"Cyclists urged to exercise caution following death of Louise Butler"

Moflojo

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclists-urged-to-exercise-caution-following-death-of-louise-butler-29503287.html

From the independent.ie:

CYCLISTS are being urged to exercise caution on the roads following the death of Louise Butler (28) in South Dublin.

Struggling to contain my outrage as the article is fairly balanced overall, but the headline and opening sentence have my blood boiling.

I resent the implication of fault on the [dead] cyclist's part.

Suggest new headline of "Drivers urged to check blind spots for cyclists at junctions."

I'm absolutely gutted by Louise Butler's death, no personal connection apart from sharing the same cycling route to work, but still deeply affected by it so apologies if my outrage is misguided.

Zyzz

Moflojo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclists-urged-to-exercise-caution-following-death-of-louise-butler-29503287.html

From the independent.ie:



Struggling to contain my outrage as the article is fairly balanced overall, but the headline and opening sentence have my blood boiling.

I resent the implication of fault on the [dead] cyclist's part.

Suggest new headline of "Drivers urged to check blind spots for cyclists at junctions."

I'm absolutely gutted by Louise Butler's death, no personal connection apart from sharing the same cycling route to work, but still deeply affected by it so apologies if my outrage is misguided.

Came to in post this as soon as I read the thread title.

endacl

I tend to agree with ye. The headline gives good advice, if obvious advice.

Why not 'Road users urged to exercise caution'?

Captain Havoc

I don't see a problem with the headline, a cyclist has died and we're being reminded that we have to look after ourselves. Where the fault of the accident lies is irrelevant, you still have to look out for unusual behavior.

slap/dash

Definitely agreed. It's newsbites which form opinions often. So headlines should be as responsible as possible. Last thing anyone needs is more of the same played-out anti cyclist rhetoric.

magicbastarder

Captain Havoc wrote: »

we're being reminded that we have to look after ourselves.

but what's wrong with an article with the title 'motorists urged to exercise caution following...' etc.?

Captain Havoc

magicbastarder wrote: »

but what's wrong with an article with the title 'motorists urged to exercise caution following...' etc.?

Because a cyclist died, not a motorist. I don't see a problem with your suggestion either.

Beasty

The Indo are simply reporting what the RSA guy said, including

Drivers need to take special care and understand that cyclists are entitled to road space as much as any other vehicle on the road. It’s important that drivers anticipate cyclists at blind spots and to give at least a 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist

I really cannot see what is "outrageous" about the article or the quotes from the RSA guy - cyclists are vulnerable road users and this tragic incident has provided an opportunity to remind cyclists of that and drivers that they need to look out for them

hueylewis

I can see why this might upset people. The headline could be perceived to sort of unintentionally imply fault by stating that one "side" needs to be careful. However, the article itself is actually quite balanced, and the first advice in the article is a quote aimed at encouraging drivers to exercise caution around and give space to cyclists.

Gyalist

Cyclist Louise was involved in a collision with an articulated lorry.

This was the line that caught my attention. While there was undoubtedly a collision, I doubt whether it was the cyclist who collided with the lorry. Surely it would have been more accurate to say "Cyclist Louise was struck by an articulated lorry."

Beasty

Gyalist wrote: »

This was the line that caught my attention. While there was undoubtedly a collision, I doubt whether it was the cyclist who collided with the lorry. Surely it would have been more accurate to say "Cyclist Louise was struck by an articulated lorry."

No it would not. The exact circumstances are not known and using your description pre-judges any investigation. The term used is quite correctly neutral

slap/dash

Beasty wrote: »

No it would not. The exact circumstances are not known and using your description pre-judges any investigation. The term used is quite correctly neutral

I get your point, but the statement that she was involved is most decidedly not neutral.

Wishbone Ash

Beasty wrote: »

No it would not. The exact circumstances are not known and using your description pre-judges any investigation. The term used is quite correctly neutral

+1

We don't know the facts but assumptions are being made here. As someone who has experience of driving large vehicles in urban areas and associated interactions with cyclists, I'd prefer to see a more balanced view.

jimmycrackcorm

I recall a cyclist being killed in a collision with a truck turning left at the corner of westmoreland street and another with a truck turning left on the canal road.

Truck blind spots are a well documented problem. This won't be the last time we'll see truck + cyclist + left turn = bad outcome.

Captain Havoc

slap/dash wrote: »

I get your point, but the statement that she was involved is most decidedly not neutral.

I fail to see how she was not involved.

Beasty

Just to make it absolutely clear (as we had to several times in the condolences thread), there must be no speculation of cause or blame in this forum

If anyone has any relevant information in connection with this tragic incident, contact the Guards about it - do not provide any details here

Thanks

Beasty

Pretzill

Moflojo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclists-urged-to-exercise-caution-following-death-of-louise-butler-29503287.html

From the independent.ie:



Struggling to contain my outrage as the article is fairly balanced overall, but the headline and opening sentence have my blood boiling.

I resent the implication of fault on the [dead] cyclist's part.

Suggest new headline of "Drivers urged to check blind spots for cyclists at junctions."

I'm absolutely gutted by Louise Butler's death, no personal connection apart from sharing the same cycling route to work, but still deeply affected by it so apologies if my outrage is misguided.

TBH I am more outraged by your post which highlights your agenda without knowing or possessing the facts. The media reported this tragedy, you decided for whatever reason to pin this awful loss on your argument about cyclists versus motor vehicles and road usage. Bad taste IMHO. A family, work colleagues and friends are grieving. Ffs

Wishbone Ash

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I recall a cyclist being killed in a collision with a truck turning left at the corner of westmoreland street

(A female German tourist IIRC). At least that incident prompted the changes to that corner whereby the footpath was extended and widened making it into a very slow 'hairpin'. (pre 5 axle ban era).

Female cyclists seem to form most of the casualties in these type of accidents. I'm not sure if it's a lack of understanding of the dynamics of large vehicles or a tendency to be less 'defensive' in their cycling style than male counterparts.

CatFromHue

‘‘Drivers need to take special care and understand that cyclists are entitled to road space as much as any other vehicle on the road. It’s important that drivers anticipate cyclists at blind spots and to give at least a 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist,’’ he said.

‘‘At the same time, cyclists have a duty of care and must be aware that they are vulnerable road users. They must ensure that their bike is in good working order and they are mindful of other road users, particularly when cycling near parked cars and heavy vehicles,’’ he added.

Cyclists should always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other vehicles can see the cyclist clearly.

Brakes should work properly and tyres should be inflated to the right pressure.

‘‘It’s also vital that cyclists give the proper signals, especially when they are in heavy traffic,’’ he said.

---

That's just good advice to me.

MrCreosote

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend the Indo. It's a terrible headline. The article isn't a bland "take care" type article that has been written in a vacuum, it's completely in response to the recent tragedy.

The headline clearly puts the blame on one road-user more than the other which is totally irresponsible.

buffalo

The headline could as easily have read "‘Drivers urged to take special care", but at the end of the day, is a newspaper article asking people to be more sensible on the road really going to make much difference?

I hate these knee-jerk reaction pieces, turning a young woman's death into a media event. All that should be said at this time is that a terrible thing has happened, and it's absolutely awful.

Analysis and advice can come later, once any investigations are complete. To say anything more now is just flippant.

slap/dash

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I fail to see how she was not involved.

The point I'm making is that she, the truck driver, any number of other vehicles and or pedestrians might be involved. We, and the indo can't really say. And in my opinion, it's foul that the indo ran a headline that only treats of one party amongst potentially many.

If you can't see that point, I'm really not sure what else to say

cython

CatFromHue wrote: »

‘‘Drivers need to take special care and understand that cyclists are entitled to road space as much as any other vehicle on the road. It’s important that drivers anticipate cyclists at blind spots and to give at least a 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist,’’ he said.


‘‘At the same time, cyclists have a duty of care and must be aware that they are vulnerable road users. They must ensure that their bike is in good working order and they are mindful of other road users, particularly when cycling near parked cars and heavy vehicles,’’ he added.

No issues with this part, but from here on, judging by the absence of quotes, the Indo have starteded editorialising a bit and pushing their/the author's own agenda of what's safe/correct for cyclists

CatFromHue wrote: »

Cyclists should always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other vehicles can see the cyclist clearly.

The same old tired argument for reflective materials that are actually intended for night time use (high vis colours I can appreciate somewhat, but stil feel this pushes too much of a burden onto the cyclist and gives drivers a get out for not seeing cyclists if they're not worn). If conditions are such that there are car lights on to make reflective materials actually work, then the cyclist should also have lights which is not mentioned.

CatFromHue wrote: »

Brakes should work properly and tyres should be inflated to the right pressure.

‘‘It’s also vital that cyclists give the proper signals, especially when they are in heavy traffic,’’ he said.

The final piece of editorialising has just rehashed the spokesman's earlier point, and then they go back to transcribed comments which are a lot more balanced and reasonable.

CatFromHue wrote: »

---

That's just good advice to me.

kenmc

Irish times has a better headline www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/road-safety-body-urges-drivers-to-be-aware-of-cyclists-at-junctions-1.1496734
better paper, better news. wonder how the sun reported the incident

Brian?

kenmc wrote: »

Irish times has a better headline www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/road-safety-body-urges-drivers-to-be-aware-of-cyclists-at-junctions-1.1496734
better paper, better news. wonder how the sun reported the incident

I was just going to post that link. Another example of The Irish Times being a far superior paper to the Indo.

John_C

cython wrote: »

from here on, judging by the absence of quotes, the Indo have started editorialising a bit and pushing their/the author's own agenda of what's safe/correct for cyclists

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it when I read the article yesterday.
You really need to have your wits about you when reading newspapers.

beauf

The indoh always push their own agenda. you'll only notice it when it's something you know about. They have a habit of using stat s out of context. to achieve their goal. A lot of their articles just seem to be grabbed from other sources piece meal.

I no longer trust it at all.

They've been negative about cycling for a long time.

magicbastarder

cython wrote: »

The same old tired argument for reflective materials that are actually intended for night time use (high vis colours I can appreciate somewhat, but stil feel this pushes too much of a burden onto the cyclist and gives drivers a get out for not seeing cyclists if they're not worn). If conditions are such that there are car lights on to make reflective materials actually work, then the cyclist should also have lights which is not mentioned.

probably OT, but i have heard that leaving your headlights on all the time while driving - not just at night - will reduce the amount of accidents you are involved in, as you become more visible.

i suspect whatever makes you more eyecatching on the bike will have a similar effect

rollingscone

Do you know the Indo started publishing in a Tabloid format?

About five years after that they started publishing a physically smaller edition to match the content.

I wouldn't be getting overly emotive about the headline, but nonsense advice about hi-vis being essential at all times is just disconnected from reality and serves no real safety purpose. "Being visible" is essential to safety, that's to do with road positioning, appropriate lighting and sometimes clothing choices - I wear my Flouro-yellow jacket on misty or very grey mornings, I have better cycling gear with more reflective strips at night.

At the end of the day it comes down to biased experience, most people on here have experience of driving, cycling and at least one other form of real world transport, evidently the person giving out the safety advice has not, and is just abstracting things they've seen elsewhere.

HGV blindspots are a huge safety issue, and since I've started stopping behind HGVs and buses at junctions I've realised the extent to which other cyclists (or at least city centre POBs) remain completely blase about stopping in blindspots.

The problem as I see it is that you get two complementary arguments:
- The motorist/mainstream perspective - in which cyclists have no right to be on the road/Are second class citizens and need to be treated like children told what too do on a 'because that's what you have to do' basis bereft of reason.
- The POB, RLJr perspective, where they say "They don't treat us with respect so why should we obey the rules"/"They put my life in danger so I'm going to do whatever I want to feel safe" etc type arguments used to justify RLJing, Footpath riding and bizarrely Ped buzzing.

Both perspectives infantilise the cyclist and heighten the place of conflict over co-operation.

I can honestly say (apart from my Dad teaching me to respect cyclists when I was learning to drive) that these were the only perspectives I had encountered before I washed up on the sandy beaches of Boards/410 as a newly minted and unskilled commuter.

At some point early on when I still went through Red lights if there was no jct/no one crossing I read a post here talking about the importance of predictability to road safety. And I haven't jumped a red light since (although I did slide through one during the icy spell last year). I honestly believe that internalising that sense of responsibility as a road user has made me not only vastly safer, but also a more skillful cyclist (still crap) and far far less likely to take pointless risks if I ever go back to driving.

No Pants

CatFromHue wrote: »

Cyclists should always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other vehicles can see the cyclist clearly.

Apart from this bit, it's clearly horse****.

I'll wear high vis when they stop selling black, grey and silver vehicles.

magicbastarder

slap/dash wrote: »

The point I'm making is that she, the truck driver, any number of other vehicles and or pedestrians might be involved. We, and the indo can't really say. And in my opinion, it's foul that the indo ran a headline that only treats of one party amongst potentially many.

If you can't see that point, I'm really not sure what else to say

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/involved

very first definition. it's not controversial to say someone was involved in an accident which proved fatal for them, it does not imply any blame. i assume your understand of the word involves cause or blame?

a148pro

Can someone tell me what the actual rule for cyclists overtaking is? Assuming there is no cycle lane surely they should only pass out a vehicle on the outside or is there a specific exception for cyclists? I ask this as a cyclist who regularly ponders this as I pass out on inside and a driver who was quite annoyed to see a helmetless dublin biker attempt to pass me out on the inside while I was in moving traffic in a left only lane indicating left. I had to brake to let her pass without a collision. She rang her bell to draw attention to herself and I resisted the urge to roll down my window to draw her attention to certain matters.

this is a general question unrelated to what happened to that poor young girl.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

probably OT, but i have heard that leaving your headlights on all the time while driving - not just at night - will reduce the amount of accidents you are involved in, as you become more visible.

i suspect whatever makes you more eyecatching on the bike will have a similar effect

This is a bit like assuming jamming hard on your breaks is more effective than cadence breaking or ABS. No one believed in ABS until it was proved in repeated in tests.

Stats would suggest that driver behavior that has the biggest effect on cyclist accidents, and increasing the numbers of cyclists. So why then do most of these "articles" run counter to that?

Being visible has its place. But promoting it over everything else it mainly highlights ignorance of what the issues are.

Atomicjuicer

Did a mod delete my post?

beauf

a148pro wrote: »

Can someone tell me what the actual rule for cyclists overtaking is? Assuming there is no cycle lane surely they should only pass out a vehicle on the outside or is there a specific exception for cyclists? I ask this as a cyclist who regularly ponders this as I pass out on inside and a driver who was quite annoyed to see a helmetless dublin biker attempt to pass me out on the inside while I was in moving traffic in a left only lane indicating left. I had to brake to let her pass without a collision. She rang her bell to draw attention to herself and I resisted the urge to roll down my window to draw her attention to certain matters.

this is a general question unrelated to what happened to that poor young girl.

What should happen is the cyclist moves out into the lane, to take the space of a car, thus preventing cars from overtaking then cutting left across them. Cyclist should never undertake something indicating left. They should also not assume no indicator means a car isn't turning

The driver should move closer to the curb preventing cyclists from undertaking. Also indicating long before the junction, not last minute.

Also if there's a left turning lane the cyclist should be in the lane for going straight. But drivers think cyclist should be at the kerb and not in the middle of the road.

Eucation of drivers and cyclists is needed here. I find if I make eye contact with a driver and indicate where I'm going the majority of drivers generally don't have a problem it.

alexanderomahon

The headline is symptomatic of the problem faced by cyclists in this country. Yes of course we need to be aware of road situations and to behave correctly, but the way to significant reduce the numbers of cyclists involved in road traffic accidents is to educate drivers.

I have cycled in a number of German and Austrian cities and the difference in driver behaviour, especially when turning right, is clear to see. This behaviour is not the result of Germanic people just being super considerate, but rather the result of driver education.

What we need is an ongoing campaign of driver education and not headlines telling cyclists to be careful.

LionelNashe

cython wrote: »

No issues with this part, but from here on, judging by the absence of quotes, the Indo have starteded editorialising a bit and pushing their/the author's own agenda of what's safe/correct for cyclists
..........

It looks like the writer took the unquoted stuff directly from the rsa website and just tweaked the wording slightly.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

Typical lazy Indo "journalism". They pad their articles like a schoolkid trying to reach a word count on a homework assignment.

Jawgap

kenmc wrote: »

Irish times has a better headline www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/road-safety-body-urges-drivers-to-be-aware-of-cyclists-at-junctions-1.1496734
better paper, better news. wonder how the sun reported the incident

I too was going to post the link to the Irish Times - I think this speaks volumes for the Indo.

they know their readers and they know they are not competing with the Irish Times for readership.

The inclusion of the poor girl's name in the headline is in poor taste - she was not some z-lister interested in self-promotion, she was a girl on a bike.

And as for this gem.....

Half of all cyclists are hit by private cars and 30 per cent are hit by heavy goods vehicles according to Communications Officer of the Road Safety Authority Brian Farrell.

I know what they mean, but it's extremely poorly written - if Brian Farrell really said that he should be sent back to sit his Junior Cert English - likewise the reporter who wrote it and the sub-editor who let it pass!

Thankfully I seem to be one of the 20% who get hit by neither!

Manchegan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Female cyclists seem to form most of the casualties in these type of accidents. I'm not sure if it's a lack of understanding of the dynamics of large vehicles or a tendency to be less 'defensive' in their cycling style than male counterparts.

Sadly, there is evidence to back this view

Women cyclists 'at greater risk from lorry deaths' Guardian, 21 May 2010

In 2007, a leaked report by Transport for London's road safety unit noted that 86% of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47% of deaths of male cyclists.

The study was blunt in its conclusions: "Women may be over-represented in (collisions with goods vehicles) because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights."

By jumping red lights, it said, men are less likely to be caught in a lorry driver's blind spot, whereas less assertive cyclists who wait at the lights just in front of a lorry are at greater risk as they cannot be seen by the driver.

Nevertheless, it shouldn't be painted as a gender issue. Where HGVs and cyclists are expected to share the road, there should be more than the current token consideration for the cyclist.

Atomicjuicer

It's not just the writers with a bias.

I wrote my thoughts in a common sense way and they were deleted.

I'm done with this place.

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

This is a bit like assuming jamming hard on your breaks is more effective than cadence breaking or ABS. No one believed in ABS until it was proved in repeated in tests.

it's nothing like assuming that; because making yourself more visible does not preclude another method of trying to be safer, in the way that one style of braking is or isn't more effective than another style.

and i was in no way trying to promote it over other forms of behaviour, nor have i ever seen it promoted as a panacea for cycling safety.

Jawgap

Mods, can I suggest the girl's name is taken out of the thread title - this is an active thread so it'll pop up on the front page of boards.ie - might not be nice for people who knew her, even in passing, to see her name spread across the site.

tomtucker81

I cycle to work, ride motorbikes, drive cars vans and busses.
I know the dangers of cycling in the city with increased traffic flow around you, and as a result of driving larger vehicles am well aware of the observational restrictions around them.

I tend to always always check the driver has seen me before cycling past slowly moving traffic in rush hour.

The responsibility for your safety is yours, the cyclist. Yes drivers have responsibility too, but basically what im trying to say is why trust another person has seen you or will behave properly, be sure yourself.

But there is no accounting for idiots.....

magicbastarder

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

It's not just the writers with a bias.

I wrote my thoughts in a common sense way and they were deleted.

I'm done with this place.

usually if a post is deleted on boards, a mod will PM you to let you know. it's possible there was a technical glitch, so you should wait to find out if it was a mod.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's nothing like assuming that; because making yourself more visible does not preclude another method of trying to be safer, in the way that one style of braking is or isn't more effective than another style.

and i was in no way trying to promote it over other forms of behaviour, nor have i ever seen it promoted as a panacea for cycling safety.

Obviously one style of braking is more effective or they wouldn't have gone to the bother of fitting it to all cars.

Isn't that the point though. The stay left and hi vis IS promoted over everything else. When its not the main issue. The stay left is especially flawed.

If theres two lanes and I stay left am I going straight or left. if I'm in the right lane I'm obviously not going left. Road position is vitally important. yet it never mentioned.

Ditto for cars, waiting behind a cyclist for 20 secs is nothing over a 20 min journey. Bit of patience needs to be drilled into people.

nak

Not commenting on the accident this week, as we don't know what happened. One of the first things my husband drummed into me when I started cycling was to stay behind trucks at junctions, even if there is a bike lane on the LHS. Might slow you down a bit, but I'd rather not take the chance. I use the same lane placement at junctions/roundabouts as I would have done in the car.

It's definitely a great idea to have an experienced cyclist take you out in traffic at first. All you can do is try and be as safe as possible, but sometimes sadly things may happen that are out of your control.

beauf

nak wrote: »

Not commenting on the accident this week, as we don't know what happened. One of the first things my husband drummed into me when I started cycling was to stay behind trucks at junctions, even if there is a bike lane on the LHS. Might slow you down a bit, but I'd rather not take the chance. I use the same lane placement at junctions/roundabouts as I would have done in the car.

It's definitely a great idea to have an experienced cyclist take you out in traffic at first. All you can do is try and be as safe as possible, but sometimes sadly things may happen that are out of your control.

+1 to all of that.

Another point is most cyclists aren't in a hurry. Stopping here and there will make almost no difference to the journey time. As they don't get caught in traffic jams.

Another point is sometime taking the longer way round to avoid roads you don't like may add 5 or 10 mins, but its much nicer, perhaps even safer cycle.

Schmowen

Now I don't want to antagonise people here but as a cyclist I think that everyone here should watch this series of videos. I must remind ALL of you here that as road users you are ALL bound by the rules of the road and MUST adhere to them as all road users must. There is no excuse for bad cycling or driving on our roads.
As for what happened to Louise Butler it's a tragedy , my thoughts and prayers go to her family.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuhcR4C6dRUqpzqYMr1akhw

DirkVoodoo

While I don't have any issue with the headline as such, asking cyclists to exercise caution is only part of the solution. As is asking drivers to exercise caution.

In the end there is a minority on the roads who will never exercise any kind of caution and show a complete disregard for the law and the safety of others.

That's why we need more Gardai out and about, enforcing the law.

In fact, the only Gardai I seem to see these days are the ones outside embassies on my commute, or yesterday a Garda car and an unmarked car (double parked alongside it, creating a pretty ridiculous hazard on Clyde road) just having a chin-wag.

hueylewis

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

While I don't have any issue with the headline as such, asking cyclists to exercise caution is only part of the solution. As is asking drivers to exercise caution.

In the end there is a minority on the roads who will never exercise any kind of caution and show a complete disregard for the law and the safety of others.

That's why we need more Gardai out and about, enforcing the law.

In fact, the only Gardai I seem to see these days are the ones outside embassies on my commute, or yesterday a Garda car and an unmarked car (double parked alongside it, creating a pretty ridiculous hazard on Clyde road) just having a chin-wag.

Anecdotal and straying a bit off topic, but cycling a few months ago on Whitechurch road near Rathfarnham (quite bendy road in parts, only really two ideal straights to overtake a cyclist moving relatively quickly), I was thinking to myself how I'd love if there were more Gardaí about the place to catch people in the act of making a dangerous overtake, having been closely overtaken there on a bend by three cars in a row one of the previous days. Coming on to a sweeping bend in the road (by the church, heading south for anyone familiar with it), I hear a car approach close behind me at speed. Before I have a chance to safely glance back, what turned out to be a Garda squad car pushes past on the bend leaving me about a foot of space. Didn't seem to be rushing anywhere for important Garda stuff as it continued on at a normal pace with no flashing lights. Just lucky nothing was coming the opposite direction.

Jawgap

Schmowen wrote: »

Now I don't want to antagonise people here but as a cyclist I think that everyone here should watch this series of videos. ..........

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuhcR4C6dRUqpzqYMr1akhw