Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Truth the first casualty in BBC's War on Britain's Roads?

Balance and objectivity also reported missing in action as BBC airs controversial documentary

BBC One yesterday evening aired its controversial documentary The War on Britain’s Roads. By inaccurately presenting cyclists and motorists as polar opposites in a bid to sensationalise the issue, the broadcaster missed an opportunity to make a constructive contribution to the road safety debate that is being pursued elsewhere – most notably, in the press, led by The Times, and Parliament, due to the efforts of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group with support from cycle campaigners.

Much of the footage will already be familiar to road.cc users, having been widely viewed on sites such as YouTube for several years in some cases. For the vast majority watching, however, it would have been the first time they’d seen it.

Less than a month ago, AA President Edmund King had called for an end to the ‘two tribes’ mentality that polarises the cycle safety debate between cyclists and motorists. If anyone from the programme’s makers, Leopard Films, read his comments, it didn’t show.

There was no acknowledgement that most adult cyclists also drive cars. No hint that millions of motorists also ride bikes. Cyclists and motorists, it appeared, were enemies, as the programme’s title suggests, though even that was misleading – if there was a combat zone anywhere, it was largely on London’s streets.

We already knew, through feedback from those who’d been given the opportunity of previewing the whole show, that it was likely to be a piece of sensationalist programming that deliberately focused on polarised extremes rather than trying to present a balanced picture of the everyday reality of cycling.

In the past days, the BBC was urged to review some of the programme’s content, in particular a segment of six-year-old footage, which as road.cc recently revealed was shot by professional American documentary maker Lucas Brunelle, of alleycat racing through London’s streets. The footage was released commercially as a DVD through his website after originally being posted to YouTube.

In the final version of last night’s documentary, the programme makers mentioned in passing that it reflected “extreme behaviour” – certainly well short of the kind of clarification that had been sought and that use of the footage warranted.

Among those who pressed the BBC to review the content of the documentary, efforts intensifying yeterday as transmission time approached, was Carlton Reid, executive editor of BikeBiz, who in an article on that site catalogues those approaches made to the broadcaster to have the show’s content toned down. Handily, he sets out how you can complain, and provides some of the BBC guidelines the programme is said to have ignored.

We don’t know whether the London cyclist shown weaving in and out of a queue of near-stationary traffic at speed, before aiming for a non-existent gap between a double decker bus and a pick-up truck – it seems a miracle he wasn’t killed – was playing out exactly that kind of alleycat scene in his head. The BBC’s editorial guidelines, citing Ofcom rules, are clear though that reckless behaviour some might be tempted to imitate is out of bounds.

The single most powerful moment in the programme was also the one that gave its makers the opportunity to explore, briefly and inadequately, the road safety angle without resorting to sensationalising it.

Stop-frame CCTV footage showed the moment when cyclist Alex Barlow was killed by a cement mixer on London Wall in 2002. It was chilling viewing. The programme focused on the efforts of her mother, Cynthia, who had given permission for that footage to be used, to improve lorry safety, beginning with the company that owned the truck that had killed her daughter. Those segments gave a glimpse of what the programme could have been.

A surprising moment came at the end, when a taxi driver of five decades’ standing, who during the programme had pointed out various pieces of misbehaviour by cyclists such as jumping red light, revealed that he had actually come to realise just how vulnerable cyclists are on the city’s streets after his own grandson lost his life.

That vulnerability was clearly shown in the helmetcam footage provided by the likes of Cyclegaz, Magnatom and Traffic Droid, who have each developed a strong following among cyclists on YouTube, with near miss after near miss shown.

But constant references to cyclists ‘taking matters into their own hands’ made it sound as though it was the bike riders themselves who were doing something wrong.

Also lost was the reason why the likes of Cyclegaz perhaps come across as a bit shouty – any rider who has had a large vehicle pass that close to them, where a couple of inches nearer could result in serious injury or worse, will have experienced that rush of adrenalin mixed with shock and fear.

Pedestrians - whose casualty numbers far exceed those of cyclists, with more than four times as many killed last year in rioad traffic incidents, itself a 12 per cent increase on 2010 - were hardly acknowledged, other than one woman shown being hit from behind by a bicycle on a shared use path when without looking, she suddenly moved sideways and into the path of the cyclist who had changed direction to go round her.

By pure coincidence, the programme that preceded War on Britain’s Roads, an episode of the documentary series Supersized Earth contained a segment about a London bike courier called James. No footage of him weaving in and out of traffic, no angry encounters with motorists.

In fact, the only thing anyone could begrudge him was the fact that due to the 50 or 60 miles he reckons he puts in on a typical day, he can eat like a horse without putting any weight on. Cyclists, eh?
 

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

69 comments

Avatar
zanf replied to pjay | 11 years ago
0 likes
pjay wrote:

Complete waste of a one hour prime time slot on BBC1. All heat, no light.

Exactly. Prime time reality tv. Thats all it was.

If it was such a fair and balanced programme investigating the conflict between cyclists and drivers, then where were the women? No female cyclists (except a dead one) and not a single female driver detailing conflicts she has had.

Absolute trash that set out only to provoke reaction with no investigation into causes (bad infrastructure, lack of (continuous) road craft training throughout all road users), or into any solutions.

Cheap, nasty, low production values television. I wouldnt expect anything more from the same company that produces "Cash In The Attic". At least "Rude Tube" knows its a pile of shit tv show that uses YouTube clips.

And the way it make a kicking boy out of CycleGaz was terrible, without even the slightest mention of his Silly Cyclists website http://www.sillycyclists.co.uk/

Avatar
Paul J | 11 years ago
0 likes

The programme wasn't about the health benefits. Would it be nice to see a programme examine the relative trade-offs in risks, from those of cycling versus those of sitting in a car, fatty placques slowly building up and clogging your arteries? Yes, undoubtedly. However, that wasn't this programme.

This programme was about hostility on the roads, in particular hostility shown towards cyclists, and a few of the major risks to cyclists. A large part of the programme was taken up with showing clips of quite appalling driving, and with explanations from cyclists as to why this is frightening, why we take the lane, etc. That hostility is real, it definitely exists. Every cyclist in Britain will experience close passes, even punishment passes - if they cycle for more than a week. This programme was showing that, and explaining it, on *prime-time* british television!

The risks are of course a lot more minimal. Overall cycling is fairly safe, despite the dumb drivers. Once you take health benefits into consideration, cycling is most definitely a positive thing. The programme didn't go into that, it wasn't what it was pitching for, and perhaps it would have been a worse programme had it tried. However, both Magnatom and CyclingGaz did still touch on the positive aspects of cycling.

The programme did cover the major risk to cyclists - no, not going bare-headed - extensively: HGVs and passing on the inside. This is particularly a major risk to uneducated or more casual cyclists, ones who perhaps don't read cycling websites, who simply don't know any better when it comes to avoiding the blind-side (left side for UK/Irish lorries, but the *right* side for foreign lorries!). Further, much more remains to be done on outfitting lorries with guards to reduce risk of cyclists going under wheels, on better HGV driver training, on increased penalties for HGV operating companies who place time pressures on drivers that lead them to take risks, etc.

Cycling education, on prime-slot British television. Raising the profile of the *biggest* cycling safety issues, on prime-slot British television! Wow, progress! If you're going to decry this as an outrage to cycling, I can't agree.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 11 years ago
0 likes

To play devil's advocate the taxi driver featured on the show claimed he was on his way home and in a "calm and relaxed frame of mind", when he got out of his cab using threatening behaviour, shouting, finger waging trying to intimidate with his size etc etc.

I would hate to think how many people he's killed whilst slightly vexed!

Avatar
Hoester | 11 years ago
0 likes

I have to agree with Peacenik, nothing to get worked up about. I'm afraid some people will draw more partisan conclusions though.

I would however respectfully disagree with Paul that it was a good programme, I felt it was lazy televsion and an opportunity missed considering it was an hour long.

In terms of balance I felt the portrayal of the health risks vs. benefits associated with cycling was misrepresented. This may have been an unintentional by-product, but is unhelpful nevertheless.

Avatar
a.jumper | 11 years ago
0 likes

Utter rubbish. Trash TV. How can they call this a documentary on a public service broadcaster?

Apart from the HGV bit, there was nothing on the solutions, or even decent analysis of the problems. Just a load of road rage porn.

Much of the footage was old and unlabelled, a lot was London and no, the pro footage wasn't labelled. I can't believe the BBC did that. Very worrying. What else shouldn't we trust on there?

Avatar
Simon E replied to a.jumper | 11 years ago
0 likes
a.jumper wrote:

Utter rubbish. Trash TV. How can they call this a documentary on a public service broadcaster?

Apart from the HGV bit, there was nothing on the solutions, or even decent analysis of the problems. Just a load of road rage porn.

Surprise, surprise!  2

I saw about 2 minutes of it after watching the Revolution track racing on ITV4. It looked exactly as I had expected after reading Carlton's dissection - tabloid-style sensationalism with little of substance - so turned it off and went to do something productive.

Good point made above about pedestrians, they are the forgotten (silent?) majority. We're all peds at least some of the time. If towns and cities were designed with their needs uppermost then they would be a lot more pleasant places in which to live, work and travel.

Avatar
Paul J | 11 years ago
0 likes

Agreed with brittleware, I found it fairly balanced and thought provoking. It tried to just give a perspective from the point of view of those directly involved - road users and relatives. Because of which, I can understand why they didn't bring in Prof Ian Walker, or the CTC - that would have forced it to become a different programme.

Overall, a reasonable, good programme.

Edit: The things complained about, the alley cat racing and hip, alley-cat racer wannabes - that was real footage. While those are perhaps extreme examples, there are people who ride like knobs, especially bad when they do so around pedestrians (treating peds in the kind of way we hate when cars do similar to us). It's not unfair to show this.

Avatar
brittleware | 11 years ago
0 likes

To my surprise it was in fact a documentary which - it seemed to me and others watching with me - to be pretty fair to cyclists. Good and bad on both sides, but quite clearly not about sensaisionalist nonsense.

Avatar
Peacenik replied to brittleware | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'd say Brittleware's got it about right on this one. 'War...' simply contained lots of examples of bad behaviour from cyclists & motorists alike. All human, all a bit depressing, but nothing to get too steamed up about, especially if you're not in London where, as we already know, things would be better if everyone just slowed down a bit, chilled out, smiled and showed each other more respect!

Pages

Latest Comments