Irish Times - Rag

Bluefoam

The Irish Times have a series of articles on cycling at the moment & each and every one is written from a negative perspective. Whether its implying that cyclists are some sort of anarchic scourge or whether they are trying to put women off cycling through negative 'lifestyle' pieces...

The Times has descended into a rag over the past few years, but I can only view this series of articles as a targeted agenda against cyclists... I don't know whether this comes from the top, a bitter editor or just a lack of culture within their offices... but its time for me to abandon both their printed paper and their online version...

I don't think its any great loss, as they seem to be an outlet for Reuters rather than an investigative journal these days....

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/cycling

Idleater

I lolled at colm keena who's article on Saturday about how his journey "obeying all the rotr for bicycles" took him 8 minutes longer. With the barest of minimum of law regarding cycle lane usage he would have found the repealed mandatory law and then only had to wait for the traffic lights he should be stopping for anyway.
Would have been a better article.

ford2600

Read a book about 4 years ago, can't remember the name, about the demise of newspapers.

It was mainly from an English perspective, but gave details on staff reductions and consequent falling off in standards. Ditto for PA and Reuteurs where papers lift most of their articles.

Haven't bought a paper since

Jawgap

In my unscientific survey it seems that over half the photos use feature cyclists without helmets :eek:

On the more general idea of the IT's standards, I think they're being much more sophisticated than people realise - what better way to kick off a debate about cycling in Bike Week than by lobbing a few grenades about.

Everyone (ok, a lot more people than usual!) are talking about and discussing cycling - many more than you'd get if they wrote a few pages of flowery prose (with obligatory references to Flann O'Brien) describing only benefits of cycling.

The fact they are driving awareness and generating debate, I think, is a good thing - others no doubt differ.

LeftBlank

Idleater wrote: »

With the barest of minimum of law regarding cycle lane usage he would have found the repealed mandatory law

I don't believe the repeal actually ever happened, it was only proposed (open to correction, ymmv etc...)

buffalo

Jawgap wrote: »

On the more general idea of the IT's standards, I think they're being much more sophisticated than people realise - what better way to kick off a debate about cycling in Bike Week than by lobbing a few grenades about.

I don't think so - have you seen today's article? http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/tumbles-tantrums-and-tales-of-a-terrible-new-cyclist-1.1429213

And then the heavens open and you have to get off the bike, whimpering “I’m a terrible cyclist; please, please will someone give me a lift?” to those who pass unaware, ensconced in their motorised bubbles, with radios on.

Translation: cyclists get wet, are terrible, and constantly scab off drivers, who are safe and warm and comfortable.

Every article they've ran so far for Bike Week has been negative.

edit: and this is coming from someone who takes the Times daily, and will defend it as the best national paper in the land.

Alek

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think so - have you seen today's article? http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/tumbles-tantrums-and-tales-of-a-terrible-new-cyclist-1.1429213

Cycling on cobble-stones [...] is pure pleasure.

She's not only self proclaimed terrible cyclist, she's a masochistic one :eek:

Jawgap

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think so - have you seen today's article? http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/tumbles-tantrums-and-tales-of-a-terrible-new-cyclist-1.1429213



Translation: cyclists get wet, are terrible, and constantly scab off drivers, who are safe and warm and comfortable.

Every article they've ran so far for Bike Week has been negative.

edit: and this is coming from someone who takes the Times daily, and will defend it as the best national paper in the land.

Have to disagree with you there:D

I read her article as saying that cycling has it's not inconsiderable downsides which are aggravated by a lack of ability but for all that, those odd moments of bliss make up for the hours of drudgery - and isn't that what cycling is about, those hours spent hammering into a headwind, or fixing a puncture by the side of the road with frozen fingers are all forgotten, compensated for, in those odd 20 minutes you get to cycle with a proper tailwind on a decent surface!

Or another way to put it - my worst day on the bike is nearly always better than my best day in the car!

Idleater

LeftBlank wrote: »

I don't believe the repeal actually ever happened, it was only proposed (open to correction, ymmv etc...)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html
Quote:
new and amended requirements for use of cycle tracks (only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory)

Tombo2001

Irish Times has run several articles over the past few years that are strongly anti-cyclist.

I'm not sure why they do it. I suspect its because their employee base is predominantly middle class, middle aged, male, car users. I suspect their readership base is a little more broadly based, but only a little.

But there is no doubt, the newspaper has been highly critical of cyclists and is strongly anti-cyclist.

As a reader of the paper, it is very disappointing to see this and would make me question the people who work there, would make me question how progressive they are.

As a cyclist, I just feel that the paper is feeding the sense of entitlement that has long existed in the minds of drivers, but is now to the fore - that the road is theirs, and everyone else should just get the hell off it.

I strongly feel the whole issue of cyclists breaking the rules is a red herring. Motorists would be complaining regardless.

Bunnyhopper

alkos wrote: »

Cycling on cobble-stones [...] is pure pleasure.

She's not only self proclaimed terrible cyclist, she's a masochistic one :eek:

"Masochistic" suggests she finds it painful…

droidus

ford2600 wrote: »

Read a book about 4 years ago, can't remember the name, about the demise of newspapers.

It was mainly from an English perspective, but gave details on staff reductions and consequent falling off in standards. Ditto for PA and Reuteurs where papers lift most of their articles.

Haven't bought a paper since

Flat Earth News - Nick Davies

valleyoftheunos

I actually found todays piece to be very well written and enjoyable even if I didn't agree with its over reaching sentiments.

Alek

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

"Masochistic" suggests she finds it painful…

Yes and no.

"masochism describe a personality type characterized by the individual deriving pleasure and gratification from [...] receiving physical pain"

dogsears

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I actually found todays piece to be very well written and enjoyable even if I didn't agree with its over reaching sentiments.

I thought the piece was really badly written but ultimately intended to be something of a valentine to cycling - the criticisms are of the infrastructure, her personal lack of skills, the habits of drivers etc - when freed of those e.g. when cycling with friends in the evening, the sensations are all positive.

Just a pity it comes across as a stereotype-affirming confirmation of the inherent "dangers" of cycling.

Although I bet there's a spike in the bike traffic over those cobbles.....;)

Bunnyhopper

alkos wrote: »

Yes and no.

"masochism describe a personality type characterized by the individual deriving pleasure and gratification from [...] receiving physical pain"

I know what masochism means. I was just trying tactfully to suggest that there might be reasons for a woman to enjoy cycling on cobblestones that have nothing whatsoever to do with pain…

Alek

...

ford2600

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I know what masochism means. I was just trying tactfully to suggest that there might be reasons for a woman to enjoy cycling on cobblestones that have nothing whatsoever to do with pain…

How did the Junior cert go?

McTigs

Why is it that there is an underlying assumption from non cyclists that people principally cycle for 2 reasons a) The envoirnment and b) can't afford a car when most of the time it's neither

tomasrojo

I remember as a kid puzzling over a joke my father found very funny:

John Wayne was a masochist. He enjoyed a cold shower in the morning, so he never had one.

Tombo2001

One point I never see mentioned in the financial times....

Safer cycling often means breaking the rules.

An example:

On my cycle to work, I cycle through Phibsboro. I go via Munster Street, which is a one way street. I cycle the wrong way down a one way street. Dozens of school kids on their way to St Vincents school do the same. I rarely pass a car on Munster St.

If I was to obey the rules, I would cycle down neighbouring Connaught St and be caught in the maelstrom of one car lane dividing into two car lanes with the customary four inches left on LHS for cyclists to squeeze through. In other words, I just would not cycle that way in rush hour, full stop. Its not safe.

Does the Irish Times propose sending all those school kids onto the busiest traffic junction in Phibsboro? So that the rules are to obeyed?

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

I remember as a kid puzzling over a joke my father found very funny:

John Wayne was a masochist. He enjoyed a cold shower in the morning, so he never had one.

Masochist to sadist: Hurt me!!!

Sadist: No!:D

Bunnyhopper

ford2600 wrote: »

How did the Junior cert go?

I'm old enough to remember the Inter Cert, but thanks for the snide comment and best of luck with that sense of humour.

bren1000

I'm very new to cycling and was very surprised that most of the articles in the Irish Times cycling series were negative. Plus it's laughable that it's entirely focused on commuting so far

HivemindXX

Tombo2001 wrote: »

On my cycle to work, I cycle through Phibsboro. I go via Munster Street, which is a one way street. I cycle the wrong way down a one way street. Dozens of school kids on their way to St Vincents school do the same. I rarely pass a car on Munster St.

What if you do? That road seems very narrow to me. If you don't wish to take an alternate route the option of walking along that section is always open to you.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If I was to obey the rules, I would cycle down neighbouring Connaught St and be caught in the maelstrom of one car lane dividing into two car lanes with the customary four inches left on LHS for cyclists to squeeze through. In other words, I just would not cycle that way in rush hour, full stop. Its not safe.

Seems perfectly safe to me. I assume that this streetview is the maelstrom to which you refer?

galwaycyclist

HivemindXX wrote: »

What if you do? That road seems very narrow to me. If you don't wish to take an alternate route the option of walking along that section is always open to you.

I looked at it on streetview. It is wide enough for 1) a row of parked cars 2) vans parked illegally on the other side -half on/half off the footpath. And still leave space for moving cars.

So it is clearly wide enough to permit contra-flow cycling.

I would have thought that the "tell the cyclists to get off and walk" school of traffic management is now falling out of favour?

HivemindXX

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I looked at it on streetview. It is wide enough for 1) a row of parked cars 2) vans parked illegally on the other side -half on/half off the footpath. And still leave space for moving cars.

So it is clearly wide enough to permit contra-flow cycling.

I would have thought that the "tell the cyclists to get off and walk" school of traffic management is now falling out of favour?

Until contra flow cycling is allowed in law I'll stick with the "obey the rules of the road" school of traffic management.

RainyDay

buffalo wrote: »

Every article they've ran so far for Bike Week has been negative.

edit: and this is coming from someone who takes the Times daily, and will defend it as the best national paper in the land.

If you'd stop feckin taking it, and start paying for it, they might be able to afford some decent journalists.

galwaycyclist

HivemindXX wrote: »

Until contra flow cycling is allowed in law I'll stick with the "obey the rules of the road" school of traffic management.

Its been legal since 1998. It just requires the council to put up a sign and revise the road markings at the entry.

However even without the 1998 exemption for cyclists, they could still have done it by using a small traffic island to create a "false one-way street".

Tombo2001

HivemindXX wrote: »

What if you do? That road seems very narrow to me. If you don't wish to take an alternate route the option of walking along that section is always open to you.



Seems perfectly safe to me. I assume that this streetview is the maelstrom to which you refer?

To answer your post:

Seems perfectly safe to you. Based on a single streetview snapshot taken midafternoon 6 years ago? I have a photo here of the M50 motorway with no cars on it.....I guess that makes the M50 perfectly safe for cyclists too, by your logic anyway.

On the other......you are right, a cyclist meeting an oncoming car would need to veer to the side of the road on that particular one way street. However, I would say I meet a car on that road once every 3 months or so, in the morning time.

galwaycyclist

Tombo2001 wrote: »

To answer your post:
On the other......you are right, a cyclist meeting an oncoming car would need to veer to the side of the road on that particular one way street. However, I would say I meet a car on that road once every 3 months or so, in the morning time.

A cyclist meeting another oncoming driver, or cyclist, on a narrow road section should not need to "veer" anywhere.

The process is to slow down, hold your lane, make eye contact with the other person and negotiate past each other. It happens between car drivers all the time. The process is no different between cyclists and car drivers.

It happens all the time on narrow two-way residential streets. The fact that a similar street is one-way for cars does not change the process.

ConorGoodman

Hi,
Just a few clarifying points from The Irish Times for anyone who is interested.

1. The purpose of the current On Your Bike series is to explore cycling from a lifestyle and transport/infrastructure points of view. We are certainly not anti-cycling, and in fact the opening article in the series explored the growth in popularity of cycling. As the person who commisioned the series (and a keen cyclist myself), I do wish to explore what the impediments are to further growth in cycling as a means of transport. These include unusitable roads, safety concerns, low cycling rates among children and women, poor road behaviour by cyclists (and motorists and pedestrians).

2. Fintan O'Toole and Frank McNally were not instructed to "lob grenades" on the subject. Columnists in the paper have a fair degree of autonomy in the subjects they cover, and as cycling has been a matter of public discourse in the run-up to Bike Week, it's not surprising that took up the issue. I'm delighted they did.

3. For those intested in the subject, there will be more articles on Tuesday (encouraging/assisting children to cycle); Wednesday (cycling holidays) and Thursday (rural cycling). It's a broad subject and it's not possible to cover every aspect of it in a series of newspaper articles, but I hope these pieces make a useful contribution to a public debate on cycling over the coming days.

Thanks, Conor Goodman, Irish Times features editor

Tombo2001

Hi Conor, thats an interesting viewpoint.

Its not for me to say what the purpose of the 'On Your Bike' series has been.

However, as a cyclist I would say that I wish the series had never happened. It appears to me to have consisted of some very anti-cyclist articles (not anti-cycling, but specfically anti-cyclist). The Fintan O'Toole piece is the one piece that everyone will remember from it, but the negative attitude towards cyclists in that piece is reinforced by other articles, not just in the current On Your Bike series, but also in the newspaper over recent years.

Motorists already have a very negative attitude towards cyclists, and pieces such as the one by Fintan O'Toole serve to validate this attitude.

droidus

ConorGoodman wrote: »

1. The purpose of the current On Your Bike series is to explore cycling from a lifestyle and transport/infrastructure points of view. We are certainly not anti-cycling, and in fact the opening article in the series explored the growth in popularity of cycling. As the person who commisioned the series (and a keen cyclist myself), I do wish to explore what the impediments are to further growth in cycling as a means of transport. These include unusitable roads, safety concerns, low cycling rates among children and women, poor road behaviour by cyclists (and motorists and pedestrians).

You could add 'negative portrayals of cyclists in the media' to that list. Perhaps include an interview with Fintan O Toole?

2. Fintan O'Toole and Frank McNally were not instructed to "lob grenades" on the subject. Columnists in the paper have a fair degree of autonomy in the subjects they cover, and as cycling has been a matter of public discourse in the run-up to Bike Week, it's not surprising that took up the issue. I'm delighted they did.

Yes, it was truly delightful to see the Times vying with the Daily Mail and The Telegraph for 'who can publish the most stupid rant about cyclists' award 2013. I hear that the Times is in with a good chance this year.

Bluefoam

ConorGoodman wrote: »

Hi,
Just a few clarifying points from The Irish Times for anyone who is interested.

1. The purpose of the current On Your Bike series is to explore cycling from a lifestyle and transport/infrastructure points of view. We are certainly not anti-cycling, and in fact the opening article in the series explored the growth in popularity of cycling. As the person who commisioned the series (and a keen cyclist myself), I do wish to explore what the impediments are to further growth in cycling as a means of transport. These include unusitable roads, safety concerns, low cycling rates among children and women, poor road behaviour by cyclists (and motorists and pedestrians).

2. Fintan O'Toole and Frank McNally were not instructed to "lob grenades" on the subject. Columnists in the paper have a fair degree of autonomy in the subjects they cover, and as cycling has been a matter of public discourse in the run-up to Bike Week, it's not surprising that took up the issue. I'm delighted they did.

3. For those intested in the subject, there will be more articles on Tuesday (encouraging/assisting children to cycle); Wednesday (cycling holidays) and Thursday (rural cycling). It's a broad subject and it's not possible to cover every aspect of it in a series of newspaper articles, but I hope these pieces make a useful contribution to a public debate on cycling over the coming days.

Thanks, Conor Goodman, Irish Times features editor

Conor, thank you for responding. I still believe that the overall negative tone of the series is very damaging to the cycling community and supports many of the negative stereotypical views held by many. To be honest, I believe that by supporting these views you are actually endangering the safety of cyclists on the road. You are giving fuel to allot of road users who already feel that they have an entitlement to the roadways...

buffalo

Jawgap wrote: »

Or another way to put it - my worst day on the bike is nearly always better than my best day in the car!

On a re-read, you have a point, but I think the positives are lost among the overwhelming tone of stress, hassle, falling, etc. 16 paragraphs, I count three positive ones.

Indeed, even the headline is more negative than positive: "Tumbles, tantrums and tales". And the byline? "After six months in the saddle and two falls, the stress of my inadequacy on a bike is giving me grey hairs". It even opens with the line, "If I die on my bike..." It's hardly selling cycling.

I remember the Times featured the account of someone taking cycling lessons, and what they learned about handling themselves on the road. I'd love to see a follow-up piece featuring this writer, and see how she feels about cycling then.

buffalo

Conor, always good to see some interaction with the community, thanks for posting!

ConorGoodman wrote: »

Hi,
Just a few clarifying points from The Irish Times for anyone who is interested.

1. The purpose of the current On Your Bike series is to explore cycling from a lifestyle and transport/infrastructure points of view. We are certainly not anti-cycling, and in fact the opening article in the series explored the growth in popularity of cycling. As the person who commisioned the series (and a keen cyclist myself), I do wish to explore what the impediments are to further growth in cycling as a means of transport. These include unusitable roads, safety concerns, low cycling rates among children and women, poor road behaviour by cyclists (and motorists and pedestrians).

I presume you mean this piece: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/on-your-bike-rise-of-the-cyclist-1.1429031?page=1
"Far more Irish people are riding bikes to work now, and on safer roads, than a decade ago. Shame more of them aren’t better cyclists."
The highlighted part was totally unnecessary, and not even relevant to the article - it doesn't explain whether "better" means better at obeying the laws, or better at cycling. I certainly took it as a snide implication of the former.

The other articles on that page in the Weekend supplement were "A virtuous cyclist, for one day only", and "Riding too fast, running red lights, clipping wing mirrors". I was left with a certain impression of the IT's view of cyclists.

I look forward to the future work though.

ConorGoodman wrote: »

2. Fintan O'Toole and Frank McNally were not instructed to "lob grenades" on the subject. Columnists in the paper have a fair degree of autonomy in the subjects they cover, and as cycling has been a matter of public discourse in the run-up to Bike Week, it's not surprising that took up the issue. I'm delighted they did.

Op-ed pieces are what they are. I find Fintan's pieces are usually more well thought-out, this seems to have brewing for a while. I don't know the area of the city he means, but usually there is a logical reason for footpath cycling, though perhaps not a defensible one. Perhaps he could have spoken with said offenders, instead of ranting. That said, he has a point. I just think he didn't make it very well.

ConorGoodman wrote: »

3. For those intested in the subject, there will be more articles on Tuesday (encouraging/assisting children to cycle); Wednesday (cycling holidays) and Thursday (rural cycling). It's a broad subject and it's not possible to cover every aspect of it in a series of newspaper articles, but I hope these pieces make a useful contribution to a public debate on cycling over the coming days.

Thanks, Conor Goodman, Irish Times features editor

So far there's been a lot of stereotyping and generalising (imo), which only polarises the debate, but I'll wait until the end of the week to make a judgement. But again, thanks for coming on to make a contribution here.

Tombo2001

buffalo wrote: »

Conor, always good to see some interaction with the community, thanks for posting!



I presume you mean this piece: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/on-your-bike-rise-of-the-cyclist-1.1429031?page=1
"Far more Irish people are riding bikes to work now, and on safer roads, than a decade ago. Shame more of them aren’t better cyclists."
The highlighted part was totally unnecessary, and not even relevant to the article - it doesn't explain whether "better" means better at obeying the laws, or better at cycling. I certainly took it as a snide implication of the former.

The other articles on that page in the Weekend supplement were "A virtuous cyclist, for one day only", and "Riding too fast, running red lights, clipping wing mirrors". I was left with a certain impression of the IT's view of cyclists.

I look forward to the future work though.


Op-ed pieces are what they are. I find Fintan's pieces are usually more well thought-out, this seems to have brewing for a while. I don't know the area of the city he means, but usually there is a logical reason for footpath cycling, though perhaps not a defensible one. Perhaps he could have spoken with said offenders, instead of ranting. That said, he has a point. I just think he didn't make it very well.



So far there's been a lot of stereotyping and generalising (imo), which only polarises the debate, but I'll wait until the end of the week to make a judgement. But again, thanks for coming on to make a contribution here.

FYI

Fintan O'Toole lives in Glasnevin.

The two main arteries towards his gaff would be Drumcondra Road and Mobhi Road.

On both of those roads, there are cycle paths that switch from the street to the footpath back onto the street again.

The markings in both cases are quite poor, but these cycle paths do exist.

I have seen a number of letters in the Irish Times over the years from residents of Drumcondra/ Glasnevin moaning about cyclists on the footpath.

But the fact of the matter is, they are entitled to be there. This fact is never mentioned in any of the anti-cyclist rants that emanate from said districts.

droidus

He was talking about the path outside DCU on Collins Ave.

Which suggests the rant could just have easily been targeted at inconsiderate students rather than cyclists.

Tombo2001

The problem here as I see it, and I think its evident in Conor Goodman's post......is that the Irish Times wants the dual position of being pro-cycling (in keeping with its liberal aspirations) and anti-cyclist (in keeping with the populist/ motorist view).

Its all perfectly fine to write about the joys of cycling the greenway from Newport through to Achill.........but I would guess that 90% of the cycling trips in this country are commutes. The scenery on the western seaboard has feck all to do with making your way through Dublin/ Cork/ Limerick city centre on a wet Tuesday morning in November.

The IT is promoting the former while kicking the latter. (That is to say, it has had nothing positive to say about cycling commuters and but has gone out of its way to highlight the negative). That is the papers viewpoint as far as I can see.

I've often complained in the past that the Irish Times rarely takes a strong view on any subject. Unfortunately it has chosen this one as an exception.

galwaycyclist

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The problem here as I see it, and I think its evident in Conor Goodman's post......is that the Irish Times wants the dual position of being pro-cycling (in keeping with its liberal aspirations) and anti-cyclist (in keeping with the populist/ motorist view).

Its all perfectly fine to write about the joys of cycling the greenway from Newport through to Achill.........but I would guess that 90% of the cycling trips in this country are commutes. The scenery on the western seaboard has feck all to do with making your way through Dublin/ Cork/ Limerick city centre on a wet Tuesday morning in November.

The IT is promoting the former while kicking the latter. (That is to say, it has had nothing positive to say about cycling commuters and but has gone out of its way to highlight the negative). That is the papers viewpoint as far as I can see.

I've often complained in the past that the Irish Times rarely takes a strong view on any subject. Unfortunately it has chosen this one as an exception.

It is useful to compare and contrast the approach of the Irish Times with that of the London Times "Cities fit for Cycling" campaign.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/

The London Times at least had the courtesy and good grace to sit down with the cycling lobby and inform themselves what the issues were and what solutions might be needed.

Econoline Van

ConorGoodman wrote: »

Hi,
Just a few clarifying points from The Irish Times for anyone who is interested.

As a daily buyer of the IT, I'd just like to state that I agree with the OP and have felt that the overall tone of the cycling articles has been ridiculously negative.

However, we IT readers are a sensible lot (well, (mostly) any reader I've ever met) so I doubt they'll have some horrible repercussions on driver behaviour or whether someone cycles a bike or not.

P.S. More articles by Patrick Freyne please (if that's possible.....the poor lad must be worn out at this stage)

Dermot Illogical

McTigs wrote: »

Why is it that there is an underlying assumption from non cyclists that people principally cycle for 2 reasons a) The envoirnment and b) can't afford a car when most of the time it's neither

This, and the assumption that once you get on a bike you're been assimilated into some sub-species and must take responsibility for the actions of everyone else in that sub-species. Because obviously you share their ideas, behaviour and motivations.

Dermot Illogical

Econoline Van wrote: »

However, we IT readers are a sensible lot (well, (mostly) any reader I've ever met) so I doubt they'll have some horrible repercussions on driver behaviour or whether someone cycles a bike or not.

Are there enough of you left to make a noticeable difference?

MediaMan

I would be only slightly miffed by the negative stereotyping of cyclists in the IT, if it was just about hurting our feelings. What makes it much more serious than that is that there is a minority of drivers on our roads that think that cyclists have lesser entitlement to use the road than motorized vehicles. By extension these people believe that if a cyclist has the audacity to go on the road at all, then they should get out of the way when a car comes along, because the cars have more right to the road.

It's a short step from there to intimidating cyclists to get out of the way or off the road when it suits a driver. I was nearly run off the road on Saturday while I was cycling in the countryside, because a driver couldn't wait about 30-60 seconds for a clear stretch of road on which to pass me. After honking at me for a bit (presumably wanting me to cycle in the ditch), the person squeezed pass with inches to spare, and then veered in front of me, presumably to "teach me a lesson". That was scary.

The problem with the IT approach to negative stereotyping of cyclists and cycling, and especially the Fintan O'Toole article, is that, without actually saying it, it encourages these rogue drivers to mistreat cyclists, by generalizing from bad cyclists to infer that all cyclists are evil and crazy. No cyclist, good or bad, should be intimidated on the road. Bad cycling, just like bad driving, should be addressed. Newspapers, even though their primary purpose is commercial, should promote mutual respect and understanding between road users, while addressing the issues. It's too serious a topic to deal with it in any other way.

Econoline Van

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Are there enough of you left to make a noticeable difference?

Ha! A good point!

Jawgap

buffalo wrote: »

On a re-read, you have a point, but I think the positives are lost among the overwhelming tone of stress, hassle, falling, etc. 16 paragraphs, I count three positive ones.

Indeed, even the headline is more negative than positive: "Tumbles, tantrums and tales". And the byline? "After six months in the saddle and two falls, the stress of my inadequacy on a bike is giving me grey hairs". It even opens with the line, "If I die on my bike..." It's hardly selling cycling.

I remember the Times featured the account of someone taking cycling lessons, and what they learned about handling themselves on the road. I'd love to see a follow-up piece featuring this writer, and see how she feels about cycling then.

Oh come on - who among us has not left instructions with our loved ones that in the event of an accident, make sure to check what the Guards did with the bike? Or not thought about whether the bike would fit in the ambulance with you........

.......just me?:)

Anyway, I think in 6 months the only resonant fallout from all this will be the quote....."The cyclist is Christ on a bike, martyr and saviour all in one"

In fact someone should do up a bike jersey with 'martyr' on one side and "saviour" on the other!

Dermot Illogical

Jawgap wrote: »

In fact someone should do up a bike jersey with 'martyr' on one side and "saviour" on the other!

Half-hearted. Ink FTW.

Chips Lovell

Having lived and cycled in Dublin city centre for years now, I'm still amazed at how some people can claim the only way to cycle safely is by breaking road traffic laws, such as breaking lights or going the wrong way down a one way street.

galwaycyclist

MediaMan wrote: »

I would be only slightly miffed by the negative stereotyping of cyclists in the IT, if it was just about hurting our feelings. What makes it much more serious than that is that there is a minority of drivers on our roads that think that cyclists have lesser entitlement to use the road than motorized vehicles. By extension these people believe that if a cyclist has the audacity to go on the road at all, then they should get out of the way when a car comes along, because the cars have more right to the road.

It's a short step from there to intimidating cyclists to get out of the way or off the road when it suits a driver. I was nearly run off the road on Saturday while I was cycling in the countryside, because a driver couldn't wait about 30-60 seconds for a clear stretch of road on which to pass me. After honking at me for a bit (presumably wanting me to cycle in the ditch), the person squeezed pass with inches to spare, and then veered in front of me, presumably to "teach me a lesson". That was scary.

The problem with the IT approach to negative stereotyping of cyclists and cycling, and especially the Fintan O'Toole article, is that, without actually saying it, it encourages these rogue drivers to mistreat cyclists, by generalizing from bad cyclists to infer that all cyclists are evil and crazy. No cyclist, good or bad, should be intimidated on the road. Bad cycling, just like bad driving, should be addressed. Newspapers, even though their primary purpose is commercial, should promote mutual respect and understanding between road users, while addressing the issues. It's too serious a topic to deal with it in any other way.

This is indeed the problem. What is going on with the Irish Times, particularly with stuff like the O'Toole piece, is not far off standard, tribal, incitement to hatred in the fine tradition of Robert Mugabe, Ian Paisley etc.

As always, this stuff is as much about the perpetrators trying to make themselves feel powerful by picking on a group that they perceive to be weak and trying to whip up their followers into a frenzy of indignation and "righteous" anger.

In the circumstances, protests like "I cycle myself" are the moral equivalent of "some of my best friend are black" etc.

It is particularly nasty, given that in this case, the target "out group" are already exposed to lethal force by those who are being incited against them. This is not just about trying to justify depriving resources from the less "favoured" tribe.

radia

Tombo2001 wrote: »

FYI

Fintan O'Toole lives in Glasnevin.

The two main arteries towards his gaff would be Drumcondra Road and Mobhi Road.

On both of those roads, there are cycle paths that switch from the street to the footpath back onto the street again.

The markings in both cases are quite poor, but these cycle paths do exist.

I have seen a number of letters in the Irish Times over the years from residents of Drumcondra/ Glasnevin moaning about cyclists on the footpath.

But the fact of the matter is, they are entitled to be there. This fact is never mentioned in any of the anti-cyclist rants that emanate from said districts.

Yes, the cycle paths are on the pavement - and they're crap.
Here are a couple of photos that I'm pretty sure are from Mobhi Road:

A bin and a lamppost parked in what the markings suggest is a 2-way cycle track.



A nice slippy, swampy surface, perfect for braking to avoid pedestrians - NOT!



And you will need to avoid pedestrians because there's a bus stop fighting for space with cyclists along this stretch too.
Not to mention braking suddenly to avoid traffic pulling out of Na Fianna GAA club, which doesn't expect it'll have to pause for fast moving traffic until it reaches the roadside, despite the fact that the cycle path is in the pavement zone.

It's a fair slope downhill, so bikes can pick up reasonable speed if on the road. On the cycle track going at anything above a crawl is potentially dangerous because of all the obstacles.

So since we're NOT legally obliged to cycle in the cycle track...

Edit: Found another photo online. This one gives an overview of the stretch of road downhill along Mobhi Road. You can see the bin and lamp post in the cycle lane (just ahead of the cyclist) that are shown in close up above, and further downhill is the yellow bus stop. DCC have been kind enough to put up a sign warning of the children who mill around the pavement/cycle track periodically.



And as someone has commented on flickr where I took these photos from, the entry (while cycling) to this cycle path is not obvious. So if you miss getting onto it at the top, then forget it; you're staying on the road (short of stopping your bike completely and hauling it across onto the cycle path).