Review: Panorama – Road Rage: Cars v Bikes

I think this is the survey they quoted in the programme https://yonderconsulting.com/poll/cycling-on-public-highways/

I think the biggest issue was surrounding marketing (+ the title).

The show itself was fairly good, though never managed to dig into anything because 28 min really isn't long enough (could have spent that on basically any of the segments easily)

But there was a huge push on stats based on a survey that EXPLICITLY isn't representative (and doesn't try to be). It is deliberately intended to collect the views of a self selecting section of the population. Yet has been presented as 'x% of motorists think'. As far as I can find out it was from a survey from the AA to determine a combination of what should we be telling our members to make them better/safer drivers (i.e. where do they have a significant lack of knowledge of the rules) and what do our members want our organisation to campaign for. Given it was run by a lobbying firm, not a polling firm it is also plausible that it intentionally had leading questions (so that the people paying for it can 'prove' they are doing what the members want...)

The other comment I would make is you have a semi random selection of motorists compared to cyclists or family members, depending on accident survival, with an implication that these two groups views should have completely even weighting.

Do think section on Holburn Gyratory was good but could easily have had 30 min on its own for proper full discussion; View appeared to be reasonable, somewhat neutral van/hgv driver basically complaining that we need infra because what we have is confusing; While I might disagree with some of what they said (complaining that cyclist behaviour was wrong and unpredictable when I would expect cars to do exactly the same things) the basic underlying argument was driving here is stressful and difficult with too much going on, so reallocating space for good dedicated infra is a necessary safety change; any risk in extra delays from reduced space for cars being easily balanced out by driving being made that much less stressful/difficult before you even start on safety benefits.

Pointless watching it, but likewise let me get my popcorn for the comments here.

I watched it on old-skool broadcast television last night.  Not terribly impressed - it reminded me of that Countryfile section about cycling a few weeks ago.

Why do so many of these programmes seem to work from the premise that "everybody hates cyclists and knows they should not be on the roads but here's a few small arguments as to why they should (grudgingly) be allowed"?

There were all the video clips that they'd got from road.cc but there was no further discussion of any of it, except for "hit by a car on a mini roundabout" guy. 

Why no discussion (balanced discussion, even) on why so many motorists find it acceptable to hare past a cyclist without even crossing the centre line (FFS it happened to the presenter while he was speaking to camera!) or why HGVs are responsible for so many deaths.

They looked at Holborn Gyratory and there was no real discussion of it other than "Oh, wow, look at those cyclists haring about all over the place".

Kensington High Street - no chat to the council?  Just a taxi driver saying they had to remove the cycle lane because it was causing congestion.  While sitting in a car waiting in congestion.

No comment from the presenter to that van driver complaining that no cyclists were using the bus lane that was blocked with buses waiting at bus stops...

And the vox pops from pram lady and van driver - and f-ing Rob f-ing Liddle - made me want to punch the television screen 

Edit: And one more thing - was it me or was the presenter really not comfortable at all riding in actual urban traffic...?

Edit2: And another one - they kept saying how SO MUCH MONEY had been spent on cycle schemes, but didn't put that into context.  It's all very well saying that £Xmillion were spent on cycle schemes in Leicester, but I bet that amount wouldn't even buy one motorway junction refurbishment...

Mixed feelings. It was much better than previous programmes about cycling, although that's a very low bar to clear.

I think the programme tried to cover too much in too little time. It would have been better to focus on one or two aspects in more detail. I don't think Rod Liddle's contribution added anything and I was surprised that there was no input from the police.

sorry, but couldn't help extracting a couple of the sillier vox pops for posterity...

- cyclists are dangerous because cars overtake when it's dangerous
- cyclists are just generally wrong and worthy of hate, especially if you have a pushchair!

I actually thought the reporter gave a balanced a view as he could given the short time and the obvious bias from a large % of the audience.
Hopefully this will widen the debate that we are actually human beings riding bikes with lives and families. Something has to be done to change the narrative from Car V Cyclist so I thought to actually get prime air time on BBC 1 was a great achievement.

I dont know if its the style of the programme, or the way the content was presented, but I just thought it was poor from the outset, got worse in the middle, started to pick up with a bit more of the detail in London/CyclingMikey stuff but then ended flatter than a tyre using sealant. Im not sure what the takeaway for the average viewer of it would be really.

though it would probably be something like the government are spending billions of our money on cycling, cyclists get angry about somethings on the road, but they wear lycra so its ok not to like them.

I know 28mins isnt alot of time to go indepth on a topic such as this, but it felt like the reporter started up so many different threads about various things, but never actually closed them out, just left them hanging as they quickly moved on and had no over arching conclusion other than so yeah the governments cycling plan isnt going to work...roll credits.

I think the worst bit about this programme, is the reporting of it on the main news. In tonights news at six we had:

It costs too much and many don't want it:
"The government is spending BILLIONS to encourage people to cycle rather than drive BUT a third of motorists want cyclists BANNED from the roads altogether!"

It's dangerous:
"Twentyfour percent also admit to driving deliberately too close to cyclists."

It's unfair:
Changes to the highway code mean cyclists now have priority over cars AND are allowed to cycle in the middle of the lane to make themselves more visible.

Reinforcing us & them mentality:
We now report on the sometimes difficult relationship between drivers and cyclists sharing our roads.

These are not collisions:
Beware this report starts with ACCIDENTS!"

Could have done with Inspector Kev (of this parish), Andy Cox, Mark Hodson commenting.

What was with the pixelating of the camera timestamp and cycliq decal ?

Could have mentioned how many cyclists are drivers and how many of them are insured.

Just watched it on iPlayer. Once you get past the title it's better (i.e. more balanced) than I had feared to be honest, although I can't see it swaying many minds or changing many attitudes. A few cringeworthy moments, from seeing again some of the NMOTD videos from these very pages, to hearing some of the comments from drivists, and then even some of the narration by the mostly well intentioned presenter. I just wish there was far less (or even better; zero!) input from that cretin Rod Liddle.

Not sure why you give the programme that title.  I didn't watch because I expected it to be all cabbies and other professional drivers banging on about red lights/road tax/yadda yadda yadda.  Or maybe they chose that title to get those kind of people watching and then hit them with what they weren't expecting?

Simon MacMichael wrote:

"it failed to highlight that the vast majority of adult cyclists also hold a driving licence."

Let's not feed the idea that a driving licence is a road licence.