[Closed] Front page article re: cyclists vs. media headlines

I did like this approach https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/02/dont-say-cyclists-say-people-on-bikes/385387/

Can't see how you would get the British press on board though

I always thought there should be web site that clearly points out why usual complaints are wrong, both legally and morally, in big easy to understand letters. Just a single page so it's easy to follow, with a big disclaimer saying it's all fact or supported by experts (with links to the evidence if required).

Then we can all just spam the link in reply to any stupid article or comments, until it sinks in!

Well the point I took away from Antony's article is that the press would print anything that got a reaction. Also the Private Eye is very quick to point out that the lower quality the rag, the more delighted they would be to run any pre-written press release and call it an article.

Feels like a win-win. I don't believe that even the Daily Mail would be so right wing as to just refuse point blank to run an article like that, although they would undoubtedly try to discredit it somehow.

Your link above does look like a good tool for writing press releases etc. although again, taking Antony's message on board, journalists are unlikely to want to use [i]less[/i] inflammatory language.

Then we can all just spam the link in reply to any stupid article or comments, until it sinks in!

People just wouldn't follow the link, I know if someone posted up a link to some right wing website that PROVED how cyclists were the anti-christ, I would just dismiss it out-of-hand.

I like the idea of an easy method of spamming below the line message boards though, perhaps we should work to produce some funny memes with pictures and big easy to read captions, something like:

[picture of car on driveway]
Caption: Pays road tax on car

[picture of cyclist]
Caption: Cycles to work anyway

[Picture of tax disc]
Caption: Where's my refund??

Except funnier obviously, and maybe omitting the joke about the refund as the knuckledraggers would take it seriously... 🙄

Mandatory Hi-Viz: How much more visible does this make a cyclist vs. flashing rear light alone?

What obligation does a driver have re: use of headlights and paying attention to other road users in the dark?

With regard to your last point OP, the daily commute, I've thought for a couple of years that shortly after cycle to work day, we should also have a drive to work day where all the usual bike commuters hit the road in their cars at 7.30 to 8.00.

Major towns and cities would be bloody chaos, it would serve to highlight just what a general social benefit cycle commuters are!

Thanks Scaredy, I was trying to avoid debating the actual arguments on this thread, more the way they are actually presented to the general public, think of it as a discussion about cyclist PR!

I agree with you though, I almost rode into the back of a Scottish Water van parked on a cycle path, even though I had an Exposure Joystick light up front and the rear door of the van was covered in a big chequered hi-viz pattern...

Road tax - based on emissions so unless 'blowing out my arse' is considered an emission, this point should be easily won.

With regard to your last point OP, the daily commute, I've thought for a couple of years that shortly after cycle to work day, we should also have a drive to work day where all the usual bike commuters hit the road in their cars at 7.30 to 8.00.

Yeah I like that idea, but it would need a big media push to drive the message home to non-cyclists, and of course we would all have to make sure we drove extra slowly and parked extra inconsiderately just to ram it home 8)

Road tax - based on emissions so unless 'blowing out my arse' is considered an emission, this point should be easily won.

Yep, another easy point to make, even if cyclists should pay 'road tax' over and above what they pay on their cars, what they pay out of income tax and what they pay out of council tax, how should the amount be calculated?

Proportionally based on damage to the road? I'm pretty sure my 1600kg 1.9l turbo diesel does significantly more damage than all 100kg of me + bike and my weedy 150W legs...

Emissions? We pay the same as electric cars?

Again, it's not about how easily won the argument is, it's about presenting that argument in a simple, irrefutable way, in a format that people will actually read e.g. their daily newspaper.

Drive to work day wouldn't work. For one thing, not all cycle commuters have cars.

Love that linked article in the front page piece, New Yorkers providing human barriers to cycle lanes... look at the lovely cycle lanes they have!
[img] [/img]

And those "tuff kerbs" - why don't they just have rumble strips on the edges so cars actually realise they're crossing into a cycle lane??

(Probably not what the OP wanted to discuss, but stuff that bugs me every-bloody day!!)

The UK equivalent!
[url= https://s25.postimg.org/6vlmg7hvf/purbrook.jp g" target="_blank">https://s25.postimg.org/6vlmg7hvf/purbrook.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

The important thing is to understand why this is happening. Some assorted points to note:

- Fair Fuel UK, who ran the survey in order to create a press release, is heavily funded by the three main haulage associations.
- The automotive industry is one of the largest, if not the largest, industry worldwide in terms of advertising spend.
- Newspapers cost a lot to distribute: national titles have associated lorry/van driver costs running into millions of pounds.
- Articles such as this contain numerous recognised techniques of influence. These are known, researched, and scientifically proven techniques, and they are used on a regular basis to influence views against cycling. Seen the "cyclists vs cars" vocabulary? That's a known technique. The focus on individual incidents over policy? Known technique. A quick survey embedded in an article? Multiple known techniques. (If you read the survey in question here, you'll have also noted how the questions were pitched, not to mention the selected nature of its participants. These are designed to add pseudo-evidence to planned statements, not to actually measure opinion.)
- And so on. If you want to play join-the-dots there are plenty of dots.

I would suggest that the idea that the press would print anything that gets a reaction is flat wrong. The choice of angle is not random. A little counterpoint is necessary to sustain a campaign, but you can't just churn out PRs by the dozen and expect to change the way things are going.

I suspect it's probably fair to say that cycling organisations aren't doing enough to stand up to this, but to be honest I think that's probably because they don't really understand what they're up against, and even if they did then it's hard to put up barriers against a campaign of influence that's got the weight of a predicted trillion dollar incentive behind it.

So what's the solution Bez? Guerrilla campaign on the online message boards a-la grenosteve's suggestion?

I guess most of the points above could be reduced to fairly simple memes

[picture of helmet]
caption: number of cyclist head injuries in 2017 = X

[picture of someone mashing head off steering wheel]
caption: number of motorist/pedestrian head injuries in 2017 = Y

caption: Who should be wearing the helmets?

(only works if Y>X obviously...)

more the way they are actually presented to the general public, think of it as a discussion about cyclist PR!

You know the discussion about coffee cups / carrier bags etc and the very prevalent opinion that it'll only change if it becomes sufficiently "painful" for the coffee buyer? I believe it, as IMO People in general have minimal sense of responsibility towards anything or anyone beyond their little nuclear family bubble.

... hence pro-cyclist PR is never going to work - the general public [u]is[/u] "drivers". We've all seen the comments on those sites, even below stories about blind drivers, drunk and on their phones, taking out children's faces. They (some) are so entrenched in their faux-tribal cockishness that we need to counter their (broadly accepted or at least tolerated) bullshit attitudes with more than "we're nice really" IMO. Make these ****s the pariahs that they should be - actively target them.

Publicly turning their own stupid arguments against them is what I'd support, whether or not it's whataboutery. I like the idea of a nice set of ready responses "yeah, make cyclists accountable - you mean just like the (however many) untaxed uninsured or driving while banned? (maybe even name them somehow) ... and accountable for what - there have been (x) DSI involving cyclists; that's fewer than DSI involving microwave ovens (or something)".

Trouble is that this needs very wide audiences and some repetition, and that costs money. In the end though I suspect it'd be better spent on this than on infrastructure (maybe it's a good job that I'm not in control of this shit 😳 ). If we made juries believe that dangerous driving includes "momentary lapses" over an entire 20 second period, even in a driver with a blemish-free record then conviction rates might rise and THEN standards might rise too

I'd definitely support drive to work days - publicised widely in advance so that drivers know why today's a nightmare

and I'd also train up the CTC legal team to "whiplash and damages" the living shit out of any driver who hits any cyclist just like their ambulance-chasing pals do with drivers. Maybe publicise this service on tv like those cockish "sticking up for the little guy" adverts so that drivers see them (more important than the cyclists seeing them IMO). OK, posters on bus shelters, then. Try to make hitting a cyclist a very expensive and ideally personally inconvenient process (or at least seem to drivers like it might be)

[i]posters on bus shelters, then. Try to make hitting a cyclist a very expensive and ideally personally inconvenient process (or at least seem to drivers like it might be)[/i]

This sounds good.

How about car stickers too - there must be plenty of cyclists driving around on the weekends. Yesterday, I noticed tiny British Gas vans with "Cyclists beware" stickers - maybe another colour sticker and something catchy ?

We live in a post-truth world where people by and large believe what they choose to believe. Presenting them with facts isn’t going to change minds.

The important thing is to understand why this is happening.

You say this but go on to make some dark hints and instruct us to "join the dots".

Don't take this the wrong way, but why don't you do that? Do you genuinely believe there's an explicit media conspiracy against cyclists? How do you believe that works in practice?

"Cyclists beware" stickers - maybe another colour sticker and something catchy ?

actually, maybe one for all cars, saying "cyclists beware; some drivers are selfish, bullying arseholes"

(sorry 13thFM, said I wasn't going to put any more shite on here 😳 )

Perhaps cycling organisations need to conduct surveys of their own, with attention grabbing leading questions?

Who could possibly disagree that the roads would be a safer place if all motor vehicles were painted bright yellow and escorted by a pedestrian waving a red flag?

Following on from Bez’s point a couple of posts up re: industry influence and manipulation of opinion, I’m struck.

Thinking back, while there’s always been a low level antipathy from motorists to cyclists, it always used to be more aimed at kids on bmx’s etc popping of kerbs without warning/generally not having a crap light. It’s really ramped up the last ten years or so, probably since people like The Clarkson began commenting in their media.

I’m wondering if the timing lines up roughly with when the serious conversation about truck/van blind spots and why we allow such dangerous vehicles in public and why we don’t regulate new cab designs. That would certainly have a very large financial impact on the haulage industry, and presumably if cyclist wipeouts reduce it will be argued that regulation, training and better stickers have solved the problem when it’s actually that the cycling population has reduced because it’s fearful for its life in a hostile environment?

On the stickers DezB mentions, they seriously get my goat. I always want to be able to neatly apply something clearly legible below advising drivers following to be cautious as the van driver bearing the sticker is poorly trained and can’t see his surroundings, but it’s onr of those things where wording and message would be critical and mostly even if you wanted you couldn’t. So, I just satisfy myself with noting the company and allowing it to influence my consumer behaviour towards them.

Stickers on large vehicles make sense to me. Whatever the arguments are for better cab design, the fact is they currently have limited visibility and a lot of cyclists seem somehow unaware of how dangerous it is to pass them on the inside.

Confronting the 'us vs them' propaganda with more 'us vs them' will just make cycling/cyclists more unpopular/annoying to any entitled/'aggrieved' motorist. I've spoken to 'them', (most friends and family are avid motorists and anti-cycling either via apathy or active dislike) and the overwhelming response is 'cyclists are in the way/a danger to themselves and others' 😥

I even presented this chart (see below) to an argumentative old-timer (drives literally everywhere, always has) who claims to have 'had enough' of today's 'bicycle-congested' roads. Claiming that cycling today is 'too popular' and 'never seen back in my day'

[img] [/img]

After driving all afternoon with this individual I noted that we didn't pass one cyclist. But he does love those newspapers, and remained convinced that the chart I somehow showed was inversely proportional to the alternate truth that his mind perceived. He 'perceives' that droves of young cyclists are clogging the roads, and are a 'trend', and what is more are a 'danger to themselves and others'.

My mind was blown. There is a certain percentage of any population who have a mindset that is stubbornly what I call 'us vs them/black vs white/yet black is white'. The populist press exploit this mindset to full advantage.

People often don't wish to be factual, they wish to be 'right'. They will tie themselves (and others) in knots to defend a position. And if using such blatant lies propaganda as 'evidence' makes them feel justified, then it self-perpetuates

And - those who have swallowed the 'anti' draught don't view [i]more cyclists[/i] on the road as '[i]less motor traffic[/i]' or '[i]less pollution'[/i]. They see it as [i]'more cyclist takeover[/i].' The motor lobby already won the 'war' they started.

The 'future' has been designed for single-occupant motorised vehicles (cars) for every type of short or long journey.

+1 what Bez said. And HGH. The proliferation of social media has produced an explosion of scapegoating tribalistic nonsense where crass stereotypes are peddled. Are you a snowflake bedwetter or a gun-toting racist?

My little dream was/is for us to repurchase and resurface the Beeching-axed railway lines and build a world-class public cycle/HPV/Pedelec network that connects every town and village. Makes sense to me, because it would make people healthier, more sociable, better connected, encourage tourism, regenerate rural trade and industry, etc etc. But I'm a bit of a simple-minded dreamer. It rains and blows a lot here in the UK. Cars are our future. Cars are our family. Cycling (for transport) is already the perceived province of the 'mad uncle'. I don't see it changing but we have to protect ourselves.

[i]actually, maybe one for all cars, saying "cyclists beware; some drivers are selfish, bullying arseholes"

(sorry 13thFM, said I wasn't going to put any more shite on here) [/i]

That's not shite 🙂 Exactly what I meant. (And not what kelron said)

See Malvern Rider that's interesting - it goes with what I always say about cyclists being "in the way" - it's not the cyclist going in the same direction who is in the way - it's all the CARS going in the opposite direction stopping you from being able to overtake. They're in the way - because the number of cars on the road has massively increased.
A chart for that
[img] [/img]

drive to work day where all the usual bike commuters hit the road in their cars at 7.30 to 8.00.

Major towns and cities would be bloody chaos, it would serve to highlight just what a general social benefit cycle commuters are!

Would it highlight the social benefit, or would it reinforce the belief that we're all tossers? We'd be causing trouble [as per usual]. Just imagine how the daily mail would report it.

It wouldn't be the reflective 'look how much traffic chaos cyclists save on a daily basis' but 'cyclists causing chaos again'.

We really need a public shift of opinon though. My wife & SiL both have some wildly incorrect views of cyclists; both the BiL & I commute by bike more than car. The wife for example talks about cyclists jumping red lights - but doesn't believe me that i see cars do it most days.

Stickers on large vehicles make sense to me. Whatever the arguments are for better cab design, the fact is they currently have limited visibility and a lot of cyclists seem somehow unaware of how dangerous it is to pass them on the inside.

Would be fine if large vehicle overtaking then immediately turning wasn’t so common.

CCTV exists. Even if it’s valid that large vehicles that can’t see anything but straight ahead are ok and important (not accepted) then there’s no justification for the blind spots continuing.

[i]Would be fine if large vehicle overtaking then immediately turning wasn’t so common[/i]

And where are cycle lanes? Jeez sorry for mentioning those bloody stickers! wasn't trying to start a discussion about that, just saying stickers could be used as part of what the OP is talking about.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why don't you do that? Do you genuinely believe there's an explicit media conspiracy against cyclists? How do you believe that works in practice?

Personally I don't think there's a media conspiracy against cyclists, but I do think journalists are under huge pressure to both create endless content and content that drives traffic and appeals to lowest common denominator readership.

You end up caught in a sort of groundhog day cycle of repeated themes and opinions. Hence the Guardian writes endless near identical articles about how Arsenal can't defend. And after the Chris Froome thing, the same paper managed to squeeze around ten separate articles about it into two or three days, none of which added anything much to the understanding of what had happened, but doubtless got hits from readers who thought it might.

None of the above ever do more than scratch the surface because they don't need to and it takes time and perspective to step back and write a more reasoned story. The Sky thing, for example, hinges on the blurred relationship between medicine and performance in elite sport and how medical confidentiality complicates 'transparency', but I've yet to see anyone actually address that because it's not an easy-to-understand, black and white story.

The anti-cycling media stuff is just part of the same never-ending cycle. The big story, in a crashingly obvious way, is about how we've built an infrastructure and a culture that's in thrall to the car and the motoring lobby at the expense of our overall health, happiness and global environment, but hey, there are more clicks in opinion pieces slating cyclists facilitated by the motoring industry lobby.

I guess what II'm saying is that cycling isn't taking on a small interest group or prejudiced individuals, it's just collateral damage in an utterly screwed-up culture driven by consumer greed, big business wants and power and suicidal short-sightedness.

Plastic bottle anyone?

So what's the solution Bez?

The solution to act against a rational process of smoothing the path to a trillion dollar prize, a process which has a head of roughly 100 years behind it? If I knew then I'd (a) probably be doing it and (b) have a trillion dollars 🙂

Fundamentally, decisions are made through either politics or economics. Anyone who wants towns that aren't dominated by motor vehicles, andyone who wants to see a rise in walking and cycling and any other unpowered travel, needs to be working in a co-ordinated fashion and using proven techniques to influence people to either politically support active travel infrastructure or to change their spending.

Techniques have to be geared to the audience. Shopkeepers who oppose their council removing parking spaces or limiting car access in order to provide for cycling and walking should be shown the economic facts that these things almost always increase footfall and spending: there is good evidence about this, and most shopkeepers are fairly rational about their economic decisions. (At the most extreme extrapolation, consider whether retailers in shopping centres would want people to drive into the shopping centres and park in the atriums.)

Cycling and walking organisations suffer from two things when it comes to messaging: firstly they're too fragmented (which is not to say that there should be only one voice, but that the voices should be co-ordinated), and secondly I think they believe that if you broadcast facts and coherent bits of good thinking then people will respond by changing their opinions. That just doesn't work on most people. The techniques of influence can be used by everyone for any motive, but I don't see an appetite for understanding and adopting those techniques.

The other massive problem, and I know I keep repeating this point, is that anyone promoting active travel doesn't have the carrot of a trillion dollar industry to wave. So influence is inherently hard to come by.

Moreover, many of the benefits of fighting motor dominance are hard to make in an economic context: they're either non-economic (better physical and mental health, reduced casualty rates, reduced pollution, etc) or they are economic but not attractive to industry. One example, the potential cost reductions—which are huge—to the NHS through reduced pollution and increased exercise are a very weak economic argument, because it means less demand for health care. Why would directors of or shareholders in medical companies support policies which reduce the size and profitability of those companies? Increased productivity through reduced sickness is a more robust argument, but it's incredibly hard to quantify and is probably not huge anyway, which also makes it weak. Increased life expectancy is an economically *bad* argument: you're extending the period for which people live beyond the age of economic productivity.

In a purely shallow economic sense, the best solution is to keep people just healthy enough to be economically productive and to have them die as soon as possible after retirement. Active travel isn't great for that.

I guess most of the points above could be reduced to fairly simple memes

They can, and that happens on Twitter all the time.

You say this but go on to make some dark hints and instruct us to "join the dots". Don't take this the wrong way, but why don't you do that?

What do you want me to do, get into private meetings and make video recordings? If you're expecting a detailed record of who said what, and for that to regularly include phrases like "this is all part of a campaign against cycling and walking just like 100 years ago because we want to sell autonomous vehicles more easily" then you'll have to wait.

The point is to start looking more critically at what is out there. Lots of people will look at the survey in the Mail and take it at face value. That's the intended result. Few of those people will realise that Fair Fuel UK is a tool of the haulage industry even though their source of funding is stated on their web page. Fewer still will realise the scale and ubiquity of economic change that will result from autonomous vehicles. Fewer still will ask themselves whether it really is more likely to be casual curiosity or sheer randomness that triggers press releases from an organisation funded by an economically ration industry that stands to derive *enormous* benefit to its bottom line from a total overhaul of the politics and economics of road usage.

Howard Cox has a job, a job paid for by hauliers, and—just as you are not paid to turn up to work and do whatever you fancy—that job is not to wake up each morning and pull random surveys out of his arse about any old thing and send them off to the papers with a message saying "I really don't know what to make of this, can you help?"

You can join the dots how you choose. You can choose to join them in terms of benign randomness that just happens to convey a consistent message, or you can join them by considering that people act in rational manners to achieve defined goals.

You can do both, treating each as possible—by all means do that, it's absolutely the right thing to do—but you have to accept that one is more likely than the other, particularly when you start looking at all of the joins as a whole.

But don't dismiss the explanation of rational decisions, or externally influenced behaviour, as implausible (or label them a "conspiracy") simply because there is no cast-iron record of collusion. That's not how things work: it's not some sort of military command structure, it's the combination of economics and influence. It moves more slowly, less explicitly and less overtly.

and of course we would all have to make sure we drove extra slowly and parked extra inconsiderately just to ram it home

(And not what kelron said)

"Cyclists: This vehicle has dangerously large blind spots; please avoid coming alongside if indicating left"

If same lorry had a warning sound, like it already will for reversing, then all the better.

Another (off-topic) thought of mine.

I think it would be good if the police had some sort of equipment that it could give to volunteers, that records both front and rear camera footage, and documents any close passes or speeding relative to the cyclist. Just a small box that fixes to a pannier rack, with GPS, a speed sensor, cameras and an internal battery - all fully sealed so it can't be tampered with.

After every ride you plug it into a pc and it uploads the footage to the police and re-charges.

The device will have already flagged up any events, so it wouldn't rely on someone going through hours of footage - a fine letter (similar to current speeding fines) would be sent out automatically to the registered keeper of the car. if there's an issue with the footage, the driver has to prove it.

The volunteers would have to wear a high vis vest with a speed camera symbol (or similar) on it to let drivers know they where essentially a rolling speed camera.

I know we already have ways to record rides and report bad driving, but the difference would be the public knowledge that anyone with that vest on can get you points instantly, so it may reduce accidents rather than just give a way to prove who was in the wrong - after all I don't care who's fault it was if I'm dead!

Drivers don't slow down for anything but speed cameras in my experience, and trying to hit their wallets is the only way to make them change.

Maybe instead of the police, this could be done by a cycling organisation, and people sign up to get the vest, and pledge to send any gopro footage etc.. of bad driving to the police...

(Disclaimer, none of this is a well thought out idea!)

Would be fine if large vehicle overtaking then immediately turning wasn’t so common.

CCTV exists. Even if it’s valid that large vehicles that can’t see anything but straight ahead are ok and important (not accepted) then there’s no justification for the blind spots continuing.

My comment was in response to suggestions that the stickers are shorthand for 'the driver is lazy/dangerous/incompetent'. They don't absolve the driver of responsibility, but I see them as a valid warning.

The volunteers would have to wear a high vis vest

Let me stop you there 😉

sorry 13thFM, said I wasn't going to put any more shite on here

Haha, no no, don't let me stop you, just wanted to nip in the bud the detailed analysis of benefits of hi-viz/helmet etc, more interested in the PR battle which is where the discussion has now headed 8)

Just need to catch up with the other posts now...

[i]Just need to catch up with the other posts now...[/i]

Apart from the 'sticker' based ones. Sorry 🙁

Maybe stickers to go on our bikes saying "Drivers, please don't run me over!'?

I think one thing we can do as cyclists is stop buying visiting some of the cycling websites that are just as bad, there is two sides and it seems both want to profit from "clickbait" (not Singletrack), if you ever go on road.cc or some of their ilk, there is a constant flow of "driver v cyclist" camera youtube vids.

If we stop visting and reading the Daily Mail/ Express/ Sun and refusing to visit their websites then that is how you hurt them.

The media really has whipped up this frenzy of them vs us, you only have to go on a Daily Mail article about cycling and you have a surefure "bulls*it bingo" of the same arguments:

- We jump red lights
- We don't pay road tax.
- We cycle in big groups and they can't get past.
- We ride on pavements/ don't ride on cycle lanes.

Yet the media very rarely give a well educated response to these points addressing them, they just re-trot the same articles in trying to produce website traffic.

Most of these people will probably be held up by a cyclist for about 25 seconds a week on average before they can past. I always kindly point out that if their life is so busy that they would rather endanger my life then wait til it is safe to go around, that perhaps it is their life they need to look at not mine.

Drivers don't slow down for anything but speed cameras in my experience, and trying to hit their wallets is the only way to make them change.

You wish to make an increasingly hated minority who struggle to co-exist safely on our main roads ....

... into human traffic-cams? Pedalling police?

It's evil genius. The 'power-shift' right there is irreducibly shocking.

But. Nothing makes an impatient, entitled, angry motorist more entitled, impatient and angry than being 'forced' to respect the Highway Code/follow the law.

If they hated cyclists before cyclists became 'goody-two-shoes, camera-clad, unpaid police drones' then now they'll see only red mist. Their respect for both cyclists and the police would drop? Or increase? Interesting...

Apart from the 'sticker' based ones. Sorry

😆

I don't see a problem with the often-called-for demand by these articles/readers that cyclists that use the road should pass a proficiency test.

I also don't see a problem with requiring insurance - after all you can hit someone and cause life changing injuries, so should carry insurance to cover this.

And it would particularly be less of a problem if this was accompanied by a change to some sort of strict liability scheme such as in Holland.

I don't see a problem with the often-called-for demand by these articles/readers that cyclists that use the road should pass a proficiency test.

That's great, but i live in a rural village, no pavements to ride on, so for my 8 year old daughter to cycle with me to the in-laws in the next village, she should have to pass a test and a licence?

1 in 6 cars in London has no insurance, how are the Police going to police cyclists and if they have passed their cycling proficiency?

Returning to the point of how to do battle.

One point worth noting is that in 1920s America, the strongest resistance against the carnage of motor vehicles came from mothers. It was their children who were being killed, and it was their children who were being robbed of play space and personal freedom when the roads were annexed by motordom and humans were relegated to small strips at the edge.

Concentrated pockets of this same resistance exist today, and gender politics are somewhat different to a decade ago. And I've had at least one interesting conversation about actually getting pro-cycling/walking articles into a female-oriented domain.

If there is any hidden swell of public opinion, I suspect mothers and children may well be its greatest untapped source.

I posted up a while ago and got mildly flamed for using the phrase (stupidly, I admit) 'our own worst enemy' when really I meant something along the lines of 'could we do something to counteract the negative image that the papers like to portray' (not as catchy though).

However I keep returning to the theme. I've been pleasantly surprised by how gracious motorists can be when I briefly lay off the pedals and pull over (when I can) to let them past, e.g. a convenient layby, empty junction etc. In the context of my commute the 5 extra seconds this takes me means sweet F.A. and in the context of a 100km weekend jaunt it is usually a nice excuse for a breather.

I also try to acknowledge when someone has taken the time to pass me safely, and resist the urge to gesticulate when someone is driving badly, on the off chance that they've just made a mistake (hey, we all do it, wish I could say I was a 100% perfect driver...).

So, in a purely hypothetical sense, would a charm offensive on the ground help to counteract some of the bile that the newspapers are encouraging?

Could the cycling press maybe start a campaign to 'live and let live' on the roads and encourage folk to try and make a show of cyclists being damn decent chaps and chap-esses? This shouldn't take the form of suggesting we're at fault, just taking the moral high ground 8)

I also don't see a problem with requiring insurance - after all you can hit someone and cause life changing injuries, so should carry insurance to cover this.

Interesting. Initially I see no problem. Many of us carry it already, I think the populist assumption is that we don't. What about children on bikes? Can they take out insurance cover? But, wait in that case shouldn't all pedestrians be 'required' to carry insurance? It only takes one pedestrian to walk in front of another road-user to cause possible life-changing injuries?

Anecdote: A runner ran slap bang into my car during my driving lessons. Dented the car. He ran off. I could have swerved and hit an oncoming car if there had been one there.

I also don't see a problem with requiring insurance - after all you can hit someone and cause life changing injuries, so should carry insurance to cover this.

I would make a number of arguments against specific cycling insurance (outside of competitive or occupational cycling) but I would consider proposing that everyone has compulsory third party insurance along the lines of that which normally appears in home insurance.

This would insure people for risks not just when cycling but when walking, running, skateboarding, or doing anything that isn't explicitly excluded, such as operating a motor vehicle or other licensed machinery.

Most people already have this insurance. It's not a big deal.

The fact that the conversation is only ever about cycling insurance is telling. It's not about tackling risk, it's about tackling cycling.

There's been some refreshingly intelligent debate on this thread.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read a half-baked piece by a journalist I've never heard of making the usual comments in the press. On one occasion I emailed the journalist in question to offer her the lend of a bike and to accompany me on my cycle commute for balance. To her credit, she replied to tell me that she'd already taken up another offer, but I never saw a follow up article.

Someone made a great point - "stop calling them cyclists, refer to them as people on bikes".

I wouldn't be surprised if as Bez has suggested, there is growing pressure from the car industry to propagandize the media and distort the picture by taking isolated incidents and conflating them with the behaviour of a perceived "tribe".

The fact that the conversation is only ever about cycling insurance is telling. It's not about tackling risk, it's about tackling cycling.

Boom.

Agree. If cyclists need insurance then so does everybody else doing whatever they are doing. Accidents can happens whilst doing most things. However do we really want to go in that direction?

Someone made a great point - "stop calling them cyclists, refer to them as people on bikes".

It's a step in the right direction but still not enough, because what you really need to focus on to achieve worthwhile change is the people in cars.

So: don't talk about cyclists, don't even talk about people on bikes, talk about cycling. Or, in certain contexts better still, walking and cycling.

Very much agree with 13thfloormonk, that we are often a own worst enemy.

What i have always tried to point out to people when i see these arguments is that 82% of cyclists are also car owners, those that are considerate cyclists and well mannered tend then to be the same when they get in a car, having ridden over 10,000 miles of cycle commuting in the last few years, i have developed a better driving style, especially around junctions, traffic islands etc.

On the flipside, i've ridden a number of sportives where i've watched some berk purposefully riding down the centre of the road, seemingly taking joy in blocking cars coming past, then only to get back to the finish, stick his bike on top of the car and scream down the road and full pelt giving fellow cyclists a few inches of space as he goes by.

I've always argued an idiot is an idiot whether they are in a car or on a bike.

However do we really want to go in that direction?

Maybe, maybe not. But the conversation should at least go in that direction. People's awareness of this sort of insurance is generally very poor, let alone their understanding of risk holistically.

Very much agree with 13thfloormonk, that we are often a own worst enemy.

*sigh*

Really? This again?

If you want to persist with this, you'll need to define "we", and tell me how I am part of it and what role I play in it.

I've always argued an idiot is an idiot whether they are in a car or on a bike.

Which is antithetical to your previous point. It's not that "we" are our own worst enemy, it's that:

- some people are dicks
- types of dick behaviour are a product of circumstance,
- some people are very selective about what dick behaviour they object to,
- normally the above choose "dick behaviour that is a product of circumstances which I don't ever personally find myself in", and
- normally the above project the same perception of dick behaviour onto. everyone in that same set of alien circumstances

The insurance point is a non-argument. Home insurance covers most bases, but you try explaining that to someone who has already made up their mind.

Again, it's conflation and tribal behaviour.

Very much agree with 13thfloormonk, that we are often a own worst enemy

no no no, I didn't say that! 8)

Perhaps what I meant was 'we could do more to help ourselves'.

I've got mates who insist on cycling two abreast on singletrack roads where a car could safely pass us if we were going single file (allowing for the lower speeds on narrow country roads etc.) and don't seem to understand why this might be construed as being deliberately dickish.

I understand why, in different circumstances, cycling two abreast is sensible, but just doing it on principle doesn't help.

Similarly the club rides I sometimes see in and around Stirling, the logic of two abreast making it easier for cars to overtake can collapse when you're in a massive group riding 3 or 4 abreast with people strung out behind and in front. I've seen clubs try to control group sizes and choice of routes to avoid this scenario, but maybe this idea needs promoted a bit more, in recognition of the current climate on the roads.

That's great, but i live in a rural village, no pavements to ride on, so for my 8 year old daughter to cycle with me to the in-laws in the next village, she should have to pass a test and a licence?

I'd rather that she wasn't on the road if not competant enough to be on it. Sort of makes sense really.

Home insurance covers most bases, but you try explaining that to someone who has already made up their mind.

Oh, of course. It doesn't take more than a cursory view of the political landscape to know that any contemporary skilled influencer knows the benefit of Brandolini's Law.

- We jump red lights
- We don't pay road tax.
- We cycle in big groups and they can't get past.
- We ride on pavements/ don't ride on cycle lanes.

Looking at those in order:

- it's good point and I'd like to see cyclists start to make it socially unacceptable for other cyclist to JRL, in the way smoking or drink driving is no frowned upon. We as a community need to to do more to tackle red light jumping.

- We don't pay road tax, is clearly nonsense and should just be ignore as it's trotted out by idiots.

- big groups there is something in this for the most populated parts of the country, but really it's not a huge issue. Maybe cyclists in Surry, Bucks etc. need to think about how big is too big a group?

- We ride on pavements/ don't ride on cycle lanes. These are two separate issues. Unfortunately cycle path provision is a bit sh*t in the UK, and needs more money and better education for road planners. I'd love a Scandi city cycling utopia, but it will take much work to get there. However, I have little sympathy for the cyclist I see regularly causing rush hour tail backs, due to cycling on a dual carriageway when there is a perfectly decent cycle path running alongside it. Treat others how you'd like to be treated yourself, if you want to be a selfish knob, then don't moan when others are likewise.

*sigh*

Really? This again?

If you want to persist with this, you'll need to define "we", and tell me how I am part of it and what role I play in it.

In many ways, half of the cycling websites revel in posting these "them vs us" videos and articles, and there is a real militant section of cyclists that i come up against all the time, i hear "well we are allowed to ride two abreast" "i don't have to ride on the cycle path" etc, etc. This is fine, but there are roads where you shouldn't be riding two abreast, and there are routes where occasionally the cycle path might actually be the safest place to be, but they regurgitate this in the same way drivers go on about tax and red lights because the cycling media and other cyclists state this. You can tell those that have been in a club and learnt correct road use over those that learnt road craft simply by reading forums and websites.

What we need is try and get cyclists to be viewed as people just going about their business using a different mode of transport, not as a group to be put on a pedestal, neither side helps this at present often.

1 in 6 cars in London has no insurance, how are the Police going to police cyclists and if they have passed their cycling proficiency?

the problem is that the punishment for driving without insurance is not harsh enough - should be a massive fine or imprisonment if a fine can't be paid - you can cause a life changing injury to someone else if you have an accident and it is massively irresponsible to force that risk on other people.

I'm fine with plain clothes police cylists (and cars) randomly pulling people over to on the spot checks, fining red-light jumpers, pavement riders, etc.

I'd rather that she wasn't on the road if not competant enough to be on it.

What this statement means is: "I'd rather that she wasn't on the road if not competent enough to keep herself out of the way of anyone* driving in a manner which doesn't account for the nature of an 8 year old."

Most 8 year olds are perfectly competent at riding bicycles without causing harm to others or even to themselves. Sadly, too few adult drivers can say the same.

* "me"

I've been running my own entirely ineffective campaign to re-label myself as a human rather than a cyclist

[url= http://phased.co.uk/being-human/ ]Being Human[/url]

I know it plays to the "making us more visible" card but it genuinely has made a difference on my commute home. I don't have a big enough brain to play this out into a wider campaign but I feel the "cyclist" stigma has stuck and it needs changing to something else.

w.r.t. the cyclist thing I wholly agree.
How often did we see headlines e.g.
1/ " cyclist mows down OAP in broad daylight"
2/ "car in collision with several pedestrians on pavement"

the problem is that the punishment for driving without insurance is not harsh enough - should be a massive fine or imprisonment if a fine can't be paid - you can cause a life changing injury to someone else if you have an accident and it is massively irresponsible to force that risk on other people.

Agreed. If the financial penalty for being caught driving without insurance is less costly than the cost of the policy in the first place then it makes a mockery of the law. Which neatly brings me to the next point:

I'm fine with plain clothes police cylists (and cars) randomly pulling people over to on the spot checks, fining red-light jumpers, pavement riders, etc.

Unfortunately, the police are being hit hard with shrinking budgets and are having to prioritise. It's a very costly exercise for police to randomly pull over cars to inspect documents and it won't play well with many. Whilst number plate recognition technology could be used to identify cars on the road without insurance cover, it's another matter entirely to identify drivers. In addition, pulling over an uninsured vehicle requires resources.

We need a commitment from central government to tackle this, but the party in power seems to be being careful to avoid offending motorists per se and in the era of austerity and funding cuts, it's going to be difficult to free up resources.

But we need to tackle this problem, we as citizens should be pressing our elected representatives to do more.

I'd rather that she wasn't on the road if not competant enough to be on it.

As she is 8 i always ride behind and offset to her and she is lit up like a Christmas tree, but living in a rural area, no buses, no pavements etc, as child if you don't ride a bike then you are stuck in your village until you can drive a car?

TurnerGuy - Member
I don't see a problem with the often-called-for demand by these articles/readers that cyclists that use the road should pass a proficiency test.

I also don't see a problem with requiring insurance - after all you can hit someone and cause life changing injuries, so should carry insurance to cover this.

And it would particularly be less of a problem if this was accompanied by a change to some sort of strict liability scheme such as in Holland.

I don't see a problem with the often-called-for demand by these articles/readers that pedestrians that use the road should pass a proficiency test.

I also don't see a problem with requiring insurance - after all you can step out in front of someone and cause life changing injuries, so should carry insurance to cover this.

And it would particularly be less of a problem if this was accompanied by a change to some sort of strict liability scheme such as in Holland.

1/ " cyclist mows down OAP in broad daylight"
2/ "car in collision with several pedestrians on pavement"

^ Very much always this.

imagine if the popular press similarly reported road/traffic incidents yet targeted ethnic and/or religious minorities rather than 'cyclists'

"Jew in Nissan mows down OAP in broad daylight"
2/ "car in collision with several pedestrians on pavement"

Try it out with 'homosexual/white/black/Muslim/Christian' etc etc. Sounds terrible doesn't it? (If it doesn't, then you have some issues)

For some reason 'reporting' (characterising) of cyclists/cycling in such scathing, negative, de-humanising and propaganda-rich fashion is wholly acceptable/normalised.

Unfortunately, those readers that 'have some issues' are the very customers these [s]journalists[/s] clickbaiters rely upon.

TurnerGuy - Member
That's great, but i live in a rural village, no pavements to ride on, so for my 8 year old daughter to cycle with me to the in-laws in the next village, she should have to pass a test and a licence?
I'd rather that she wasn't on the road if not competant enough to be on it. Sort of makes sense really.

The mobile speed camera cyclist thing is really only a viable idea if the equipment is operating directly for the Police and the volunteer is simply a carrier. If the volunteer is collecting data on their own behalf for later presentation to the Police, that’s vigilante behaviour and is likely to result in the rider being targeted by drivers and possibly other riders targeted accidentally. It’s a bad idea.

I have a number of issues with mandatory high vis, but fully expect that if it happens it will incorporate an area for a registration number and then all the parts will be in place for mandatory registration and insurance scheme for cyclists. I do also agree it’s a bit silly the sheer volume of dark/black cycling gear produced though. Also, from Bez’s previous point, they’re an obvious fix for autonomous vehicles to identify and react to cyclists so may very well be rammed through for this purpose alone.

Sort of agree with riding considerately ie not causing rush hour tailbacks and it’s fed into my current tendency to drive to work (also 12hr day when at work is a factor) - I haven’t yet found a sensible route around a couple of miles of fast road that I’d rather not make myself a target on. I’ll be looking more closely at that this year as I miss commuting by bike and there are decent shower facilities at work. Tempering this though is the idea that there’s no real reason why cyclists should feel threatened off the road. Self preservation has to be applied I think as appropriate. I can see driver annoyance at meeting a club peloton, but as I’m not a roadie and have basically zero clue about this I try to avoid the point.

Us vs them videos. I absolutely despise the posting of inflammatory bad driver/bad cyclist videos. It solves nothing and fans the flames.

[i]Sort of agree with riding considerately ie not causing rush hour tailbacks[/i]

You are having a ****ing laugh.

No, hang on, I'll add to that. Save you going "Oh you [i]don't[/i] ride responsibly and want to "cause tailbacks"...

[b]All [/b]the tailbacks I see are caused by cars. (That'll do.)

If the volunteer is collecting data on their own behalf for later presentation to the Police, that’s vigilante behaviour

It's really not.

Sort of agree with riding considerately ie not causing rush hour tailbacks

You are having a **** laugh.

Indeed: "How about driving considerately, ie not causing rush hour tailbacks?" I mean, I sit in up to 7 miles of traffic jam every morning that moves at an average of a bit over 10 miles an hour, and there's not one single bicycle anywhere in it.

I'm increasingly frustrated by the headline writers and journalists too.

Last week in BBC Scotland evening news has the ridiculous introduction of 'A cyclist and car had a collision at.....the cyclist died at the scene, leaving damage to the vehicle.'

Gah!

If there is any hidden swell of public opinion, I suspect mothers and children may well be its greatest untapped source.

I'm pretty convinced that 'public opinion' is that it is 'normal' to drive everywhere. This includes the school drop? Are there any surveys on parents/childrens attitudes towards walking and cycling to school?

I'm pretty sure 'public opinion' is that it is 'normal' to drive everywhere. This includes the school drop?

I did use the words "hidden" and "pockets" for a reason 😉

Yes, most people think it's normal to drive everywhere. But the whole task is to influence public opinion, just as motordom saw that as its task a century ago. That means starting from the status quo and gradually introducing momentum; it means finding a connection with people, something that strikes a chord, and leveraging it; it means finding those with whom such a connection can be made. It is, in the first stages, about identifying those hidden pockets.

I'm as passionate about cycling as the next man but you lot are such a bunch of Bikemoaners.
The spokesman of the well informed, hard working british taxpayer, Nigel CarRage has put forward a compelling case regarding cyclists.
Over 90% of the prison population openly admit to having ridden a bicycle when they were younger.
The notion that cycling is free and fun can be laid to rest by looking at the oppressive legislature of the BCF. They dictate what you can wear , what you eat and even what medicine you can take for your asthma.
The only fair and sensible option is an outright ban on cycling.
You can moan all you like about Bikexit or you can get on with it.
I have prepared for Bikexit so that me and my friends can benefit from the golden future of cycling in Britain.
Of course I could tell you what it is but obviously it's a secret and I'm not telling any of you Bikemoaners.
Team Bike Less.
Edit...sorry I forgot the 😀 😀 😀

What do you want me to do, get into private meetings and make video recordings? If you're expecting a detailed record of who said what, and for that to regularly include phrases like "this is all part of a campaign against cycling and walking just like 100 years ago because we want to sell autonomous vehicles more easily" then you'll have to wait.

The point is to start looking more critically at what is out there. Lots of people will look at the survey in the Mail and take it at face value. That's the intended result. Few of those people will realise that Fair Fuel UK is a tool of the haulage industry even though their source of funding is stated on their web page. Fewer still will realise the scale and ubiquity of economic change that will result from autonomous vehicles. Fewer still will ask themselves whether it really is more likely to be casual curiosity or sheer randomness that triggers press releases from an organisation funded by an economically ration industry that stands to derive *enormous* benefit to its bottom line from a total overhaul of the politics and economics of road usage.

Howard Cox has a job, a job paid for by hauliers, and—just as you are not paid to turn up to work and do whatever you fancy—that job is not to wake up each morning and pull random surveys out of his arse about any old thing and send them off to the papers with a message saying "I really don't know what to make of this, can you help?"

You can join the dots how you choose. You can choose to join them in terms of benign randomness that just happens to convey a consistent message, or you can join them by considering that people act in rational manners to achieve defined goals.

You can do both, treating each as possible—by all means do that, it's absolutely the right thing to do—but you have to accept that one is more likely than the other, particularly when you start looking at all of the joins as a whole.

But don't dismiss the explanation of rational decisions, or externally influenced behaviour, as implausible (or label them a "conspiracy") simply because there is no cast-iron record of collusion. That's not how things work: it's not some sort of military command structure, it's the combination of economics and influence. It moves more slowly, less explicitly and less overtly.

You're overthinking this a bit Bez.

No, there is not an explicit conspiracy against cyclists involving the media. There's barely even an implicit one - beyond editors knowing that cycling is a hot topic. As BWD says, it's just lazy, formulaic journalism. I've worked in enough under-resourced newsrooms to vouch for this.

Yes, people employed to advance the interests of motor manufacturers or haulage firms may agitate against cyclists. Friction is to be expected as cycling gains more political currency. I'm not sure it helps to get all Woodward and Bernstein about it.

Please take this as constructive criticism, and also consider whether your dense (and sometimes patronising) screeds are the best way to communicate your ideas. A little editing might be beneficial for everyone.

Points taken. (Regular caveat: the well-known quote about not having enough time to make it shorter.)

One question, though:

The other things that we see in the papers which are “hot topics”—stuff like the Mail’s articles about migrants, or the Express’s articles about the EU, or whatever else—are they also just lazy journalism?

Because it seems that papers have an agenda on pretty much everything (and of course several of them were founded for just such a purpose, or at least by people who used them to espouse their own political views). So why is it that cycling articles, which I’m sure we can agree are overwhelmingly negative, are always defended as being merely a product of laziness, when I sincerely doubt that anyone would see most other content the same way?

I mean, I’m willing to be proven wrong. Let’s get an industry-funded cycling organisation to run a bent survey as payload for an agenda-driven PR and send it to the papers, and let’s see what the papers do with it. It’s a hot topic and they’re lazy so they’ll run it at face value… How confident are you feeling? 😉

it's just lazy, formulaic journalism.

Nigel CarRage has put forward a compelling case regarding cyclists.

I almost admired his [s]ingenuity[/s] chutzpah that time he was snarled up in traffic on the Motorway. Couldn't blame cyclists that time. Increased car-sales/usage neither. Blamed 'immigrants' instead. Job done. You can blame a lot on cyclists, and some of it sticks, but you can blame everything on immigrants and all of it sticks. Funnily enough the most 'anti-cyclist' petrolhead I know once described Farage as 'the only honest politician of the lot.' Said petrolhead is coincidentally and notoriously himself dishonest. My head hurts. It's a funny old world in Britain today.