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

Depends on what you mean by 'the issue'. There's no one big issue, unless you talk about the high-order concept of transport (in)justice which covers all of these issues.

There's a complex of causes which come together in certain symptoms that are perceived by some as more crucial to deal with than the causes.

For instance, the huge need to travel, which in turn is caused by certain factors like property prices and de-localised economies, causes irritation with traffic conditions and fatigue/lack of attentiveness which in turn lead to discourteous and/or aggressive behaviour; you can only push people so far. One of the tragedies is that the perpetrators of the occasional assaults and collisions that occur are often the worst victims of motor dependence and, like many victims, transfer this onto others to turn them into victims, too, whether they want to or not.

Another issue is that people are constantly told to use tools not fit for purpose because they are associated with status or wealth. Driving motorised carriages around can be great fun, but they are remarkable unsuited for routine use around dense settlements. In fact, before motorisation came around, most people would have avoided use of carriages as much as they could and only used them when fit for purpose. Of course, that sort of pointless activity then also increases risk to others. Abuse of technology is a terrible thing.

All of these little absurdities to which we subject ourselves every day just mount up, but never make up just 'one issue'. Single issues are easily dealt with most of the time, and the reason why the complex of problems still exists as it does is because if you were to untangle it you would have to start from so many different ends; slashing it like Alexander slashed the Gordian knot just wouldn't cut it.
Oliver, you talk like a politician i.e. can't you just get straight to the point?

It's quite simple: whatever vehicle you are in charge of - obey the rules/law of the road or get sent to prison for being a twat.

How difficult is that?

One thing that leapt out was "fatigue/lack of attentiveness" leading to things. This is never an excuse

I said it was a cause, not an excuse.

Makes no difference in the magistrates courts anyway. Waive it through.. tea and scones.. paycheck .. sorted.

I emailed the BBC here [url]I hope there will be a footnote pointing out that in any violent confrontation between a car and a cyclist, the car might receive a scratch or a bent wing mirror whereas the cyclist will probably die - or be permanently disabled through pelvic injuries, amputations or brain damage.

This is what I try to explain to people when they nearly kill me on a near weekly basis. Is that extra 30 seconds of your life you just won worth potentially killing somebody for?

@scottmac I disagree. Oliver said exactly what needs to be said: Most journeys in town and lots elsewhere just don't need to be in private single-occupant motor vehicles. Motor dependence is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. There is no easy 'point' to which we can just get.

And if I see that BBC at the lights I'm gonna d lock to fuck out of his wing-mirror.

@Skully - Oliver took several paragraphs of pontificating to say what needed to be said and d-locking anyone's mirrors just puts cyclists on par with child killers in the eyes of a ever hungry media looking for the next "headline".

Unless one avenue is administered to combine the transport needs of every vehicle, we will just continue this clusterfuck of whinging with no gain.

Ummmm I was kidding aboit the bbc's wing mirror. Maybe just tap on his passenger window if he drifts a bit close. Oooh that bbc he's a shit driver.

Oliver, you talk like a politician i.e. can't you just get straight to the point?

It's quite simple: whatever vehicle you are in charge of - obey the rules/law of the road or get sent to prison for being a twat.

How difficult is that?

Oops, missed this earlier--must have posted at the same time.

Not quite sure what your issue is with my post. I was getting perfectly straight to the point I wanted to make. You wanted to make a completely different point.

I certainly agree that people should adhere to traffic law, but I doubt that even 100% adherence to the law would solve the many issues that present. Obviously, it would help a great deal, but it's not so simple.

The law in this country is demonstrably weak. For starters, the Highway Code isn't even a law, unlike other countries. Rules for drivers of vehicles have to be cobbled together from all sorts of laws by an executive agency of the DfT (the Driving Standards Agency) into a non-statutory document. It is well known that the Highway Code contains a lot of questionable advice. Much of the advice in the HC doesn't have the status of laws. This leaves plenty of loopholes, and that's only the law before a crash has happened. After the crash, as we know, the situation is much worse and many injustices occur.

None of this changes the point that I was making, simply outlining the causes of why our commitment to excessive mobility causes people to make mistakes, e.g. to be careless through being too tired. That's not an excuse; people should of course not drive when they're too tired but still do it all the time, and there are reasons why they take this cavalier attitude. But how tight is the law or enforcement against being too tired to drive? There's no objective measure, no tiredness breathalyser test or anything like that. People don't often get prosecuted for falling asleep at the wheel; the driver who caused that terrible train crash a few years ago was a rare exception. I can't remember if he actually confessed or not.

So, no, it's not as simple as you say. I was only arguing that there's no single issue, but a complex of issues. Other examples could be added.

@Skully - Oliver took several paragraphs of pontificating to say what needed to be said

Weren't you saying above that I didn't say what needed to be said?

Weren't you saying above that I didn't say what needed to be said?

Forgive me, I didn't take the * tiredness breathalyser test* and I've now gone to bed.

When someone finds a way for people to take control for their own actions, then I'll get back on my bike.

@Oliver - I agree with what you say, but you are a politician.

nite Zzzzzz

The Indy's take;
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/there-is-room-on-a-bike-for-a-code-of-conduct-8373772.html

The Indy's take;
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/there-is-room-on-a-bike-for-a-code-of-conduct-8373772.html

Seriously, why is so much journalism so piss-poor when it comes to cycling?

As increasing numbers of would-be Victoria Pendletons and Bradley Wigginses take to the roads, Robin Harvie explains why the cyclist mindset needs to change

WTF is the "cyclist mindset" and how am I supposed to change it? Why say cyclists have to change when they are rarely the cause of accidents?

The article starts with an implausible anecdote about a New York cyclist who was completely invisible going the wrong way through a red light up a one-way street twice punching kittens. What's that got to do with me?

It is now a common sight to have 30 or more cyclists lined up and ready to jump the lights before they turn, trying to steal a march on the commuter traffic, but also each other. I should know. I'm one.

OK, the author jumps red lights and calls for cyclists to change their behaviour, right-o.

As one interviewee says, it's really exciting to "look down at your speedometer and see that you're going at 30 miles an hour". I'm sorry, but if you're going to travel that fast through busy streets, you are asking for trouble.

I sometimes get to 30mph, does that mean it's my fault if there's an accident? Fancy applying that rule to motor vehicles?

we would be doing ourselves a favour by remembering that motorists don't have our interests at heart. Would it be too much trouble to raise an arm in acknowledgement when a taxi lets us through, or a cement mixer doesn't turn in front of us?

That's his plan? If we wave at lorry drivers we'll be safe? I already thank drivers if they let me out, what else am I supposed to do?

we owe it to the next generation of road-users to teach them how to behave on the roads. If we don't, we risk undoing all that makes cycling in this country an enjoyable way of passing the time between work and home, and turning it into the nightmare on Fifth Avenue that commuters there live with every day.

A penis on a bike in another country has got nothing to do with me, and is Fifth Avenue really a "nightmare" because of cyclists? Really?

we owe it to the next generation of road-users to teach them how to behave on the roads. If we don't, we risk undoing all that makes cycling in this country an enjoyable way of passing the time between work and home, and turning it into the nightmare on Fifth Avenue that commuters there live with every day.

Stop jumping redlights then, you big penis.

Seriously, why is so much journalism so piss-poor when it comes to cycling?

Journalism is piss poor in general. You only notice just how bad it is when they write about something you know.

Very sloppy and not what I'd expect from the Indy. It's yet another example of a journo who feels that because they've ridden a bike, they're expertly qualified to be critical of their own 'tribe'. Not helpful at all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...t-8373772.html

Wow. That is embarrassing. Editor asleep?

Journalism is piss poor in general. You only notice just how bad it is when** they write about something you know**.

True that ^

looks forward to watching it when its on!:)

Sorry if OT, I just noticed TERRIBLE DRIVER SUE TREPAK got found guilty:

Drivers Knock down cyclist in Greenford West London - YouTube

I'm not that cyclist but how the blinking flip that silly cow could plead not guilty is beyond me.

I was knocked off a scooter near Newington green 15 or so years . As soon as I hit the ground the first words in my head were "STAY DOWN" The LAS and the Police arrived . .

If I ever get knocked off a push bike thats what i plan to do.

looks forward to watching it when its on!:)

..

change the mayor of london.. SIMPLES!

Trailers looked terrid but nothing new really. I got involved in the making of a very similar documentary in around 1997/8 when working full time as pedicab rider in soho. I believe the programme was called "Cabbies and Baddies" and focussed on the antagonism between black cabs and the then new pedicabs. I was supposed to provide some thrilling on-board footage from the battery powered camera mounted on a broomstick. I recall the first fare I got with the camera was a drunk squaddie wanting to go back to Wellington Barracks, I took a shortcut though cabbie free Regent's Park and when it started raining covered ithe camera with a carrier bag. They weren't that thrilled with my footage and gave the camera to someone else after that. I did a couple of talking head bits about cabbies cutting us up, blocking us in, deliberately revving engines to fumigate us in traffic etc. I never saw the finished product. I assume it was shit and pointless as well. Plus ca change.

"A documentary about cycling to be broadcast by the BBC this week has been described as “dangerous and irresponsible” by MPs who fear that it will stoke animosity between cyclists and motorists."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3619100.ece

The Times Cities Fit for Cycling campaign says one of the principal causes of conflict between cyclists and motorists is the poor design and substandard infrastructure on UK streets, which often forces cyclists and large vehicles into conflict at junctions and makes it difficult and dangerous for the two road users to share the same space.

the programme was reported in the evening standard.

it is getting lots of adverts.

yes i am concerned that it may send out confusing messages.

but hopefully after all the arguing and debate we will end up with 20 mph in all villages, towns and cities.

so we can all benefit from safer communities.

we = pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

we = pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

I like what you did there.

we = pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

Completely agree..... cyclists/drivers of vehicles seem to be equally careless

e.g. had to drive to work the other day, turned right onto Lambeth bridge & two cyclists went onto the roundabout in front of me & filtered onto the bridge, ok fine, then one cyclist undertook the other, forcing her out in front of my car, I was very slow moving, so all ok. At the next lights, when I mentioned to the undertaking cyclist his actions had put someone else in danger, he gave a torrent of abuse?!

Then next day, a car went from stationary traffic, pulled left over the CSH almost taking out the cyclist in front, with me braking v hard/turning left with the car to avoid impact...

we = pedestrians, cyclists and drivers - but I am resigned to that's London my friend.