The day that the BBC threw Geraint Thomas under the bus

The story goes that recent changes to the IR35 rules governing individuals working as limited companies came about after a senior civil servant lost an argument with a contractor about an IT project. Supposedly, new legislation impacting on the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people was conceived out of revenge for being embarrassed in front of his staff.

Maybe that's an urban myth, maybe it's the truth, maybe it's a bit of both... but it came back to me earlier when I read on the BBC News that Geraint Thomas had "called for helmets to be made compulsory for all cyclists in the UK".

Whilst I don't agree that compulsory helmet laws are a good idea (Chris Boardman explains why far better than I can here), I do have some sympathy for Geraint.  He is getting so much abuse on Twitter today that his name was a trending topic in the UK for four straight hours.  From the comments on the BBC Tweet of their own article, I somehow doubt that's because people were reading the article behind the paywall at the Sunday Times.

Helmets should be 'compulsory' for cyclists - Geraint Thomas https://t.co/ts2SzONXl3

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) August 26, 2018

The article on the interview he gave to the Sunday Times Magazine is 37 paragraphs long.  In it he talks about his relatively late ascension to the top of his sport, how he is having to adjust to his new fame, riding the 2013 Tour with a fractured pelvis, winning gold at consecutive Olympics, missing his wife, wanting to start a family... even his views on Brexit.  And then there's this:

"I’ve never ridden a bike in London, apart from in a race. I’ve watched from a taxi and it does seem a bit crazy. I would certainly make helmets compulsory. I always wear a helmet, I’ve put on a helmet more times than I’ve buckled a seatbelt. Helmets have come on a lot — well ventilated, not too hot, you don’t look stupid — no reason not to."

That's it.  That one paragraph.  One paragraph out of 37.  Hardly a "call" for new legislation as the BBC reports, more an unplanned, off-the-cuff answer to an unexpected question during an hour-long interview.

It seems strange that the BBC has chosen to limit their summary of this interview to only this one section... not even a mention of Geraint Thomas (winner of the Tour de France, three times World Champion, and winner of two Olympic Golds) saying that he feels like a European and didn't want Brexit.  You'd think that would be a fairly big story for a newly minted 'National Treasure'.

Except no, it's not that odd for the BBC at all.

"Cyclists. Why are they scum and how do we control them?" is a fairly regular topic of discussion for the BBC's many and varied local radio phone-in shows.  Of course, I'm paraphrasing for effect... except no, I'm not really.

This was BBC Radio Scotland last week:

Going on air @BBCRadioScot going to discuss #CycleToWorkDay and do cyclists startle you, should they be allowed on the pavement, what is the law?

— John Beattie (@BBCJohnBeattie) August 15, 2018

As the Tweet says, that was their topic on Cycle to Work Day... a day intended to promote the benefits of cycling, and they decided to have a phone-in to talk about being startled by cyclists on the pavement.

A week earlier and it was BBC Cambridgeshire asking for views on the frustration caused by cyclists on the roads:

Many motorists get frustrated when cyclists ride two abreast. It is legal, but is it safe? 🚙🚲 Martin Tyler, from JP School of motoring in #Cambridge joins @chrismannbbc on #MannInTheMorning. LISTEN: https://t.co/8kXTBB37sh pic.twitter.com/eb1foYNSZV

— BBC Cambridgeshire (@BBCCambs) August 9, 2018

It's not a new bias for the BBC either. The author and journalist Peter Walker has written about it several times over the years (Why does the BBC feel it's okay to demonise cyclists? and The BBC has a problem with cyclists and it doesn't want to talk about it to link to just two).

Sustrans lodged a formal complaint with the BBC in 2017 over a TV show which included anti-cycling bias that they described as "highly offensive and potentially dangerous". The BBC's lacklustre response is in the link.

So when I saw the outrage directed at Geraint Thomas this morning I clicked like on a couple of the wittier responses, then I read the actual interview instead of relying on the BBC's interpretation.

Because if one embarrassed civil servant can change tax law to win an argument, is it really so inconceivable to think that an angry exchange between a BBC Executive and the cyclist they've just close passed on their morning commute could ultimately lead to an editorial decision to throw Geraint Thomas under the proverbial bus?

-----

EDIT: Predictably proving the point, Radio Wales are having a phone-in tomorrow morning to discuss compulsory cycle helmets.

Ayr Road Resurfacing - a quick win?

I've been commuting along the A77 for about six months now. There are some pretty bad sections (the cycle lane in the door zone through Newlands; having to cross the busy road at junction 6 of the M77; having to cross again at the bridge just past junction 5) but there are some not-so-bad sections too (it doesn't get gritted or swept and is technically a shared-use path, but you so rarely see a pedestrian on the stretch from Fenwick to the East Renfrewshire Golf Club that it's practically an 8-mile long segregated cycle lane).

It might be a little controversial, but I'm going to include the Ayr Road section of the A77 through Newton Mearns in this 'not-so-bad' category.

It's important to say that this is after spending a few hours touring some of Glasgow's cycling infrastructure with Go Bike last Sunday [video/blog coming soon] and seeing what some of the alternatives, including the supposed 'Commonwealth Legacy', are like. I've come away with a new appreciation for Ayr Road, true, but it could be so very much better... and it would be so easy.

As with most of the roads around here, the combination of a lack of maintenance, heavy traffic, and patchy repairs after utilities work has left large parts of the carriageway almost unusable for cyclists. If it's not a drainage cover collapsing into an abyss it's a rut in the surface that will suck your wheels in like a tramline. As you can see, if you pick up too much pace, things are liable to shake loose and make a break for freedom...

Whilst keeping your eyes peeled for cracks in the road big enough to swallow you whole, you also need to watch out for cars parked in the cycle lane, particularly near to the various takeaways. It's supposed to be an 'urban clearway' during peak hours but that's seldom, if ever, enforced so cyclists will need to merge out into the 40mph traffic... Not pleasant when you're two miles in to a three-mile long climb.

Luckily, you won't have far to go when merging with the traffic. Although the cycle lane is, itself, reasonably wide, there is no segregation at all to protect you from the cars, lorries and busses racing past at 40mph (or faster). Mostly drivers are fine on this stretch but every once in a while somebody will cut it a little too close and you'll feel the wind from their wing mirror as it brushes past your elbow.

The bizarre part of this is that the road is more than wide enough to include segregation. In fact, it already does have it... But it's in the middle of the road, keeping drivers away from the central reservation. You can see it here, the painted cycle lane on the left, driving lane in the middle and then chevrons.

The width of this road and the marked separation of car from car really achieves only one thing: speed.

Here's the thing though. I saw a sign yesterday warning drivers of upcoming delays (won't dwell on said sign being IN the cycle lane!)... they're about to dig it all up and relay it. What an opportunity!
Straight away that should fix the problem with the road surface, so what about the parking and segregation?

Surely the common-sense answer would be to move those chevrons? You're going to have to repaint them anyway so why not just paint them between the cycle lane and the driving lane? Doesn't this look more welcoming for cyclists (excuse the crap artwork)?

I know, it's not perfect and that there's no physical barrier, but it's not going to cost more, you'd just be shifting the existing setup around a little. It could easily then be improved on in the future with some kind of physical barrier once the budget allows and in the short term it's a psychological barrier that puts some distance between bikes and cars. How could that not be worth doing?

As for the parking... No amount of resurfacing will stop people blocking the cycle lane where fish & chips are involved, but at least this might allow them to be passed without having to pull out into the driving lane.

Posted with Blogsy

McGill's Madness - Response

I received an email earlier today from Ralph Roberts, Managing Director of McGill's Bus Service Ltd., in response to my complaint about this piece of driving.

In summary, Mr Roberts (and, by extension, McGill's Bus Service Ltd) has found there to be nothing wrong with this driving and he gives three reasons:

• He estimates that the driver doesn't ever get closer than 1 metre from me;

A metre is quite long, isn't it?  Well no, not really.  The last time most of us saw a metre-stick was in school.  Remember how Wagon Wheels used to be the size of dinner plates and if you fell in a bag of Hula Hoops you'd be lost for a week?  Everything seems bigger when you're littler.  

Is a metre (a real metre) really a safe distance to leave between a cyclist and a bus weighing in at perhaps 15-20 tonnes?  If it were your child cycling down the road and a bus went by only a metre away would you be happy?

And if you think a metre is safe, what about 50cm?  Watch the video again and you'll see my reflection as I reach out and tap on the bus door.  I haven't adjusted course to move closer to the bus but not only do I not need to lean over to reach the window, I don't even need to straighten my arm.  I've just measured it (with a real-life metre stick) and that puts the bus a little over 45cm from me.  Safe?  I hardly think so.

• He points out that the driver doesn't enter the feeder to the ASL;

Bully for him.  Does he want a medal?

Does it really need to be said that the feeder to an ASL is not a target for drivers to aim at?  As I said at the time, I'm perfectly entitled to use the entire lane.  That there is paint on the road does not make it compulsory for me to cycle on that paint.  It also doesn't give drivers license to use their 20-tonne vehicles to force me into a space on the road where they think I should be.  

• He asks me to consider the issues that the driver faces 'in relation to the available road space'.

Mr Roberts seems to be saying that this is acceptable driving because there wasn't enough space on the road for safer driving.  I really don't understand this.

This is a dual carriageway and the right-hand lane was completely clear.  If the driver felt that I was going to hold him up sufficiently to justify overtaking, why not use that lane?

Of course, we were approaching traffic lights which were red and the driver, having pointed to the feeder and told me it was my lane, clearly expected me to use the ASL.  So if he knew I was going to end up in front of him at the lights anyway, why overtake at all?  Especially if, as Mr Roberts suggests, there isn't enough space on this road for a safe overtake?

You might notice that Mr Roberts chooses not to mention the subsequent punishment pass (again, far less than 1 metre).  

You might also notice the part where he refers to the driver having been 'provoked by an angry member of the public'.  Victim-blaming much?

Anyway, here's the full text of his email.

Dear Mr Soap,

I am responding to your complaint on behalf of McGill’s, I am the managing director and the person ultimately responsible for road safety in this business.

As a regular cyclist and motorcyclist, I am very aware of the issues you highlight in your email and video. We train all of our drivers in cycle awareness and we take part in various cycling initiatives, the next being the filming of a cycling awareness campaign in conjunction with Glasgow City Council at Pollok Park.

I have reviewed your video a number of times and I am sorry to say that I can find no real fault with the actions of the driver in question. I accept that he moves into the nearside lane in anticipation that it will allow approaching traffic from behind him, the ability to occupy the offside lane and make progress away from the traffic lights. I estimate from the road markings that he comes no closer than 1 to 1.5 metres from you, and yes, I am familiar with the road traffic act and the highway code. Your approach to the cyclist’s box at the traffic lights is clearly marked and at no point does our driver come close to encroaching upon that area.

Regarding your point about the driver offering you his pencil, I concede that this is less than optimal behaviour. In my driver’s defence, we employ human beings, not robots. Sometimes, when provoked by an angry member of public, they may respond in a sub optimal fashion and I apologise for this and would assure you that he will have his customer service skills polished within our training academy.

Please don’t feel that I am making light of your complaint, I take all complaints seriously and personally review complaints made on a weekly basis in order to understand where our shortcomings are and to help shape our organisation’s thinking moving forward.

I will not preach to you about what to expect on our nation’s roads, you will have plenty of experience of that given your level of preparedness and practiced ability at conveying your message. However, on this occasion, I would ask that you look at what is an acceptable driving standard from a driver of a large vehicle, and have a think about what issues they may face in relation to the available road space.

Yours sincerely

RALPH R. ROBERTS | Managing Director

McGill's Bus Service Ltd  

And here's the email I originally sent to McGill's (CC'd to Govan police, Frank McAveety, the Scottish Traffic Commissioner and SPT):

Dear Sir/Madam,

Cycling home from work today I was involved in an incident involving one of your buses: SJ57 DDZ / J2403.  As I approached a set of traffic lights on Paisley Road West the driver of your bus drew level with me and needlessly moved into my lane forcing me into the gutter against a metal barrier.  When I asked if he couldn’t have simply held back rather than pull alongside the driver pointed to the narrow strip of paint which leads to the advanced stop line and told me that was the cycle lane I should be using.  

A video of this incident is available to view here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyUJhMGVEbc

I wonder if you could please tell me whether this driving meets the standards which you require from your drivers.  In particular, do you believe that this meets the requirements of Rule 163 of the Highway Code which states that drivers should “give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car” and is the driver’s understanding of Rule 63 correct?  I would also be interested to know your reaction to the clear ‘punishment pass’ the driver made once the traffic lights had changed to green, where he overtook me in such a way as to come within only a foot or so of the back of my bicycle whilst accelerating past me.

If you do not believe this driver met the standards you expect, can I presume you will be taking action to ensure that he, and all of your drivers, are clear that this kind of dangerous driving will not be tolerated?

I would also like to draw your attention to the driver’s reaction when I took note of his number plate.  I am sorry to say that this is not the first incident of dangerous driving by one of your drivers which I have encountered and I am also sorry to say that the reactions of your drivers has, rightly or wrongly, given me the impression that such behaviour is institutional at McGill’s.  Having your driver laugh and offer me his pencil to write down his details today has only served to reinforce this opinion.  

I commute to work by bicycle on a daily basis.  As you can imagine, having somebody put me in danger like this is not something I am willing to simply ignore.  I am therefore copying in several other individuals and organisations with this email who I believe will have an interest in knowing that you take seriously your responsibility to the safety of vulnerable road users who come in contact with your buses.

Yours faithfully,

Joe

Response to 'Safe Clearance to Pass Cyclists'

For those of you who don't know who he is, Keith Peat is the man behind the Drive East Midlands blog and the Drivers' Union website.  A self-proclaimed road safety 'expert', Keith has a number of 'interesting' suggestions to make our roads safer (check out his sites for some real doozies).

My interest piqued with his insistence that cyclists should be banned from the roads entirely.  Sometimes he argues that this is for our own safety, to save us from having to trust the drivers around us not to, you know, mow us down.  But sometimes his veneer slips and he betrays his true motives; he just doesn't like cyclists.

Recently Keith purchased a dash cam to show examples of cyclists "using their bodies and bikes to dominate and bully car drivers".  The video below is one in which he chases down six cyclists (who have aggrieved him simply by cycling on the road) before overtaking far too closely on a blind bend.  As with his other videos, Keith blames his own dangerous driving on the actions of completely innocent cyclists who have done nothing more to earn his wrath than share a road with him.


All of this is by way of an introduction to the man (and motivation) behind this recent blog post from Drive East Midlands in which he argues that the safe distance for a vehicle to overtake a cyclist is only as far as is needed for the driver to avoid an immediate collision with the bicycle.

Let me be clear at this point that this response is, in no way, an attempt to change Keith's opinion.  Experience says that's not an option.  Instead, this is for anybody who might be looking for the logical rebuttal of the illogical.

Keith begins his blog post saying that he believes that rule 163 of the Highway Code is ambiguous.  By my reading, his confusion lies in his misunderstanding of the instruction 'Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car.

When Keith read that instruction and looked at the picture he has, wrongly in my opinion, assumed that it means you should also leave a gap of several feet between your car and another car when overtaking.

I think that what it actually means is that you should treat the cyclist as if he were in a car and pull out as though there were a car in the space he occupies.

Perhaps it might be better demonstrated if the picture were like this:

The reason for this is simple.  Cyclists do not travel in perfectly straight lines.  We may have to avoid potholes or debris on the road.  We may be caught by the wash as a large vehicle passes us by.  We may suffer sudden mechanical faults.  We need room on the road to be able to deal with these things and you cannot assume, as a driver or a cyclist, that you will have any warning.  If you doubt it, you should watch what happened to this cyclist when his crank arm snapped.

Keith says that if he has to give a cyclist this much room then in "bumper to bumper slow moving traffic" it would be impossible to overtake a cyclist.  I am, I admit, confused as to why anybody would feel the need to overtake a cyclist whilst stuck in a bumper-to-bumper queue, but even if you were so inclined, Highway Code Rule 163 has it covered:

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.  You should stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.

 Unfortunately for Keith, at the core of his argument is this statement:

We must first accept that the clearance given by drivers will be entirely their judgement call and if effected without collision or causing a cyclist to fall off, it will corroborate that the driver's judgement was correct; no matter how perceived from the cyclist's perspective.  Cyclists may claim what they like but the outcome justifies the means.

I admit, I had to read this a couple of times.  My brain simply couldn't process it the first time around.  Basically, what Keith is saying here is that a driver can behave in whatever manner he chooses as long as he personally judges it to be safe.  So long as he doesn't actually have an accident then he is proven to be right and his driving is deemed to be safe.

In such a world a near miss would no longer be a near miss but, rather, inch-perfect judgement.  There could no longer be any notion of accident prevention, only cleanup afterwards.

Stating that we must accept this to be true doesn't mean that we actually do have to accept it... I certainly don't.  And once you refuse to accept this first statement, Keith's solution to the problem simply becomes irrelevant.  We don't need to rewrite the Highway Code to accommodate drivers doing whatever they want and we don't need to ban cyclists from the road to protect them from those drivers.

It's quite simple really.