Journalism and cycling

Stark

It really is just chucking **** at the people asking for cycling infrastructure and saying "There! Happy?"

cletus

Maybe I'm just stupid, I keep looking at that picture but I just can't figure out how that's meant to be used

magicbastarder

i would assume it means 'this is where you leave the footpath, but you must yield to cyclists in the cycle lane', which begs the question - is there an as yet unpainted cycle lane intended to be on the path?

blackwhite

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In a Jimmy Rabbitte voice, I'm hearing the words "Good Jaysus"...

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1204683664052887552


* edit: appears to be in Manchester when I zoom in on the image

The opposite side of the road isn't much better either

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4658402,-2.2892756,3a,75y,9.42h,80.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj5LjHOu1PI4_7DwE6a5OZA!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i16384!8i8192

blackwhite

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would assume it means 'this is where you leave the footpath, but you must yield to cyclists in the cycle lane', which begs the question - is there an as yet unpainted cycle lane intended to be on the path?

That picture is taken from the corner of a T-junction.

There's a cycle lane coming along the footpath from Trafford Wharf Rd that ends up at that spot.

It appears that you merge down into the on-road lane there - but they've tarmaced over the old cycle lane and appear not to have repainted the markings.

Further up the road the you get this masterpiece

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4653465,-2.2894323,3a,75y,226.03h,85.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2vRte5rRynqMK7SLSc_lng!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Seth Brundle

Is this a positive step or just another discussion group set up for aesthetics?
Council Considering Bringing in "Low-Emissions Zone" for the City

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would assume it means 'this is where you leave the footpath, but you must yield to cyclists in the cycle lane', which begs the question - is there an as yet unpainted cycle lane intended to be on the path?

blackwhite wrote: »

The opposite side of the road isn't much better either

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4658402,-2.2892756,3a,75y,9.42h,80.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj5LjHOu1PI4_7DwE6a5OZA!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Based on further up the road it is either shared space at the corner or unpainted bike path.

Seth Brundle

CramCycle wrote: »

Based on further up the road it is either shared space at the corner

Manchester taking inspiration from Liverpool in thinking that "you'll never walk alone"

Seth Brundle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/commuter-hell-my-daily-commute-is-affecting-my-mental-health-1.4109774?mode=amp

cyclists interviewed seem to be the happiest comments. Few comments on the FB page about cyclists holding up traffic. Still hard to believe people believe this in a city that’s besieged by 20% full motorised three piece suites.

Continuing the series...
More stories from commuter hell: ‘On the bike there is the constant battle between logic and chance’


edit: reasonably positive reviews of cycling as a form of commuting although...

Cars provide far more respect than you would think and the 1.5metre legislation seems to have given drivers a sense of pride in sharing the streets with cyclists. As much I prefer cycling, however, I could never recommend it to somebody as it remains frankly too dangerous and I could not live with the guilt should something bad happen. Dublin needs segregated cycle lanes and improved road surfaces.”

tomasrojo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

A letter in today's Irish Times...
Seeing cyclists in the dark

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/seeing-cyclists-in-the-dark-1.4111194

So many lurches in tone in such a short letter. Fake remorse, damning with faint praise, blaming, insinuating the cyclist was overly concerned with fashion (builder's vests are all the rage in Paris these days, after all), and ending with an appeal to support vendors of winter sport apparel.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

A letter in today's Irish Times...
Seeing cyclists in the dark

Sir, – I would like apologise to the cyclist I almost hit on Monday night.

As they were wearing a high-visibility jacket and had bright lights this would seem even less excusable but it was only as the cyclist passed close in front of my car that I first saw the hand signal to turn right. The reason being the hand was in a black glove at the end of a black sleeve.

I am primarily a motorist, who cycles occasionally. I wear a bright red jacket when cycling.

I understand black jackets are more fashionable but I am old enough to remember gardaí on point duty wearing white gloves so their hand signals could be seen.

While these have gone out of fashion there are a wide variety of skiing gloves with reflective strips that I believe are fashionable. – Yours, etc,

DAVID DOYLE,

Goatstown, Dublin 14.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/seeing-cyclists-in-the-dark-1.4111194

Thinking about it, assuming that the lights on his car were working, he should be well able to see the cyclist's gesturing despite the cyclist's clothing.

Response in today's IT...

Sir, – Unlike David Doyle (December 11th), I don’t recall gardaí­ wearing white gloves, however I am aware that when driving behind any other road user, I’m responsible for ensuring I stay a safe distance from anything in front of me.

Given the principle that the motorist is the most dangerous road user, not just by overwhelming statistics, but by virtue of the size of their vehicle in any collision, I’m sure Mr Doyle will agree with me that the responsibility is on the motorist to remain attentive enough to notice hand-signals if they are so close that they risk rear-ending a more vulnerable road user. – Yours, etc,

COLIN McGOVERN,

Clontarf, Dublin 3.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/seeing-cyclists-in-the-dark-1.4112412

Seth Brundle

Mark Tighe provides us with another good story (mostly paywalled)...
Cyclists told to pair up after attacks at Grand Canal gate

A cycling campaign group has said it is “shameful” that they have had to advise cyclists to pair up on a stretch of the Grand Canal for safety.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9a46cb16-1c3a-11ea-8556-8cb7c08c0f76

Seth Brundle

Confronting a Driver from Your Bike Is Never Worth It

Confrontations with strangers are a fact of life. Fortunately, most of these are relatively minor, and unless you’re Larry David, you’re unlikely to get into a heated argument with someone over an airplane seat armrest or a poorly-placed shopping cart. Some situations, however, can be considerably more fraught, like when you’re riding a bike and a driver almost kills you.

You don’t have to be a cyclist to almost get killed by a driver; you can be in your own car, on foot, or simply enjoying a donut. However, what’s unique about being on a bicycle is that you’ve got all the physical vulnerability of a pedestrian, yet thanks to the potent combination of a bike and the shot of adrenaline that accompanies nearly dying you’re also often able to catch up with and directly address your would-be assailant. And when someone plays fast and loose with your life, the impulse to do just that can be irresistible.

So should you?
...

Interesting reading on a topic I know I need to stop doing!

AndrewJRenko

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Confronting a Driver from Your Bike Is Never Worth It

Interesting reading on a topic I know I need to stop doing!

I disagree with the article;

As for administering a devastating dressing-down with such surgical precision that the driver immediately questions all the life choices that led them up to this moment, no matter how clever you are, attempts to deliver the mot juste invariably backfire and leave you feeling even angrier.

It's really not that hard to ask someone to, for example, put their phone down. I've done it hundreds of times, and got aggressively hostile reactions on a handful of occasions. Some people do react badly to any 'touching' of the vehicle, but if you can just get the driver to put the window down, you can just have an adult conversation.


Whether it has any positive impact is debatable, but by not doing anything, you can be absolutely certain that you have no positive impact.

eclipsechaser

David doubles down...

David Doyle wrote:

Sir, – I can assure Colin McGovern that there was never any danger of me rear-ending the cyclist as I had left ample space to stop as explained in my letter. If there had been a collision it would have been a side impact.

When cycling I see trucks as far more dangerous than cars and I believe the fatality figures confirm this.

I do agree that all road users, truck-drivers, car drivers, cyclists , and pedestrians must remain attentive to hand signals but would be surprised if the keenest- eyed pedestrian, an even more vulnerable road user, observing the near-miss could have seen the black gloved hand in the black sleeve.

My point is that cyclists, as one of the many road users, can either contribute to their own road safety or not. To me a hand signal with black glove and black sleeve is like a pedestrian walking down a country road in the dark without even an armband. It is easy to blame only the motorist, but that will not save lives. We all have a part to play in road safety. – Yours, etc,

Seth Brundle

eclipsechaser wrote: »

David doubles down...

magicbastarder

ah, 'we all have a part to play'. the road safety equivalent of background noise.

Stark

"Would only have been a side impact. Don't know what everyone is getting so worked up about"

Weepsie

Not journalism, but a film about people taking the journey from the Grapes of Wrath by bike in 30 days

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/12/the-bikes-of-wrath-review-cameron-ford-charlie-turnbull-cycling-documentary

crisco10

In choosing which Letters to publish Irish Times have made their editorial stance fairly clear.

Sir, – David Doyle’s suggestion (December 11th) that when cycling in the dark, cyclists should wear gloves with luminous strips, makes sense.

Not only will drivers be able to see the cyclists hand signals and therefore reduce the possibility of a crash happening, but on occasions when they nearly kill the cyclist they will be able to see the cyclist’s “hand signals” as they drive away. – Yours, etc,

BRIAN CULLEN,

Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.

Sir, – David Doyle was lucky to get a hand-signal from a cyclist in the first place. It is a rarity in itself. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL REDMOND,

Clongriffin, Dublin 13.

Sir, – I think your correspondent Colin McGovern (December 12th) may be missing the point made by the original contributor (David Doyle): signals made in the dark, with a darkly-clad arm, are invisible at anything approaching a safe distance.

I don’t cycle during these dark winter evenings without a reflective jacket with sleeves. Common sense and my own survival demand it. – Yours, etc,

ALAN O’BRIEN,

Dalkey, Co Dublin.

magicbastarder

that may have been all the letters they received though. i vaguely know someone who used to be letters ed in the times. as you can imagine, much of what they are sent is not fit to be reproduced.

AndrewJRenko

eclipsechaser wrote: »

David doubles down...

Isn't it very unusual for the Times to allow a response to a response like this. This is moving into 'discussion board' territory, which is fairly different to their usual approach. You will often see a response to a previous letter, but not a response to a response.

But it's cycling, so...

crisco10

magicbastarder wrote: »

that may have been all the letters they received though. i vaguely know someone who used to be letters ed in the times. as you can imagine, much of what they are sent is not fit to be reproduced.

I sent in a reply...:-) and it was publishable.

buffalo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it very unusual for the Times to allow a response to a response like this. This is moving into 'discussion board' territory, which is fairly different to their usual approach. You will often see a response to a previous letter, but not a response to a response.

But it's cycling, so...

It's not unusual to allow a reply. That said, who knows how many back-and-forths never get published.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it very unusual for the Times to allow a response to a response like this. This is moving into 'discussion board' territory, which is fairly different to their usual approach. You will often see a response to a previous letter, but not a response to a response.

But it's cycling, so...

Twitter by snail mail.

Here is what our dear driver did not mention about his driving. It is not like motorway overtaking. Same as overtaking a car, pedestrian or cyclist, you slow down and assess that it is safe to do so, this would involve slowing the car, indicating, observing, noticing the hand and then not completing the move. Unfortunately, most drivers now drive as if they are on a motorway. The cyclist is not in a separate lane of traffic to the car in his example, it is in the same lane as the car, so the cyclist did not pull across him , they technically indicated to turn right and he almost attempted an overtake while this was happening.

eclipsechaser

crisco10 wrote: »

In choosing which Letters to publish Irish Times have made their editorial stance fairly clear.

In fairness, this one at a glance looks like the author is agreeing with the luminous strips but he's actually making a joke about it. I would take it as saying that it's ridiculous.

Brian Cullen wrote:

Sir, – David Doyle’s suggestion (December 11th) that when cycling in the dark, cyclists should wear gloves with luminous strips, makes sense.

Not only will drivers be able to see the cyclists hand signals and therefore reduce the possibility of a crash happening, but on occasions when they nearly kill the cyclist they will be able to see the cyclist’s “hand signals” as they drive away. – Yours, etc,

magicbastarder

why oh why do people on the radio continually use the pronunciation 'cycalists'?

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

why oh why do people on the radio continually use the pronunciation 'cycalists'?

Think it's just an Irish thing of interposing vowels between consonants and 'l's. Like Scottish people, consonants and 'r's.

tomasrojo

The tone of these people. "Well, either you're a reflective glove wearer or you're a complete moron with no interest in road safety."

tomasrojo

WHERE ARE YOUR REFLECTIVE GLOVES!?!