- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
OPINION
More experts, fewer conspiracy theorists on active travel TV shows please
Thu, Apr 20, 2023 16:45
29
ANPR protected LTN in LB EalingFlicking through the TV channels the other evening, I happened across one of those shows based on real-life footage of how police deal with law-breaking drivers, and couldn’t help thinking there was something missing.
One segment of the programme showed traffic police at an operation in London pulling over hundreds of drivers after automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) flagged up issues such as the vehicle being uninsured.
But where was the representative of an opaquely-funded lobby group to confidently inform us that more motorists would buy cover for their vehicles if only the government scrapped insurance premium tax?
And where were the minor celebrities turned conspiracy theory enthusiasts to tell us that deploying technology such as ANPR cameras was linked to the increasingly severe restrictions being placed on the mass population by a global elite hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives?
None of the those appeared on the episode of the Channel 5 show Criminals: Caught on Camera, which instead gave a voice to the police officers and civilian staff whose daily job is trying to ensure that our roads are safe, and that law-breaking drivers are brought to justice.
Trying to introduce a contrasting point of view within the context of that programme would quite rightly be considered outrageous.
Yet it’s something that the BBC regularly does when it covers issues such as the danger drivers pose to cyclists on Britain’s roads or, as we saw on Monday evening in the latest episode of the broadcaster’s flagship current affairs programme Panorama, low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs).
Aired under the sensationalist title Road Wars: Neighbourhood Traffic Chaos, the programme looked at LTNs in several London boroughs, as well as in Oxford, where the concept of the 15-minute city was also addressed.
Presenter Justin Rowlatt – whom you may remember from a highly criticised 2021 BBC News report looking at LTNs in Chiswick, west London – did seem sympathetic to local residents in Oxford who were seeking to prevent drivers from cutting through an LTN where the bollard was continually damaged, stolen and even set on fire. '
> “Shameful” – BBC “perpetuated falsehoods” in divisive low traffic neighbourhood report
He also appeared to struggle to suspend his disbelief at the owner of a scaffolding firm in Camden, north London, who had a stack of fines – none of which he had the slightest intention of paying – issued to his drivers for ignoring restrictions relating to the LTN in which the business is based.
One widely criticised aspect of the BBC’s news and current affairs output is that in its aim to be impartial and achieve ‘balance’ actually ends up magnifying fringe views or perpetuating myths that are easily disproven with data-based evidence.
That includes, in this case, claims that LTNs simply displace traffic to surrounding streets, and that they lead to mass closures of businesses when study after study shows that restricting motor vehicles helps local economies thrive.
We also had a representative of the Taxpayers’ Alliance – a right-wing lobby group based at 55 Tufton Street and which is often portrayed by the BBC as being concerned about the impact of government spending on ordinary people, rather than being driven by its own agenda – claiming that fines imposed by councils on law-breaking drivers are “cash cows,” a charge refuted by the Local Government Association.
The programme also dwelt on coverage of a recent protest in Oxford that besides local residents with perhaps legitimate concerns over the council’s plans, also saw conspiracy theorists descend on the city, protesting about what they see as a globalist plan to restrict people’s movements through the introduction of 15-minute cities.
That segment was prefaced by footage from social media of Katie Hopkins alleging that such schemes were similar to lockdowns introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and aim to curb the freedom of people to move around as they wished, something also claimed by the former actor Laurence Fox who attended the Oxford protest.
That’s absolute claptrap, of course, but is a claim being pushed forward by a number of disparate groups some of which are also opposed to lockdowns and vaccines, as well as 5G mobile phone networks, and who have now turned their attention to efforts to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion, while promoting active travel.
The danger inherent in the BBC’s approach of trying to present two sides to an argument when in fact science and data points firmly in one direction – see for example the late Lord Lawson, well-known for his denial of climate change, regularly being invited to provide ‘balance’ on the subject whenever it cropped up in the news – is that it not only risks legitimising such views, but also magnifies them and helps them spread further.
Michael Gove may have said in the run-up to that referendum that “People in this country have had enough of experts” – well, we all know how well that turned out.
Me, I’d rather hear more from experts on this kind of programme rather than the misinformed claims of a small but shouty minority in the interests of reflecting both sides of an argument – after all, it’s not as though in the interests of balance, the makers of 999: Criminals Caught on Camera feel the need to canvas the opinions of pressure groups claiming to represent people who drive while drunk or drugged, or those who take vehicles without the owner’s consent, is it?
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
More Opinion
Latest Comments
- SimoninSpalding 2 min 28 sec ago
Just to add, is this why people think cyclists are odd, the fact that a brush can ellicit such strong views? 🤣
- Oldfatgit 20 min 59 sec ago
I guess I'm odd as this time of year I'd normally do a 4 hour gravel ride on 1/2 bottle of water, a latte and a bacon roll....
- Eton Rifle 1 hour 9 min ago
The system for elderly drivers in the UK is insane. Basically, once you hit 70 years old, you have to re-apply for your driving licence every three...
- Moist von Lipwig 1 hour 38 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- HKR 2 hours 53 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
- Griff500 1 hour 40 min ago
Its not the same stem fitted to the two bikes though, and we aren't talking about HTA we are talking about stem inclination or "stem rise" to use...
- TheBillder 10 hours 54 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 11 hours 9 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 11 hours 13 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
Add new comment
29 comments
Why does no one ever make the simple point that displacing traffic from the residential streets to the main roads is literally the purpose of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood.
The point of the main roads is to carry the traffic around the residential areas.
It's part of the point but it's not intended to be a 1:1 displacement - it's not about shifting a fixed volume of driving from one route to another.
By making some streets more attractive to walking and cycling (and less attractive to driving), the idea is also to discourage unnecessary car trips. Either those trips won't be taken at all, or they will be taken using other means.
And where any displacement is intentional, it's quite hard to say that when (at least some of) the people complaining about traffic displacement are those who live on those main roads - not necessarily through choice, but because that housing may be more affordable.
I have a strong suspicion that most (but not all) of those complaining are those who don't live in the LTN area and want to continue rat-running etc.
Theoretically, apart from the traffic evaporation effect, traffic flow on boundary roads should be better with fewer people coming in and out of side roads, whcih means less stop-start and better air quality (as accelerating burns more fuel and braking generates more microparticles)
Agreed. I was coming at it from a simplistic viewpoint, given that the counter argument is always that "the cars just move somewhere else". Exactly, they move onto the roads that were designed for that purpose.
Getting those drivers out of their cars for at least a proportion of their journeys where possible is absolutely the ultimate goal.
the problem, and Im not in anyway standing up for this Panorama programme at all or the way it was done, is too often "more experts" simply equates to "more people who I believe to be experts and who I agree with".
its perfectly acceptable to make a programme on LTNs and present contrasting views or opinions, in fact thats the very essence of documentary film making to present a topic neutrally, to hear both sides and let the viewer decide on the merits of those arguments and form their own opinion.
where the BBC has been going wrong with its programmes like this, isnt its commitment to impartiality, its that the people making the programmes know that controversy sells, it gets bigger audience numbers, especially if you get the tabloids outraged about something beforehand and trailing it, and if you measure success only by how many people watch something, rather than choose to educate, inform and entertain, then you will only get programmes that are designed to fulfil that one metric.
You don't have to have "more people who I believe to be experts and who I agree with". You just have to have people who can present an argument with facts and evidence. The great problem with this LTN debate is that it's unfounded myths and untruths all over again (increased pollution = 350m a week = killing business = 1000s of EU 'laws' = cyclist lobby = metropolitan elite = 'take back control' = they want to control our travel = lower food prices and higher wages = what about the disabled) It's all lies and misinformation for this gullible.
I suppose the programmes would be boring if they got actual experts on as they'd quickly reach a consensus about how beneficial active travel is and then they'd get involved in a technical discussion on which style of bollards should be used.
Scrap (some of) your bollards! In the most enlightened places they're now looking to remove some of them - in fact they've been removing them for years.
Having said that I think the UK may need to navigate a bollard period before motor vehicle usage is sufficiently tamed and other modes developed enough to move beyond that.
'to present a topic neutrally, to hear both sides and let the viewer decide'
Sometimes the answer to a question is 5.
If you give half the airtime to mathematicians who say the answer is 5, and half to people saying it's 163, you don't do a good job of informing viewers.
If the answer is Right Sad Fred then you have asked the wrong question.
What was the name of the song released by Bernard Cribbins that got to number ten in the UK singles charts?
OK, that one question...
The problem is that the word expert has itself been diluted and perverted.
To me an expert is either a recognised academic or someone with lifelong experiences who has been shown to be generally wise and correct.
Now we have self-appointed experts validated by self-appointed opinionators who feed off each other.
The real test is are facts involved and how those facts are tested and checked. The reality is we have been living in a post-factual world for some time where opinion is given the same validity as tested fact. Challenge untested opinion, and opinion proclaims you are elite, or simply misled.
To the uncritical person in the street, the BBC presenting the likes of Katie Hopkins as having worthwhile thoughts means they see her as equivalent to someone who has applied critical thinking and checked their findings with their qualified peers.
To me, an expert is someone with the relevant experience in the field and uses/evaluates the evidence in a consistent way (i.e. trying to avoid bias) and then updates their opinions when new evidence is available.
Not even Katie Hopkins thinks she is an expert on LTNs.
FTFY
What was she deported from SA for again?
Was it for being a far-right troll?
Sort of...
I don't mind the mad ramblings of KH and her ilk being broadcast on the beeb in the interest of balance, so long as the "facts" presented are backed up or challenged (as both sides of a discussion should be obliged to do).
What I do take issue with is, is government policy being directed by opinion, regardless of whether those opinions are held by one person, a vocal minority or a majority.
Maybe they could just do an "IRA spokesperson" job on the wilder stuff that even the Beeb isn't keen on (Covid theories)? So get the words of e.g. KH and LF "spoken by an actor".
For bonus points they should do it Eurotrash-style (remember that?) and give them a wide range of regional accents.
Hell yeah!
However although LF / KH and the Alliance of Bad Drivers are "fringe" they are mainstream fringe - there are quite a lot of them about. And the actual mainstream isn't so far from them in their antipathy. It doesn't take much more than the thought "will this mean I have to change my routine / won't be able to park as easily?" to make a substantial fraction of the population get restive.
I hadn't appreciated the level of pushback on anything looking like "CHANGE!" (even those that didn't e.g. close roads or even lanes). At least in Edinburgh I thought attitudes had shifted. The Covid "spaces for people" consultations in Edinburgh showed I was out of touch. Even allowing for questions about just who was answering (council did try to categorise e.g. local residents) barely any of the fairly minor alterations got above 50% support IIRC. None at all were backed by businesses.
Also:
Unfortunately the attitude of the police shows that most people don't think any of this is "real crime". In fact lots of the behaviour objected to is arguably not illegal - but certainly effectively decriminalised. So unfortunately the beeb can just say "apples and oranges - you're comparing programs about criminality with programs about opinions".
This is always a tricky one. It seems to make no impact that passing cars =/= business, and that AT is actually good for most businesses (unless they're selling sofas).
My suspicion from local observation is that what the businesses are more worried about is not being able to park outside the front door of the shop, because there's also massive pushback against e.g. limiting parking to an hour which in a run of village shops is plenty.
Yup. Businesses massively overestimate car-based shopping. (As I keep posting - this belief is not limited to the UK). Which is understandable since so many trips are made by car in general. It's also very likely that genuine observed declines in trade - but due to other reasons - are being explained by reference to the obvious "bad thing" imposed by the council.
For the bigger stuff - I mean, I know that a Dodge Ram might handle a sofa, piano, 100 kg of building materials etc. Assuming you can get it up onto the truck bed. However most people I know just aren't driving back with this stuff.
I agree with you that it's as much about the convenience of the owner / workers as anything. For small businesses the idea of being able to come and go / take or drop stuff off ad-lib is often a concern.
Erm...https://twitter.com/CHAIRRDRF/status/1219291202811564032
Correct.