Journalism and cycling

the.red.baron

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Is it just me, or does this......



contradict this?

I'd say it's just you

greenspurs

the usual "Going around in Circles" arguments have started ...
...... unfollow.....

beauf

greenspurs wrote: »

the usual "Going around in Circles" arguments have started ...
...... unfollow.....

It's a vicious cycle...

the.red.baron

beauf wrote: »

It's a vicious cycle...

Now cyclists and roundabouts, that would make a good liveline topic...sure....sure....sure....

beauf

Everyone would want to get their spoke in.

Veloce150

NiallBoo wrote:

The pedestrian still has right-of-way until it becomes a red man on the pedestrian crossing.
I suppose you could say that the crossing is essentially a zebra-crossing while it's flashing amber.

Flashing amber (facing the pedestrian) means don't start crossing.

Once a pedestrian is crossing, they have right of way even if the lights change to 'red-man'. Motorists and cyclists must always give way to pedestrians once they are crossing. It does not matter if the pedestrian has ignored a 'red-man' or starts crossing on flashing amber. You're not allowed endanger or injure them & if you do, you'll be liable. Jay-waliking is a matter for the Gardai.

Pinch Flat

the.red.baron wrote: »

I'd say it's just you

Apparently not :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Roadhawk wrote: »

Look, the red light/green green light laws could not be clearer. Stop on red go on green. There is no satisfactory explanation for anyone on any mode of transport who decides to break a red light. Level of risk depending on what mode you are using is not a factor...ever.

well considering you just got them wrong maybe they could...

Go on green only if safe to do so

Trojan

And you can go on red if it's road works and you can still see the back of the car in front of you.

Trojan

Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419

AlreadyHome

Trojan wrote: »

Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419

Delighted! Although unfortunately don't have a subscription so will have to take your word for it...

Trojan

AlreadyHome wrote: »

Delighted! Although unfortunately don't have a subscription so will have to take your word for it...

Right-click the link and open in a private window (removes the cookies so you can view it).

Chuchote

Veloce150 wrote: »

Flashing amber (facing the pedestrian) means don't start crossing.

Once a pedestrian is crossing, they have right of way even if the lights change to 'red-man'. Motorists and cyclists must always give way to pedestrians once they are crossing. It does not matter if the pedestrian has ignored a 'red-man' or starts crossing on flashing amber. You're not allowed endanger or injure them & if you do, you'll be liable. Jay-waliking is a matter for the Gardai.

Could you give a source for that? I've always understood a flashing amber (when driving, cycling or walking) to mean "proceed with caution".

Great letters in the times. Keep 'em coming; there's bound to be a lot of little motorists bouncing up and replying "But… red lights…" in the next few days. Might be worth mentioning Paris and other places that allow cyclists to proceed through red lights when safe.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-babin-bicycle-laws-20161003-snap-story.html

And one tweeter had a great analogy: 'It's like covering an assault on a pensioner by saying "Yebbut old people can be annoying!"'

I see today's story on cycling in The Irish Times is

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/car-ban-on-parts-of-liffey-quays-mooted-in-cycle-path-plan-1.2816621

Car ban on parts of Liffey Quays mooted in cycle path plan
Dublin City Council proposing ban on private cars and lorries from Ellis and Arran Quays

including

Dublin City Council chief executive Owen Keegan in June 2014 had said the proposed Liffey cycle route would reduce the space for general traffic on the north quays from two lanes to one. This was met with opposition from some motorists and city centre retailers who said it would worsen daily gridlock along the quays, particularly during morning rush hour.

Chuchote

Incicentally, I'm disappointed to see the Dublin Cycling Campaign posting a comment on the article with the silly statement that imagines all cyclists as a single group, "There is no doubt that poorly behaved cyclists give us all a bad name."
This is a concept that should be stamped out, and an unscientific and stupid way of thinking.
Poorly behaved cyclists give themselves a bad name, not me. Poorly behaved drivers, too.
(On the other hand, the commenter does point out that cycling means better health. Perhaps the next and subsequent protest cycles should also stop at the Department of Health.)

Pinch Flat

Trojan wrote: »

Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419

JD Mangan, on the other hand, believes motorists pay this mysterious "road tax" and makes the inexplicable link between insurance and infrastructure, overlooking of course that 22,000 cyclists have voluntary insurance through Cycling Ireland and that there's 100,000 (a figure that's likely to rise given the urgent state of the insurance market) uninsured drivers on our roads.

randomname2005

Pinch Flat wrote: »

JD Mangan, on the other hand, believes motorists pay this mysterious "road tax" and makes the inexplicable link between insurance and infrastructure, overlooking of course that 22,000 cyclists have voluntary insurance through Cycling Ireland and that there's 100,000 (a figure that's likely to rise given the urgent state of the insurance market) uninsured drivers on our roads.

And the cyclists who also own vehicles which require "road tax"

magicbastarder

Trojan wrote: »

Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419

is Joan a boardsie?

Fian

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

Chuchote

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

Ah, this writer is the equivalent of the 19th-century 'Man in the Street' controversialist in penny-dreadful papers.

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

at least the comments are leaning in the right direction.

Tenzor07

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

I think this person fancies himself as the "Jeremy Clarkson" of the Indo.... Massive fail there!

AlreadyHome

magicbastarder wrote: »

at least the comments are leaning in the right direction.

You're right...I wonder is this all a result of boardsie chat or if perhaps the cycling protest might have brought some previously silent individuals out of the woodwork.

I quote my own response only to highlight what I've been thinking about lately in terms of the significance of the bicycle as an invention in and of itself. It's easy to forget that we really haven't made many significant changes to a machine introduced in the late 19th century:

Without even getting into what a poorly argued piece this is, the author is woefully misinformed about simple issues like the oft-quoted, non-existent "road tax". All of our taxes pay for road infrastructure. There is no road specific tax. There is a motor tax: "...the tax rates are based on the carbon dioxide emissions of the car while in operation" Once the penny drops on this one, I'm sure we'll hear the author moaning about how much CO2 those ruddy cyclists are huffing all over his streets.

Moving on from that minor detail...

The political significance of cycling, as mentioned, cannot be understated. As women's rights and anti-slavery advocate Susan B. Anthony stated in 1896: "Let me tell you what I think of bicycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world."

Let us add to that how effectively the bicycle levels the playing field when it comes to transport for the less well off. In Dublin, one can pay off the cost of a decent bike in the space of 2 months of not using public transport 5 days a week.

What about people who don't want to cycle everywhere? Well, they might well be covered by the remaining 90% of the budget. I know it's only the dregs, but it's something at least.

beauf

Weepsie wrote: »

Rag of a paper anyway owned by a man with less than honest motives and an insalubrious past and staffed by ars3h0les.

It's the paper that gives Barry Egan columns. That alone is enough to boycott it, even with out Ian O'Doherty and his really poorly written crap.

I know a few journalists, across different t organisations. They all take an amount of pride in their work and put a lot of hours into it and the research. Stuff like this must make them weep

+1

If they want to know why newspapers can't make money its this drivel.

Chips Lovell

The entire point of opinion pieces by writers such as O'Doherty, Kevin Myers, Clarkson etc. is to be provocative and get people riled up.

If you clicked on it, read it, and got angry, then they've done they're job and the Indo makes its money.

ThisRegard

Another Cycling segment coming up on Pat Kenny on Newstalk now. They already had one this morning, and you can imagine the tone when he mentioned earlier they were going to talk about license plates for cyclists.

Edit: Whoop Whoop! It's Ian O'Doherty discussing it!

AlreadyHome

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The entire point opinion pieces by writers such as O'Doherty, Kevin Myers, Clarkson etc. is to be provocative and get people riled up.

If clicked on, read it, and got angry, then they've done they're job and the Indo makes its money.

You're absolutely right, but I'd argue there's something positive about seeing the majority of responses coming from cyclists. The more coverage the cycling debate gets, the better. Take that Irish Times piece, for example. Pro-cyclist letter responses outnumbered the car driver's response 3 to 1.

AlreadyHome

"I'd be more concerned about being injured by a cyclist in Dublin, than I would be of being injured by a car"

Ian O'Doherty trumps your statistics with his +5 mouth noise.

ThisRegard

He can be full of ****e on most topics. After having to listen to him I'm sure he's a regular on the various cyclist threads, it was like he was playing bingo with all the cliches he trotted out, motorists pay tax, dangerous cyclists etc etc.

Tombo2001

The thing about being a cyclist for me anyway is.....

They all hate us anyway....

......why should we care what they think.

Absolutely no doubt that newspapers/ media have fostered and encouraged this friction between motorists and cyclists.

I've lost count of the amount of letters and articles I've seen in the Irish Times complaining about cyclists; mostly written by people who haven't been on a bike this century.

tomasrojo

Pat Kenny seems to have a few hobby horses. Rather into spirtualist healing flim-flam too, very sympathetic to guests who operate in that area, and is clearly dismissive of climate change too.

I'm not a regular listener, so perhaps I'm being unfair, but I've heard him show these traits enough to avoid him.