Journalism and cycling

Chuchote

A piece in The Irish Times today begins by talking about the death of Donna Fox, crushed to death by a truck as she cycled through Dublin.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-cycling-safety-is-a-two-way-street-1.2815097

The piece is, altogether, 724 words. But almost half of that, 288 words, is given over to a rant about "cyclists who win no sympathy from motorists".

Unfortunately, while many conscientious cyclists are victims of this lack of investment, there are also many cyclists who win no sympathy from motorists, truck and bus drivers because of the way they rampage through Dublin’s streets. No light is red enough, no gap between cars or worse between the sides of two double-deckers is narrow enough and no pedestrian crossing is off limits enough to prevent cyclists from charging through.
I have been cycling into work from the western suburbs for more than 30 years and in that time have seen the most reckless and downright dangerous cycling that can be imagined.
I have seen mothers with infants in push chairs scattering to get out of the way of cyclists who think they should speed through a red light at a pedestrian crossing. For many of these cyclists loss of right of way at a lighted intersection really only means you have to slow down a bit before cutting across a moving bus or car.
The Dáil passed legislation about a year ago giving the Garda Síochána the power to impose instant fines on cyclists breaking traffic lights. While the media reported some cyclists being stopped, the initiative didn’t stem the stream of bikes rolling through intersections at will.
It is unrealistic to believe the gardaí have the resources to enforce the laws related to cycling on urban streets. But maybe a big crackdown is needed to force cyclists to stick to the rules of the road in the same way as required of drivers. Motorists have to stop when the lights go red at a pedestrian crossing even if there are no pedestrians. Why don’t cyclists? Who gave them the right to break lights?

(Sorry for the long quote, but it's necessary to show the sheer stupidity).

And a long extrapolated quote is used as a caption:

‘There are also many cyclists who win no sympathy from motorists, truck and bus drivers because of the way they rampage through Dublin’s streets. No light is red enough, no gap between cars or worse between the sides of two double-deckers is narrow enough and no pedestrian crossing is off limits enough to prevent cyclists from charging through.’

Even the headline is extraordinary - I would think that it endangers people cycling in Dublin: "Why cycling safety is a two-way street". What? I'm only entitled to cycle in safety if all cyclists keep all traffic laws?

The tastelessness of this piece, apart from the utter stupidity, is typical of the way cycling and "cyclists" - as if we are a single body of people - are written about in Ireland. Is there any way to tackle this?

ednwireland

Getting really sick of the divide and rule that is been pushed from somwhere (gov, Press I don't know), it's everywhere workers v unemployed. Public vs private sector, cyclists vs motorists. Landlords vs tenants the list goes on.

Do I need to go on ? I'm in a job that hasn't had a pay rise in 10 years. Im not putting the rent up on small property I rent probably the cheapest rent around even up here.

CanT we all relax and get on a bit more ?

Probably totally OT for the cycling forum sorry.

Chuchote

Damn straight. It's Trumpism Irish-style, the politics of envy - with the envy, weirdly, mostly being directed downwards. Scotes! Scroungers! Why should I pay for libraries, mate, I don't read!

John Lanchester had a brilliant piece some years back about this (to search for it, the best way is to look for "the shít we're in"!) from which my favourite line is "the trouble with the poor is that they have too much money".

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n01/john-lanchester/lets-call-it-failure

beauf

Newspaper print populist stories as it sells papers. As motorists are the largest group they will print stories that appeal to that market. Hence the commonality in these articles that seem imo to have anti cycling bias and pro driver bias.

The fact that studies show that cyclist behaviour has little effect on accidents. But that it's mainly driver behaviour that causes it. Would not be popular with drivers so they won't publish those facts very often. It's also why enforcement of cycling laws won't have much of an effect.

There is an issue that law breaking probably has an impact on anti cycling sentiment.

Just because some one has been cycling for 30yrs doesn't mean that have done any research on the facts and statistics of accidents. The lack of any link to such studies is a credibility problem for such opinion pieces. It's the usual victim blaming.

It takes the focus of poor driving and the lack of infrastructure and investment.

buffalo

** whataboutery alert **

I've never seen a piece on motorway funding mention the high percentage of motorists who speed, use mobiles, etc.

Chuchote

If lawbreaking has an impact on sentiment, ok, let's start posting photos and videos of drivers using mobile phones, zipping through lights after they've turned red, whipping right around no-right-turn turns, close-passing cyclists, speeding, parking in cycle lanes, failing to indicate in time or at all, dooring, suddenly deciding they want to park on the other side of Dame Street and hanging a speedy U-ey, using bus lanes, taking to the wrong side of solid-white-line roads to pass cyclists then swinging across in front of them to turn left, blaring music that must make them unconscious of the road and its other users…
People only notice the few cyclists who act like brats because they have been fed the idea that "cyclists" break road rules.
Perhaps if they realised how little drivers keep the same rules it might soften their cough for them?

Macy0161

buffalo wrote: »

** whataboutery alert **

I've never seen a piece on motorway funding mention the high percentage of motorists who speed, use mobiles, etc.

As I keep on saying, so much motorist law breaking is so normalised it isn't even seen as law breaking. Try driving around at the speed limit and see the build up behind you, or everyone passing you out if it's dual carriageway or motorway. Everyone (eventually) stops for traffic lights. For those couple of minutes, they might see a cyclist break a red to take a left. They'll have a give out, maybe a rant live on twitter. And then when the lights change they'll get back up to a cruising speed above the speed limit without a second thought about law breaking... If they try and enforce the speed limit, it's all shooting fish in a barrel!

Chuchote

In San Francisco, cyclists reacted to one of these "Cyclists All Break Red Lights" rants by a mass protest in which they stopped at every light and stop sign. Traffic ground to a halt! (Nobody's mentioning this in the comments on the IT piece.)
http://road.cc/content/news/160118-san-francisco-cyclists-protest-obeying-traffic-rules
In Idaho and in Paris, cyclists can use red lights and stop signs as 'Yield' signs, going through when it's safe to do so.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-babin-bicycle-laws-20161003-snap-story.html

Billgirlylegs

Are you suggesting this is a media driven campaign?

In my opinion, all your points are valid in relation to drivers; there are "brats" driving around in cars as you describe.

Dooring is basic stupidity/carelessness, parking in a cycle lane is lack of manners / inconvenient, but these are hazards for everyone. The u-turn, speeding antics are likewise hazards for everyone, not restricted to cyclists.

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?
Cyclists do it all day, everyday.

Numbers driving through red lights compared to cyclists doing likewise? One in five I reckon, is being extremely generous.
Numbers of drivers overtaking in a dangerous fashion compared to cyclists "sharing" occupied lanes, overtaking on the left of a vehicle indicating left / in tight spaces?
One for one? I don't think so.

There isn't a media driven campaign. The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.
I don't see major inaccuracy in the article and I don't see a problem with the timing.

Chuchote

@Billgirlylegs You haven't been looking at the statistics. The Road Safety Association, scarcely a cyclist-friendly group, did a big study (25,000+ cyclists) of how many cyclists go through red lights recently: 1 in 8 was the number. Nothing like the numbers you're claiming.

http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/26/only-1-in-8-cyclists-run-red-lights-says-study-of-60-irish-junctions/
http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/revealed-how-cyclists-drivers-fare-on-helmets-and-foglights-34743099.html

How many cars go through? My own, amateur, estimate would be that three or four cars tend to zip through after the lights have gone red on most light-changes. And this is really dangerous.

A cyclist (say 150kg of human on a 15kg bicycle) who goes through a red light is endangering only himself or herself (if that) in virtually all cases; usually s/he has checked that there's nothing coming. A car (say 2 tons) is a weaponised metal projectile, and going much faster. If it hits you, you're going to be badly hurt.

Some figures on cars hitting people:

• If someone is hit by a car at 65kph they are 90% likely to be killed
• If someone is hit by a car at 50kph they are 50% likely to be killed
• If someone is hit by a car at 30kph they are 10% likely to be killed

jive

Cyclists should be allowed to proceed slowly through pedestrian crossing reds (like the flashing amber for motor vehicles - go ahead if it's safe to do so). They should also be able to turn left on red.

All of a sudden, the only major thing motorists have to throw at cyclists is out the window; not to mention the fact that the above makes sense given that a bicycle is not a 2 tonne vehicle.

Also, more to the point, none of this would be an issue if there was a bit more patience from cyclists and motorists. Your time isn't that valuable, get over yourselves. !

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

** whataboutery alert **

I've never seen a piece on motorway funding mention the high percentage of motorists who speed, use mobiles, etc.

i threw that in as a comment on the article for you.

magicbastarder

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?
Cyclists do it all day, everyday.

you can't cite things that cars *cannot* do as something they *do* not do, can you?

greenspurs

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

There isn't a media driven campaign. The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.
I don't see major inaccuracy in the article and I don't see a problem with the timing.

Id like to see the stats, if you have them ?

Anti cyclist seems to be the last minute "feck it I need a piece for my column" setting for 'journalists' ....
There are stupid motorists, and there are stupid cyclists, its just motorists can kill, so I reckon the onus is on them to not kill someone due to their careless driving !

magicbastarder

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

There isn't a media driven campaign. The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others

also, source.

Chuchote

Cars driving the wrong way down one-way streets? See it often - and again, many cities allow cyclists to contraflow on one-ways as it's safe.

Cars driving across pedestrian crossings? Say what? But cyclists going across parallel to pedestrian crossings is perfectly safe; cycling among the pedestrian crossings is rude, but generally not unsafe.

Driving on the wrong side of the road? Well, for example, a few days ago I passed out a bus at the stop at Rathmines Garda Station, signalling that I wanted to take the fork immediately after it. A driver drove his car past me on the right, crossing the white line, then swerved across me to take the left-hand fork. He or she would have had to pause for perhaps five seconds behind me to legally go left.

Driving on the pavement: have you ever walked down Beaver Row, to take one example? Pavements are for walking? Naah, they're for parking!

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3175953,-6.2342485,3a,60y,74.94h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2QQNlUy4zY59L2rlO8nIXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

AlreadyHome

Will people here be making the effort to write to the journalist in question? You never know - engage the journalist sufficiently and he might start thinking "There's a sizeable audience for cycling related pieces. Maybe I'll keep going on this". I find the comment section under pieces just a useless free-for-all most of the time.

Sure, he might be a bit of a prat now, but keep at him and he might change his tune.

Chuchote

Weepsie wrote: »

This line gets thrown out a lot and in terms of physical injury obviously true. What of the psychological impact of someone being hit because they've gone through a red light? That can be devastating for the other party.

Maybe not relevant to the OP, but again it's not looking at these things from all possible angles and a little amount of whataboutery in there. Just think when, if you're breaking a light and you're in an accident, there is generally another party who didn't need to be in that accident*

*I've had accidents with absolutely noone around.

Certainly true, Weepsie, but again, the statistics are that cyclists going through red lights cause very few accidents. And in many cities, cyclists are now allowed to run reds if it's safe:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/27/cyclists-run-red-lights-paris-london-san-francisco

Peterx

Chuchote wrote: »

Damn straight. It's Trumpism Irish-style, the politics of envy - with the envy, weirdly, mostly being directed downwards. Scotes! Scroungers! Why should I pay for libraries, mate, I don't read!

John Lanchester had a brilliant piece some years back about this (to search for it, the best way is to look for "the shít we're in"!) from which my favourite line is "the trouble with the poor is that they have too much money".

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n01/john-lanchester/lets-call-it-failure

I learned a new word in that article which does nicely sum up the issue
mythopoesis
Mythopoeia is a narrative genre in modern literature and film where a fictional or artificial mythology is created by the writer of prose or other fiction.

There are many myths about cyclists, my favourite one is that there is a "we" at all. A lot of the time there are just people commuting who happen to be on a bike as it suits them at this moment in time, it's either cheaper or quicker. These people are not cyclists, if driving or the bus or walking was cheaper or quicker they would sell the bike.

tomasrojo

Motorists have to stop when the lights go red at a pedestrian crossing even if there are no pedestrians.

Actually, this is one of the most persistent offences done by motorists. Especially left turns through pedestrian crossings when there is only a straight-ahead green, and barrelling through pedestrian crossings that aren't at a junction, where there is no risk to the driver from collisions with cross-traffic.

Billgirlylegs

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?

Driving on footpaths - all day, every day, all over Dublin. The standard Dublin parking procedure appears to be 'two wheels up on the pavement' wherever people can get away with it. That's why we have bollards along the pavement all over the city.

Wrong side of the road isn't common but nor is it common for cyclists. You see the odd idiot doing it, but it's hardly something to be concerned about.

Driving across pedestrian crossings? ALL THE TIME. Are you blind? Stand at a pedestrian crossing and count how many cars break the amber and red light. Try it. The difference is they kill people who aren't aware that the average Dublin driver thinks amber and the first couple of seconds of red mean 'speed up'.

Driving incorrectly on a one-way street is also common enough, I see that done frequently. Not as often as cyclists, but still common.

Road deaths caused by motor vehicles year to date: 138
Road deaths caused by a cyclist / pedestrian incident: 1

The latter was a cyclist killed whilst cycling on a cycle path.

Open your eyes and engage your brain.

DanDublin1982

Biillgirlylegs What are you basing that 50℅ on?

I'll be honest the article isnt all that bad imo. Some of the phraseology is certainly questionable but his over riding points are 1)better infrastructure is needed 2) those who act the bo11ocks should stop doing so and 3) action on the first will help with the second.

I think we all pretty much agree with those three things.

Chuchote

AlreadyHome wrote: »

Will people here be making the effort to write to the journalist in question? You never know - engage the journalist sufficiently and he might start thinking "There's a sizeable audience for cycling related pieces. Maybe I'll keep going on this". I find the comment section under pieces just a useless free-for-all most of the time.

Sure, he might be a bit of a prat now, but keep at him and he might change his tune.

It might be worth cc'ing him in on emails today to Dublin City Councillors in relation to the Liffey Cycleway, with many of the points being made here - perhaps sending the emails to the Letters page lettersed@irishtimes.com

ThisRegard

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?
Cyclists do it all day, everyday.

As do people driving cars. Don't know what utopia you're posting from to think otherwise.

mcgratheoin

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.

Well that's just incorrect. I cycle a 40km round trip each day including the quays in Dublin and dangerous behaviour is not the dominant observation of any road user. Most cyclists stop for red lights but not all, most cars stop for red lights but not all of them. This morning I saw two cyclists make left turns on red and I saw a van and car try to cross Pearse St heading north on Macken Street when there was no space for them, thus blocking all traffic heading east on Pearse Street for an entire cycle of lights. Plenty of pedestrians also walked out across the road without adequately checking for traffic.
The problem with these articles is that

1. any article about cycling seems incomplete without a measure of victim-blaming and a rant about poor cyclist behaviour
2. the proportion of cyclists breaking the laws is always exaggerated
3. other poor behaviour on the roads is ignored, both driving and pedestrian
4. a false equivalence is generated between the dangers of poor cycling behaviour and poor driving behaviour
5. all cyclists and cycling lobby groups are tarred with the same brush in a way that driving lobby groups e.g. Conor Faughnan and the AA are not

Given the recent craven attempt by the Dept. of Transport to undermine the express intent and will of a Ministerial decision by casting doubt over legislation that they themselves created, the car-centric focus of the RSA, the lack of anything bar lip-service to the National Cycle Policy's goal of having 10% of journeys made my bike in 2020 and the repeated cyclist bashing articles in national media, it is difficult to believe that cycling is getting a fair hearing nationally.

As an aside, here are the 19 objectives of the NCPF - I'll let others judge how well these have been implemented over the last 7 years.

Objective 1: Support the planning, development and design of towns and cities in a cycling and pedestrian friendly way.
Objective 2: Ensure that the urban road infrastructure(with the exception of motorways) is designed /retrofitted so as to be cyclist-friendly and that traffic management measures are also cyclist friendly.
Objective 3: Provide designated rural cycle networks especially for visitors and recreational cycling.
Objective 4: Provide cycling-friendly routes to all schools, adequate cycling parking facilities within schools, and cycling training to all school pupils.
Objective 5: Ensure that all of the surfaces used by cyclists are maintained to a high standard and are well lit.
Objective 6: Ensure that all cycling networks - both urban and rural - are signposted to an agreed standard.
Objective 7: Provide secure parking for bikes.
Objective 8: Ensure proper integration between cycling and public transport.
Objective 9: Provide public bikes in cities.
Objective 10: Improve the image of cycling and promote cycling using “soft interventions” such as promotional campaigns, events etc.
Objective 11: Improve cyclists’ cycling standards and behaviour on the roads.
Objective 12: Improve driver education and driving standards so that there is a greater appreciation for the safety needs of cyclists.
Objective 13: Support the provision of fiscal incentives to cycle.
Objective 14: Provide appropriate levels of, and timely, financial resources towards implementing the NCPF.
Objective 15: Introduce changes to legislation to improve cyclist safety.
Objective 16: Improve enforcement of traffic laws to enhance cyclist safety and respect for cyclists.
Objective 17: Develop a structure that can coordinate the implementation of activities across the many Government Departments, Agencies and NGO’s.
Objective 18: Provide design professionals with suitable training / guidance to develop and implement the policies of the NCPF. Support the deepening of knowledge of the subject of planning for cyclists in Ireland.
Objective 19: Evaluate the cycling policy and monitor the success as the measures are implemented.

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

Saw it this morning in fact, outside a school. Have the reg. Should probably report it to traffic watch

i live near the corner of ballymun road and glasnevin avenue. it's amazing how many people get the green light for straight ahead, and take it as a signal they can turn left - and when the lights are in that configuration, it's to allow the pedestrian lights to go green across that left hand turn. i recently saw three cars do it en masse.

Chuchote

@mcgratheoin Could I suggest that you take that entire post and send it to all the Dublin City Councillors today (PM me for a list of their emails), and also to the Minister and The Irish Times?

Today, because tomorrow the council is deciding on the Liffey Cycleway on the north quays. http://irishcycle.com/2016/10/03/liffey-cycle-route-to-be-kept-on-the-quays-in-surprising-but-welcomed-move/

The outline of the new solution will be presented to councillors and other committee members on Wednesday [5 October 2016], it is then expected to be presented formally as part of the entire Liffey Cycle Route at the proceeding committee meeting on November 23.

Macy0161

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths?

Nearest miss I've ever had was on the grade separated cycle lane here
A car that was illegally in the bus lane decided to undertake another car illegally in the bus lane (trying to push back into the driving lane) and mounted the kerb and ended up with wheels on the footpath.

Uk data, but i doubt we're much different:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians

Most notably:

• The vast majority of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involve a motor vehicle, not a cycle: from 2005-14 (GB), 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries that happened in collisions on a footway/verge involved a motor vehicle.
• From 2005-14, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers.

So, when it comes to dangers for pedestrians on the footpath, or due to other road users breaking red lights, those are the facts.

But every single article in every single paper in the country that talks about cycling HAS to include large amounts of nonsense about how dangerous cyclists are.

It's a joke, it really is.

AlreadyHome

My letter to the editor:

RE: Why cycling safety is a two-way street - Tuesday 4th October 2016

Sir,

While I welcome Dick Ahlstrom's call for increased government funding of cycle infrastructure, I despair of the author's unrelated complaint of cyclists' behavior in the same breath. When talk of budgeting for motorways is raised, do we mention drivers' use of mobile phones or breaking the speed limit?

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of injuries and deaths on Irish roads are as a result of driver error. I would suggest that until cyclists become responsible for a comparable number of tragedies, talk of misbehaving cyclists is treated as the distraction it is. In the meantime, how about we focus on the environmental, economic and welfare benefits that an improved cycling infrastructure will have on our country and its citizens?

Yours, etc,

AlreadyHome

greenspurs

AlreadyHome wrote: »

My letter to the editor:

RE: Why cycling safety is a two-way street - Tuesday 4th October 2016

Sir,

While I welcome Dick Ahlstrom's call for increased government funding of cycle infrastructure, I despair of the author's unrelated complaint of cyclists' behavior in the same breath. When talk of budgeting for motorways is raised, do we mention drivers' use of mobile phones or breaking the speed limit?

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of injuries and deaths on Irish roads are as a result of driver error. I would suggest that until cyclists become responsible for a comparable number of tragedies, talk of misbehaving cyclists is treated as the distraction it is. In the meantime, how about we focus on the environmental, economic and welfare benefits that an improved cycling infrastructure will have on our country and its citizens?

Yours, etc,

AlreadyHome

Excellent...
Who do we send this to?

Chuchote

AlreadyHome wrote: »

My letter to the editor:

RE: Why cycling safety is a two-way street - Tuesday 4th October 2016

Sir,

While I welcome Dick Ahlstrom's call for increased government funding of cycle infrastructure, I despair of the author's unrelated complaint of cyclists' behavior in the same breath. When talk of budgeting for motorways is raised, do we mention drivers' use of mobile phones or breaking the speed limit?

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of injuries and deaths on Irish roads are as a result of driver error. I would suggest that until cyclists become responsible for a comparable number of tragedies, talk of misbehaving cyclists is treated as the distraction it is. In the meantime, how about we focus on the environmental, economic and welfare benefits that an improved cycling infrastructure will have on our country and its citizens?

Yours, etc,

AlreadyHome

Superb.

magicbastarder

greenspurs wrote: »

Excellent...
Who do we send this to?

i don't think it's a petition, if AlreadyHome has already sent it, job done.

jive

The cyclist behaviour nonsense really grates on me. If there were no infrastructure or planning at all and just bicycles then there would be as close to 0% road fatalities as you could get. The problem is that people, not motorists or cyclists, are moronic at times; being moronic on a 15kg bicycle is a lot more forgiving than in a 2000kg car.

AlreadyHome

greenspurs wrote: »

Excellent...
Who do we send this to?

I sent it as a 'letter to the editor' at the Irish Times. Would encourage everyone here to do something along the same line when they read or listen to someone irk them in the media or political sphere - only takes a few minutes!

Pinch Flat

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?
Cyclists do it all day, everyday.

Have you ever paused to think while cyclists do this? cyclists don't cycle on paths for the laugh or to terrorize pedestrians - they do this because they feel threatened on the road. Lots of kids (and some adults) cycle on the paths where I live - I'd personally prefer this to them being ferried about and contributing to traffic congestion.

Driving down one way streets? how about we being in more contra flows. Problem solved. try cycling from east to west Dublin along the convoluted routes designed to try and address car congestion - one way streets, no left / right turns - all these are done to try and address the impossible - traffic congestion. Lets make our roads more cycling friendly and these problems go away over night.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Numbers driving through red lights compared to cyclists doing likewise? One in five I reckon, is being extremely generous.
Numbers of drivers overtaking in a dangerous fashion compared to cyclists "sharing" occupied lanes, overtaking on the left of a vehicle indicating left / in tight spaces?
One for one? I don't think so.

The reason more drivers don't do this is because it's more difficult - that's not to say 3, 4 or sometimes 5 cars will stream through a red, depending on the junction and in the ever present need to 'beat the traffic'. This morning a case in point - castleknock, lights broke in the center of the village. Park gate street - overtaken by a van, to swoop left up military road, in front of me and another cyclist, through a red. Christchurch - this junction is almost farcical - to the extent that a car (or sometimes several, in addition to some cyclists) will stream through waaaaay after the red.

Cyclists are entitled to move up the left of cars - even if they're stationary and indicating left.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

There isn't a media driven campaign. The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.
I don't see major inaccuracy in the article and I don't see a problem with the timing.

the hate against cyclists is media driven - the Irish Times and other publications is heavily subsidized by the car industry through advertising, so they're hardly going to upset their pay masters.

When's the last time you saw an advert for the latest bike, or a "Cycling Section" to counter the motoring one?

Motorists feed on this hate and it's whipped up by the radio - turn into George Hook and you're going to be whipped into a frenzy while you crawl home at 15 kph.

"I'm stuck in a traffic jam I've helped create, who can I blame? Oh look a cyclist breaking a red"

greenspurs

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't think it's a petition, if AlreadyHome has already sent it, job done.

It doesn't have to be a petition....

If more than one send in letters , MAYBE these editors might actually realise that cyclists should have a say, and an opinion also .

mcgratheoin

Sent this to the councillors - tried to keep it positive - I figure if there's a debate somebody might stand up and say that DCC have an obligation under the NCPF to fulfill these objectives and perhaps point to Grafton Street as an example of a legacy that the council could point to in future years.

A chara,

I am writing to you in relation to the forthcoming plan for the Liffey Cycle Route in Dublin City centre. I am a regular cyclist who commutes over 30km round trip each day along the quays from the Westmanstown area to Ballsbridge, largely without incident and alongside traffic that is for the most part courteous. Rather than setting forth my own personal opinions of the positives involved in prioritising public transport, cycling and walking within Dublin i would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the aims and objectives contained within the National Cycle Policy, which is at present more than halfway through its lifetime. You may recall that the overall "mission is to create a strong cycling culture in Ireland" with the vision that "10% of all trips will be by bike by 2020".

Dublin City Council has an exciting window of opportunity to be a genuine and inspiring leader in implementing this vision and the proposed plans would fulfill numerous objectives outlined in the National Cycle Policy Framework. As we close in on the 25th anniversary of the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street I would implore you to reflect on the below objectives during your examination of any cycling plans put forward to the Council and to give strong consideration as to the social and infrastructural legacy which you wish to bestow upon this great city.

Yours etc..... - included the 19 objectives as well

Roadhawk

Deedsie wrote: »

Ok who are we to send these to? Ill do it after lunch.

greenspurs wrote: »

Excellent...
Who do we send this to?

Well the Irish Times digital editor is Paddy Logue (plogue@irishtimes.com). You are free to voice your opinion/concerns however i'm not sure how serious it will be taken. Editors receive umpteen positive and negative responses to published pieces.

Logue also has a fairly accurate article on cyclists published earlier this year:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/patrick-logue-cyclists-need-to-stop-peddling-excuses-for-rule-breaking-1.2642664

magicbastarder

a friend of a friend used to be letters ed for the irish times. they may get umpteen responses, but a hell of a lot of it is drivel apparently.

Eponymous

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the Irish Times digital editor is Paddy Logue (plogue@irishtimes.com). You are free to voice your opinion/concerns however i'm not sure how serious it will be taken. Editors receive umpteen positive and negative responses to published pieces.

Logue also has a fairly accurate article on cyclists published earlier this year:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/patrick-logue-cyclists-need-to-stop-peddling-excuses-for-rule-breaking-1.2642664

By accurate, you mean confirms your own opinion?

AlreadyHome

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the Irish Times digital editor is Paddy Logue (plogue@irishtimes.com). You are free to voice your opinion/concerns however i'm not sure how serious it will be taken. Editors receive umpteen positive and negative responses to published pieces.

Logue also has a fairly accurate article on cyclists published earlier this year:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/patrick-logue-cyclists-need-to-stop-peddling-excuses-for-rule-breaking-1.2642664

Oh great...so it looks like the editor himself is avidly pro-cycling!

12 sprocket

Chuchote wrote: »

@Billgirlylegs You haven't been looking at the statistics. The Road Safety Association, scarcely a cyclist-friendly group, did a big study (25,000+ cyclists) of how many cyclists go through red lights recently: 1 in 8 was the number. Nothing like the numbers you're claiming.




http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/26/only-1-in-8-cyclists-run-red-lights-says-study-of-60-irish-junctions/
http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/revealed-how-cyclists-drivers-fare-on-helmets-and-foglights-34743099.html

How many cars go through? My own, amateur, estimate would be that three or four cars tend to zip through after the lights have gone red on most light-changes. And this is really dangerous.

A cyclist (say 150kg of human on a 15kg bicycle) who goes through a red light is endangering only himself or herself (if that) in virtually all cases; usually s/he has checked that there's nothing coming. A car (say 2 tons) is a weaponised metal projectile, and going much faster. If it hits you, you're going to be badly hurt.

Some figures on cars hitting people:

• If someone is hit by a car at 65kph they are 90% likely to be killed
• If someone is hit by a car at 50kph they are 50% likely to be killed
• If someone is hit by a car at 30kph they are 10% likely to be killed

"How many cars go through? My own, amateur, estimate would be that three or four cars tend to zip through after the lights have gone red on most light-changes. And this is really dangerous."

Yes it is really dangerous ..Especially for a gob****e of a cyclist who cycles through on the red!.........

Carawaystick

The IT had a terrible article on an analysis of motorbike deaths,where they throw in confusing stats, victim blaming and non-sequiturs.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/one-in-three-motorcyclists-who-died-in-crashes-had-drunk-alcohol-study-1.2815259

Headline : One in three motorcyclists who died in crashes had drunk alcohol
29% had - close enough

but now the voodoo begins

IT wrote:

Of those, 29 per cent had consumed alcohol before their crash and 71 per cent of those were over the current blood/alcohol limit (almost half were four times over the limit)

The use of 71% of 29% to inflate the issue, instead of saying 20% were over the current Blood alcohol limit.
The study covers a period when most of the time the blood alcohol limit was higher. It tries to smear people who if they did something now which would be illegal with something that may or may not have been illegal when they did it.

Another shoddy weasle statement

it wrote:

The analysis found that in 86 per cent of motorcycle fatal crashes, the motorcyclist was culpable, or partly culpable,

With no definition of partly culpable given. If someone is 49% culpable does that excuse the more culpable person?

Lastly, the researcher looked at the causes of 887 fatal collisions, but the article focuses only on 93 of them.

Chuchote

12 sprocket wrote: »

"How many cars go through? My own, amateur, estimate would be that three or four cars tend to zip through after the lights have gone red on most light-changes. And this is really dangerous."

Yes it is really dangerous ..Especially for a gob****e of a cyclist who cycles through on the red!.........

Well, typical day, today I was crossing the street, wheeling my bicycle, in Rathmines. The pedestrian light was flashing amber, giving me right of way. Several cars drove at me; one taxi stopped (thank you), others whipped past in front of my wheel. Sneering at cyclists doesn't make it true; loud doesn't mean right.

Dear God, that Paddy Logue article is dim:

Patrick Logue: Cyclists need to stop peddling excuses for rule-breaking
The cycling lobby does itself no favours by engaging in tribal finger-pointing in an effort to excuse bad cycling behaviour

There was a gesture used in the 1950s to symbolise that an idea was utterly drippy, it was like slowly shaking water off the fingers of one hand, allied with eye-rolling. That's the effect that kind of piece has on any sensible reader.

magicbastarder

12 sprocket wrote: »

"How many cars go through? My own, amateur, estimate would be that three or four cars tend to zip through after the lights have gone red on most light-changes. And this is really dangerous."

Yes it is really dangerous ..Especially for a gob****e of a cyclist who cycles through on the red!.........

what do you mean - the motorists breaking the red is dangerous for cyclists who have broken the red?

tomasrojo

Carawaystick wrote: »

The IT had a terrible article on an analysis of motorbike deaths,where they throw in confusing stats, victim blaming and non-sequiturs.

I suspect a lot of the confusion is because they're quoting or paraphrasing the RSA, who are terrible at statistical analysis, partly because they can't stop mixing up analysis with campaigning and moralising.

The analysis part of their brief should be taken off them and given to someone who doesn't see everything as PR.

Ms Martin spent months pouring over 867 fatal crash reports

Spell check is not enough.

NiallBoo

12 sprocket wrote: »

Yes it is really dangerous ..Especially for a gob****e of a cyclist who cycles through on the red!.........

if a cyclist has also broken the red then they won't be in danger from a motorist who has because they'll be traveling in the same direction.

The danger is to crossing pedestrians, motorists and especially cyclists that have just gotten a green light( bikes are usually quicker off the mark)...and of course, the luas.

It also means that designers have to allow a painful amount of dead time between changes to stop these people from causing crashes.

magicbastarder

a motorist breaking a red is not dangerous to a cyclist breaking the same red; but at many (most?) junctions, the motorist breaking the red is dangerous to those driving through a green light, rather than other road users breaking a red.

Roadhawk

Look, the red light/green green light laws could not be clearer. Stop on red go on green. There is no satisfactory explanation for anyone on any mode of transport who decides to break a red light. Level of risk depending on what mode you are using is not a factor...ever.

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, typical day, today I was crossing the street, wheeling my bicycle, in Rathmines. The pedestrian light was flashing amber, giving me right of way.

Does a flashing amber give a pedestrian right of way at a pedestrian crossing? I would have thought so at a zebra crossing but not a pedestrian crossing.