Divisive cycling TV show gets silent treatment it deserved

There was a programme on Channel 5 this week all about cyclists.

I’m not going to name it for reasons that will become clear later.

It set out to illustrate some kind of perceived war between motorists and cyclists being waged on our roads.

It was irresponsible, ill-informed and designed to provoke anger and hatred on both sides.

In other words, it was a typical piece of research-light, tabloid TV favoured by Channel 5 and made by a production company behind other toe-curling programmes such as ‘Mums Make Porn’, ‘The Sex Clinic’ and ‘Secret Life of The Human Pups.’

And predictably social media went wild. Cyclists vented their fury in their droves, quite understandably.

Ratings were all that mattered, and every person who shared the trailer, or commented on the programme, I’m afraid, unwittingly played a part in giving Channel 5 free publicity.

Cycling UK took the conscious decision not to make comment. We didn’t put out a press release, or comment on Twitter.  And that raised some eyebrows.

After all, we are the cyclists’ champion. What were we doing about it?

But to make comment would have given the programme a legitimacy it didn’t deserve and provide the sort of publicity the Channel 5 PR teams could only have dreamed of.

It wasn’t a serious work of journalism – there was only one expert interviewed, the saint-like PC Mark Hodson from the West Midlands Road Harm Reduction Team. They didn’t seek to speak to any other authority such as Cycling UK, British Cycling or Sustrans.

It wasn’t seeking to find answers to difficult questions. It had only one remit. To draw an audience.

Ratings were all that mattered, and every person who shared the trailer, or commented on the programme, I’m afraid, unwittingly played a part in giving Channel 5 free publicity.

It was best left alone to die in a ditch. Sadly, that didn’t happen.

My social media feeds have been awash with it over the last few days.

Fortunately, few media outlets have picked up on the film, and if you want to read an excellent response to the ‘arguments’ against cyclists the film portrayed, I suggest a quick read of Peter Walker’s article in the Guardian.

So what could we have done?

We couldn’t stop the programme being broadcast. There were no grounds to do so.

Nor can we realistically make a complaint to the broadcast watchdog, OFCOM as the programme had clearly been scrutinised by a lawyer in advance and didn’t breach any areas of the code.

So what are we going to do? Stop talking about the programme for a start and concentrate on the work we do that really will make a difference; talking about getting more women cycling, building up our community cycle clubs, and campaigning on issues that make affect us all, such as persuading the Government to spend more money on cycling infrastructure.

On the day the Channel 5 programme aired, a debate on funding was held in Parliament. It was a real chance to influence the Government’s future spending plans.

That’s what we should have all been making a noise about, not worrying about an irrelevant TV show. Sadly, the debate received precious little coverage on the day, and that was the biggest travesty of all.