Why don't the Laws apply to cyclists?

adrian522

mmm section on "the right hook" on newstalk with the above section today at 5.30pm.

Should be interesting

niceonetom

adrian522 wrote: »

Should be interesting

I doubt it.

mloc123

Answer: they do

/thread

poochiem

adrian522 wrote: »

mmm section on "the right hook" on newstalk with the above section today at 5.30pm.

Should be interesting

gave up listening to the right hook when he started bringing that terrible american neo-con flute into the friday show to annoy the nation.

adrian522

Maybe the piece should be titled "why don't the Gardai enforce traffic laws?" as Motorists and pedestrians also frequently flout the law.

I just don't like cyclists being singled out.

tunney

Carrott or Chocolate cake?

Marvinthefish

tunney wrote: »

Carrott or Chocolate cake?

Definitely not Carrott

Chocolate cake please

Rabble.

bealbocht

George Hook, "are you a zombie cyclist" (time now 5.30, so after the news)

suspect in a few minutes I will shout at the radio and walk/switch off

Doctor Bob

Item on "zombie cyclists" (G. Hook) on after the break!

Nice to know he's staying impartial...

Capt'n Midnight

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0592/D.0592.200411160025.html

An alarming 98% of cars and 92% of heavy goods vehicles and articulated trucks speed on main urban roads to which a speed limit of 30 mph applies

98% of private motorists observed breaking ONE specific law.

And people are complain that some cyclists break laws ? :rolleyes:

This doesn't nessicarily mean the other 2% were law abiding
they may have been looking for an address, on the mobile or other reason for driving slowly
they may have been guilty of obstruction or lacking in confidence when driving unaccompanied
they may have been speeding on other occasions

they might even have broke other laws

ScottStorm

I often throw my pot of soup into the sudsy water while listening to my favourite song. Evidently I am exceptionally retarded.

Vélo

George Hook; "I think there's a monumental difference between sitting in my car than on a bike".


Of course you do you fat ba*****

Doctor Bob

Concluding remarks-

"I put it to you that there is a monumental difference between listening to a radio in your car and using an iPod which has the sound in your ear" and "I put it to you that there is a monumental difference between driving a car and riding a bike if you want to stay healthy."

So driving is healthier than cycling according to old Georgie.

Victor

Interesting that its a drive time show.

blorg

Victor wrote: »

Interesting that its a drive time show.

Yes well clearly it would be highly reckless for a cyclist to listen to it using earphones...

...they would probably fall off with apoplexy

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Concluding remarks-

"I put it to you that there is a monumental difference between listening to a radio in your car and using an iPod which has the sound in your ear" and "I put it to you that there is a monumental difference between driving a car and riding a bike if you want to stay healthy."

So driving is healthier than cycling according to old Georgie.

That is hilarious!

In some ways I like George Hook. He was very frank about his dark years and his contemplation of suicide, and I think he's even talked frankly about impotence. He also is willing to run against Bertie Ahern if Ahern runs for the presidency, so thoroughly does he disapprove of the man.

So, in some ways, he is an admirable and principled man.

But, God, on the subject of cyclists is he ever a bore. And plain wrong too. (Again, driving is healthier than cycling? Funny how actuaries find cyclists live about five years longer then.)

coolbeans

tomasrojo wrote: »

That is hilarious!

In some ways I like George Hook. He was very frank about his dark years and his contemplation of suicide, and I think he's even talked frankly about impotence. He also is willing to run against Bertie Ahern if Ahern runs for the presidency, so thoroughly does he disapprove of the man.

So, in some ways, he is an admirable and principled man.

But, God, on the subject of cyclists is he ever a bore. And plain wrong too. (Again, driving is healthier than cycling? Funny how actuaries find cyclists live about five years longer then.)

Couldn't agree with you more tomas. George, you're alright but when you're wrong you're dead wrong. Love his stance on Bertie though. Go get him George!

DirkVoodoo

It always amazes me that some of the most vocal people about cycling are those who have never cycled, or not been near a bike since they were a child.

"Perfectly good cycle lane over there..."

"Not paying road tax..."

"iPod wearing hippies, going to get yourselves killed..."

"cyclist pulls out in front of me, nearly crashed because I was so far up his ass..."

Please, try cycling in Dublin for a week or shut your mouth.

SleepDoc

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

It always amazes me that some of the most vocal people about cycling are those who have never cycled, or not been near a bike since they were a child.

"Perfectly good cycle lane over there..."

Or indeed a perfectly good pavement! Over the last week I've been beeped at four times by buses and taxis urging me to ride on the pavement rather than in the clearly designated bus/taxi/bike lane on the way to work.

Are Newstalk offering the cycle to work scheme?

seamus

SleepDoc wrote: »

Are Newstalk offering the cycle to work scheme?

I don't think NewsTalk the company are really involved in that piece. Hook has constantly admitted that he just doesn't like cyclists, so obviously thought he could have a good aul rant against them and eliminate some hippie cyclist activists. Instead he went for the same old rhetoric without any thought behind his points.

His guests were..OK. The guy from cyclist.ie has a bit of a warped attitude, generally the attitude that, "Cars are able to do more damage therefore we shouldn't be getting worked up about cyslists". The other guy was clearly a token, "I'm too scared to cycle anymore", that Hook was going to try to use to show that cycling is dangerous and should be scrapped. I found absolutely nothing in it - the same old debates that we've had here time and time again, but without the good reasoned arguments that we have here.

monkeypants

poochiem wrote: »

gave up listening to the right hook when he started bringing that terrible american neo-con flute into the friday show to annoy the nation.

Best description I've seen for that chap yet. I think that's the way that George should introduce him.

"And now, joining me from Radio XJKM in Philadelphia is my American neo-con flute friend; Michael Graham."

Shame on him, dirtying the name of that nice chap from Boyzone.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

His guests were..OK. The guy from cyclist.ie has a bit of a warped attitude, generally the attitude that, "Cars are able to do more damage therefore we shouldn't be getting worked up about cyslists".

Does anyone remember his name? Just out of interest.

It's pretty much the implicit attitude of the Gardai as well, and most law enforcers I've seen in other countries. Of course, a cyclist breaking the rules occasionally does cause harm to others, but it's really quite rare. Even when law enforcers stop cyclists, it's usually to have a quiet word with them and then let them on their way. If it were a common cause of harm, there would less tolerance of it.

Incidentally I am not condoning and generally don't condone law-breaking (apart from non-compliance with mandatory cycle track use).

seamus wrote: »

The other guy was clearly a token, "I'm too scared to cycle anymore", that Hook was going to try to use to show that cycling is dangerous and should be scrapped.

Is that his "goal"? The complete disappearance of cycling? What a bizarre attitude. Has he ever lived anywhere remotely pleasant? I don't think I've come across a single really nice city that didn't have high levels of cycling, and it's not a coincidence.

Raam

The missus saw a ninja being admonished by a Garda for not having lights, yesterday.

Chips Lovell

I've seen a few cops pull up cyclists in recent months. Never had before. Mostly for riding the wrong way down a one way street.

petethedrummer

That Mickey Graham chap is so obviously brought in to raise revenue from angry texters.

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

That Mickey Graham chap is so obviously brought in to raise revenue from angry texters.

It is rare that I listen to that show, but I did once. Anyway, that American chap was on... I wanted to smash the radio in so bad. It wasn't my choice of station so I had to listen to it.

bbosco

petethedrummer wrote: »

That Mickey Graham chap is so obviously brought in to raise revenue from angry texters.

What annoys me just as much as Graham himself is Hook's obsequious attitude to him. Lara Marlowe was on with Graham once (that I heard) and she took him apart with ease. Anyway, sorry, off topic

GSF

Not sure why this thread have deviated into discussing Michael Graham. George W Bush is also a keen cyclist btw. Anyway what is Hooks problem with cyclists - did anybody actually listen to the item?

Eoin D

GSF wrote: »

Anyway what is Hooks problem with cyclists - did anybody actually listen to the item?

Same as everyone else's problem. Ignorance

petethedrummer

Raam wrote: »

It is rare that I listen to that show, but I did once. Anyway, that American chap was on... I wanted to smash the radio in so bad. It wasn't my choice of station so I had to listen to it.

Its the same old trick they use all the time on the Adrian Kennedy phone show and Talk Radio in the UK. Get some plonker on the line with ridiculous opinions to rile up everyone and keep him there for the whole show, so everyone texts in.

tomasrojo

Maybe we should invite GH to cycle to work for a week, like that fella from the Telegraph?

seamus

tomasrojo wrote: »

Does anyone remember his name? Just out of interest.

Dr. Mike McKillen, I think. He's from the Dublin Cycling Campaign but was referenced as a spokesman for cyclist.ie.

If it were a common cause of harm, there would less tolerance of it.

Incidentally I am not condoning and generally don't condone law-breaking (apart from non-compliance with mandatory cycle track use).

I'm somewhat of a supporter of the Broken Windows theory which broadly states that tackling smaller crimes will reduce larger ones. In a traffic/societal context I think that making it clear that there's a good chance you *may* get caught for breaking red lights as a cyclist is as effective as actually catching RLJ's. This in turn has a knock-on effect on society's attitude towards it, and it will actually be seen as "wrong", and will filter up the chain. At present, although it annoys drivers, most drivers if placed on a bicycle will happily saunter through the lights because everyone else is doing it.

A similar shift in the attitudes to speeding can be seen over the last 15 years. There was a time when speeding was "OK" and being caught was a matter of bad luck and something to complain to your mates in the pub about. For the last few years, a big push has been on to catch speeders and increase the *fear* that you're likely to be caught speeding. In response, the numbers speeding and the social attitude towards speeding has changed a lot (regardless of the actual facts behind it).

Is that his "goal"? The complete disappearance of cycling? What a bizarre attitude. Has he ever lived anywhere remotely pleasant? I don't think I've come across a single really nice city that didn't have high levels of cycling, and it's not a coincidence.

I don't know if it's his goal, but he's never previously been afraid to admit that he hates cyclists and believes they have no place on the road.

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

Its the same old trick they use all the time on the Adrian Kennedy phone show and Talk Radio in the UK. Get some plonker on the line with ridiculous opinions to rile up everyone and keep him there for the whole show, so everyone texts in.

When I'm feeling slightly masochistic, I throw on that show. I like nothing better than to hear someone expertly debate by repeating the same point over and over. I have learned that name calling is an acceptable tactic. Also, telling someone that "you don't know me" is an effective rebuttal to almost any accusation.

Beasty

Given the mayhem following a couple of posts I made earlier this week, and the fact it is not yet Friday, I was reluctant to refer to the article I read on my way back from Manchester this morning. But what the hell....

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1184641_opinion_paul_taylor

Doctor Bob

seamus wrote: »

Dr. Mike McKillen, I think. He's from the Dublin Cycling Campaign but was referenced as a spokesman for cyclist.ie.

Yep- it was Mike McKillen. He's the former chairman of the Dublin Cycling Campaign and is now chairman of Cyclist.ie, the umbrella organisation for cycle campaigns in Ireland.

I thought he did a good job- he didn't defend RLJs and he explained why the laws for cars should be tougher than the laws for cyclists, while not excusing bad cycling behaviour. And he mentioned one of his chief bugbears- lack of enforcement of road traffic law by the Guards.

His answers to the question of iPod zombie cyclists weren't as precise, but to be fair to him, the discussion really lacked focus. I did enjoy it when, in response to George going off on one about RLJs, he said "I thought we were here to talk about iPod users?"

The other guy was called Anthony Halpin, and the rationale for his involvement in the show seemed to be nothing more substantial than the fact that he had an admittedly awful experience a few years ago with a left-turning HGV which put him off cycling for life.

There was a potentially interesting debate to be had (as evidenced by the recent thread here on the subject of iPod wearing), but it was buried under the weight of the presenter's prejudices and his inability to stay on topic- he was the worst offender in that regard.

I'd also agree with tomasrojo, btw- I'd usually have a bit of respect for George Hook, but not this time.

Captain Havoc

In relation to the article in the Manchester Evening News, he says "If the cyclist gets it wrong, the only one likely to suffer for it is the cyclist". Unfortunately the cyclist isn't the only person hurt, if the cyclist is badly injured the innocent driver is worried sick while the cyclist recovers and if he dies the innocent driver has this on his conscience for the rest of his lives.

MadHatter

Captain Havoc wrote: »

In relation to the article in the Manchester Evening News, he says "If the cyclist gets it wrong, the only one likely to suffer for it is the cyclist". Unfortunately the cyclist isn't the only person hurt, if the cyclist is badly injured the innocent driver is worried sick while the cyclist recovers and if he dies the innocent driver has this on his conscience for the rest of his lives.

This is true, I have also seen the outcome of a cyclist flying through a pedestrian crossing and colliding with a pedestrian who had run across the road at the end of a pedestian sequence. Cyclist had cuts and bumps but the pedestrian was carted off to hospital in a neck brace.

Not quite sure who was in the right re green lights, it may have just gone green when the cyclist went through, but as a road user the cyclist should have been aware that pedestrians are still likely to cross even if the lights have just gone red.

Beasty

Captain Havoc wrote: »

In relation to the article in the Manchester Evening News, he says "If the cyclist gets it wrong, the only one likely to suffer for it is the cyclist". Unfortunately the cyclist isn't the only person hurt, if the cyclist is badly injured the innocent driver is worried sick while the cyclist recovers and if he dies the innocent driver has this on his conscience for the rest of his lives.

Absolutely - there is also the possibility that careless cycling can cause other accidents resulting from attempts to avoid colliding with the cyclist. Then there's the family of any "victim" to consider...

Chips Lovell

That guy manages to push several of my buttons in one go.

As mentioned above, its a bit of a fallacy to say the only person a cyclist could harm by breaking the law is themselves.

But he also rolls out the old line that cycling is inherrantly unsafe and you need to take all measures, including breaking the law, to stay alive.

tomasrojo

el tonto wrote: »

That guy manages to push several of my buttons in one go.

As mentioned above, its a bit of a fallacy to say the only person a cyclist could harm by breaking the law is themselves.

But he also rolls out the old line that cycling is inherrantly unsafe and you need to take all measures, including breaking the law, to stay alive.

And this:

What cyclists need is a joined-up, comprehensive, European-style system of cycle lanes to separate them from the casually homicidal motorist, not a bunch of new regulations to force them to go sheepishly through that urban jungle.

Another person who's afraid of using the road. (Motorists are also not casually homicidal.)

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

Absolutely - there is also the possibility that careless cycling can cause other accidents resulting from attempts to avoid colliding with the cyclist. Then there's the family of any "victim" to consider...

And RLJs at t-junctions make life awkward for cyclists who are following the traffic, by forcing them into the stream to avoid the RLJ.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

And this:



Another person who's afraid of using the road. (Motorists are also not casually homicidal.)

He leads into his plea for cycle lanes with this:

We saw a dismal portent of a rule-bound future when a group of police officers recently drew up “The Police Cycle Training Doctrine” – a 93-page manual telling coppers how to ride a bike.

The Association of Police Officers ditched the idea amid public outcry that taxpayers’ cash should be spent, in such laborious detail, to state the blindingly obvious.

So, how to cycle safely is blindingly obvious, yet he can't apply this blindingly obvious knowledge, as he's afraid to cycle on the road, and until in some utopian future he has a cycling system that entirely separate from the road, he'll do whatever he likes.

I guess he and rational thought are strangers.

Raam

Dude, are you having a conversation with yourself?

tomasrojo

Raam wrote: »

Dude, are you having a conversation with yourself?

It's a tactic I often resort to, as I lie in the gutter.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

He leads into his plea for cycle lanes with this:

We saw a dismal portent of a rule-bound future when a group of police officers recently drew up “The Police Cycle Training Doctrine” – a 93-page manual telling coppers how to ride a bike.

The Association of Police Officers ditched the idea amid public outcry that taxpayers’ cash should be spent, in such laborious detail, to state the blindingly obvious.

A bit off topic, but I really don't understand why the APO backed down on that one.

The Police use books for driver training (e.g. Roadcraft, which is excellent) so why not adapt the content for cycling? I would have thought it would make sense for any employer requiring employees to use bikes to provide some guidance, purely from an employer's liability perspective.

tomasrojo

Or they could have adapted Cyclecraft.