Hooray, everyone's favourite (former) GBNews producer and anti-cycling bingo enthusiast Charlotte Gill is back at it, this time with something a bit more flamboyant and swashbuckling than what her previous attempts have been, some might say.
Her hall of fame highlights include the article in the eye-openingly conservative magazine The Critic, criticising a new study on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, despite failing to address any of the study’s findings, as well as the elite, deluxe edition of the anti-cycling bingo with a top of the shop entering, ticking off every single uninspired checkbox: from "a war is being waged against car drivers", "a ‘Lycra Lobby’ of cycling activists and eco wonks", "I don’t drive, enjoy cycling and probably have a relatively low carbon footprint", "an assault on democracy"…
Oh before I forget, she was also behind bringing up an argument on Twitter in March that it’s mums who should stand up and oppose the dreaded Lycra lobby – because they can’t “cart around children” by bike, apparently – a claim swiftly shut down by loads of women posting pictures of them doing exactly the same activity, including Bath's bicycle mayor Saskia Heijltjes.
> “Oh dear, can you imagine being a mum carting around children”: Bath’s bicycle mayor shuts down GB News producer’s claim that mums need cars
Gill, who last month left her role as producer at GB News, was most recently under fire for comparing the 20mph speed limit in Wales to cyclists needing stabilisers. I know the list is long...
Well now, Gill has been on an expedition on the streets of London, and for once, she couldn't stop herself from applauding a cyclist, albeit only for a tiny bit of inspiration. Following in the footsteps of one "lycra-loving" Jeremy Vine, she strapped on a body cam (her iPhone) and took to the streets, becoming the "pedestrian version" of the Channel 5 presenter and "play cyclists at their own game, filming their transgressions".
Lo and behold, the inception of the one and only 'Chaz Cam', as christened by her.
> “Perhaps cars should have great big beanbags taped to them, too?” GB News producer slammed for comparing 20mph speed limits to cyclists requiring stabilisers
She wrote on her blog: "It goes without saying that cyclists aren’t as dangerous as cars on average, and of course, not everyone cycles badly. But too often you hear “it’s only a few bad eggs giving others a bad name” to minimise the number of naughty cyclists - when the issue is actually quite pronounced, as I have found. I would guess it’s more like half of cyclists behaving badly on the road, not a minority."
And in case you didn't feel like clicking on the link above this very fine day, worry not! Your live blog host has done his homework and read through Gill's handiwork, laying down all the horrible, spiteful and malicious deeds cyclists are responsible for.
It begins with probably the most common one — one which we at road.cc have also brought up in our discussions on the live blog: Going through red lights. "I lost count of the number of cyclists doing this on my day out with the Chaz Cam," she wrote.
"Although you might say I was being pedantic (well, I was pretending to be the pedestrian version of Jeremy Vine) and that cyclists may as well go through the light if no pedestrians are waiting, I found they do even when a pedestrian is there. One female cyclist dashed out at me as soon as the pedestrian light went green (see below).
> Are red-light jumping cyclists "great adverts" for cycling? Jeremy Vine seems to think so...
Alright, next up, cyclists on phones. She said: "It wasn’t unusual to see cyclists riding with one hand or none on their handlebars, as if thinking they looked extremely cool while doing so.
"One cyclist, who a van white beeped at, due to his being dangerously close in front, sped away, only to look at something other than the road (my guess being his phone)."
> "If you don’t like cyclists going through red lights, support proper cycling infrastructure": Calls for better cycling infrastructure after cyclists jumping lights goes viral
Also in the findings of the investigation were the age-old "lighting issues" and "riding on the pavement" (cough, yesterday's live blog comes to mind, cough). And finally, she took aim at another easy target, delivery riders, claiming that they were just "bad cyclists" rushing through people for "tiny sums of money".
In conclusion? She said that the "Chaz Cam investigations" have hardly convinced her that "the UK is ready for a cycling revolution".
"The reality, in my opinion, is that half of cyclists behave well, and half of cyclists don’t. It’s definitely not the case that 'most cyclists follow the rules'," she said. "They don’t - because they perceive themselves as "the green and the good" of British society. It’s also generally my experience that most cyclists are male (and young), and the most aggressive ones almost always so, countering councils’ propaganda of inclusive transport."
So if not all cyclists are bad, and the ones which are do not cause nowhere nearly as harm or damage as a bad motorists, shouldn't by the same benchmark we all should be in agreement that the UK is also not ready for a driving revolution? Ah well.
That was quite a way to start my Wednesday, is this all a painstakingly wonderful and detailed attempt at parody or just a lousy attempt with poor arguments for cheap clicks? I feel I'm losing my mind here, help me figure this out...
Add new comment
91 comments
I think a cycling revolution, or similar, will happen, and Charlotte Seagull will not even notice.
Journalist will obviously be writing stuff worrying about providing sufficient, proper quality cycle infra, where those cycling are given clearly demarcated space from pedestrians and the infra continues at pedestrian crossings and junctions.
Was I right?
The pedestrian Jeremy Vine? Come off it, not a single inset meme, migraine-inducing flashing arrows or throbbing texts and no confusing 360° revolving spins of the environment from above, not a patch on our Jeremy!
Charlotte Gill is an odious toad of a clickbait journalist, please don't give her more publicity.
bravely filming cyclists navigating a car dominated world
The problem with all these 'exposes' regarding driving and cycling is that they are in London. My visits to London say that the level of all travel (including pedestrians) is awful as large numbers of people are in a hurry and think their life is more important than every one elses. I have found this less so than most other places I have visited around the country - although bigger cities tend to be at the worse end.
True, but... While London overall has a population an order of magnitude greater than Amsterdam or Copenhagen remind me again if they're known as being places where it's possible to cycle and walk?
(I agree that some natives of those countries would not call them the best places in their respective nations, but isn't even Copenhagen several orders of magnitude better than London in this respect? )
I would give a qualified yes to this about London. Its a gazillion times better to cycle in than any other UK city I have cycled in - except perhaps Newcastle, but I was recreational cycling there rather than commuter cycling - so different types of routes with different types of expectations.
Leaving aside the Imperial remnant of LBKC of course....
Is it just me that hopes some people will just **** off and die?
Ummm, how does a cyclist get to be dangerously close in front? Is it all those reversing cyclists that we hear so much about?
Glad it's not just me that puzzled over this. I had to read it twice as I thought I must have misread it the first time.
Teleport.
BeCaUsE tHeY aRe In ThE wAy! (Before they "sped away" - Schrodinger's cyclist by definition has both inconveniently slow and dangerously fast components. )
The pretentious use of a possessive gerund is a telltale of the supercilious tone of the whole 'article'.
I once saw a white van driver losing it with a cyclist for "cycling dangerously in front" of him and thus apparently endangering the driver's daughter. In that case he was complaining about a cyclist filtering, using the gap in front of his van to move from the nearside to the offside. And the greatest risk to his young-ish daughter was that she was not using a child seat as legally required.
I would suggest that the iPhone Jezza take a better look at the footage she is saying is evidence of danger and ask herself, who is in danger? If a cyclist runs a red light or isnt paying attention to the road who is at risk? And if a car driver does the same, who do they endanger?
The cyclists should be obeying the traffic lights and the highway code and should not be using their phones, we should all be safe and careful, especially around pedestrians but, if things go wrong the most likely outcome is that they themselves get injured possibly with an "and...". In the case of drivers doing those same things (which they do with just as high a frequency) the likely outcome of it causing a collision is they will be completely fine and only someone else will be injured.
If we lived in a world where car drivers were 100% safe and cyclists were still riding as they do now this would be a reasonable complaint but its completely unhinged to act like there is anything a cyclist could do that is even on the same order of magnetude of danger as a speeding driver.
Do we think Charlotte Gill would have felt safe enough to run into the road waving her arms if she had just witnessed a car going through a red light?
Just watched her video again - the "WAIT" light at the pedestrian crossing goes out just as the cyclist passes, so the "Green man" wouldn't have been showing for her until then.
Wasn't there someone on here spouting nonsense about "established reds"? If drivers can claim that nonsense, then it wasn't an "established red" for the cyclist....
Nigel !
(Surely time for his next regeneration)
The tragedy is that although he's not (or at least not overtly...) here at the moment, he's still occupying our heads.
Time will tell, but I think he may be back already.
He definitely is, no time needed to tell.
He definitely is, no time needed to tell
There seem to be two of the usual sort of trolling nutter supporting each other below. Is that the same one replying to himself. Maybe he changes hats and uses different computers?
No, Lefty is a PBU who was banned once as thisismyusername and has since returned and changed his username five times, an alt-rightist cycle hater but who isn't totally dedicated to trolling, seems to be a part-time hobby; Nigel/Rakia/Blender etc x10 has been here much longer, banned at least seven times and is psychopathically dedicated to their trolling. Obviously they're two cheeks of the same arse but pretty sure not the same person.
Yep, spoke too soon.
I emailed the mods.
Hopefully they will act swiftly.
So did I, he seems to have been binned with commendable speed, thank you mods!
It's the shadowy folk, the men in grey suits, Dr no who really control the site!
So it was you called who it back...
Pages