Rte News Headlines Misleading

ecodub

Just listening to the Six o'clock news on RTE 1 TV. The headline is Three motorcyclists killed in collisions with cars.

It reminds me of another headline story about 5 months ago, "Cyclist dies in collision with truck". That happened in Dublin city centre, a truck ran over the cyclist. Why did RTE make it look like the cyclist was the blame.

Today's headline is a major blow for all motorcyclists, 3 riders killed. These 3 could have been killed by irresponsible car drivers. In Kerry two of the motorcyclists were killed by a BMW travelling at high speed, it apparently hit a car in front of the motorbikes and then went on to kill two motorcyclists. The BMW went off the road into a field afterwords.

In Carrick on Shannon another motorcyclist was killed, this time a red car was involved and according to the picture on the news, the motorcyclist hit the rear right hand door. This in my opinion would lead me to believe the car pulled across the path of the motorcyclist, giving the the motorcyclist no chance to avoid a collision.

These three deaths could have been caused by cars.

I wish RTE would be more accurate in their reporting and not make it look like the Motorcyclists or Cyclists are the blame.

Idleater

ecodub wrote:

Just listening to the Six o'clock news on RTE 1 TV. The headline is Three motorcyclists killed in collisions with cars.....

I agree with your sentiments but I think that there is little point in complaining as sentiments such as these are typical of non motorcyclist motorists.

Basically there is no way that they can be convinced otherwise so their immediate reaction is like they point out "car crashed into by bike".

As motorcyclists, the only thing that we can do is ignore the bias/spin put on these events by the media and non motorcyclists. Instead, we should concern ourselves with maintaining our diciplin as best we can. The best answer to the type of attitude is to counter it with Training, Responsible driving and letting the actual result of Garda/Investigators of these accidents speak for themselves.

L.

Wishbone Ash

Many of the fatal accidents involving trucks and cyclists happen because the cyclists go up the nearside of the trucks when they are turning left despite the fact that the truck driver usually has indicated their intention to turn left in advance. If an articulated truck is making a particularly acute left turn the tractor unit is angled acutely against the trailer creating a blind spot for the driver. A typical example of this is the left turn from Westmoreland Street onto Arran? Quay. Cyclists should know not to cycle up the nearside of a long vehicle when it is attempting to turn left.

Would you prefer if the headline was "Truck driver survives collision with cyclist"?

ecodub

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Would you prefer if the headline was "Truck driver survives collision with cyclist"?

No I would prefer "Truck driver kills cyclist"

On the same point, a friend of mine witnessed a truck running over a cyclist on the quays.

He said the Truck was signaling to turn left and was out a bit on the road stopped at the traffic lights. There was a cyclist on his inside stopped at the traffic lights. The lights changed, the truck moved off and turned left never seen the cyclist who was still waiting at the lights. The truck ran over and killed the cyclist.

Some may say the cyclist shouldn't have been there.

I say the truck should not move unless it can see 100% of the road it is crossing. Trucks should not have blind spots, they should be fitted with mirrors or cameras to cover all eventualities.

Jamesobrady

Fair point Ecodub...but "truck driver kills cyclist" is exactly as much "spin" as the headlines that we get.
Unfortunately whenever a bike is involved in a collision it's widely assumed the bike hit the car....and to be honest about it that description isn't usually false...what it doesn't imply though is the possibility that the car pulled out quickly on the bike or as in one reasonably recent example, performed an illegal u-turn just after a sharp bend.

I passed by the Carrick accident today very soon after it happened according to people i know who live nearby etc... the bike definately hit the car.....y'know?
What i havent a clue to and wouldnt like to point blame at this early stage, is the cause of this. There's many possibilities really....what i do know is it was on a straight clear road with no bends,on dry roads, and no left hand junction near the site except some houses alongside the road. By the location of the vehicles i would assume the bike was travelling to Sligo direction as I was.
The car didnt look to have been pulling out of any of the houses....but again this is what i saw in the whole 2 mins i was there...the reality of it all may be much different.
My guess is the poor girl was turning around from the hardshoulder and never saw the bike....not nice at all for anyone involved.

But I do share your angst towards the insensitive reporting of accidents by the media....particularly bike accidents...doesnt really help us in the general view when every report is "when the bike collided with a car..."

Wishbone Ash

ecodub wrote:

No I would prefer "Truck driver kills cyclist"

On the same point, a friend of mine witnessed a truck running over a cyclist on the quays.

He said the Truck was signaling to turn left and was out a bit on the road stopped at the traffic lights. There was a cyclist on his inside stopped at the traffic lights. The lights changed, the truck moved off and turned left never seen the cyclist who was still waiting at the lights. The truck ran over and killed the cyclist.

Some may say the cyclist shouldn't have been there.

I say the truck should not move unless it can see 100% of the road it is crossing. Trucks should not have blind spots, they should be fitted with mirrors or cameras to cover all eventualities.

In my opinion the cyclist was totally in the wrong in that situation. The reason that the truck was out a bit on the road was to enable it to get the trailer around the corner and he had signalled his intention to do so. The cyclist should not have been where he/she was? Do cyclists not appreciate the dynamics involved in manouvering large vehicles around corners. Do they not know that an indicating vehicle at a junction probably intends to turn? If they were driving a car would they have sneaked up the nearside?

A driving licence is not required to operate a bicycle in a public place. I accept that many cyclists probably hold driving licences also but to legally drive an articulated truck requires passing a minimum of three tests (Categories B, C, C+E). I think it would be safe to say that truck drivers are generally more tested and qualified to be on a public road than many cyclists.

I agree that trucks should be fitted with some more mirrors especially the Cyclops one but too many mirrors will have a negative effect as thet obscure the area behind the mirror itself. It is virtually impossible to remove all blind spots. How many car drivers car see the area directly below their front or rear registration plates?

I find your preferred headline very callous. Do you really think that it would be appropriate? It is most likely that the truck driver never climbed into a truck again. His life, his family's and livelihood ruined by something that was not of his making.

If I was as vunerable as a cyclist on the roads I would ensure that I observed what was going on around me and would never crawl along the nearside of any large vehicle at a junction whether it was signalled an intention to turn or not.

subway

Wishbone Ash wrote:

In my opinion the cyclist was totally in the wrong in that situation. The reason that the truck was out a bit on the road was to enable it to get the trailer around the corner and he had signalled his intention to do so. The cyclist should not have been where he/she was? Do cyclists not appreciate the dynamics involved in manouvering large vehicles around corners. Do they not know that an indicating vehicle at a junction probably intends to turn? If they were driving a car would they have sneaked up the nearside?

A driving licence is not required to operate a bicycle in a public place. I accept that many cyclists probably hold driving licences also but to legally drive an articulated truck requires passing a minimum of three tests (Categories B, C, C+E). I think it would be safe to say that truck drivers are generally more tested and qualified to be on a public road than many cyclists.

I agree that trucks should be fitted with some more mirrors especially the Cyclops one but too many mirrors will have a negative effect as thet obscure the area behind the mirror itself. It is virtually impossible to remove all blind spots. How many car drivers car see the area directly below their front or rear registration plates?

I find your preferred headline very callous. Do you really think that it would be appropriate? It is most likely that the truck driver never climbed into a truck again. His life, his family's and livelihood ruined by something that was not of his making.

If I was as vunerable as a cyclist on the roads I would ensure that I observed what was going on around me and would never crawl along the nearside of any large vehicle at a junction whether it was signalled an intention to turn or not.

eh,
this is the motorbikes forum.
stop whingin about your push bikes lads.

//on topic
headlines dont bother me at all.
tbh, if a few car drivers are a bit more wary of all us "lunatic bikers" wreking their lovely cars then to hell with it,
were better off.

so what if someone wathchin the news thinks were all bailing around whacking into cars for the sake of it.
they think worse than that already tbh.