Woman's Hour today had an item on cycling and the dangers to women. You can listen again for the next week or so here. Unfortunately, the concentration was very much on the dangers of cycling, and although the opening "taster" comments were from enthusiastic cyclists, the studio discussion was very negative. Cynthia Barlow from RoadPeace made very worthwhile points about the need for HGVs to fit safety devices, but Jo Oakley from the Met Police seemed very mealy-mouthed, and at some points seemed to imply that cyclists who get killed have only themselves to blame.
It's difficult to know how these things should be pitched. Certainly, Jenni Murray's attitude in this piece seemed gratuitously sensationalist - she seemed to think women would be mad to cycle in town, and kept up her incredulous tone throughout the interview. There was little mention of the health benefits of cycling, and no ideas about how to make the cycling environment safer, except with regard to HGVs. On the whole I think this item will put more people off than it encourages. Of course, that makes the roads less safe for the rest of us.
The problem is, there are dangers if you cycle. When we meet up with other cyclists, we all have a store of incidents that we recount about doors opening in front of us, drivers on mobile phones, cars speeding up behind us to turn left at junctions and the danger of bendy buses. It would be silly for us to tell everybody that cycling in London traffic is without its perils, and the statistic about cyclists being as healthy as non-cyclists ten years younger is likely to be met by a questioning of whether the cyclist will live to enjoy those extra ten years.
How do we get to the position where motorists really take account of the needs of cyclists? A change in the physical layout of our roads is obviously needed, but so is a change in attitudes. In Ghent last week, I noticed that all the buses and trams were long and bendy, and I asked my friend if this was a problem for cyclists. He seemed confused by the question. Why should they be? Well, I asked, did the buses take account of the cyclists? In London, people think the bendy buses are too big to notice people on bikes. I was told, quite firmly that in Ghent, all other vehicles take account of cyclists. The idea of "blind spots" for bus or lorry drivers is unknown. They just have big enough mirrors to see wherever they need to - though sometimes the big mirrors themselves can be a bit of a hazard for passing bikes.
How can we get drivers in London to behave a bit more like drivers in Ghent? I don't know, but I'm sure Woman's Hour hasn't helped much.
Unfortunately, the concentration was very much on the dangers of cycling, and although the opening "taster" comments were from enthusiastic cyclists, the studio discussion was very negative. Cynthia Barlow from RoadPeace made very worthwhile points about the need for HGVs to fit safety devices, but Jo Oakley from the Met Police seemed very mealy-mouthed, and at some points seemed to imply that cyclists who get killed have only themselves to blame.
How do we get to the position where motorists really take account of the needs of cyclists? A change in the physical layout of our roads is obviously needed, but so is a change in attitudes. In Ghent last week, I noticed that all the buses and trams were long and bendy, and I asked my friend if this was a problem for cyclists. He seemed confused by the question. Why should they be? Well, I asked, did the buses take account of the cyclists? In London, people think the bendy buses are too big to notice people on bikes. I was told, quite firmly that in Ghent, all other vehicles take account of cyclists. The idea of "blind spots" for bus or lorry drivers is unknown. They just have big enough mirrors to see wherever they need to - though sometimes the big mirrors themselves can be a bit of a hazard for passing bikes.
refer to external sites, and will be opened in a new window