Remember this is an internet forum and not a court of law.

Not everyone will consider the detailed 'statistical underpinnings' of this matter or indeed fully quantify how much better a 252 is than a 282 before posting their point of view.

Off the top of my head (based on an piece I read a while ago) I said "we have over 200,000 injuries and thousands of deaths a year on the roads in the UK." Frankly the only reason I remembered anything at all was because I was surprised at the scale. The actual numbers per year are:

Hence my recollection seems reasonable. Certainly 'thousands' seems more accurate than 'hundreds'?

The major point is there are lots of deaths and injuries on the roads. The vast majority related to the actions of drivers rather than those of cyclists (note thread title). This was my point and yet I remain unclear what yours is. Hopefully you will at least know what you can do with your peanut.

BR, MM

Marky Mark,

My point is that I like accuracy when a start position, from which an argument can evolve, is being established. You did make a false statement, thus misrepresenting the current situation regarding fatalities. It is not 'bad manners' to call you on this.

This being a forum does not excuse the laziness involved in your not deriving the true statistics from a public domain document. This would have taken maybe two minutes - indeed it must have taken about this when you finally bothered! Your being impressed at your original recollection does not set the bar for your readers. My recollection was that your figure was inaccurate, thus I did reference the public domain documentaion before taking issue with you.

Your 'point' is pointless. There are more drivers than cyclists, and they are driving heavier machinery faster. Obviously, the majority of deaths and injuries will relate to the actions of drivers. What other outcome could there be?

Your reference to the peanut is just vulgar. You should go to bed now. It's a school night.

I don't want a reply to this, but if you offer one, try getting my name right - it's all about accuracy!

Fraser

Your argument is not about accuracy, it is about precision. And it is pointless.

At least we agree that there a more drivers than cyclist, and that drivers are killing cyclists. We also agree that this is inevitable. You seem to think it is inevitable in some fundamental sense (laws of physics - heavier machinery that can't help but go faster. "What other outcome could there be?"); whereas I just think it is inevitable because we are all fundamentally selfish, short-sighted, impatient, angry gits who don't really care about anyone other than ourselves.

Frasier

I am concerned now. If we were to say guns cause more deaths than samurai swords because there are more guns out there it would not make the absolute number of deaths by either means acceptable.

If drivers were to drive at less speed and with more care then one possible outcome is the ratio of deaths they cause to those caused by cyclists would decrease. This is a non-fatalist approach which may be unacceptable to you but surely a man of your statistical prowess cannot deny it holds true?

You say your 'point is you like accuracy when a start position, from which an argument can evolve, is being established.' I found this a little disappointing after the big build-up.

Perhaps you are annoyed by some of what people have said so have chosen to nit-pick details rather than offer your own point of view? If so, please do share it.

I sense your analytical talents may be better put to use on the hi-fi forum where wild inaccuracies go unchecked every day. Perhaps I will see you there. Of late I have become certain a board-pulled 32.5 sounds better than a 552 and have been meaning to post on the matter.

BR, MM

You've obviously never been to Cambridge or Oxford, where they seem to ride on pavements even where there is a cycle track.  Last time I was visiting my grandson (and his mum & dad) in Cherry Hinton, I had to quickly pull him out of the way because some (apparently 30 year old) moron coming up rapidly behind us seemed to think that a 4 year old shouldn't be walking along the pavement holding my hand (and yes, there was a cycle lane available, but not being used)

When I was a lad, riding on the pavement would have got me a clip round the ear from the local bobby.

Seriously, there are bad cyclists, bad drivers and bad pedestrians.  Just don't get on your paricular high horse.  Cars will kill more people than bikes because of the simple rules of weight/speed.

I was going to add to this, but I have read this thread mostly through and have nothing to add now!

Not that I agree with the way the debate is going.

ATB from George

The actions of that 30-year old seem very moronic indeed. I am glad you were all ok. It does sound like a complete nuisance. Perhaps the danger seemed even greater due to your rightful desire to be very protective of the child? I say this only because I doubt there are lots of serious injuries from bikes on the pavement (although they should not be there other than kids). Still, only takes one nutter I suppose.

I don't get to either place you mention much but it seems pointless being on the pavements to me. As a regular cyclist (as opposed to one who just grabs a bike for a random journey now and then) I can say there is no advantage being on the pavement. It is much slower and there are pedestrians everywhere. I would do c.20 mph average on the road. If I were on the pavement I imagine I might struggle to reach double figures.

One thing I have noticed on the rare occasions I do see adults on the pavement in London is they mainly look like lost kittens on the bike - cycling awkwardly (all knees and elbows) and in somewhat unsuitable attire. I am sure you recognise this description?

Re the good old days of the clip around the ear from the local bobby. Lets be grateful they're gone! People will get their rose-tinted specs on and forget what else the forces got up to when they were largely unaccountable to anyone.

Lest we forget in all this merriment, the OP's programme is on in 30 mins. Reflecting on his post, he did ask for views after the programme

Where is the rule that says car drivers have to operate their vehicles at speeds such that they have inadequate control to avoid killing someone (including themselves, their families and friends, other car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians)? Which they do to the tune of over 1.2 million people, worldwide every year.

I spent a year in Oxford about 7 years back. Lots of cyclists. Some ride on footpaths like they do everywhere. I can't say that I ever found it to be an issue, though. I had no car, nor bike in the whole time I was there. I lived near the train station (bike magnet - a huge cycle parking lot there for commuters). I walked everywhere. I really didn't notice cyclists on the footpaths at all. That's not to say they weren't there, just that they didn't affect me in any memorable way. I certainly never was hit, harassed or even yelled at by a cyclist.

Why is my experience so different to others', I wonder.

I should qualify the last sentence by adding "...when we get behind the wheel.".

I drive a car, ride a bike and walk. I live in Lille, in Northern France and often ride across the city (about 4 miles) to get to my place of work. It is the quickest form of transport - whatever the time of day - but it is also a hair-raising experience, especially on winter evenings.

I hasten to add that I never jump the lights, I don't ride on the pavements (except when it means avoiding a 500-yard detour, and I'm usually extremely careful when I do so); I am a law-abiding citizen (I spent many years of my life in Britain...) and I'm 64. It seems to me that motorists just don't see the cyclists and/or deliberately ignore them. I ride with my hands on the brakes, and my thumb on the bell.

Cycle-lanes are just convenient places for motorists to stop ("well, it's only for a few minutes...") or even park; there are always cars sitting in the spaces at the lights which are supposed to make it safer for cyclists to turn left (this is France), some motorists turning right (France, again) don't bother to check whether there might be a cyclist coming or not. I fell off my bike last week because a pedestrian crossed the road in front of me without looking.

I often think that those cyclists who jump the lights may be safer than I am: at least they are not in the flow of cars trying to get away from the lights, changing lanes without indicating to get to the next set of lights as quickly as possible. Another thing: cyclists are advised to make sure that they've been seen by car drivers at junctions, etc., but with so many cars having tinted windows - you can't even see whether there is a driver inside.

It may be just one driver in 10, or in a 100, but it is enough to make life rather difficult. I usually manage to catch up with them however and have a frank exchange of views...

I don't bother with that any more. It would just make me more angry to see how aggressively they would defend their impatience, selfishness and stupidity. They'd also usually insult my choice of clothing, speculate about the marital status of my parents, assume specific sexual preferences on my part, and forcefully invite me to fornicate elswhere. I decided it just wasn't worth it.

I am now unfailingly polite, even to those who would seek to kill me.

Did anyone watch the programme?

Personally I thought it tried to be balanced in the airtime given to both sides. important to its ethos. The beefs of the drivers were typically on red lights etc whereas the cyclists beefs were more about dangerous effects of bad driving, threatening behaviour and nearly/actually getting injured/killed.

As a reflection of society, each 'side' has its nutters. The drivers seemed far more angry in general and in the evidence presented were more prone to either the threat of or actual physical violence as well as bad driving. For the obvious reasons, when the red mist descends people are more dangerous behind a wheel than on a bike. The cycling nutters towards the end were the couriers wantonly steaming through the lights etc. Whilst reckless, it did not feel as serious a safety risk in the light of the footage of the cars and lorries.

I think they should have included the actual numbers of road incidents but can see the benefit of not doing so. The programme existed to educate both sides (and seemed to succeed in that remit). By pushing the numbers it may have felt like the blame for actual injuries/deaths was largely attached to the drivers (which it is) and perhaps would have felt like too much of a public safety broadcast.

The bike droid was good value with his camera. Entertaining to see all the drivers dropping their mobiles like a 'hot potato' as he filmed them.

One of those interviewed said the government needs to do more. They do. Clearly the road network in cities and beyond cannot accommodate households with 2 or more cars plus the massive growth in cycling without changes being made.

I can't see both sides coming together to sort it out.

Which is about all one can say with any certainty. Apart from the fact that people are people and are therefore stupid.

I saw the programme.

Most cyclists and most drivers seemed resonably sensible and responsible people.

Some cyclists and some drivers are clearly selfish and arrogant and, because of that, a danger to themselves and others.

I did not need to see the programme to know that.

That sums it up nicely. As with driving, some demonstration of proficiency and identification markings for the rider should be mandatory. 

Whilst not defending motorists, some of which are a danger to all road users, more and more cyclists seem to have developed a death wish. This morning at 7.00 whilst driving up through Bushey I passed 4 cyclists with no lights or reflective gear. These weren't kids just idiots. 

In addition I feel that cyclists should have some form of identification and insurance as road users. A few years ago a cyclist came tearing through 2 lanes of stationary traffic and took off my wing mirror. I've also had my car scratched by cyclists whilst driving in London. They never give a toss and just ride off.

I'm saying this as a cyclist of many years myself. I think the identification/insurance should at least apply to those cyclists like couriers who use their bikes to make a living like all other road users.

Steve

I would agree with what you say here, but it is the asymmetry of the "danger....to others" bit that is the root of cyclists frustration. It isn't a fair fight. Cyclists are not dangerous to motorists, and slightly  dangerous to pedestrians. Motorists are lethal dangers to everyone, pedestrians, cyclist other motorists. It is they who must take responsibility for the 1.2 million deaths they cause each year. Bitching about cyclists' red-light running or riding on footpaths is just a convenient and distracting sideshow.

Winky

In the real world cyclists will always come off worst in a collision with a car however that collision comes about.

In an ideal world we would all behave with consideration for others. In the real world this will never happen.

As a cyclist I always ride with the view that I cannot assume that all other road users - and pedestrians - will act in a responsible manner. It is for me to ride in a way that minimises the risk to myself as much as I am able. What others do is beyond my control.

Bitching about motorists does not work either except to further polarise opinion.

Agreed Winky with above.

A fellow cyclist got done for speeding in his car recently. He was over the 30 limit so quite sheepishly took himself off to the speed awareness course.

At the course there was a mix of people with the largest group being middle-aged men for whatever reason. He said at first the group-think was denial of having done anything wrong. When asked what they would like to cover in detail the main ask from people was how to avoid getting caught by speed cameras etc. As the course continued people became more regretful of what they had done as they saw evidence of the implications for other road users.

However (and this I feel is the interesting bit), he stuck his hand up at the end and asked the AA advanced driving instructor if he felt all vehicles should be speed limited. The instructor said without a doubt they should. This led to some uproar amongst the attendees.

The thing is the group (admittedly all people who were done for speeding) may have temporarily recognised the potential implications of their actions but they want to reserve the right and capability to speed so really it was just crocodile tears. Lots of drivers are fine but at the end of the day there are a large percentage who put all other road users at risk through exercising their own discretion on what is a safe speed and way to drive. They have been watching too much F1 and Top Gear if you ask me.

To the people who scoff at this, you would certainly not be laughing if, God forbid, one of your family were involved in an accident where another driver was at fault or if you killed someone else.

To the apologists who trot out cars are bigger / heavier / faster therefore they will kill more. That is very simplistic as you know. The truth of the matter is the risk to other road users may be drastically reduced by stopping speeding, using mobile, undertaking, losing tempers.....etc, etc.

It really is simples!

Fascinating how many people had already made their minds up even before  the program was aired.

Arguments from both sides  were balanced and impartial (well done BBC!), although at first I could not  stomach  the self-righteousness of that cyclist in the beginning.

I have seen  cyclists and drivers alike doing  truly amazing  things while trying to defy the laws of physics and the increase of more than one million more cyclists in 12  months without the infrastructure and proper educational guidance does not help.

No doubt, the debate will continue. Till then, please drive or cycle carefully.

KR

Tony

Tony

Not sure everyone was happy with the balance of the programme. I understand some cycling groups / figureheads are disappointed in that it made cycling look like a guaranteed dice-with-death at a time when they are trying to encourage ongoing take-up. I suppose the view is that with greater numbers cycling safety will improve and the government may actually do something plus there are the health benefits for people etc.

Also read that Edmund King, the President of the AA of all people, has likened the attitude of some drivers towards cyclists to “racial discrimination”. He added: “We need to talk about each other in a civilised manner, and I don’t think a programme like this really helps. It’s not a war out there.”

Can anyone imagine the president of the AA or the RAC saying that 30 years ago? Some things are changing I suppose.

BR, MM

Also read the AA's own poll "shows that 57 per cent of drivers agree that cyclists have good grounds to feel upset at the way motorists treat them. Women are more sympathetic (61 per cent, compared to 55 per cent of men)."

So, on a positive note, there is recognition of the issues by the majority of car drivers.

100% agree with everything you say. See my original post. Nothing will change because motorists don't and will never accept responsibility for their actions, no matter what anyone says or does.

Motorists will always seek "justifications" for the danger they create. I saw a piece a while back where someone was arguing against speed cameras in New York. His argument was "like, what if the speeding was justified, like, what if I had to accelerate to beat a red light? Like, how would the camera know that?". The guy wasn't joking.

I also ride with an attitude that cars will ignore me. I do this because they frequently do. It saved me just this morning when a car pulled out of a driveway directly in front of me. Naturally I was sceptical/cynical/experienced enough to already be covering the brakes and was able to slow to a stop in order to allow the driver to proceed with his continued oblivion. No yelling, no gesturing. I placidly continued so as to be as "invisible" as I was before the incident. Had I mentioned the transgression to the motorist, even politely, I would likely have been met with mouthfuls of abuse. I've given up. It makes no difference what I do, so why stress about it?