CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Strict Liability on the radio

(30 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by minus six
  • Latest reply from minus six

No tags yet.


  1. minus six
    Member

    Three minute head to head piece on strict liability on BBC radio "Good Morning Scotland", right at the end of the programme if anyone wants to listen again.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0403xgn

    Alison Johnstone MSP talked sense while facing stiff opposition from both the bbc presenter and some talking head from the 'alliance of british drivers' who were both wilfully underinformed and dismissed it all as contentious twaddle.

    Its as you were, then.

    BBC Radio Scotland reporting remains as partisan as it gets.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. minus six
    Member

    bbc-jock-radio update:

    "Keith Brown to announce a further £4.5 million for cycling later today"

    More crumbs from the motorway man !

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Colonies_Chris
    Member

    Perhaps not even nutritious crumbs. The suggestion on the radio was that the money would be for cycle safety training for chidren and encouraging students to cycle. Not where it's really needed, making the roads safer so that children won't need safety training and students will naturally take up a safe and cheap method of getting about.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. minus six
    Member

    "listen again" is available now, for anyone who wants to grit their teeth through it. last few mins of the programme.

    starts at 02:44:05

    "the battle between the cyclist and the driver continues..."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0403xgn

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Radgeworks
    Member

    In all the pre POP hubbub, my post earlier today from Cycle Law Scotland containing a link to a petition on this very subject appears to be overlooked, just thought you may appreciate a prompt to go sign it...

    Regards

    Radgeworks

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. acsimpson
    Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27155674

    Why have three articles about cycling when one will do.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    "the battle between the cyclist and the driver continues..." No, if it's a battle (or war) at all it's between motorists. They're the ones caught in the increasingly competitive struggle for road space and parking. If cyclists get caught up in that then in the hyperbole which pertains to the "debate" they are subject to "genocide" which confirms the analogy is complete bollocks.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. minus six
    Member

    the battle between the cyclist and the driver continues

    Given that this was the presenter's intro to the debate, are there any grounds for complaining to BBC standards about it?

    Its not as if it is the first time this hyperbole has been adopted as acceptable editorial on this public funded and nationally broadcasted radio station.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. minus six
    Member

    I fired one off via their online complaint form, for what its worth.

    The presenter introduced the news topic of presumed liability legislation in road collisions as "the battle between the cyclist and the driver continues...", which was unnecessarily confrontational, opinionated, conflict inducing, and pandering to a dangerous stereotype. The presenter then went on to adopt the prejuducial position of such legislation being an opportunity for cyclists to flaunt existing road traffic laws. This introduced a partisan prejudicial scenario as an obvious inference, as if 'everyman' would expect this to be a logical conclusion. This daily news programme "Good Morning Scotland" and its sister late afternoon programme "Newsdrive" frequently adopt such lazy partisan editorial slants. While this standard of editorial may be common in local newspapers, I expect far higher standards from a publicly funded national broadcaster, and wish to complain in the strongest possible terms.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    I'd second that Bax. I might complain as well.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Scoosh
    Member

    bax - that is brilliant !

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    @acsimpson, the police statement was very defensive: shows that Cycle Law Scotland are doing something right!

    As for the Transport Scotland statement, same bland line they trotted out to the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, if you rig the "research" you will find the conclusions you set out to find!

    The only reason there "does not appear to be any robust evidence to suggest that the introduction of presumed liability would improve safety" is because most European countries have had strict liability for decades, and there are no statistics from before its introduction to compare the current stats to. Rather than look deeper into the phenomenon, because they can't find the kind of evidence they want (ie. a country which has adopted SL recently and seen a fall in accidents as a result) then they just assume it will have no effect!

    What are they afraid of? More compensation claims against drivers' insurers? Is that all it boils down to?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Tulyar
    Member

    Let's draw back slightly and ask why in civil, and criminal law we have to have 'special' offences pertaining solely to the use of motor vehicles.

    Cyclelaw & I had a friendly chat at the Scottish (Un) Cycle Show at the Glasgow velodrome, and remembered the term Burden of Proof, which links to another term Duty of Care, which crop up in many civil claims, especially where one party is using equipment that can 'cause harm'.

    There is a Duty of Care on the driver, and operator of a truck used on a building site to recognise the major harm that it can cause and thus bear the greater liability if any crash occurs. Move over to the road and
    the whole picture changes.

    The parallel continues when people are killed or injured kill someone with truck on a building site and its manslaughter. Only when it is using a motor vehicle on the road do we have the euphemism 'causing death by' to hide from the true gravity of the act. If a cyclist causes a death in a collision what is the charge?

    This pervades even other road crimes - speeding, running red lights .. not 'proper crimes because they are committed by everyday people like you and me....Hmm

    There is a huge elephant in the corner of that room.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. minus six
    Member

    Your comments were passed to the Editor of Good Morning Scotland, who has asked that I forward his response as follows:

    “Thanks for your e-mail regarding the broadcast of Good Morning Scotland on the 25th of April.

    I am sorry that you felt our use of language was not appropriate during our report on presumed liability legislation in road collisions. Within our coverage of the story we included an in-depth report from transport correspondent David Miller and a balanced discussion between Green MSP Alison Johnstone who proposed the legislation at Holyrood and Sean Corker who is a cyclist and car driver, and a member of the Alliance of British Drivers. At the BBC, we place the highest value on accuracy and impartiality within our own journalism and rigorous editorial standards are applied across all of our output.

    We really appreciate your feedback on the matter. Please be assured that your comments have been registered in the audience feedback log which is an internal document shared with our senior members of staff on a regular basis.”

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. minus six
    Member

    I was at least impressed that my Gmail account placed the BBC's reply directly into the spam folder.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. minus six
    Member

    My further complaint:

    I complained that the news report regarding 'Presumed liability legislation in road collisions' was introduced by the presenter as "the battle between the cyclist and the driver continues" which is combative and conflict inducing. Given the country's frequent fatalities due to collisions involving drivers and vulnerable road users, this editorial slant is entirely irresponsible. Instead of investigating my complaint, you have merely passed it onto the editor responsible to reply. The editor's reply entirely ignores the editorial slant which they chose to present this story as a "battle between cyclists and drivers", and instead describes the variety of interviewees, which I had not complained about. The response was disingenuous. Please investigate the irresponsible editorial slant which your staff used to frame the news report and brief debate.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    @ bax

    Good that you won't be fobbed off!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @BAX

    I'm afraid that the BBC have fallen foul of the canard that if you have two people with wildly opposing views on a panel then impartiality has been observed. This, I think, is why we keep getting people from the Taxpayers Alliance and the Alliance of British Drivers whenever there is a proposal to have the state intervene or to challenge the hegenomy of the automobile.

    The alternative approach - actually anlysing the matter at hand and finding out what the bulk of the population think takes a great deal more research. So much easier to line up two extremists, light the blue touch paper and retire to tick boxes.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. amir
    Member

    Aren't the BBC doing a lot of this these days? e.g. Lord Lawson vs Sir Brian Hoskins on climate change.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. minus six
    Member

    @iwrats

    Such a lazy editorial approach wouldn't matter much, if people weren't being killed.

    The media hugely shape what passes for "public opinion", so people should complain and protest until the likelihood of such easy editorial is diminished.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Nice response Bax.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. crowriver
    Member

    That's called "balance" rather than impartiality. The two extremes in death match tag team wrestling approach has, like many things, been imported from the US of A. It's the talk radio "shock jock" approach: heighten differences, stoke controversy, get the audience riled up and phoning in to vent spleen... Maybe good for "entertainment" or ratings but not good for serious discussion.

    I think this is why UKIP is getting so much media coverage. The media set them in one corner, the "moderates" in another. It's a rather dangerous game to play, however.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. minus six
    Member

    To paraphrase Chomsky --

    Vigorous debate within narrow confines.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    "Not where it's really needed, making the roads safer so that children won't need safety training and students will naturally take up a safe and cheap method of getting about."

    Actually that money IS really need for cycle training.

    Much, much more is needed to make our infrastructure safer.

    One should not be at the cost of the other.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. Colonies_Chris
    Member

    My point was not to denigrate cycle training, just to emphasise that cycle training on its own is largely wasted money if parents perceive (rightly) that the road environment isn't safe for their children to cycle in, regardless of any safety training they've had. Keith Brown seems not to understand that, hence all that money wasted on poster campaigns telling us to be nice to each other.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    Well, that depends on the road and who else is on them!

    Poster and TV campaigns!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. minus six
    Member

    Thank you for taking time to contact us again.

    I am sorry that you did not find our first response satisfactory. We raised your concerns with the Editor of Good Morning Scotland and our reply was sent after consulting with him. We have discussed this with him again and he has considered your points, but believe he explained the position as clearly as possible and does not have more to add.

    I'm amazed that the editor of the programme appears to have no one to answer to, in terms of portraying this as a battle between cyclists and drivers. They've been asked their opinion twice, as if that is all that matters, no one at the BBC appears to be in a position to adjudicate and conclude that this editorial slant is irresponsible and inappropriate.

    Not letting this drop -- we now proceed to stage two, but I'm carousing in Berlin for a week, so it can wait til my return to the mundane kingdom.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. neddie
    Member

    Keep up the good work bax!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  29. userfriendly
    Member

    Wow. That editor isn't even trying to hide his contempt for people on bikes.

    Would have liked to have a listen, but I think they only keep this stuff online for one week don't they?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  30. minus six
    Member

    I imagine the editor driving to work in his/her BMW, being generally oblivious to the partisan slant they have imposed on, what should be, a very serious issue.

    Why would they feel obliged to reconsider that view on the strength of a few nags by a lone nutter like bax?

    Its clear that they have decided this to be a self-evidently "contentious" issue, yet how could it be, if the rest of europe sees it as unambiguous?

    I'm just glad I've never seen fit to subscribe to a license fee.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin