Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo

In fact you are probably more at risk as a pedestrian or cyclist during the brighter, and drier days of summertime than you are in winter.

I assume they based this on a larger number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in the summer. Who knows. If they did, total numbers is no way to measure risk, as there are more cyclists and pedestrians active during the summer than during the winter.

Again, in broad daylight, you are, in my books, adequately visible, no matter what you're wearing. If someone hits you with a car, it's because they're not looking properly, and hiviz doesn't make people look properly.

But this is in danger of stealing the Hiviz Megathread's thunder.

magicbastarder

check_six wrote: »

€60k seems to be the go to value for turned down claims nowadays. There was a lad who fell off his ladder looking for the same amount turned down yesterday.

did i read that's the maximum you can get in court without going to the high court? something along those lines anyway.

Weepsie

tomasrojo wrote: »

I assume they based this on a larger number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in the summer. Who knows. If they did, total numbers is no way to measure risk, as there are more cyclists and pedestrians active during the summer than during the winter.

Again, in broad daylight, you are, in my books, adequately visible, no matter what you're wearing. If someone hits you with a car, it's because they're not looking properly, and hiviz doesn't make people look properly.

But this is in danger of stealing the Hiviz Megathread's thunder.

Higher numbers of cyclists during those periods might also mean fewer drivers. Also summer commutting traffic is generally a lot nicer what with schools closed and unis etc less busy.

Seems the expert is actually saying there are a greater number of cyclists to hit with your motorvehicle, but don't worry as we're warning them to wear helmets, hiviz and remove headphones. Carry on

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

a few weird things about this article; do they mean a contra-flow cycle lane on a roundabout? and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-who-cycled-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60-000-damages-case-1.3029070

plus, he wasn't wearing a helmet.

the whole thing is bizarre. given that it names the solicitor for the driver but not the cyclist, does that imply that he represented himself?! because i can't imagine any solicitor being able to keep a straight face long enough to take this case to court.

check_six

blackwhite wrote: »

If the handbrake was engaged - as the article states - then it doesn't sound like the car could have been "nudging" out.

From google maps it looks like a very poor design on the cycle lanes - but none of that excuses cycling into the side of a stopped vehicle - and especially doesn't excuse looking for €60k to compensate the teenager's own stupid actions.

The nose of the car poking out from a sideroad is hypothetical and just for the purposes of visualising a similar situation. The way I was imagining it was a bit like the kind of driving I see regularly on the likes of Mount St.. You're cycling along the road when a car emerges from a side road and plants it's nose in front of your path. The driver may even have applied the handbrake upon stopping, but you are still going to have to swerve or jam on the brakes to avoid a collision, and the car shouldn't be there.

In this case, the terrible cycle path design is going to put the cyclist on a collision course with anyone approaching to enter the roundabout anyway. The design takes priority away from the cyclist and puts them in harms way leading to stuff like this. This is why cycle lanes should be viewed with high suspicion until you've figured out if they are going put you in danger or not. I'm guessing the teenager's nose for hazards is stereotypically weak, and these factors led to the crash.

With the bad cycle lane design, the motorist is not going to be able to even realise that there is a bi-directional cycle-lane just *before* the bit of road he is going to stop on and will treat it as a regular roundabout and not even think of conceding priority to the cyclist.

So, bad road design and daft young fella would add up to a crash.

Looking for 60k is a joke alright.

The engineers should take another look at the design here. Will they not bother now because the case was dismissed?

Fian

blackwhite wrote: »

If the handbrake was engaged - as the article states - then it doesn't sound like the car could have been "nudging" out.

From google maps it looks like a very poor design on the cycle lanes - but none of that excuses cycling into the side of a stopped vehicle - and especially doesn't excuse looking for €60k to compensate the teenager's own stupid actions.

The "60k" damages is misleading, sort of clickbait actually it irritates me that newspapers esp indo constantly refer to it.

The limit of damages for personal injury in the Circuit Court is €60,000. When you issue court proceedings for personal issues you always claim €60,000 - in every single personal injuries action brought in the circuit court this is the claim. this does not mean that the plaintiff would not have happily settled for a much smaller sum had it been offered.

It does imply he was claiming more than €15,000 damages, which is the district court limit.

ThisRegard

check_six wrote: »

The way I was imagining it was a bit like the kind of driving I see regularly on the likes of Mount St.

I visited offices regularly on Mount Street and the exits for the carparks and various lanes were a pain in the ass leaving by car. You couldn't see anything that was coming close to the kerb due to fencing, bus stops etc until you were pretty much out onto Mount Street itself. If there were buses on the way down the bus lane and using the stops it was even worse as you didn't have a clear view up the road.

Chuchote

Interesting piece comparing cost of cycleways with cost of roadways; US figures, but food for thought:

https://www.planetizen.com/node/66359?platform=hootsuite

In 2011 (the latest data available) U.S. governments spent $206 billion on roads and motorists drove 2,946 billion miles, so roadway costs averaged about 7.0¢ per mile. During that same year motorists paid $127 billion in road user fees, which averages 4.3¢ per mile – the remaining 2.7¢ spent on roads is from general taxes. A typical motorist who drives 12,000 annual miles imposes $840 in roadway costs, pays $516 in roadway user fees and $224 in general taxes spent on roadways.

Non-drivers tend to travel less, people who rely primarily on bicycling for transportation typically ride 3 to 6 miles per day or 1,000 to 2,000 annually. If their costs are an order of magnitude smaller than automobile travel (0.7¢ per mile), a typical cyclist imposes $7 to $14 in roadway costs, and pays $224 in general taxes toward roadways, a significant overpayment.

magicbastarder

so roadway costs averaged about 7.0¢ per mile

i would bet that is more than it would cost in petrol to drive a mile (caveat - at american petrol prices, but with european fuel efficiency).

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would bet that is more than it would cost in petrol to drive a mile (caveat - at american petrol prices, but with european fuel efficiency).

I think 'roadway costs' isn't petrol - that's the drivers' own business - but the maintenance of the roads. Which reminds me, must send in the photos of the new potholes in a local road to the council's mending section at http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-road-maintenance-and-street-repair/repair-road-or-footpath

Tenzor07

Ben Hur: cycling-around-dublin-is-just-like-travelling-along-a-benhur-chariot-track-

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Interesting piece comparing cost of cycleways with cost of roadways; US figures, but food for thought:

https://www.planetizen.com/node/66359?platform=hootsuite

There've been quite a few studies now that show that private motor transport users are significantly subsidised, and cyclists are not. I think that's true even before you start trying to take into account negative externalities (climate change, respiratory damage, fatalities, injuries).

It's not the only example of being rewarded for being the "right sort" of person (or maybe just constituting a large bloc among voters). Mortgage interest relief schemes are generally pretty unfair, but they're very popular with voters.

check_six

ThisRegard wrote: »

I visited offices regularly on Mount Street and the exits for the carparks and various lanes were a pain in the ass leaving by car. You couldn't see anything that was coming close to the kerb due to fencing, bus stops etc until you were pretty much out onto Mount Street itself. If there were buses on the way down the bus lane and using the stops it was even worse as you didn't have a clear view up the road.

The laneways and carparks are one thing, but the major danger is the big side road (Grattan Street, I think). It is very wide at the Mount St end and cars trying to access Mount St can attempt to do so two at a time. The car trying to turn right (towards town) sticks its nose out past the bike lane, and the car turning left just scoots up the inside and pulls out on to Mount St. This manoeuver seems to be inspired by the fact they *cannot* see what's coming, which is slightly perverse.

There's a lot of manholes, assorted metal hatches, and potholes in Mount St anyway, so it makes for a bit of an obstacle course. My preferred route is to draft another bigger vehicle because they aren't going to have someone swerve out in front of them like they would someone on a bike.

mr spuckler

*generalisation / anecdotal story alert

god help any american who relies on cycling as their primary mode of transportation. i work with americans and every one that hears i cycle to work expresses how they could not imagine doing the same in the states and neither would they let their kids out on most roads on bikes. according to them for the most part there's very little cycling infrastructure and limited to no tolerance for cyclists on the roads.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

There've been quite a few studies now that show that private motor transport users are significantly subsidised

I PAY ROAD TAX

tomasrojo

mr spuckler wrote: »

*generalisation / anecdotal story alert

god help any american who relies on cycling as their primary mode of transportation. i work with americans and every one that hears i cycle to work expresses how they could not imagine doing the same in the states and neither would they let their kids out on most roads on bikes. according to them for the most part there's very little cycling infrastructure and limited to no tolerance for cyclists on the roads.

I was talking to an American family who live in Dublin and who previously lived in Washington DC and in Vienna. They liked the way people in Vienna and Dublin were able to walk and cycle so much, compared to DC. (Vienna was significantly better than Dublin, but you'd expect that.)

check_six

mr spuckler wrote: »

*generalisation / anecdotal story alert

god help any american who relies on cycling as their primary mode of transportation. i work with americans and every one that hears i cycle to work expresses how they could not imagine doing the same in the states and neither would they let their kids out on most roads on bikes. according to them for the most part there's very little cycling infrastructure and limited to no tolerance for cyclists on the roads.

Is that not the same for anyone more local you inform that you cycle? Always many worried faces if you mention that you cycle. Inevitably you spot someone surreptitiously looking up the phone number for mental services (*may not be entirely connected to cycling declaration*).

I do worry about people in Australia though, specifically NSW.

tomasrojo

I did know people who cycled in Southern California, including LA. I didn't do it myself, to my regret now, but I have heard that it's not actually that bad. Downtown LA is actually pretty compact.

magicbastarder

san fran seems to have a lot of cyclists.

HivemindXX

Chuchote wrote: »

Interesting piece comparing cost of cycleways with cost of roadways; US figures, but food for thought:

https://www.planetizen.com/node/66359?platform=hootsuite

Yet most motorists seem to assume that they are paying for everyone else. They pay for those damn cyclists. They prop up the health service and the social welfare. They pay for everything and people (meaning non-motorists of course) need to learn to pay them the respect they deserve!

People also read some nonsense in a newspaper about how a 2km cycle lane is costing €10M and the idea that cycle lanes are outrageously expensive will never be dislodged from their head. Never mind the fact that the 'news' paper downplayed the fact that the costs they quoted included adding a new water main and resurfacing the entire road or included maintenance costs for the next 20 years to make the number look bigger.

On the other hand when people think about how much roads cost they remember some very low quote for a big road project and the idea that roads are good value becomes an undeniable truth.

This is helped by the idea that roads are useful and cycle lanes are not, so no amount of money is good value for a cycle lane. S2S cycle way? Waste of money. We could use that money (plus a bunch more money from somewhere) to widen the M50 or build a motorway between Cork and Limerick. You know, something useful.

Eponymous

My reading of Hivemind's post wasn't that it (the M20) is not useful but that a motorist wouldn't see S2S as being such and that only projects such as M20 or M50 widening are worthy.

ThisRegard

tomasrojo wrote: »

I did know people who cycled in Southern California, including LA. I didn't do it myself, to my regret now, but I have heard that it's not actually that bad. Downtown LA is actually pretty compact.

Are you hipster enough? I never cycled there myself, I bought into the car culture when living there, but there was no shortage of cyclists on low riders around Santa Monica and the Venice Beach area, but I rarely saw them elsewhere, including the burbs. Once you got down the Pacific Coast Highway it was cycling heaven with the various canyons, mountains and state parks outside of Santa Monica.

JMcL

tomasrojo wrote: »

I did know people who cycled in Southern California, including LA. I didn't do it myself, to my regret now, but I have heard that it's not actually that bad. Downtown LA is actually pretty compact.

I seem to recall from my time living near LA in the early 90s, cycling was actually permitted on the 101 freeway between Thousand Oaks and the San Fernando valley. It was a really savage long hill, and the alternative was a 50 mile detour or somesuch. Never attempted it myself - looked way too much like a good way to a ticket home in the Aer Lingus cargo hold.

I knew a fair few people that biked there back in the day, mountain biking mostly rather than roadies. In the suburbs it was a weird culture though - completely car centric. I remember we had the temerity to actually walk down to the local mall, and having cars slow down and honk their horns at us (yes - there was a footpath). If mobiles had existed we'd probably have had the cops called.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I did know people who cycled in Southern California, including LA. I didn't do it myself, to my regret now, but I have heard that it's not actually that bad. Downtown LA is actually pretty compact.

Its funny, I never felt afraid cycling in the US, both on the west coast and in Kansas. In general, outside of rush hour, i found drivers obnoxiously courteous, in rural Kansas, they used to give about 4m or me when overtaking walkers or cyclists and would slow to a crawl if there was oncoming traffic, even if there was plenty of space (ie more than the 1.5M passing distance), they would do it with peopl ein the hard shoulder as well.

blackwhite

Other than some parts of CA, I always got the impression that cycling was seen exclusively as a leisure/fitness activity in the US.

Car ownership is so cheap there, and cities have been designed in such car-centric fashion, that in many cities it's seen as a sign of poverty not to be driving when you want to go somewhere.

In many places even taking the bus was seen as "for poor people", with train or subway the only acceptable public transport.

CramCycle

I always take the lane there, the bike lane there is horrendous.

Corca Baiscinn

Deedsie wrote: »

Ha, I emailed them the other day too... as I was cycling home today that section of cycling lane between Nutley land and Nutley Park has been marked with a continuous white line separating it from the bus lane. It does nothing about the bumps and potholes but it's an improvement finally. And hopefully it will stop cars parking on the cycle lane.

Wow Deedsie, With that rapid response you have a new career as an email writer in store! Shall we tell you where else needs improving! Maybe the next budget will come up with the pothole fixing fund!

tomasrojo

JMcL wrote: »

I knew a fair few people that biked there back in the day, mountain biking mostly rather than roadies. In the suburbs it was a weird culture though - completely car centric. I remember we had the temerity to actually walk down to the local mall, and having cars slow down and honk their horns at us (yes - there was a footpath). If mobiles had existed we'd probably have had the cops called.

I walked everywhere, while occasionally getting the bus, and the odd time I hired or borrowed a car. It required some very circuitous routes sometimes. There were quite a few roads with no sidewalks.

I used to start work in UC Irvine at 6am. I passed a Family Wellness Center (think it was called that; a gym, essentially), and through the windows I could see all the people who'd got up really early to drive to the gym and pretend to walk and run on exercise machines. I'm not going to belabour the paradox in all this.

Pinch Flat

Piece on prime town now, rte1 about traffic on Dublin

"The first thing you notice about cycling in dublin is just how dangerous it is"....., followed by the journalist in his car on bachelors walk wondering how he'll drive to his office door....

ThisRegard

And probably the only Dublin Bike user to bring a helmet with them.