If you tuned into BBC Radio Gloucestershire early on Thursday morning, you might have heard the presenter discussing cycling safety.

Here’s a thought, and a suggestion, we haven’t heard before.

Something we haven’t heard before? What’s that then? Surely something fresh, thoughtful and considered on the subject of cycling as a mode of transport?

Cyclists – should you be forced to use the network of cycle paths and lanes in Gloucestershire?

Oh. Right. Not a new suggestion at all – just the same old rubbish that appears with tiresome regularity on local radio.

Eight deaths of cyclists recently, six in London, two in Bristol – a guy called Robin Carey has this thought. He’s campaigned for their use for years. He’s now challenging both his MP, Martin Horwood, and Gloucestershire Highways, to improve safety, and make the use of cycle lanes compulsory.

Wow. That’s respectful. Using deaths – deaths! – of people as a superficial basis for dragging up some local bloke’s pet peeve.

None of these recent deaths had anything to do with a failure to use cycle paths, so this is a bit like using a series of recent rapes as a trigger for asking a local man his opinions about what women are wearing, and how they should keep safe. But on we go.

[Robin Carey] says too many riders are ignoring the signs and the dedicated cycle routes, making the current system a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.

There are, of course, no signs mandating use of off-carriageway routes in the UK. As for ‘dedicated cycle routes’… well, we’re about to see the example in question. Here’s Robin Carey himself –

Landsdown Road [in Cheltenham] is very narrow there, there’s just enough space for two cars, let alone a cyclist. And then you’ve got the junction with Shelburne Road, and there’s a conflict between car and cyclist there. One time I was coming out of Shelburne Road, turning left towards Gloucester, and nearly had a collision with a car coming the other way, because he was overtaking a cyclist.

Mr Carey turned left out of a side road, apparently without checking to see if it was appropriate to do so, and that the road was clear, without a vehicle on the side of the road he was entering. Somehow, this is the person on the bike’s fault (the overtaking driver also appears to have violated Highway Code rule 167).

This is the location.

The DJ addresses the audience.

Let me know as a motorist what you’ve seen, what you’ve observed. Do you agree? Should a cyclist stay in the lane, and actually be penalised if they come out of it? Robin says unless matters are improved, more people will be seriously hurt or killed. He’s now hoping by really getting this on the agenda, things can be improved.

Notice here that people will be ‘seriously hurt or killed’ by their temerity to come out of a cycle ‘lane’ (a generous term for what is clearly a pavement with a stripe on it) not ‘seriously hurt or killed’ by inattentive drivers. Robin Carey again –

I would like Martin Horwood to discuss with the Department for Transport the changing of the law so that the use of cycle paths where provided are compulsory. It seems to make sense, both from the taxpayers’ money point of view, and from cyclists’ point of view, and from the motorists’ point of view. I got angry because it’s not just the cyclists that get hurt, the driver… If I was involved in an accident with a cyclist who was very badly injured or killed, I get traumatised as well. I would have to live that for the rest of my life.

Yes, he really did say that.

There are clues already, but if we scoot up the road a little, we can see why the cyclist in question in this incident might not have chosen to use the ‘dedicated cycle path’, built at taxpayers’ expense.

Yes, that’s three separate signalised crossings, just to get across the junction.

Is it really any wonder he chose to use the road, even if it meant running the risk of traumatising poor Mr Carey by getting himself killed? The use of this rubbish ‘path’ ‘makes sense’ to Robin Carey, presumably only the grounds that the person on the bike would be out of his way. Sod his comfort and convenience.

This is, of course, local radio, the home of the ill-informed opinion, but BBC Radio Gloucestershire actually used this as a feature item. Mr Carey didn’t ring up spontaneously – his drivel was pre-recorded, and then used as the basis for a supposedly sensible discussion about cycling safety. It’s utter bollocks. Just a moment’s thought or reflection would establish why anyone would choose not to use a ‘dedicated cycle path’. People aren’t wilfully choosing to put themselves in harm’s way; they are making a rational choice on the basis of the relative inconvenience of using awful pedestrian-specific multiple crossings that make crossing a simple junction take several minutes. If it was good enough, they would use it automatically. People do not cycle in the road in the Netherlands where cycle facilities are provided, because those facilities are good. It’s that simple.

What is most troubling is that this is probably about par for the course for a good deal of the British media, who in the wake of a tragic series of deaths (repeat – deaths) have chosen not to inform themselves about the issues, about the causes of death and serious injury, and about how they can be prevented, but instead to carry on churning out the same patronising and hostile rubbish on the subject, and chosen to do so at a greater volume. Here’s just one other example – also on BBC local radio – documented by Kats Dekker.

Indeed, this same story in Cheltenham was also covered by the local paper, where the journalist responsible for writing it described it as a ‘hot topic’. No, I’m sorry, the ‘hot topic’ is people being seriously injured or killed, not because they refuse to cycle on pavements like a pedestrian, but because of seriously flawed road design, lax safety standards, and putting people into conflict with large and heavy vehicles. Stop crowbarring in your petty ill-informed vendettas into what should be a real debate about how to make cycling a safe and viable mode of transport for all. It’s grossly offensive.

Thanks to @beztweets for spotting this