Is cycling treated fairly in the media? BBC AntiSocial goes cycling discussed with ‘the cyclist'

The gist?

What is wrong with so many non-cyclists in the UK?

And that's not even counting the people who thought, say, helmets and insurance should be mandatory, but not the others, who will have gone away confused after spending ten minutes selecting one, and then the other, and then the other...

essexian wrote:

their far right nonsense

Which BBC far right nonsense aren't you watching?

BBC News. Its easy to find: sadly. 

essexian wrote:

BBC News.... or as its also known: "The media wing of the Tory party."

Time to defund the BBC News via the licence fee. If you want Tory propoganda, either buy a subscription or watch adverts. I see no reason why I should have to pay when I don't watch their far right nonsense.  You want it.... you pay!

Except that the Tories want to defund it because they think it is biased AGAINST them.

essexian wrote:

BBC News.... or as its also known: "The media wing of the Tory party."

Haha, try floating that notion in The Torygraph!

The BBC is by no means perfect but I travel out of the UK a lot and see TV overseas and I can tell you I would rather have the BBC's TV output than any of the TV stations I've seen in the last two months in France, the Netherlands, Italy and the US. And that's without mentioning the BBC's excellent radio output, which I'm listening to now (R6). The licence fee is very cheap if you compare it to Sky or Netflix for example. If you ask me, there's a seriously dangerous right wing cabal pressing to defund the BBC and that's far, far more insidious than any links to the BBC and whichever party is in government.

The Cure, 1989 day was fantastic, what little I got to hear.
I think the BBC is wonderful, not perfect, but I'm so glad we have it.

Yes indeed, 89 was a great year for music and it was good to hear so many excellent tracks being played. I listen to R6 a lot.

Currently listening to 6 Music and will be doing so for at least a couple more hours. its great and so is the sports coverage on Five live. Its the BBC News I have an issue with.

Just look at their bais coverage of the recent local elections to know that they are simply a Tory supporting organisation. If you want them, fine. Please accept adverts to pay for the news and let the licence fee go on Sports and proper music.

BBC News is not fit for purpose.

Maybe BBC tv news has changed recently, but when I last watched it, I thought it was quite poor compared with the news programmes on Dutch tv (at least NOS or whatever it is on the three main channels). I found it to be lacking in detail and background and thought it seemed rather parochial and one-sided. I certainly don't think the BBC should be "defunded" though.

Economy: Improved by cycling as cyclists tend to shop more often and spend more locally rather than sending their money abroad, improving tax spend

NHS: Improved by cycling as cyclists tend to have less illness

Traffic: improved by cycling as cyclists take up less space on the road

Environment: Improved by cycling as cyclists produce less emissions

Equality: Improved by cycling as its cheap compared to driving

The government: "WhY IS tHeRE a WAr oN mOToRiSTS?? (That, even if it existed, we would have overseen over the last 15 years...)"

You forgot:

Places: improved by cycling as urban areas aren't loud, motor vehicles (including electric ones at say 20mph and above) are loud.  Facilitating a very convenient local travel mode (far more efficient than walking) can - over the longer term, with the help of other measures - assist in creating local areas which are vibrant, as opposed to giant estates or lifeless dormitory towns and suburbs.

Local Connectivity: improved by cycling as it's way more efficient than walking and you can carry more.  Also with another personal, private transport mode the volume of motor traffic can be reduced.  As that occurs we should also be able to reduce the size of roads.  That, and reducing speed limits make it easier and safer to cross roads thus reduce local barriers to (active) travel

Accessibility: improved by cycling because the real dangers and obstacles to people with disabilities or sight impediments (or even hearing issues) are motor vehicles.  Note: this needs a careful, partnership approach.  Currently many people with disabilities are so marginalised by effectively hostile public infra - or just crowded out or pushed to the back of the queue by those with fewer issues - that any change is a concern.  Also the specifics of infrastructure design and how areas with cyclists are marked are also valid concerns.  However good cycle infra (and active travel infra generally) can be an enabler for those who may have trouble driving.

Independent mobility for children and older people: see accessibility above.

And land take: footprint of residential areas could be less, which decreases hard standing, decreasing surface water flood risk, improving river water quality, improving habitats.

Less emissions: less noise and less air pollution. Less mining of exotic materials for manufacturing. Less road surface wear... etc etc. 

The risk is when anyone says "less" it is heard as 'damaging to the economy' - which has been built to serve the demand.

Its nothing to do with being cool. Its popular. Its devisive. It gets strong responses from both sides of the argument. Basically its perfect for engagement. 

Nobody knows what it means but its provocative!

Gets the people going!

It depends what you read. Try reading the Guardian.