Panorama's 'Road Rage: Cars v Bikes' reaches the masses... with painfully predictable outcome (+ anti-cycling bingo tally); Quintana loses appeal against Tour DQ; View from the Netherlands; Pogačar v Vingegaard... on FIFA + more on the live blog

Just about everything about the programme was wrong. Start with the journo presenting it - not a transport specialist, or a correspondent with expertise in space and movement, but a tepid generalist with a background in crime and clickbait. Yes, he's a cyclist, but that's not enough when there are real transport correspondents out there.

Then there's the choice of talking heads. Rod Liddle? The man is a washed up failure, unwelcome in the respectable or selfrespecting media because of his track record of joking about his potential penchant for child sexual abuse, misogyny, his racism and, as the icing on the cake, using piano wire against cyclists. 

Then, as we'll all point out, there's the methodology, framing the debate via the prism of a survey of a self selected panel of motorists who were offered an incentive to participate. If you read this, Richard Bilton, there aren't degrees of quality for a survey. It's either reliable (because of methodology and analysis applied) or it's not, and reputable journalists don't use unreliable surveys.

If this was on Gbeebies, or Channel 5, you'd dismiss it out of hand as just another example of lowest common denominator TV, but this was publicly funded by a channel and programme strand that are supposed to exemplars of quality.

I dont think you have to be a transport specialist to present it, the idea is surely you have those as your talking heads, not the likes of Rod Liddle who Ill have to listen to the podcast to hear why they picked him, its like literally oh we got him because the producer still has his mobile phone number from his R4 days.

you just need a bit of passion for the topic and to have a clear story you are telling, not just a collection of random clips and interviews. How does Cycling Mikeys bit fit in with the guy in Ashby de la Zouche, or the two widows, whats the narrative you are telling/investigating for the audience, and the conclusion they should be taking away from it.

It was all kind of trying to hard to be so "balanced" it never concluded anything, I dont know if thats common for Panorama these days I stopped watching it decades ago...probably because I thought it had gone too much like this.

Also why wasnt Jeremy Vine doing this, I thought he was on the Panorama team as thats what got him into trouble as being part of the "news team" for being impartial on the Chiswick bike lane stuff.

Awavey wrote:

Also why wasnt Jeremy Vine doing this, I thought he was on the Panorama team as thats what got him into trouble as being part of the "news team" for being impartial on the Chiswick bike lane stuff.

He quit Panorama in 2015; he got a mild telling off this year for breaching impartiality when facing down a group of Facebook anti-Chiswick-LTN bullies, but that was related to his role as a Radio 2 presenter.

I haven't watched it (I doubt it'll be good for my blood pressure), but it does seem that they've missed a very good opportunity to dispel some long-standing cycling myths. Seeing as the "trailer" points out that 28% of motorists don't view cyclists as equal partners on the road, that 33% don't think cyclists should be on the road at all, and most of the replies on Twitter seem to start with some form of "iF cYclIsTS aCTuAllY PaID RoAD tAx!", I can't help but think that the BBC could have devoted at least some of the runtime setting the record straight on some topics.

I don't necessarily see it as the role of this programme to "improve" the public, rather I would assume it was designed to throw light on the current state of affairs and hence inform the debate. Given that, I don't think they would be expected to challenge views such as "iF cYclIsTS aCTuAllY PaID RoAD tAx!", only to accurately describe their prevalence.

The issue I have with their "statistics" is that all they do is promulgate prejudiced views, feeding the perception that they hold currency and legitimacy. That then blows the whole debate off course, whilst giving succour to those who hold those views.

The light entertainment show "Pointless" has more statistical rigour than this Panorama show, and I think it's title is a knowing nod even to their own worthlessness.

Sriracha wrote:

I don't necessarily see it as the role of this programme to "improve" the public, rather I would assume it was designed to throw light on the current state of affairs and hence inform the debate.

I get where you're coming from, but as a "factual" news program if they have (and again, I didn't watch it, but going from the bingo card above) given airtime to a commenter who has said that cyclists don't pay for the roads, only cars do, or that cyclists cause congestion/pollution, I do believe that it is their responsibiliy to point out that these statements are not factually accurate - like they'd fact-check a political debate.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I haven't watched it (I doubt it'll be good for my blood pressure), but it does seem that they've missed a very good opportunity to dispel some long-standing cycling myths.... I can't help but think that the BBC could have devoted at least some of the runtime setting the record straight on some topics.

Yes, but that wouldn't be "balanced", would it?  The BBC would be criticised for woke-left-green bias if they actually did that.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I haven't watched it (I doubt it'll be good for my blood pressure), but it does seem that they've missed a very good opportunity to dispel some long-standing cycling myths. Seeing as the "trailer" points out that 28% of motorists don't view cyclists as equal partners on the road, that 33% don't think cyclists should be on the road at all, and most of the replies on Twitter seem to start with some form of "iF cYclIsTS aCTuAllY PaID RoAD tAx!", I can't help but think that the BBC could have devoted at least some of the runtime setting the record straight on some topics.

I think the oppourtunity the BBC missed, was when they say "28 % (motorists) don't think of us as equals" and " 33% we shouldn't be on the road", should have said, "72% think of us as equals" and "67% think we should be on the road". Putting the numbers that way makes it positive for cycling and  then poses the question about a minority of poor drivers. We always seem to be defending cyclings position when it's the aggressive car drivers that should be 'trying' to defend theirs.

I was 4mins in,even before Rod Liddle had turned up and I was ready to switch it off.

Sriracha wrote:

Is there nothing in the BBC Charter that prohibits them peddling lies? Knowingly pursuing discredited statistical methodologies and then using the results to frame the debate, in a flagship factual programme, is criminal. I'm sick of hearing presenters trot out the line, "Obviously this isn't a scientific survey, but our results suggest..." They might as well scribe a range of opinions on coloured cards, ask a five year old to pick their favourite colour, then use the result to inform the debate.

'Balance' is prioritised over facts and evidence.

Anything which is presented as a "them vs us" football-style confrontation is going to be bad for cyclists's safety, regardless of the actual program content, as it gets people's blood pressure up. If you are relieved at the content, you can guarantee that someone with the opposing view is angry, as it is all subjective.

I have never hear of Rod Liddle, but I think he has as much right to speak as anyone else on the subject. There are no experts on this, and pointing to Europe is not a good model because these are the low growth economies falling behind the rest of the world. Why copy this failure, correct?

Rakia wrote:

I have never hear of Rod Liddle, but I think he has as much right to speak as anyone else on the subject. 

If you knew anything about him you would not think that. But hey, don't let ignorance stop you pronouncing on the world.

.

I love free speach, me.

.

But only if you agree with me. Obvs.

.

Since you believe in Free Speech take some time to reply this this repeated request.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-21-october-2022-296747

In that thread you replied to be with

"Please, please, please. Do not let inconvenient facts get in the way of blind leftie ranting."

Are you going to explain this comment as no one in the thread even mentioned anything left wing.

Oh and can you reconcile your claim above of

"I love free speach, me."

with

" Do not let inconvenient facts get in the way of blind leftie ranting."

Did you not complain the other day that the CEO was condescending to you. Wasn't that his Free "Speach" at play? And surely it is Millers free "speach" that you are not picking up on?

https://road.cc/content/news/214626-sunday-times-rod-liddle-wasnt-condon...

https://road.cc/content/news/liddle-tempting-use-piano-wire-against-cycl...

And that's just in the realm of cycling...

Then we get onto 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle#Later_print_journalism

They are just the latest troll to (re)join road.cc

There are no experts on this, and pointing to Europe is not a good model because these are the low growth economies falling behind the rest of the world. Why copy this failure, correct?

You're Liz Truss and I claim my £5. Sorry it didn't work out.

(By the way most European countries have higher growth than the UK).

Rakia wrote:

Anything which is presented as a "them vs us" football-style confrontation is going to be bad for cyclists's safety, regardless of the actual program content, as it gets people's blood pressure up.

I don't disagree with this. The program should have been lead by facts and statistics, and greivences and veiws (from both sides) should have been fact-checked. Allowing myths to be perpetuated does nobody any favours.

Rakia wrote:

There are no experts on this, and pointing to Europe is not a good model because these are the low growth economies falling behind the rest of the world. Why copy this failure, correct?

No, not correct. This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. What has a country's road safety/active-travel record got to do with it's economic growth? Are you actually suggesting that we copy (for example) India's approach to road safety because they're one of the fastest growing economies? Because they have the most dangerous/unsafe roads in the world and copying them would be, objectively, stupid as fuck.

And what do you mean "there are no experts on this"? What, active-travel? Road safety? Of course there are!

Brief benefit of the doubt that you're not just having another happy day of provoking people "because"... I also disapprove of "them vs. us" narratives.  However this is everywhere * - probably because it makes for "salient storytelling" (same as with bed-time stories for kids) and the competition for public attention now is fierce.  Unfortunately I think the "war on the roads" stereotype (it's actually the tail-end of a massacre) is already widely circulating so although further reinforcement is unwelcome it's not going to change much.

"All subjective" - hmm... you don't believe that there is really a world out there?  Are there no such thing as shared verifiable facts?  Or maybe that is irrelevant as opinion is what we run on?  "No experts" - are you Michael Gove?

There are in fact experts in this area (here's one - and some more!) and they broadly agree.  Differences in how we approach our public space design aren't really due to factual disagreements.  The key is where we (our political and bureaucractic systems) place the priorities.  In the UK these are explicitly to maximise capacity for motor traffic and then look at maintaining a level of safety while doing that.  This leads to "keep the pedestrians out of the carriageway" and putting a minimal fraction of the road budget into walking, cycling (or indeed disabled access).  That's very common in many countries.  A few have started to move in a different direction however.

I'm not at all clear about what "pointing to Europe is not a good model because these are the low growth economies falling behind the rest of the world" means.  Anyway, let's watch some of them doing so - it looks good to me:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/what-defines-dutch-cycling-2/

Copenhagen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyrTx9SXkVI

Seville: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz20rAJ7oIg

* Programs looking at the facts of the matter are rather niche and normally limited to special interest channels e.g. history and education.  Even then to spice those up we increasingly like to frame the narrative around personal conflict.  Even worse there are few examples where the reasons for genuine disagreement are properly examined.  Possibly due to the notion that "it's all relative".  It seems our broadcasters feel that there's a general lack of trust so we've lost the ability to ignore some red-faced man (it very often is) shouting in the internet market square saying e.g. that gravity is just a lie made up by the deep state.

Rakia wrote:

I have never hear of Rod Liddle, but I think he has as much right to speak as anyone else on the subject. There are no experts on this, and pointing to Europe is not a good model because these are the low growth economies falling behind the rest of the world.

Has this spread from the US to wherever Rakia lives?

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

- Isaac Asimov

Sriracha wrote:

Is there nothing in the BBC Charter that prohibits them peddling lies?

Yes, and in their Editorial Guidelines too, but such trifling rules are ignored.  For instance, they have been running a long term propaganda campaign about helmets for something like 40 years, and endless complaints change nothing.