Journalism and cycling

Tell me how · 02-01-2019 12:02pm

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1080373132630708225?s=19

Interesting that the video is tweeted out by the FG party. No hiding that they are unaware of cycling issues in future so hopefully.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 12:12pm

the first few responses are not positive - for FG: "You're in government, do something about it. Jesus Wept."
or "Hard to believe you’ve made this video. You’ve been the Gov since 2011. FG have done practically nothing to make cycling safer."

Tell me how · 02-01-2019 12:17pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the first few responses are not positive - for FG: "You're in government, do something about it. Jesus Wept."
or "Hard to believe you’ve made this video. You’ve been the Gov since 2011. FG have done practically nothing to make cycling safer."

That's why I found it interesting.

It's giving people a stick to beat them with. Now, and in future.
Hopefully this will impact their cycling policy as this is retweeted at them.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 12:58pm

Seweryn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-law-on-drivers-overtaking-cyclists-abandoned-1.3745451

"Mr Ross said it had proved exceptionally difficult required some work other than having a press release to draft legislation on a minimum passing distance that was constitutional and that could be enforced, and as a result the Bill would not proceed."

.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 1:15pm

zell12 wrote: »

Cyclist bashing on PatKenny NT at the minute
paint bikes in luminous paint
no flashing white front lights
overtaking 2 abreast versus 10 in a single file
microchip all bicycles
...

I actually do dislike very bright flashing front lights myself. But I'm not really a ban-things-I-don't-like sort of person.

Was Pat Kenny's neighbour a cyclist?

02-01-2019 1:27pm

I got a laugh from the twitter video. Builder vest on over what was already a nicely hi-vis orange jacket

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 1:50pm

"Her hi-viz jacket didn't have a hi-viz jacket, Joe!"

mr spuckler · 02-01-2019 2:58pm

Cyclists will not be compelled to wear safety equipment, says Ross

so Shane wants to compel us to wear hi-vis & helmets but feels it would also be unenforceable...

Mr Ross said while he would love to make the wearing of such equipment mandatory, some of those in the cycling lobby do no want it and viewed it as “nanny statism”.

“So I am not going to introduce measures, certainly not in the immediate future, to compel people to wear hi visibility jackets or helmets but I am going to try everything short of that to try and encourage them to do that.”

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 3:03pm

I really doubt Ross has more than an "immediate future" in Transport. Though I'm surprised this coalition has lasted as long as it has.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 3:05pm

mr spuckler wrote: »

Cyclists will not be compelled to wear safety equipment, says Ross

so Shane wants to compel us to wear hi-vis & helmets but feels it would also be unenforceable...

Minister for Transport Shane Ross has ruled out making it mandatory for cyclists to wear safety equipment, such as helmets, lights and reflective clothing.

Ummm, lights are already mandatory.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 3:06pm

He said the Department of Transport was investing in up to 200km of cycle lanes and said this would reduce friction between these two groups of road users.

“That should give them the kind of protection they need and reduce some of the hostility between cyclists and drivers,” he said.

Jesus wept.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 3:14pm

mr spuckler wrote: »

so Shane wants to compel us to wear hi-vis & helmets but feels it would also be unenforceable...

he's - quite possibly successfully - running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. announces he'd like to do what many non-cyclists want (yay! go rossie!) but can't (so doesn't actually have to do something that's not going to work).

however, how i'd read it is that the mighty minister has admitted that despite being minister for transport, he is defeated by the sheer might of the cycling lobby.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 3:15pm

The argument against compulsion is also a lot more than a dislike of "nanny statism".

rubadub · 02-01-2019 3:20pm

The Minister told The Irish Times: “I deplore the fact that some people refuse to wear cycling helmets. It is a great pity. It is irresponsible but it is their own choice.

deplorable!

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Ummm, lights are already mandatory.

the problem with them saying things like this is that some idiots will then think lights are not legally required. I remember when the fines for cyclists came in none was brought in for cycling on footpaths -(which like that article mentions I think was about the worry of criminalizing children). My friend and his wife were adamant that they thought cycling on footpaths was legal due to this.

Ray Bloody Purchase · 02-01-2019 3:21pm

rubadub wrote: »

[IMG]https://cdn-02.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/article34800904.ece/1541b/AUTOCROP/w620/2016-06-15_bra_21916650_I1.JPG/IMG] deplorable![/img]

He's not a fan of helmet hair.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 3:23pm

I will be making a careful note of the number of candidates in my constituency (let us call it N) and making sure I mark the number N beside Ross' name.

Tell me how · 02-01-2019 3:28pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I will be making a careful note of the number of candidates in my constituency (let us call it N) and making sure I mark the number N beside Ross' name.

Politics are fascinating. I remember when Ross was more a columnist than a politician and frequently appeared on The Last Word. He always spoke about the need for transparency in government and called out bad practise and spoke of the need for poor politicians to be held accountable.

And then, he went straight in and is, to my mind, one of the weakest ministers in years because he actually doesn't seem to care what people think.

I read an article over the Christmas about all the foot in mouth mistakes he had made in his role as minister for sport and they would really make you cringe.

CramCycle · 02-01-2019 3:33pm

rubadub wrote: »

My friend and his wife were adamant that they thought cycling on footpaths was legal due to this.

And this is the way the world works, people, without clear guidelines, interpret things in the way that suits them best.

CramCycle · 02-01-2019 3:36pm

Big Cycling won't tolerate this for long :pac:

Ray Bloody Purchase · 02-01-2019 3:36pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Politics are fascinating. I remember when Ross was more a columnist than a politician and frequently appeared on The Last Word. He always spoke about the need for transparency in government and called out bad practise and spoke of the need for poor politicians to be held accountable.

And then, he went straight in and is, to my mind, one of the weakest ministers in years because he actually doesn't seem to care what people think.

I read an article over the Christmas about all the foot in mouth mistakes he had made in his role as minister for sport and they would really make you cringe.

One would suspect that he'd rather be on the other side of the fence throwing bombs at a Ministers, as opposed to being one.

On a totally separate note, i saw him walking through Marley Park around two years ago and he looked like he was off his head on drugs or something. He was walking as the crow flies traversing foot paths etc. Like a man on a mission, maybe he was going down to the shop for a box of smokes or the Daily Sport.

What Username Guidelines · 02-01-2019 3:41pm

Listened back to the Pat Kenny piece, highlight for me:

Should cyclists be forced to register.... as a taxi driver will tell you his mirror was broken by a cyclist who then vanished off into the mist, and no way of ever detecting it, whereas the taxi driver, if he does something wrong... his plate is there, his registration is there, and he could get into serious trouble.

Emm, yeah? It's such a childish argument - Hey, I wanna break the law too but I cannot. What?

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 3:42pm

Tell me how wrote: »

I read an article over the Christmas about all the foot in mouth mistakes he had made in his role as minister for sport and they would really make you cringe.

Calling the athlete "Dominant" Puspure was a classic. Can't be arsed reading more than the headline before sending out the press release. So very, very lazy.(*)

(*)Admittedly, he's so lazy it must have been a member of staff who wrote the press release.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 3:44pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Big Cycling won't tolerate this for long :pac:

If they ever team up with the Walking Industrial Complex(*), be very afraid.

(*) @Flaminghobo1 on Twitter

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 3:46pm

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Listened back to the Pat Kenny piece, highlight for me:

Emm, yeah? It's such a childish argument - Hey, I wanna break the law too but I cannot. What?

Time to visibly barcode pedestrians too. I understand that they sometimes get up to no good.

Tell me how · 02-01-2019 3:50pm

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Emm, yeah? It's such a childish argument - Hey, I wanna break the law too but I cannot. What?

There is actually some merit to the argument. You can imagine how frustrating it is to be hit by a rogue cyclist on a footpath or pedestrian area and to see them disappear without apology or explanation (it does happen).

But, the argument should be countered with the reality that the vast vast majority of cyclists do not behave in this way, the impact of rogue cyclists is much less severe on average than dangerous motorists, the chief reason for identification of cars is to track tax payment.

Personally, I could live with adding a suitable identifier to my frame (as long as it doesn't have to be possible to read it from 10M Head on) if the trade off was greater and real delivery of cycling infrastructure (beyond disappearing cycling lanes please)

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 3:56pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Personally, I could live with adding a suitable identifier to my frame (as long as it doesn't have to be possible to read it from 10M Head on) if the trade off was greater and real delivery of cycling infrastructure (beyond disappearing cycling lanes please)

interesting though that your 'price' for doing so is the negation of the need to do so?

the spectre of the cyclist taking a wing mirror off a blameless motorist's car is (i suspect) so rare that the cost of implementing such a scheme would be (literally) thousands of times the cost of the replacement of those wing mirrors.

i once cycled into the back of a taxi hard enough to smash my frame and split my chin open. the damage to the back of the taxi was insignificant enough that the driver didn't seem to care. it's quite difficult to damage a car with a bike in such a way that the cyclist doesn't come off worse.

CramCycle · 02-01-2019 3:57pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I really doubt Ross has more than an "immediate future" in Transport. Though I'm surprised this coalition has lasted as long as it has.

Never be surprised at how a taste of power alters a persons fingernail strength, they often can hang above a precipice by these alone for years.

mal1 · 02-01-2019 4:16pm

Tell me how wrote: »

the chief reason for identification of cars is to track tax payment.

Surely it's because you're driving a 2 tonne piece of metal that can do a fair bit of damage and as a result needs some controls. Hence the justification for making cyclists have one is a lot less, likewise for a pedestrian. We don't even track tax on the road using the registration plate on the car, we are still using the tax disc.

I think the cyclist registration debate is a smokescreen argument for the likes of Conor Faughnan. When I get in the car, having a registration plate is a fair price to pay considering the damage i am capable of doing. I wouldn't say the same when I get on my bike.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 4:21pm

Tell me how wrote: »

There is actually some merit to the argument. You can imagine how frustrating it is to be hit by a rogue cyclist on a footpath or pedestrian area and to see them disappear without apology or explanation (it does happen).

There is no merit at all in this. Much ado about nothing.

Yes, it does happen, but the impact and frequency of occurrence make it such a trivial, minor issue in the context of all the problems we have on the road. It would be a huge distraction for legislators, policy makers and NGOs away from dealing with the very real death toll on the roads.

Tell me how · 02-01-2019 4:26pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

interesting though that your 'price' for doing so is the negation of the need to do so?

the spectre of the cyclist taking a wing mirror off a blameless motorist's car is (i suspect) so rare that the cost of implementing such a scheme would be (literally) thousands of times the cost of the replacement of those wing mirrors.

i once cycled into the back of a taxi hard enough to smash my frame and split my chin open. the damage to the back of the taxi was insignificant enough that the driver didn't seem to care. it's quite difficult to damage a car with a bike in such a way that the cyclist doesn't come off worse.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no merit at all in this. Much ado about nothing.

Try think of it from the perspective of a pedestrian hit by an errant cyclist rather than a non-related incident of you hitting a taxi.

This is the problem with cyclist/motorist conversations, they are often dominated by those who are immediately very defensive on all sides.

(cyclist/motorist/pedestrian here, was knocked off bike by car 2 months ago, I'm trying to suggest finding a common ground more than conflict. We do share the roads, yada, yada, yada.)

Journalism and cycling

Comments