BikeBiz

Well having been on the receiving end of this hate outburst from my local council I'm not seeing much in the way of support here in Derbyshire... http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Flat-out-cyclist-gets-backs-up-at-area-forum-meeting-26102012.htm After a life of always having cycle commuted, a series of attacks - including being rammed on multiple occassions and even robbed when commuting, even tho ridding a very conspicuous and well illuminated cycle with multiple Dinotte lights , and a complete refusal from Derbyshire Constabulary to police our roads even when provided with video footage of such incidents, I struggle to see the happy-smiley commuting experience described in this article. I'm a weekend cyclist now and get dropped at work by motorvehicle (as I don't drive). And after that outburst I'm wary of even going out at the weekend without a camera running on the bike.

@ Rob - Having read what looks like a report written by a journo who wasn't really prepared to challenge the councillor concerned (a follow-up interview at least?), or to try and interview you, Rob, to get your side of the story, I'd say that it does underline a "them and us" scenario ... but the standard of the reportage makes it difficult to really know the general feeling of the meeting - in addition to which, at least half the more damaging references in the report are hearsay-based.

My own feeling is that there was a certain inevitability to the appearance of a "documentary" (struggling with that term if this programme turns out the way I have a feeling it will) like this - unmitigated lowest-common-denominator programming like "Road Wars" and the like were always going to come to the whole (largely manufactured) cyclist versus motorist conflict in the end.

Yes, some drivers are unremittingly bad, yes, some drivers need to understand that being in a car does not give them increased "rights" - oh, how I loathe that word - over other road users, and yes, some drivers are inattentive, use mobile phones, light cigarettes or argue with their spouses whilst driving BUT - the vast majority do none of those things, and still fewer drive in a deliberately dangerous or confrontational way.

On the other side, there are cyclists who ride without lights, there are cyclists that jump red lights, that cut on and off the pavement and who when they do have a grievance with a motorist are immediately aggressive and accusatory - but again, they are in a considerable minority.

What concerns me about what I suspect the content of this programme may well be, is that all motorists will be depicted as homicidal nutters and that all cyclists will be depicted as irresponsible, lycra-wearing louts. A programme that takes the stance of "yes there is a problem which is fixable by both cyclists and motorists taking more care and showing a little more respect for each other and for the rules of the road" is not going to be very saleable in this world of instant knee-jerk reactions against one that shouts "ALL MOTORISTS WANT TO KILL CYCLISTS, IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT FOR BEING ON THE ROAD" or somesuch other simplistic, half-arsed nonsense.

I suppose what I am really saying, is that I sincerely hope that the BBC have opted to show a programme made by a journalist considerably better informed & considerably better at his or her job than the writers of all too many of the pieces of cyclist vs. motorist reportage that we see - but I am not expecting to be so pleasantly surprised ...

@rob My piece not so much happy-clappy as giving both sides of the story. Not all bike commutes lead to examples of murderous driving. @ Graeme Instead of "rights" you could use "priority" cos that's what it is. Not a huge difference, really, but still. So, it's not who has the "right of way" it's who probably has "priority." Ian Walker spent six hours with the TV company being interviewed in depth so if he is featured in the programme that should mean there will be some good dispassionate views.

My current theory is that 5% of drivers are 'careless' and 5% are actively dangerous. This seems to be regardless of how I encounter them - I witness the same problems being driven to work as I did when I cycled, the difference being an impact with the motor vehicle I'm travelling in is an 'insurance job' but an impact with a cycle likely means at least hospital time. The real problem I experience here in Derbyshire is that the local police refuse point blank to police. Refusal is probably too generous a description - they'll take a report of a problem but that is the last I ever hear from them. Even going to the level of making formal complaints on their failure to respoond makes no difference. 'Failure to police' is the problem - training a minority of drivers that they can ignore the law and bully on the highway. Cyclists are easy victims for them, but so (as the most common cause of violent under 16 death) are pedestrian children and so are other drivers. I am holding no hopes that the recent PCC elections will take any steps to help address this issue.

Hi Carlton - sadly I think that there are a minority who don't regard it as a matter of priority ... to my mind, in this context and in many others, I think the work "rights" should be replaced by "privileges", because the notion of a "right" is really more about something which is granted in society because a certain responsibility has been complied with ... This isn't just a question of semantics, I think it goes a lot wider and deeper than that.

We hear, all day every day, a great deal about the rights of individuals or groups, but we seldom hear much about the responsibilities of individuals or groups - so a motorist has a "right" to use the road - but it is his or her responsibility to pay VED and insurance, to ensure that the vehicle is MOTd, and to respect other road users, as examples. In the same way, cyclists, pedestrians, horse-riders and mothers pushing prams have a "right" to use the roads, but only if they themselves assume their social responsibilities.

The loathesome term "I know my rights" should be expunged from the language. There ain't no such animal - there are privileges granted by society - and in this context, we should all, cyclists, pedestrians, motorists etc. be responsible enough to recognise that we have to behave in a way that merits them.

Can't agree Graham. We all have the RIGHT to use a road as it is a 'right of way'. Freedom of movement, moreover, is enshrined in Article 13 of the International Declaration of Human Rights, to which UK is a signatory. This does not declare precisely how such movement shall be achieved, but since man cannot fly and swimming is not generally practicable, walking is the implied minimum means of locomotion, to which we all have a right. Other Articles give us all a Right to such things as Education, Social Welfare and to participate in cultural life. But since facilities have been centralised over recent decades and public transport cut, much of this can no longer realistically be accessed on foot. I would argue that a bicycle is in many circumstances the only simple means remaining available to most people, of exercising those rights and hence that I do have a human right to use a bicycle on a road, that is secondary only to the right of those who are simply using shoes. Driving however, now that really is a priviledge: something one cannot do except by licence - that may be taken away without so much as a squeak from the United Nations! But we must not forget Article 29 and it's perhaps worth quoting item 2 in full: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." So even rights are not without responsibilities.