Cycling death on TV drama

[Moodyman]

No it's not. It's safer than driving.

It might be safer than driving - statistically speaking, but it's still dangerous because there are numerous dangers when you pedal on the road.

Just like there are dangers when you walk across the road.

 

[Fnaar]

One thing it DID show is that wearing a helmet doesn't magically protect you from all known dangers.

 

[661-Pete]

Show him the F1 grand prix crashes and say 'this is why you shouldn't drive'

...except that F1 drivers are extraordinarily well cocooned, so it appears, and fatalities are rare. Show Ayrton Senna meeting his Maker - or Piers Courage - or Jochen Rindt - or Jim Clarke - if any footage exists. Or even better, show piccies of the weeping relatives and floral tributes by the side of a lane I cycle on almost daily - a few years ago: young teenage lad - nobody famous, just a teenager, but a loved one to some - no cycling involved, he was just a car passenger.

I wasn't implying there was any sort of 'us' and 'them' culture. But the 'dangerous' canard sticks deep.

 

[ChrisKH]

Cycling aside, I found it largely unrealistic as it appears to be an actors take on what would happen in real life if they lost a loved one. As opposed to real life where people I think have to go on regardless of what has happened. The reactions in real life I feel are usually more muted, hidden and a shade less marked. But of course six months or years of mental numbness, gradual acceptance and individual coping mechanisms doesn't make for good television. The romantic link with the best friend (at least I think that's who she is, only saw part of it) is too obvious a development.

 

[Fnaar]

It wasnae bad, but the bit where he went screaming off down the road on his motorbike was ...erm... unlikey. Kids' mum just died, only you there to look after them, so whaddya do?... go out the same evening (who was looking after the kids?? p'raps rellies were still about, I guess) and try to get yerself stopped by the polis... hmm...

 

[CopperBrompton]

No it's not. It's safer than driving.

It might be safer than driving - statistically speaking, but it's still dangerous because there are numerous dangers when you pedal on the road.

There are dangers walking downstairs and making a cup of tea (to name just two activities more dangerous than cycling), but cycling is a very, very safe activity.

 

[skudupnorth]

I didn't watch it, but Mr J called me in saying "this is why you shouldn't ride a bike!"

He is, sadly, a very typical male driver (aggressive, speeding, RLJing you name it)

I got the "look" from Mrs Skud when we watched it ! Still out this morning though !

 

[summerdays]

I watched it, just as two of mine were getting ready for bed and I couldn't bring myself to let it get to the bit where she died until they weren't around. I didn't want them going off to bed with the image of a loved one being hit by a car. I think the manner of her dying so far is not important to the plot, and I noticed that in the trailers of next week's program someone is seen arriving by bike so it looks as if they are not suggesting that you shouldn't cycle, but more it is a method of transport.

 

[661-Pete]

For the record, I don't think, and never did think, that the programme producers and scriptwriters were putting out a negative message about cycling. But it's the way the viewing public, with their enormous diversity of opinions, will interpret the message, that's what bothers me.

Consider Doctor Who. Well, of course I have it in mind 'cos of David Tennant! It probably wasn't the intent of the original writers, that it should drive its youthful viewers behind the sofa at the first sniff of a Dalek. If they had been shown to have had that intention - the series might never have been screened: the BBC were pretty strait-laced in those days! But that's exactly what happened - I was one of those youthful viewers and I did indeed dive behind the settee along with all the other kids! Do you get the point?

 

[Arch]

Why the "because"? That bothers me a bit... is the character doomed because she's a cyclist?

I think you're being over sensitive. It's 'because' we know she's going to die, whatever she's doing. Look at an episode of Casualty, where you get a dramatic build up to someone making a piece of toast and getting electrocuted. Toasters aren't dangerous per se, but you know because of the style of the show that this one will have a loose wire, or she'll spill her tea in it or something. Sometimes of course, they bluff you, and just when you're expecting the toaster electrocution, a gas main explodes.

If it had been 'Single Mother', then the minute the husband got on a motorbike, we'd have been going "oh, yes....."

I think if someone already has the idea that cycling is dangerous, the film will reinforce it. But so will every news story, or near miss they see. And their views are unlikely to be changed even if a character cycled the whole way through and never had a scratch.

At the very end, the other husband arrived with a bike, so it's clearly just seen as a way these people get around.

 

[Arch]

Cycling aside, I found it largely unrealistic as it appears to be an actors take on what would happen in real life if they lost a loved one. As opposed to real life where people I think have to go on regardless of what has happened. The reactions in real life I feel are usually more muted, hidden and a shade less marked. But of course six months or years of mental numbness, gradual acceptance and individual coping mechanisms doesn't make for good television. The romantic link with the best friend (at least I think that's who she is, only saw part of it) is too obvious a development.

I thought they did just get on wth it. Remember it jumped from the day of the death to 10 weeks later. That was 10 weeks of just getting on with it. Sometimes you do just get on with it, at first, and then the reaction comes later.

It felt fairly real to me, I didn't cry, but there were moments when I felt, yes, I remember that feeling. But it is a TV drama, and as you say, no one would watch unless there was something like the romantic link to stop it just being a portrait of misery.

 

[Fnaar]

At the very end, the other husband arrived with a bike, so it's clearly just seen as a way these people get around.

Yes, but his wife's having a fling with her ex-husband, whose deceased ex-wife (also her best mate) has died on a bike. So not only is cycling dangerous because of rogue police cars, but also it means your missis will go back to her ex, and all relationships will be more complex than East Enders! I'm getting a helmet, me!

 

[John the Monkey]

I think the producers missed an educational opportunity here, I guess there would of been a good few "Yummy Mummys" watching. So instead of using a police car, they could of had a yummy mummy texting in a 4x4 as she ploughed into the cyclist. Then may be in the next episode seen being sentenced to life in prison getting a short suspended sentence and told to please not do it again.

Fixed that for you.

But yes, I thought it was a missed opportunity. The bulk of road death, it seems to me, is pointless and unjustifiable - it's not caused by people on their way to emergencies, or responding to life or death situations, for the most part. It's caused by failure to read the road ahead, and wilful lack of attention to the road and anticipation of hazards.

 

[Arch]

Fixed that for you.

But yes, I thought it was a missed opportunity. The bulk of road death, it seems to me, is pointless and unjustifiable - it's not caused by people on their way to emergencies, or responding to life or death situations, for the most part. It's caused by failure to read the road ahead, and wilful lack of attention to the road and anticipation of hazards.

I dunno about missed opportunity - it's just a play, written by a writer, not a public information film. Yes, we all have axes to grind with various types of driving, but the writer may not. Or in fact he may have an axe to grind about police cars speeding through towns.

Also, although we'd not seen the rest yet, I think the details of her death are not meant to be important. What's important is what happens to the family afterwards. She could have tripped off a station platform in front of a train, or had a sudden heart attack or stroke (it does happen even to seemingly fit young people), or been electrocuted by that Casualty toaster. All that matters for the drama is that she dies, and suddenly.

If the later parts include a lot of stuff about persuing the police, then I'd suspect the writer had a motive. But we've already been told that the police aren't denying responsibility, so that seems unlikely. I think to make a point about dangerous driving, you'd need to concentrate much more on the circumstances and the driver involved.

Also, I think a one off play, or short drama series like this has limited opportunity for axe grinding or education like that. A soap opera is probably a much better way to get a message over to a lot of people, because you can develop characters, and then cover the aftermath, for much longer. Sadly, many soaps prefer to go for big one off disasters these days.

 

[661-Pete]

In short, I think what people are trying to say, is that we have here a well-known literary device called a MacGuffin. The cycling crash is meant to arouse the audience, but is really just a device for getting the main protagonist conveniently widowed, so that the rest of the story can develop out of that theme. Can't really tell without seeing the rest of the series.

Perhaps I will watch it after all...