The War on Britain's Roads (BBC Documentary / tabloid tv)

IMO a 'dangerous' cyclist is safer than a 'safe' driver.

^like this

The president of the AA has spoken out in the wake of the BBC show:

Drivers who hate cyclists are "absolute idiots", drivers who repeatedly refer to RLJing "have to look at their own habits first", and says "I never drive in Central London - the hassle isn't worth it"

Good man.

Link^

Legend! He makes such a good point about road tax. Sick of hearing that crap from people.

it was a bit meh. the courier bit just seemed to be put in there for no reason, except to point the finger at bad cycling.

No strong feelings either way, could have mentioned the ASL.

Thought it was fairly well balanced, drivers came across as being louts. Sorry for that mother who's daughter was killed but from the CCTV footage alone she was in a place she shouldn't have been, IMO.

yeah the courier bit was clearly there to dramatise it. I was a courier until recently and never entered an alleycat.

The president of the AA has spoken out in the wake of the BBC show:

Drivers who hate cyclists are "absolute idiots", drivers who repeatedly refer to RLJing "have to look at their own habits first", and says "I never drive in Central London - the hassle isn't worth it"

Good man.

A refreshing change.

Did anyone notice a change on the roads today? I felt some tension from car drivers but also had a guy attempt a dick move but proceeded to slam his brakes on and accept it was a dick move and waited behind me until it was safe to pass, could be a coincidence but I definitely noticed different attitudes.

IMO a 'dangerous' cyclist is safer than a 'safe' driver.

So, by the same logic, a "dangerous" driver is safer than a "safe" train driver?

Does this keep scaling, so a suicidally reckless aeroplane pilot is still safer than a safe supertanker captain?

I see bad cyclists hurting themselves and others fairly regularly. Take some responsibility.

I protect myself by dressing as a strawman

So, by the same logic, a "dangerous" driver is safer than a "safe" train driver?

Does this keep scaling, so a suicidally reckless aeroplane pilot is still safer than a safe supertanker captain?

+1

I see bad cyclists hurting themselves and others fairly regularly. Take some responsibility.

But ultimately cyclists, through bad cycling or mis fortune do not kill and seriously injure many people. Car drivers do.

Cycling is an inherently safer mode of transport than driving. I had a look at the numbers from the DFT earlier this year and on the bare stats a cyclist is something like twice as likely to be harmed than harm, whereas a car driver is 7 times more likely to harm than be harmed.

I know we're very keen on this forum to hold cyclists to high standards but the reality is that drivers need to be held to higher standards simply on their choice of transport.

But ultimately cyclists, through bad cycling or mis fortune do not kill and seriously injure many people. Car drivers do.

Cycling is an inherently safer mode of transport than driving. I had a look at the numbers from the DFT earlier this year and on the bare stats a cyclist is something like twice as likely to be harmed than harm, whereas a car driver is 7 times more likely to harm than be harmed.

I know we're very keen on this forum to hold cyclists to high standards but the reality is that drivers need to be held to higher standards simply on their choice of transport.

I just can't see any viable logical link between the fact that its easier to hurt somebody in a car reducing the requirement for other road users to use it safely.

I just can't see any viable logical link between the fact that its easier to hurt somebody in a car reducing the requirement for other road users to use it safely.

well 'Safely' is the key word here, a cyclist can RLJ, pavement ride etc, indeed many do and little harm comes from it. I'm not justifying this behaviour, merely pointing out that using the road safely means different things to different types of user.

Or, possibly more accurately, peoples perceptions of what is safe and what is not tend to differ, sometimes significantly.

This is why we need a common set of rules, so that we don't have to guess what the fuck the other people are going to do next.

well 'Safely' is the key word here, a cyclist can RLJ, pavement ride etc, indeed many do and little harm comes from it. I'm not justifying this behaviour, merely pointing out that using the road safely means different things to different types of user.

Or simply that most cyclists rode as they walk rather than as they drive since TfL, the general wisdom, etc. indicated that cyclists are second class, something that does not quite belong on the road.

Or, possibly more accurately, peoples perceptions of what is safe and what is not tend to differ, sometimes significantly.

This is why we need a common set of rules, so that we don't have to guess what the fuck the other people are going to do next.

A code of some sort? Maybe published in a book that anybody can get a copy of, maybe even provided by the government for free?

It'll never catch on

Cynthia Barlow's statement today:

http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/PR_061212_War_on_Britains_Roads.pdf

The language of war is problematic for some. There is no doubt that a programme focusing on conflict
and danger between cyclists and motorists risks undermining an agenda of promoting cycling as a safe
and healthy activity. There are worries that it will put off some from cycling.
But there are others for whom their daily experience of using our roads, whether on bike or foot, leads
them to agree that a war is playing out daily on our streets. Whether that is through fear or intimidation,
or worse.
Whatever you think about a war on our roads, one thing is certain. Every day there are casualties. Each
and every day five people are killed on our roads, and over 2000 are injured. Lives are cut short,
unfulfilled, and many more families and friends devastated by a sudden traumatic bereavement.
We also know these deaths are preventable. Our transport system poses an unacceptably high risk to
vulnerable road users, and then our justice system treats them unfairly. Founded on road danger
reduction, we believe the solution to safer roads involves tackling danger at source, and that those who
pose the greater risk have a greater duty of care to others.
I hope that the one thing people will remember from The War on Britain’s Roads is that road deaths are
preventable. Last year 1901 people were killed on our roads and more than 80 000 were seriously
injured. We should not, cannot, tolerate this level of carnage on our roads and we don’t need to. We can
prevent this. Whether we are professional drivers, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, or all of the above, we
all have the responsibility to protect others from harm when they share our space.

Sorry for formatting, pdf copy didn't work.

Or, possibly more accurately, peoples perceptions of what is safe and what is not tend to differ, sometimes significantly.

This is why we need a common set of rules, so that we don't have to guess what the fuck the other people are going to do next.

A code of some sort? Maybe published in a book that anybody can get a copy of, maybe even provided by the government for free?

It'll never catch on

You've both hit the nail on the head.

Safety on the road requires all road users to behave in a predictable and controlled way. Anybody who feels that the rules don't apply to them because they are less likely to hurt somebody is ill-informed at best.

I can preach because I'm a celebrity cyclist now.

A code of some sort? Maybe published in a book that anybody can get a copy of, maybe even provided by the government for free?

It'll never catch on

well, it didn't

Was just watching this on iPlayer when I heard that terrible noise when a cyclist gets hit and falls to the ground. Looked out my window and it appeared a man on a mountain bike on Stamford St got hit, shunted perhaps I don't know, but he's walking I hope he's alright.