Would it be safe to say that the BBC, having presumably reached its quota of traffic culture war stories in the UK, has now found fertile grounds just across the Channel?
Because the murder of Paul Varry, the Parisian cyclist who was run over by a road rage SUV driver, seems to have launched a new “war on roads” in the city, according to the BBC, with “drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians trying to navigate the new balance of power”.
It’s true that the local authorities of the French capital, led by Mayor Anne Hidalgo, have done their due share in laying down improved cycling infrastructure and implementing policies that disincentivise motorists to drive in the city. However, the murder of cyclist and active travel campaigner Varry, described as “sickening” and “unprecedented”, has shown the war, if there is one, is really lopsided in terms of power dynamics.
> “We have reached the bottom”: SUV driver charged with murder after cyclist’s road rage death leaves French cycling community “deeply shaken”
BBC’s latest coverage of the incident, through a written feature as well as a Radio 4 show titled ‘Road Wars: Cycling in Paris’, hosted by the foreign correspondent Anna Holligan who rose to fame for her ‘Bike Bureau’, a mobile broadcasting studio in a cargo bike in the Netherlands, has now come under scrutiny for insinuating the same.
The summary of the show reads: “On 15th Oct 2024, a 27-year-old cyclist was killed in a bike lane in Paris. His name was Paul Varry. He was run over by a car after an argument with a driver. What happened to Paul was extreme, but it resonated with many Parisians.
“For Paris is undergoing a cycling revolution. The city has created a vast network of bike lanes, introduced new restrictions for cars. The number of cyclists has soared. But there have also been conflicts, as cars, bikes and pedestrians try to navigate the new balance of power. So is Paris’s plan working? Is this transformation the future for other major cities? Anna Holligan goes to Paris to find out.”
> “Reasonably balanced or needlessly confrontational?” New BBC Panorama episode about low-traffic neighbourhoods raises concerns over stirring culture war
Former West Midlands cycling and walking commissioner Adam Tranter posted a screenshot of the BBC’s show, captioned: “The BBC’s claim of a “war on our roads” between cyclists & drivers is exhausting.
“Cyclists are vulnerable road users, and framing it as a battle is false equivalence.
“If it were a war, one side would have assault rifles & body armour - the other, people cycling: water pistols.”
He added: “To be clear, I don’t really have an issue with the programme, Anna Holligan is a great reporter and very clearly understands the issues that face people cycling. But the constant hyperbole and framing by editors is troublesome, for me.”
One person replied to the tweet saying: “That's nonsense. How many car drivers have been killed by a bike? The death toll is only on cyclists.”
road.cc reader Rendel Harris also commented: “Doesn't seem very promising for an unbiased programme, does it? As ever, substitute ‘a gay man’ or ‘a black man’ for ‘cyclist’ , would they even think for a second of saying ‘A black man was killed after an argument. What happened to him was extreme but it resonated with many Parisians’?”
> “No war between cyclists and drivers”, say road safety campaigners, as apologetic BBC backtracks after “inappropriately” describing camera cyclist as “vigilante”
The show itself tries to take a surface-level neutral and balanced approach at the overall situation in Paris, featuring both cyclists and active travel campaigners, but as we’ve seen so many times in the past — the counterpoints are provided by disgruntled shop owners who claim they are losing business because their customers cannot drive to the city centres, as well as a very agitated and persuasive member of a motorists’ lobby group, titled ‘Ligue de Défense des Conducteurs’, translating to Drivers’ Defence League.
This is far from the first time the BBC has tested the culture war territories, framing road safety as a cyclists versus drivers versus pedestrians situation. Recently, the public broadcaster was in hot waters for the Adrian Chiles Panorama show on e-bikes, leading to outrage from both cyclists as well as the industry.
In October, there was another instance of backlash, not much dissimilar to the current Paris one, with British road safety campaigners claiming there was “no war between cyclists and drivers”, as the BBC apologised for “inappropriately” describing a camera cyclist as a “vigilante”.
Add new comment
22 comments
I thought the programme was pretty reasonable, as long as you know as much about cycling and cyclists as we do: we know that there are always anti-cyclists blaming cycling for loss of business at shops no matter how ridiculous the claim; we know that there are always claims about almost every cyclist going through red lights while the same people ignore all the drivers RLJ-ing because they think, as do the police, that's OK because everybody does it; we know that, as CoaB says, drivers have to drive because they're usually carrying fridge-freezers, or because of their hair etc. etc; we know that most anti-cyclists 'are cyclists themselves'. Most of the population of the UK doesn't know these things, and automatically infers the wrong conclusions from programmes like these which are not explicit enough. Much of the time it was like listening to, or reading UK MSM- people who can't use public transport because they like to come home after 02:00 when the Metro closes and so on. My lesson from this brave Paris experiment is that CoaB is right: if you want to increase active travel, you're going to have to ruffle the feathers of drivers, and you have to ignore their complaints. Mostly, our politicians, local councils...are not brave enough the face down the loud-mouthed, entitled...anti-cycling militia.
I hope I'm wrong - as we seem to be prepared to do anything in the UK except trouble the "hard working motorist" *.
But ... history seems to show the opposite. It's "nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" bad news for those who want change that does more than tinker around the edges.
In NL they had more, better cycle infra than the UK does now over 50 years ago. And far more people cycling. But even there the notion that they were going to reverse the policies of knocking down historic architecture to build highways, and indeed start "taming the motorist" ... there were actual riots in the streets, arguments about consultations and angry protests by shopkeepers, people tearing up cycle paths etc!
* Because of course we don't want to "penalise" people "just going about their lives". In fact there's a believe they're mostly making "vital journeys" - and of course all motoring "contributes to growth" etc. (As a reminder - some calculations have the overall economic effect of mass motoring coming out as a *cost* to us all...)
"What difference three years makes"
2020 was five years ago.
2020 and 2021 don't count, though - they didn't happen.
Ref cycling in Paris, how many commenting here have actually listened to the programme? I caught the second half on R4 yesterday, before any comment here and it came across to me as very positive about all the things that Paris are doing to get integrated transport and reduce car use.
The Paris authorities have a set agenda to make every route in the whole city safely accessible for cycling, at the cost of much of the parking and closing a lot of roads completely to motorised traffic.
Comments were made by the businesses in the area about that having too big an impact, but also that cycle use has doubled in the centre of Paris as a result in the last 12 months and how a bike is the best way to explore the city. The article title was sensationalist I accept, but would dyed in the wool UK motirists listen to an article called "Triumphant Sucess for Increased Cycle Use in Paris"? I don't think so. I reckon the BBC have done cycling a great service with this articlle and it deserves praise from the cycling community as far as I'm concerned.
It's always worth remembering that very rarely does the person who writes the article also write the headline. This applies to a lot of fairly high profile columnists who frequently have to distance themselves from headlines linked to their work. They themselves are often just as disgruntled that what they might hope was a well researched, or at least well balance and nuanced piece is reduced to a clickbait phrase.
As I said elsewhere, and having first read the article on the BBC before coming here, it didn't occur to me that the BBC wanted me to think everyone identified with angry and aggressive drivers. But as you say, a bit of ambiguity in the headline is going to attract a much wider audience, including the audience that is most in need of tuning in.
The BBC has track record in 'unspeak' and deleting the voices of minorities. Last week the BBC removed from its platform the documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”, which followed four young Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have been enduring and surviving Israel’s genocidal assault.
This is only one example of the BBC contributing to the dehumanisation of Palestinians which includes its failure to adequately platform Palestinian voices and suppression of the contemporary and historical realities of Palestinian life and Israel’s decades long violations of Palestinian rights.
The documentary itself represented one of the very few occasions where the BBC has allowed Palestinians to speak these truths and to speak for themselves, and it is shameful that the BBC has reached the point that it is now censuring Palestinian children.
The BBC engages in propaganda, in at least some topics.
"Propaganda" is in the eye of the beholder. Simple selection from all the stories in the world of what to run, and how prominently, and how long for is always going to trigger someone's spidey-senses.
(FWIW looks like at the very least the Beeb missed a very important fact concerning that particular documentary. That should at least have prompted a lot more investigation - even though they just got this from a "respected external production company". But that conflict is an exemplar of "no neutral position" anyway - it's existential "for us or against us" on both sides).
I just note they don't often run "propaganda" on cycling *, and it's generally negative when they do...
* Sports cycling - that's OK on the few times it becomes prominent e.g. Tour of Britain, Olympics. Other mentions? Reflecting the prevalence of this in the UK (almost none compared to walking, driving, public transport) and the fact that this is normally in general public discourse only as a source of irritation? You could say they're playing it very impartially! You could ...
"What happened to Paul was extreme, but it resonated with many Parisians."
Jesus fucking Christ. Really, BBC?
That was my reaction too on another thread but actually, as mdavidford pointed out, it's probably intended to mean "the experience of being aggressed by a driver resonated with many Parisian cyclists" rather than "the idea of attacking a cyclist resonated with many Parisian drivers".
My initial interpretation, having read the article on the BBC before reading about it here, was that it resonated with Parisian cyclists. I think the framing on here is often quite sensationalist and designed to encourage enagement by provoking anger.
It could be some aggressive and agnry drivers would identify with the drivers when they see that headline, but I think it's a bad faith take for us to presume the BBC expected their readers/listeners to take the side of the aggressor. At worst, it was an oversight by the BBC headline writer to have too high an opinion of British listeners (or awareness of other headlines) that they'd not automatically take the side of the victim.
Really, really poor journalism, I thought. Complete lack of clarity.
"... I don’t see anything battered and fried, although I’d completely expect him to take a couple deep-fried Mars bars in his back pocket on rides."
Typical xenophobic pish.
Bit judgy...
I think they must be referring to the fact that he left the apostrophe out of "my father Brian Lamberts record"?
I saw that BBC story and thought it was odd and disturbiung.
There is no war - except the one they falsely try to create.
Seems it's pretty common for those with power to start laying into others, then say "six of one..." or even "they started it"...
"War" makes a nice headline but "massacre" would be more appropriate. Of course, both are unhelpful except for sloganeering. A more accurate and thoroughly boring headline might be "We're increasingly noticing the negative effects of a series of often incremental changes - plus some definite decisions - over the course of several generations ..." followed by a bunch of statistics, or worse, graphs...
Eburt? Paging eburt??
eburt is out of the office. It's sunny here.
So, did Chris Froom hit the optical illusion and come off his bike?
Nope - clearly the whole thing was an optical illusion and he's living it up on a party island somewhere…