Journalism and cycling

Grassey

Paul corcoran and conor faughnan on matt Cooper there a few mins ago. CF fairly anti the NTA bus connect plans for cycle provision.

Grassey

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists-exposed-to-less-air-pollution-than-drivers-on-congested-routes-study


Cyclists are the least exposed to air pollution on daily commutes into a congested city centre, research has shown. People in cars and buses spent longer in toxic air, as did walkers unless they made detours to avoid main roads.

The work, conducted in Leeds, supports the investment in cycle lanes to both reduce air pollution by cutting vehicle journeys and improve citizens’ health. It also found that air pollution reached relatively high levels inside cars, echoing a recent warning that cars are “boxes collecting toxic gases”.

magicbastarder

this kinda contradicts the headline:

Cyclists may breathe more rapidly as they exercise, which would bring the particles they inhale up to close to that of motorised transport users. But on routes with slow traffic, where car and bus commuters are forced to sit in clouds of pollution, cyclists fare best.

coward

So a big +1 for e-bikes as you do less huffing and puffing, right!? :P
Unless, of course, you are fit and don't need to breathe more rapidly anyway.

Tell me how

Grassey wrote: »

Paul corcoran and conor faughnan on matt Cooper there a few mins ago. CF fairly anti the NTA bus connect plans for cycle provision.

Does he think they are not going far enough? Or that they are impeding motor traffic too much?

Thought he was always fairly sensible.

Grassey

Tell me how wrote:

Does he think they are not going far enough? Or that they are impeding motor traffic too much?

That they leave cyclists too exposed at junctions where they should be protected/segregated. Removing them from rathmines was mad, diverting cyclists for an extra km or 2 won't work etc

Got the feeling he agrees that motorists will need to give way to bus priority.

Tell me how

Yeah, I don't have a problem with him influencing traffic planning considerations.

He's fairly pragmatic.

Seth Brundle

Grassey wrote: »

CF fairly anti the NTA bus connect plans for cycle provision.

That's his job though.

Grassey

Seth Brundle wrote:

That's his job though.

He acknowledged that private motorist journeys would increase in part due to no viable alternative provision, which is why he was supportive of the bus connects. He didn't agree with the standard of the proposed cycle lanes saying that it falls far short of copenhagen/netherlands in its ambitions and proposed implementation.

Was very very balanced I thought.

I recall someone here mentioning before CF was a cyclist himself I think.

magicbastarder

he is, a commuting cyclist IIRC.

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

he is, a commuting cyclist IIRC.

sometimes he comes across very reasonable and supportive on cycling related matters and sometimes not so much.

Tell me how

mr spuckler wrote: »

sometimes he comes across very reasonable and supportive on cycling related matters and sometimes not so much.

Think it's best to take the good with the bad. Be unfair to say about someone that they are right and should be listened to 80% of the time but I'm going to discount their opinion the other times.

mr spuckler

Tell me how wrote: »

Think it's best to take the good with the bad. Be unfair to say about someone that they are right and should be listened to 80% of the time but I'm going to discount their opinion the other times.

I don't disagree with that bit as regards anyone.

on the second I'm not sure how you've interpreted that from what I said. I don't find him consistent in how he discusses the topic, that doesn't mean I'm selective about how I agree with him, it means that my opinion is that he can be selective about how he approaches the subject.

Arcade_Tryer

Tell me how wrote: »

Think it's best to take the good with the bad. Be unfair to say about someone that they are right and should be listened to 80% of the time but I'm going to discount their opinion the other times.

The issue is probably more so that people are ultimately not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Hence their credibility is reduced.

Tell me how

mr spuckler wrote: »

I don't disagree with that bit as regards anyone.

on the second I'm not sure how you've interpreted that from what I said. I don't find him consistent in how he discusses the topic, that doesn't mean I'm selective about how I agree with him, it means that my opinion is that he can be selective about how he approaches the subject.

I'm not talking about you per say. I'm suggesting (particularly when people are discussing cycling or cyclists behaviour or cycling infrastructure) that we often tend to listen to the part we agree with but discount that we don't without fairly considering if we could benefit from doing so.

Corca Baiscinn

mr spuckler wrote: »

sometimes he comes across very reasonable and supportive on cycling related matters and sometimes not so much.

Very true, his tone is generally sweetly reasonable but what he says is often outrageous, eg his attribution of bad faith to Dublin City Council and Eoin Keegan over 30 kph speed limits. (He's right re signs alone not being enough though)

Twice on radio I've heard him use the differing speed limits at the beginning and the end of the N4 as an example of stupid speed limit inconsistency without acknowledging that the Dublin/Kildare section, Lucan/Leixlip etc is in a built up area with much more traffic and junctions whereas the Sligo end is rural and sparsely populated. Granted the section with the white crosses is dangerous because of bends/numerous junctions)

He was downright rude to Ciaran Cuffe in another interview but conspiratorially pally with Pat Kenny.

AA also lobbied for higher speed limits on some arterial roads in Dub so when listening to Conor we need to remember that he works for an outfit whose remit and income comes from motorists.

Haven't had a chance to listen to Matt Cooper yet but if Conor spoke up for cyclists great!

Pinch Flat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I recall someone here mentioning before CF was a cyclist himself I think.

Yep. I worked with him a few years back. “You couldn’t pay me to drive in Dublin” he said IIRC

tomasrojo

Given that he has several times opined that a family breathing release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the family car, implying that cars aren't a significant contributor to climate change, I don't trust him at all. That disingenuous BS doesn't happen by accident, and he isn't saying it because he doesn't know the difference between CO2 that's part of the carbon cycle and CO2 that's being returned to the atmosphere after millions of years of being locked away.

This article seems broadly right:
http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/17/conor-faughnans-stance-on-30kmh-leaves-the-aa-lacking-any-credibility-on-speed-limits/

and here's something about his complacent, dangerous BS on climate change:
http://irishcycle.com/2017/01/30/epa-data-shows-aa-underplayed-impact-of-cars-on-climate-change-to-oireachtas-committee/

Tell me how

tomasrojo wrote: »

Given that he has several times opined that a family breathing release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the family car, implying that cars aren't a significant contributor to climate change, I don't trust him at all. That disingenuous BS doesn't happen by accident, and he isn't saying it because he doesn't know the difference between CO2 that's part of the carbon cycle and CO2 that's being returned to the atmosphere after millions of years of being locked away.

This article seems broadly right:
http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/17/conor-faughnans-stance-on-30kmh-leaves-the-aa-lacking-any-credibility-on-speed-limits/

and here's something about his complacent, dangerous BS on climate change:
http://irishcycle.com/2017/01/30/epa-data-shows-aa-underplayed-impact-of-cars-on-climate-change-to-oireachtas-committee/

To be fair, if you are looking to link articles alluding to Faughnan's motivations, it is somewhat misleading to use publications which are at least as biased in favour of cycling as they are suggesting he is in favour of driving.

It is obvious that those articles are written in an attempt to discredit Conor.

As evidenced by the correction published within one of them.

CramCycle

Tell me how wrote: »

To be fair, if you are looking to link articles alluding to Faughnan's motivations, it is somewhat misleading to use publications which are at least as biased in favour of cycling as they are suggesting he is in favour of driving.

It is obvious that those articles are written in an attempt to discredit Conor.

As evidenced by the correction published within one of them.

Ah here, I haven't read the Irish Cycle articles but you cannot say that statement was not horse ****. He was pulling a FF / Green maneuver and stupidly thinking CO2 was the biggest issue with emissions. Pulling such a stunt, and he is smart enough to know better, is just con artistry at its finest. Between releasing trapped CO2 and the other toxins generated it's just misleading propaganda, and low denominator stuff at that, had his claims even made sense, it would be the equivalent of us quadrupling our population for an hour or two a day, and that is underestimating I imagine

tomasrojo

Tell me how wrote: »

To be fair, if you are looking to link articles alluding to Faughnan's motivations, it is somewhat misleading to use publications which are at least as biased in favour of cycling as they are suggesting he is in favour of driving.

I'm using it as a source for things he said. He did say them.

Tell me how wrote: »

It is obvious that those articles are written in an attempt to discredit Conor.

Did a good job too.

Tell me how wrote: »

As evidenced by the correction published within one of them.

Corrections are good. When did Faughnan correct his deliberately misleading claims about family cars contributing less to climate change than the occupants breathing.

If you read the correction, it was made because the author was engaging with the BS point about humans emitting CO2 as if CO2 produced by biological respiration was remotely comparable to that produced by combustion of fossil fuel, trying to quantify the relative contribution of humans breathing and fossil fuel burning. Readers pointed out that this wasn't applicable or helpful, so he changed the text to just point out that CO2 repeatedly passing through the carbon cycle doesn't contribute to climate change.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Corrections are good. When did Faughnan correct his deliberately misleading claims about family cars contributing less to climate change than the occupants breathing.

How many cars do you see where every seat is occupied? To make the comparison fair

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

How many cars do you see where every seat is occupied? To make the comparison fair

Yeah, it's a silly comparison at that level too, but humans respiring are just returning carbon to the atmosphere that left the atmosphere recently: at most a few years ago, in the case of canned goods. Fossil fuel burning is unleashing a vast store of carbon that has been harmlessly sequestered for literally millions of years, and mostly in the space of less than a hundred years.

buffalo

Tell me how wrote: »

Think it's best to take the good with the bad. Be unfair to say about someone that they are right and should be listened to 80% of the time but I'm going to discount their opinion the other times.

What? If somebody talks 80% sense, they're allowed to talk 20% nonsense and not be challenged on it?

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, it's a silly comparison at that level too, but humans respiring are just returning carbon to the atmosphere that left the atmosphere recently

i wonder how humanity would have developed if oil was actually digestible and nutritious.
a corollary; i have also wondered whether having transparent petrol and diesel tanks in cars might make people think a bit more about fuel efficiency. most people never actually see this wondrous substance they buy large quantities of every week/month whatever - nor the quantity they're actually using up.

you'd get a few queer looks if you popped down to the supermarket and picked up 45 litres of milk.

Macy0161

Tell me how wrote: »

Think it's best to take the good with the bad. Be unfair to say about someone that they are right and should be listened to 80% of the time but I'm going to discount their opinion the other times.

eh? So because someone/ anyone is mostly right, I don't get to dismiss the stuff that's nonsense?

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wonder how humanity would have developed if oil was actually digestible and nutritious.
a corollary; i have also wondered whether having transparent petrol and diesel tanks in cars might make people think a bit more about fuel efficiency. most people never actually see this wondrous substance they buy large quantities of every week/month whatever - nor the quantity they're actually using up.

you'd get a few queer looks if you popped down to the supermarket and picked up 45 litres of milk.

When I had my Saab, I found the fuel efficiency (L/100km) a great incentive to drive more efficiently. Competition is a great way to get improvements out of some people.

magicbastarder

yeah, that's the readout i leave on the display of my car. there's average and instantaneous options available, but average is the one i use obviously. i get decent fuel efficiency out of it, for a petrol car - 5.4l/100km for the last 4000 or so km, IIRC.

cdaly_

I had mine set to instantaneous for a while recently and it was very interesting to see the difference in steady state consumption at 50kph vs 60kph. You forget, in a car, how much extra effort is required to go just a little faster...