Cambridge Local Elections - 2nd May 2013

EDIT (6/5/13) - It gives me great pleasure to observe that the vice-chairman of Cambridge Conservatives, Timothy Haire (with whom I engage in a quite fiery confrontation in the comments section of this article) lost his seat in the 2013 Local Elections.

Timothy Haire was beaten by the Labour candidate, Sandra Crawford. It is heartening to note that when responding to the Cambridge Cycle Campaign's survey, Sandra Crawford had infinitely more intelligent things to say than Timothy Haire.

Here's the hoping that in the wake of extremely poor electoral results, the Cambridge Conservatives might re-think their currently idiotic policy on cycling...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing with this blog's 'call-a-spade-a-spade' approach, I thought it might be constructive to take a cycling-related stance on the upcoming County Council elections. Should you...


Vote Conservative? ... NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! This blog is a massive supporter of what Boris Johnson is doing in London, but the sad reality is that local conservative candidates up here in Cambridge are complete cretins. To name just one such cretin (although they are virtually innumerable), Timothy Haire, vice-chairman of Cambridge Conservatives, wrote some absolutely ridiculous responses to the Cambridge Cycle Campaign's questionnaire, including a breathtakingly patronising: "you really are being silly now". [if you'd prefer an extended exploration of Timothy Haire's mendacity please see the comments section]

Hello, my name's Timothy Haire, but even being photographed in black and white can't stop me looking fat, ill-informed and idiotic. [disclaimer: I have no idea what Timothy Haire's weight is and it was unnecessarily inflammatory to call him fat. I am sorry about doing that. But his responses in the comments section (below)  unfortunately demonstrate that he is indeed ill-informed, idiotic and a liar when it comes to cycling issues. Pretty poor given he wants to be an elected official of the UK's cycling capital...]

Vote Labour? ... NO! NO! NO! While some of their manifesto promises look good, they're not backing up claims like "We will push for investment in high-quality strategic cycle routes across the county"with actual proposals. We need specifics. It's not enough to say you support cycle routes. Where are they going to go? Where's the money going to come from? How will you negotiate opposition from motor-idiotic local residents? Labour are all words, no substance.



Vote Liberal Democrats? ... YES! YES! YES! The Liberal Democrats are the only party to have laid actual specifics on the table about what they would do. These deserve quoting in full:

• Build the Chisholm Trail, a strategic cycle route that would run from Addenbrooke’s to the Cambridge Science Park, alongside the railway
• Provide more cycle parking in areas of greatest demand.
• Invest in enhancing cycle links around the county.
• Bring junctions that are dangerous for cyclists up to a safe standard.
• Introduce 20mph zones in densely populated residential areas, not including A and B roads, in consultation with local communities, to make travelling safer for all road users.
• Grit more of our cycle routes, among the busiest in the country.

Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon (left) is one of many Lib Dem councillors that want to see the Chisholm Trail go ahead.

Moreover, the Liberal Democrat politicians are also happy to expand on these ideas using twitter, stating:

• In our alt budget we proposed an extra £8m for cycle links (but £4m of that is earmarked for the Chisholm Trail in Cambridge)

If we want to see positive change on our roads, Lib Dem on a local level is clearly the way to go.

It is also the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge, Dr Julian Huppert, who has been relentlessly pushing the government's report 'Get Britain Cycling' in Parliament. Yet another reason to vote for a Lib Dem local government.

Julian Huppert MP (far right), sorting out cycling in the UK

Vote Green? ... NO! Like Labour, the Greens are saying the right things about cycling (isn't everyone nowadays?), but woefully lacking in specifics. We need specifics.

I'm not even going to dignify UKIP's "I would prefer more car parks" approach with a sarcastic putdown. This response to Cambridge Cycle Campaign's survey is hilarious though...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.... Finally, if you haven't already signed the e-petition for the government to implement the proposals contained in the 'Get Britain Cycling' report, please please please do so now by clicking here! 35,000 signatures in 5 days!... But we need 100,000 to trigger a debate in Parliament!

Long Term changes in public opinion towards motor traffic in London, and the death of Dr Katherine Giles due to collision with a lorry while cycling in Victoria

The tragic death of a brilliant young scientist in Central London a few days ago, killed by a lorry driving into her as she cycled through Victoria, reminded me how important it is that cycle infrastructure in our capital changes for the better (and how appallingly dangerous Victoria is to cycle around). The fact that this death warranted in-depth coverage from the BBC, ITV, The Times, and Sky News, as well as an immediate political response from Boris Johnson (viewable in this ITV video), also had me thinking slightly positively about the future of cycling in London.

I read Ian McEwan's novel Saturday (2005) recently and was struck by how unconsciously car-centric it was. If you haven't read the novel, it's basically a day in the life of a neurosurgeon whose lives a financially confortable life in Central London. On the day in question this main character, whom we are repeatedly led to admire by McEwan, chooses to drive to his local sports club in a large Mercedes in order to play a game of squash. His squash partner, an anaesthetist, drives too.

This is despite that the day in question is 15 February 2003, the day 2 million people entered London to protest against the Iraq War, blocking many major roads. This is despite the fact that the neurosurgeon in question runs the London marathon every year and is highly concerned with keeping his fitness up. This is despite the fact that his squash partner, an anaesthetist colleague, goes to the gym every day. This is despite the fact that both men live in Central London, where their squash club is also located, meaning they could easily walk, jog, cycle, take the tube, or even a bus.

Yet despite all of these 'push' factors our admirable neurosurgeon rejects any form of remotely active travel and chooses to navigate the various road blocks around London instead, returning after a gruelling squash game to park his car right outside his house in order to avoid any walk to his front door.

Later in the novel McEwan describes in an overwhelmingly positive way what would I would imagine to be in fact an extremely tedious drive through traffic from Warren Street out along the Westway to Perivale. He notes the joy his 'man-of-our-times' protagonist feels at moving around London in his car with the noxious fumes (to which the neurosurgeon is himself significantly contributing) locked safely outside.

Finally towards the end of the novel McEwan's protagonist contemplates both the extremely high volume traffic of the Euston Road and the incessant buzz of planes flying over London into Heathrow as if both were completely unalterable facts of our urban existence, and more strikingly, things to be savoured and enjoyed by a 'Good Londoner'.

The Euston Road. Not something to be savoured or admired. Something to be changed.

Obviously this all says a lot about McEwan, but I would argue it also says a lot about public opinion in 2005, and in the previous decades. In 2013 I would be surprised to find an equally successful novel that employs a similarly car-centric protagonist.

Because, in fact, both the Euston Road and Heathrow are negative aspects of our urban lives, and both are alterable. The revolutionary new designs for Parliament Square and Blackfriars by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) show that change is possible all over our city. The current storm over potentially expanding capacity Heathrow also demonstrates that urban dwellers are becoming less and less accepting of the harmful effects of local airports. 

Moreover, the implementation of large scale infrastructure projects such as The Tube upgrade, Crossrail, London Cycle Hire, and Boris Johnson + Andrew Gilligan's Vision for Cycling in London (all implemented after 2005), show that politicians are now willing to invest huge amounts of money and political credibility into financing incredibly ambitious non-motorised methods of transport  at least in urban areas.

Crossrail is costing the government billions of pounds and will increase London's entire  non-motor transport capacity by 10%.

City-changing improvements in cycle infrastructure cannot happen without large scale public support behind them, and the ideologies that they embody. This public support didn't exist in the second half of the twentieth century which is one reason we have so many horrible gyratories in London. However, there are hopeful signs that car-centric thinking is becoming less popular and we will have the political power to implement big changes in London in the early twenty-first century.

After all, all these gyratories were all installed in the last 50 years, so they can surely be taken out again in the next 50 years?

It's important for all of us to realise, unlike McEwan's protagonist from 2005, that urban motorways like the Euston Road are not enjoyable, nor immutable facts of London-life. Neither is having the luxury of on-street parking right outside your house (unless, of course, you are mobility impaired). In fact, luxuries such as this can easily accumulate and kill you through obesity.

The parking restrictions in large amounts of Central London next Wednesday for Margaret Thatcher's funeral (organised with barely a week's notice) will be implemented with no trouble at all. So why do we accept the lie that such high levels of inner-city car parking are 'necessary' the rest of the time?

Similarly, many major roads will be closed for much of the day for Thatcher's ceremonial funeral next Wednesday. Will business grind to a halt? Will money as we know it cease to exist? No. London will be fine. If you closed the inner-city tube lines on a weekday... then you'd have problems.

Thatcher's funeral will see all motor traffic removed from a large swathe of Central London on a weekday with barely a week's notice. Any problems? No. So why do we 'need' this motor traffic capacity the rest of the time?

We should remember that, like on-street car parking, the high level of motor traffic in Central London that we have at present isn't a 'necessity' either.

Ironically, the passing of Thatcher marks the point where we are going to see a similar decline in her incredibly flawed policy of promoting motor-traffic at the expense of all other forms of transport in our cities.

Thanks in part to pressure from cycling bloggers, as the BBC's Tom Edwards has highlighted, change is coming (an overwhelming show of hands at a recent London Cycling Campaign Policy Forum reflects the newly positive outlook of cycle campaigners).

Warren Street, a street which Ian McEwan's protagonist drives down in Saturday (2005) is now closed for traffic 'Except Cycles'. If McEwan wrote the same novel today his lead character would probably cycle or take the tube instead of driving in order to travel around London. Photo courtesy of Cyclists in the City.

Saturday proves it. Camden proves it. Hackney (where more people now cycle than drive to work!) proves it.

Disgustingly cycle-toxic politicians like Kate Hoey, Richard Tracey, and Mark Field need to watch out or they may not be in office come 2015...

-------------

Dr Rachel Aldred, Chair of the LCC's Policy Forum, discusses the same phenomenon in a very interesting post on her blog, as do both City A.M.'s Alexander Jan and The Guardian's Oliver Burkeman in recent articles.

There is also a fantastic recording of Andrew Gilligan's talk and Q&A at the first London Cycling Campaign Policy Forum (8/4/2013) which you can listen to or download (right click on the link and then click 'Save Link As...') here.

Finally, here is a link to Boris Johnson speaking extremely intelligently and cogently about his new cycling policies on The Daily Mail (no less!)... who'd have thought it...

Kate Hoey MP is a complete disgrace

Given the news today (that was even lauded in the Daily Mail!!!) of how forward-thinking politicians like Boris Johnson (supported by his ever impressive 'Cycling Czar' Andrew Gilligan) are making ground-breaking advances in terms of cycling policy, I thought it might be a good time to reflect on those politicians that are at the other end of the spectrum.

Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Vauxhall, is an absolute disgrace, and I would urge anyone who is her constituent or has any contact with her to let her know this in writing.

Kate Hoey has been dangerously cycle-toxic for all of her 14 years as MP for Vauxhall

Danny from Cyclists in the City has previously written about her cretinous attitude towards cycling.

However, her latest piece of idiocy has been to block the installation of a large Cycle Hire Docking Station on Cornwall Road, SE1, in order to preserve car-parking bays.

It is completely ridiculous to block the installation of 35 bike hire racks that can be used by hundreds people during the course of a day in order to preserve 3 on-street car parking spaces.

Moreover, SE1 a part of London that, located so close to Waterloo and the South Bank, is already extremely congested and busy, and therefore unsuitable for heavy on-street car-use.

What especially annoys be about Kate Hoey's despicable actions is the amount of grief that TfL and the Mayor sustain for problems with the Boris Bike system, when it is politicians like Hoey (and the Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea councils that won't let TfL move Boris Bikes around in the early morning) that are actively preventing improvements to the Cycle Hire Scheme.

Mark Field, Conservative MP for Westminster, does exactly the same thing in his constituency.

Those who like cycling to get from A to B should be ever aware that often it is not TfL that are the problem, but idiotic politicians like Kate Hoey and Mark Field who are deliberately disrupting and retarding TfL's efforts to improve cycling in London.

20mph speed limit for Waterloo Roundabout and approach roads

EDIT (10/5/13) -  TfL have just confirmed they are going ahead with these scheme after 97% of respondents supported it. This is massive news. First 20mph limit ever on TfL roads.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TfL are now consulting on their plans to introduce a 20mph speed limit for Waterloo Roundabout and it's approach roads.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/20mph-waterloo-roundabout

Anyone interesting in improving cycling conditions in London should click the above link and do the 'Online Survey', giving full support to this initiative, before 28 February 2013.

Waterloo Roundabout: a 1970s urban planner's heaven; a cyclist's hell.

A 20mph limit might not sound like much but it is actually, in my opinion, rather momentous.

This is a (unique) example of TfL prioritising the safety of the 5,500 cyclists that use this roundabout every weekday over the motorists who see a decline in the average speed of 34mph on the Waterloo Bridge and Stamford Street approaches.

Time and again, good infrastructure for cyclists has not been implemented in London because of TfL being afraid to curb the excessive speed of London's motor traffic; politics of road use are far more important in deciding the quality of cycle infrastructure we have in London than either funding or expertise (though of course, we still have much to learn from Dutch and Danish town planners).

However, here, in early 2013, we can see, for perhaps the first time, TfL explicitly putting the safety of cyclists first.

You can see how controversial this move is to many motoring groups from the fact that this is having to be implemented as '6-month experiment'.

In Holland or Germany this would be a no-brainer. In Britain it is an 'experiment'; like burning magnesium in GCSE chemistry. I wonder what will happen? Will all the cars explode because they're driving at 20mph? No. Less people will die. Surely you can accept that as a good thing?

I am quietly hopeful this experiment will succeed. A 20mph limit on the roundabout and approach roads will almost certainly lead to a significant increase in cyclists, especially with summer approaching, and with even more cyclists using the roundabout it will then be extremely difficult come September/October for TfL to remove the 20mph limit; especially since you're almost 10 times more likely to die when hit by a car at 30mph, than at 20mph.

Who knows, this might be the first step towards to the taming of the disgustingly dangerous gyratories that plague Central London; I'm thinking: Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, Vauxhall, King's Cross, Bow Roundabout, Parliament Square, Old Street Roundabout, Elephant and Castle, Hammersmith Broadway, Swiss Cottage.

Imagine if 20mph limits became the norm for all Central London's roundabouts and gyratories...

TfL might, ever so slowly, be coming round to the common sense opinion that if you want to drive fast, you don't drive in Central London. We've got motorways for that.

If you want to go somewhere quickly in London, take public transport or cycle. Don't drive.

This has to be the message TfL, Boris Johnson, and Andrew Gilligan, bring to the London of the 21st century.

(otherwise they're idiots)

So do the 'Online Survey' now!

Andrew Gilligan appointed London's Cycle Commissioner

EDIT (26/3/13) - The news early this month of City Hall's impressive, radical, and innovative 'Cycling Vision for London' (which, according to the BBC's Tom Edwards, was directly precipitated by cycle bloggers - who knew?!) has heartily confirmed my faith in Andrew Gilligan's ability to deliver in his role as Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner.

Gilligan's performance a few days later on the BBC's Sunday Politics Show (10/3/13) defending his new cycle infrastructure projects was especially impressive, as was the fact that segregated cycle tracks were accepted as the 'ideal solution' not only by Gilligan, but also by his interviewer and the other politicians on the show. This game-change in thinking about cycle safety and infrastructure (and the way the two are inextricably linked) clearly has a lot to do with the ambitious scope of the Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan's new plan. View the full interview here on YouTube.

There is also a fantastic recording of Andrew Gilligan's talk and Q&A at the first London Cycling Campaign Policy Forum (8/4/2013) which you can listen to or download (right click on the link and then click 'Save Link As...') here.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It emerged yesterday that Andrew Gilligan, a journalist working at The Telegraph has been made Boris Johnson's cycling advisor. Some have attacked the 'cronyism' in this appointment - since Mr Johnson and Mr Gilligan have a history of previous employment together and share similar political views - however, I personally would argue that Gilligan will (hopefully) be a very successful Cycling Czar for London.

Andrew Gilligan cycles about 100 miles a week in London. He can't drive either.

Gilligan has been a strong supporter of segregated cycle facilities for a long time, and has not been afraid to publicly criticise Boris Johnson's first batch of Cycle Superhighways that are dreadfully sub-standard, and in some places, really quite dangerous.

Yes, he is not an 'expert'. But you hardly need to be an expert on cycling to realise that the current infrastructure in place in London is either non-existent or crap, and that it could be radically improved relatively easy.

What he is, is a journalist who understands politics. Because politics (rather than new academic research) is the primary barrier to installing good cycle infrastructure, I would argue that Gilligan's training in journalism (and a history degree) is actually exactly what he needs if he's going to bring real change to London.

Similarly, the fact Gilligan is a firm support of Boris Johnson is a good thing since Boris will need a united front behind him if he's going to successfully convince anti-cycling councils like Westminster and the City of London to scrap ridiculous policies like road-narrowing without installing bike lanes. TfL only run 5% of London's roads. Cycle-toxic London MPs like Mark Field and Kate Hoey are not going to change their minds about opposing segregated lanes for cyclists if Johnson and Gilligan are bickering with each other about London's housing policy.

Moreover, Gilligan comments very intelligently on his Telegraph blog:

I believe that the way to win arguments is to stress what better cycle facilities can do for London as a whole – reducing air pollution and crowding on the Tube, for example – rather than just for cyclists.

This man understands better than most the political realities of implementing the fantastic cycling policies that organisations like the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) come up with.

This is exactly the kind of person we want organising London's Cycling Plan at the highest level.

We need someone with the pragmatism to actually make change happen and, where necessary, compromise in order to get the best available deal for cyclists. We need someone who understands London's politics. And, we need someone who will work with the Mayor and TfL (rather than against them).

All in all, Gilligan appears to be a pretty good choice.

*Guest Post* by Andrew Stephen: Resolve in the Face of Thievery

Crews of grinches are working in teams, spotting, plotting and thieving their way around London’s streets. They nab innocent bikes tucked snugly on racks, lampposts, and road signs. A dull roar has arisen about the sharp uptick in London’s bike thievery, and frankly, the only thing we should lose is the ‘dull’ part. But it happens in every city, especially when metropolitans increase numbers of cyclists in vast proportions like London has. Statistics are stark: 22,000+ bike thefts reported last year, while most thefts go unreported, and estimates of real thefts are as high as 100,000.

This situation we’ve arrived at is terribly sub-optimal given the momentum cycling has gained in London. The number of cyclists in London have more than doubled since 2000, with over 540,000 trips taken per day. People are excited to avoid traffic, improve their health, save money and have fun on their way to work. There have also been tragic deaths, 16 in total last year, along with 555 serious injuries. But this is gradually changing in our favor as well. Though better road design is without doubt the single most important factor needed to improve safety, having more cyclists on the road also helps. There is strength, and more importantly, visibility, in numbers. Despite all of these encouraging signs, the number of cyclists has plateaued and bike thefts are rising.

Some are saying that Londoners are discouraged by bike thefts and riding less often or not at all, and thus the recent plateau in the number of cyclists. Anecdotal evidence points to the contrary, however. I have met a number of bike commuters who have had their rides nicked, but are proceeding with firm resolve. They contend that bike thievery is similar to bike accidents. There is safety in numbers. The more Londoners who identify as cyclists, the more invested the general public will be in preventing thieves from practicing their craft as blatantly as they have become accustomed. 

Meet Simon. He is a daily bicycle commuter who’s not deterred by thieves in the slightest. Simon’s daily commute travails the handful of kilometres from Westfield to the London Palladium. Last week his lovely Bianchi Vigorelli with a full Ultegra set was callously nicked right outside his office. Exhausted from a long day of meetings and stressful client demands, Simon arrived to find his D lock sawed in two, and the bike nowhere to be found. He had done everything right: registered the serial number with MPS’s Transport for London officers, insured it with Butterworth Spengler, and upon discovering the theft, immediately reported it. He wasn’t locking it up deep in Westminster, where most thefts take place. He didn’t lock it with a merely superficial cable lock. Simon said, “I did everything my research told me to do to ride safely and securely in London’s streets”.

It’s not that big a deal, Simon contended. “Those who are shocked by bike theft must simply get over it. It may be an inconvenience in the moment, and sure, you may have a particular affinity for your bicycle, but frankly, if you follow the recommended procedures it will prove to be a blip on an otherwise lovely biking life.” Simon is a lifelong cyclist, and in that time he has had 2 bikes stolen, including his Bianchi and the rear wheel, seatpost, and saddle of his beloved Fuji Feather single speed. “I learned to use a cable in combination with my D lock when the Fuji was torn apart”, Simon said. 

Down, but not out. Simon's single speed Fuji Feather missing a few pieces…

Most of us know someone who have had their car stolen or vandalized. The main difference is that bikes are so much more easily replaced. Certainly, more thefts have taken place recently, but even with the uptick of theft, bikes are still far more practical than commuting by car. Simon’s Fuji was easily put back together with refunds from his insurance company, including a brand new freewheel, seatpost, and saddle. He has already filed his MPS and insurance paperwork and a new road bike is on the way. Simon found a 20 quid cruiser lounging about in the backyard for the meantime. “It was really quite easy to proceed after the theft”, Simon reported. “When you insure and register, you’ve got very little to worry about if you bike goes missing”. 

The best we can do is to take more care using D locks and cables in combination, greater coordination with police, refusing to purchase bikes without serial numbers, and the like. Simon has bought Abus’ particularly effective chain from the UK’s Bikesnbits, in anticipation of the new road bike. One can also use two different types of locks to force thieves to use two separate tools for lock jimmying. 

Abus Expedition Chain Lock 70/45 85cm

Simon left us with his firm resolve to continue cycling no matter what thieves do: “We’re all out here, hundreds of thousands of people who love riding, love saving money, gas, the environment - we’re not going to capitulate because thieves have begun targeting cycles. We’re going to keep riding, keep loving our commutes, keep our eyes out for thieves, and spread the word about insurance, locks, and registration.”

Why the BBC's 'War on Britain's Roads' was complete rubbish

Many people have criticised the BBC's recent 'War on Britain's Roads' programme so I know I'm hardly the first person to be saying these things. Yet, the programme was so infuriatingly banal that say them I must.

While being an hour of reasonably well-produced television, 'War on Britain's Roads' was brutally misinformed as to the real reasons that cyclists and motorists come into conflict on our streets. The programme went for the 'human-angle', interviewing both cyclists and motorists involved in incidents and eventually implicitly concluding that we should all get along better and perhaps lorries should have more mirrors and sensors on them.

A taxi driver very dangerously cuts up a cyclist. Rather than this just being condoned out-of-hand so we can all move on, we are interested treated by the BBC to 'both sides of the story'. This is bullshit. The taxi driver was at fault. He shouldn't have passed the cyclist so close. He could have killed the cyclist. Why can't this just be accepted as a fact?
If the cyclist can knock his frame to tell him he's too close, then he's too close. There shouldn't be any debate over this.

This is all 'true'. But it's also the sort of trite rubbish that a child could come up with simply by imagining a road that's being used by a cyclist, a motorist, and an HGV.

There is no pathological, eugenic difference between Britons and Hollanders.

The reason Dutch people do not have a 'War' on their roads is that Dutch roads are designed so that cyclists and motorists can both use the roads safely.

This is done in many ways. One of these is putting in cycle lanes on most roads where cars are doing 30mph or more which prevents motorists becoming angry about cyclists slowing them down when they want to drive at 30mph or above.

Do the BBC recommend implementing more and better cycle lanes, even implicitly? 

No. They seem to imply instead that motorists should perhaps maybe calm down a bit if they don't have space to overtake, and cyclists should maybe just bite the bullet if they get hit because they're 'taking control of the road'. (and on that note, can you think of a more idiotic and unnecessarily inflammatory way to describe cycling in the primary position?)

Similarly, after focusing on the tragic story of a young woman who was killed by a left-turning lorry, did the narrator draw the conclusion that enforcing a London-wide ban on HGVs that lack industry-standard mirrors and motion sensors would be a good idea?

No. It was simply left to the woman's bereaved mother to pursue her solo-campaign with the lorry companies that still fill our streets with dangerously ill-equipped vehicles. But why should this be one woman's responsibility? Anyone can get killed by a left-turning lorry. It's everyone's responsibility. Yet the BBC's opinion seems to be that people who (idiotically?) choose to cycle are some 'other tribe' that need to fend for themselves and don't come in for the basic rights of government-led safety that any normal citizen is entitled to.

How many of these cyclists have a head-cam? None. The BBC failed to mention that the agressive head-cam footage used for the programme was completely unrepresentative of both the cycling style and experience of the majority of Britain's cyclists who rather surprisingly don't choose to cycle on road-bikes at 30mph.

I could go on all day about the problems with the programme, but I'll end with a final thought:

Throughout we were treated to a fair range of clips of motorists behaving badly, then cyclists behaving badly, in what I presume was an attempt to give a 'balanced view' of the situation. Yet, did the narrator mention that in the case of motorists behaving badly cyclists die (119 so far in 2012; a five-year high). And did the narrator mention how many motorists have been killed by cyclists jumping red lights? I confess I don't know the exact figure off the top of my head but I imagine it's somewhere around zero.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not condoning red-light-jumpers for a second. But there is, at least for my money, a complete difference both in degree and consequence between the crimes of bad driving and bad cycling.

I would have preferred it if BBC's 'War on Britain's Roads' could have pointed this fact out. Or if one of the cyclists interviewed had had the presence of mind to do so when confronted with the extreme footage of a messenger race at the end of the programme, instead of blithely suggesting that a "punch in the face" was the solution to the 'everyday' problem of a bicycle courier competition held for a cash-prize 6 years ago.

--------

If you'd like to make a complaint about the programme you can do so in about 2 minutes here. (The BBC do at least have a very quick and easy online complaint-making system in place...)

For two much more thorough and better researched pieces on the same subject please also see:

- As Easy As Riding A Bike's excellent recent article: That 'war' on Britain's roads - the statistics
- Peter Walker's latest piece in The Guardian: BBC's War on Britain's Roads: even more fake than we feared