Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

BBC R4 Podcast - Four Thought; War on 2 Wheels

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000llw4

Interesting 'take' on why motorists hate cyclists; have a listen, only 15min long

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

32 comments

Avatar
Tom_77 | 3 years ago
2 likes

Why drivers hate cyclists:

a) Drivers hate anything that's in front of them that's moving slower than they are.

This is the main reason drivers hate cyclists, they hate being inconvenienced however trivially. Drivers hate caravans and tractors for the same reason, and also "Sunday Drivers" and Learners.

 

b) Cyclists are perceived as smug and self-righteous.

Cycling is the transport equivalent of being Vegan. Thinking you're better than other people just because you're not killing the planet every time you go to work or pop to the shops.

 

c) Drivers pay for the roads and should have sole use of them.

This is a bit of a strange one given that roads are mostly paid for by Income Tax, Council Tax and VAT. Maybe this could be cleared up with an advert on the side of a bus.

 

If I can pad the above points out to a semi-coherent 15 minute rant do you think they'll let me on the radio?

Avatar
pockstone replied to Tom_77 | 3 years ago
2 likes

You disqualified yourself with 'semi-coherent'. Aim for another 25% less coherent* and you may be in with a shot.

(* Broadcasters other than Radio 4 may have lower coherence thresholds.)

Avatar
brooksby replied to Tom_77 | 3 years ago
0 likes

Tom_77 wrote:

a) Drivers hate anything that's in front of them that's moving slower than they are.

This is the main reason drivers hate cyclists, they hate being inconvenienced however trivially. Drivers hate caravans and tractors for the same reason, and also "Sunday Drivers" and Learners.

This is true.  All currently licenced drivers believe that they arrived out of the womb already having all of the necessary motoring skills hard-wired, so that they never ever actually had to learn to drive...

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

I listened to this, and the podcast, and it is billed as thought provoking, but the only thoughts it roused in me were "Why does the BBC hate cyclists?" and "Who the hell commissioned this crap?"  The first answered the second.

I listen quite lot to R4, and for the past thirty years I've been asking them to have a prog about cycling, because they seem to have one about other means of transport.  We finally get one and it is bizarre rubbish.  They could have had one about the incredible benefits of cycling, individual, communal and global, but no, we get the assumptions of a motorcycling journalist.

Avatar
David9694 replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
0 likes

Does the BBC employ any cycling journalists?  They did according to W1A.

Not sure if cycling could ever make good radio. Maybe for balance one of The Archers could close pass a Cyclist pulling a sheep trailer and they could have an altercation about it; I always think it's the fissure that might unravel a marriage, e.g. when you suddenly see a really ugly side in your partner. 

Road Transport is essentially boring - Top Gear was humdrum in its early guise - you have to make it sound interesting, usually by making it confrontational, or in the case of wretched Top Gear, not really about domestic cars at all. "Now over to Steve, who's got a run-down of the new Orion's safety features..." yawn.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
0 likes

Wasn't Shula the village bicycle ?

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 years ago
10 likes

The other thing I thought they got completely wrong was the whole "being aggressive" when in fact it is being assertive. I will position myself to deter overtakes at pinchpoints, I'll ride primary to stop mgifs joining a stationary line of traffic or the classic bully boy tactics. Had that on Monday, some bloke in his 60s felt that since he was in a car, it was ok to drive continuously on the wrong side of the road to over take parked cars, despite 3 obvious places to pull in.

I tended up with both of us statonary on my side of the road with him just past a space where 2 cars could have parked. So I shouted "that's where you should have pulled in to let me by" but of course might is right and I should have doffed my cap.

I will admit to being aggressive...when some twunt tries to put my life in danger because they can't wait a few seconds or are just a shit driver who can't plan beyond the end of their bonnet.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

Honestly, I must have missed the part about "being aggressive". Was it there? I didn't hear the word aggressive.

Avatar
Achtervolger replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
2 likes

Yes, I think I can second Hirsute on this one - unless I've mis-remembered the exact wording, I believe the gentleman who introduced the speaker, and interviewed her at the end, suggested that (something along the lines of...) because many of these quick cyclists were go-getting businessmen (going back to an earlier point about The Economist calling cycling "the new golf"), they naturally rode in an egotistical and aggressive manner. To be fair, and credit where it's due, the travel journalist did point out that such riding could be fairly called 'assertive', and was exactly how she was taught to ride a motorcycle - ie, taking primary road position, etc.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
0 likes

Just checked and it was 'Arrogance' and 'Attitude'  -  from 16:40

Also disappointed when they talked about cyclists having no training or licence that one of them didn't say 80-85% of cyclists are drivers.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

Nope.

"Confidence" and "a certain arrogance" were mentioned there. So firstly, commentary by someone else. Secondly, not actually "being aggressive".

As to your disappointment regarding the no training or licence for cyclists, it is to be assumed they meant for cycling, not driving. The woman made a strong pitch against any suggestion that these obstacles should be placed in the way of cycling, and went on to say that the duty of care was very much upon motorists. I think that is far stronger than conceding the point by suggesting that some cyclists having a driving licence is enough.

Avatar
Achtervolger replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
0 likes

Ah, so 'arrogance' rather than aggressive, fair enough. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
0 likes

I thought it was clear I had corrected it to 'Arrogance' and 'Attitude'.

I picked up on the licence thing because it seemed to suggest cyclists had no appreciation of roadcraft and laws as they did not need a licence. I think it is as important to demonstrate these have been acquired in another manner.

Avatar
Achtervolger replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
5 likes

Although to look at your point from a different angle, it doesn't seem as if acquiring a driving license gives a sigificant proportion of motorists any appreciation of road craft and law anyhow.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes
hirsute wrote:

I thought it was clear I had corrected it to 'Arrogance' and 'Attitude'

You did, but our comments crossed (see the timings). Didn't actually hear "Attitude" mentioned however.

But regardless of the exact words, they were from the mouth of the host, not the speaker, who then went on to gently qualify his comment by making exactly the same points as you do about primary positioning etc.

The host was only suggesting that the qualities of confidence and a certain arrogance might be required to assert their right to the road in the face of motorist hegemony. So really, not so different to what you say.

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 years ago
6 likes

When I played rugby, I wore rugby kit;  basketball, basketball kit; running, running kit (well my wife does); cricket, cricket kit; croquet tournaments, croquet kit (and don't get me started on Hurlingham dress rules). Even if I go kayaking, I'll wear a technical top (the horror) - that must put off people in their inflatable dingies.

Oddly enough, when I'm cycling, I wear cycling clothes - why would I want to wear out trousers or get oil over them ?

According to the programme, since I wear gloves, I'm some sort of elitest and there was me thinking they are handy if I come off or the chain comes off.

On the one hand cycling is elitest due to aero bikes and kit and on the other cycling is really accessible - just look at the take up of hire bikes in cities. Oh, so those people aren't put off by others riding in suitable attire for a longer, faster trip.

I'm not sure what the programme was trying to tell us, but shit infrastructure and crap drivers put people off more than anything else.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
5 likes

It would be interesting to get the views of a proper behavioural psychologist instead of the imaginings of a journalist.

I don't think the programme was saying it was wrong to wear the proper gear, more that because that gear sets cyclist apart it triggers an adverse reaction in some drivers. Us/them stuff.

I guess it is something like being picked on walking down the road, just because you happen to be in Eton school uniform and straw boater.

I think there is also something to do with drivers being in cars. It even turns mild mannered labradors into snarling rottweilers if you are ever foolish enough to stick your hand through the open window.

None of the other sports you mention bring you into contention with motorists.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
4 likes

"None of the other sports you mention bring you into contention with motorists."

Nail. Head.

Avatar
Achtervolger replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
1 like

I think that my interpretation may be slightly less charitable - it did seem to me that Lois Pryce was blaming 'sport' cyclists for ruining it for everyone else, and for her dressing up in cycling-specific clothing was part and parcel of being one of those cyclists. She directly compared such cyclists to Hell's Angels bikers, who she felt had spoilt motorcycling for everyone else. TBH, I think she may never have really had me (or anyone else on this forum?) with her opening point, which the rest of her spiel flowed from, that motorcyclists overall have a bed reputation in this country. This isn't something I've ever felt, but perhaps this comes from myself having always been a bicycle rider, and having family members and friends who've ridden motorbikes. I've certainly had far fewer close passes from motorcyclists, though perhaps that's simply because they're smaller and there are fewer of them.

Avatar
Awavey replied to Achtervolger | 3 years ago
2 likes

which didnt make sense because hells angels bikers have never really been a big thing in the UK, its much more an American pop culture reference here rather than a movement of ne'er do well bikers, and the mods/rockers which was the other angle she tried to shove motorbikes in with happened nearly 60 years ago, it had died out pretty much by the time the 70s had started.

fwiw I find Im rarely overtaken well by motorcyclists, at least some car drivers get it right sometimes,  so that always disappoints me as I expect more from people on two wheels to understand road positions better, but

Avatar
Tom_77 | 3 years ago
1 like

This is a lot shorter and more entertaining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

(from Monkey Dust)

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
2 likes

"War on 2 wheels"

Having listened, I'm extremely doubtful that was the title of the piece given to it by the author.

She raises a few interesting points about cycling becoming seen as an elitist hobby rather than accessible, practical, urban transport for the masses but it's really just a personal view monolog without much substance.

My personal experience is that when commuting in work clothes, generally no helmet, I have a higher incidence of negligent driving close calls. When out for recreation in unashamed MAMIL mode there is a higher incidence of out and out aggression from a small number of motorists.

Avatar
Achtervolger replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
2 likes

Indeed, I think it's in the journalistic style guide that all cycling pieces must have the word 'war' in the title. It seemed like an intriguing mix of about 50/50 insight/cobblers. Though overall, unfortunately, my take was that the speaker's main point was that 'sport' cyclists are to blame for everyone hating all cyclists, which seems a bit unfair, to say the least.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Achtervolger | 3 years ago
4 likes

Quite - from listening to this you might think that 'sport' cyclists didn't exist elsewhere in Europe, rather than them still existing, but just being significantly outnumbered by utility cyclists.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
3 likes

That's the part I found puzzling. Sure, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, you get loads of people in everyday clothing pottering about on 'Dutch' bicycles - which we lack in the UK, because we lack their infrastructure and regulations.

But, in addition, the continentals also have their "lycra clad", the club cyclists, sports cyclists, etc. Obviously they are not the ones pootling around city centre squares mixing it with promenading pedestrians. They are out doing their Strava stuff batting along the roads. And here's the bit she didn't explain - how come they are tolerated there in a way we are not here.

My take is that (certainly in France) having a greater identification with and affinity for the various Tour de [country] events, they are far more tolerant of those inspired so to cycle themselves.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
6 likes

It's odd, I cannot think of any other sport or exercise based recreational activity where normal members of the public taking part get criticised for wearing appropriate sports clothing. Surely it would be far more reasonable to question the wardrobe choices of the morbidly obese, inactive sofa slug wearing a footie shirt or sports trainers?

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
8 likes

Surely you've heard all those drivers shouting at runners "ooh, look at you with your technical top, garmin forerunner 945 and Asics Gel-Kayano 27 for your over pronation. Who do you think you are ? Roger Black?"

"And you aren't using your glutes enough"

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Achtervolger | 3 years ago
1 like
Achtervolger wrote:

unfortunately, my take was that the speaker's main point was that 'sport' cyclists are to blame for everyone hating all cyclists, which seems a bit unfair, to say the least.

She did sail perhaps too close to the wind there, suggesting that we ought to follow her example (wear civvies) instead to fix the problem etc. But I took her point to be not so much "blame" as "reason for", and not a valid reason at that. If you look at any of the "isms" in society, there is usually a distinct physical appearance and often group identity or shared culture. It might be as simple as being picked on at school for having ginger hair. Nobody is suggesting it is the fault of gingers that they are picked on for having ginger hair. Having ginger hair is what leads to it in so far as if they were not ginger it would not happen. But the blame lies squarely with those who pick on them.

Avatar
Awavey | 3 years ago
3 likes

not convinced myself, it sounded to me like the classic journalist picks a reason at random first, forms an argument to prove it and then just doubles down through the whole piece thus proving they were right,which seems to happen alot in cycling related articles.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Awavey | 3 years ago
0 likes

Awavey wrote:

not convinced myself, it sounded to me like the classic journalist picks a reason at random first, forms an argument to prove it and then just doubles down through the whole piece thus proving they were right,which seems to happen alot in cycling related articles.

I did email her and asked what the brief was; no reply.

Pages

Latest Comments