Journalism and cycling

donvito99

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I have to say there's an absolutely crazy amount of cyclists out these days in Dublin, the most I've ever seen. Maybe lots of people are fair weather cyclists? Then again it seems to be wetter in summer than the rest of the year.

This is the thing, can't remember more than two working mornings/evenings during the winter when it poured. As soon as the sun's out, so are the showers.

That said my commute never changes rain or shine by +/- 5mins.

site_owner

blackwhite wrote: »

Given how you utterly failed to comprehend (or deliberately misrepresented to strawman) CL's post, that's not a bit surprising

i asked him what road he cycles on. i dont know why you are getting so defensive

site_owner

Lumen wrote: »

Fair enough, I've never paid much attention to that thread.

I cannot explain why some people seem to have such bad luck, but it's not remotely like my own experience.

(oh, it's not actually the most popular thread, but I don't want to derail with pedantry)

so its not your experience, thats ok.

but the evidence says we are not up to scratch

blackwhite

site_owner wrote: »

i asked him what road he cycles on. i dont know why you are getting so defensive

You (quite aggressively) claimed he stated something that he very obviously did not.

site_owner wrote: »

surely you must understand, as a moderator of a large cycling forum, your assertions, flying in the face of internationlal experts and local testimony, that the streets of dublin are completely safe to cycle is difficult to take seriously

It's a massive, and incredibly disingenuous, leap to try and equate "the streets of dublin are completely safe to cycle" to what was actually posted (quoted below so you might actually read it this time)

Chips Lovell wrote:

Zillah wrote:

I say that as someone who has become accustomed to having to squeeze through 8 inch gaps and having buses and HGV's trying to kill me all the time

Seriously? That is not my experience of cycling in Dublin.

site_owner

ok, you dont like hyperbole, someone else pointed that out too.

its not aggression, you're reading into that, but its putting you on the attack against me, so these comments arent really productive. but im hoping by replying that we wont lost sight of the original discusson, that the moderator is happy wiht the cycling infra in dublin

***

if the moderator would share his main cycling routes it would help me and others understand what he considers to be safe cycling infrastructure as its hard to understand the context otherwise. there are some places that are safe to cycle in dubln and there are plenty that arent. that doesnt make it a generally safe city to cycle.

flatface

Cycling in Dublin on current infrastructure is perfectly safe if you have lots of experience and a patient attitude to waiting behind traffic and avoiding potential dangers.

A lot of work is required to bring the standard up to make it also feel safe for inexperienced cyclists. This is what we should be working towards.

AndrewJRenko

flatface wrote: »

Cycling in Dublin on current infrastructure is perfectly safe if you have lots of experience and a patient attitude to waiting behind traffic and avoiding potential dangers.

A lot of work is required to bring the standard up to make it also feel safe for inexperienced cyclists. This is what we should be working towards.

How does your experience and attitude protect you from drivers overtaking with a phone in their hand while they are texting or snapchatting?

ED E

Working on a laptop on their knees while driving.....(and actually moving not stopped)

tomasrojo

site_owner wrote: »

if the moderator would share his main cycling routes it would help me and others understand what he considers to be safe cycling infrastructure as its hard to understand the context otherwise. there are some places that are safe to cycle in dubln and there are plenty that arent. that doesnt make it a generally safe city to cycle.

Well, he can answer himself, but I don't believe he mentioned infrastructure at all.

Statistically it is a safe enough city to cycle in. It's broadly comparable to a fairly average European city. But the statistics do flatter Dublin, because there are very low numbers of the very young and very old travelling independently. I think the delegates pointed out that cyclists in Dublin skew quite young and quite male, which is true, I think. The Netherlands has at least as good safety statistics, and plenty of very young and very old travelling independently. Cycing in cities, no less.

flatface

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How does your experience and attitude protect you from drivers overtaking with a phone in their hand while they are texting or snapchatting?

It doesn’t. We can only do so much, but what we can do it mitigate against most of the common problems.

But that ain’t my point. I’m just replying to the contradictory perceptions from posters on the safety of Dublin cycling. I feel it’s safe and I can understand how others would find it unsafe. Despite my feeling of safety I can see we need a lot of work to make it safe for all. I would welcome infrastructure changes even if it slows down my commute but creates a better cycling environment and gives more of Dublin streets back to pedestrians, public transport and cyclists.

eeeee

Have to say I don't find Dublin exceptionally dangerous, and I do a 40k a day total commute across the city (including the quays).
The vast and overwhelming majority of the time it's fine. It could be better. It used to be less antagonistic.
But it's not overwhelmingly dangerous by any stretch.
That improvement is needed is undoubtable, but to say it's incredibly dangerous is disingenuous and simply untrue.

flatface

nee wrote: »

Have to say I don't find Dublin exceptionally dangerous, and I do a 40k a day total commute across the city (including the quays).
The vast and overwhelming majority of the time it's fine. It could be better. It used to be less antagonistic.
But it's not overwhelmingly dangerous by any stretch.
That improvement is needed is undoubtable, but to say it's incredibly dangerous is disingenuous and simply untrue.

I agree with what you say but I do understand why those who are trying to battle for better infrastructure may need to sell the danger rather than the less sexy truth - that it’s ok but could be a lot better.
We deserve a city that feels calm and enjoyable to be in and move through. Public space.

blackwhite

site_owner wrote: »

ok, you dont like hyperbole, someone else pointed that out too.

its not aggression, you're reading into that, but its putting you on the attack against me, so these comments arent really productive. but im hoping by replying that we wont lost sight of the original discusson, that the moderator is happy wiht the cycling infra in dublin

***

if the moderator would share his main cycling routes it would help me and others understand what he considers to be safe cycling infrastructure as its hard to understand the context otherwise. there are some places that are safe to cycle in dubln and there are plenty that arent. that doesnt make it a generally safe city to cycle.

You might want to check your dictionary there - you evidently don’t understand what hyperbole actually means yourself.

Misrepresenting somebody’s posts, and then aggressively demanding they respond to the lie you’ve built isn’t hyperbole - it’s just plain strawmanning.


Some parts of Dublin are horrible to cycle around, some are very good, and the vast majority are grand - but could be better (just like the majority of motorists we encounter daily).
Trying to pretend it’s a death trap does nothing other than discourage people from cycling - how exactly do you think less people cycling might help the push for better facilities ?

magicbastarder

flatface wrote: »

Cycling in Dublin on current infrastructure is perfectly safe if you have lots of experience and a patient attitude to waiting behind traffic and avoiding potential dangers.

'perfectly safe' if 'condition A' and 'condition B' and 'condition C'.
but i know what you're saying, my main issue is mainly the use of the phrase 'perfectly safe'.

i feel safe enough cycling to work, but would certainly not recommend my commute to a newbie. and if that's the commute faced by a newbie, they're not going to start cycling it. that's the bottom line, really.

it's the age old dichotomy between danger and sensation of danger; plus the issue that i'm inured enough at being passed by cement trucks on roads really not built for cement trucks, but i shouldn't need to be using the word inured in that context. many people wouldn't find that pleasant, and if it's unpleasant, they'll probably stick to the car.

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

Some parts of Dublin are horrible to cycle around, some are very good, and the vast majority are grand - but could be better

Yeah, I think it's ok overall. I don't leave the house wondering whether I'll make it home that night, or anything like that.

I think quite a lot of Dublin is still ok for cyclists partly by historical accident, rather than design. A lot of the outer suburbs are pretty awful. The stuff that was built before the turn of the century is ok, as far as I can tell, because the design principles were different. My estate, which I think is from the 70s, allows people greater liberty to walk and cycle than to drive. The new estates are quite the reverse, at least the ones in, say, Lucan that I'm familiar with. Those ones in Lucan deliberately block off potential walking or cycling routes between estates.

Also, some older streets with no infrastructure are easier to cycle than some newer streets with infrastructure. Often because the half-assed infrastructure makes things worse.

magicbastarder

site_owner wrote: »

if the moderator would share his main cycling routes

just a note - not putting this is bold as it's not really a mod action - but just because Chips is a mod doesn't mean his opinion carries more weight than anyone else who posts here. mods are as capable/incapable of forming coherent opinions as the rest of the users.

and just in general, it's been getting slightly heated in here, can we cool down slightly?

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

'perfectly safe' if 'condition A' and 'condition B' and 'condition C'.
but i know what you're saying, my main issue is mainly the use of the phrase 'perfectly safe'.

Also, I refine all my regular routes until I don't find them stressful, and this requires some experience of cycling on the road, with some local knowledge on top of that. You shouldn't need all that preparation and skill just to get around on bike.

flatface

magicbastarder wrote: »

'perfectly safe' if 'condition A' and 'condition B' and 'condition C'.
but i know what you're saying, my main issue is mainly the use of the phrase 'perfectly safe'.

yeh maybe perfectly safe is a stretch. I may have worded it badly but the point I was attempting to make is that there are many on this forum who are experienced cyclists and, as experience can make many problems avoidable and the roads feel safer, they are not the best people to judge the current infrastructure. The target is to get all people out cycling without any blockers: no specialist clothing, no feeling of needing to know the roads inside out to survive etc.

magicbastarder

i saw some story recently, not too fussed about finding it now (partly because i suspect it's got less relevance in urban cycling), which claimed fast cyclists get less grief than slow ones. there may be some nugget of truth in that, that fast cyclists will have less issue with motorists than slow ones. would be interesting to see research applied in urban situations where cyclists and motorists use shared space.

tomasrojo

This is maybe the strongest negative comment I've seen (the one IrishCycle is retweeting), but there are quite a few comments about how Dublin's provision is strikingly bad:
https://twitter.com/IrishCycle/status/1143888645117612034

It's not my personal experience (or at least when it is bad, I've always managed to find a workable alternative), but just to be fair I thought I'd include it.

tomasrojo

This was another very negative comment (like the other one, not just saying the infrastructure isn't up to standard, but saying it's notably bad):

https://twitter.com/gicycle_/status/1143959005703938048

tomasrojo

One more:
https://twitter.com/sassefras88/status/1144008380186550272

Lumen

flatface wrote: »

yeh maybe perfectly safe is a stretch. I may have worded it badly but the point I was attempting to make is that there are many on this forum who are experienced cyclists and, as experience can make many problems avoidable and the roads feel safer, they are not the best people to judge the current infrastructure. The target is to get all people out cycling without any blockers: no specialist clothing, no feeling of needing to know the roads inside out to survive etc.

That's not my target. I don't want more "infrastructure" because I believe that will denormalize road cycling and therefore bring about its extinction, or at least make it less fun.

I also am not interested in the barriers to cycling perceived by non cyclists. Their baseless opinions are as worthy as my opinions on subjects I know nothing about.

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

I also am not interested in the barriers to cycling perceived by non cyclists. Their baseless opinions are as worthy as my opinions on subjects I know nothing about.

uhh... just because someone doesn't cycle because they see barriers to cycling does not mean their opinions are 'baseless'. that's just really weird.

cletus

Lumen wrote: »

That's not my target. I don't want more "infrastructure" because I believe that will denormalize road cycling and therefore bring about its extinction, or at least make it less fun.

I also am not interested in the barriers to cycling perceived by non cyclists. Their baseless opinions are as worthy as my opinions on subjects I know nothing about.

Your post makes no sense to me. You don't want better infrastructure because it would make road cycling less fun. Do you mean competitive cycling here?

The second part of your text reads as pure elitism, tbh

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

uhh... just because someone doesn't cycle because they see barriers to cycling does not mean their opinions are 'baseless'. that's just really weird.

I believe that people manufacture barriers in their heads. If you remove one, they'll just create another. People like their cars and their shoes and their stupid electric scooters.

cletus wrote: »

Your post makes no sense to me. You don't want better infrastructure because it would make road cycling less fun. Do you mean competitive cycling here?

No, I mean cycling on the road. I find the roads fine. When activists talk of "infrastructure" they often mean segregated cycling faciities, which I am mostly opposed to.

cletus wrote: »

The second part of your text reads as pure elitism, tbh

I'm don't consider myself elitist, because I don't want to exclude people. Some might argue that the current cycling environment is exclusionary, and so by supporting the status quo I am being elitist, but if that's the argument I think it's bullsh!t. My position is that there's nothing stopping people from cycling except their own preferences and faulty perceptions.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Lumen wrote: »

That's not my target. I don't want more "infrastructure" because I believe that will denormalize road cycling and therefore bring about its extinction, or at least make it less fun.

I also am not interested in the barriers to cycling perceived by non cyclists. Their baseless opinions are as worthy as my opinions on subjects I know nothing about.

That's a fairly selfish opinion you have there.

There's only one way forward and that's to build more infrastructure. It's ridiculous that you don't want progression. Really is.

Lumen

Ibrahim Ripe Sickness wrote: »

That's a fairly selfish opinion you have there.

There's only one way forward and that's to build more infrastructure. It's ridiculous that you don't want progression. Really is.

My opinions and selfish and ridiculous. Right, OK.

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

I believe that people manufacture barriers in their heads. If you remove one, they'll just create another. People like their cars and their shoes and their stupid electric scooters.

if my wife was to cycle to work, her only sensible route is through phibsborough and down constitution hill, and that's often a ****show to drive, let alone cycle.

yes, they're cyclable, but i think sometimes it's good to remind ourselves here that the vast majority of posters on this forum *want* to cycle. most people just want to get to work.

also, i think the notion of road cycling as a noble pastime is all well and good, but what people are talking about here is urban infrastructure for functional cycling, not infrastructure for recreational cycling, which most people here do outside urban and suburban areas.

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

ialso, i think the notion of road cycling as a noble pastime is all well and good, but what people are talking about here is urban infrastructure for functional cycling, not infrastructure for recreational cycling, which most people here do outside urban and suburban areas.

Road cycling = cycling on the road. It's not a noble pastime, it's a means of moving oneself from one place to another.

I'm not talking about cycling as a hobby.