Anti social BBC programme

[rjb]

Interesting broadcast on at lunchtime today. I only caught the end but may be of interest to members here. On BBC sounds. Food for thought.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001y ... are-mobile

[Jdsk]

Thanks

Jonathan

[TrevA]

I listened to it. Largely a rehashing of old arguments for and against cycling and cycle infra and quite London-centric, but interesting at the same time. The podcast series is called Antisocial, it’s not saying that cycling is antisocial.

[Psamathe]

Listened to part but it was "not good". Guy arguing for cars was a twerp. Major points start to be raised and completely missed. Significant points start to be raised but then go unchallenged.

I had added the series to my podcast download app as some other titles looked interesting but this program such a waste of time Ive not bothered with the others and deleted it.

Very unimpressed. Feel "I'll never get that time back".

Ian

[slowster]

I agree. It was a very poor quality programme. The 'pro-car' advocate was allowed to go unchallenged in glibly presenting himself as being reasonable and unbiased, but he was nothing of the kind, as his literal use of and agreement with the 'war on motorists' narrative demonstrated. The programme and presenter presented him as someone who was informed and had valuable insight to share on the subject. Anyone who, instead of presenting evidence and facts, parrots a Tory slogan which was cynically developed not just to tap into the modern culture wars phenomenon, but to amplify it and to demonise measures designed to improve people's lives and reduce road injuries and fatalities, is not 'informed' or 'insightful'.

I stopped listening when it became clear how bad the programme was. I would hope that someone at CUK will listen to it and consider whether the programme warrants a complaint to the BBC.

[Psamathe]

One example of bad was when they tried to be factual and their fact checker person came-up with 68% of people use a car 3 or more times per week yet only 8% of people use a bike 3 or more times per week.

Presented (unchallenged) as how few people cycle but to me I thought it reasonable. No question as to the amount (£) of infrastructure spending on each category in the light of 68% vs 8%, but maybe as using an arbitrary "3 or more times per week" makes the stat pretty daft anyway (eg how many tick both boxes?).

Climate Change only really raised as a weapon to criticise cyclists (as in cyclists taking the moral high ground attitude), again unchallenged.

Health benefits of cycling (eg in the light NHS resource issues) - not raised.

That in cities, often one additional cyclist can mean 1 less car making more space for cars. So take space for a cycle lane meaning more cyclists means fewer cars needing less space. Not raised.

So many aspects not raised, and points that were raised were very motor-centric.

Ian

[colin54]

I've not listened to this yet, but I found a BBC cycling news section today which has some interesting (non-racing mostly) news articles, 40 pages of them I didn't realise this section existed on their site.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cjmzgwm35xkt

[axel_knutt]

My thoughts:

Cyclists think climate change trumps everything. That's because it does. Science is not a democracy, you can't reason or negotiate with the climate, and it's not a very benign dictator.

People have an absolute right to travel as much as they want. No they don't. (See above.)

The change cyclists seek will never happen. Climate change will.

There's a war on cars. The only war on cars is being waged by the climate.

He's appears to be a climate change denier, not a particularly wise choice if the BBC wanted a reasoned debate.

No war on cyclists. There's an implicit war on cyclists just by the fact that they're more vulnerable, but there is also the century or so of organising society around the car. This has the effect of making anyone who doesn't have a car into a second class citizen. Motorists hastily deny this, but when you suggest the give up their car they then insist they can't manage without it.

The cost of cycle infrastructure is huge. About 1% of the transport budget, as I recall.

Videos polarise the debate. I think this is a fair point. Cyclists post far too many trivial videos which only serve to dilute the impact of the serious ones. They need to choose their battles more carefully, otherwise they're just handing motorists a gift on a plate by diverting attention away from what really matters. (eg: J Vine posts a video of a MGIF van pushing past, but then includes the last 5 seconds with a view of him cycling past a no entry sign. Guess what all the argument was about.)

Cyclists don't have to use cycle paths, they're not compulsory. This is a silly argument, and one that will just infuriate motorists all the more. There are no laws that you switch you phone off in a cinema, or wear a suit when you go to a funeral either, but if you don't, that'll p*ss people off, too. My own reasons for not using cycle paths is they aren't safer, and they waste a lot of energy.

Cyclists jump red lights because is safer. Not very often it isn't, but it's not as dangerous as when cars do it, either. I don't think most cyclists really understand themselves why they jump red lights. The fact is that repeated stopping wastes a huge amount of energy. (See above.)

[cycle tramp]

Thanks for the notification, however I have decided not to boost the viewer rating of the programme, and cycled to the shops and back instead.....

[Postboxer]

I think I tried to work out how much energy stopping wasted, it will be on this site somewhere I think, I think I worked out it was about the same energy as cycling 200 metres. I don't know how accurate this is or what speed this amounted to.

Has this programme been on before? The discussion about it sounds very similar to the discussion about some other debate, perhaps it is every time cycling is discussed on the radio.

[simonhill]

I sort of listened to it. Not very impressed.

Mainly not impressed with the 2 contributors. The anti cycling one (he declared at the start that he was Dutch and cycled, but gave no evidence to support these claims) made plenty of unchallenged 'facts'; and the woman who was the pro cycling. I think they could have got somebody better to support cycling with a few facts etc. Most of it was personal experience or anecdotal.

It often seemed that they were trying to avoid controversy or arguement.

I think bikes lost.

[ratherbeintobago]

Feel free to complain to the BBC about stuff like this.

[Psamathe]

Feel free to complain to the BBC about stuff like this.

I've complained to BBC (about other stuff) in the past. A complete waste of time. They just sit on it for ages then write back declaring how good they are and how balanced their programming is.

Ian

[awavey]

The cost of cycle infrastructure is huge. About 1% of the transport budget, as I recall.

that part I just dont understand how the Beeb with its truth service let through, cost of cycle infrastructure is huge !?!?, wait till he hears how much it costs for 1mile of motorway to be built.

[ratherbeintobago]

Think the cost benefit of relatively inexpensive cycling infra is 1:8 as opposed to at best 1:1.5 if not evens for roads.