Journalism and cycling

Grassey

tomasrojo wrote:

I have a sinking feeling that the "international best practices" they have in mind might be from the UK, USA, Canada, and, most worrying, Australia and NZ.

Well it'd be a huge stretch for them to do more research than Google an English speaking country.

tomasrojo

There's some talk on Twitter about the conference. I haven't quite ascertained what the overall impression was yet.

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1139096313193259011

This seems to have an emphasis on EU best practice.

Doctor Bob

Will they won't they...

Seth Brundle

10 of the best easy cycling holidays in Europe
Forget the Alps or Pyrenees, try these less challenging but scenic routes for families and newbies
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/europe/10-of-the-best-easy-cycling-holidays-in-europe-1.3924905

Chips Lovell

I think there should be a law that anyone who utters the words "international best practices" is instantly dismissed from whatever position they occupy.

So if you're standing there in front of your PowerPoint presentation and you say those words, security immediately walk into the room and say "Sorry, Jim. Get your things. We have to escort you from the building".

JMcL

Assistant Garda Commissioner David Sheahan said the “low hanging fruit is all gone” in terms of the most obvious measures for enforcement and the future strategy would have to look at international best practice.

Well, a good start would be application of the existing laws and the changing of perception of driving as a right - mandatory retests for scoring douze points or for particular classes of offense, and utterly throwing the book no excuses accepted at anybody that reoffends while banned. Netherlands style automatic balance of culpability for the meatbag in charge of the big metal killy thing would also be good. Oh, and actual introduction of the 1.5m rule rather than "Ah no, sure that's a bit hard to police" - I think CPs have gotten worse in the intervening months since Ross copped out with plenty of media coverage that it wasn't going to be law.

MediaMan

JMcL wrote: »

Well, a good start would be application of the existing laws and the changing of perception of driving as a right - mandatory retests for scoring douze points or for particular classes of offense, and utterly throwing the book no excuses accepted at anybody that reoffends while banned. Netherlands style automatic balance of culpability for the meatbag in charge of the big metal killy thing would also be good. Oh, and actual introduction of the 1.5m rule rather than "Ah no, sure that's a bit hard to police" - I think CPs have gotten worse in the intervening months since Ross copped out with plenty of media coverage that it wasn't going to be law.

Just read the article in the Times and my reaction to that Garda statement was the exact same as yours. How about some actual enforcement?!

rubadub

JMcL wrote: »

Oh, and actual introduction of the 1.5m rule rather than "Ah no, sure that's a bit hard to police" .

even if not actual law it should be put into this revised RoTR I was reading about, where they are adding in info about cyclists not having to cycle in the gutter.

You hear people bleating on about the RoTR and people not following it, so it would at least be something to put back at them.

In the TV forum there is an "adverts you despise" thread and somebody was moaning about the RSA ads on the 1.5m advise/potential law basically saying it was never made law, as though the ads were completely worthless. It was as though they thought since it was not made law it had been decided it was an OTT suggestion and not necessary or advisable.

Duckjob

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0614/1055452-cycling-politics/

Not sure why the author, after being the victim of a criminally negligent act by a motorist, feels the need to pedal this false equivalence horsesh*t :

Many people on bikes are equally guilty of dodgy decisions, such as breaking lights at busy junctions, weaving between cars, not using lights or even wearing a helmet.

How many times does it need to be said ? There is no equivalence between a motorist speeding into a cycle lane and hitting someone on a bike and any of the above.

Motorists endanger everyone around them on the road with their misbehaviours. Cyclists usually endanger nobody but themselves.


And not wearing a helmet is not a misbehaviour

Rechuchote

Stockholm Syndrome.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818308593

Dehumanization of cyclists predicts self-reported aggressive behaviour toward them: A pilot study

Highlights
• Conducted a pilot test of the dehumanization of cyclists.
• Around half of non-cyclists view cyclists as ‘less than fully human’
• Dehumanization measures were significantly correlated with aggression toward cyclists.
• Dehumanization of cyclists’ concept deserves further research.


Abstract
Cycling provides many benefits to individuals and society, yet in many countries attitudes toward cyclists are largely negative. Public and humorous references to violence against cyclists are not uncommon and a significant minority of cyclists report harassment and aggression. We hypothesize that these hostile attitudes and behaviours are caused, in part, by the dehumanization of cyclists among some individuals. Dehumanization refers to any situation where people are seen or treated as if they are less than fully human. This paper presents a pilot study applying two validated dehumanization measures to a road user group for the first time. We found that the dehumanization measures were internally consistent, showed good discriminant validity (compared to general attitudes to cyclists) and were associated with self-reported aggression toward cyclists. The findings suggest that dehumanization is a concept that deserves further exploration in contexts where cyclists are a minority group. If we can put a human face to cyclists, we may improve attitudes and reduce aggression directed at on-road cyclists. This could result in a reduction in cyclist road trauma or an increase in public acceptance of cyclists as legitimate road users.

Rechuchote

Sad little story about bike shops

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a27496999/bike-shops-need-change/?utm_campaign=socialflowTWBI&utm_medium=social-media&utm_source=twitter

Hey, Bike Shops: Stop Treating Customers Like Garbage
IF LOCAL SHOPS WANT TO SURVIVE, IT'S TIME TO LOSE THE ATTITUDE


BY GLORIA LIU
Jun 12, 2019
When Richard Boothman’s bike was stolen in 2014, it seemed like the universe was extending him an opportunity.

Then 59 years old, Boothman had only just rediscovered the joy of cycling. In law school, he’d ridden a sleek steel, lugged Schwinn Le Tour road bike. But after he started his family, cycling fell by the wayside. Old high school football injuries led to orthopedic surgeries which led to gained weight. After the kids left for college, though, Boothman started eating better, exercising more. He shed some pounds. He thought about cycling again.

His wife bought him a Trek Navigator—an aluminum comfort bike with bubbly 26-inch wheels. “It was a barge,” he says. “It felt like it weighed 30 or 40 pounds.” But Boothman used it to commute to work, and fell in love with being in the fresh air. When the Navigator was stolen, it was good timing. He had been thinking he might deserve a nicer bike anyway. He set aside $1,000—more money than he’d ever imagined spending on a bike. He was excited.

But then he started visiting bike shops. Five-foot-ten and (at the time) about 250 pounds, Boothman felt what he describes as “a definite snob factor” when he walked into the first few shops near his home in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “It was clear when I walked through the door that I was being typecast,” he says. Though he wanted something sportier, sales people kept directing him toward other comfort bikes, even trying to push him back onto a Trek Navigator.
<much snippage including figures for the many women who feel dissed by LBSs and so avoid them>

Grassey

painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners

painted cycle lanes are a “gesture” and do nothing to make people feel safer on a bike. Recent studies have shown they can actually make people less safe

Tenzor07

Grassey wrote: »

painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners

Tell us something we don't know....


when-a-cycle-lane-does-more-harm-than-good

tomasrojo

The quote from the commissioners is to the point:

“As there are currently no national minimum safety standards for walking and cycling infrastructure, these practices can and will continue wasting public money and failing to persuade people to change their travel habits,” the letter says.

Reminds me of when we had to use cycle tracks by statutory instrument, but the characteristics of a cycle track were defined as just a particular painted white line and a particular sign; binding laws on the users, almost total freedom for the creators.

is_that_so

Duckjob wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0614/1055452-cycling-politics/

Not sure why the author, after being the victim of a criminally negligent act by a motorist, feels the need to pedal this false equivalence horsesh*t :




How many times does it need to be said ? There is no equivalence between a motorist speeding into a cycle lane and hitting someone on a bike and any of the above.

Motorists endanger everyone around them on the road with their misbehaviours. Cyclists usually endanger nobody but themselves.


And not wearing a helmet is not a misbehaviour

Why do some people insist on excusing cyclists for anything they do because they are seemingly less dangerous? Rules of the road are there for everyone, not just as they suit individual road users.

tomasrojo

is_that_so wrote: »

Why do some people insist on excusing cyclists for anything they do because they are seemingly less dangerous? Rules of the road are there for everyone, not just as they suit individual road users.

"Cyclists are no angels either" doesn't make anyone's argument balanced. It in fact lumps an equal weight of blame onto the people who are mostly incapable of causing large-scale harm.

People should obey the rules of the road. That doesn't mean "a driver pulled out a side road without looking and broke my leg; on the other hand, other cyclists break red lights, so even stevens, I suppose"

Duckjob

is_that_so wrote: »

Why do some people insist on excusing cyclists for anything they do because they are seemingly less dangerous? Rules of the road are there for everyone, not just as they suit individual road users.

Anything to offer apart from the silly straw-manning ?

is_that_so

Duckjob wrote: »

Anything to offer apart from the silly straw-manning ?

Clearly nothing that will affect your intemperate ranting. Be safe out there.

is_that_so

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Cyclists are no angels either" doesn't make anyone's argument balanced. It in fact lumps an equal weight of blame onto the people who are mostly incapable of causing large-scale harm.

People should obey the rules of the road. That doesn't mean "a driver pulled out a side road without looking and broke my leg; on the other hand, other cyclists break red lights, so even stevens, I suppose"

I have no issue with the damage comparison but I do with claims that they are above road rules on that basis. If you're on the road you take care regardless of what you're using.

tomasrojo

Nobody, as far as I can see, said they were above the rules. Just none of the examples of wrongdoing cited in the article are equivalent to negligently hitting somebody with a vehicle of a mass that's most conveniently denoted in tonnes.

I know why people who write these things feel compelled to add "now, I know cyclists are no angels", but they should resist it. If they were not at fault in the collision they were writing about, other people's general behaviour is irrelevant.

The RTÉ journalist even says "equally guilty". And "weaving between cars" is filtering (bikes can't weave in and out of streams of fast-moving cars; only motorbikes can), and it's mostly harmless, except at junctions, and in fact necessary if your journey is going to be shorter than the equivalent car journey.

voluntary

is_that_so wrote: »

Why do some people insist on excusing cyclists for anything they do because they are seemingly less dangerous? Rules of the road are there for everyone, not just as they suit individual road users.

Why do some people insist on excusing pedestrians crossing the road on a red light because they are seemingly less dangerous than cars doing so? Why do some people insist on excusing carrying some self defense weapon a dog or a teaser while carrying an AK47 in public would be rather not accepted?

meeeeh

voluntary wrote: »

Why do some people insist on excusing pedestrians crossing the road on a red light because they are seemingly less dangerous than cars doing so?

It's cultural. You wouldn't do it in Germany for example.

magicbastarder

in relation to Duckjob's objection to the RTE article, it's perfectly understandable. if (reductio ad absurdum alert) a journalist writing about a homophobic attack was to include the line 'to be fair, gay people have been known to attack straight people too', they wouldn't last long in journalism. but it's de rigeur when writing about cycling.

Muahahaha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

‘Low hanging fruit’ in road safety has been taken, conference hears
Experts say new strategy 2021-2030 will have to focus on walking, cycling and urban roads

There is a massive bunch of low hanging fruit right under their noses- 21% of road deaths last year occurred because motorists & passengers were not wearing seatbelts. I mean who in this day and age thinks it is a good idea not to wear a seatbelt? Clearly lots going by the high numbers being killed because they didn't.

Meanwhile, some sense

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT has wasted hundreds of millions of pounds by painting white lines on busy roads and labelling them “cycle lanes”, according to Britain’s cycling and walking commissioners. Painted cycle lines – where cyclists are segregated from cars and other vehicles simply by using a line on a road – are only a “gesture” and have done nothing to make cyclists feel safer, the commissioners have said in a letter to UK transport secretary Chris Grayling, The Guardian reports.

The commissioners, who include former Olympic champions Chris Boardman and Dame Sarah Storey, said current policies were “wasting public money and failing to persuade people to change their travel habits”. The commissioners are responsible for developing policy ideas for improving cycling and pedestrian infrastructure across UK towns and cities.

The most recent academic research on cycle lanes suggests that simply painting a white line on a road is not enough to protect cyclists – instead greater investment in buffer zones or physical barriers to protect cyclists from drivers is needed.

https://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-cycle-lanes-uk-4685369-Jun2019/

magicbastarder

weirdly, i think i can only see a single anti-cyclist comment under that article. at the moment, anyway.

Tenzor07

Grassey wrote: »

painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners

Story now on the Journal.... Straight to the comments...waiting for...But they don't pay the Road Tax Joe... or, why don't they use the cycle lanes us motorists pay for....!

https://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-cycle-lanes-uk-4685369-Jun2019/

voluntary

meeeeh wrote: »

It's cultural. You wouldn't do it in Germany for example.

You wouldn't as you'd end up paying 100 euro fine.

is_that_so

voluntary wrote: »

Why do some people insist on excusing pedestrians crossing the road on a red light because they are seemingly less dangerous than cars doing so?

Pedestrians are the lowest form of road user, veritable lemmings. I don't excuse them at all but it's a fact of life as a road user that we cannot change short of rigidly enforced jaywalking laws. Bane of my life betimes I will admit but I still can't just knock 'em over!:p

tomasrojo

Muahahaha wrote: »

Meanwhile, some sense


https://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-cycle-lanes-uk-4685369-Jun2019/

The most recent academic research on cycle lanes suggests that simply painting a white line on a road is not enough to protect cyclists – instead greater investment in buffer zones or physical barriers to protect cyclists from drivers is needed.

That's, I guess, why they, and we, waste money on useless measures: because they have to do something, and the pointless something is way cheaper than the best-practice something, even though the latter is better value.

EDIT: Also, the paint option rarely involves hard decisions about removing car-parking provision or altering road lane use.