Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Review: Panorama – Road Rage: Cars v Bikes

A curious title for a programme that highlights the dangers cyclists face every day

Panorama – Road Rage: Cars v Bikes is a curious title for a TV programme that if anything showed just how vulnerable people riding bikes are with motorists who overtake them too closely; or failed to see them altogether, as in one case highlighted in the episode that we reported on at the time, with a driver going the wrong way through a roundabout catapulting a cyclist and his bike through the air.

When this Panorama episode was first trailed last month – its transmission was delayed due to events in Westminster taking over the current affairs agenda – the title had many Twitter users raise concerns about how cyclists would be depicted in the programme, suggesting a similarly divisive approach to that used in previous takes on the subject.

The most notorious of those are Channel 5’s Cyclists: Scourge Of The Streets? from 2019, or the BBC’s own War on Britain’s Roads, aired back in 2012, both of which took a very one-sided approach and were roundly criticised by cycling campaigners, while providing ammunition for those who see all people on bikes as at best a nuisance and at worst, a bunch of law-breakers who have no place on the roads.

This latest programme, however, takes a very different approach, not least because it is presented by a journalist, Richard Bilton, who rides a bike himself, and follows him on a journey from his home in North Yorkshire down to London.

> 'Road Rage' on BBC Panorama: Fuelling the fire or raising awareness? We interview the presenter on the road.cc podcast  

On the way, he stops off to talk to people including Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, and Andy Salkeld, cycling lead at Leicester City Council, which is transforming the East Midlands city for cyclists including through building segregated infrastructure.

We also hear from Jack Schofield, the cyclist hurled into the air by the driver on a roundabout in Leicestershire whom we mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, who returns to the scene of that crash, plus Mike van Erp – CyclingMikey – who uses action cameras to catch law-breaking drivers, particularly in London’s Royal Parks.

The most poignant segment of the programme focuses on the widows of cyclists Andy Coles and Damien Natale, killed by a driver on the A40 in Buckinghamshire in June 2020, who feel failed by the criminal justice system after the motorist, who admitted causing the death of their husbands through careless driving, received no more than a suspended sentence.

Bilton himself suffers a few close passes during his pieces to camera, and the programme also includes numerous clips featured in our Near Miss of the Day series and starkly shows the danger drivers pose to cyclists on a daily basis. The journalist highlighting that each week, two cyclists on average lose their lives on Britain’s roads.

There are some jarring notes, though – survey findings, for example, that found that a third of drivers don’t want cyclists on the road at all, and the appearance, for the sake of ‘balance’ presumably – of Spectator columnist and former BBC producer Rod Liddle, who two years ago said he found it “tempting” to stretch piano wire across roads used by cyclists.

He stopped short of repeating that, and nowadays it’s apparently just five per cent of people on bikes he has issues with, although he does believe that “some form of registration” of bike riders is needed. Still, at least we didn’t get Mr Loophole.

Those featured making the case for safe cycling infrastructure were largely people working full-time in the field, such as Dollimore and Salkeld, who have developed a clear understanding of the benefits to individuals and society of reducing car dependency and making it easier for people to choose cycling and walking for certain journeys.

Besides Liddle, however, contrasting voices were more of the person-in-the-street variety – a market stall holder in Leicester, for instance, who took Bilton on a tour of the city in her van to highlight her belief that the new cycling infrastructure wasn’t being used. If Salkeld was approached to give the city’s own figures on actual levels of usage, his response wasn’t featured.

It was perhaps a missed opportunity that someone of the stature of AA president Edmund King – who while being the public face of the country’s biggest motoring organisation also promotes the importance of using appropriate modes of transport, including cycling, for the journey being undertaken – was not invited to give their view.

And while the programme did feature the changes made to the Highway Code earlier this year to help protect vulnerable road users, it failed to highlight that the vast majority of adult cyclists also hold a driving licence.

Reaching London, it’s clear that Bilton is out of his comfort zone at the sheer volume of motor traffic cyclists are sharing the streets with – a chance, perhaps, to have highlighted the numbers of bike riders using safe infrastructure such as Cycleway 3 along the Embankment to demonstrate how it encourages more people into the saddle.

The focus in the capital instead is on the notorious Holborn Gyratory, where eight cyclists have lost their lives in the past decade and a half, and where Camden Council is now consulting on a range of measures including segregated cycle lanes that campaigners have long fought for.

The journalist is taken round the one-way system by a lorry driver in a segment that highlights exactly why there is such a pressing need for cyclists and motor vehicles to be kept apart there – something that the council’s plans, if implemented, will finally address.

On the whole, the programme does convey the dangers to which motorists subject cyclists on the country’s roads every single day, explaining why vulnerable road users need protection, and the role that safe infrastructure can play in that, without amplifying the voice of the minority (as surveys consistently find) opposed to such interventions which are made in the interests of road safety for all.

Which brings us back to that title, one that reinforces the misconception that drivers and cyclists are two distinct groups somehow in conflict with each other, when the programme itself highlights how those riding bikes, including the presenter himself, and whether for leisure or everyday trips, are people who simply want to get to their destination safely without being put at risk of serious injury or worse.

Panorama – Road Rage: Cars v Bikes is available to watch now on BBC iPlayer and airs this evening on BBC One (at 8pm in England, 8.30pm in Scotland and 11,40pm in Wales).

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
Awavey | 1 year ago
1 like

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

Avatar
qwerty360 | 1 year ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
1 like

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

Avatar
brooksby | 1 year ago
3 likes

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 surprise

 

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...

Avatar
Hirsute replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
4 likes

I thought he looked unhappy in London traffic. Must be all those dangerous cyclists...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
4 likes

According to one of our newer commentors it's probably because Londoners are just obnoxious people...

Avatar
Hirsute replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like

I think you mean "newer"

Just don't mention the germans

//www.letitbefood.com/uploads/1/5/9/5/15950970/5417024.jpg?393)

Avatar
Tom_77 | 1 year ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 1 year ago
4 likes

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!

Avatar
Hirsute replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
7 likes

I wonder what the lady thinks of drivers who park on the pavement stopping her getting her pushchair past ?

 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
8 likes

hirsute wrote:

I wonder what the lady thinks of drivers who park on the pavement stopping her getting her pushchair past ?

That would clearly also be the cyclists' fault - where else are the poor drivers supposed to park now that there are so many cycle lanes!

Avatar
Shake replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
6 likes

I thought it was good to see Barry Shitpeas was still getting work after Screenwipe

Avatar
ktache replied to Shake | 1 year ago
1 like

Now, Philomena Cunk came after Barry, and was good, and even has her own series, but there will always be a place in my heart for Mr Shitpeas.

Avatar
emjay49 | 1 year ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to emjay49 | 1 year ago
7 likes

emjay49 wrote:

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 didn't realise that cyclists' humanity was up for debate and I wonder when the experts first noticed that some of us may just be squirrels in a human suit.

The Car Vs Cyclist narrative is purely a distraction as the important narrative is Cars Vs Society. Just how much space, time, resources, money and ill health are we willing to sacrifice so that we can be sold more cars?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

The Car Vs Cyclist narrative is purely a distraction as the important narrative is Cars Vs Society. Just how much space, time, resources, money and ill health are we willing to sacrifice so that we can be sold more cars?

Can't be said enough!

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/more-third-city-sp...

https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/18/7236471/cars-pedestrians-sidewalks...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/11/the-big-idea-should-cars-b...

Avatar
Awavey | 1 year ago
5 likes

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.

 

Avatar
HoarseMann | 1 year ago
4 likes

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!"

Avatar
Hirsute | 1 year ago
10 likes

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.

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
5 likes

hirsute wrote:

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

Yes, they missed an oportunity there. Unfortunately they would have demolished the anti-cyclists opinions with undeniable and logical arguments and then the programme makers would probably feel it wasn't 'balanced'.

Thought they were going to feature Road.cc when they referenced NMOTD but sadly it was just a vague mention of a 'cycling website showing clips of near misses' and nothing more.

Avatar
Eades replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
6 likes

It was my video with the bus and the pixilated image, it was just the date and time stamp.

Avatar
Dicklexic | 1 year ago
7 likes

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.

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey | 1 year ago
4 likes

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?

Avatar
Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
6 likes
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.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
5 likes

Oh, no-one's doing that. It's merely pointing out that most adults who ride bikes also drive cars. 

(By the same token, a high proportion of motorists ride a bike, at least occassionally).

Hence, no 'us and them' according to actual stats.

Latest Comments