Last Word - Cyclist Debate.

greenspurs

Just listened back to the Podcast of Matt Coopers show.

Conor Faughnan supports motorists shocker!!
More or less said the 8 deaths wasnt as bad as the 70's !! :mad:
"Motorists have Primary responsibility, moderate your behaviour, stop blaming them "
"Cyclists must behave responsibly too, and not play the victim".

Couldnt make out what the guy (John?) on the phone was saying, But i did hear him mention lights and hiviz being legally enforced .... ?!?
And he mentioned Insurance !! ..... :rolleyes:

There will be another segment later in the week about Urban cycling, and insurance.

godtabh

I was involved in an argument with him on twitter. Weekend cyclist my bollox. His logic is way off.

He supports cyclists but from the wrong perspective. A lot of people where not happy with him yesterday

greenspurs

In fairness , i dont see where he said anything 'wrong' ..

Mouthpiece Faughnan was spouting sh1te , and yer man on the phone !? Id say he was lucky he couldnt be really understood due to the dodgy line. Just the usual sound bytes, hi viz, lights, and then INSURANCE !!!!

As an 'out of towner' i was glad to hear cycling being mentioned , not just the Urban cyclist/commuters for a change.
But, do we need another sub-section of Cyclist ?

seamus

I actually thought Conor Faughnan was very well measured on it, definitely was no pro-car slant from him.

He's right, 8 deaths isn't as bad as the 70s. It's bad in recent terms, but 8 deaths cannot be considered to be indicative of a specific trend, and in an historic context doesn't mean that cycling can now be considered dangerous or getting more dangerous.

John McGuirk is just a professional contrarian. Opinions on everything and knowledge about nothing. You bring him on when you can't find enough credible people to play devil's advocate.

Cantona's Collars

I heard the piece,the guy on the phone was off the wall alright.
Conor Faughnan actually spoke sense and even prefaced his comment about cyclists taking responsibility on the road.Basically he said it's up to everyone who uses the roads to take more care.
Also he said motorists should chill out a bit when passing cyclists especially in towns as more than likely the self same cyclists would probably catch up at the next traffic lights,so your hurry to pass is pointless.
The basic gist of the piece was that everyone should have a bit of cop on when out on the roads.

greenspurs

seamus wrote: »

He's right, 8 deaths isn't as bad as the 70s. It's bad in recent terms, but 8 deaths cannot be considered to be indicative of a specific trend, and in an historic context doesn't mean that cycling can now be considered dangerous or getting more dangerous.

.

Is that supposed to be an argument to support the behaviour on the roads?
Are people that cycle supposed to be thankful that they arent "cycling in the 70's" ??
And people that cycle regularly will tell you how bloody dangerous it is !!

terrydel

seamus wrote: »

I actually thought Conor Faughnan was very well measured on it, definitely was no pro-car slant from him.

He's right, 8 deaths isn't as bad as the 70s. It's bad in recent terms, but 8 deaths cannot be considered to be indicative of a specific trend, and in an historic context doesn't mean that cycling can now be considered dangerous or getting more dangerous.

John McGuirk is just a professional contrarian. Opinions on everything and knowledge about nothing. You bring him on when you can't find enough credible people to play devil's advocate.

That mcguirk twat is just a right-wing blowhard, not worthy of a repsonse. Spot on there, hes a conservative, right wing opinion on everything and an udnerstanding of nothing.
Not a big fan of Faughan (his accent alone would drive you nuts!) but he was measured and what he said about the stats is simply a fact in how people should look at the current numbers.
Its tragic whats happening of late but we should look at the entire picture rather than basing everything on a small sample size in terms of period of time.

Cantona's Collars

greenspurs wrote: »

Is that supposed to be an argument to support the behaviour on the roads?
Are people that cycle supposed to be thankful that they arent "cycling in the 70's" ??
And people that cycle regularly will tell you how bloody dangerous it is !!

I think his point was that despite more users of roads these days the fatalities have fallen,however even one is too many.
I doubt many roads in Ireland had hard shoulders in the 70's. I know that before the N11 was upgraded down my way you'd fear for your life in a car on it,let alone even contemplate cycling along it.

godtabh

greenspurs wrote: »

Is that supposed to be an argument to support the behaviour on the roads?
Are people that cycle supposed to be thankful that they arent "cycling in the 70's" ??
And people that cycle regularly will tell you how bloody dangerous it is !!

Safety is about constantly improving. If you look at industry standards if metrics against safety fall it is usually as a result of complacency. This appears to be happening with cycling. You would want to think that since the 70s there has been a vast improvement in general road safety but like road death stats the government has got complacent and deaths have risen again.

seamus

greenspurs wrote: »

Is that supposed to be an argument to support the behaviour on the roads?
Are people that cycle supposed to be thankful that they arent "cycling in the 70's" ??
And people that cycle regularly will tell you how bloody dangerous it is !!

He made the point in response to Matt saying that people were getting off their bikes because they no longer felt safe.

Faughnan's response was that in an overall context cycling is still incredibly safe and 8 deaths in the first half of a year doesn't prove otherwise. Which is completely correct.

Here you had the representative of a motoring association telling people to stay on their bikes and encouraging more people to get on their bikes.

If you can't see that as a major step forward in the discussion, I fear you're too far embedded in your adversarial view.

I'm a person that cycles regularly. It's not dangerous. Not by a long shot.

godtabh

seamus wrote: »

I'm a person that cycles regularly. It's not dangerous. Not by a long shot.

Not sure I 100% agree with this. Cycling just like anything you do can be dangerous. People with experience can mitigate these risks but there is always the risk. Some risks can lead to sever consequences i.e. cycling along the M50. 99.99% of the cycling population wont do this but some do take the risk and some have been killed as a result.

Chuchote

There's no comparison between the roads, and the vehicles, today and in the 1970s.

Back then it was normal to see battered doors held onto cars with string; one working headlight and no back lights; bumpers hanging off, and 40-year-old cars still on the go. Now it's uncommon enough that I really noticed a car that had a big battered scrawb along the side yesterday - it was unusual.

And the roads - though they've degenerated since the crash - are way, way better than they were there.

The driving is better than it was then, though worse than a few years ago, because people are so pressured and angry and me-me-me.

But if I'm killed on the road, I swear I'll haunt anyone - and double-haunt any public spokesperson - who says that my death is "less than".

tomasrojo

I've said this before in the "Is it still worth it?" thread, but I don't personally find cycling all that dangerous, and the statistics superficially bear that out (fatalities have fallen very steeply since the late 80s, and haven't risen that sharply since 2008, despite a large increase in numbers cycling).

However, it's important to keep in mind that the number of children cycling to school and to visit friends is now much lower than before, and the number of older cyclists is lower too. Ditto pedestrians. Some amount of the lower fatalities is down to people not bleeding to death at the side of the road anymore, because of better medical treatement and faster response times.

Nevertheless, even with those caveats, cycling is a reasonably safe activity, and it's so good for you (and your wallet) that I think it's easily worth continuing with, albeit if you can spare the time it's definitely worth agitating for societal changes that make it less stressful, and, yes, safer.

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

Back then it was normal to see battered doors held onto cars with string; one working headlight and no back lights; bumpers hanging off, and 40-year-old cars still on the go. Now it's uncommon enough that I really noticed a car that had a big battered scrawb along the side yesterday - it was unusual.

don't forget no wing mirror on the passenger side :pac:

tomasrojo

Incidentally, there's always a problem with discussing statistics of tragedies in that it sounds heartless to reduce them to numbers and percentages. Nevertheless, that's the approach taken for just about every phenomenon of modern life. The approach is sound within its limitations, but you have o keep in mind that many people don't find numbers and trends as compelling as vivid and/or horrific stories, or indeed personal experience of tragedy.

terrydel

Biggest factor for me is the adversarial nature of the debate, that for me is hugely influenced by our click and reaction-hungry media. There is a them vs us that has been created, more than anything I give Faughan credit for acknowledging that. I am convinced that if the media simply shut up about it, it would save lives and bring about an improvement in the attitudes of both sides towards eachother.

tomasrojo

People love a good hate swarm though, provided that it's not their "type" that's the target. Good for ratings too.

Thud

godtabh wrote: »

Not sure I 100% agree with this. Cycling just like anything you do can be dangerous. People with experience can mitigate these risks but there is always the risk. Some risks can lead to sever consequences i.e. cycling along the M50. 99.99% of the cycling population wont do this but some do take the risk and some have been killed as a result.

I've tried a large range of sport/exercise/leisure activities in my time but cycling is the only one where you hear of people dying every couple of weeks, I know there's an overlap between sport and commute riders but several of the recent deaths were sport/leisure cyclists. If these numbers were occurring in any other sport what would the reaction be?

tomasrojo

They're not all sports death. They're transport-related deaths too (more so in fact). So the more obvious comparison is with pedestrians, rather than, say, rugby players (who don't get killed all that often, but have worse serious injury acquisition rates, I seem to recall).

(It's important to remember the concept of "rate" means that you take into account how many people travel by bike, or do it as a sport, and how often they do it. So you have metrics such as deaths per 100 million km, or hours, or whatever. Driving sounds more dangerous than playing rugby if you base it on how often you hear about people dying while doing it.)

godtabh

Thud wrote: »

I've tried a large range of sport/exercise/leisure activities in my time but cycling is the only one where you hear of people dying every couple of weeks, I know there's an overlap between sport and commute riders but several of the recent deaths were sport/leisure cyclists. If these numbers were occurring in any other sport what would the reaction be?

Ì'm not making a direct comparison to other sports but if you take rugby for example there is a risk of death/paralysis. There are a lot of mitigation measures put in place to prevent this i.e. rules/refs. Even soccer is doing something about heading balls (some leagues dont allow kids to head the ball!)

Thud

tomasrojo wrote: »

They're not all sports death. They're transport-related deaths too (more so in fact). So the more obvious comparison is with pedestrians, rather than, say, rugby players (who don't get killed all that often, but have worse serious injury acquisition rates, I seem to recall).

(It's important to remember the concept of "rate" means that you take into account how many people travel by bike, or do it as a sport, and how often they do it. So you have metrics such as deaths per 100 million km, or hours, or whatever. Driving sounds more dangerous than playing rugby if you base it on how often you hear about people dying while doing it.)

that's why I added:
" I know there's an overlap between sport and commute riders but several of the recent deaths were sport/leisure cyclists. "

at least 4 were leisure/sport cyclists:

From sticky bottle:
Awful 2017 continues on roads

The latest fatality comes just four days after a woman in her 40s was killed near Killarney, Co Kerry, on a group ride. Indeed, her burial was taking place today.
On April 30th a male cyclist injured in a collission in Co Cork nine days earlier died from his injuries in hospital.
The deceased was in collission with a car while cycling in Skibbereen and was in his 60s.
On Monday, March 27th, a woman in her 30s was killed while cycling in south Dublin. She was hit by a truck at the junction of Templeville Road-Whitehall Road, Dublin 6W.
Just 24 hours earlier, a man in his 50s was killed when in collission with a campervan while cycling in Bunratty, Co Clare.
One Friday, March 24th, a cyclist in his 40s was killed. He was in collision with a car on Patrick’s Street, Dublin 8, just before 1am.
On Sunday March 12th, another cyclist in his 40s was killed. He was in collision with a car on Conyngham Road near Dublin’s Phoenix Park.
On February 12th Tonya McEvoy was killed in Co Kildare. She was in collision with a car while she was out training.
She was with a training group from Orwell Wheelers at the time.

terrydel

Huge number of factors at play and like it or not, cyclists are not blameless. Theres an increased number of people cycling who are not experienced or very competent. They may be using clipless pedals and quite frankly these are more a hinderance than a help to many.
There is a huge personal responsibility on everyone to take care of themselves and improve any aspect that might make them safer.
That doesnt for one minute absolve motorists of their responsibilities and a significant number are now a disgrace in their treatment of cyclists and I personally dont know how they sleep and night with the risks they take.

tomasrojo

Thud wrote: »

that's why I added:
" I know there's an overlap between sport and commute riders but several of the recent deaths were sport/leisure cyclists. "

at least 4 were leisure/sport cyclists:

Yeah, fair enough (though there's not much in the text you include to show how many were leisure/sport? Unless you assume that rural cycling is typically sport/leisure), and sport cycling probably should be treated differently from transport-related cycling. Problem is, you're dealing with an even smaller number set, and it's even harder to draw any conclusions.

seamus

I don't believe that experience and competence are actually that big a deal when it comes to safety in a traffic aspect.

The main risk point that cyclists are guilty of is poor roadcraft. Which is pretty much the same risk point for all road users.

This is absolute opinion, but I expect that if you were to audit cyclist deaths you would find them heavily weighted towards those who have been cycling between 6 months and 3 years. That is, comfortable and confident on the road, but often complacently so.

Chuchote

seamus wrote: »

This is absolute opinion, but I expect that if you were to audit cyclist deaths you would find them heavily weighted towards those who have been cycling between 6 months and 3 years. That is, comfortable and confident on the road, but often complacently so.

Audited just three posts above ^^

Thud

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, fair enough (though there's not much in the text you include to show how many were leisure/sport? Unless you assume that rural cycling is typically sport/leisure), and sport cycling probably should be treated differently from transport-related cycling. Problem is, you're dealing with an even smaller number set, and it's even harder to draw any conclusions.

Out of respect for the victims I didn't want to name and categorize them but there more detail in the links so you can deduct which were leisure vs commuter in most cases.

greenspurs

and another thread evolves into the same argument/debate/stats/commuter/sports ....

Anyone mention 'cycling in dublin' yet ??

Beasty

greenspurs wrote: »

and another thread evolves into the same argument/debate/stats/commuter/sports ....

Anyone mention 'cycling in dublin' yet ??

You started the thread. Please do not complain in-thread if you have an issue with the way it has evolved. Use the report post function if you feel strongly that the thread has gone off topic

Any questions, please PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

Thanks

Trojan

I'm generally disgusted with the way radio (and print and online) media cover cycling. They're usually clearly coming from a pro-motorist position - i.e. 95% of "Drive Time" listeners - and often actively encourage dangerous anti-cyclist thinking.

However, this piece was a pleasant surprise. Sure, we had the hi-vis idiot dialling in with the usual BS, but both the host and the AA spokesperson were well balanced and considered in their statements.

greenspurs

Its back on The Last Word this evening.
Talking about Urban cyclists ....

Chuchote

greenspurs wrote: »

Its back on The Last Word this evening.
Talking about Urban cyclists ....

Let's hope they stop talking about cyclists/drivers and start talking about people - some of whom ride bicycles and others drive cars - and some who do both - and how they can be neighbourly and caring to each other.

greenspurs

Chuchote wrote: »

Let's hope they stop talking about cyclists/drivers and start talking about people - some of whom ride bicycles and others drive cars - and some who do both - and how they can be neighbourly and caring to each other.

Yes,
We have Motorists V Cyclists, and now Urban Cyclists..
Id say Mountain bikers feel left out!! :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

Just listened to the Podcast. As discussions about cycling go, I thought it was very balanced. The numpty on the phone came across as totally ignorant of cycling and cyclists in general. I mean when he sees a cyclist his first thought is fear! Wtf?

Lemming

greenspurs wrote: »

Id say Mountain bikers feel left out!!

No thanks; "we" get plenty of hoof-w@nking bungle cvnts tying barb wire across trails at neck-height, punji stake traps and logs after jumps or drops. Included in the b0lloxology of irattional motorist hate we do not need.

And we still get to deal with all the irattional road-hate because we have to cycle on roads to get to the trails at some point ... Just can't win.


Edit: just to be clear, trail sabotage, whilst a danger is a bit of a bogey man for most mountain-bikers. The worst that I have personally encountered is logs dragged across trails, but I have friends who have been pulled off their bikes by wire across trails.

Annie get your Run

Chuchote wrote: »

Let's hope they stop talking about cyclists/drivers and start talking about people - some of whom ride bicycles and others drive cars - and some who do both - and how they can be neighbourly and caring to each other.

In fairness to Conor Faughnan he did say this, I'm not a fan of his normally but I actually thought he spoke very well and he wasn't all 'the car is king' as I thought he might be. Someone mentioned the person on the bike is your brother, sister, mother etc.

I think we're all agreed the gobs*ite on the phone was, well, a gobs*ite!

I heard it mentioned several times by the others about giving 1.5m space.

Unfortunately none of the drivers on my commute seem to listen to the Matt Cooper show :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

I also agree that "Club Cyclists" have an obligation to act appropriately while out cycling.

Last week while climbing the Wicklow gap, I came across a very well known south Dublin Cycling club. The whole group had stopped and were urinating by the side of the road!! There was about 10 of them!

i was tempted to take a photo and send it along with a strong email to the club secretary!

jon1981

07Lapierre wrote: »

I also agree that "Club Cyclists" have an obligation to act appropriately will out cycling.

Last week while climbing the Wicklow gap, I came across a very well known south Dublin Cycling club. The whole group had stopped and were urinating by the side of the road!! There about 10 of them!

i was tempted to take a photo and send it along with a strong email to the club secretary!

You should have, that's not on. No harm sending them an email anyway, if they are a decent club they'll accept the criticism and let the members know to be more respectful.

Not hard to find a ditch or tree to hide behind in Wicklow!!

07Lapierre

My other pet hate is riders in races throwing gel wrappers!

I consider littering a bigger offence than RL jumping! I Hate litter louts!

Trekker09

07Lapierre wrote: »

My other pet hate is riders in races throwing gel wrappers!

I consider littering a bigger offence than RL jumping! I Hate litter louts!

Most of the littering I see out on the bike is fast food/forecourt wrappers thrown from vehicles.

For me, cycling on country roads 99% of the time, it'a a given that every ride is guaranteed to involve a 'near miss' with a passing vehicle, usually overtaking me on a bad bend. 99% of drivers are courteous, patient and safe, but that still leaves the 1% (I'm being conservative here) that just don't give a sh1te!!

terrydel

07Lapierre wrote: »

Just listened to the Podcast. As discussions about cycling go, I thought it was very balanced. The numpty on the phone came across as totally ignorant of cycling and cyclists in general. I mean when he sees a cyclist his first thought is fear! Wtf?

If you're not aware of John McGuirk, let it remian so. Hes a professional oxygen thief.

Tenzor07

greenspurs wrote: »

Id say Mountain bikers feel left out!! :rolleyes:

Never! Those people who complain about road cycling, park the car up the side of the hill, get out to walk and then complain about the bicyclists on the mountains... can't win! :rolleyes:

Tenzor07

07Lapierre wrote: »

Last week while climbing the Wicklow gap, I came across a very well known south Dublin Cycling club. The whole group had stopped and were urinating by the side of the road!! There about 10 of them!

i was tempted to take a photo and send it along with a strong email to the club secretary!

Perhaps they were trying to collectively extinguish a gorse fire and save the natural environment?

Besides I think there's laws against photographing people whilst urinating?

07Lapierre

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Perhaps they were trying to collectively extinguish a gorse fire and save the natural environment?

Besides I think there's laws against photographing people whilst urinating?

Are you takin the piss? :P

magicbastarder

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Besides I think there's laws against photographing people whilst urinating?

kinda - if you're urinating while taking a photo of a person, you *could* be done for indecency.

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

kinda - if you're urinating while taking a photo of a person, you *could* be done for indecency.

Whilst *they are

ThisRegard

Niall Ring, god help us all, was todays contrarian.

monument

seamus wrote: »

He made the point in response to Matt saying that people were getting off their bikes because they no longer felt safe.

Faughnan's response was that in an overall context cycling is still incredibly safe and 8 deaths in the first half of a year doesn't prove otherwise. Which is completely correct.

Here you had the representative of a motoring association telling people to stay on their bikes and encouraging more people to get on their bikes.

If you can't see that as a major step forward in the discussion, I fear you're too far embedded in your adversarial view.

I'm a person that cycles regularly. It's not dangerous. Not by a long shot.

Conor Faughnan is spin master who plays the long game.

He always says reasonable things, and sometimes he says reasonable things while also saying daft things or arguing against safety measures or harmless things like bicycle Hangers.

You can't see that because he's doing a good job.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

Niall Ring, god help us all, was todays contrarian.

Poor little love really hates bicycles.

Moflojo

Cllr Ring bemoaning the "purge of private motorists" from the city centre. His own uncle, a man in his eighties, was knocked down while walking home from his local pub last month.

Chuchote

Moflojo wrote: »

Cllr Ring bemoaning the "purge of private motorists" from the city centre. His own uncle, a man in his eighties, was knocked down while walking home from his local pub last month.

Separated, protected cycleways ftw.

Poor old man, was he knocked down by a bike or a car?

Rezident

seamus wrote: »

He made the point in response to Matt saying that people were getting off their bikes because they no longer felt safe.

Faughnan's response was that in an overall context cycling is still incredibly safe and 8 deaths in the first half of a year doesn't prove otherwise. Which is completely correct.

Here you had the representative of a motoring association telling people to stay on their bikes and encouraging more people to get on their bikes.

If you can't see that as a major step forward in the discussion, I fear you're too far embedded in your adversarial view.

I'm a person that cycles regularly. It's not dangerous. Not by a long shot.

Agree with a lot of what you said but I cycle every day and cycling in Dublin certainly is dangerous - even if you never make a mistake. There is a percentage of Irish drivers (not all dubs it was a KY reg that nearly killed me recently) that will risk hitting a cyclist (or not even see them) just to get there 5 seconds quicker. And to save 10 seconds they will definitely risk your life, sure they're in a car, they're grand.

And I'm talking about cycling straight, in the cycle lane, not even including taking turns. Cars regularly accelerate past cyclists and then cut them off risking you smashing into the back of them. I see it every week. I confidently predict it will happen at Foxrock Church again, it is only a matter of time.

Because they won't even wait 5 seconds for you - that's what your life is worth to them.

8 deaths in half a year is too many for me.