Journalism and cycling

Tell me how

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not unusual in public bodies for all public communications to be vetted by the CEO. Personally I haven't seen a Chairperson being involved in this.

If all communications are going to a CEO to be approved it says two things.

1. Communication Managers are overpaid.
2. It's no wonder many public bodies are making painful progress if the CEO is spending their time on such duties.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Tell me how wrote: »

If all communications are going to a CEO to be approved it says two things.

1. Communication Managers are overpaid.
2. It's no wonder many public bodies are making painful progress if the CEO is spending their time on such duties.

Often happens in private companies too. The CEO is where the buck stops, of course he should vet any material public statement for the company or in the public authority in this case.

Tell me how

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Often happens in private companies too. The CEO is where the buck stops, of course he should vet any material public statement for the company or in the public authority in this case.

A bad approach in my opinion. The function of the RSA is public awareness, they are going to be publishing a lot of information for the public. The CEO's role should be in appointing a suitably capable communications manager and team and then reviewing KPI's as appropriate but approving copy sounds like micro-managing and setting out to allow for confusion as to responsibility more so than removing it.

AndrewJRenko

Tell me how wrote: »

If all communications are going to a CEO to be approved it says two things.

1. Communication Managers are overpaid.
2. It's no wonder many public bodies are making painful progress if the CEO is spending their time on such duties.

While there is some truth in what you say, if you're going to be the person at the Dail committee answering in public, it is not unreasonable to have a process to validate what goes out.

expectationlost

amcalester wrote: »

Email from the RSA today states



I originally asked if it was written by an RSA employee and was told it was written by the communications manager.

The article that was submitted for publication was written by Brian Farrell.

Now, they’re saying submitted for publication. I didn’t cop the difference until just now.

if thats a direct quote from the RSA, then?? its very confusing...

I've got the impression that RSA is full of marketing twats and few actual experts (remember their inept attempt to copy the truck blind spot depiction https://irishcycle.com/2015/06/29/rsa-accused-of-faking-video-of-bicycles-hidden-in-truck-blindspot/)

amcalester

expectationlost wrote: »

if thats a direct quote from the RSA, then?? its very confusing...

Direct quote and yes it is very confusing, it seems like they might be trying to back track from their earlier statement that the comms Manager wrote the article to merely submitted it.

Chiparus

amcalester wrote: »

Direct quote and yes it is very confusing, it seems like they might be trying to back track from their earlier statement that the comms Manager wrote the article to merely submitted it.

Bizarre behaviour , a good question would be was the official comms manager aware or the article or was there an acting Comms manager.

As I said the piece written ( psyco lanes) seems to go against the previous reasonable position taken by the official comms manager.

mr spuckler

JMcL wrote: »

Do the RSA really spout all that guff qouted in that? I mean it's evident they're making a lot of it up as they go along, but "children under 12 shoukd never cycle in any sort of traffic" - not sure where it says that in the road traffic act that appears, but coupled with "never ride on the footpath" the RSA advice is therefore essentially for kids never to ride bikes? FFS

they've got plenty of form for this. read here and ...enjoy.

RSA Expert wrote:

The RSA recommends that children younger than 12 should not ride bicycles in any type of traffic.

RSA Expert wrote:

Always obey the Rules of the Road. Other road users will respect you more if you respect the rules.

Eamonnator

mr spuckler wrote: »

they've got plenty of form for this. read here and ...enjoy.

Dear Jesus.
"turning right can be very dangerous"
What encouragement is this kind of language to anybody thinking of getting a bike for a child?

tomasrojo

I get the strong impression that they have always though that cycling is a hobby, and it's best practised on closed streets in organised events, on Sundays, with hi-viz give-aways as you register.

Glass Prison 1214

mr spuckler wrote: »

they've got plenty of form for this. read here and ...enjoy.

That's disgraceful advice. They should be encouraging people to cycle and promoting safe road conditions to do so.

The RSA is a farce.

magicbastarder

i did find the labelled diagram of the bike useful. now i know what those two big round things are called.

Pinch Flat

Eamonnator wrote: »

Dear Jesus.
"turning right can be very dangerous"
What encouragement is this kind of language to anybody thinking of getting a bike for a child?

It’s amazing how many cyclists plan their trip to work and weekend cycles that make sure they go straight only. Couldn’t be entertaining a left or right turn now. Waaaaay to dangerous.

ED E

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It’s amazing how many cyclists plan their trip to work and weekend cycles that make sure they go straight only. Couldn’t be entertaining a left or right turn now. Waaaaay to dangerous.

Funnily enough UPS in the states do that to, no left turns.

tomasrojo

ED E wrote: »

Funnily enough UPS in the states do that to, no left turns.

I was only thinking about that the other day. Heard it on Planet Money podcast, I think. They plan (via software, I think) routes in advance to minimise the number of left turns (equivalent to right turns, here, obviously), so as to minimise delays.

EDIT: I think it's in the audio of this one:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/17/303770907/to-increase-productivity-ups-monitors-drivers-every-move

Seth Brundle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It’s amazing how many cyclists plan their trip to work and weekend cycles that make sure they go straight only. Couldn’t be entertaining a left or right turn now. Waaaaay to dangerous.

ED E wrote: »

Funnily enough UPS in the states do that to, no left turns.

Scientifically known as the Zoolander Effect!

magicbastarder

ED E wrote: »

Funnily enough UPS in the states do that to, no left turns.

if memory serves, they actually started to look into it after mythbusters borrowed one of their vans to test the theory.

Corca Baiscinn

The RSA recommends that children younger than 12 should not ride bicycles in any type of traffic.

Every time Shane Ross is asked about spending on cycling he includes a reference to the Cycle Right scheme which is open to primary school children (think from 4th class up) So, in the light of the above RSA advice, should this training only be available in areas which have Greenways or parks? It does include a road elemen;t so is the advice given - "Now children, remember you wont be able to do this again until you are twelve so be sure to remember everything you're learning"

Seth Brundle

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

Corca Baiscinn

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

Country road likely to have fewer but maybe faster cars?

In fairness,they've failed to the extent that the focus of their awareness campaigns is so skewed towards motorised traffic but by checking trucks, administering the driving test etc they're doing something and it's Gov who has failed by not funding safe cycling infrastructure and enforcement of road traffic legislation.
Having said that driving test should of course include a requirement to cycle so as to experience the view form the handlebars and not just the windscreen

Seweryn

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

It would be interesting to hear their response regarding the above. I.e. why they don't recommend kids cycling "in traffic" (the young kids on bikes are obviously some kind of road furniture?). Is this backed up by ROTR?

And finally, what changes are required to be done after which Mr RSA would recommend young kids to cycle in traffic.

tomasrojo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

Remember, the RSA update of the old Safe Cross Code ad doesn't show children actually crossing the street.

Doc07

RSA probably would use this if they could

Doc07

RSA probably would use this if they could

https://youtu.be/Yiu1uLgwF1E

mr spuckler

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

I tweeted exactly the same thing to them last night, not that I expect a response.

even if you ignore the responsibility for infrastructure (which at the very least they should be actively lobbying the government for), their messaging is so skewed against cycling & cyclists as to further reinforce existing motorist behaviours & attitudes and hence contribute to the environment which makes it unsafe for kids to cycle on the roads.

JMcL

ED E wrote: »

Funnily enough UPS in the states do that to, no left turns.

Kind of makes sense in the US. Not sure about other states, or even present day for that matter, but when I lived in California in the 90s red equated to "yield" for right turns

Seth Brundle

mr spuckler wrote: »

I tweeted exactly the same thing to them last night, not that I expect a response.

Did you get a response from the RSA?

mr spuckler

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Did you get a response from the RSA?

I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question :pac:

https://twitter.com/SpucklerMr/status/1087101289857728514

Seth Brundle

If I was a Twitterbook user, I'd reply reminding you that the RSA tell people "don’t cycle on the footpath"
e.g. http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

mr spuckler

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If I was a Twitterbook user, I'd reply reminding you that the RSA tell people "don’t cycle on the footpath"
e.g. http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

yep and I'd reply asking how otherwise to cycle safely with a young child while going against the flow of traffic. again I wouldn't expect a reply.