The Times Cycling Campaign

Chris Tarrant has a particular blend of dim-wittedness crossed with smugness which unsettles me.

He is a jolly twat isn't he.

I bet he drives a Jaguar.

#vehicularsnobism

Perhaps it wasn't really him and whoever wrote the e-mail used the name as a deterrent.

CTUK got an Email from a Chris Tarrant this morning:

This http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3328526.ece was in the same issue.

Can't see skydancer in the above link but some good words from him here instead: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3328306.ece

The people who really need cycling to be safer are not, so much, those of us who cycle today but those who do not cycle.

They need cycling to be safer because the perception of cycling safety is possibly (certainly in my experience anecdotally) the prime reason why more people who cycled as kids don't cycle now and the reason why those people won't let their kids cycle.

Everyone, cyclists and non cyclists, needs more people on bikes. Our cities, and particularly London, cannot cope without more cyclists. Cycling takes people off over crowded public transport; cycling gets people out of cars either into less crowded public transport or, ideally, onto bikes. Cycling means that necessary traffic can flow more easily. Cycling improves general health and reduces the burden on the state of health care. Mass cycling promotes healthy living generally.

If cycle safety was sold as something that benefits everyone rather that simply the Lycra Louts of popular myth, the cycle safety campaign might gain more traction.

I beg to differ Cliveo. I have cycled over 200,000 miles but fear for my life as never before. I get the miles in at night now (15% of so-called accidents happen then.) - well set up for Dunwich Dynamo and BHF Night Ride to Brighton.though.. I was nearly done for four times in 2010 - 3 HGVs (not at junctions) and one fight almost to the death (mine obviously) with a BMW. This is reality!

I think, with the utmost respect, that you have missed my point.

Jeremy Clarkson and his hate-filled followers don't give a toss if a hundred cyclists are killed each week so long as they can drive their fuel guzzling penis substitutes at fast speeds. If we explain to them that cycle safety will free the roads up for their expression of inadequacy, they may well back off and allow politicians to support cycle safety.

Then, hopefully they will find themselves having to drive properly.

We need to sell to them and not to the already converted cyclists.

This worked with congestion charge. The BMW boys accepted it as it was taking poor people off the road for £5 a day. When it went up to £12, they jumped into their Addison Lees.

The people who really need cycling to be safer are not, so much, those of us who cycle today but those who do not cycle.

They need cycling to be safer because the perception of cycling safety is possibly (certainly in my experience anecdotally) the prime reason why more people who cycled as kids don't cycle now and the reason why those people won't let their kids cycle.

Clive, read this:

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/Field/reasons.html

Worries about safety are unquestionably something that prevent some people back onto bikes, but there are plenty of other reasons why people don't want to cycle. Some are simple--not wanting to be rained on, or other comfort-related things, others are more complex. There's no silver bullet for resolving this.

The mantra that 'cycling is dangerous' (which is utter nonsense) was introduced because at the dawn of mass motorisation, cycles formed the greatest part of road traffic, 80-90% of vehicular traffic in some places, while there were very few drivers of motor vehicles. However, motor vehicle users soon wanted to use the higher speeds at their disposal, which was impossible with so many bike riders around (which drivers of motor vehicles saw as 'being in the way' when in fact cyclists were simply exercising their identical legal right to passing and re-passing along the King's or Queen's highway).

To be sure, the early years were carnage; there were huge numbers of road deaths and injuries (partly owing to less well-developed medical care, but still), but it wasn't cycling that was 'dangerous' in the sense of being the source of danger (the word is, of course, vague and ambiguous), it was bad driving. It was victim-blaming, and the ambiguity was exploited very successfully by the 'Road Safety' movement. The sense in which people in this country believe cycling to be 'dangerous' is still unmatched in any other country I've been to (although I'm sure there are some).

The truth is that there are a lot of reasons why people don't cycle, and there is plenty of evidence that 'lack of safety' is often put forward as an excuse by people who don't wish to admit that they have reasons for not cycling which they worry might not be accepted as readily as 'lack of safety'. It is, of course, perfectly fine for anyone not to cycle if they have reasons which they genuinely hold, including simple things like not wanting to get rained on, or, indeed, subconsciously not wanting to admit to themselves how much they've been missing out since 'Cycling Proficiency' inculcated in them the idea that they shouldn't cycle, as it's strange and deviant (this was, indeed, often the effect of cycling proficiency, although provision across the country varied; some courses were reportedly delivered by genuinely enthusiastic people who avoided the standard negative message). However, people are often frightened to admit to such 'invalid' reasons, as the image of cycling is at the same time as something so 'virtuous' (green, clean, healthy, benign etc.). That image actually puts many people off, too; it's generally not helpful.

Now, of course we all want the number of crashes to be reduced, but it is very wrong to pretend that it is the only, or even a main, barrier to cycling. Fortunately, many MPs in yesterday's debate recognised that the risks should not be over-emphasised, and the debate therefore took on a suitably positive tone. Given that a culture change is happening on all fronts, we are possibly witnessing a lasting social change in this country. Granted, we are still exploiting easily latent potential, but it might lead on to greater things.

I beg to differ Cliveo. I have cycled over 200,000 miles but fear for my life as never before. I get the miles in at night now (15% of so-called accidents happen then.) - well set up for Dunwich Dynamo and BHF Night Ride to Brighton.though.. I was nearly done for four times in 2010 - 3 HGVs (not at junctions) and one fight almost to the death (mine obviously) with a BMW. This is reality!

I think, with the utmost respect, that you have missed my point.

Jeremy Clarkson and his hate-filled followers don't give a toss if a hundred cyclists are killed each week so long as they can drive their fuel guzzling penis substitutes at fast speeds. If we explain to them that cycle safety will free the roads up for their expression of inadequacy, they may well back off and allow politicians to support cycle safety.

Then, hopefully they will find themselves having to drive properly.

We need to sell to them and not to the already converted cyclists.

This worked with congestion charge. The BMW boys accepted it as it was taking poor people off the road for £5 a day. When it went up to £12, they jumped into their Addison Lees.

Clive, genuine worries about safety are usually expressed by existing cyclists who have had frightening experiences. Those who haven't cycled much recently often 'know' that 'cycling is dangerous' by hearsay, but often have no relevant personal experience. Some existing cyclists are genuinely intimidated, and it is usually them who lead calls for 'more safety' (a very loaded concept, and more complex than one imagines). At the same time, the latter have also experienced the pleasure and fun of cycling and are loth to give up; whereas the former can suffer from not having experienced the positives, and their state of avelopia is truly pitiable.

What does avelopia mean Oliver? I am in a state of intoxication over it but too tired to Google..

What does 'loth' mean, Oliver?

chummy emoticon

Oliver, do you know what "get laid" does it mean?

What does avelopia mean Oliver? I am in a state of intoxication over it but too tired to Google..

Have you clicked through to the link I posted? ;)

What does 'loth' mean, Oliver?

chummy emoticon

It's the correct spelling of a frequently mis-spelled word, or 'sloth' without the initial 's', depending on your politics.

This is not going to go down very well, but I can't see the difficulty in saying that cycling is dangerous. It clearly is, as are many things which shouldn't, for the sake of enjoyment, and literally cannot, as they're a staple of life, be avoided due to a presence of danger. It's perfectly possible to have an accident in the home, or outside. People have been killed doing the most innocuous of things, which cycling isn't.

There's nothing benign about riding a bike on a public road, full of huge vehicles. Even then, a bike is a contraption which can fail mechanically at any time, due to any number of reasons. I love cycling, but I'm certainly not afraid of it. But there are inherent dangers to riding a bike, from even the slightest and most unpredictable of circumstances. A pebble leading to a blow-out can do for you, let alone a bus. Maybe that all pessimism, but it's also realistic.

If these risks put people off then that's a shame, and there are people who are afraid of nearly everything and so would never consider riding a bike. No amount of favourable statistics will convince them otherwise. I just don't think that any objection to cycling being 'tainted' as dangerous on the part of cyclists is very helpful. It is, so accept that and move on, while dodging any cracks in the pavement while you're at it.

There's nothing benign about riding a bike on a public road

Why not? Not only are you unlikely to cause harm but bring benefit to yourself and the environment. That's pretty benign like walking . Harmless and beneficial.

Now driving a car...

As I said, Paul, the word is ambiguous and very vague, and over-used. Modern usage is becoming increasingly like crying 'fire' every time you light a match. Just because you can fall down the stairs doesn't make climbing stairs 'dangerous'. Yes, dangerous situations can arise in a wide variety of activities, but that doesn't make any of those activities automatically 'dangerous'. A dangerous activity is one that is consistently dangerous, like defusing a bomb. Cycling is not like that, and neither is climbing stairs or playing conkers. There simply isn't any evidence that cycling is consistently 'dangerous'. The number and frequency of crashes, while too high to be acceptable and frequently preventable, is very low. Stressing this is indeed very helpful, as it corrects a persistent false belief.

(NB this is one of those interminable discussions that never have any resolution, so don't expect one here, either. :) )

Theory, I understand your PoV, but one could say that motoring is dangerous, but almost nobody considers the risks involved in driving before they get in a car. I don't know anyone who refuses to drive because it is too dangerous. I believe as is often the case, people have a very poor understanding of risk, some they over estimate, some they underestimate. No matter what the relative risk is between cycling/walking/driving, the nominal risk is always pretty small, probably much less than other activities the same people don't think twice about, I imagine skiing and diving are more hazardous.

this might interest some on here,,out together to help make the UK roads safer

https://www.facebook.com/CyclistsForRightOfWayUK

^Another campaign group?
There seems to be a new cycle campaigning group springing up almost weekly.
Is this good for promoting cycling?
I suppose if the group gets the tone right and doesn't base the message on fear (Where the Times started) but on fun (Julian Hupperts closing words at the EDM) it could be good to have diversity.

Too many cycling campaign groups. Weakens our voice and not strengthens it.

"This page is set up to campaign for the UK government to implement Right of way for cyclists in the UK."

That's an interesting proposition; now you'd only have to explain what the hell you mean. :)

I was of the opinion that "Right of Way" was laid out in the highway code, but could be wrong

One Campaign to rule them all, One Campaign to find them,
One Campaign to bring them all and with the hi-viz blind them.

That's for Oliver.

One Campaign to rule them all

That'll be Cycle Nation
http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/