Metro Paper Cutting ( today's paper )

Caroline_ie

Not so great pubilicity ...

Today's metro newpaper -

Deadzone

N11 any weekend.

CheGuedara

Yeah, not helpful - paints us all with the one brush

Ciaran500

They watched one group and wrote an article about it?

CheGuedara

Ciaran500 wrote: »

They watched one group and wrote an article about it?

You're right, N=1, seriously robust study there!:D

Caroline_ie

Ciaran500 wrote: »

They watched one group and wrote an article about it?

I think The Metro had a 4 square cm space to fill in today's edition and decided to give us some great publicity just before the weekend spins.

Sleipnir

The reason they undertook this study? A cyclist who was in a pack which ignored a red light killed someone.

Police asked Ms Johnston and her colleagues to undertake the study in 2007 after the death of an elderly pedestrian who was struck by a cyclist riding as part of a pack that had failed to stop at a red light.

The cyclist was charged with failing to stop and fined $400, enraging pedestrian advocates who felt the penalty should have been higher.

Footage from 2005 used in the study - taken on the same cycle route where the man was struck - appeared to support advocates' claims. But footage of the route from 2007 appeared to show that cyclists had improved their behaviour - slightly.

"Cyclists rode more than two abreast for only 2 per cent of the total ride [and] no cyclist rode through a red light," the study said. "However, at the end of the footage, the behaviour was indicative of an unofficial race, as cyclists accelerated towards a roundabout."

Ms Johnston said she believed the improved behaviour could have resulted from media coverage of the pedestrian's death.

"We don't have access to their thought processes, but the extent of the change does suggest a conscious decision," she said. "They might have thought they could get away with that behaviour before, but realised what can result.".

zzzzzzzz

"Two rode abreast" - nothing wrong with that...

Caroline_ie

I think that Metro should have at least given the whole story that Sleipnir pasted above. Right now, they're just taking this out of context and it's making absolutely no sense at all.

DirkVoodoo

Well, we can't enforce the rules, but I think we set a pretty good example on our boards spins, especially in terms of the red lights.

What a silly article anyway, silly journalism trying to get attention by picking on a vulnerable minority. Where are the studies on drivers jumping red lights? Why are these not gettin media attention? Plenty of people injured/killed by drivers jumping red lights.

I could do some research on police footage from some police pursuit show on sky and list all sorts of mad behaviour like driving a tank down a main road, guy pulled over by a state trooper shoots the trooper in the face, and so forth...

Karma

the media has a job, to report the truth, wait no, to get you to read thier paper. Suprised jo duffy is not all over it. after a few friends had talked to the media regareding, cycling and racing. they put thier own spin on it and its always the same. so no supries here. never all the facts but choice pieces to sex up thier article.

Lumen

The Metro is worth exactly what you pay for it.

kenmc

The metro article says that this was in Australia? Well in fairness I probably wouldn't obey the rules over there either after this and this!

Sleipnir

Why is everyone immediately defensive and dismissive of the article? While I admit that the article doesn't show the full details and is a but crap (it is the Metro, they can hardly print the entire report), instead of cyclists looking into and reading about the article in more detail, responses are;

"Drivers do that too, and worse"
"It's only a study of one group"
"The metro just wanted to fill space" etc"

You might as well say "oh well that's Australian cyclists, not Irish ones."

The study is not about "cyclists jumping red lights" it's about the behaviour of cyclists and how riding in a pack with other cyclists can change that behaviour. It's not unreasonable for a cyclist to look at others and say
"my bike's better" "I'm faster" "I'm fitter"
Would anyone here admit to thinking things like that? I don't know how you wouldn't!

Surely it's an interesting study for any cyclist especially in an urban area regardless of it's scope? Motorists do not drive in packs so it's entirely irrelevant.

Is the study invalid because it's scope was narrow? Does it not contain interesting information that cyclists can learn from nonetheless? Or should we say that as a similar study about drivers was not undertaken at the same time, it should be ignored?

Anyway, it's an interesting read.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc285.pdf

I'm not here to "have a go" at cyclists by the way, I just thought the way the report was instantly shot down even though no one had read it was silly.

Sleipnir

Sleipnir wrote: »

You might as well say "oh well that's Australian cyclists, not Irish ones."

Oh look, someone did!!!

kenmc wrote: »

The metro article says that this was in Australia? Well in fairness I probably wouldn't obey the rules over there either after this and this!

DirkVoodoo

Sleipnir wrote: »

my bike's better" "I'm faster" "I'm fitter"
Would anyone here admit to thinking things like that? I don't know how you wouldn't!

That's what it IS all about!

Also, I rarely see packs of cyclists in urban areas, most commuters don't ride in a bunch so the only time cyclists around these parts are in a bunch is on country roads, where its far safer to ride as such. Plus there are fewer traffic lights around to tempt us.

I don't see any information that would quantify this as a "scientific study" or what warrants it as news for the commuting population of dublin city except to make them think "thats right, those cyclists get all the breaks! There's one now, time to learn him some manners!"

Karma

Sleipnir wrote: »

Why is everyone immediately defensive and dismissive of the article? While I admit that the article doesn't show the full details and is a but crap (it is the Metro, they can hardly print the entire report), instead of cyclists looking into and reading about the article in more detail, responses are;

"Drivers do that too, and worse"
"It's only a study of one group"
"The metro just wanted to fill space" etc"

You might as well say "oh well that's Australian cyclists, not Irish ones."

The study is not about "cyclists jumping red lights" it's about the behaviour of cyclists and how riding in a pack with other cyclists can change that behaviour. It's not unreasonable for a cyclist to look at others and say
"my bike's better" "I'm faster" "I'm fitter"
Would anyone here admit to thinking things like that? I don't know how you wouldn't!

Surely it's an interesting study for any cyclist especially in an urban area regardless of it's scope? Motorists do not drive in packs so it's entirely irrelevant.

Is the study invalid because it's scope was narrow? Does it not contain interesting information that cyclists can learn from nonetheless? Or should we say that as a similar study about drivers was not undertaken at the same time, it should be ignored?

Anyway, it's an interesting read.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc285.pdf

I'm not here to "have a go" at cyclists by the way, I just thought the way the report was instantly shot down even though no one had read it was silly.

you said it yourself at the start of your message. not a balanced article, so why entertain it. All road using groups have to change their attitude for progress of road safety.
Go play devils advocate in traffic...see how that works for ya.

Chips Lovell

Karma wrote: »

the media has a job, to report the truth, wait no, to get you to read thier paper. Suprised jo duffy is not all over it. after a few friends had talked to the media regareding, cycling and racing. they put thier own spin on it and its always the same. so no supries here. never all the facts but choice pieces to sex up thier article.

Fecking hacks.... oh, wait....

niceonetom

Sleipnir wrote: »

Why is everyone immediately defensive and dismissive of the article?

well I am dismissive of this "article" (ha!) for these reasons:

• the headline implies that riding in a pack is illegal. it is not.
• it cites a study which turns out to have been one ONE subject - i will dismiss any "study" done by "researchers" that has a single subject and then expands its results to cover an entire category of transport. because it's obviously invalid.
• the last line clearly implies that cycling two-abreast is illegal. it's not.

NeilMcEoigheann

cycling two abreast is an important safety measure on roads with narrow lanes as it stops cars forcing their way past cyclists forcing them towards the curb and means they have to wait until the road is clear before passing as they would do with a slower moving car.

Knifey_Spooney

niceonetom wrote: »

• the last line clearly implies that cycling two-abreast is illegal. it's not.

Not to be pedantic, and I'm not certain, but Australian bike laws are definitely different to ours and I think it may only be legal in certain circumstances.

I love the metros "studies" they never ever give full information and I've seen them reinterpret conclusions to get a more shocking headline. The only thing that papers worth reading for is the bit where people can write in, that's sometimes hilarious.

Karma

el tonto wrote: »

Fecking hacks.... oh, wait....

sorry boss, but all dealings with the media, have avoided what they dont like and hype what they think will sell. Then theres jo duffy... classic spinger really. you dont write for the daily mail by any chance? :pac:

Chips Lovell

Karma wrote: »

you dont write for the daily mail by any chance? :pac:

Do you see me ranting about immigrants in After Hours?

Sleipnir

niceonetom wrote: »

well I am dismissive of this "article" (ha!) for these reasons:

• the headline implies that riding in a pack is illegal. it is not.
• it cites a study which turns out to have been one ONE subject - i will dismiss any "study" done by "researchers" that has a single subject and then expands its results to cover an entire category of transport. because it's obviously invalid.
• the last line clearly implies that cycling two-abreast is illegal. it's not.

I'm saying you can be dismissive of the article written in the metro but you shouldn't dismiss the study itself or the results based solely on the article.

Regarding cycling two-abreast; you've check the Australian law, where the study was undertaken or are you referring to Irish law which would not of course be relevant to the study?

niceonetom

Sleipnir wrote: »

I'm saying you can be dismissive of the article written in the metro but you shouldn't dismiss the study itself or the results based solely on the article.

Regarding cycling two-abreast; you've check the Australian law, where the study was undertaken or are you referring to Irish law which would not of course be relevant to the study?

i'm dismissing the article not the study, though i have my doubts about that too.

if you think i'm going to read a 25 page study on the basis of this 3 sentence "article" you are taking the piss.

if the "article" doesn't differentiate between australian law and our own then the die is already cast - we regularly get angry motorists posting in here, indignant at cyclists riding two-abreast. they think, wrongly, it's illegal. this type of "journalism" just backs those kinds of misapprehensions up.

Sleipnir

Karma wrote: »

All road using groups have to change their attitude for progress of road safety

And we need to do this collectively at the same time? Should there be one huge study on every aspect of road safety that all road users will read and apply the next day?

Every individual is responsible for their own attitude to road safety. You've shown clearly by not even reading the study your own unwillingness to reflect upon your own attitude. You can dismiss the study, or parts of it, or question parts of it but to not even bother reading it because a newspaper on the other side of the world wrote a short, silly article about it is ridiculous.

Knifey_Spooney

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

The only thing that papers worth reading for is the bit where people can write in, that's sometimes hilarious.

And the main letter into the Metro today is also about cycling.

Caroline_ie

blorg

The report Sleipnir quoted suggests that it is a matter of riding more than two abreast (in 2005) that was the issue, the summary is plain wrong:

"Cyclists rode more than two abreast for only 2 per cent of the total ride [and] no cyclist rode through a red light," the study said. "However, at the end of the footage, the behaviour was indicative of an unofficial race, as cyclists accelerated towards a roundabout."

blorg

Regarding that letter I can't imagine what sort of disconnect the cyclist writing it must have had to bring up helmet wearing in the context of that death, if there was ever a case that a helmet would have made no difference that was it.

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

Regarding that letter I can't imagine what sort of disconnect the cyclist writing it must have had to bring up helmet wearing in the context of that death, if there was ever a case that a helmet would have made no difference that was it.

I think his point was that he saw a whole range of potentially unsafe behaviour.

Caroline_ie

One More!

blorg

To me that Indo letter looks more to the point.

I could throw in at this point that a substantial proportion of construction truck drivers in my experience drive extremely dangerously, far worse than HGVs. It's almost as if they are driving like white van drivers but in a vehicle many times the size and weight. Are they trained at all?

Karma

Karma wrote: »

you said it yourself at the start of your message. not a balanced article, so why entertain it. All road using groups have to change their attitude for progress of road safety.


Go play devils advocate in traffic...see how that works for ya.

seriously Sleipnir.

I don't just cycle on our roads but also use other vehicles on our roads. i don't see how a study of cycling in Australia has much to do here, as the situation is different from here to there. i see bad cyclists and drivers here all the time. no one group is above the other but we are all above you in your misguided cursade. after seeing how stories have been turned in the past, why should i put any weight into it. Yes i do know about cycling, driving and staying safe on the road, it still has not stopped me being hospitalised by other road users and pedrestrians. I am very good about what i do on the road. you have your teeth sunk in but its rotting meat mate.
goodbye.:mad:

SteM

blorg wrote: »

Regarding that letter I can't imagine what sort of disconnect the cyclist writing it must have had to bring up helmet wearing in the context of that death, if there was ever a case that a helmet would have made no difference that was it.

It seems fairly obvious to me that that he's talking about cyclist safety (or lack of it) in general.

petethedrummer

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Also, I rarely see packs of cyclists in urban areas, most commuters don't ride in a bunch so the only time cyclists around these parts are in a bunch is on country roads, where its far safer to ride as such. Plus there are fewer traffic lights around to tempt us.

Obviously he doesn't mean they all set out together as a bunch but rather they find themselves in groups with other cyclists.

On my commute I regularly pull up behind 'groups' of cyclists and when we reach lights alot of them will proceed through regardless of the colour. I overtake(as I'm the only one who seems to own a road bike) and I reach the next lights first and stop. Less of the same group of cyclists will proceed through. Happens every morning.

So I see evidence pack behaviour.

Tayto2000

blorg wrote: »

Regarding that letter I can't imagine what sort of disconnect the cyclist writing it must have had to bring up helmet wearing in the context of that death, if there was ever a case that a helmet would have made no difference that was it.

He didn't, it was in relation to his bus ride through the city and his general observations.

Attempting to score points in the helmet debate from the HC accident is just not cool...

AstraMonti

Although i agree on the actual point with the "article" , the headline is totally misleading.. Why the hell are they doing that?

Raam

AstraMonti wrote: »

Although i agree on the actual point with the "article" , the headline is totally misleading.. Why the hell are they doing that?

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/ctc_slams_car_insurance_company_article_275252.html?aff=rss

DirkVoodoo

Tabloid journalism at its best, reminds me of the sport pages of the sun, ignore facts and grab attention.

I like this quote from that link you posted:

This is Mickey Mouse research and flies in the face all official published statistics on cycling

seamus

The intention is to try and scare people out of ditching the cars, therefore safeguarding the insurance company's profits.

There were a few guys on the Rathmines road this morning handing out free high-vis jackets, and from seeing a few other people carrying them, there seemed to be the same in other spots around the city.

Any ideas what that was, or is it a DCC response to the death last week?

Civilian_Target

niceonetom wrote: »

if the "article" doesn't differentiate between australian law and our own then the die is already cast - we regularly get angry motorists posting in here, indignant at cyclists riding two-abreast. they think, wrongly, it's illegal. this type of "journalism" just backs those kinds of misapprehensions up.

Ah, shut your road tax

Slideshowbob

lads

to get back to the topic -

i lived in sydney and in centeenial park there, there is a serious chain gang most evenings circumnavigatin the park

imagine 20+ riders getn together about 630pm in the pheonix park and doin up and overs around the place

no wonder the ozzies looked into it

different scenario / dynamic here