Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo · 07-09-2017 10:36AM

That seems all the sadder because of the photograph of Benjamin Renard accompanying it.

tomasrojo · 07-09-2017 10:40AM

Grassey wrote: »

8 paragraphs to get to the point where it says "It appears he was struck by a car.."

Yeah, that's quite weird.

Gardaí said that it appeared from initial investigations that a number of pedestrians were struck by a car

This is absurd indirection. There are witnesses to what happened. We know what happened. They don't need to hedge statements. It would be wrong to speculate how it came to happen without careful investigation, but it's beyond any doubt that a number of pedestrians were struck by a car.

plodder · 07-09-2017 11:07AM

Very sad case, but I wouldn't read too much into that aspect. They are just reporting what the Gardai said and they have their own formal way of describing things, that is as much to do with not prejudicing possible court cases. If they are still looking for witnesses it sounds like the investigation is still very active.

tomasrojo · 07-09-2017 11:44AM

This is akin to saying "a plane appears to have crashed into the ground" because you're still investigating an air disaster.

AndrewJRenko · 07-09-2017 12:21PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've been to three of the monthly meetings. got the bus to each one.

I usually get the Luas to the meetings myself, as I don't like parking the bike in the city. I'm a cyclist, and you're a cyclist.

CramCycle wrote: »

They are not all cyclists. All of them maybe cyclists but they are not all cyclists. The point is more obvious when talking face to face.

Really, yes, they are.

Muahahaha wrote: »

So you say you have been to one of their meetings? If so you sound perfectly placed to give us your detailed breakdown of all cyclists lives and how they get around from place to place.

Ive never been to one of their meetings but I am a cyclist, I am also a motorbiker, a motorist and Im a pedestrian too. When I drink Im a bus user and if I feel rich when drunk Im a taxi user as well. In summers Im a sailor too.

Have you ever considered that many people cycle but also use other modes of transport depending on what is most convenient? Or are you one of the "they dont pay road tax Joe, its a disgrace" brigade ? :rolleyes:

I don't do the sailing and very little motorbiking, but I match you on all the others. And I'm a cyclist.

I'm not exclusively a cyclist. I have an open relationship with my bike, and she doesn't get upset if I take the Luas or take the car. I'd guess it's the same for the DCC members. They're all cyclists, and they all use other modes of transport too.

Chips Lovell · 07-09-2017 12:26PM

How many posts is this going to go on for before these wires are uncrossed.

plodder · 07-09-2017 12:36PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is akin to saying "a plane appears to have crashed into the ground" because you're still investigating an air disaster.

I'm just saying from the point of view of the Gardai, when they come across the scene of an RTA, they are usually more cautious about saying what happened, because criminal charges might result from it. Reading between the lines, I'd actually take from that, the opposite meaning from what's being implied here.

Moflojo · 07-09-2017 01:13PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

How many posts is this going to go on for before these wires are uncrossed.

#NotAllCyclists

Kav0777 · 07-09-2017 02:49PM

Moflojo wrote: »

#NotAllCyclists

#CyclistUp

CramCycle · 07-09-2017 03:00PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really, yes, they are.

I am a cyclist, I have nothing to do with them or their campaign. Therefore they do not, as an organisation, represent nor are they ALL cyclists. Alot of my views on road safety in regards safety would flow contrary to theirs. I appreciate what they are doing and attempting to do but I do not agree with it.

Everyone in that organisation may be (and most likely are) cyclists, this does not mean they are all cyclists, but in fact that they all are cyclists.

I hope I have the words the right way round. I know what you are saying, not even sure how this began as I thought everyone understood what you meant, when they didn't I thought my explanation might explain to you why some people disagree with your point.

Every cyclist is not a member or interested in DCC. Therefore DCC is not all cyclists. All DCC members are (I think but could be wrong) cyclists, therefore all of DCC are cyclists but not all cyclists are DCC.

To think I actually hate pedantry, I may even be completely wrong.

mcgratheoin · 07-09-2017 03:47PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Banning hate speech is simply banning free speech; it's a negative for society both short and long term.

A bit black and white (and an American-centric view of free speech) - have a read of this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-europe-can-teach-america-about-free-speech/537186/

tomasrojo · 07-09-2017 03:48PM

plodder wrote: »

I'm just saying from the point of view of the Gardai, when they come across the scene of an RTA, they are usually more cautious about saying what happened, because criminal charges might result from it.

I completely understand the point you're making, and I do know that they are careful to avoid language that imputes blame. But unless the car has motivation and consciousness there is no blame involved in simply stating that a car struck several pedestrians. It could even have rolled down a hilll with no driver in it. It would be different if they said "a speeding motorist struck several blameless pedestrians". Not that I'm saying that's what happened because I don't know; but I do know that a car struck several pedestrians, because there were plenty of witnesses.

Reading between the lines, I'd actually take from that, the opposite meaning from what's being implied here.

Just to be clear, I'm not implying anything about the Gardaí or the Journal or the driver or the pedestrians. I'm just taking issue with the notion, implied by the phrasing, that it will become clearer as the investigation progresses whether the car struck several pedestrians. No it won't, because the Gardaí already know -- to the utmost extent possible within the boundaries of epistemology -- that the car struck several pedestrians.

mcgratheoin · 07-09-2017 03:51PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I may even be completely wrong.

Completely wrong or wrong completely????

AndrewJRenko · 07-09-2017 04:12PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I am a cyclist, I have nothing to do with them or their campaign. Therefore they do not, as an organisation, represent nor are they ALL cyclists. Alot of my views on road safety in regards safety would flow contrary to theirs. I appreciate what they are doing and attempting to do but I do not agree with it.

Everyone in that organisation may be (and most likely are) cyclists, this does not mean they are all cyclists, but in fact that they all are cyclists.

I hope I have the words the right way round. I know what you are saying, not even sure how this began as I thought everyone understood what you meant, when they didn't I thought my explanation might explain to you why some people disagree with your point.

Every cyclist is not a member or interested in DCC. Therefore DCC is not all cyclists. All DCC members are (I think but could be wrong) cyclists, therefore all of DCC are cyclists but not all cyclists are DCC.

To think I actually hate pedantry, I may even be completely wrong.

Thanks for the clarification, but the 'all' thing is a distraction. The original comment was "They are not necessarily even cyclists!" - to which I responded that they are cyclists.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that DCC represents all cyclists, which is a totally different issue. How could you even define 'all cyclists'? If I cycled to school 30 years ago but never since, am I a 'cyclist'?

CramCycle · 07-09-2017 04:23PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, but the 'all' thing is a distraction. The original comment was "They are not necessarily even cyclists!" - to which I responded that they are cyclists.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that DCC represents all cyclists, which is a totally different issue. How could you even define 'all cyclists'? If I cycled to school 30 years ago but never since, am I a 'cyclist'?

I was of course being facetious or flippant, I am not sure which, but I certainly was not being serious.

Arcade_Tryer · 07-09-2017 06:40PM

mcgratheoin wrote: »

A bit black and white (and an American-centric view of free speech) - have a read of this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-europe-can-teach-america-about-free-speech/537186/

The article differentiates between private and state intervention; an extremely significant point. The day the state starts prosecuting people for hate speech as described in other posts, it the same day it gives intellectual cover, and precedence, for potential future Governments to do likewise; except it might not be what you understand hate speech to be at all. That is the point. And it was understood by the founding fathers.

Felexicon · 07-09-2017 07:39PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Everyone in that organisation may be (and most likely are) cyclists, this does not mean they are all cyclists, but in fact that they all are cyclists.

Jesus Wept

CramCycle · 07-09-2017 07:49PM

Felexicon wrote: »

Jesus Wept

Indeed, don't get me started on inappropriate capitals.

Cork for example

Chuchote · 07-09-2017 08:01PM

http://www.modacitylife.com/blog/i-am-not-a-cyclist

Please allow me to get something off my chest: I despise it when someone refers to me as a ‘cyclist’. The phrase ‘avid cyclist’ is even worse. I am no more an avid cyclist than I am an avid walker or avid eater. I am someone who often uses a bicycle, simply because it is the most civilized, efficient, enjoyable, and economical way to get around my city. Though that is dependent on the weather, cargo, timing, and nature of the trip I am taking. As well as possessing a bike, I also own a share in the Modo car co-op, a Compass Card, and many pairs of shoes. The bicycle is merely a means to an end. It is a tool which does not convert me into a cyclist, any more than vacuuming my apartment turns me into a janitor, or brushing my teeth transforms me into a dental hygienist.
(snip)

magicbastarder · 07-09-2017 08:13PM

methinks he doth protest too much. i'm happy to be referred to as a cyclist - in the correct context, even when i'm not on the bike. i've just been out finishing a bowl, and would not claim that you should only call me 'an amateur woodturner' when i am actually turning wood.

Chuchote · 07-09-2017 09:36PM

He's exaggerating a bit, but I don't know that I'd call a kid who scoots to school a scooter, or someone who rides his motorbike to work a motorcyclist, etc.

magicbastarder · 07-09-2017 10:02PM

he writes a blog about cycling (from what i can see), which kinda places him outside the category of 'casual cyclist'.

tomasrojo · 07-09-2017 10:32PM

The Guardian journalist Peter Walker has had a book about cycling as transport published recently, and was interviewed on the Bike Show on Resonance FM. He mentioned that he's often challenged for using the term "cyclist", and says that, while he understands the reasoning behind "person on a bike" and so on, it's just too awkward to keep using circumlocutions and paraphrases.

Arcade_Tryer · 07-09-2017 11:23PM

The term cyclist is useful. A person performing the movement of pushing a bicycle being referred to as a cyclist provides plenty of potentially pertinent details with way less words and effort.

Cyclists, motorists and pedestrians are all human beings at the end of the day however. I think. I hope.

Pinch Flat · 08-09-2017 09:18AM

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/farmers-with-sticks-attack-cyclists-during-road-race-36112213.html

Can we officially say that cycling hatred has reached epidemic levels in the UK?

ThisRegard · 08-09-2017 10:21AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/farmers-with-sticks-attack-cyclists-during-road-race-36112213.html

Can we officially say that cycling hatred has reached epidemic levels in the UK?

I read that story and it had me thinking it wasn't because they hated cyclists, more so a protest (however misguided) against road closures causing issues in accessing their land. Would they have done the same if it was a car rally (well maybe not poking sticks into car wheels), I'd like to think they would.

Chuchote · 08-09-2017 11:29AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I read that story and it had me thinking it wasn't because they hated cyclists, more so a protest (however misguided) against road closures causing issues in accessing their land. Would they have done the same if it was a car rally (well maybe not poking sticks into car wheels), I'd like to think they would.

How long does the cycle go on and how many people are cycling through that it stops them crossing the road for two days???

ThisRegard · 08-09-2017 11:35AM

Chuchote wrote: »

How long does the cycle go on and how many people are cycling through that it stops them crossing the road for two days???

That's something you'll have to ask them, the organisers and the local council. If it's a 1 day event I don't know why they'd close it for more than the day itself.

Kav0777 · 08-09-2017 11:37AM

Chuchote wrote: »

How long does the cycle go on and how many people are cycling through that it stops them crossing the road for two days???

Just had a look on the "Tour o the Borders" sportive website that section of road was estimated to be closed from 6.40am until 11.00am last Sunday Morning.

Also the news report says the Sportive is a "74-mile race" which attracts over 2,000 competitors where as the website says

But remember – it’s not a race!

Edit to say: looks like a really good event to be fair

rubadub · 08-09-2017 11:53AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The original comment was "They are not necessarily even cyclists!" - to which I responded that they are cyclists.

these are the actual comments

rubadub wrote: »

it is "The Dublin Cycling Campaign", other press releases said "cycling campaigners". They are not necessarily even cyclists!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh yes they are.

Which to me meant you were saying it is neccessary to be/identify as a cyclist to be a member of the group. Which is wrong.

Journalism and cycling

Comments