Journalism and cycling

randomname2005

Duckjob wrote: »

Forget fining. People who are caught driving like that should lose their licence for life, no ifs, no buts, no excuses heard. Examples need to be made to bring about a real change.

People should have the basic human right to go on the road without fear of being wiped out by pond life like this.

Licence removal would be useful, if there wasn't already tons of people driving around with no license and little chance of being caught. Somebody like that will just hop in a car and drive around like nothing had happened.

Serious jail time and financial penalties.

magicbastarder

**** taking the licences. take the cars.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

**** taking the licences. take the cars.

CramCycle

A guy I know works as a safety consultant, does very well at it. Often gets called in to be that "safety" person. What he often starts with is bringing in a culture, because telling people to do something, as our roads have shown us, doesn't really work as well as it should. Over a coffee he was explaining the differences in different parts of Ireland, particular the East West divide. One company he started with simple things like reversing into car park spaces, explained the point, it was easy, achievable, very visual and starts a trend. Over in an unnamed company in the West, he had to ban cars which did not have insurance parking in the company car park. 80% of cars had no insurance, no hope of a speed limit or reversing into car park spaces so he gave them a date and said after this date, no car insurance means you cannot drive in. The irony of how close that company was located to the RSA was hilarious, he hadn't realised till I pointed it out to him.

Seize and crush/auction cars, plus a hefty fine. Penalty points are pointless for these people. Set date and said from this date onwards, every car on the roads without tax/nct/insurance will be seized. No providing of documents at a later date, if your docs are not in the car that day, then it is gone, simple as. Instant fine.

plodder

Duckjob wrote: »

Forget fining. People who are caught driving like that should lose their licence for life, no ifs, no buts, no excuses heard. Examples need to be made to bring about a real change.

People should have the basic human right to go on the road without fear of being wiped out by pond life like this.

Recklessly causing "serious harm" to a person is punishable by up to a life sentence. A very long spell behind bars is the only appropriate response to that incident. It was absolutely horrendous.

check_six

plodder wrote: »

Recklessly causing "serious harm" to a person is punishable by up to a life sentence. A very long spell behind bars is the only appropriate response to that incident. It was absolutely horrendous.

You'd like to think so, but if you've been taking notice of these types of cases in the past you'd find to your horror that it's considered that the car did the damage and that the driver was only an interested onlooker who could not have taken any kind of action to avoid the "accident".

You can do *anything* as long as you are behind the wheel of a car and expect not to have to pay the full consequences, especially if it involves a cyclist. We can't sympathise with a maniac running down the road swinging an axe, but we can all imagine driving a car and having an "accident". Sure it could have been you or me behind the wheel (as we raced recklessly down a city street and ploughed into an innocent bystander).

what_traffic

CramCycle wrote: »

Over in an unnamed company in the West, he had to ban cars which did not have insurance parking in the company car park. 80% of cars had no insurance, no hope of a speed limit or reversing into car park spaces so he gave them a date and said after this date, no car insurance means you cannot drive in. The irony of how close that company was located to the RSA was hilarious, he hadn't realised till I pointed it out to him.

I am curious about this, do you know why was he brought in by said Company in the first place?
How close is close?

Seth Brundle

Not a cycling story but one that many cyclists may be familiar with:

Parts of Dublin city centre are likely to breach EU and World Health Organisation guidelines for air quality in 2019, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

It also found the worst air pollution in 2018 was recorded at an EPA monitoring station near Heuston Station, at St John’s Road West, “due largely to our reliance on fossil-fuelled motor vehicles for transport” .

In July the organisation said many areas of Dublin were affected by nitrogen dioxide, with indications that frequent breaches of EU limits were occurring due to large volumes of traffic.

High levels of nitrogen dioxides are notable for their contribution to respiratory illness and asthma, with children and older people most vulnerable. The July report attributed the risk to “reliance on fossil-fuelled motor vehicles for transport”.

The EPA said the worst areas in the capital were along the quays; at the entrance to and exit from the Dublin Tunnel, along the M50, on Pearse Street and in the vicinity of Heuston station.

EPA ambient air quality manager Patrick Kenny said the worst excesses, recorded near Heuston Station, were “due largely to our reliance on fossil-fuelled motor vehicles for transport”.

What are the odds that nothing will be done in the short to medium term to reduce this dependency on the car?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/air-quality-parts-of-dublin-city-on-course-to-breach-eu-guidelines-1.4029221

magicbastarder

speaking of penalties we can levy against people who break the law in their cars:

https://twitter.com/TallDavCon/status/1176790367875846145

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

speaking of penalties we can levy against people who break the law in their cars:

https://twitter.com/TallDavCon/status/1176790367875846145

If only there was somewhere near there with enough space to park some busses safely :rolleyes:

JMcL

magicbastarder wrote: »

speaking of penalties we can levy against people who break the law in their cars:

https://twitter.com/TallDavCon/status/1176790367875846145

Tow the fscker - see how smart he is then

magicbastarder

i am curious as to why the garda did not/could not issue an order to him to drive away?

plodder

check_six wrote: »

You'd like to think so, but if you've been taking notice of these types of cases in the past you'd find to your horror that it's considered that the car did the damage and that the driver was only an interested onlooker who could not have taken any kind of action to avoid the "accident".

You can do *anything* as long as you are behind the wheel of a car and expect not to have to pay the full consequences, especially if it involves a cyclist. We can't sympathise with a maniac running down the road swinging an axe, but we can all imagine driving a car and having an "accident". Sure it could have been you or me behind the wheel (as we raced recklessly down a city street and ploughed into an innocent bystander).

The burden of proof for criminal offences is high, as it should be. And though I've rolled my eyes at some of the excuses that people have gotten away with, but that video looks pretty clear cut. There's no reason for that car to be speeding on the inside there, unless it is trying to overtake the car on the outside. I wouldn't be surprised if there was other CCTV footage showing what was going on before that point. I seriously hope that guy is caught.

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

Over in an unnamed company in the West, he had to ban cars which did not have insurance parking in the company car park. 80% of cars had no insurance, no hope of a speed limit or reversing into car park spaces so he gave them a date and said after this date, no car insurance means you cannot drive in. The irony of how close that company was located to the RSA was hilarious, he hadn't realised till I pointed it out to him.

This is just insane. I knew things were a little bit 'wild west' in parts but that level of non-compliance on such a basic requirement in a workplace is insane.

They should arrange to have the Gardai at the gates at closing time.

CramCycle

what_traffic wrote: »

I am curious about this, do you know why was he brought in by said Company in the first place?
How close is close?

Company identified that they had safety issues, and not knowing what they wanted to do, they called him into discuss (he didn't give me details). Happens quite alot that companies think they need a safety officer rather than a safe environment. Hence why you need to have the culture there before implementing rules and regulations that will roundly be ignored. I won't say how close though. Typically, companies just want to be inside the law, rather than be safe. Whereas, those that are safe are nearly always within the law which makes life easier for everyone.

If they marketed H&S as something that will lead to less sick days, less claims, better training, less downtime. Companies would probably be more proactive rather than seeing it as a box ticking exercise.

Large bottle small glass

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is just insane. I knew things were a little bit 'wild west' in parts but that level of non-compliance on such a basic requirement in a workplace is insane.

They should arrange to have the Gardai at the gates at closing time.

It's probably horsesh1t.

About 1 in 14 drivers or 7% or so are uninsured.

A claim that there was working cohort of people where that number is 11 times higher than national average is an extraordinary claim.

I'd imagine certain population groups would have higher than the national average but it would take more than a 2nd hand account to satisfy me of its veracity.

CramCycle

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

It's probably horsesh1t.

About 1 in 14 drivers or 7% or so are uninsured.

A claim that there was working cohort of people where that number is 11 times higher than national average is an extraordinary claim.

I'd imagine certain population groups would have higher than the national average but it would take more than a 2nd hand account to satisfy me of its veracity.

it was told over a coffee, there is no doubt in my mind that the number was not 100% accurate, it was an off the cuff estimation but it certainly indicates that for people in that area, in this case particularly young, mainly male, workers whose pay would have been at or below the median industrial wage, being insured was something that they may get around too. There certainly was minimal risk of getting caught by the understaffed Gardai, and like many things, certain cultures can breed contempt if not outright ignorance. I imagine most of those flagged did not drive the same car into town on a Friday or Saturday night where there would be an elevated chance of getting stopped, nor do i imagine they ever sped in any of the known camera zones. All I can repeat is the number given, it is likely to be inaccurate, most likely in a certain direction for the sake of the story but I sincerely doubt it was anywhere close to 7% either.

I grew up in rural Longford, I still see plenty of my neighbours kids driving tractors, just like i did. I know they are not insured because they are not old enough to hold a license. I know that plenty of bachelor (and some not bachelor) farmers don't insure their runaround cars because they feel that they are only on the road for a few 100m, or they only go to two places. Plenty of young lads there who got cars and failed tests, so they just stop caring, can't take a licence from a kid who doesn't have one. In Dublin I imagine there are plenty of uninsured drivers, plenty of people with yellow reg cars all year round, child seats, doing the school run, ie an attachment to the state but no plate change. Considering how few checks are done but how the numbers are still high at catching people, I imagine there is a serious amount of underestimation in regards tax and insurance evasion.

It could of course be horse sh1t but it would have been a weird one to make up for a story considering his wealth of other stories.

blackwhite

CramCycle wrote: »

it was told over a coffee, there is no doubt in my mind that the number was not 100% accurate, it was an off the cuff estimation but it certainly indicates that for people in that area, in this case particularly young, mainly male, workers whose pay would have been at or below the median industrial wage, being insured was something that they may get around too. There certainly was minimal risk of getting caught by the understaffed Gardai, and like many things, certain cultures can breed contempt if not outright ignorance. I imagine most of those flagged did not drive the same car into town on a Friday or Saturday night where there would be an elevated chance of getting stopped, nor do i imagine they ever sped in any of the known camera zones. All I can repeat is the number given, it is likely to be inaccurate, most likely in a certain direction for the sake of the story but I sincerely doubt it was anywhere close to 7% either.

I grew up in rural Longford, I still see plenty of my neighbours kids driving tractors, just like i did. I know they are not insured because they are not old enough to hold a license. I know that plenty of bachelor (and some not bachelor) farmers don't insure their runaround cars because they feel that they are only on the road for a few 100m, or they only go to two places. Plenty of young lads there who got cars and failed tests, so they just stop caring, can't take a licence from a kid who doesn't have one. In Dublin I imagine there are plenty of uninsured drivers, plenty of people with yellow reg cars all year round, child seats, doing the school run, ie an attachment to the state but no plate change. Considering how few checks are done but how the numbers are still high at catching people, I imagine there is a serious amount of underestimation in regards tax and insurance evasion.

It could of course be horse sh1t but it would have been a weird one to make up for a story considering his wealth of other stories.

Go to any club GAA match in Sligo, Leitrim or Donegal and take a walk around car park. When I was last playing (c. 5 years ago) you'd normally see at least half the cars were yellow reg - which usually meant no tax or insurance either.

tomasrojo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not a cycling story but one that many cyclists may be familiar with:


What are the odds that nothing will be done in the short to medium term to reduce this dependency on the car?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/air-quality-parts-of-dublin-city-on-course-to-breach-eu-guidelines-1.4029221

I did a survey years ago where I cycled around Dublin (my employers didn't stipulate that I had to cycle, but, hey, it's 410, baby) and made a note of the species and state of health of public trees.

The leaves on the trees on St. John's Road, where the really polluted measurements mentioned in that article were taken, were almost grey with particulate deposits.

It's a good thing so few people live in the immediate vicinity.

magicbastarder

i used to live in a small house built around 1912 in phibsboro.
one of the first jobs i did after getting the place was to replace the water tank, but actually vacuumed the attic when i saw what was up there; i have no idea how old it was, possibly was mainly from coal burning, but i vacuumed up about 20 or 30l of black dust. i came out looking like a coal miner. interestingly, it was not really fine floury dust, but coarser than that.

Seth Brundle

Almost 70% of cyclists without helmet at time of head trauma
Research based on cyclists transferred to State’s main centre for treating brain injury
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409

Chiparus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Almost 70% of cyclists without helmet at time of head trauma
Research based on cyclists transferred to State’s main centre for treating brain injury
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409

Interesting observation, we will see how it is spun, clearly those who dislike cyclists will spin it as helmets protect, others will state that helmets do not protect as evidenced by the findings.

All depends how you spin it, for example it could also be said from the same study that GAA football is more than twice as dangerous as rugby.

Grassey

Guess one could infer that having a helmet was no benefit for getting knocked down. Or that the helmet saved those 2 who were knocked down.

*Two of these patients were not wearing helmets, one was and the status of the other mortality was unknown.

Two of the dead cyclists are recorded as having fallen off their bicycle, while the other two were knocked off.*

magicbastarder

this is not spun out:

Cycling accounted for all four of the sports and exercise-related deaths recorded at the centre over the period. Two of these patients were not wearing helmets, one was and the status of the other mortality was unknown.

Two of the dead cyclists are recorded as having fallen off their bicycle, while the other two were knocked off.

which was which? i.e. were the cyclists who died after a fall both not wearing helmets?

i'd also have a quibble with cycling being lumped entirely in with the 'sports and exercise' category. you can bet that a significant number of the cyclists captured in this report were injured while cycling neither for sporting or exercise reasons.

check_six

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Almost 70% of cyclists without helmet at time of head trauma
Research based on cyclists transferred to State’s main centre for treating brain injury
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409

I can't view the article. I wonder how the numbers compare to helmet adherence. Like if 40% of cyclists wear helmets then 70% of injuries to non helmet wearers could be a significant positive result for helmets, but if only 20% wear helmets then it's the opposite. I suspect that this headline suggests that helmet adherence could be around 30%.

I suppose the other question is if the helmets are preventing these kind of injuries for the people that are wearing them. This is impossible to measure if you can only count people arriving with injuries to your hospital.

check_six

So it's 18 out of 26 patients over 30 months who were brought to the head injury specialists who were not wearing helmets. I'm not sure that this is as statistically significant as presented. Would any of our resident stats boffins care to comment?

magicbastarder

i would guess - without being a stats person - that unless you know the underlying rate of helmet wearing, that the statistic is worthless.

for example, of 20% of people in general wear helmets, but 30% of injuries are suffered by people wearing helmets, that would suggest helmet wearing is dangerous.

hesker

check_six wrote: »

I can't view the article. I wonder how the numbers compare to helmet adherence. Like if 40% of cyclists wear helmets then 70% of injuries to non helmet wearers could be a significant positive result for helmets, but if only 20% wear helmets then it's the opposite. I suspect that this headline suggests that helmet adherence could be around 30%.

I suppose the other question is if the helmets are preventing these kind of injuries for the people that are wearing them. This is impossible to measure if you can only count people arriving with injuries to your hospital.

Yes without background stats on helmet wearing it’s meaningless.

Was spun on newstalk this morning as definitive proof

CramCycle

As presented, these are not stats or imply anything, they are simply incoherent and unrelated statements of fact. Admittedly presented in a fashion as to imply to the casual reader something that they cannot possibly show with the data given.

This said the paper they are supposedly on might, but I cannot find said paper.

Seth Brundle

check_six wrote: »

So it's 18 out of 26 patients over 30 months who were brought to the head injury specialists who were not wearing helmets. I'm not sure that this is as statistically significant as presented. Would any of our resident stats boffins care to comment?

It's difficult to extrapolate meaningful stats from the data as it is (thankfully) a small data set which is based on head injuries. We also don't however know the relationship between helmet wearers and fatalities.
How many cyclists in the catchment area wore helmets and what percentage didn't?
How many cyclists who fell or were knocked down and banged their head did not require treatment in the brain injury centre and of these what percentage were and were not wearing helmets.
We also don't know if the four fatalities were as a result of their brain injury or some other injury sustained during the incident.