# BBC Inside Out tomorrow - reminder



## downfader (21 Feb 2010)

If this has been posted already then apologies, and Mods, feel free to delete... 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r0tbd

Found on another forum ('radar) so thought I would spread the love 



> With one in five cyclists riding roughshod over the laws of the road, former Top Gear presenter Adrian Simpson asks if pedal power has gone too far.


----------



## magnatom (21 Feb 2010)

downfader said:


> If this has been posted already then apologies, and Mods, feel free to delete...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r0tbd
> 
> Found on another forum ('radar) so thought I would spread the love




LOL. So what percentage of drivers keep within the law for comparison, e.g. keeping within the speed limit....


----------



## Crankarm (21 Feb 2010)

No doubt it will be along the lines of the BBC's usual slanted reporting of cycling and cyclists showing us at best as menaces or at worst lethal. Notice the similarities with the rot that the DM publishes on cycling.


----------



## thomas (21 Feb 2010)

It's got a bit at critical mass, which should be interesting...


I'm sure only the worst bits of CM will be shown ...or the few morons on it will be used to show what every CM goer and every cyclist is like.


----------



## downfader (21 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> It's got a bit at critical mass, which should be interesting...
> 
> 
> I'm sure only the worst bits of CM will be shown ...or the few morons on it will be used to show what every CM goer and every cyclist is like.



Not a big fan of CM here, and just as with RLJing it gets held up from time to time as a stick to beat the good cyclists with.


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (21 Feb 2010)

Least it only goes out in the London area.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (21 Feb 2010)

andrew-the-tortoise said:


> Least it only goes out in the London area.



Unless you have sky, I live in yorkshire but I have scheduled it for recording on sky+ it is on channel 974 BBC 1 London


----------



## downfader (21 Feb 2010)

phil_hg_uk said:


> Unless you have sky, I live in yorkshire but I have scheduled it for recording on sky+ it is on channel 974 BBC 1 London



Or watch it through the iPlayer online.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Feb 2010)

Interestingly a 2002 survey in Scotland showed that the following were actions that the respondents performed:

Driven at 40 in a 30 zone - 80%
Driven at 80 in a 70 zone - 71%
Driven at 890 90 in a 70 zone 51%
Drove too close to the vehicle in front - 36%
Speeded up when being overtaken - 14%

... and the favourite stick for cyclists, driving through a red light - 39%

Then according to reports in the same year 76% of HGVs were driven above the speed limit, 65% of drivers failed to observe rural 30 mph limits and on the motorways over half the vehicles wer above 70 mph and 18% above 80 mph. On dual carriageways 13% were above 80 mph

So only 20 % being guilty makes cyclists far better observers of the roads than motorists?

But I will bet that doesn't get mentioned.....


----------



## mcshroom (21 Feb 2010)

I agree that this is a typical case of villainising cyclists while ignoring drivers. However, at least they are taking more notice instead of just dismissing cyclists as a tiny minority not worth bothering about.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - * Gandhi*


----------



## thomas (21 Feb 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Interestingly a 2002 survey in Scotland showed that the following were actions that the respondents performed:
> 
> Driven at 40 in a 30 zone - 80%
> Driven at 80 in a 70 zone - 71%*
> ...



Blooming heck, 890mph!!! What sort of automobile where they driving


----------



## downfader (21 Feb 2010)

mcshroom said:


> I agree that this is a typical case of villainising cyclists while ignoring drivers. However, at least they are taking more notice instead of just dismissing cyclists as a tiny minority not worth bothering about.
> 
> 
> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - *Gandhi*



We should note that Ghandi, whilst quite passive in his protest, was quite an activist. Which is why we shouldnt just sit back and be quiet and we should definately participate in discussions, show people how its done and set examples etc.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Feb 2010)

Activism - that's partly what helmet cameras are about for me.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Blooming heck, 890mph!!! What sort of automobile where they driving



Sorted!


----------



## downfader (21 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Activism - that's partly what helmet cameras are about for me.



Along with the letter writing, advice to newbies, etc.


----------



## mcshroom (21 Feb 2010)

And of course actually cycling is activism (well it's definitely active anyway ).

The more of us there are the more notice people have to take


----------



## theboytaylor (22 Feb 2010)

Obviously nothing major happened in London village over the weekend as this programme is being trailed in the first headline on the morning news. 

Police are being encouraged to crack down on poor cycling - which I have no problem with provided they also crack down on the poor driving as well.

The article included the fact that there was a survey conducted in Westminster borough (Westminster is renowned for tolerance of motor bikes, cycles, etc) which found that one in five cyclists break the law every day. Accompanied of course by CCTV footage of some idiot wombling through a red light then up on to the pavement (amazing you can get that footage but if a car hits you that's often not available...).

That said, there was a brief snippet of Tom Bogdanovich from the LCC pointing out that all road users should be looking out for those more vulnerable than them. Which is a good point, but you suspect most people will focus on the fact that he doesn't address the accusations of poor cycling.


----------



## Jezston (22 Feb 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Interestingly a 2002 survey in Scotland showed that the following were actions that the respondents performed:
> 
> Driven at 40 in a 30 zone - 80%
> Driven at 80 in a 70 zone - 71%
> ...



I've only been commuting by bike less than a year, and only regularly for about six months and I'm already utterly sick of the way so much crap gets spread about cyclists. We already have to defend ourselves constantly on the roads, why should we keep having to defend ourselves off them as well?

I'll watch this when it pops up on iPlayer, and if it is the load of crap I expect it will be - then I suggest we ALL write letters of complaint to the BBC pointing out these statistics, and asking why they are singling out cyclists when drivers are FAR worse, and FAR more dangerous as a result.


----------



## Jezston (22 Feb 2010)

P.S. Cunobelin: do you have a source for those stats so I can reference them?


----------



## Lizban (22 Feb 2010)

Here we go again cyclists are the devil - sometimes the BBC is a little narrow minded (said with a _hint_ of irony)

However I still struggle with the defense of cyclists that runs along the lines of
'but cars are worse'. I agree of course they are but that doesn't make what some cyclists do acceptable.

I much prefer the 'positive defense/advocacy' of cycling i.e. the health benefits, the time saving etc we also need to acknowledge that there are issues but countering with all the good we do.


----------



## thomas (22 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> However I still struggle with the defense of cyclists that runs along the lines of
> 'but cars are worse'. I agree of course they are but that doesn't make what some cyclists do acceptable.



No, but it does mean that motorists can't fuss about blooming cyclists without being hypocritical.


----------



## Lizban (22 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> No, but it does mean that motorists can't fuss about blooming cyclists without being hypocritical.



Agree 100% but it doesn't make what some of us do any more acceptable. Saying 'but they do that' is only smoke and mirrors


----------



## jimboalee (22 Feb 2010)

Londoners, Eh?

Still jealous the safety bike was invented in Coventry.


----------



## Tollers (22 Feb 2010)

Wow, Lots of placid cyclist at critical mass to the soundtract of "Killing in the name", by Rage against the machine! Now that's impartial journalism. Hahaha


----------



## potsy (22 Feb 2010)

We've got Cheryl Baker talking about the Beatles,and a story about Tescothink yourselves lucky


----------



## HaloJ (22 Feb 2010)

hehe tollers. That made me chuckle as well. Although I do feel they painted Critical Mass in a poor light. My other issue with the program was that it started with "a small number of cyclists putting the others in a bad light" then a piece full of these bad cyclists. I'd have been happier them saying that at the end rather than putting it in the forgettable piece at the start.


----------



## Tollers (22 Feb 2010)

HaloJ said:


> hehe tollers. That made me chuckle as well. Although I do feel they painted Critical Mass in a poor light. My other issue with the program was that it started with "a small number of cyclists putting the others in a bad light" then a piece full of these bad cyclists. I'd have been happier them saying that at the end rather than putting it in the forgettable piece at the start.



Yup....it was almost as though they have never been to London


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Feb 2010)

Jezston said:


> P.S. Cunobelin: do you have a source for those stats so I can reference them?



http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/17977/24935

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/17981/25172


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> Here we go again cyclists are the devil - sometimes the BBC is a little narrow minded (said with a _hint_ of irony)
> 
> However I still struggle with the defense of cyclists that runs along the lines of
> 'but cars are worse'. I agree of course they are but that doesn't make what some cyclists do acceptable.
> ...




There is a difference in "cars are worse" and "cars are also a problem"

My point is that there is a need to deal with bad habits and antisocial behavior.

Take pavement cycling, I would have no problem with a clampdown, but also deal with other vehicles on the pavement as well. If there is a campaign about lighting, stop bicycles and cars with faultly or no lighting. If you are targetting RLJs then stop all the vehicles who transgress

It is about ALL road users being included as traffic and with the same responsibilities in law, as opposed to targetting a single group and letting another get away with the same offence.


----------



## thomas (22 Feb 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r0tbd

Video is up. Just watched it. I didn't think it was too bad to be honest. It did start by saying that a minority are making it worst for most...

The critical mass bit was a little pathetic...oh no, some cyclists boxed in a taxi...pfft. Man up a bit. Hardly hard hitting stuff.

Shame about the women whos kid got hit, but the police would probably care just as much if a cyclist had been hit by a car.


----------



## stowie (22 Feb 2010)

This programme was pretty lightweight. I did get a bit angry for the child who got run over by a cycle - who would leave a small child bleeding in the road? That is nothing to do with cycling, but basic human instinct. However, the programme really didn't address any side other than the 20% (according to the survey) of cyclists who don't obey the highway code. I like to look at it that this means 80% did obey lights and the highway code, even though these rules are significantly in favour of motorised transport. And that there is no exam or test to be taken for cyclists, yet the overwhelming majority of obey the law. Something to celebrate, surely?


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r0tbd
> 
> Video is up. Just watched it. I didn't think it was too bad to be honest. It did start by saying that a minority are making it worst for most...
> 
> ...



I thought it was a very fair report so I have no complaints.

Never thought I would say that...I was expecting it to be bias but it just stated the facts.

Critical mass.I think I will give it a miss esp when that guy said cyclists jump red lights for survival.Yeah right that's why they jump all the red lights.How pathetic.

The long and short of it is people can't be bothered to stop and just want to save a few seconds/minutes....just like a speeding moton.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Feb 2010)

just watched it on iPlayer. Pretty fair, presenter was at pains to say 'some cyclists' when he was talking, RLJ-ers and pavement cyclists _are_ a problem for peds in town, the CM man's self preservation angle was self justifying bs imo.

LCC guy talked sense, we want more people on bikes, people won't be converted to the cause by the rebel/cowboy/cafeteria approach to the highway code. As for targetting cyclists, why not? Bit like speed cameras, don't want to get busted don't break the law. Don't like the law then campaign to get it changed. Plod target car drivers often enough without us being aware necessarily.


----------



## thomas (23 Feb 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I thought it was a very fair report so I have no complaints.
> 
> Never thought I would say that...I was expecting it to be bias but it just stated the facts.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the "jumping because it's safer" argument kind of shot the guy in the foot. The thing is, Critical Mass isn't an organisation, no one is in charge, no one sets agendas, etc...so his opinion on Critical Mass and RLJing is about as valid as mine or yours would be when representing the Mass.

The video on critical mass just made me laugh....about how they all jumped red lights (the video looked pretty tame, not like some of the previous ones with people weaving around the lights)...and some cyclists were in front and to the side of a taxi. If they'd of put some effort in they could of caught a motorist ramming a cyclist, as it seems to happen most times.

I wouldn't say it was bias, but it'd be nice to have some positive cycling news....I wouldn't complain about it, mainly because I thought it was a reasonably dull bit of journalism which hopefully wouldn't enforce anyones negative cycling opinion.


----------



## gouldina (23 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> just watched it on iPlayer. Pretty fair, presenter was at pains to say 'some cyclists' when he was talking, RLJ-ers and pavement cyclists _are_ a problem for peds in town, the CM man's self preservation angle was self justifying bs imo.
> 
> LCC guy talked sense, we want more people on bikes, people won't be converted to the cause by the rebel/cowboy/cafeteria approach to the highway code. As for targetting cyclists, why not? Bit like speed cameras, don't want to get busted don't break the law. Don't like the law then campaign to get it changed. Plod target car drivers often enough without us being aware necessarily.



I'm not sure about that. How many car drivers do you see on a phone? Sometimes it seems to me to be about 10% of the drivers. Anyone know anyone who's been pulled for it?


----------



## hackbike 666 (23 Feb 2010)

gouldina said:


> I'm not sure about that. How many car drivers do you see on a phone? Sometimes it seems to me to be about 10% of the drivers. Anyone know anyone who's been pulled for it?



Rare,perhaps they will have a clampdown one day...Perhaps a heavy fine is reasonable?


----------



## thomas (23 Feb 2010)

gouldina said:


> I'm not sure about that. How many car drivers do you see on a phone? Sometimes it seems to me to be about 10% of the drivers. Anyone know anyone who's been pulled for it?





50 in a one week campaign here. Not really sure what they did....other than just pull people over who were yacking on the phone..,..which surely they could continue.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/cont...ory=xNews&itemid=NOED03 Feb 2010 08:06:34:197


----------



## gouldina (23 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> 50 in a one week campaign here. Not really sure what they did....other than just pull people over who were yacking on the phone..,..which surely they could continue.
> 
> http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/cont...ory=xNews&itemid=NOED03 Feb 2010 08:06:34:197



Yeah. They seem to do periodic targetting and then forget all about it in between. Your average copper seems to ignore it when faced with it otherwise - probably because it will generate too much paperwork.


----------



## hackbike 666 (23 Feb 2010)

I thought some of the pavement cycling was shocking.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Feb 2010)

gouldina said:


> I'm not sure about that. How many car drivers do you see on a phone? Sometimes it seems to me to be about 10% of the drivers. Anyone know anyone who's been pulled for it?



yep. sussex plod had a campaign last year and on going.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

I didn't watch as I guessed it would be dross. You lot have confirmed what I thought and saved me wasting half an hour of my time. Thanks .


----------



## Lizban (23 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> I wouldn't say it was bias, but it'd be nice to have some positive cycling news....I wouldn't complain about it, mainly because I thought it was a reasonably dull bit of journalism which hopefully wouldn't enforce anyones negative cycling opinion.




Would be nice but giood news is rarely news in any field. How often is the news article about the good in anything?

Can you see the following happening.

'We target a group of football fans who go to every game intent on having fun suopporting their team and not causing trouble'

'We follow a group of polite teenagers completing their GCSEs and work hard at school'

'We follow a commutuing cyclist as he obeys the Highway code'


To be honest it'd be a bit dull really


----------



## thomas (23 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> Would be nice but giood news is rarely news in any field. How often is the news article about the good in anything?
> 
> To be honest it'd be a bit dull really




The actual negative news was dull anyway ...I think it would have been better if it'd just been a general thing fussing about all road users....basically showing that everyone is as bad as everyone else.


----------



## Lizban (23 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> The actual negative news was dull anyway ...I think it would have been better if it'd just been a general thing fussing about all road users....basically showing that everyone is as bad as everyone else.



I think we get off quite lightly in that regards - let's think road wars polic with cameras, police drive fast to catch villians bad driving 2009 (you get the point!)


----------



## thomas (23 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> I think we get off quite lightly in that regards - let's think road wars polic with cameras, police drive fast to catch villians bad driving 2009 (you get the point!)




yeah, but that's not your average motorist, where as these tv shows portray what many believe to be an "average" cyclist.


----------



## Lizban (23 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> yeah, but that's not your average motorist, where as these tv shows portray what many believe to be an "average" cyclist.




Don't think so, they were careful (as people here have acknowledged) to make the point about the minority of cyclists.


----------



## thomas (23 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> Don't think so, they were careful (as people here have acknowledged) to make the point about the minority of cyclists.



Yeah, but compared to police action camera shows it portrays a much more common experience.


----------



## Twanger (23 Feb 2010)

I got the train and bus in today, and in walking a couple of hundred yards from Selfridges to where I work got passed by a pavement rider, then nearly hit by some cretin cycling the wrong way through a red light in Wigmore street while another cyclist was, *simultaneously*, cycling the right way through the same red light. All in the space of 90 seconds.

There are some seriously crappy people on two wheels in Westminster. I thought the programme let the bastards down lightly.

I am continually overtaken on the inside, even when there is no room. I have had people knock me out of the way on the inside to jump lights when I am stopped at them.

I know it's only a fifth of cyclists, but it's a very visible fifth, and they are offensive.

Edit - to add, most of the discourtesies I have received from cyclists have been from people cycling in suits and/ or skirts. Work clothes. I have never been cut up by a lycra wearer.


----------



## hackbike 666 (23 Feb 2010)

I don't wear lycra but I rarely have a problem with a lycra wearers so I really don't know where this term lycra lout comes from.On second thoughts it's the press as usual.


----------



## gouldina (23 Feb 2010)

Twanger said:


> I got the train and bus in today, and in walking a couple of hundred yards from Selfridges to where I work got passed by a pavement rider, then nearly hit by some cretin cycling the wrong way through a red light in Wigmore street while another cyclist was, *simultaneously*, cycling the right way through the same red light. All in the space of 90 seconds.
> 
> There are some seriously crappy people on two wheels in Westminster. I thought the programme let the bastards down lightly.
> 
> ...



Word.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

bomb dodgers. They've brought their lousy attitudes with them when they got off public transport and onto their bikes. Same lousy 'super-men/women' attitudes they have behind the wheels of their cars. "Get out of my way plebs, I am on the road, I am considerably more important than you, and the petty rules of the road only apply to proles like you."


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> bomb dodgers. They've brought their lousy attitudes with them when they got off public transport and onto their bikes. Same lousy 'super-men/women' attitudes they have behind the wheels of their cars. "Get out of my way plebs, I am on the road, I am considerably more important than you, and the petty rules of the road only apply to proles like you."



Oh come on, surely that says more about you than it does about other people?


----------



## hackbike 666 (24 Feb 2010)

I don't think "bomb dodgers" are the problem in London I just think it's the general attitude of must save a few seconds which applies to every road user.


----------



## thegrumpybiker (24 Feb 2010)

Bomb dodger???


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

thegrumpybiker said:


> Bomb dodger???



People who took to cycling in London after the bombings of July '05 on the basis that it is safer than public transport. Most of them were utterly clueless and have stayed that way; they ride like they drive.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Oh come on, surely that says more about you than it does about other people?



I'm intrigued. What does it say about me? 

I'll say a few things about myself. I have zero sympathy, empathy, or tolerance of those who, on busy streets, RLJ, who pavement ride, who don't have lights on their bikes at night, who ignore one way streets; who law break. If they don't consider themselves 'above the law' or at least have a cafeteria approach to the rules of the road then I don't know what they are thinking. If they are thinking at all, as opposed to being driven by their egos.

They put themselves at risk, which I can live with, they put other road users, including pedestrians at risk, which I resent as I and my loved ones share road space with them, and worst of all they make my life as a law abiding cyclist more difficult than it needs to be by hardened public opinion against ALL cyclists.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I don't think "bomb dodgers" are the problem in London I just think it's the general attitude of must save a few seconds which applies to every road user.



Not me. Not you either I expect. Nor the OP.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

I'd argue instead that the more cyclists we have out there, especially unpredictable and clueless ones, the safer the roads become for all of us. It's drivers that bring the danger to us and to pedestrians, and safety in numbers is causing a big swing in safety for us all. Drivers are far more careful around unpredictable clueless cyclists than they are around competent roadies.

We are all supposed to avoid getting wound up by the bad antics of other road users - why let their behaviour affect you? Especially when the bad cyclists are very unlikely to bring any real danger to others. And how would you know that most/all the bad cyclists are "bomb dodgers", or that those who are, are still cycling the way they did in 2005?


----------



## Cab (24 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:



> I'd argue instead that the more cyclists we have out there, especially unpredictable and clueless ones, the safer the roads become for all of us. It's drivers that bring the danger to us and to pedestrians, and safety in numbers is causing a big swing in safety for us all. Drivers are far more careful around unpredictable clueless cyclists than they are around competent roadies.
> 
> We are all supposed to avoid getting wound up by the bad antics of other road users - why let their behaviour affect you? Especially when the bad cyclists are very unlikely to bring any real danger to others. And how would you know that most/all the bad cyclists are "bomb dodgers", or that those who are, are still cycling the way they did in 2005?



I think you're correct, as far as you go.

A muppet on a bike is still a muppet, and while the direct risk they carry is low, the knock on impact on others is quite high. If a motorist takes risks with the safety of other cyclists because they're angry at the muppets, then its entirely clear that this is still the fault of the motorist, but its also clear that the actions of the muppets do matter.

And yes, an individual behaving erratically on a bike may get more space than an individual competent rider. But 'strength in numbers' doesn't depend on having a vast army of muppets, it depends simply on having more people on bikes.


----------



## thegrumpybiker (24 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I'll say a few things about myself. I have zero sympathy, empathy, or tolerance of those who, on busy streets, RLJ, who pavement ride, who don't have lights on their bikes at night, who ignore one way streets; who law break. If they don't consider themselves 'above the law' or at least have a cafeteria approach to the rules of the road then I don't know what they are thinking. If they are thinking at all, as opposed to being driven by their egos.
> 
> They put themselves at risk, which I can live with, they put other road users, including pedestrians at risk, which I resent as I and my loved ones share road space with them, and worst of all they make my life as a law abiding cyclist more difficult than it needs to be by hardened public opinion against ALL cyclists.



+1 there, couldn't agree more.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> *bomb dodgers*. They've brought their lousy attitudes with them when they got off public transport and onto their bikes. Same lousy 'super-men/women' attitudes they have behind the wheels of their cars. "Get out of my way plebs, I am on the road, I am considerably more important than you, and the petty rules of the road only apply to proles like you."



Probably not the most considerate and tasteful comment you could have used as many lost their lives in the London bombings as I am sure you realise. Maybe on reflection you decide it is a little too insensitive and post a more appropriate and less offensive analogy to convey your obvious annoyance and anger toward cyclists who do not obey the Highway Code or inconvenience you. I'm with you on the feral cyclists but using the analogy you did is a step too far I feel. 

Have you been able to carry out a proper survey of cyclists who obey and those who don't obey the HC as to why they took up cycling? How about those careful and law abiding people that did turn to cycling following the London bombings who have become prudent cyclists who observe the HC?


----------



## Lizban (24 Feb 2010)

Re: Bomb Dodgers;

Is this unacceptable or just an example of the gallows type humour that is very common in the UK and therefore accpetable within our social norms?


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

I think it was a fairly innocuous and tongue in cheek reference to the risk-aversion by these cyclists, and in common use on forums all over the place back in 2005. Cycling is rather a lot more risky than taking the tube, although both are still very safe.


----------



## Cab (24 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> Re: Bomb Dodgers;
> 
> Is this unacceptable or just an example of the gallows type humour that is very common in the UK and therefore accpetable within our social norms?



You have to think back to the day of the bombings. People were, quite simply, trapped in London that day. They couldn't get home from work, you couldn't get a taxi, public transport had stopped, and quite literally many of the bike shops sold out that day as people sought a different way to get home. Overnight the number of cyclists you saw on the road increased, there were way more cyclists there than previously. And it isn't like public transport got back to normal straight away, nor did that look like a fun option for commuting!

The existing cyclists in and out of London coined the term 'bomb dodgers'; its the kind of bleak humour you get out of a crisis. It doesn't denigrate those who died in the bombings, it isn't even about them, its just a term used by those who saw this phenomenon and talked about it.

I don't get why there is the slightest bit of fuss about it.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Feb 2010)

Just because a tasteless phrase is used by some one who is thoughtless and ignorant and that phrase is then repeated numerous times by other similar people so that phrase passes into regular usage with in a particular group does not make it acceptable. It's not a phrase I have come across hence flagging it up. I thought cyclists, and in particular cyclists on here, were a little more mature, tolerant and judicious in their use of language and respectful of others. Quite apart from the fact that cyclists aren't immune from the affects of bombings if for instance you had been cycling in close proximity to the bus in Tavistock Square that was torn to pieces by a bomb that many passengers lost their lives and were seriously injured, you would likely be as dead as them or those passengers who lost their lives down on the Tube.

To equate people who have taken up cycling as they are fearful to use the Tube with the numerous cycling misdemeanours you see is frankly absurd. I find the phrase and use of it in this context very distasteful. If you lot can't see this then there's no hope. What do you know of the cyclists that don't obey the highway code or inconvenience you as they selfishly push you out the way or cause you to swerve? Calling them _bomb dodgers_ is as ignorant as the sloppy journalism we reguarly see painting a negative image of cycling.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

I really don't see what's distasteful about it, or even why you are fussing so much. I don't think it's the tiniest bit disrespectful to anyone either. I'd also dodge a bomb location if I knew in advance one was there.

As posted above I'm happy for them to cycle, and I'm happy to make allowances for poor riders' actions.


----------



## stowie (24 Feb 2010)

I found this excellent link on a cycling blog. It is a response to a parliamentary question concerning the number of pedestrians killed and seriously injured by cars, all motor vehicles and cycles. Link is http://www.publications.parliament....d/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041

The summary is that in the last 10 years :

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists : 29
Number of pedestrians killed by cars : 5,305
Number of pedestrians killed by all motor vehicles : 7,629

Number of pedestrians injured by cyclists : 2,153
Number of pedestrians injured by cars : 304,269
Number of pedestrians injured by all motor vehicles : 364,082

Serious injuries in all cases were about 20% - 25% of total injuries (give or take a bit)

As I understand these are road accidents. It would appear that one pedestrian every four years is killed by pavement cycling in the UK.

Clearly, 1 extra death is utterly unacceptable, but it puts it all into perspective. I think pedestrians view some cyclists, like we view some car drivers - the perceived danger is greater than the actual, and their behaviour is intimidatory, whereas with cars and pedestrians the separation is greater, as is the acceptance of risk.


----------



## Lizban (24 Feb 2010)

stowie said:


> I found this excellent link on a cycling blog. It is a response to a parliamentary question concerning the number of pedestrians killed and seriously injured by cars, all motor vehicles and cycles. Link is http://www.publications.parliament....d/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041
> 
> The summary is that in the last 10 years :
> 
> ...




Interesting - any one surprised that 3 peds. a year are killed by cyclists and that c500 are seriously hurt?


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

I'm surprised by that. I'd thought that 1 per year was killed on average across the whole of the UK. I suspect these stats might be wrong.


----------



## Origamist (24 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I'm surprised by that. I'd thought that 1 per year was killed on average across the whole of the UK. I suspect these stats might be wrong.



The above figures relate to pedestrians being killed on the pavement *and *the road by cyclists. Pedestrians killed by cyclists riding on the pavement are less common than those who are killed on the roads.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

No sh1t Sherlock, I was referring to totals killed, not just on the pavement.


----------



## Lizban (24 Feb 2010)

Are there any stats about total miles traveled to get a death/injury per mile traveled by each form of transport.

Guessing it would be too hard to collate


----------



## gouldina (24 Feb 2010)

Cab said:


> You have to think back to the day of the bombings. People were, quite simply, trapped in London that day. They couldn't get home from work, you couldn't get a taxi, public transport had stopped, and quite literally many of the bike shops sold out that day as people sought a different way to get home. Overnight the number of cyclists you saw on the road increased, there were way more cyclists there than previously. And it isn't like public transport got back to normal straight away, nor did that look like a fun option for commuting!
> 
> The existing cyclists in and out of London coined the term 'bomb dodgers'; its the kind of bleak humour you get out of a crisis. It doesn't denigrate those who died in the bombings, it isn't even about them, its just a term used by those who saw this phenomenon and talked about it.
> 
> I don't get why there is the slightest bit of fuss about it.



+1


----------



## stowie (24 Feb 2010)

Lizban said:


> Interesting - any one surprised that 3 peds. a year are killed by cyclists and that c500 are seriously hurt?



I think it is around 50, not 500 seriously hurt per annum.

I was a little surprised as I thought 3 per year killed by cyclists was high, but it was a parliamentary response, so one has to assume it comes from national statistics.

But taking the 3 a year, which seems high to us, the numbers killed by cars is orders of magnitude higher.

I also was interested in the fact that the total vehicles wasn't much higher than the car total, even though cars are smaller, and more "pedestrian friendly" in an accident than the others, which I assume are lorries, buses etc.

I assumed that pavement cyclists were separate, but I am willing to be corrected. Certainly the number of pedestrians killed by cars on the pavement is so much higher than those killed by cyclists on the pavement, that the latter stat doesn't even seem to be counted separately.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Probably not the most considerate and tasteful comment you could have used as many lost their lives in the London bombings as I am sure you realise. Maybe on reflection you decide it is a little too insensitive and post a more appropriate and less offensive analogy to convey your obvious annoyance and anger *lack of empathy, sympathy, or tolerance* toward cyclists who do not obey the Highway Code *break the law* or inconvenience you *endanger me or mine or anyone at all*. I'm with you on the feral cyclists but using the analogy you did is a step too far I feel.



Crankers, a fair comment I guess. But if you find it offensive report it. Let the moderators moderate it if it crosses a boundary. Of course there are several other pre-existing threads in here they will have to mod as well as a simple search would reveal. 

As to the rest I've *ftfy. 
* 


> Have you been able to carry out a proper survey of cyclists who obey and those who don't obey the HC as to why they took up cycling? How about those careful and law abiding people that did turn to cycling following the London bombings who have become prudent cyclists who observe the HC?


Do I need to conduct a proper survey in order to have an opinion? Opinions can be formed in a whole variety of ways and still be a) valid and  correct. YMMV.

EDIT


Crankarm said:


> I thought cyclists, and in particular cyclists on here, were a little more mature, tolerant and judicious in their use of language and respectful of others.



You what? Sorry I have just snorted coffee over my keyboard.


----------



## Lizban (24 Feb 2010)

stowie said:


> I think it is around 50, not 500 seriously hurt per annum.



good spot will adjust my post


----------



## on the road (24 Feb 2010)

The annoying thing was them calling them lycra louts, yet most of them were wearing jeans.


----------



## Origamist (24 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> No sh1t Sherlock, I was referring to totals killed, not just on the pavement.



Why did the total number of pedestrians killed by cyclists surpise you? Most figures quoted on cycling fora usually relate to pedestrians killed by cyclists on the pavement - these figures that get bandied about (one every two years, or one every four years etc) are always going to be a lower figure than the total number of pedestrians killed by cyclists on the roads and pavements/verges combined - I have no reason to doubt the fatality totals. 



stowie said:


> I assumed that pavement cyclists were separate, but I am willing to be corrected. Certainly the number of pedestrians killed by cars on the pavement is so much higher than those killed by cyclists on the pavement, that the latter stat doesn't even seem to be counted separately.



I am sure these figures have aggregated both pavement (aka footapth)and road pedestrian fatalities, but if you know different, please let me know as I would be interested to see a nationwide breakdown.


----------



## Jezston (24 Feb 2010)

gouldina said:


> +1



Another +1. I was living and working in London when all this happened. I have a friend who had to help clear the bodies out of the underground. You should have heard the kind of gallows humour that came out of people's mouths at the pub that very evening.

Making jokes about such horror makes people feel better about it. It alleviates the fear and misery. And long shall it continue.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Feb 2010)

Jezston said:


> Another +1. I was living and working in London when all this happened. I have a friend who *had* to help clear the bodies out of the underground.



had? Was he is a member of the emergency services?



Jezston said:


> You should have heard the kind of gallows humour that came out of people's mouths at the pub that very evening.



Drunk people still in shock then.



Jezston said:


> Making jokes about such horror makes *SOME* people feel better about it. It alleviates the fear and misery. And long shall it continue.



You hope.

You don't address why it is inaccurate and false suggest those cyclists who jump red lights, ride on pavements etc., are those people who previously travelled on the Tube prior to the bombings?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> You don't address why it is inaccurate and false suggest those cyclists who jump red lights, ride on pavements etc., are those people who previously travelled on the Tube prior the bombings?



Have you done a proper survey to determine that it isn't?

PS a few of them couldn't previously afford the Tube but used to get the bus instead.


----------



## Twanger (24 Feb 2010)

on the road said:


> The annoying thing was them calling them lycra louts, yet most of them were wearing jeans.



Yup...that's what I thought, and what I referred to in my post.

I have been thinking about it since I posted my rant a few pages back, and I think the root of the discourtesies is that these people are POBs, not cyclists. Their absurd antics result from the fact that while their backsides are on saddles their brains are still on foot. They try to use the streets on a bike in the same way they would use it on foot. This ties in with the way that they tend to be suited, skirted and be-jeaned rather than lycra'd


----------



## Jezston (24 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> had? Was he is a member of the emergency services?


Yes.



> Drunk people still in shock then.





> You hope.



I hope, and I believe.



> You don't address why it is inaccurate and false suggest those cyclists who jump red lights, ride on pavements etc., are those people who previously travelled on the Tube prior the bombings?


I'm just talking about the use of the term 'bomb dodgers'. Have to admit that actually it's something I'd not heard before. It is in poor taste perhaps, but that's London humour for you.


----------



## Cab (24 Feb 2010)

Jezston said:


> I'm just talking about the use of the term 'bomb dodgers'. Have to admit that actually it's something I'd not heard before. It is in poor taste perhaps, but that's London humour for you.



Classic example really. And very evocative of how people in London react to such hardship; doesn't matter whether you refer back to how they dealt with IRA bombings or even back to the second world war, its just part of the survival mechanism in that city.

You'll note that in no way does that have a go at those killed. Its all about how people change their activity to make do and get on with things.

Really, theres no problem with that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

Twanger said:


> Yup...that's what I thought, and what I referred to in my post.
> 
> I have been thinking about it since I posted my rant a few pages back, and I think the root of the discourtesies is that *these people are POBs, not cyclists*. Their absurd antics result from the fact that while their backsides are on saddles their brains are still on foot. They try to use the streets on a bike in the same way they would use it on foot. This ties in with the way that they tend to be suited, skirted and be-jeaned rather than lycra'd



How do we, and the public at large, tell the difference? Some of the people in the clips on the show looked a lot like cyclists to me. But then I'm not sure I'm a 'cyclist'


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

There is no difference, it's snobbish. POBs are simply cyclists, just as you and I are.


----------



## Twanger (24 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> There is no difference, it's snobbish. POBs are simply cyclists, just as you and I are.




It's not snobbish. It's simply a useful distinction.

When I'm cycling I try to think as part of the traffic, not like someone drifting through the urban landscape. So, I stop at lights, signal, remain aware of what's going on and acknowledge other road users. When I am a pedestrian, I am not part of road traffic, and don't behave as if I am.

Different thing.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

Get your leg over a bike, pedal, and you're a cyclist. Anything else is elitist and snobbish.


----------



## trustysteed (24 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Get your *leg over *a bike, pedal, and you're a cyclist.



You mean like this?


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

LOL, I thought someone might come up with that.


----------



## martint235 (24 Feb 2010)

I've always considered myself a lycra lout (I do wear lycra) although not because of red light jumping (I don't do it) or cycling on the pavement (don't do that either) but because I'm quite aggressive in my cycling demeanour. As a road user, I'm allowed as much road space as any other road user so I won't allow myself to be forced into a gutter or to cower in terror on roundabouts. I use whatever means I have to get and keep my place on the road be it shouting, swearing or just being nice and clearly signalling my intentions. However, whenever an argument with another road user starts, once I've stated my case the driver's argument always comes back to "but cyclists always go through red lights". I agree that maybe there needs to be a change in the law but while the current law exists it should be adhered to.

I don't want this to turn into a rant against rlj's as it easily could do so I'll leave it there!

M


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2010)

Twanger said:


> When I'm cycling I try to think as part of the traffic, not like someone drifting through the urban landscape. So, I stop at lights, signal, remain aware of what's going on and acknowledge other road users. When I am a pedestrian, I am not part of road traffic, and don't behave as if I am.




Bit too self-referencing as a useful definition for others....


----------



## Twanger (24 Feb 2010)

Whatever....


----------



## BentMikey (24 Feb 2010)

It's a public highway anyway, Twanger. Pedestrians are often a part of road traffic, and have just as much right as anyone else to be there.


----------



## Cab (25 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Get your leg over a bike, pedal, and you're a cyclist. Anything else is elitist and snobbish.



Depends on the intention of how you use the term really.


----------



## on the road (25 Feb 2010)

To me, a POB is pedestrian who has decided to jump on a bike, rides on the pavement maybe slightly more than walking pace and occasionally rides on the road, then rides back on the pavement again and thinks the highway code doesn't apply to them.

Once when I was waiting at a red traffic light, a pedestrian was walking across (on a green man) and as he was walking across, he said to me "you can go through you can go through, it's a bike innit".


----------



## thomas (25 Feb 2010)

on the road said:


> To me, a POB is pedestrian who has decided to jump on a bike, rides on the pavement maybe slightly more than walking pace and occasionally rides on the road, then rides back on the pavement again and thinks the highway code doesn't apply to them.




I think POB can be a negative thing, but equally it can be used for people who don't hang out on cycling forums have that much of an interest in bikes. Someone who has a bike to make walking easier.


----------



## Archie (25 Feb 2010)

Just watched the prog on Ayeplayer. Freeze frame @6:52 :-



> It's rush hour, and the Police set up a sting to catch cyclists who jump the lights on the way to work.


Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture? 

There's also some other amusing clips just before this, where they're talking about the council's zero-tolerance policy for offending cyclists, where there isn't a cyclist in sight. Someone in the editing suite may have had issues with the agenda?


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Feb 2010)

There are three coppers there.....shouldn't there be four?


----------



## Archie (25 Feb 2010)

Nope, that's not it.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Feb 2010)

Archie said:


> Nope, that's not it.



I was joshing.


----------



## Tynan (25 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> It's a public highway anyway, Twanger. Pedestrians are often a part of road traffic, and have just as much right as anyone else to be there.



and are supposed to use due care and attention and consideration just like everyome else

so them stepping off the curb without looking or from behind a bus is the same as someone pulling out onto a main road without checking to see what's coming

the only problem with peds in the road is that they don't use it safely etc etc


----------



## stowie (25 Feb 2010)

Archie said:


> Just watched the prog on Ayeplayer. Freeze frame @6:52 :-
> 
> Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?
> 
> There's also some other amusing clips just before this, where they're talking about the council's zero-tolerance policy for offending cyclists, where there isn't a cyclist in sight. Someone in the editing suite may have had issues with the agenda?



Do you mean the clip of a cyclist jumping a red light at exactly the same time as a Palletline lorry is jumping the lights, and overtaking the cyclist?

I think we need to be reasonable though. A cycle and cyclist weighing over 100kg doing 15mph is clearly presenting a much greater danger when it jumps the lights than a lorry weighing over 5 tonnes doing the same at 30mph. Completely understandable, the police have to focus on the real dangers. Or something.


----------



## stowie (25 Feb 2010)

Tynan said:


> and are supposed to use due care and attention and consideration just like everyome else
> 
> so them stepping off the curb without looking or from behind a bus is the same as someone pulling out onto a main road without checking to see what's coming
> 
> the only problem with peds in the road is that they don't use it safely etc etc



In my ideal world, the hierachy of provision would see pedestrians have priority in high pedestrian areas, with all other vehicles including cycles slowed down to accomodate.

Of course there is a responsibility for pedestrians to take care, but it also cyclists responsibility to take reasonable precautions to try to minimise the risks, in the same way I expect car drivers to do the same when I cycle. Around buses I take huge care - not least because I am very much likely to come off worst in an accident, especially if there is also traffic around.


----------



## Archie (25 Feb 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I was joshing.


Sorry. Nope, that's not it.


----------



## Archie (25 Feb 2010)

stowie said:


> Do you mean the clip of a cyclist jumping a red light at exactly the same time as a Palletline lorry is jumping the lights, and overtaking the cyclist?



Ah yes, that would be it.


----------



## lit (26 Feb 2010)

For those that haven't seen it


----------



## BentMikey (26 Feb 2010)

Tynan said:


> and are supposed to use due care and attention and consideration just like everyome else
> 
> so them stepping off the curb without looking or from behind a bus is the same as someone pulling out onto a main road without checking to see what's coming
> 
> the only problem with peds in the road is that they don't use it safely etc etc



You sound just like a moton about cyclists, IMO.


----------



## Origamist (26 Feb 2010)

stowie said:


> In my ideal world, the hierachy of provision would see pedestrians have priority in high pedestrian areas, with all other vehicles including cycles slowed down to accomodate.



Pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy of provision - it's just hard to believe given the autocentric nature of much of our streetscapes. 

The "Manual for Streets" is here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/mfssummary.pdf





Tynan said:


> and are supposed to use due care and attention and consideration just like everyome else
> 
> *so them stepping off the curb without looking or from behind a bus* is the same as someone pulling out onto a main road without checking to see what's coming
> 
> the only problem with peds in the road is that they don't use it safely etc etc



Let me guess - you hit a pedestrian who stepped out from behind a bus? This happens and you need to be aware of such an eventuality - you need to slow down and give the bus as wide a berth as possible in order to mitigate the likelihood and severity of a collision. Sometimes you do not even have to overtake the bus!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Feb 2010)

I've hit pedestrians twice, first one 'nipped' across the road some little way in front of me then thought better of it turned on their heel and nipped back, collecting me on the way. Second one, much worse, she, iPod-ed and without looking imo, tried crossing the road at a jog in advance of a TLC junction. I was focussed on making the lights, and probably going too fast, collected her. I then got assaulted by a WVM but that is another story.

Only after I stopped cycle commuting in London did the penny of the strict liability really drop. Peds do stupid things, we all know/experience this, as cyclists we must be prepared for them to do this and ride accordingly. Just as cyclists do stupid things, all car drivers know this and must drive accordingly. and so forth


----------



## hackbike 666 (26 Feb 2010)

Apart from my collison on Tower Bridge I think I have a good record in London...Long may it continue.

Yes I do blame myself more and more for the 1991 Tower Bridge collision but perhaps I was short of experience of city centre cycling so I took it more for granted.

Yes (some) peds get on my tits but you guys are right.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Feb 2010)

I think that even the most experienced cyclist's careful precautions can be overwhelmed by particularly suicidal pedestrians, but that sort of incident is unlikely to happen very often. Is that two pedestrian collisions in nearly 20 years Hackers? That sounds pretty 'kin awesome careful riding to me.


----------



## magnatom (26 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I think that even the most experienced cyclist's careful precautions can be overwhelmed by particularly suicidal pedestrians, but that sort of incident is unlikely to happen very often. Is that two pedestrian collisions in nearly 20 years Hackers? That sounds pretty 'kin awesome careful riding to me.





...or he just has poor aim....


----------

