Journalism and cycling

Hurrache

It never happened.

AndrewJRenko

Hurrache wrote: »

It never happened.

Probably as well, given Pat's track record of sneering at anything cycle related - though he did used to cycle into Donnybrook in the past.

check_six

Macy0161 wrote: »

I was having this debate in real life - I had thought (and argued) that it had been debunked in the media by a legal expert, with the logic that without access to the vehicle registration database, you couldn't identify an individual. But, I can't find a link to that. I've a feeling it may have been radio - can anyone point me in the right direction?

Don't the go safe speed vans have to include a picture of the driver as the reg plate is not enough to identify the driver? "Wasn't me driving. Dunno who it was driving my car on the way to my house."

monument

Duffryman wrote: »

Well...are they not valid questions? Do you not like it when somebody expresses an opinion or puts forward a suggestion for discussion that doesn't tie in nicely with your own views or that might challenge a comfy status quo? Why do you feel the need to look back on somebody's previous posts, instead of taking each point raised at face value?

Basically, can you not at least even consider a different point of view, even if you don't agree with it? Certainly looks that way if you're having a go at me for just throwing a couple of observations/questions/suggestions out there.....

PS - have just noticed you're a moderator here. I'd have thought you therefore might have encouraged some healthy debate or discussion, nstead of trying to stifle it. But there you go....

I just said you do a lot of devil’s advocacy... why are you getting so upset by me just pointing that out?

Also: Is it devil’s advocacy or are these strongly held views? You seem confused.

For the record: I’m not a moderator on this fourm.

CramCycle

check_six wrote: »

Don't the go safe speed vans have to include a picture of the driver as the reg plate is not enough to identify the driver? "Wasn't me driving. Dunno who it was driving my car on the way to my house."

I have a recollection of this happening before where a couple refused to accept that it was them driving, it could have been in the UK though. I am pretty sure, if it was ever possible, that it no longer is, points go to registered driver, they can change it to another driver if the other driver, who has to admit it, and also prove they were insured at the time (or else they are admitting to driving without insurance), so it stops you paying off someone random from taking the hit.

silverharp

I notice one of the cycling twitter accounts gets upset with "bus hits bridge" type stories, do they have a point? should the papers be saying bus driver drives bus into bridge? does it matter. Is it just newspapers not wanting to be drawn on causes? . On the other hand you wouldn't get a headline "gun shoots individual"

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

looks like the one along the grand canal?

it is the dedicated cycle track along the canal, which is a good 1-2km away from South King St. so it's an interesting way to phrase the description, it wasn't en route, it was just parked illegally.

mr spuckler

silverharp wrote: »

I notice one of the cycling twitter accounts gets upset with "bus hits bridge" type stories, do they have a point? should the papers be saying bus driver drives bus into bridge? does it matter. Is it just newspapers not wanting to be drawn on causes? . On the other hand you wouldn't get a headline "gun shoots individual"

it's a recurring theme in newspaper reporting where they remove the human component from the collision. "car hits cyclist", "bus hits bridge", "truck crashes into house".
however when reporting on incidents involving cyclists (without any knowledge of liability or cause) it tends to be written in almost all cases as "cyclist collides with car", "cyclist hits pedestrian" etc.
so for some reason in the case of cyclists the ownership of the incident attaches to the person, but in the case of motorists it attaches to the vehicle.
it might seem insignificant but it's not. just as describing entirely preventable collisions as "accidents" is inaccurate.

Duffryman

monument wrote: »

I just said you do a lot of devil’s advocacy... why are you getting so upset by me just pointing that out?

Also: Is it devil’s advocacy or are these strongly held views? You seem confused.

For the record: I’m not a moderator on this fourm.

Just thought the tone of your previous post was quite sneery. Maybe you didn't intend it that way.

To answer your query, I'm just putting out thoughts that occur to me. It doesn't necessarily mean I have strong opinions on them. I'm just interested in seeing what other people's opinions might be, or whether or not they'll even consider those opinions in the first place.

Thought that video clip of the skid was a perfect opportunity for this. People had just been dismissing the advice that cyclists might think twice about cycling at all in icy conditions. Then we saw a clip of what can happen if we do. So, it seemed worthwhile to at least ask the question.

Finally, as for the moderator bit, I see now that you're a mod for other forums, not this one. Fair 'nuff. Hope you don't mind when people ask questions there!

droidus

mr spuckler wrote: »

it's a recurring theme in newspaper reporting where they remove the human component from the collision. "car hits cyclist", "bus hits bridge", "truck crashes into house".
however when reporting on incidents involving cyclists (without any knowledge of liability or cause) it tends to be written in almost all cases as "cyclist collides with car", "cyclist hits pedestrian" etc.
so for some reason in the case of cyclists the ownership of the incident attaches to the person, but in the case of motorists it attaches to the vehicle.
it might seem insignificant but it's not. just as describing entirely preventable collisions as "accidents" is inaccurate.

Removal of agency is a common theme in propaganda systems. We see it repeatedly in reporting of police shootings in the US, or indeed, anything relating to various Western foreign adventures. The bad guys kill but for the good guys deaths just occur.

Tombo2001

mr spuckler wrote: »

it's a recurring theme in newspaper reporting where they remove the human component from the collision. "car hits cyclist", "bus hits bridge", "truck crashes into house".
however when reporting on incidents involving cyclists (without any knowledge of liability or cause) it tends to be written in almost all cases as "cyclist collides with car", "cyclist hits pedestrian" etc.
so for some reason in the case of cyclists the ownership of the incident attaches to the person, but in the case of motorists it attaches to the vehicle.
it might seem insignificant but it's not. just as describing entirely preventable collisions as "accidents" is inaccurate.

And any challenge to this will be met with the passive aggressive "you are reading way to much into this/ completely overreacting" type response.

I think journalists have a lot of unconscious biases; everyone does.

There was an absolute belter of an example in The Irish Times last week where they ran an article that discussed how black people are portrayed in sport, particularly soccer - and that the commentary on them inevitably focusses on physical attributes 'Pace and Power', rather than mental attributes (e.g. intelligence, skill). (It originally ran in the Guardian).

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/21/paul-pogba-pace-power-rethink-bame-coverage

On the preceding page there was an article on Ulsters pacey new centre.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/robert-baloucoune-has-become-ulster-s-nominated-speedster-1.3765840

Hurrache

silverharp wrote: »

I notice one of the cycling twitter accounts gets upset with "bus hits bridge" type stories, do they have a point? should the papers be saying bus driver drives bus into bridge? does it matter. Is it just newspapers not wanting to be drawn on causes? . On the other hand you wouldn't get a headline "gun shoots individual"

It certainly does have a point. Unless the vehicle is autonomous, then a person drove the vehicle into the object.

silverharp

the contrast with cyclists was great, that clears it up for me

mr spuckler

Cyclists and Motorcyclists are advised;

Motorcyclists / Cyclists should not compromise their safety by their ‘need’ to travel in icy/snow conditions. Cancel your journey or take alternative transport.

Visibility is reduced in snowy conditions so cyclists should wear a Sam Browne Bandoleer belt or high visibility vest and ensure the lights on your bike are working correctly.
.
Remember other road users may not ‘expect’ you and could therefore comprise your safety

Duffryman wrote: »

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here, and throw out two questions for discussion:

1 – Does this not actually go to show there’s some merit in that advice that was being criticised earlier on today (that cyclists should re-think whether or not to go cycling at all in icy conditions)? A bike with two narrow tyres is more susceptible to skids than another vehicle with four or more wider tyres.

my thoughts - the RSA (who have a recent history of writing biased articles against cyclists in the Independent) pen a piece advising road users on the upcoming poor weather & road conditions.

in that, they don't issue the simple advise to motorists to consider whether their journey is necessary. but they do to cyclists. why not say "Motorists should not compromise their safety by their ‘need’ to travel in icy/snow conditions. Cancel your journey or take alternative transport."?

they don't tell motorists to adjust their speed to the visibility levels and to be extra vigilant for vulnerable road users (VRUs).

they do however tell cyclists that motorists might not expect (read see) them and that cyclist safety might be compromised by inattentive motorists.

so they're not advising (and people here weren't responding) about your concern of ability to control 2 wheels vs 4. they're basically telling cyclists to stay off the road because they might be hit by motorists who aren't paying enough attention. but then not giving any advice to motorists to, you know, pay attention for VRUs. that's pretty sh1tty from the RSA tbf.

a few years ago I remember standing for about 15 mins watching motorists trying to get up a short and not very steep hill in icy conditions. one after one they slid back down the hill because they hadn't a clue how to drive in those conditions. it was laughable if not so obviously dangerous.
so even though there might in theory be more risk of slides because of 2 vs 4 wheels per your original point, the consequences of a mistake are significantly greater if a driver gets it wrong.

but again, they weren't expressing concern for cyclists and advising of the risks of cycling on ice on a standalone basis, it was all about staying out of the way of vehicles which are perceived to have more of a need to be out in those conditions.

Tombo2001

Example of this near me:

There is a big screen in Phibsboro advising drivers of car park spots.

It flashes up three things on the big screen, in sequence
(I) CYCLISTS LIGHT UP!
(II) Free Cycle Parking At Drury St Car Park
(III) Numbers of free car park spaces at various car parks in town.

Now personally - this gets on my wick no end.

Particularly as the Ad is run by the operator (afaik) whereas the bike spaces were put in by the council, who owns it.

I would be fairly firmly of the view that the CYCLISTS LIGHT UP message is a form of indirect advertising to their target audience; maybe I've gone too cynical.

Chips Lovell

Tombo2001 wrote: »

It flashes up three things on the big screen, in sequence
(I) CYCLISTS LIGHT UP!

I can never help but read it as an injunction to cyclists to spark up a fat one.

railer201

mr spuckler wrote: »

my thoughts - the RSA (who have a recent history of writing biased articles against cyclists in the Independent) pen a piece advising road users on the upcoming poor weather & road conditions.

in that, they don't issue the simple advise to motorists to consider whether their journey is necessary. but they do to cyclists. why not say "Motorists should not compromise their safety by their ‘need’ to travel in icy/snow conditions. Cancel your journey or take alternative transport."?

they don't tell motorists to adjust their speed to the visibility levels and to be extra vigilant for vulnerable road users (VRUs).

they do however tell cyclists that motorists might not expect (read see) them and that cyclist safety might be compromised by inattentive motorists.

so they're not advising (and people here weren't responding) about your concern of ability to control 2 wheels vs 4. they're basically telling cyclists to stay off the road because they might be hit by motorists who aren't paying enough attention. but then not giving any advice to motorists to, you know, pay attention for VRUs. that's pretty sh1tty from the RSA tbf.

a few years ago I remember standing for about 15 mins watching motorists trying to get up a short and not very steep hill in icy conditions. one after one they slid back down the hill because they hadn't a clue how to drive in those conditions. it was laughable if not so obviously dangerous.
so even though there might in theory be more risk of slides because of 2 vs 4 wheels per your original point, the consequences of a mistake are significantly greater if a driver gets it wrong.

but again, they weren't expressing concern for cyclists and advising of the risks of cycling on ice on a standalone basis, it was all about staying out of the way of vehicles which are perceived to have more of a need to be out in those conditions.

The RSA advice to cyclists is reasonable, in that the cyclist can expect to take a tumble with possible injury, whereas if a car skids the driver is protected. Any cyclist with a 'smidgin' of cop on shouldn't cycle on black ice anyway. Apart from whether other traffic is about or not, ice induced tumbles can be swift and nasty.

mr spuckler

railer201 wrote: »

The RSA advice to cyclists is reasonable, in that the cyclist can expect to take a tumble with possible injury, whereas if a car skids the driver is protected. Any cyclist with a 'smidgin' of cop on shouldn't cycle on black ice anyway. Apart from whether other traffic is about or not, ice induced tumbles can be swift and nasty.

I've no issue whatsoever with the RSA advising cyclists that cycling in icy conditions can increase the possibility of a fall and injury. if that's what you read into my post then you read my intentions incorrectly.

CramCycle

railer201 wrote: »

The RSA advice to cyclists is reasonable, in that the cyclist can expect to take a tumble with possible injury, whereas if a car skids the driver is protected. Any cyclist with a 'smidgin' of cop on shouldn't cycle on black ice anyway. Apart from whether other traffic is about or not, ice induced tumbles can be swift and nasty.

I disagree here, this is the RSa advice:

Cyclists and Motorcyclists are advised;

Motorcyclists / Cyclists should not compromise their safety by their ‘need’ to travel in icy/snow conditions. Cancel your journey or take alternative transport.

How come the same advice does not apply to motorists. There is no need to compromise anyones safety, if your vehicle is dangerous and hard to control in icy weather, unless there is extremely extenuating circumstances, then don't ****ing go anywhere. Also stop using cheap summer tyres all year round, winter tyres minimum, and if the weather gets particularly bad, snow chains.

Duffryman

Right. So, it seems that the issue here is not with the advice itself that cyclists might reconsider whether to go cycling at all in icy conditions? Instead, it’s with the fact that the advice was directed at cyclists only, and not at other road users?

So, if the RSA told everybody to re-think their journeys, people might be okay with that?

And with that in mind…here’s a point that seems to have escaped people here. That piece from the Indo has all the hallmarks of being a copy-and-paste job of pre-existing material from several different places, rather than new material that was sourced and compiled specifically for the piece.

Have actually just done a little digging and found that the advice for cyclists comes straight from an RSA leaflet that was published in 2010 – it’s on page 5 of http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/News%20Items%20Documents/Adv_Pedestrian_Cyclists_Motorcyclist_Snow_Ice.pdf
The same advice has been trotted out umpteen times since then, by the RSA and by others too.

Advice to motorists that was also issued in 2010 includes ‘Stay at home. The best thing to do in extremely bad weather is to stay off the road. Take heed of warnings not to go out. This leaves the emergency services free to deal with real emergencies instead of rounding up stranded motorists.’ – see http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2010/RSA-Top-10-Safety-Tips-for-Driving-in-Snow-and-Ice/
This too has been trotted out several times since, but the Indo yesterday grabbed material from a different bulletin from a different time.

In fairness, the RSA can’t control which web pages from which sites that somebody in the Indo copies and pastes from. If they’d been asked directly yesterday for advice for different types of road users, they might have been more consistent in what they said.

The real gripe here should be with the modern-day school of copy-and-paste journalism.

As an aside, though…anybody else find it curious how it appears even the RSA don’t expect people to heed the advice they give?

They first tell cyclists/motorcyclists straight up to cancel their journey or take alternative transport. But then straight away they tell them to use high-viz and lights. It’s as though they’re saying ‘we know you won’t listen to the first thing we said, so…..’

Duffryman

CramCycle wrote: »

How come the same advice does not apply to motorists. .

Coincidence here. I was writing the post above as you posted this one. It shows that they do give the same advice to motorists. It’s just that somebody in the Indo chose to copy and paste from somewhere else.

Grassey

Coming up soon on The last word. Are cyclists being left out of the bus connects project.

mr spuckler

Duffryman wrote: »

Right. So, it seems that the issue here is not with the advice itself that cyclists might reconsider whether to go cycling at all in icy conditions? Instead, it’s with the fact that the advice was directed at cyclists only, and not at other road users?

So, if the RSA told everybody to re-think their journeys, people might be okay with that?

The real gripe here should be with the modern-day school of copy-and-paste journalism.

there's a real gripe with how the RSA speak about cyclists in general. it's covered a few pages ago and in a Times UK article here if you have access.

and yes on your first question above, to an extent. if there was more balanced reporting and commentary which was also reflective of the relative danger posed by various types of road users then we'd all be much happier.

railer201

CramCycle wrote: »

I disagree here, this is the RSa advice:

.....which is the reasonable advice I'm referring to.

How come the same advice does not apply to motorists. There is no need to compromise anyones safety, if your vehicle is dangerous and hard to control in icy weather, unless there is extremely extenuating circumstances, then don't ****ing go anywhere. Also stop using cheap summer tyres all year round, winter tyres minimum, and if the weather gets particularly bad, snow chains.

They do give such advice to motorists, as already mentioned.

AndrewJRenko

railer201 wrote: »

The RSA advice to cyclists is reasonable, in that the cyclist can expect to take a tumble with possible injury, whereas if a car skids the driver is protected. Any cyclist with a 'smidgin' of cop on shouldn't cycle on black ice anyway. Apart from whether other traffic is about or not, ice induced tumbles can be swift and nasty.

The risk and danger involved in a motorist skidding on ice is way, way more serious than a cyclist skidding on ice. The fact that the driver is protected isn't great consolation to those outside the car at risk.

mr spuckler wrote: »

there's a real gripe with how the RSA speak about cyclists in general. it's covered a few pages ago and in a Times UK article here if you have access.

The recent RSA Expert article on motorists driving with no lights stated; "No-one means to do it; it's an honest mistake".



This contrasts clearly with their article on cyclists breaking red lights, where they highlighted 'there is no grey area when it comes to breaking the law'.

magicbastarder

would be great if this was a boardsie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/snow-ice-and-freezing-temperatures-forecast-for-the-weekend-1.3778671

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

would be great if this was a boardsie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/snow-ice-and-freezing-temperatures-forecast-for-the-weekend-1.3778671

They just cant help themselves.

Johnnio13

what was the point of using the cyclist image there when the article is about motorists taking care?
On a separate note heard Mannix Flynn on the radio yesterday for the first time. He's some piece of work.

Hurrache

Johnnio13 wrote: »

On a separate note heard Mannix Flynn on the radio yesterday for the first time. He's some piece of work.

You've don't know what you've been missing! Professional contrarian, bull****ter and loud mouth. He's only brought onto radio shows to generate money from all the angry text messages.

Duffryman

Johnnio13 wrote: »

what was the point of using the cyclist image there when the article is about motorists taking care?
.

The article is about the weather forecast.

Yes, one paragraph out of ten is about AA Roadwatch advice to motorists. But that doesn't mean it's an article about motorists taking care. It's not an article about homelessness either, despite that being mentioned at the end of it too.