I’ve taken the BBC to task more than once over its coverage of cycling, most notably, the woeful and misleading War on Britain’s Roads documentary. I’m about to do so again.

This isn’t BBC bashing. I’ve got no desire to, in my own minuscule way, add to the pummelling currently faced by the corporation. So why pick apart its sometimes lamentable treatment of everyday cycling? There are a few reasons.

The first is pure happenstance. Over the past few weeks, various arms of BBC radio – 4, Kent and Ulster – have, independently, broadcast items about cycling which were variously ill-judged, silly, unbalanced and, in some cases, downright odd.

Then there’s the fact the BBC doesn’t want to talk about this. Three times I approached its press offices for a chance to chat to producers or presenters about the way cycling had been covered. Each time, in different ways, they didn’t want to engage.

Finally, there’s the fact it’s the BBC. Blinkered, over-generalised and just plain factually wrong coverage of cycling is common in the media. But the corporation supposedly holds itself to higher standards. There is an attempt at neutrality, at balance.

And this is where the phenomenon becomes so fascinating: nothing illustrates how poisonous and skewed the public narrative about everyday cycling has become in Britain as much as programmes which believe they’re being balanced when in fact the very way they treat the subject shows huge bias, often unconscious.

All three shows were radio phone-ins. All began with the premise that there is a pressing public safety need for cyclists to be more regulated, either compelled to take out insurance or pass tests, or in one instance to be “banned in cities”.

If I’d been able to quote the shows’ producers, all would doubtless have said such opinions were “in the news”, or “a talking point”. And of course, talk radio by its nature thrives on combative exchanges. But it’s illustrative to try and think which other vast and incredibly disparate group would be treated in such a sweeping way. None, I’d guess.

I’d also struggle to think of another subject where the presenters would be so under-researched and ill-prepared that basic myths and factual errors were left unchallenged. I’d also wonder where else the hosts could express their own sometimes idiotic and highly contentious opinions without any censure.

Finally, as ever with the issue of the media treatment of cycling, we come to the sharp end: what effect does it have on real life on the roads? My own view – and I realise it’s impossible to prove – is that there is sufficient evidence about poor attitudes towards cyclists translating into less safe driving behaviour, that we can say such “controversial talking points” do, in a tiny but incremental way, put people’s lives and welfare in more danger.

And that, above all, is why the BBC refusing to engage with this worries me so much. And that’s also why I take it all a bit personally.

You and Yours, 26 May

“Do you think it’s time to ask cyclists to take a test before they’re allowed on the roads?”

British Cycling policy adviser Chris Boardman. Photograph: Bryn Lennon/Getty Images

This phone-in episode of the Radio 4 show is a slightly curious one in that it tried to be balanced in some ways. The saintly Chris Boardman, British Cycling’s policy adviser and perhaps the nation’s most sensible voice on the issue, was in the studio virtually throughout, offering reasoned context to the angry callers.



What was worrying was the inspiration for the subject. Several days earlier, alarming CCTV footage had emerged showing a cyclist bowling over a three-year-old girl on a Blackpool pavement and, the girl’s family said, swearing and riding off. The 23-year-old rider involved insisted he had stopped at the scene and had apologised to the family.

Nonetheless, the subject was “in the news”, so You and Yours decided to press ahead with the subject. There are two main objections here.

The first is that the premise is utterly absurd. No one in government, even the fringes of national politics, is thinking about making cyclists take tests, for all sorts of reasons.

More than that, incidents like Blackpool are extremely rare, unlike deaths and serious injuries caused to pedestrians on pavements by motor vehicles. Boardman quoted the statistic that around 36 people a year on average are killed on pavements by motor vehicles, with about one every three years by a cyclist. Similar data for London shows that over five years, 12 pedestrians were killed on pavements, not one by a cyclist.

Even a cursory look at the news shows how one-sided this issue is. Since You and Yours was broadcast, dozens of pedestrians have been injured and even killed on the pavement by motor vehicles. In Oxfordshire. In north London. In Mansfield. In Altrincham. In Swanage. But where’s the You and Yours phone-in about cars killing people on pavements?

The BBC press office put me in touch with the programme’s editor, Chas Watkins, who gamely if unconvincingly talked me through the editorial process.



However, this chat was in connection with a previous piece about attitudes to cycling, and in the end there was no space to quote Watkins. I thus asked the BBC press office: any objection if I re-use his quotes in this piece, not least to make sure You and Yours gets a fair hearing? The answer: no.

Of course, I could still print the quotes – they’re on tape – but it would be a bit discourteous, as the interview was done under a slightly different premise. As it is, you’ll just have to guess why You and Yours thought this was a worthwhile subject.

Cyclists commute to work during London tube strike on 9 July. Photograph: Cartel/REX Shutterstock

Stephen Nolan Show, 25 June

“Would you support a move to introduce licences, licence plates and road insurance for cyclists? A new petition to do just that has just been launched.”

This BBC Radio Ulster phone in carried the same idiotic premise as You and Yours, but unlike the Radio 4 show made no attempt to be balanced, or to introduce any facts. Nolan has won 12 Sony radio awards, so he’s clearly no fool. He can’t surely be very proud of this show.



Radio phone-ins do, by their nature, attract cranks and obsessives. Where Nolan and his team failed was in not offering any counter-narrative. Indeed, Nolan added to the slightly febrile anti-cyclist scapegoating, one where those on two wheels were variously referred to as “these people”, “the bicycle people” and “idiots”.

Caller after caller unleashed absurdly over-generalised slurs. “They show no respect for any other vehicle users,” said one caller, John a lorry driver. “They’re a disgrace,” said another, Bertie, calling cyclists a menace to mothers with children: “They just mow right through them, and if you say anything to them you only get the f-word.”

Throughout, Nolan chuckled away in agreement. John opined that cyclists should not be allowed on the roads “three deep”. Nolan answered: “You could have it that they shouldn’t be allowed on the road at all.”

When Bertie suggested cyclists be obliged to have their name on their coat or helmet, Nolan gave up any pretence of balance. “Absolutely!” he yelled back. “They should have a big, bright sign on their helmet.”

At one point Nolan said cyclists “get in my road when I’m driving home”, not explaining what “his” road was. A clue came later when another caller, Ken, complained of cyclists not paying “motor tax”. Nolan responded: “Exactly, Ken!”

More curious still was the premise for the programme, with the peg being that a petition had been launched calling for cyclists to have compulsory tests, licensing and insurance.

Ah yes, a petition. As far as I can tell, this is the petition. It currently has 25 signatories. At the time the show was broadcast it had, I’m told, four.

Four people. At the moment there are petitions on the same website with more signatories calling for someone to be made head of chemistry at Warwick University, for paper boys and girls to be paid more, and for Sainsbury’s to move cereal bars to the snack aisle. Are any of them getting their own Nolan show segment? Why not?

I asked to chat to someone from the show, and asked a series of questions about the editorial process behind the segment. Instead I was sent this statement, which decided to ignore just about every one of them:

The editorial for The Nolan Show is determined largely by the news of the day and issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland. Listeners will be familiar with Stephen’s often tongue in cheek style of broadcasting. He hosted a balanced discussion on this subject and the public were also invited to give their opinions on the matter. The issue was dealt with in line with our usual editorial guidelines.

A no cycling sign, City of London, UK Photograph: Bjanka Kadic/Alamy

BBC Radio Kent, June 26

“Should cyclists be banned in cities?”

“Should cyclists be banned in cities?” yelled a truly bizarre tweet from the station promoting this phone-in. “Where in Kent is the most dangerous place to cycle?”



Pardon? As various people replied on Twitter, this was a truly bizarre way to introduce the subject, not least as not one British national or local politician, to my knowledge, has ever considered this as a serious policy.

Again, things didn’t get any better in the show, helmed by stand-in host Neil Francis, a man who veered between jarring Partridge-isms (“Have you got, as we have got with America, a special relationship with lorry drivers?” he asked a puzzled-sounding Alan in Hoo) and open expressions of his own generally idiotic views (pondering why it takes a long time to drive around London’s Trafalgar Square, Francis opined: “It all comes from cyclists taking over”).

Again, there was an attempt at some balance. A self-proclaimed cycle campaigner called James from Maidstone had a few minutes’ air time, though even he took the niche view that cycle helmets should be compulsory (“I think most sensible cyclists would welcome that,” said Francis to this).

But there was, equally, not even the most basic research. Another Maidstone caller, Chris, ranted about cyclists riding more than 60cm from the kerb, which he said was prohibited in the Highway Code. This is, of course, nonsense – some cycle trainers recommend people cycle at least 60cm from the kerb – but Francis and his production team were oblivious.

Our host was more interested in either his increasingly bizarre links (“We’ll get a move on to someone who’s a little bit more angry then you.”) or his own increasingly trenchant opinions, calling for example for a “really stringent” test for cyclists.

“If you are a cyclist, what makes you such a big deal on the road?” he fumed at one point. “I mean, what kind of test have you done? Isn’t the test a little bit too easy? Motorists have to jump through hoops and pay a lot of money before they’re allowed on the road, behind the wheel. So what do cyclists do?”

Commuters hiring Boris bikes outside Waterloo station, London. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/REX Shutterstock

Are such editorial expressions normal for the BBC? Why was the show even debating an idea – banning cyclists from city – which is currently proposed by precisely no one?

We’ll never know. Again, my questions and requests for a chat with someone were ignored. Instead I was sent this meaningless waffle:

BBC Radio Kent engages in lively debate every day and our phone in on cycling was no different to any other. The subject of this debate was designed to challenge audiences which resulted in a passionate argument on air from both sides. Our presenters adhere to the BBC’s strict editorial guidelines on impartiality.

So there we have it. On this evidence, too many parts of the BBC don’t care about covering cyclists in a fair or responsible way. They don’t want to engage when they get it badly wrong. Most worryingly, whether consciously or not, they don’t appear to care if these actions make the lives of cyclists on British roads very slightly less safe.



And if anyone at the BBC disagrees, they are welcome to have their say.

Update:

When writing the piece I meant to add the caveat that not all BBC treatment of everyday cycling is bad, and particularly praise the news coverage of people like Tom Edwards, transport correspondent for BBC London. I forgot – that was my mistake. For those not in London, Tom covers cycling issues in the capital fairly and thoroughly.

I was also contacted by the presenter of a BBC Radio 5 Live cycling-related show called BeSpoke. While mainly connected to cycle sport, he said it has dealt with everyday cycling in a fair manner. I’d never heard it, but previous episodes can be listened to here.