- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
James O'Brien (source LBC).jpgLBC radio host: "Any argument against cycling is an argument in favour of pollution, obesity and death"
The hosts of consecutive shows on radio station LBC yesterday provided a striking example of the polarised attitudes towards cycling prevalent in the UK’s mainstream media, with morning show presenter James O’Brien insisting that “any argument against cycling is an argument against pollution, obesity and death.”
His comments came after his colleague Nick Ferrari, in the station’s breakfast slot, had spoken of cyclists put themselves in danger by riding through red lights and undertaking vehicles.
LBC was focusing on cycling following the publication on Tuesday of the report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) on Cycling and the Justice System.
The APPCG called, among other things, for the Highway Code to be changed “to give clearer priority to cyclists (and other vulnerable road users), particularly with regard to the issue of close overtaking and the need to give way to cyclists and pedestrians at side road crossings, which would support the introduction of new cycling infrastructure.”
A tweet from LBC trailing its coverage of the report drew a withering response from West Midlands Police’s road policing unit, which has been widely praised for its close pass initiative launched last year and which is now being adopted by forces nationwide.
@LBC Society is defined by how we look after our most vulnerable, this is the same on the roads, at the moment the UK is barbaric #attitude #care
— CMPG - Road Policing (@Trafficwmp) May 3, 2017
O’Brien referred to one of the arguments deployed by opponents of protected cycling infrastructure such as London’s Cycling Superhighways – that they increase congestion and, by implication, pollution.
He said: “And then you get obviously, ‘Oh, cycle lanes, congestion, cycle lanes this, cycle lanes that’.
“As I see it, it’s a no brainer,” he continued.
“It will stop people being obese which will save the NHS a fortune.
“It will stop people having breathing conditions caused by pollution which will save the NHS a fortune.
“Both of those phenomena will also increase the life expectancy of you and your children and the people that you love.
“It will make London a cleaner, greener, more pleasant place.
“The more roads you can actually shut completely, the more footfall you’ll have for shops and the retail sector that’s struggling like nobody’s business at the moment.
“And the more people that leave their cars at home, coming in on public transport let alone bicycles, the more all of those things will be increased.
“So I mean any argument against cycling is an argument in favour of pollution, obesity and death.
“That’s it, I don’t care how you dress it up or how hilarious you think you are.
“Any argument framed to discourage cycling is an argument in favour of pollution, of obesity, and of early death,” he added.
Earlier, Stop Killing Cyclists co-founder Donnachadh McCarthy had spoken on Ferrari's show.
He wrote on the campaign group's Facebook page: "Ferrari did his usual tired trick of seeking to make all this about stating that cyclists were always in the right and victim-blaming and tried to male bully [Ruth] Cadbury [co-chair of the APPCG] into agreeing with him for quite a few minutes.
"He then tried to do the same with me and I stated that the report was clear that at a junction, there should be a hierarchy of right of ways, pedestrians first, cyclists second and motorists third, as this was the hierarchy of who is the most dangerous.
"I also explained that the law was NOT about endorsing dangerous undertaking at junctions which causes a small minority of crashes," McCarthy added.
In November 2015, we reported on how Ferrari had sparred with London's then Cycling Commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, over claims by LBC reporter Theo Usherwood regarding the number of cyclists using a newly opened Cycle Superhighway on Vauxhall Bridge.
Usherwood had claimed in a pre-recorded report that 40 per cent of cyclists were not using the protected cycle lane and were riding on the road instead.
When Ferrari quizzed Gilligan on the issue, the latter said: "That report I've just heard is a complete lie. I think he is quite clearly lying."
> Radio spat between London's Cycling Commissioner and 'lying' reporter over Cycle Superhighway use
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.
Latest Comments
- ktache 2 hours 24 min ago
I don't think the fine toilet roll holder is made of an old chainset, looks more like the two biggest rings on a carrier from a cassette, my 9...
- Zazz53 2 hours 55 min ago
TBF there are plenty of mountain, gravel, Lime bikes and e-bikes using the Tamsin Trail. Have never seen a collision but have thought a number of...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 29 min ago
Far be it from me to tell you your business, but if you want to promote your product sneakily on a website without paying for advertising then...
- JMcL_Ireland 6 hours 32 min ago
I absolutely stand by my criticism of Elite (note: I'm not criticising the volunteer marshals). They charge an arm and a leg for these events but...
- Destroyer666 6 hours 46 min ago
There's a lot of good stuff here, but shoe reviews are still lagging on average when comparing to for example bike or tire reviews. Specs relating...
- galibiervelo 7 hours 19 min ago
Loved the Bastion in the flesh but Lemond's bike has the soul. Nice event and met some friends and contacts but like the magazine, it does promote...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 11 min ago
Awaiting the next feckless driver asking the judge to delay the start of the sentence because "they owe a few more cyclists a proper goodbye"....
- Hirsute 9 hours 29 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 10 hours 43 min ago
Ah, but: in UK, if a motorist drives into you (or simply parks in a cycle lane, forcing you out into the path of another motorist) then the council...
Add new comment
26 comments
Quick edit needed in the intro:
"The hosts of consecutive shows on radio station LBC yesterday provided a striking example of the polarised attitudes towards cycling prevalent in the UK’s mainstream media, with morning show presenter James O’Brien insisting that “any argument against cycling is an argument against pollution, obesity and death.”"
It's correct in the headline and further on in the story.
Roadcraft, defensive riding/remove the hazard;
Continual observation of surroundings, perceive hazard, shoulder check for following vehicles, re-evaluate hazard, re-position if necessary to control lane, slow down and wave peds across if/when safe to do so, wait for thank-you (99.9% of the time IME), cheery retort by you.
You o on your way and hazard removed and people have a bit more of a good feeling from both sides, maybe those peds might pay it forward toward a person on a bike if they are driving, witout your courtesy that won't happen.
This applies particularly to the infirm/aged, those having young children to hand and in areas where it might be difficult to cross.
We have the power in other ways to change things, most sadly just don't get it and instead of removing a hazard end up in an incident. Who was at fault, the one posing the greater harm (bicyclist) for not dealing with the hazard or the vulnerable that in itself presented lesser harm? Why is a few seconds out of your journey worth the risk, why is your journey more important than theirs, they (as pedestrians) will have to stop many times to cede priority to others presenting more harm.
Don't we want this approach by motorists to people on bikes?
think about it.
I do my best not to get stressed out by Pedestrians who cross against the lights. They always get a pretty poor deal when it comes to crossing big light controlled junctions. You end up waiting 4 minutes to diagonally cross some junctions and then that time is eaten into by RLJ cars or bikes so if they see a "slot" only occupied by a bike nipping across expecting you to avoid them is kinda natural
It doesn't matter what James O'Brian says he always sounds objectionable.
Only problem here is that James OB is a paid devil's advocate. He'd say black was white if it got the emails coming in.
Hardly. He's LBC's token centrist liberal. In a line-up that is generally very right-wing. LBC is the Daily Mail of the airwaves.
But I don't think any of them could be described as devil's advocates in the usual meaning of the term (which is that its an extreme position adopted without real conviction), because they all pretty much believe what they say.
Though Katy Hopkins might be one in a different sense - being genuinely on the side of Old Nick.
On the red light jumping issue in many countries it is allowed under circumstances for cyclists only. Absurd and dangerous? No! A cyclist will be the most affected road user if he has to make a full stop in terms of fatigue. Moreover if a cyclist jumping a red light gets involved in an accident, he will most likely be injured most, so he\she will be very careful compared with a car driver.
To be a little pedantic there are no countries where cyclists are allowed to "jump" a red light.
In some countries in certain situations cyclists are allowed to proceed through a red light - in that case they are not jumping a red light.
For clarity; I don't condone jumping red lights by car drivers nor by cyclists - except in the rare case where cyclists are not able to trigger sensors and lights won't change until triggered.
I have an issue with cycle lanes, especially the Multi-use ones. Why should they stop at every junction that they come to and expect you to stop? This is made worse when the road that they run alongside has priority at all junctions, so if you were to ride along the road you wouldn't be stopping every 50 yards? The only real exception to this are those that are used as Bus Lanes as well, when will this disparity stop?
You don't have to stop at the give way lines on shared use paths, you have to give way. Even if it is a light controlled Toucan crossing you don't have to stop - which is a good thing as to get across most Toucan crossings, you'd probably have to wait for three full cycles of the signals.
It's still not good that you usually have to be aware of traffic from 3 different directions and give way to them all. The really annoying shared use paths are the ones where they put give way lines on every drive way.
Good on O'Brien. We need guys like him on the case. Ultimately it's a culture war and needs fought on all fronts, by as many as possible. O'Brien has influence. He's a good polemicist, could sway people for sure.
Absolutely a culture war. It's a zero sum game. What's good for cyclists is bad for drivers, at least that's the pervasive perception. We need to get to a tipping point of critical mass on the roads and frankly make a complete nuisance of ourselves (by having the temerity to be on the road, not by running reds).
More importantly, he is 100% right.
This isn't about people on bicycles getting 'preferential treatment', it's about making urban spaces better and making cities liveable - for everyone.
All credit to James O'Brien, it's good to see that there's someone making sensible arguments if favour of cycling.
Normally I'd get angry. But you have to give a bit of leeway after Ferrari's Dianne Abbot interview of Tuesday.
The real 'no brainer' is reducing the number of vehicles on the roads, particularly in the highly polluted cities.
Only a short while ago this publication reported that despite the greater provision of cycling infrastructure and increased uptake of cycling, there are in fact more journeys being made by motor vehicles on UK roads.
Every single day I spot car drivers going through red lights. Quite often they speed up as they're trying to get through the junction without having to wait for another minute or two. Why do other people not see this regularly?
Also, undertaking is not inherently dangerous. The problem is with vehicles assuming (against the advice of the Highway Code) that no-one will be on their inside and not bothering to check when performing a maneouvre (again, not following the Highway Code).
Cue the trolls.
Who's that trip-trapping across my bridge?
trolls.png
Car drivers going through red lights are only going to run over pedestrians so what's the harm?
After all running over someone on foot isn't going to disrupt your day or the people behind you.
.
Elephants in the room, for me, are pedestrians..........I mean how many pedestrians do you see 'jumping' red lights?
Is that sarcasm? I guess it depends on what country you are in... In the UK, it is not illegal for a pedestrian to attempt to cross the road wherever they want (except for motorways).
But that's not illegal.
You are correct, it is not illegal though it is against the recommendations of the highway code
It is seen daily but it doesnt register in the mind of the average car driver. I will guarantee that any debate about cycling pretty much always descends into cyclists not paying 'road tax' and cyclists running red lights....I cycle everyday and I see more cars running red lights and general agression that I see with cyclists.
I also drive every day and have never had a run in with a cyclist ever!
I see a lot more motorists driving through red lights than cyclists, more importantly the motorists I see going through red lights tend to give no consideration to anyone's safety. Most of the cyclists I see going through red lights check carefully and only do so when it is safe.
I have a relative who's an undertaker and it does seem like quite a safe profession, with good job security too. Overtaking on the inside... that's only prohibited on motorways, and you'll not see many cyclists there. Though I should say filtering is generally safer if you are on the outside of the traffic, in the middle of the road.
I've nearly been rear-ended several times on my motorbike or in my car when I've stopped for a red light. A lot of people see the changing lights as an excuse to speed up.