Journalism and cycling

Hurrache · 01-10-2018 10:12AM

Mayo must really have been lacking in sporting and recreational facilities such is the need for state bodies to throw so much money into it under various schemes over the last couple of years.

Tombo2001 · 01-10-2018 12:07PM

Hurrache wrote: »

Mayo must really have been lacking in sporting and recreational facilities such is the need for state bodies to throw so much money into it under various schemes over the last couple of years.

Thing is didnt they get all that money for the indoor cycling machines to use in the winter, so it makes sense that those guys have trained up and are ready to go out on the road; but of course only if the facilities are consistent with what they are used to.

JMcL · 01-10-2018 12:21PM

Not bike related specifically, but same principal applies. Morning Ireland had a RSA spokes-body on this morning indulging in some victim blaming re pedestrian fatalities. Didn't get the start of it so no sure what year(s) was being referred to, but apparently 50% of victims had alcohol consumed (by implication then 50% hadn't), and half of that half were well over the driving limit (news for you RSA - it's legal to drink and walk - at least within reason). Most fatalities also occurred in well lit urban areas. She then started to break it up on age etc, but by then I'd gotten past the point of being sure there was nothing constructive going to ensue.

Now, if one assumes that these pedestrians didn't just spontaneously die, there was no mention of the ton+ of metal that presumably killed them, or potential levels of intoxication of whoever was behind the wheel. The solution: A good dose of hi-vis, and none of this slow down and take a bit of care nonsense

what_traffic · 01-10-2018 12:44PM

JMcL wrote: »

Not bike related specifically, but same principal applies. Morning Ireland had a RSA spokes-body on this morning indulging in some victim blaming re pedestrian fatalities. Didn't get the start of it so no sure what year(s) was being referred to, but apparently 50% of victims had alcohol consumed (by implication then 50% hadn't), and half of that half were well over the driving limit (news for you RSA - it's legal to drink and walk - at least within reason). Most fatalities also occurred in well lit urban areas. She then started to break it up on age etc, but by then I'd gotten past the point of being sure there was nothing constructive going to ensue.

Now, if one assumes that these pedestrians didn't just spontaneously die, there was no mention of the ton+ of metal that presumably killed them, or potential levels of intoxication of whoever was behind the wheel. The solution: A good dose of hi-vis, and none of this slow down and take a bit of care nonsense

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/morning-ireland/programmes/2018/1001/999174-morning-ireland-monday-1-october-2018/?clipid=102940151#102940151

Dr Aoife Kervick, policy and research analyst at the RSA.

Moflojo · 01-10-2018 12:58PM

what_traffic wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/morning-ireland/programmes/2018/1001/999174-morning-ireland-monday-1-october-2018/?clipid=102940151#102940151

Dr Aoife Kervick, policy and research analyst at the RSA.

Absolutely zero mention of driver behaviour, and no mention of whether infrastructure, or lack thereof, was a factor in any of these "accidents."

For example they mentioned that 60% of pedestrian fatalities were on rural roads, without mentioning whether or not there were footpaths around.

But wear a hi-vis and you'll be fine.

There seems to be a disgusting victim-blaming culture inherent in the RSA.

what_traffic · 01-10-2018 01:12PM

Moflojo wrote: »

Absolutely zero mention of driver behaviour, and no mention of whether infrastructure, or lack thereof, was a factor in any of these "accidents."

For example they mentioned that 60% of pedestrian fatalities were on rural roads, without mentioning whether or not there were footpaths around.

But wear a hi-vis and you'll be fine.

There seems to be a disgusting victim-blaming culture inherent in the RSA.

True. Hi Viz will save all.
They will even have a big survey to see why the non-believers do not believe this.
Pity not more focus given on the age profile. That tells a story.
Gavin Jennings asked a question on the topic - but seemed to get confused by the end of it.

01-10-2018 01:17PM

They were a little better regards age groups on RTE news there. Still mentioned 98% didn't have high vis though. No mention of the how for example how many elderly people were struck crossing a road, where they at a crossing with a green man, was the driver on the phone or intoxicated.

CramCycle · 01-10-2018 02:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They were a little better regards age groups on RTE news there. Still mentioned 98% didn't have high vis though. No mention of the how for example how many elderly people were struck crossing a road, where they at a crossing with a green man, was the driver on the phone or intoxicated.

Only a relative fact if the general population has a higher % of hi vis uptake. and substantially so. It grates on me when they do such things, it is misleading and highly inappropriate, correlation and causation, which may not even be in play here, are very different things.

magicbastarder · 01-10-2018 10:33PM

JMcL wrote: »

apparently 50% of victims had alcohol consumed

50% *of those tested* had alcohol consumed. It was not that 50% had alcohol consumed.
Granted, about two thirds of victims were tested, but given that (crude assumption alert) they're probably much more likely to test if they suspect it's a factor, in the one third not tested they may have had adequate cause to believe the victim was stone cold sooner and thus not test.

So only one third of victims were known to have alcohol taken.

Hurrache · 01-10-2018 10:50PM

And given the likelihood of when, and where, those people were walking, it's pretty much evident they'll have alcohol consumed anyway.

RacoonQueen · 01-10-2018 11:00PM

Hurrache wrote: »

And given the likelihood of when, and where, those people were walking, it's pretty much evident they'll have alcohol consumed anyway.

Yep, huge % IIRC was between 6pm and 6am...so during darkness for 6 months + of the year anyway when visibility is lessened and drivers should be driving with more care, particularly in rural areas where there are no footpaths. Alas, must be the fault of the person who is responsibly walking home from the pub in rural areas rather than drive.

Seth Brundle · 02-10-2018 08:30AM

There appears to be a huge assumption by the RSA that alcohol is a factor in all of these deaths. Just because someone has alcohol taken does not make them responsible for the incident.

I know that some of the incidents may be attributed to behaviour by the pedestrian (see quote below) but this shouldn't mean that everyone who had a drink and walked home is responsible. No mention of the vehicle's inappropriate speed, dangerous roads, etc.

Almost one in 10 of those who were killed (9 per cent) were found to have been killed while lying in the road and 8 per cent were killed standing in the road.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/half-of-all-pedestrians-killed-on-irish-roads-had-alcohol-taken-1.3647965

P_1 · 02-10-2018 09:00AM

It's a massively grey area with sadly very black and white results.

I'm not exactly sure what the RSA's approach here is actually doing to resolve this in a constructive manner

Macy0161 · 02-10-2018 09:06AM

Half of those tested had alcohol taken, but only half of those were over the drink drive limit. I've actually heard old fella's use this type of commentary to justify drink driving, as they say "sure you couldn't be walking, it's too dangerous...". I obviously argue back that it's dangerous because of people drink driving, but this is one of the unintended consequences of the RSA victim blaming approach.

I am actually disgusted that over various news reports I didn't here the RSA spokespeople reference driver behaviour, driving to conditions, driving to the speed you can see and safely stop in. They really do more harm than good.

Rechuchote · 02-10-2018 10:31AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

I am actually disgusted that over various news reports I didn't here the RSA spokespeople reference driver behaviour, driving to conditions, driving to the speed you can see and safely stop in. They really do more harm than good.

The RSA think inside the car, rather than thinking outside the box. Every statement they make is from the point of view of a driver.

They recently had a scold about how old people are slow on the road and should take extra care crossing. Now, the reason that old people get hit by cars is that as you age, your ability to judge distances declines, so it's harder to see how far a car is from you.

The obvious advertising campaign would be "Drivers: be careful when old people are crossing: slow right down." But no, they went for "Old people, be careful crossing."

RacoonQueen · 02-10-2018 10:53AM

Provisions for pedestrians are also awful. Pedestrians are secondary to the motor vehicle and wait times for ped lights can be ridiculous which makes pedestrians take risks and cross at the earliest opportunity.

More zebra crossing particularly outside the city would be a benefit (these would also, naturally, slow traffic down). Often, by the time the pedestrian lights change, the pedestrians have already crossed because they got an opportunity to. That behaviour is never going to change where a pedestrian waits at a ped red when there is no traffic about. With this, you then have cars/cyclists waiting at red lights there is no need to wait at (no pedestrians crossing).

If I know a light sequence, I'll usually not press the pedestrian lights when out running so as not to hold up traffic as I know when I can cross safely. Always feel like such a dick if the ped light goes green and cars are waiting there when I've already crossed.

We really need to make better provisions for those not in motor vehicles in this country. The behaviour of motorists on rural roads where there are no footpaths is disgraceful, won't even take their foot of the accelerator as they meet pedestrians who have to dive into ditches to avoid speeding cars.

CramCycle · 02-10-2018 10:56AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

More zebra crossing particularly outside the city would be a benefit (these would also, naturally, slow traffic down). Often, by the time the pedestrian lights change, the pedestrians have already crossed because they got an opportunity to. That behaviour is never going to change where a pedestrian waits at a ped red when there is no traffic about. With this, you then have cars/cyclists waiting at red lights there is no need to wait at (no pedestrians crossing).

Pedestrian crossings need far harsher penalties attached as well as CCTV for complaints. In no other country I have been to is there such apprehension at crossing at a zebra crossing. In the last few months I have seen cyclists, motorists and on one occasion a motorbike (doing a wheelie and overrevving) blast through a zebra crossing that had people either on it or about to step on it.

Macy0161 · 02-10-2018 11:09AM

Zebra crossings should be the answer. My experience in my village, and even around town, is that drivers don't know the rules and are just as likely to carry on through whether you've stepped on the crossing or not.

Duckjob · 02-10-2018 11:13AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

We really need to make better provisions for those not in motor vehicles in this country. The behaviour of motorists on rural roads where there are no footpaths is disgraceful, won't even take their foot of the accelerator as they meet pedestrians who have to dive into ditches to avoid speeding cars.

That matches my earlier point about how good infrastructure doesnt just regulate road users physically, it also influences their mentality and how they conduct themselves on the road.

Give people a narrow road with no footpaths that looks like nothing other than a car should be there (your average rural road in Ireland), and drivers will automatically assume bikes and pedestrians should not be there and show less respect to anyone on that road who isnt in a car.

There are plenty of roads in Netherlands where drivers could technically drive like a loon and rat race through, but it's very rare to see that, just because everything about the setup of the infrastructure enforces calmness and reminds them that they're are sharing spaces with other road groups.

mr spuckler · 02-10-2018 12:18PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

Zebra crossings should be the answer. My experience in my village, and even around town, is that drivers don't know the rules and are just as likely to carry on through whether you've stepped on the crossing or not.

I think that drivers know the rules but just don't give a sh1t about them, with a complete lack of enforcement being at least a partial contributor to why this is the case.

mr spuckler · 02-10-2018 12:23PM

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is on page 18.

In some instances, no culpability may be determined (e.g. hit and run)

CramCycle · 02-10-2018 12:27PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is

They would have to put in some extra spaces in their next sheet and I suspect the statisticians they use are already on the edge of what their minds can tolerate considering some of the rubbish they have spewed over the years

CramCycle · 02-10-2018 12:32PM

Another favourite:
• The majority of pedestrian fatalities take place in darkness, with very low levels of highvisibility clothing being worn*.
• The majority of pedestrian fatalities take place on urban roads.

But most Urban areas are well lit, while it would be fair to say reduced visibility, it is unfair to imply that they were essentially swanning about in the pitch black.

They like to state facts that suit a certain headline of the week, and do not seem to want to scratch the surface of anything that would not fit with their predetermined view. It is something they warn all scientists and report writers about at some point. If you have a viewpoint, and you go looking for answers that will back up that viewpoint, you will find them, even if the overall picture is that your view is incorrect. I am guilty of it myself in over the counter discussions but these lot bring it to a new level.

And imply is something they do so well, it is like reading a masterclass in tabloid headlines, not stating anything incorrect but implying something that is untrue or unproven.

JMcL · 02-10-2018 12:55PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is

That's shocking. Put together by the bould Dr Aoife K.so really again it's a case of "Is there anything to be said for a bit more Hi-Vis?"

Seriously though - 70% of cases it's the victims fault - WTF? Of the whopping 24% of drivers deemed culpable (what about the drivers in the 70%), 54% failed to observe, quarter were uninsured, 17% had defects on the vehicle, and the majority of 15% of them (whatever that means) were twice over the limit (lack of proof reading as well - limit is 50mg/100ml - which in fairness has decreased over the past few years, the RSA quote 100mg/ml which I imagine is well beyond a fatal dose!). Yet these trail in at the last point in the key findings. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed with this lot in charge of strategy

RacoonQueen · 02-10-2018 01:16PM

Jayz

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1046708247896485890

buffalo · 02-10-2018 01:20PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

Zebra crossings should be the answer. My experience in my village, and even around town, is that drivers don't know the rules and are just as likely to carry on through whether you've stepped on the crossing or not.

I contacted the council about zebra crossings in my area. Their reply was

Dublin City Council does not recommend Zebra Crossings for public roads in their charge in their administrative area as they may provide a false sense of safety for pedestrians. In Ireland, a pedestrian does not have the right-of-way until they have already stepped onto a Zebra Crossing. For this reason, Dublin City Council’s preferred option is for crossings where the onus is unambiguously on the driver to stop.

There's potential for a pedestrian campaign here to get right of way when you are approaching a zebra crossing, and to make their use more commonplace in urban environments where speed should be low anyway.

JMcL · 02-10-2018 01:32PM

buffalo wrote: »

I contacted the council about zebra crossings in my area. Their reply was

There's potential for a pedestrian campaign here to get right of way when you are approaching a zebra crossing, and to make their use more commonplace in urban environments where speed should be low anyway.

Absolutely, pedestrians should have priority in urban areas. Certainly there's a case for an increased onus of care on drivers if somebody does get knocked on one. Drivers should be aware somebody's potentially about to cross, and be ready to act. Then you have the gob****es who decide to park on or beside crossings blocking visibility completely with no sanctions. I see it every day

Hungrycol · 02-10-2018 01:48PM

I think, from what I have read above, is that the authorities believed to be easier to change pedestrians (and cyclists) behaviour than it is the drivers behaviour. Which is strange because drivers are also pedestrians sometimes too. 🤔

Macy0161 · 02-10-2018 02:04PM

buffalo wrote: »

There's potential for a pedestrian campaign here to get right of way when you are approaching a zebra crossing, and to make their use more commonplace in urban environments where speed should be low anyway.

I was aware of the no right of way until you step on the crossing. Unfortunately my experience is that many motorists aren't aware that once you step on, they have to stop.

Chips Lovell · 02-10-2018 02:08PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is on page 18.

It's only 2% though, so even if all were assigned to one category or the other, it wouldn't make a massive difference to the overall breakdown.

Journalism and cycling

Comments