Journalism and cycling

Chips Lovell

CramCycle wrote: »

The rabid ones can be crazy though, many threatening to come after you and follow you for awhile.

I had one lad roaring something unintelligible at me in the Phoenix Park last week before he had to jam on to avoid rear ending someone. He was too busy shouting to notice the traffic had slowed down.

Tombo2001

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Ah here. Aside from the fact that saying "I've never seen you condemn X, therefore you must in favour of (or at the very least indifferent to) X" is taking whataboutery to hitherto unscaled heights, I actually said this only a few posts previously:



What did you think I meant?



I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that doesn't tally in any way with my own experience. The vast majority of encounters I've seen have involved one or both parties losing their cool and one or or both parties being utterly wrong.

What I said was - when do you ever say this to a motorist.

There is no shortage of people telling cyclists what to do.

Chips Lovell

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What I said was - when do you ever say this to a motorist.

I'm saying nobody should be going around lecturing other road users because it rarely ends well.

AndrewJRenko

Miklos wrote: »

What an absolute turnip, he's been in the petrol game for most of his working life so it's no wonder he's anti-cyclist.

This is a plausible explanation

https://twitter.com/DublinPedaller/status/1163355646550564864?s=19

magicbastarder

there's a difference between a yell or a reactive gesture to a motorist doing something stupid, and actually taking the effort to go out of your way to call a motorist's behaviour out to them. i assume some people may conflate the two.

Seth Brundle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Speaking of cabbage councillors

https://twitter.com/JimGildea2014/status/1162415679531827200?s=19

I did a fair bit of wrk with Jim when he was IT operations manager in Topaz. I used to think he was a smart guy but he has now proven me wrong.

Tombo2001

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'm saying nobody should be going around lecturing other road users because it rarely ends well.

But you had no problem with Brian Caulfield doing it last week?

Chips Lovell

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But you had no problem with Brian Caulfield doing it last week?

What? Brian Caulfield wrote a newspaper article about a Twitter spat. He wasn't out remonstrating with people on the roads.

Steoller

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I am looking forward to see his next tweet because there has been a fair sized backlash.

Would take a special person to pretend that never happened.

The beginning of a soft walk-back?

CramCycle

Steoller wrote: »

The beginning of a soft walk-back?

He must be so proud of his PR team, fingers on the pulse

Seth Brundle

Steoller wrote: »

The beginning of a soft walk-back?

I must get a photo on my way home of the brand spanking new cycle path along the Nangor Road immediately west of the Profile Park/Kilcarberry Park roundabout. This lamppost which was previously in the grass is now a feature right in the middle of the cycle path.
Originally removed and then bizarrely put back into the westerly direction cycle path, it's now helps cyclists by adding light right onto the cycle path or something.
If you turn the camera 180 degrees, the end of the path now has an even better way to blindly toss cyclists heading East right out into traffic (cyclists heading west need to come off the roundabout via the wrong side of the road.

Typical Irish sloppy and unsafe cycling infrastructure costing plenty of money and designed by idiots who haven't sat on a bike in decades!

robyntmorton

I'm not stirring it at all, am I?

https://twitter.com/robyntmorton/status/1163873503952723968?s=09

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I must get a photo on my way home of the brand spanking new cycle path along the Nangor Road immediately west of the Profile Park/Kilcarberry Park roundabout. This lamppost which was previously in the grass is now a feature right in the middle of the cycle path.
Originally removed and then bizarrely put back into the westerly direction cycle path, it's now helps cyclists by adding light right onto the cycle path or something.
If you turn the camera 180 degrees, the end of the path now has an even better way to blindly toss cyclists heading East right out into traffic (cyclists heading west need to come off the roundabout via the wrong side of the road.

Typical Irish sloppy and unsafe cycling infrastructure costing plenty of money and designed by idiots who haven't sat on a bike in decades!

Took this picture of it on my way home yesterday (I'm standing on the roundabout looking west)...

Tombo2001

Funny in this day and age of litigation that they would go ahead with this?

Even the blue sign is wrong; it has it the wrong way around.....but sure who cares!!! Just lash it up anyway.

Seperately - are any of the cycling groups consulted on how cycle paths are designed?

Final point - those yellow ridged things, I find them a bit of a hazard in their own right; they can catch the tyres if you hit them the wrong way.

Seth Brundle

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Seperately - are any of the cycling groups consulted on how cycle paths are designed?

I would doubt it.
When cycling on it and you arrive at the junction, you've to wait on traffic before proceeding. When coming from the roundabout and want to join the cycle path you need to cycle a short distance against traffic. Yesterday, I came around the roundabout and two cars waited for me at the junction in the photo (as they should). I had to cycle behind the first which made me out to be the one breaking the law or just being a typical cyclist prick in their eyes.

hans aus dtschl

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Seperately - are any of the cycling groups consulted on how cycle paths are designed?

In my experience, they do make contact if you make a formal submission on a Part 8 plan.
Then they ignore any concerns you have and draw down the money saying they're "liaising" with you.
In some cases they then use the majority of the money as a resurfacing/pothole repairing fund.

Missus Doubtfire

Don't forget about the two "Yield" signs painted on the cycle track outside Bolands Car Sales!

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

More often than not, the blockage of loading bays is down to commercial vehicles that aren't loading or unloading. Whether it is a food break, or a catch up on paperwork or Facebook break, or just handy all day parking, there is always a good reason apparently.

Here's a great example; The Ferryman pub blocks off the loading bay with kegs to facilitate their next delivery. So the An Post van parks in the inside lane, blocking other traffic.


https://streamable.com/zrjd0

work

We should ban autonomous cars

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/why-we-should-ban-autonomous-cars-now-1.3987188%3fmode=amp

I took out an Irish Times sub recently so trying to read a bit more but blown away by the trash opinions they have. This guy, is he joking, wants to ban autonomous cars but his basis is terrible. Primarily he is concerned about loss of jobs, ridiculous argument why not till the land with a horse and plough then forget all progress and ban washing machines. He then worries about losses in the car industry, this has no relevance! Then he says they are not safe but ignores advancing tech.
As a cyclist I can see a future for no emission cars that do not text or Google while operating and stay in the correct lane at the correct speed, sounds great but let's ban them for crap reasons. Sorry to rant but this got my goat and the Irish Times should hang their head in shame.

silverharp

not really journalism but in the spirit that "donna on Facebook" can be an expert on all things, the musings of Deirdre include lots of berating of Mamils, the poor thing


https://twitter.com/deirdren/status/1163720308060295168

Stark

God what a toxic person.

Sometimes cyclists chat at lights when the weather is especially random or they fancy each others lycra/helmet

Takes a special kind of hatefulness to see a pleasant human interaction and spin it into something negative.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Took this picture of it on my way home yesterday (I'm standing on the roundabout looking west)...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=488663&stc=1&d=1566376000

I reported it via FixYourStreet.ie on Wednesday and received a response yesterday:

Dear resident,
thank you for contacting us on this matter. The pole in question was required in order to maintain a temporary electrical connection while a more permanent one was being installed. The work is planned be completed in the next two weeks and the column will then be removed.
XXX XXXX CEng

Now to report the requirement to yield for a private entrance and the general detritus covering the entire cycle path.

Mickiemcfist

Stark wrote: »

God what a toxic person.



Takes a special kind of hatefulness to see a pleasant human interaction and spin it into something negative.

I didn't see the negative in that line? I thought most of her thread was pretty funny actually. Obviously she's got her opinions re: helmets & hi-vis, but it's not like she's a policy maker, who cares?

work

Stark wrote: »

God what a toxic person.



Takes a special kind of hatefulness to see a pleasant human interaction and spin it into something negative.

Was she being negative? its just verbal diahorria....I like/love cycling but dont like anyone that doesnt have mudguards or wears lycra or doesnt wear a helmet or doesnt wear fluorescent gear or is a mamil etc etc.....if she tries hard I am sure everyone except her is wrong about everything!

Fian

Stark wrote: »

God what a toxic person.



Takes a special kind of hatefulness to see a pleasant human interaction and spin it into something negative.

I don't see anything toxic in that thread at all. Pretty pleasant tbh.

In fact I wholeheartedly agree with her about people commuting in Ireland without mudguards, shows no consideration for others.

If I see someone without mudguards on an even remotely wet day stopped at lights I always salmon/shoal past them. Put them behind me rather than dealing with their spray. And I will do my best to be unhelpful about letting them get in front of me again.

I don't give a toss about being overtaken on my commute ordinarily, but not by a bike without mudguards that will spray up at me.

Moflojo

silverharp wrote: »

not really journalism but in the spirit that "donna on Facebook" can be an expert on all things, the musings of Deirdre include lots of berating of Mamils, the poor thing

I think that Twitter thread is a pretty good example of "internalised oppression" playing out in a cyclists context.

Internalised oppression is a concept in social justice, in which an oppressed group (Let's say that's cyclists, for argument's sake) comes to use against itself the methods of the oppressor.

Deirdre obviously likes cycling, but is struggling with her identity as a "cyclist" and rails against the characterisations which she feels undermines cyclists' aspirations to be counted as legitimate road users, or accepted members of society.

Mamils, and "idiots" who don't wear helmets or fluorescent clothes all come under attack from this otherwise sane, happy person who cycles.

rubadub

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Originally removed and then bizarrely put back into the westerly direction cycle path, it's now helps cyclists by adding light right onto the cycle path or something.

Needs to be lit up incase they crash into it.

Reminds me of this

Fian

Beryl Burton - female cyclist who competed with men back in the 50s apparently.
]
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/aug/26/beryl-burton-liquorice-allsorts-shake-up-cycling

plodder

work wrote: »

Was she being negative? its just verbal diahorria....I like/love cycling but dont like anyone that doesnt have mudguards or wears lycra or doesnt wear a helmet or doesnt wear fluorescent gear or is a mamil etc etc.....if she tries hard I am sure everyone except her is wrong about everything!

I agree with her about mudguards, but is the rest of it just stirring the pot and hoping it might go a bit viral ... with its little recruitment ad snuck in there as well? Mamils need not apply though

Pinch Flat

plodder wrote: »

I agree with her about mudguards, but is the rest of it just stirring the pot and hoping it might go a bit viral ... with its little recruitment ad snuck in there as well? Mamils need not apply though

That’s mamilist