Journalism and cycling

magicbastarder · 12-05-2018 10:29AM

also, from one of the articles:

It is difficult to determine persistent factors in these deaths, says RSA communications manager Brian Farrell.

“Up to now we’ve been relying on what’s called the CT68 form, the initial report from the Garda at the scene, but it doesn’t give you the findings of the full investigation into the crash.”

That will change later this year with the publication of the RSA’s first in-depth report on pedestrian and cyclist fatal crashes. This report will focus on all fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists from 2008 to 2012, and will include results of forensic investigations, toxicology reports, road conditions, weather, and the behaviour of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.

INCOMING!

magicbastarder · 12-05-2018 10:33AM

lastly, the main photo on the front of the weekend print edition is of sam bennett.

Rechuchote · 12-05-2018 10:55AM

All the Times pieces (some subscriber-only, so if you can buy the paper, do)

Editorial:
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-cycling-infrastructure-time-to-get-moving-1.3492024

Graphs of cycling deaths and injuries across Ireland in 2017
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/irish-cycling-accidents-a-graphical-guide-1.3492008

Grim piece on cycling fatalities (with moving video on web version):
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-cycling-fatalities-never-cycle-in-ireland-1.3488223

How to reduce cycling deaths and accidents crashes in Ireland (my correction)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/how-to-reduce-cycling-deaths-and-accidents-in-ireland-1.3484062

The widow of Eamon Maher talks about trying to rebuild her life after he was killed in a hit-and-run
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hit-and-run-rebuilding-a-life-after-cyclist-husband-s-death-1.3462488

mr spuckler · 12-05-2018 03:01PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, from one of the articles:

INCOMING!

that one caught me by surprise too!

magicbastarder · 12-05-2018 05:43PM

i just expect that report will be spun six ways to sideways by each side. i wonder why it ends at 2012 - is that the most recent year in which all the judicial and investigative dust has settled on all fatalities?

Corca Baiscinn · 12-05-2018 05:48PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

“Never cycle in Ireland”

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-cycling-fatalities-never-cycle-in-ireland-1.3488223?mode=amp

Story is repeated on the IT Facebook page. Comments so far put the blame on the cyclists. A car dominated country with a very low sense of personal responsibility, dangerous mix.

You've spoiled my day! Was pleased to see the extensive coverage, positive editorial, graphics, info re better data coming finally, quotes from representative of cyclist.ie/dub Cycling Campaign, reference to speed and mpd, so nothing negative (except headline mb alluded to) and now you've gone and mentioned facebook! Think Ill pass and stay in my bubble

Btw did anyone find reporting re court outcomes by Sorcha Pollak odd? 1st case (Tonya McEvoy) on-going so appropriate no mention, 2nd case (Eugene Maher) reports conviction and sentence, 3rd case, 2012 (Petra Riedel), reports court case and daughter not blaming driver but doesn't say whether he was acquitted or convicted.
Also forgveness by daughter is praise-worthy but her statement that it was the fault of the road, while understandble from someone used to German cycle infrastructure, needs to be challenged as it omits the fact that drivers are supposed to drive at a speed where they can stop if needs be. I agree some road design is very poor but worry about drivers being given the opportunty to use bad road design as an excuse for poor driver behaviour.

magicbastarder · 12-05-2018 05:51PM

i was surprised the IT didn't mention the driver has been charged in the tonya mcevoy case; this was covered in the press already.

Pinch Flat · 14-05-2018 09:48AM

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-new-commuter-hour-peak-times-increase-with-record-traffic-volumes-36903431.html
No mention of the humble bicycle in this piece. But wait, they're widening the M7 at Naas, so that'll sort it....

CramCycle · 14-05-2018 11:06AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

just heard an ad on the radio for tomorrow's irish times: "we meet people who have lost family members while cycling; the healthy pasttime which is fraught with danger'.

A typical headline of the red tops, I really pity the print industry of late as it is all LCD stuff.

“It was a surreal moment but it really helped me. He didn’t do it on purpose, it was the road’s fault.”

Nothing is the roads fault in my opinion, it can contribute but the simple fact of the matter is, it was a bend and the driver was goignt o fast to deal with the unexpected. I have friends and family down the country who look it me like I am simple when I say such things. "What do you expect? For us to drive at 30kmph?!?" Yes, yes I do, if you can't see the road ahead then you don't go any faster than would allow you to stop in the space that you can see to be clear.
Just because it was not on purpose, it does not mean he was not at fault in my opinion.

Meanwhile, unknown to Eugene, a car filled with a group of young men was travelling at speed down the coast road towards the Clontarf road intersection. He did not hear the cheering and roaring coming from the vehicle as it swerved into the bus lane and sped past the rush hour traffic stopped at red lights.

I see this behaviour on many mornings from cars going into Clonskeagh entrance of UCD, there really is a disconnect from many road users between actions and consequences.

tomasrojo · 14-05-2018 11:32AM

The notion that cycling is "fraught with danger" is always with us, but it's particularly pervasive right now. I don't really comment on it so much lately, but cycling is not especially associated with death or serious injury. Even the ubiquitous narrative of the last few months of cycling deaths having risen by 50% between 2016 and 2017 is based on an overemphasis of moderate shifts in very small numbers.

Even if cycling has become more risky (say, based on number of deaths or serious injuries per billion km travelled), and that certainly is plausible, that doesn't mean the risks even come close to outweighing the benefits.

That just doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory narrative. I guess that campaigners latch onto narratives of tragedy and danger that make the case of investment in more infrastructure seem more compelling, and people who want to see less cycling latch onto the same narratives.

Rechuchote · 15-05-2018 09:39AM

Yeah, but we've got 95,000 cycling through the capital; last year's 43,000 was already double the number of the year before. We desperately need the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network to be built, pronto, for the safety of people on bicycles, the clearing of roads of d'oh-drivers alone in their cars and their dreams and on their Facebook with handheld phones, and for the smooth moving of our city.

tomasrojo · 15-05-2018 10:41AM

Yeah, I'm actually on board with the infrastructure projects (though I might well be disappointed if they're ever built), and I've taken part in cycling protests I can get to (apart from the die-ins, which is just a personal dislike of that form of protest). But the strategy of talking up how dangerous cycling is can cut the other way (road restrictions, helmet laws, parental bans on cycling), so I have misgivings about it. And -- with caveats about the general non-participation of children and the elderly in cycling in Ireland, and the eschewing of more dangerous roads by cyclists -- the stats suggest that the roads aren't all that dangerous in the bigger picture.

I admit this isn't a terribly compelling narrative for the purposes of firing up campaigners. I am about the worst person alive to campaign for anything.

Rechuchote · 15-05-2018 10:52AM

I suppose all that people who ride bikes can do in terms of protest is try to push the line:

Yeah, cycling is dangerous in Dublin, because you're mixing with fast mad crazy drivers too busy with their phones to know the difference between amber and red and a clear road and one with a cyclist in the way;
But this can change if we build sane, separated, physically segregated cycleways where the huge mass of people riding bicycles can travel separately from cars, linked with throughways and quietways, and going right out into Wicklow, Kildare and Meath, as in the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network.

tomasrojo · 15-05-2018 11:02AM

It depends on what you mean by dangerous. I keep seeing people saying things like "Every time I leave the house I wonder whether it'll be the last time I see my family." If I felt that way about it, I wouldn't do it. I mean, of course, it's true in the same way that it's true of someone walking to work; you might meet your end walking to or from work that day. It happens to a non-trivial number of people every year. But it's not so likely I think about it, despite being a risk-averse person generally.

Some roads are very dangerous, especially ones with slip lanes, narrow lanes with fast traffic, and multilane roundabouts. I avoid them, and the remainder are ok. Not wonderful, but not "fraught with danger" either.

Very many of them are, however, completely unsuitable for smaller children to cycle on, and infrastructure is needed for that reason alone.

eeeee · 15-05-2018 11:39AM

What thomasrojo said x100.
Cycling is not inherently dangerous, not by a long chalk. It's an relatively safe activity by and large for everyone to take part in.
Yes there are risks, as there are with all activities, and of course knowing how to cycle sensibly in traffic is important.
But I agree with thomasrojo that the increasing focus on the dangers of cycling will lead to more uninformed restrictions (compulsary hi viz, helmet s etc. ) than safety awareness. I'm also against segregation, but that's another topic.
The more visible cycling is in the greater consciousness the better. It had been proven time and time again that the more people cycle, the safer it is for all cyclists. This is not and cannot be done when the constant narrative and be message is one of dangerousness and peril. The reality is is quite the opposite proportionally. The message needs to reflect the reality that it's safe, cheap, fun, healthy and awesome.

Chips Lovell · 15-05-2018 11:40AM

I've said it before, but if you keep telling people cycling is dangerous, don't be surprised if they start to believe it and don't cycle.

tomasrojo · 15-05-2018 11:49AM

I know John Franklin has a lot more detractors these days than he used to (infrastructure arguments again), but he made the same point in 1999, in the context of the UK:

I include myself in this criticism, for I have been involved in cycle campaigning for more than 20 years. Like others, I have often emphasised danger to get the attention of decision makers and in order to get the support of the media. I now believe, however, that the cycling lobby is guilty of a massive own goal.

That said, the course he set himself on after that -- emphasis on vehicular cycling training -- had disappointing outcomes in terms of cycling participation in the UK. Still flatlining outside London.

Rechuchote · 15-05-2018 12:01PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know John Franklin has a lot more detractors these days than he used to (infrastructure arguments again), but he made the same point in 1999, in the context of the UK:

That said, the course he set himself on after that -- emphasis on vehicular cycling training -- had disappointing outcomes in terms of cycling participation in the UK. Still flatlining outside London.

But in London, they got their core 2 bus corridors by calling in business owners and hospitals - a campaign about to start now in Dublin, to get CEOs & hospital masters, university and school bosses, &c to write to Transport for Ireland demanding safe cycling infrastructure for their employees

tomasrojo · 15-05-2018 12:08PM

Yeah, good buzz about the way things are going in London. I'm not against networked infrastructure. I think the Seville experience was very encouraging on the benefits of creating a network of infrastructure, rather than piecemeal, here-and-then-gone stuff that was the experience here for the last few decades.

CramCycle · 15-05-2018 12:18PM

Rechuchote wrote: »

[*]Yeah, cycling is dangerous in Dublin, because you're mixing with fast mad crazy drivers too busy with their phones to know the difference between amber and red and a clear road and one with a cyclist in the way;
[*]But this can change if we build sane, separated, physically segregated cycleways where the huge mass of people riding bicycles can travel separately from cars, linked with throughways and quietways, and going right out into Wicklow, Kildare and Meath, as in the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network.

my main issue here is that it pushes the idea that cycling is inherently dangerous, rather than people not driving responsibly is the danger. If people drove slower safer, and paying more attention, then the need for segregated infrastructure would disappear.

tomasrojo wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by dangerous. I keep seeing people saying things like "Every time I leave the house I wonder whether it'll be the last time I see my family." If I felt that way about it, I wouldn't do it.

100%, I get nervous now and again but if I genuinely thought there was a risk top life greater than other modes of transport, i wouldn't do it.

check_six · 15-05-2018 03:33PM

CramCycle wrote: »

my main issue here is that it pushes the idea that cycling is inherently dangerous, rather than people not driving responsibly is the danger. If people drove slower safer, and paying more attention, then the need for segregated infrastructure would disappear.

100% agree. Careless oblivious drivers are dangerous. Cycling isn't.

I'm suspicious of extra infrastructure as most existing facilities are abysmal and more awkward to use than the regular carriageway with loss of priority all over the place. I'd imagine more of the same would be all we would get.

Is there any one type of facility we could point at and ask for more of them. I'm thinking something along the lines of a better junction layout. I'm struggling to think of any good examples though...

loyatemu · 15-05-2018 03:39PM

check_six wrote: »

100% agree. Careless oblivious drivers are dangerous. Cycling isn't.

I'm suspicious of extra infrastructure as most existing facilities are abysmal and more awkward to use than the regular carriageway with loss of priority all over the place. I'd imagine more of the same would be all we would get.

Is there any one type of facility we could point at and ask for more of them. I'm thinking something along the lines of a better junction layout. I'm struggling to think of any good examples though...

there are some examples of good infrastructure about

Grand Canal Cycleway
Rock Road cycle lanes and the nearby contraflow lane on Newtown Ave
Clontarf Rd cycle path.
the new lanes on Wyattville Rd. are well designed.

more generally I'd like to see more contraflow lanes and bypass lanes at the top of T-junctions.

Doctor Bob · 15-05-2018 05:23PM

CramCycle wrote: »

If people drove slower safer, and paying more attention, then the need for segregated infrastructure would disappear.

Not necessarily true.

There was a scheme in Poynton in the UK a few years ago that relied heavily on shared space, i.e. mixing cycling and motorised traffic. As I understand it, it did deliver considerable benefits for pedestrians - who had dedicated space, interestingly - and resulted in a less traffic-dominated town centre. But cyclists didn't benefit as much as was hoped/promised. One of the roads in the scheme had a single 3 metre traffic lane in each direction, separated from each other by a raised central median. This did slow traffic and require drivers to pay more attention, but it also required cyclists to queue up as there wasn't space to pass up the inside of traffic (unless they used the footpath). Had the scheme included segregated cycle tracks, cyclists would have been able to bypass the traffic queue.

Doctor Bob · 15-05-2018 05:27PM

check_six wrote: »

I'm suspicious of extra infrastructure as most existing facilities are abysmal and more awkward to use than the regular carriageway with loss of priority all over the place. I'd imagine more of the same would be all we would get.

I'm sure I've said it on here before, but bad infrastructure is not an argument against infrastructure, it's an argument against bad infrastructure.

I'd probably share your concerns on the likelihood of getting good infrastructure, but it's worth noting that such a thing does exist.

tomasrojo · 15-05-2018 05:32PM

After cycling on the cobbly east end of the Grand Canal cycle route in a cargo bike last week, I also have misgivings about what we're likely to get.

check_six · 15-05-2018 06:01PM

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I'm sure I've said it on here before, but bad infrastructure is not an argument against infrastructure, it's an argument against bad infrastructure.

I'd probably share your concerns on the likelihood of getting good infrastructure, but it's worth noting that such a thing does exist.

I'd like to be able to point out some good stuff and say "More of that sort of thing, please".

as suggested by loyatemu:

there are some examples of good infrastructure about

Grand Canal Cycleway
Rock Road cycle lanes and the nearby contraflow lane on Newtown Ave
Clontarf Rd cycle path.
the new lanes on Wyattville Rd. are well designed.

more generally I'd like to see more contraflow lanes and bypass lanes at the top of T-junctions.

Contraflows on one way streets and bypass lanes would be my favourites.

Can anyone think of a really good junction layout that has been implemented in Ireland that would be a good example?

magicbastarder · 15-05-2018 06:09PM

is the contraflow on newtown avenue the one that buses have been known to drive along?

tomasrojo · 15-05-2018 06:31PM

Contraflows should be an easy win. They don't necessarily require anything except signage. But no progress even on them.

I mean, the Grand Canal route would link up with Harold's Cross if they just made Windsor Terrace two-way for bikes. It's being treated as two-way by people on bikes anyway, which may be irritating to those who dislike rule-flouting, but there have been no serious incidents I'm aware of. In theory, it should be quite easy to just put up the required sign.

monument · 15-05-2018 06:32PM

CramCycle wrote: »

If people drove slower safer, and paying more attention, then the need for segregated infrastructure would disappear.

To add to what Doctor Bob said above, the idea of motorists all behaving, along with vehicular cycling, was the aim of cycling campaigners here and in the UK and elsewhere for a long time. It has not worked anywhere, not even in places like Germany where we think they are more law abiding.

Rechuchote wrote: »

But in London, they got their core 2 bus corridors by calling in business owners and hospitals - a campaign about to start now in Dublin, to get CEOs & hospital masters, university and school bosses, &c to write to Transport for Ireland demanding safe cycling infrastructure for their employees

That's not quite how it worked in London.

Plans for two segregated routes were in place after work started by Ken Livingstone, taking up by Boris Johnson, painted crap was put in place first, then the London Cycling Campaign and others pushed their Love London Go Dutch campaign before the mayoral election getting all candidates to sign up, and a lot of things came together at once, including a high number of deaths, including some on the painted infra, and, when Transport for London put out the segregated routes to public consultation, then CyclingWorks kicked in and pushed for work places to support the projects at consultation stage -- all of that helped Boris, along with a strong head of cycling in his administration, to push ahead with the segregated routes in the face of massive opposition.

Open to correction on any of that, but I've followed developments in London fairly, and I think my timeline and details above is close enough to spot on from memory.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Contraflows should be an easy win. They don't necessarily require anything except signage. But no progress even on them.

I mean, the Grand Canal route would link up with Harold's Cross if they just made Windsor Terrace two-way for bikes. It's being treated as two-way by people on bikes anyway, which may be irritating to those who dislike rule-flouting, but there have been no serious incidents I'm aware of. In theory, it should be quite easy to just put up the required sign.

I think the city council's cycling officer might have thought the same thing back in 2010.... http://irishcycle.com/2010/04/25/contraflow-cycle-lanes-purposed-for-dublin-city/

Rechuchote · 15-05-2018 07:00PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

is the contraflow on newtown avenue the one that buses have been known to drive along?

Bollards…

tomasrojo wrote: »

Contraflows should be an easy win. They don't necessarily require anything except signage. But no progress even on them.

I mean, the Grand Canal route would link up with Harold's Cross if they just made Windsor Terrace two-way for bikes. It's being treated as two-way by people on bikes anyway, which may be irritating to those who dislike rule-flouting, but there have been no serious incidents I'm aware of. In theory, it should be quite easy to just put up the required sign.

There was a plan to shoot a bridge for people on bikes across from Greenmount - which would mean the route could continue through the Tenters, which is relatively quiet, into town, or else go over to Windsor Terrace to go north.