Complaint
A viewer argued this programme unnecessarily set motorists and cyclists against one another, and lacked impartiality in its choice of contributors and treatment of the subject matter. The ECU considered whether the programme met the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ’s standards for due impartiality.
Outcome
The choice of subject matter and contributors is an issue for programme makers and would only raise an issue of editorial standards if the requirement for due impartiality was not met in the broadcast itself. In this case the ECU considered the programme contained an appropriate range of views on the issue of road use, cycling policy and cycling safety and contributors were appropriately challenged – for example on whether it was reasonable to directly confront motorists suspected of breaking the law.
In the ECU’s view it would have been clear to audiences where contributors were expressing a personal opinion and it did not consider past comments, which the complainant considered made one contributor unsuitable for inclusion, to be relevant to consideration of what was actually said on this programme. It also did not agree with the complainant that a lack of reference to the increase in cars and road budgets resulted in viewers being misled.
There was a strong editorial justification for the focus on cycling – given the increase in spending in that area and recent changes to the Highway Code which afford cyclists greater protection from motorists. It did not require a similar focus on road spending for due impartiality to be maintained.
Not Upheld