"There's space and a feeling it's safe": New cycling roundabout impresses drivers and cyclists, weeks after furious locals claimed "nightmare" project is wasting taxes

There's a programme on Radio 4 today at 13.30 entitled "Road Wars: Cycling in Paris". This is part of the text from BBC Sounds describing the programme:

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. 

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"?

Thanks, I'll give it a listen.

EDIT: Well, that was slightly strange, and I'm sure I've heard that presenter on the World Service being rather more positive about cycling.  Very little mention of the benefits, lots from people opposed who were not challenged, and a focus on the dangers, ironically  all from cars, but that was never pointed out.  I'll listen to it again, but it wasn't very impressive.

Better than Not as bad as Panorama, but still nowhere near what it could have been.

While you're on BBC Sounds, you could download the play Pilgrims - a hilarious classic of the genre where the playwriter clearly knows nothing, beyond I'm a cyclist myself, of the ostensible topic- in this case it's cycle touring, although the hidden agenda is romance

Yes, I felt it lived down to the expectations the description had provided.

Agreed, but ... perhaps we should expect this. To a first approximation "news" is "bad news" - at least for others. Like much human story-telling what makes it salient to people is the conflict.

chrisonabike wrote:

Agreed, but ... perhaps we should expect this. To a first approximation "news" is "bad news" - at least for others. Like much human story-telling what makes it salient to people is the conflict.

But it is the BBC's sworn duty to inform and educate the public, not to make everything "news".  They've had hundreds, if not thousands of articles about electric cars without descending to sensationalism.

Yes... and they're a *bit* insulated from the "must grab attention" imperative

... but they are still reliant on the government keeping them in post (via maintaining the licence fee).

And most folks would see "bikes are perfectly normal transport - and we could have more / pethaps less driving" as partisan / activism?

The trail article on the website leans more on him having been a cycling activist, rather than just a cyclist, and the contrast between what he was campaigning fire against what happened.

Also, the use of the 'resonated with' phrase there is more unambiguously saying that it resonated with those trying to cycle and facing similar threats every day. In that context, I kind of can see an incident in which the colour of someone's skin may have been a factor in their being" the receiving end of violence might be reported as 'resonating with' others who face the threat of similar violence.

Actually I think you're right there, I misread it as resonated with anti-cycling Parisians rather than cyclists. The programme itself though was definitely more focussed on the antis.

Is the issue in "car" / "active travel" stories in general 1) explaining why the status quo is a problem - when people see this as "the way things are" / no alternative - or even identify with the activity
2) ... and that those causing the problem (collectively) already feel they're hard-done by - so maybe primed to see any challenge to this view as a personal attack?

It's all tricky because how do you square that? Collectively we have gone all-in on a really problematic transport mode * - but of course for individuals they didn't set the system up. And if anything they will see motoring as a source of wealth, or social empowerment. A swiss-army-knife for transport issues (our tools shape our thinking).

And - if you're somewhere there isn't lots of congestion you can look around and say "what's the problem"?

And if there is - you'll see the solution as "remove the congestion (more space for motoring)".

*space- and resource- inefficient, suppresses other modes, dangerous and damaging, polluting, unhealthy...

It offers some left-hook prevention (good) and they have put some physical dividers in at the entrances / exits (also good) - but not everywhere.  That is also less good in combination with cycle lanes not separate cycle paths leading into the roundabout.

Wonder if the actual road space at the centre is perhaps a little wide?  (Dutch one I posted also has a fair bit of space there, but should have "adverse camber" which I'm not sure is in the UK design?