The Times Cycling Campaign

Cycling ***is ***dangerous.

Sorry Sparky, the conditions in which cyclists have to cycle are sometimes dangerous. Cycling is not dangerous by default.

The more I consider this campaign the more I'm beginning to wonder if it may do more harm than good? What happens next?

Cycling in towns and cities is dangerous.

If it wasn't, why the campaign? Cycling isn't inherently dangerous, but I've been knocked off my bike by a bus driven by an inattentive driver.

That's not to say that people shouldn't do it. The benefits far, far outweigh the dangers.

^^^ serves me right for not reading the whole thread.

As someone working on cycle promotion, having a big red danger sign above the activity, fronted by national media, is not going to make it any easier a job.

I understand why they've done this, and agree with some bits. I'm not sure it should be unthinkingly shared and supported as gospel tho.

Cycling in towns and cities is dangerous.

If it wasn't, why the campaign? Cycling isn't inherently dangerous, but I've been knocked off my bike by a bus driven by an inattentive driver.

That's not to say that people shouldn't do it. The benefits far, far outweigh the dangers.

It's only dangerous in certain conditions.

The campaign, a reaction to the near loss of a cherished colleague.

"The benefits far, far outweigh the dangers." a much nicer headline, wouldn't you agree?

This is the problem so often with cycle campaigning: nothing's ever good enough, there's always a niggle. Nobody ever seems to agree.

Just re-iterating my earlier point there.

We're sitting around arguing over whether cycling is dangerous or not? Christ. Of course it's dangerous. People get knocked off every day. The semantics aren't really important.

It's like herding cats.

Because newspapers like to sell newspapers, and will only focus on this sort of topic when one of their own is injured or killed?

And then assume that they know best on how to run a campaign for the benefit of all cyclists, from a starting position of relative ignorance.

This also irks me. Do people seriously think that journalists sit around all day plotting how to sell newspapers? Really, seriously, it couldn't be further from their mind. Believe it or not, people get into that industry because they want to do some good and have an effect on the way things work.

JimboJones I think is speaking complete sense, thanks for that.

Skydancer makes some interesting points, but I laughed when he asked 'why should businesses sponsor cycling?'

Fair enough. You're obviously more in-the-know when it comes to the commercial operation of national newspapers and the motivations of journalists.

Of course they are. Because it's the written word, and it's the words that convey the meaning, context and sentiment.]

Your logic falls flat.

So public spending on cycle safety should be increased if cycling is dangerous? But not if we acknowledge that cycling isn't inherently dangerous, but that there are risks? You remind me of the People's Front of Judea sketch in The Life of Brian.

this thread has already been destroyed by yoghurt weavers - way to go..

You make no sense, and I am unable to follow the thread of your reasoning.

You claim that cycling isn't dangerous. I ask, what's happening to all those injured and killed cyclists?

You claim that the semantics are important. I ask, why?

Tiswas, you claimed that cycling isn't dangerous. You also agree that many cyclists are injured and killed. My question is simple: what the hell are you on about?

In my opinion, it is a really great thing that this campaign is happening, and we definitely shouldn't be focusing on the semantics of 'dangerous' or getting caught up in the details of how exactly we would each prefer infrastructure to be designed. The sorts of issues they are publicising are ones that we all really care about, and they're doing it on the front page of one of the world's best known and most respected newspapers. This is massively positive for all cyclists.

What about all those uninjured and unkilled cyclists, that far outweigh the number of injured and killed cyclists?

You could say the same about driving. Scuba. Base jumping. Solo freeclimbing. Doesn't make them inherintly safe just because more people live than die doing them.

Aren't we all campaigning to get more people on bikes, you know, as a means of getting about?
We might think it is sensors and mirrors and advanced stop lines but it isn't, it is acceptance. Acceptance by everyone that cycling is a really nice thing done by really nice people who all have a lovely time.
Fundamentally though it is about culture, a culture where it is as unacceptable for Clarkson Martin Parris to utter their bile against people on bikes as it is to do so against people on grounds of race or religion or whatever.
The Times might go some way towards that, but it could go so much further, and if we engage with them perhaps it will. Has anyone here made contact with them and offered to work with them to improve their well meaning if possibly off target campaign?

Nicely put Adroit.
I'm getting in touch with them

And I wouldn't and didn't claim that they were, nor that cycling was.

Neither did i. I believe it isn't dangerous as an activity either, but potentially so when mixed with other factors.

... Has anyone here made contact with them and offered to work with them to improve their well meaning if possibly off target campaign?

Surely they've been speaking with the LCC or somebody? I mean, they won't have just come up with this campaign and the list of points purely off their own bat will they?

They have clearly been speaking to British Cycling. Beyond that, assume nothing.

And I wouldn't and didn't claim that they were, nor that cycling was.

Yes you did. Just look back to page 2 of this thread.

I said: "Cycling is dangerous."

You replied: "No it isn't."

Also, you later said to me: "You claim that cycling is dangerous first off. Why don't you quantify that."

If you want quantification you could try ROSPA.

LFGSS has a lot to offer this campaign in terms of raising awareness of the benefits of cycling, the community spirit about cycling that LFGSS brings and how there are loads of hot single guys in London etc.

The Times is based in London, the journos will live in London most likely as well. so there is plenty of ways we can engage. To be honest getting finicky about the campaign approach straightaway is pretty meh to me. I say we should be supportive and constructive and we have lots to offer in terms of filling out the campaign. By being constructive we can then have more influence in shaping their campaign and messaging. They might be attracted to writing features that LFGSS can help them with on subjects such as:

the Grass roots nature of LFGSS
Real life stories of accidents/recoveries
The campaigning
The ghost bikes
The community spirit and social value of cycling that LFGSS shows
the colourful characters of the forum
The yentzing
The rides
The sweet bikes and the mad SKilz

Just some thoughts

Aren't we all campaigning to get more people on bikes, you know, as a means of getting about?
We might think it is sensors and mirrors and advanced stop lines but it isn't, it is acceptance. Acceptance by everyone that cycling is a really nice thing done by really nice people who all have a lovely time.
Fundamentally though it is about culture, a culture where it is as unacceptable for Clarkson Martin Parris to utter their bile against people on bikes as it is to do so against people on grounds of race or religion or whatever.
The Times might go some way towards that, but it could go so much further, and if we engage with them perhaps it will. Has anyone here made contact with them and offered to work with them to improve their well meaning if possibly off target campaign?

I contacted JM's publicist inviting him to come to a cycling event, no response.

I think we should put forward the 1 meter law, cars arent allowed to come closer than 1 meter to a cyclist, or they will be fined or whatever.

unenforcable

What larks, the rabble at the telegraph are getting involved:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100134564/the-best-way-to-reduce-the-number-of-cyclist-deaths-is-to-get-more-people-cycling/#disqus_thread