THIRTY SECOND DAY

Channel 5's nonsense will make me and other cyclists less safe
Peter Walker
Cyclists: Scourge of the Roads? isn’t just as bad as the title indicates – it’s irresponsible
On Wednesday morning, I’ll be a little bit more wary when I cycle into work. I’m always hugely
careful, anyway – the trip involves sharing space with tonne-plus lumps of speeding metal – but
this time I’ll be particularly on my guard. Why? Because Channel 5 are putting me, and others, at
risk.
At 9.15pm on Tuesday, a reasonably sizeable number of people, the majority of whom probably
drive motor vehicles, will sit down to watch what is undoubtedly the worst, most scaremongering,
inaccurate, downright irresponsible programme on cycling I’ve ever seen.
Cyclists: Scourge of the Streets? – though the preview version also seemed to call it Cycle Wars –
is, in effect, 45 minutes of hatred, misinformation and outgrouping against people who just happen
to sometimes use two wheels to get about.
Cheaply-made, exploitative TV is nothing new, not even when it’s about cycling, as demonstrated
by the BBC’s deeply misleading War on Britain’s Roads in 2012.
But the Channel 5 offering feels uniquely damaging. While it does contain one sensible, balancing
voice, the saintly PC Mark Hodson from the pioneering traffic unit of West Midlands police, the
overall tone is shockingly hostile and provocative.
Below, I explain why I found it so unsettling. But first, the inevitable question: why does any of this
matter? Bad TV does tend to punch down, to target easy-to-scapegoat groups such as people
reliant on social security. Why worry?
The reason is this: for all that a fair number of people who cycle in the UK can often be assertive,
even relatively privileged, when off the bike, on the roads they are almost uniquely vulnerable.
They are unprotected flesh, blood and bone entirely reliant on the care and goodwill of a
potentially distracted, even hostile stranger piloting a vast, metal machine that could so easily
maim or kill them.
And the way those strangers feel about cyclists, the negative messages they are fed, or that are
reinforced, by the media, can potentially play a role in how careful they are when driving.
It is a difficult notion to conclusively prove, but there are studies that indicate drivers can and
do take half-conscious split-second decisions about how much space to leave a cyclist; and others
that show drivers with negative attitudes towards cyclists might be less cautious towards them.
And so it’s my belief that Channel 5, and Firecracker Films, responsible for this nonsense, have
made me marginally less safe on the roads; the same applies to loved ones and everyone else on
two wheels. Thanks a bundle.
Now, to save you the bother of watching this, here’s why I believe the programme is so
irresponsible.
It openly “others” cyclists
The language of prejudice and hatred tends to have one thing in common – it seeks to creates
“outgroups”, those who are seen as another, not part of the mainstream. At its more sinister ends,
it also uses language which views the outgroup as somehow less than human.
Amazingly, the programme does both. The narration refers to “swarms” of cyclists, while one
interviewee, a London taxi driver, likens them to “a plague of locusts coming down the road”.
Throughout, the narration repeatedly and deliberately talks of cyclists as the other – “this lot” as
they are referred to at one point – while drivers are seen as the mainstream. A long section of the
programme details the anti-cycling opinions of some London taxi drivers, who are introduced as
“three of the city’s finest”.
The message could hardly be clearer.
The narration is openly hostile and aggressive
I was, at times, genuinely open-mouthed at the narration. It’s best shown by a series of direct
quotes. These are genuine, I promise.
Many motorists see cyclists as scum of the roads – speeding through crossings, riding where they
shouldn’t, and generally hogging the roads.
For many drivers in the capital, cyclists have become public enemy number one.
What really winds motorists up is the feeling that cyclists are allowed to pedal outside of the law.
It’s not just in cities that some riders are on a right old rampage.
The pastoral dream – or it was until the cyclists came.
Cyclists sure can be a pain in the rear end, and some are a danger on the roads.
It creates a false narrative of “war” between different road users
The programme’s researchers were clearly briefed to find the most aggressive and extreme
footage they could find on YouTube, and they delivered. It is, the narration says, “the battle for
Britain’s roads”.
Aside from being needlessly confrontational and hugely irresponsible, this is also utter nonsense
for two very obvious reasons. Firstly: these are very often the same people. About 90% of
British Cycling members also drive.
Also, “war” implies at least some equality in numbers and reciprocal threat. Chris Boardman
possibly put it best: “You’ve got 2% of vulnerable road users versus 98% in two tonnes of steel.
How can you possibly have a war? I think that’s called a massacre.”
Too many of the contributors are chosen for their hostility
Perhaps the most airtime is given to a series of London taxi drivers, whose many problems with
cyclists are given a long and sympathetic hearing. London’s cabbies have a reputation for ill-
tempered and prejudiced views about lots of different groups, which are usually not heard with
such credulity.
Even more grim is the opportunity given to Nick “Mr Loophole” Freeman, a lawyer and absurd self-
publicist whose day job involves getting celebrity drivers out of punishment for alleged behaviour
that genuinely is harmful to others – speeding. He has a long and tedious sideline in calling for
cyclists to be registered and wear number-plate tabards.
“They need to be legislated, they need to be controlled, and they need to comply with the laws of
the land, in exactly the same way that we do,” Freeman says at one point, oblivious to the pathetic
paradox between this view and his own day job.
The “balance” is – for the most part – cursory and poorly-handled
The only bearable section of the programme follows PC Hodson on patrol, pulling over drivers
who pass him too close on his bike, in some cases while merrily chatting on the phone. He is – as
always – excellent. However, this is just five minutes of 45.
In contrast, the other voice-of-the-cyclist is a man called Dave Sherry, who rides his bike adorned
with cameras and wearing a Kevlar stab vest, pedalling around his local streets on the hunt for
lawbreaking drivers.
I have no objection to using camera footage to prosecute dangerous driving, but Sherry seems
almost as fervent a self-publicist and irritant as Freeman, often delighting in the furious reaction of
motorists.
It repeats falsehoods unchallenged
The cavalier approach to facts begins, amazingly, with the very first words spoken: “Britain has
gone bike mad.” It hasn’t. Cycling levels have risen in some places, but nationwide the percentage
of trips made by bike is stuck stubbornly on about 2%. It’s a common mistake, generally made by
people who rarely leave central London.
Things don’t get any better. Among the falsehoods made, either by the narration or by
contributors, which are not corrected or countered, are:
• Cyclists are particularly prone to break the law. One taxi driver says: “Most of the accidents,
when you look at them, are probably the cyclists wearing headphones. They’re not even taking
any notice of the road, and the traffic lights, and the zebra crossings. They’re lawless.”
• The programme quotes from the Highway Code’s advice that cyclists wear helmets as evidence
for a lack of adherence to rules. This is purely guidance.
• Cycle lanes in London are responsible for traffic jams and are barely used.
The tone is absurdly apocalyptic
This is best exemplified by a ridiculous section on the number of leisure cyclists who ride on Box
Hill in Surrey – “the adrenaline junkies infiltrating Box Hill”, as the narration puts it – which is
portrayed as the opening front of the next world war.
“Life in leafy suburbia would never be the same,” says the narration, followed by frankly weird
complaints about cyclists supposedly throwing away their water bottles – perhaps the ones that
cost £5 or more each – and (I swear I’m not making this up) accusations that they “defecate in
people’s front gardens”.
The absurdity grows as the programme follows a local man driving a vast 4x4 down narrow lanes,
complaining he cannot overtake them on blind bends. “There is a limit of the number of cyclists
you can have on our very, very small roads,” he says, without any apparent irony or self-
awareness.
The same man ends by complaining that his 3,500-signature petition has not prompted stern
government action: “I can envisage civil disorder happening on the roads if this situation is allowed
to continue.”
Air pollution in Birmingham 'shortens lives of children by half a year'
City one of five required by government to set up a clean air zone to tackle nitrogen dioxide
and PM2.5s
Primary school children who grow up in Birmingham could lose half a year of their lives due to
illegal levels of air pollution in the city, a new report warns.
The study examines levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulate pollution (PM2.5) in the city and
calculates that an eight-year-old child could die up to seven months early if exposed over their
lifetimes to toxic air. The loss of life expectancy is worse in Birmingham than some other major
cities in the UK including Manchester, researchers found.
Birmingham is one of five cities required by the government to set up a clean air zone to reduce
toxic air, as part of plans to tackle the illegal levels of pollution in 38 out of 43 areas of the country.
But in Birmingham and Leeds the start date of January next year has been postponed because
of government delays in providing vehicle-checking software.
On Monday research commissioned by UK100 – a network of local leaders across the country –
for the first time examines the burden air pollution places on mortality in major cities.
The report, carried out by Kings College London, said the health cost of the city’s toxic air was
£470m every year.
The study examined NO2 and PM2.5, two of the leading causes of poor health from air pollution,
in the city’s 10 constituencies. It found that air pollution had the greatest impact in the most
deprived areas, and that men are more likely to be affected than women. In Erdington, up to 91
deaths are attributable annually to air pollution, compared with up to 59 in Edgbaston and 57 in
Hall Green.
More than half of children in Birmingham live in the top 10% of the most deprived areas of the
country, and about 8,000 children in the city are growing up in the most disadvantaged
neighbourhoods in the UK, according to a report by the Children’s Society.
Waseem Zaffar, cabinet member for transport and environment on the city council, said the results
were shocking.
“They demonstrate the sheer scale of the major public health crisis we are dealing with in
Birmingham today,” he said.
“One life cut short by poor air quality is one too many, so this is exactly why the city is taking
forward measures such as the clean air zone and why we continue to work with other cities across
the country to tackle this problem together, but we also need strong leadership on this issue at a
national government level.”
Sue Huyton, coordinator of the Clean Air Parent’s network, said action was needed now.
“It’s awful that children living in the UK are breathing air that may shorten their lives. As a parent,
you want to do everything you can for your children, but when it comes to air pollution you can feel
helpless – that’s why those in power must step up.
“We need the government and Birmingham city council to take ambitious action to tackle the toxic
air in this city, and we need them to do it now.”
Air pollution has been identified by Public Health England as the largest environmental risk to
public health in the UK. Evidence shows that it can cause or worsen a range of lung and heart
conditions including asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic heart disease and stroke. Research
suggests air pollution caused by NO2 and PM2.5 could cause 36,000 deaths per year.
Polly Billington, director of UK100, said the report should be a wake-up call to policy makers.
“We need to tackle this invisible killer which is cutting the lives of children and causing health
misery for thousands of adults. By working together, local councils and central government can
put in place ambitious and inclusive clean air zones to tackle the most polluting sources of dirty air
and let us breathe freely.”
The government has been forced by the courts to improve its plans to clean up the air, after losing
legal action taken by environmental lawyers Client Earth.
A government spokesperson said: “We are aware of concerns over delays and are carrying out
work to develop key components of the system to support the Charging Clean Air Zones for
January 2020.”
The wrong kind of trees: Ireland's afforestation meets resistance
Residents and campaigners say fast-growing Sitka spruces are spoiling the landscapeIreland is
ramping up its response to the climate crisis by planting forests – lots of forests. East, west, north,
south, the plan is to plant forests, the more the better.
With enough trees, goes the hope, Ireland can compensate for many of the cows, vehicles and
fossil-burning power plants that make it one of Europe’s worst climate offenders.
From having just 1% forest cover in 1900, Ireland now has 11%, covering 770,000 hectares. It has
just committed to planting 8,000 more hectares each year to reach 18% coverage.
Research published last week said planting billions of trees across the world was the biggest and
cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis.
But some in Ireland have a problem with the great green vision. They say Ireland is planting
the wrong sort of forests – dark, dank abominations that kill wildlife, block sunlight and isolate
communities.
“It’s like a wall around you, dead, darkness. It’s suffocating. We’re losing the landscape,” said
Edwina Guckian, a member of Save Leitrim, a group that is resisting plantations.
“You couldn’t live in the middle of this thing unless you were Grizzly Adams,” said Jim McCaffrey,
another member, crouching in a gloomy, tangled copse. “It’s absolute misfortune when you see
the plantations coming.”

The group, named after county Leitrim in Ireland’s north-west, has delayed some plantations with
a blitz of planning objections and hopes to galvanise resistance in other counties. Last month a
protester used a digger to block workers from felling trees and planting new ones.
The offending species is Sitka spruce, a coniferous evergreen that dominates Ireland’s
afforestation programme. Originally from North America, it grows quickly and tall – up to 100
metres – and flourishes in Ireland’s damp, temperate climate.
About half of Ireland’s trees are Sitka spruces, many in packed phalanxes that blanket hills and
valleys. They supply wood for pulp, plywood, pallets, fencing, garden furniture and building
materials, much of it exported to Britain. And they absorb carbon, an increasingly valuable
function as Ireland tries to avert fines of hundreds of millions of euros for missing targets on
emissions and renewable energy.
The government recently unveiled a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions and set a path for
net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. With emissions from agriculture set to rise, not fall, success
hinges partly on planting 8,000 hectares of new forest each year, auguring a lot more Sitka
spruces.
Save Leitrim activists say their county has been a laboratory for such plantations – “a national
sacrifice zone” – and that the results are a warning to the rest of the country.
“We’re not anti-trees, we’re anti-this,” said Willie Stewart, tramping through a gloomy pine-filled
grove near his home in the townland of Drumnadober. “It’s industrial monoculture – a green
barrier all around us. It’s horrible.”

The activists, who include artists, farmers and business owners, say plantations inflict ecological
and social damage and capture less carbon than proponents claim.
The companies behind the plantations reject this and say Sitka forests play vital economic and
environmental roles.
Leitrim is bucolic and sparsely populated – just 32,000 people. Sitka thrives in the waterlogged
soil with high clay content.
Coillte, a state-owned commercial forestry business, started buying land and planting here in the
1960s. Private companies, encouraged by tax breaks, followed. Farm land vanished as Sitkas
multiplied. They now number an estimated 34.5m – more than 1,000 for each inhabitant.
The trees mature in about 30 years – exponentially faster than oak – and are then felled, making
way for a fresh plantation.
“The forest closed in bit by bit,” said McCaffrey, a farmer, who now feels surrounded. The trees
eclipse sunlight, exude mist and block wifi and phone networks, inducing isolation, he said. “It’s a
death sentence for the townlands.”
These non-native trees carpet the soil with acidic needles and smother wildlife, said Natalia
Beylis, an artist. “A lot of people find them spooky because they don’t have life in them. They’re
silent except on the edges.”
When machines chop down swathes of forest, a controversial process known as clear-felling, the
landscape is devastated, said Stewart. “It looks like Hiroshima.”
Brian Smyth, another member of Save Leitrim who runs a rural development non-profit,
questioned the plantations’ climate credentials, saying carbon-soaking bogs were damaged and
diesel-emitting machines often felled trees prematurely. “It’s all about money,” he said.
Campaigners filed multiple planning objections to delay fellings and fresh plantations, said Smyth.
“It clogs the system. We’ve stalled their work.”
Forestry companies concede some plantations were too thick and sited too close to homes but
that the system is now improved, affording greater space and biodiversity, with at least 15% of
trees that are not Sitka spruce.
“We’re in a different age now, we do things differently,” said Paul Jordan, a Leitrim-based
manager for Coillte, the state-owned company. He cited sparrow hawk nests and badgers as
evidence that Sitka forests foster wildlife. “It’s not the dead zone that the protestors would claim it
is.”
John O’Reilly, the CEO of Green Belt, Ireland’s biggest private forestry company, said Sitka grew
three times faster in Ireland than Scandinavia, driving a sustainable sector that generated jobs,
created essential building materials and benefited the environment. “The faster it grows, the
greater the quantity of carbon it will sequester from the atmosphere.”
The government’s target of 8,000 new hectares per year does not identify species but Sitka’s
dominance is expected to gradually wane.
Last week Coillte announced it would convert nine commercial timber forests in the Dublin
mountains to primarily recreational and biodiversity use to create different type of forest that
people could enjoy from a “landscape and aesthetic point of view”.
British Gas and SSE to purge petrol and diesel from fleets by 2030
Two of big six energy companies sign up to pledge organised by the Climate Group
Two of Britain’s biggest energy suppliers are accelerating the drive towards greener vehicles by
pledging to replace their existing fleet of vans with all-electric models by 2030.
British Gas owner Centrica and SSE have committed to switch to electric cars and vans a decade
ahead of the government’s ban on the sale of new combustion engine vehicles.
British Gas will electrify its 12,500 vans, the third largest fleet of vehicles in the UK, to transport its
15,000 engineers across the country to customer homes.
SSE said it would switch its 3,500 vehicles, the UK’s seventh biggest fleet of cars, to electric
models, and install charging points for its 21,000 employees.
The two companies – among the UK’s big six energy providers – will sign up to the pledge,
organised by the Climate Group, alongside facilities management firm Mitie, which has signed up
to a softer target. Mitie plans to switch 20% of its 3,500-strong car and van fleet to electric by 2020
and will install 800 charging points.
The Climate Group said the latest pledges mean 49 companies have agreed to remove more than
2m petrol and diesel vehicles from the world’s roads by 2030.
Helen Clarkson, the pressure group’s chief executive, said: “These companies are sending a clear
message that the direction of travel for transport is electric, inspiring their staff and customers to
follow. Every major business must do the same.”
The group is also calling on companies to double their energy productivity by 2030, by increasing
energy efficiency and reducing energy waste.
SSE has signed up to the energy efficiency pledge and said it has already reduced the energy use
at its data centres by more than a fifth since 2016.
Brian McLaren, a director at SSE, said the pledges were part of the company’s ambition to “deliver
low carbon infrastructure in a sustainable way”. “Decarbonisation is at the heart of what we do and
low-carbon emissions from transport is critical if the UK is to meet its net zero targets,” he said.
Mitie has promised to keep replacing its cars and vans with electric options between 2020 to
2030, but said its progress would depend on the availability and affordability of vehicle charging
infrastructure.
Simon King, Mitie’s fleet director, said the interim 2020 target was still “an important step in the
effort to combat climate change”. “It is challenging, but we all need to take responsibility for
actions and commit to change,” he said.
“We want to ensure our sizeable fleet is as green and sustainable as possible and show other
companies that making the switch to electric vehicles is the right thing for their people, the planet
and their pockets,” he said.

Indoor carbon dioxide levels could be a health hazard, scientists warn

CO2 in bedrooms and offices may affect cognition and cause kidney and bone problems
Indoor levels of carbon dioxide could be clouding our thinking and may even pose a wider danger
to human health, researchers say.
While air pollutants such as tiny particles and nitrogen oxides have been the subject of much
research, there have been far fewer studies looking into the health impact of CO2.
However, the authors of the latest study – which reviews current evidence on the issue – say
there is a growing body of research suggesting levels of CO2that can be found in bedrooms,
classrooms and offices might have harmful effects on the body, including affecting cognitive
performance.
“There is enough evidence to be concerned, not enough to be alarmed. But there is no time to
waste,” said Dr Michael Hernke, a co-author of the study from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, stressing further research was needed.
Writing in the journal Nature Sustainability, Hernke and colleagues report that they considered 18
studies of the levels of CO2 humans are exposed to, as well as its health impacts on both humans
and animals.
Traditionally, the team say, it had been thought that CO 2 levels would need to reach a very high
concentration of at least 5,000 parts per million (ppm) before they would affect human health. But
a growing body of research suggests CO2 levels as low as 1,000ppm could cause health
problems, even if exposure only lasts for a few hours.
The team say crowded or poorly ventilated classrooms, office environments and bedrooms have
all been found to have levels of CO2 that exceed 1,000ppm, and are spaces that people often
remain in for many hours at a time. Air-conditioned trains and planes have also been found to
exceed 1,000ppm.
“Indoor environments are of much more concern presently and for many people that is where they
spend 60-80% of their time,” said Hernke, although projections suggest by 2100 some large cities
might reach outdoor CO2 levels of 1,000ppm for parts of the year.
The team found a number of studies have looked at the impact of such levels on human cognitive
performance and productivity. In one study of 24 employees, cognitive scores were 50% lower
when the participants were exposed to 1,400ppm of CO2 compared with 550ppm during a working
day.
The team additionally looked at the impact of CO2 levels on animals, finding that a few hours’
exposure to 2,000 ppm was linked to inflammatory responses that could lead to damage to blood
vessels. There is also tentative evidence suggesting that prolonged exposure to levels between
2,000 and 3,000ppm is linked to effects including stress, kidney calcification and bone
demineralisation.
The team add that rising outdoor levels of CO2 will mean rising indoor levels – a situation that
could be exacerbated by greater use of certain air-conditioning units, people spending more time
inside, energy-saving building techniques, and increasing urbanisation.
Any health impacts, they add, might be particularly problematic for children or those with health
conditions that might exacerbate the effects. And even if the impacts are reversible, said Hernke,
it would depend on people being able to access air with low levels of CO 2. “The question is what
happens over the very long term when you are unable to go outside and, as it were, have that
carbon sucked back out of you?”
Dr Gary Fuller, an air pollution scientist at King’s College London, said his team had been
measuring CO2 levels in London for the past decade. While levels rarely reached 1,000ppm, he
said, they often exceeded 750ppm along busy roads. “Unless we decarbonise heating and
transport then these peaks will worsen as the global background increases,” he said.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez move to declare climate crisis official emergency
Exclusive: Democrats to introduce resolution in House on Tuesday in recognition of
extreme threat from global heating
A group of US lawmakers including the 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie
Sanders are proposing to declare the climate crisis an official emergency – a significant
recognition of the threat taken after considerable pressure from environment groups.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic congresswoman from New York, and Earl Blumenauer,
a Democratic congressman from Oregon, plan to introduce the same resolution in the House on
Tuesday, their offices confirmed.
A Sanders spokesperson said: “President Trump has routinely declared phony national
emergencies to advance his deeply unpopular agenda, like selling Saudi Arabia bombs that
Congress had blocked.
“On the existential threat of climate change, Trump insists on calling it a hoax. Senator Sanders is
proud to partner with his House colleagues to challenge this absurdity and have Congress declare
what we all know: we are facing a climate emergency that requires a massive and immediate
federal mobilization.”
Climate activists have been calling for the declaration, as data shows nations are not on track to
limit the dangerous heating of the planet significantly enough. The UN has warned the world is
experiencing one climate disaster every week. A new analysis from the economic firm Rhodium
Group today finds the US might achieve less than half of the percentage of pollution reductions it
promised other countries in an international agreement.
Sixteen countries and hundreds of local governments, including New York City last month, have
declared a climate emergency already, according to the advocacy group the Climate Mobilization.
The activist group Extinction Rebellion has said the declaration is a crucial first step in addressing
the crisis. Blumenauer’s office said he decided to draft the resolution after Donald Trump declared
an emergency at the US border with Mexico so he could pursue building a wall between the two
countries.
In Congress, Democrats in control of the House might have enough support for the resolution, but
Republicans in the majority in the Senate are not likely to approve.
The resolution says: “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions
of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency” that “severely and urgently impacts
the economic and social well-being, health and safety, and national security of the United States”.
It then goes on to say that Congress “demands a national, social, industrial, and economic
mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.”
Trump and his administration have questioned the science showing that humans are causing the
climate crisis. They have downplayed the risks of rising temperatures and gutted government
efforts to limit the heat-trapping pollution from power plants, cars and other sources.
Despite that record, Trump touted the US as an environmental leader in a speech on Monday at
the White House.
Even if the resolution passed and was signed by the president, it would not force any action on
climate change. But advocates say similar efforts in Canada and the United Kingdom have served
as a leverage point, highlighting the hypocrisy between the government position that the situation
is an emergency and individual decisions that would exacerbate the problem.
Several of the Democrats running for president have rolled out partial or full blueprints for cutting
emissions. Nearly all have said it is a top issue. Sanders has a history of prioritizing the climate
crisis, and has previously suggested specific policy options, but he has yet to release his own
proposal.