Journalism and cycling

AndrewJRenko

rubadub wrote: »

Poor pricks have only so many groups they can lash out against, in another era they would be screaming on lashings.

I think this is part of the issue - these are frequently the people who would have been lashing out at de blicks and de queers and de jews in the past, but they can't do that in polite company now.



But they can lash out against cyclists in polite company today.

Tell me how wrote: »

I quite regularly see a neighbour commuter cyclist doing about 15-18 kph on a footpath with a cycle lane on the road beside them. Every time I see them, I think that they are making it harder for people to think positively about us as a group. I'm not suggesting that lane is perfect but I can understand how the dislike builds when each side is getting more and more aggrieved because of what the other is doing.

Have you considered speaking to the neighbour in question? I spoke to two cyclists about them having no lights this week. I didn't get a warm, cuddly response, but at least they might be starting to realise that it isn't a great idea.


The idea of the 'gives them all a bad name' is utter nonsense.

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree. But it might take one of their arguments away.

That's not a sound basis for spending years working on public policy and legislation and millions on a bureacratic system. It would be a huge distraction from dealing with the real road safety issues.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

How many people have had cars damaged by other cars in carparks etc and the other car drove off. They have registration plates but are rarely caught.

Now compare that to the number of cars damaged by bikes in total.

An educated guess would be that the number of bikes involved in the second scenario would be minuscule in comparison to the number of cars leaving the scene in the first scenario.

Registration plates are useless in many situations. Regardless of mode of transport, if someone is adamant about leaving the scene because they reckon they will get away with it, there is nothing stopping them.

I was assaulted by young lads hanging out the window of a car years back. When I reported the reg to the Gardai, they told me that the car was officially 'off the road' after being written off. There was no registered owner, so there was nothing more they could do.

magicbastarder

Cyclist, 90, stripped of world record after failing drugs test
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/06/cyclist-90-stripped-of-world-record-after-failing-drugs-test

Grassey

Brompton stockpiles £1m of bike parts in case of hard Brexit

Equates to about 1 month worth of stock!

Greaney

I'm appalled at the lack of info journalists put out there re;cycling. From one of our Irish Times headlines, you'd think there was no legislation regarding bikes and safety equipment.

Cycling does have laws governing it, for example, there is certian mandatory safety equipment like having and using ones lights at night. A quick google regarding this and up pops the citizens information page with all the information.

Lumen

Greaney wrote: »

I'm appalled at the lack of info journalists put out there re;cycling. From one of our Irish Times headlines, you'd think there was no legislation regarding bikes and safety equipment.

Cycling does have laws governing it, for example, there is certian mandatory safety equipment like having and using ones lights at night. A quick google regarding this and up pops the citizens information page with all the information.

But not helmets or hi vis, which is the subject of the article.

Greaney

Lumen wrote: »

But not helmets or hi vis, which is the subject of the article.

I understand, however, lights were quoted in the first sentence & I noted on the Irish Times face book page, folk keep complaining that there should be a law regarding bike lights (in the comment section) because they don't seem to know it's already law.

Arcade_Tryer

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-will-not-be-compelled-to-wear-safety-equipment-says-ross-1.3745943

Christ he really is clueless. He actually wants compulsory wearing of helmets and hi-vis introduced.

This guy's good days in office are when he avoids creating awful, detrimental policy by pure happenstance. Frightening that he is Minister for Transport, but entirely unsurprising given the state of transport services and cycling investment in the country.

Corca Baiscinn

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-will-not-be-compelled-to-wear-safety-equipment-says-ross-1.3745943

Christ he really is clueless. He actually wants compulsory wearing of helmets and hi-vis introduced.

I thought the interview was poor, it wasn't clear in the intro if it was the journalist or the minister who didn't realise lights already mandatory.

Re the bit re Minister going to do all in his power short of compulsion to press for the wearing of hi-viz and helmets the journalist didn't ask "Why?" "What difference do you think it would make and what evidence do you have for this point of view?"

Lumen

Pinch Flat

Good to know that one of the topics on Claire Byrne live last night was the use of digital breath readers for people who enjoy a drink while driving. We really have a peculiar relationship between drinking and driving.

Grassey

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Good to know that one of the topics on Claire Byrne live last night was the use of digital breath readers for people who enjoy a drink while driving. We really have a peculiar relationship between drinking and driving.

INDEPENDENT TD MICHAEL Healy-Rae has called on the government to supply every household around the country with the same breathalyser devices used by gardaí.

Speaking on RTÉ One’s Claire Byrne Live last night, the Kerry TD said he believed everyone should be able to breathalyse themselves to “make sure” they are not over the limit the morning after consuming alcohol.

Is 2019 going to be a continuation of removing all social responsibility and requiring handholding for everything?

Macy0161

I don't think they should be provided by the state, but it'd be a good thing if people were aware of the effects*? I've often thought that the gardai should blitz a pub car park and test people before getting in their cars to wake a few people up, but educate rather than prosecute - much the same way they seem to love blitzing commuter routes and insist on hiviz and crap lights for cyclists.

fwiw If I could get one that I could trust, I'd probably buy one - not to avoid being caught*, but to see how I'm affected the morning after and/or avoid driving over or even close to the limit the morning after.

*I know that's not why Healy-Rae was proposing it, I'm sure his logic is so that people can push right up to the limit.

Grassey wrote: »

Is 2019 going to be a continuation of removing all social responsibility and requiring handholding for everything?

Wishful thinking.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

*I know that's not why Healy-Rae was proposing it, I'm sure his logic is so that people can push right up to the limit.

The issue being though is you maybe under the limit when you do the test and then you could be over the limit 20 minutes later when the gardai pull you over. Happened a neighbour of mine, he came out of the pub years ago, had a few pints in quick succession. Got pulled over coming out of the car park and breathalysed. Passed even though he said he had more than the perceived limit. Garda asked him had he been drinking and how much. He told the truth and the Garda sent him on his way, warning him that in about 20minutes he would fail it.

I can see such rubbish being pointlessly dragged to court. Healy Rae should be hauled over the coals for even suggesting it.

Mickiemcfist

Macy0161 wrote: »

fwiw If I could get one that I could trust, I'd probably buy one - not to avoid being caught*, but to see how I'm affected the morning after and/or avoid driving over or even close to the limit the morning after.
.

I got one of the cheap groupon ones for 6 quid. It was eye opening. The way to look at it is that the % might not be entirely accurate, but if it's showing anything, don't drive. It's had positive reads when I've comfortably passed 2 hours per drink of down time.

I've tried it a load of times on days after I haven't drank just to make sure it's not completely off the wall & never returned anything, so it's definitely detecting something when it gives a reading.

Tombo2001

Relevant to the thread in a roundabout way:

I had to laugh last week at the letters page of the Irish Times - with Pedestrian deaths recording a 32% increase last year, needless to say the blame is with.....

Pedestrians......

Where have we heard that one before.

Sir - The Road Safety Authority and the Minister for Transport deserve our congratulations in that the number of persons killed on our roads continues to decline year on year.

However, the fact that there is an increase of 32 per cent in pedestrian deaths in 2018 over 2017 should be a cause for concern. This figure could be reduced if it were made an offence to walk on unlit roads in the dark without wearing reflective gear.

jhenno78

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

passed 2 hours per drink of down time..

Isn't it absolute minimum of 1hr per (not irish) unit?
So if you're counting pints as a drink then 2hours isn't enough.

CramCycle

jhenno78 wrote: »

Isn't it absolute minimum of 1hr per (not irish) unit?
So if you're counting pints as a drink then 2hours isn't enough.

He does say 2 hours per drink, ie 2 hours per pint. The thing alot of people don't realise is that a) everyones metabolism is not the same so that arbitrary figure is pulled out of the sky. b) this was more useful in regards the law when there was a far higher allowed limit, from what I can tell the clearance tapers off, as well as sitting in your stomach after a skinful.

If I went out to a nightclub and had 4 pints in the last two hours, at best it would be out of my system (closing at 2am) at 8am to 10am the next morning. That's if all went as quickly as possible. I wouldn't have been hammered but I would have been in good humour, yet many think well, I wasn't drunk , therefore I will be OK.

Another friend of mine was out at a gig in town, had a few bottles of beer, low abv, stopped at 12, taxi home, up to pick up his daughter from work at 10am the next morning. he had been not drinking for 10 hours, had at most 6 units (about three pints), he is 6'2 and I'd say at least 15 stone. In the olden days he would have passed but nowadays he failed, had to leave the daughter at the side of the road while driven to the station where he passed the blood test, barely.

The truth is, if a drink crossed your lips the night before, you really just shouldn't drive the next day. I know plenty of people who won't touch a drop for at least 24hours before work due to the nature of their jobs.

jhenno78

^^^I agree with what you're saying that the bare minimum is taking a risk. My point was more about the maths of the whole thing.
A UK unit is 10ml (I'm ignoring the larger Irish unit because that's not where the 1hr per unit advice comes from) so a pint of Guinness is 2.44 units @4.3% and a lot of pints are stronger.

So in you're example the guy in the nightclub hasn't hit the minimum time by 10.00.

Pinch Flat

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Sir - The Road Safety Authority and the Minister for Transport deserve our congratulations in that the number of persons killed on our roads continues to decline year on year.

However, the fact that there is an increase of 32 per cent in pedestrian deaths in 2018 over 2017 should be a cause for concern. This figure could be reduced if it were made an offence to walk on unlit roads in the dark without wearing reflective gear.

I'd bet my next mortgage payment that this type of letter only exists on the Irish / UK media - transferring risk to the victim. it seems to be central to our road policy. I've driven all over Europe, in many rural locations, and you'll rarely come across someone in Hi-vis. We seem to have fixation on it.

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'd bet my next mortgage payment that this type of letter only exists on the Irish / UK media - transferring risk to the victim. it seems to be central to our road policy. I've driven all over Europe, in many rural locations, and you'll rarely come across someone in Hi-vis. We seem to have fixation on it.

Made an offence to walk - well f*ck me, I just give up

rubadub

CramCycle wrote: »

I can see such rubbish being pointlessly dragged to court.

peoples claims would not be entertained at all, it would be little different than being done for speeding and saying "I swear to god I was looking at my speedo and it said I was doing 40".

The garda units would be calibrated regularly, if you had one out of calibration it would certainly only be a guide. It would be good to get an actual garda ones, the cheapo ones I used were useless, all over the place. Should not be free though. What would Healy Rae think about free tests for cannabis for people returning from countries where it was legally used.

I think it should be roadside tests or some reaction test you have to do. They are indirectly testing what they want to know, if you are fit to drive and alert etc.

A reaction test would also catch people driving who are sleepy, said to be a massive problem but there is little said about it or stigma attached. So you get people who will not dare have a drink 24hrs before driving, but who might think nothing of driving with inadequate sleep.

I wondered if they did have some device that could somehow detect how much you slept would people welcome it, seeing as so many now seem to think alcohol testing is a great thing. I expect some would be complaining saying "but I get by fine on just 6 hours sleep", just like some say "I can drive fine after 1.5 pints" -and many can indeed, especially if well practised at it. This is why I would like a more direct test, as somebody with the required 8 hours sleep or below the blood alcohol level may still be unfit to drive as they are unusually impaired by this level of sleep/booze.

CramCycle

rubadub wrote: »

peoples claims would not be entertained at all, it would be little different than being done for speeding and saying "I swear to god I was looking at my speedo and it said I was doing 40".

The garda units would be calibrated regularly, if you had one out of calibration it would certainly only be a guide. It would be good to get an actual garda ones, the cheapo ones I used were useless, all over the place. Should not be free though. What would Healy Rae think about free tests for cannabis for people returning from countries where it was legally used.

I think it should be roadside tests or some reaction test you have to do. They are indirectly testing what they want to know, if you are fit to drive and alert etc.

A reaction test would also catch people driving who are sleepy, said to be a massive problem but there is little said about it or stigma attached. So you get people who will not dare have a drink 24hrs before driving, but who might think nothing of driving with inadequate sleep.

I wondered if they did have some device that could somehow detect how much you slept would people welcome it, seeing as so many now seem to think alcohol testing is a great thing. I expect some would be complaining saying "but I get by fine on just 6 hours sleep", just like some say "I can drive fine after 1.5 pints" -and many can indeed, especially if well practised at it. This is why I would like a more direct test, as somebody with the required 8 hours sleep or below the blood alcohol level may still be unfit to drive as they are unusually impaired by this level of sleep/booze.

100% agree, but you know some idiot will try it, some idiot solicitor will go ahead saying its better than just accepting it, and possibly some idiot judge might actually lower the penalty for whatever reason.

How would you test the 8 hour sleep one, I'll be honest, i have only had a full 8 hours sleep twice in the past month, typically sleeping about 6 to 7 hours most nights

Grassey

rubadub wrote: »

A reaction test would also catch people driving who are sleepy, said to be a massive problem but there is little said about it or stigma attached.

That reminded me of a cycling article I saw from the US ages back where drivers complained that it was irresponsible for cyclists to mix with morning commuter traffic as drivers are still half asleep, hadn't woken up fully for the day and likely hadn't had their morning coffee yet.

So it was the cyclists fault for increasing their likelihood of being hit....:rolleyes:

Grassey

Crash-testing the air bag for cyclists

An air bag vest for cyclists is being demoed at the CES tech show in Las Vegas.

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I've driven all over Europe, in many rural locations, and you'll rarely come across someone in Hi-vis. We seem to have fixation on it.

is it not a legal requirement in france though?

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it not a legal requirement in france though?

Legal requirement to carry them in the vehicle, in case of breakdown on the motorway - it's a legal requirement if your on foot on the hard shoulder. Their only hi viz requirements are on motorists and passengers!

cdaly_

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it not a legal requirement in france though?

I think hi-vis is a requirement after dark on roads outside of town limits or some such. Certainly every car should have hi-vis vests for all occupants accessible from within the passenger compartment.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Legal requirement to carry them in the vehicle, in case of breakdown on the motorway - it's a legal requirement if your on foot on the hard shoulder. Their only hi viz requirements are on motorists and passengers!

I understand it's a requirement for cyclists after dark also.

Chips Lovell

French law is actually more punitive towards cyclists than Irish law.

Children under 12 are obliged to wear helmets at all times, either riding their own bikes or as passengers. I can tell you though from long experience that this law is honoured more in breach than observance.

High viz vests are mandatory in certain circumstances, at night on unlit roads and in poor visibility.

Duckjob

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

French law is actually more punitive towards cyclists than Irish law.

Children under 12 are obliged to wear helmets at all times, either riding their own bikes or as passengers. I can tell you though from long experience that this law is honoured more in breach than observance.

High viz vests are mandatory in certain circumstances, at night on unlit roads and in poor visibility.

I'd gladly take that if it came with the respect and courtesy that I saw French drivers extend to people on bikes (many times in 10 days)

CramCycle

We had to wear it for PBP, and you would be pulled aside and told to put it on but as others have said, bar Paris, a joy to ride on.