Irish Times Article

D!armu!d

Article in today's times, written by a cyclist but good to see it being promoted:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0709/1224250305920.html

Would be great to see this signed into law here like in other European countries:
'In Scandinavia and Germany, a “hierarchy of care” places the onus on motorists to drive cautiously around vulnerable road users. After all, cyclists don’t kill truckers, so the legal duty of care must reflect this inequality of risk.'

Itsfixed

OK, its a perfectly fine opinion piece, but as a regular utility and leisure cyclist myself, even I'm beginning to tire of the 'holier than thou' attitude that seems to colour this article, as well as lot of cycling advocacy campaign materials.

It just perpetuates the notion that all cyclists are morally superior, and something that is increasingly easy to take the piss out of. And not least because this type of article only ever seems to get printed in the Irish Times.

It reminds me of this

Ghost Rider

Defences of cycling will inevitably seem crusading - if that's what you mean by "holier-than-thou" - for precisely as long as the needs of cyclists have to be fought for. (I'm sure campaigns to abolish slavery were also seen as "holier than thou" by certain slaveowners.) That's just the nature of having something important to say that touches on the values of a society. People don't like having their values challenged, especially not when it's hard to meet that challenge.

I mean, there most certainly is a moral superiority in (a) not endangering the lives of others and (b) not polluting the environment. Drivers simply have to live with that. If a cyclist doesn't wave that moral superiority in drivers' faces on a daily basis, then that's just a sign of how good-mannered he/she is. If I occasionally choose to be bad-mannered, it might legitimately change how I'm perceived as a cyclist, but not how cycling in general is perceived.

One thing that does annoy me about this article - and it's something that comes up a lot in defences of cycling - is the way the writer plays down the hazards of cycling. I know it is not considered the done thing to make cycling appear dangerous, but the truth is that until the climate for cycling changes, it will remain needlessly dangerous in some important respects. To not acknowledge that fact might be politically astute, but that doesn't make it true. And it sure as sh*t doesn't make for good journalism.

Itsfixed wrote: »

OK, its a perfectly fine opinion piece, but as a regular utility and leisure cyclist myself, even I'm beginning to tire of the 'holier than thou' attitude that seems to colour this article, as well as lot of cycling advocacy campaign materials.

It just perpetuates the notion that all cyclists are morally superior, and something that is increasingly easy to take the piss out of. And not least because this type of article only ever seems to get printed in the Irish Times.

It reminds me of this

eightyfish

Itsfixed wrote: »

It just perpetuates the notion that all cyclists are morally superior, and something that is increasingly easy to take the piss out of.

We're not morally superior. We're just better people. :rolleyes:

tomasrojo

I think downplaying the dangers of cycling is not an unhealthy development in the reporting of cycling. Most people who don't cycle think that it's _extremely_ dangerous, whereas it's not, particulary if you are experienced and choose your routes with care. And the injury and fatality statistics available don't suggest that it's extremely dangerous. So most people have a grossly distorted view of what cycling is like, and it's good to tell them otherwise.

Admittedly, this misapprehension is partly down to cyclist lobbies, who in the past focussed on the dangers very heavily in an attempt to effect change. Many of them acknowledge now that it was an own goal to have done so.

Occasional injuries are inevitable if you cycle a lot, but they're overwhelmingly minor injuries. Occasional injuries are inevitable for anyone who takes a lot of exercise.

Novice cyclists, of course, can and often do undergo hair-raising incidents due to lack of experience, but that's true of novice motorists also. Of course, you shouldn't state or imply that no harm can come to cyclists, but far too often article about cycling are predominantly about how awful it is and how the poor creatures are so scared, blah, blah.

The other type of article is how a journalist who hasn't cycled since he/she was a child attempts to cycle in heavy traffic, having done no research or any training, and then recounts how it's impossibly dangerous and they won't be doing it again. You don't find articles about driving that proceed in this manner.

Macha

Itsfixed wrote: »

It just perpetuates the notion that all cyclists are morally superior, and something that is increasingly easy to take the piss out of. And not least because this type of article only ever seems to get printed in the Irish Times.

TBH, I've yet to meet a more self-righteous person than a driver of an SUV.

The facts are that cyclists do less damage to the environment, other road users and themselves. Why is pointing this out wrong?

Lumen

taconnol wrote: »

TBH, I've yet to meet a more self-righteous person than a driver of an SUV.

Gross generalisation, and I have difficulty understanding how you'd gather enough data to form such a view.

From my own observations many SUV drivers in Ireland seem to be employed in the construction or farming sectors. I don't think I've ever met a self-righteous builder or farmer.

taconnol wrote: »

The facts are that cyclists do less damage to the environment, other road users and themselves. Why is pointing this out wrong?

Because it's screamingly obvious and doesn't need saying. Pointing this out makes a cyclist look self-righteous.

eightyfish

Lumen wrote: »

Because it's screamingly obvious and doesn't need saying. Pointing this out makes a cyclist look self-righteous.

While I understand your point, is it self-righteous to say "going to the gym helps you keep fit" or elitist to say "going to college is beneficial to your long-term career"?

ScottStorm

I'm not one to accuse but I'm certain I have read almost the exact same article on numerous occassions, with the exception of the reference to the conversation with the DR at the end.

Are there no original cycling articles about cycling being printed? as a previous poster mentioned it is either how dangerous it is for an unfit journalist who hasn't cycled in 20 years to get through rush hour dublin traffic or todays article.

Lumen

eightyfish wrote: »

While I understand your point, is it self-righteous to say "going to the gym helps you keep fit" or elitist to say "going to college is beneficial to your long-term career"?

IMO it is self-righteous coming from a gym-goer or student.

Hence "self" and "righteous".

petethedrummer

To my mind there's nothing more futile than arguing over how one sub-section of society views another.

Captain Havoc

eightyfish wrote: »

We're not morally superior. We're just better people.

I'm sick to the teeth of cyclists vs. drivers. There are aholes in each, in fact there are aholes everywhere, get used to it. To say that one is better than other is bull. I cycle everywhere, I don't see myself being above drivers. I cycle with courtesy to other road users and try not to endanger the lives of others. I'm also sure there are plenty of drivers that cycle, use gyms and play sports. It's also this bike v car attitude that piddles drivers off and thus makes it harder on the rest of us.

Can't we all just get along?

Chips Lovell

I thought it was alright. Yes, there was the usual stating of the obvious, but it also brought up important issues like trains and cycle lanes etc.

But once, just once, I'd love to read a piece that not only mentions the need to change motorist behaviour but also the need to change cyclist behaviour. There is a great proportion of bad cyclists out there than there is bad motorists.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think I've ever met a self-righteous builder or farmer.

Stop it, you're killing me here.

eightyfish

jerseyeire wrote: »

eightyfish wrote: »

We're not morally superior. We're just better people.

I don't see myself being above drivers. [...] Can't we all just get along?

It was a joke.
I'll go back and add a smiley just to make that clear.

Macha

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think I've ever met a self-righteous builder or farmer.

And you accuse me of gross generalisation?

Lumen wrote: »

Because it's screamingly obvious and doesn't need saying. Pointing this out makes a cyclist look self-righteous.

If it's screamingly obvious, why isn't everyone cycling? Don't tell me inside every non-cyclist there's a cyclist dying to jump on their bike only for the weather/distance/cost/[insert excuse here].

tomasrojo

I was particuarly surprised to see an article about cycling in the Irish Times that didn't use the headline: "On yer bike!"

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

Because it's screamingly obvious and doesn't need saying. Pointing this out makes a cyclist look self-righteous.

Pointing out that cyclists pose less risk to other road users is relevant in the context of discussing introducing a hierarchy of care. This is something we do NOT have in law now but which the Department of Transport has committed to "explore" in the National Cycle Policy Framework.

National Cycle Policy Framework wrote:

Hierarchy of Care
We will explore the concept of “Hierarchy of Care for Road Users” that
is used in some Northern European countries to give more vulnerable
road users additional legal protection on the roads, and advise on
whether a similar system can and should be used in Ireland.

Frankly with the number of posts you get on here (not necessarily in this forum) about the danger posed by cyclists potentially killing pedestrians I honestly don't even think it is generally accepted that cyclists pose less risk than other road users, so it probably does need to be pointed out.

Chips Lovell

taconnol wrote: »

If it's screamingly obvious, why isn't everyone cycling? Don't tell me inside every non-cyclist there's a cyclist dying to jump on their bike only for the weather/distance/cost/[insert excuse here].

Actually, most of the excuses I hear about why people don't cycle are along these lines. It's too far/I'll get wet/it's too dangerous etc.

Lumen

taconnol wrote: »

And you accuse me of gross generalisation?

"I don't think I've ever met a self-righteous builder or farmer" is not a generalisation, it's a statement of fact. "Farmers and builders are not self-righteous" would be a generalisation, but I didn't say that.

taconnol wrote: »

If it's screamingly obvious, why isn't everyone cycling?

Because people like different things. I don't understand why everyone doesn't eat marmite on toast for breakfast, but I'm happy to live and let live.

eightyfish

tomasrojo wrote: »

I was particuarly surprised to see an article about cycling in the Irish Times that didn't use the headline: "On yer bike!"

Bored today.

thebouldwhacker

Easy now.... Ye are agreeing witheach other really. Anyway its only Thursday, keep it together for one more day.:D

Macha

Lumen wrote: »

Because people like different things. I don't understand why everyone doesn't eat marmite on toast for breakfast, but I'm happy to live and let live.

So you think there should be no efforts to encourage cycling? Really?

There are a lot of costs that non-cyclists externalise to the rest of society, including carbon, other forms of pollution, extra road construction & maintenance costs, costs of providing/maintaining parking (which the €2/hr surprisingly does not cover), opportunity cost of all that parking space, time/money costs to individuals and the economy as a whole due to congestion, increased burden on the health system, I could go on.

If we're not going to encourage more people to cycle more often, then at least make car-drivers pay for these externalised costs. That might change a few minds.

Chips Lovell

taconnol wrote: »

If we're not going to encourage more people to cycle more often, then at least make car-drivers pay for these externalised costs. That might change a few minds.

I thought that's what we'd been doing for the past few years.

DirkVoodoo

taconnol wrote: »

TBH, I've yet to meet a more self-righteous person than a driver of an SUV.

I drive an SUV occasionally (from my massive fleet of cars, of course) and I don't find the car changes the way I drive at all. Some people are just arseholes, especially behind the wheel of a car. In fact, some people are only jerks when driving and even worse, some people are just terrible drivers.

If I had it my way, the driving test would be a multistage affair, taking in different weather, night time driving, city driving, motorway driving and maybe some james bond stunt maneuvres for good measure.

victorcarrera

40% of urban air pollution caused by motorised traffic and 21% vat on bicycles?

Isn't it about time that Ireland copied tactics proven in developed countries by sophisticated societies to improve safety on the roads.
eg: Setting maximum speed limit and minimum clearance distance when overtaking cyclists.
Making it illegal to overtake cyclists when there is oncomming traffic.
Road maintenance.
At present in Ireland all road safety measures must be seen to generate revenue, eg: speeding fines etc. Little or no apparent effort on smart/effective road maintenance.
I think it is criminal to promote cycling and ignore effective internationally proven safety strategies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by National Cycle Policy Framework
Hierarchy of Care
We will explore the concept of “Hierarchy of Care for Road Users” that
is used in some Northern European countries to give more vulnerable
road users additional legal protection on the roads, and advise on
whether a similar system can and should be used in Ireland.

Anybody know if anything actually got done on this?

Lumen

taconnol wrote: »

So you think there should be no efforts to encourage cycling? Really?

I didn't say that at all.

But since you asked, I think there are already more than enough reasons (tax incentives, health benefits, personal economics, fun) to cycle. Many people still choose not to. I could care less, it really doesn't bother me.

I could not be more enthusiastic about cycling, but I feel no need to convert the world to my point of view.

eightyfish

victorcarrera wrote: »

40% of urban air pollution caused by motorised traffic and 21% vat on bicycles?

Macha

el tonto wrote: »

I thought that's what we'd been doing for the past few years.

To a very small extent through parking charges and motor taxation. But it barely goes near the actual costs of car use in Ireland. For example, isn't it nice that the cost of the carbon credits Ireland be buying (many of which are as a result of our insanely high car usage) come out of the general pot?

Lumen wrote: »

But since you asked, I think there are already more than enough reasons (tax incentives, health benefits, personal economics, fun) to cycle. Many people still choose not to. I could care less, it really doesn't bother me.

Well I don't disagree that there are plenty of incentives, but there is a lot of misinformation about the "dangers" etc that can be easily tackled. There is a lot to gain, both individually and collectively from increased cycling.

Lumen wrote: »

I could not be more enthusiastic about cycling, but I feel no need to convert the world to my point of view.

Fair enough, I care about things outside my own sphere of experience so I do feel the need to work towards greater modal share for cycling, improved air quality, better allocation of taxes (ie away from building roads, roads), and improved health care system..hey wait - that does come within my sphere of experience. Just call me selfish.

Chips Lovell

taconnol wrote: »

To a very small extent through parking charges and motor taxation. But it barely goes near the actual costs of car use in Ireland. For example, isn't it nice that the cost of the carbon credits Ireland be buying (many of which are as a result of our insanely high car usage) come out of the general pot?

It's being done gradually though. It's probably politically impossible to do what you're suggesting in one swoop.

thebouldwhacker

taconnol wrote: »

So you think there should be no efforts to encourage cycling? Really?

Sorry now taconnol but I think your a bit out of order saying things like that in this forum. Many people have taken up cycling because of the posters here. There are plenty of practical things that are being done to encourage people onto bikes, thing is you can bring a horse to water......

It takes time to change the views of a population.

flickerx

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

It takes time to change the views of a population.

Come the cycling revolution all motorists will have to report to the gulag for re-education.

blorg

More people cycling = greater safety for cyclists, so it is in all our self-interest to promote cycling.

As long as they aren't cycling to my office and taking up space in the shower.

Bunnyhopper

petethedrummer wrote: »

To my mind there's nothing more futile than arguing over how one sub-section of society views another.

That's just the sort of talk I'd expect from a drummer...

thebouldwhacker

flickerx wrote: »

Come the cycling revolution all motorists will have to report to the gulag for re-education.

And what shall we do with the boy racers??

why send them to...........

petethedrummer

victorcarrera wrote: »

Anybody know if anything actually got done on this?

Why don't you email the minister and ask? He (or his secretary) might even reply.

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

That's just the sort of talk I'd expect from a drummer...

Hop off, you hopping bunny.

lukester

Missed most of this.










But I hate SUVs.

petethedrummer

Why do you hate success lukester?

Lumen

lukester wrote: »

But I hate SUVs.

"No Spiders or Visigoths Allowed".

lukester

petethedrummer wrote: »

Why do you hate success lukester?

That's not success. Success is beating cancer and winning 7xTdF.

I love success.

unionman

Cyclists are a feckin' nuisance

That is all

lukester

Lumen wrote: »

"No Spiders or Visigoths Allowed".

Spiders don't have enormous bumpers at chest height to inflict maximum destruction on pedestrians while guzzling inordinate amounts of fuel.

Visigoths on the other hand...

thebouldwhacker

lukester wrote: »

Spiders don't have enormous bumpers at chest height to inflict maximum destruction on pedestrians while guzzling inordinate amounts of fuel.

Sorry, why are youu bringing her into this discussion????

Traumadoc

jerseyeire wrote: »

I'm sick to the teeth of cyclists vs. drivers. There are aholes in each, in fact there are aholes everywhere, get used to it. To say that one is better than other is bull. I cycle everywhere, I don't see myself being above drivers. I cycle with courtesy to other road users and try not to endanger the lives of others. I'm also sure there are plenty of drivers that cycle, use gyms and play sports. It's also this bike v car attitude that piddles drivers off and thus makes it harder on the rest of us.

Can't we all just get along?

Well said, as a cyclist and a SUV owner, I make mistakes both driving and cycling, its only human.

Macha

el tonto wrote: »

It's being done gradually though. It's probably politically impossible to do what you're suggesting in one swoop.

Probably but I don't see the point in thinking small. Part of the reason we're where we are now is because of an inability of our politicians to aim high.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Sorry now taconnol but I think your a bit out of order saying things like that in this forum.

How so? I was asking another poster a valid question.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

It takes time to change the views of a population.

TBH, I'm more worried about the views of our politicians.

I agree with the sentiment that the car drivers vs cyclists debate does more harm than good. The car has it's place and will never go away but we still need a modal shift away from cars and onto public transport, walking etc.

Captain Havoc

I think it helps when your mayor cycles to work, Malcolm Noonan (greens) is mayor here in Kilkenny and now cycling lanes are popping up everywhere.

Conor20

victorcarrera wrote: »

40% of urban air pollution caused by motorised traffic and 21% vat on bicycles?


Quote:
Originally Posted by National Cycle Policy Framework
Hierarchy of Care
We will explore the concept of “Hierarchy of Care for Road Users” that
is used in some Northern European countries to give more vulnerable
road users additional legal protection on the roads, and advise on
whether a similar system can and should be used in Ireland.

Anybody know if anything actually got done on this?

I e mailed Noel Dempsy and a few other TDs asking when they would remove the statutory use of cycle lanes where provided and got this reply (from Noel Dempsy):


I refer to your email, dated 19 May 2009, regarding the National Cycle Policy Framework.

My Department is looking at implementing as many of the legislative actions referred to in the National Cycle Policy Framework as staff resources allow. With regard to action 15.4, we aim to change Statutory Instrument No. 274 in 2009.

We are working closely with various cycling organisations and local authorities to share resources in delivering elements of the Policy such as the first National Bike Week and the National Cycle Network.

Bike Week was launched in the Phoenix Park on Sunday 14 June 2009 and continued until Sunday 21 June.

Various cycling events, workshops and free bike checks took place nationwide during Bike Week and it is proving to be a great success so far. For more information and updates you might like to visit www.bikeweek.ie

Yours sincerely, Noel Dempsey T.D.
Minister for Transport

Húrin

Gibbon's article in the OP is a very average article of this kind. Nothing I've not read before. I'm starting to become annoyed at cyclists who act as if they're in constant danger from motorists. You're not "pushed to the edge of the road"... you just choose to cycle there!

taconnol wrote: »

TBH, I've yet to meet a more self-righteous person than a driver of an SUV.

Which one?

petethedrummer wrote: »

To my mind there's nothing more futile than arguing over how one sub-section of society views another.

Cyclists and motorists aren't sections of society. These are just vehicles that people can easily switch between.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

Which one?

Oh, I've had many encounters. I was trying to point out the irony of a cyclist advocate being accused of arrogance when the very fact that many SUVs we encounter in the urban environment are overkill and the direct result of the attitude/personality of the owner/driver.

Coming from market research by an SUV company in the US:

They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities.

Again, while I don't support the drivers vs cyclists line of thought, there is something incredibly arrogant about people who buy an oversized, polluting vehicle that is very dangerous to other road users when it is unnecessary (I am obviously excluding those people for whom an SUV is a 'necessity').

Lumen

taconnol wrote: »

Again, while I don't support the drivers vs cyclists line of thought, there is something incredibly arrogant about people who buy an oversized, polluting vehicle that is very dangerous to other road users when it is unnecessary (I am obviously excluding those people for whom an SUV is a 'necessity').

Keep drinking the hate-aid and you'll get an ulcer.

Lots of cars are more polluting than the average "SUV". Lots of things in life are unnecessary.

Are you equally incensed by people who keep their thermostats at 23 degrees, or live in a large house, or take foreign holidays? How about people who eat air-freighted food? Do you know how much water is wasted by the leaks at the National Aquatic Centre? Those swimmers should be ashamed to support such an immoral place.

If you were being even handed you'd hate almost everbody. This would be exhausting, so you confine yourself to a few easy targets.

ROK ON

As an aside. A reasn that SUV's (and large cars in general) have become more popular is as a result of legislation.

If you have any more than 2 kids, (particularly young kids), each kid needs its own booster seat by law. They just dont fit into small cars. Many years ago, kids were just thrown into the back of cars, as the legislation did not exist.

Back on topic - I do not have an issue with the article. I think the more of these that are seen, the more accepatance that cycling is likely to gain.
People need to see it as a viable alternative to the car, the gym etc.

More publicity is better IMO.