Journalism and cycling

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.

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

Ray Bloody Purchase

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.)

Registering cars is very lucrative. The only reason to start registering bikes is spite, and since not even Australia has done it, it must really be very costly relative to potential income.

The other odd thing is that the bicycle commits no crime. The person on it, who is entirely visible, does the crime. They can be apprehended the same way as a pedestrian: by circulating a description.

I suppose people who wear helmets might be harder to identify without it, but, really, the imagination required to picture the Gardaí scrambling to retrieve a cyclist's identity from a database for damage to a wing mirror.

"I'll just check in with the boys down the crime lab"

rubadub

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

I was knocked off my bike by a pedestrian illegally crossing a road. Never crossed my mind that he should be wearing a reg plate.

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)

the whole purpose seems to be to be able to read it while they are fleeing the scene. So it would have to be very visible. I know my mate would not like to hear of the cost involved in registering his 4 kids, and getting their bikes kitted out with reg plates. They could be quite big on his 5 year old's bike. Will the kids have to be sure to leave the house with their licence? How much will the licence be?

I expect far more pedestrians are hit & knocked over by pedestrians, many deliberately. I also imagine most wing mirrors would be kicked off deliberately by pedestrians. The most recent case of wing mirrors I saw was a taximan who appearred to have tore it off himself afterwards, so he could have an excuse for chasing down a cyclist.

Eamonnator

I was a Garda for 30 years, 15 years in Traffic. I cannot think of one bicycle related incident, where registration plates on a bicycle, would have assisted me in investigating an offence, committed by a cyclist.
The registration of bicycles, as stated here, is a complete and utter red herring.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

Strawmanning here but look at all the minor inconvenient costs caused by other cars that never gets covered despite reg plates. People reversing into your bumper with their towbar, dinging your door, taking off wing mirrors while parking. In a few cases cameras might catch them but realistically, this happens every day in car parks and at the side of the road and I imagine cost recovery is non existent. Imagine what the Gardai would say if you went to them with a request for CCTV from the local supermarket for a possible ding in your paintwork. I very polite PFO I imagine.

seamus

If we humour the registration argument for a second, we should consider ultimately the place where it comes from.

The argument is always, "if a bike hits a car/pedestrian and runs off, there is no way to identify them".

Which, on the face of it, is a reasonable argument. But it raises more questions;

- How frequently does this occur, and does the scale of the problem justify the cost of implementing bike registration?

- Does this actually work for any other mode of transport? How frequently are number plates used to successfully identify cars involved in hit-and-run incidents?

I suspect the actual answer to the last question is "very rarely", but the real answer is "nobody knows". And that alone is enough to torpedo the argument. If reg plates were used all the time to successfully catch hit-and-run suspects, we'd know all about it. But we don't even know if they are at all useful. So before we even consider reg plates on bikes, we'd have to find out that.

Eamonnator wrote: »

I was a Garda for 30 years, 15 years in Traffic. I cannot think of one bicycle related incident, where registration plates on a bicycle, would have assisted me in investigating an offence, committed by a cyclist.
The registration of bicycles, as stated here, is a complete and utter red herring.

With all due respect, how do you know it would have assisted you given that it would never have come up as they don't and didn't exist?

Do you think that it might have made a difference if someone said "Bike 123ABC was on the footpath, hit a lady, and rode off".

Say it was cost neutral to implement and maintain (it wouldn't be of course) what argument is there against it?

Would doing so not remove the go to arguments for many anti-cyclists and force the light on them for their behaviour?

Ray Bloody Purchase

Registration is a load of kack. The government should be doing more to incentivise people to cycle, not discourage them.

AGS contacts owner of Bike 123ABC.

"Oh yeah, it was stolen. No idea where it is."

Leaves bike in friend's shed for a while.

(Not having a go, but it just doesn't seem to be a system that is in any way proportionate to the problem it's trying to solve.)

(Actually, to be fair, if there was a description of the wrongdoer as well, you might get the odd prosecution, but it's hard to see it warranting the expense of setting it up and maintaining it.)

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

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.)

The only perspective for thinking about public policy changes is the strategic perspective. We don't rush to legislate everything, every time someone suffers a minor impact. We look at the data to see how big of an issue this is.

The data is clear - this is not a big issue. The big issue on the roads is the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week. Anything else is a distraction.

seamus

Tell me how wrote: »

Say it was cost neutral to implement and maintain (it wouldn't be of course) what argument is there against it?

That it won't accomplish anything?

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

Say it was cost neutral to implement and maintain (it wouldn't be of course) what argument is there against it?

1) It would be a barrier to cycling, at a time when we desperately need to be encouraging more people to cycle.
2) It would be a distraction from dealing with the real issues on the roads - the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week.

Eamonnator

Tell me how wrote: »

With all due respect, how do you know it would have assisted you given that it would never have come up as they don't and didn't exist?

Do you think that it might have made a difference if someone said "Bike 123ABC was on the footpath, hit a lady, and rode off".

Say it was cost neutral to implement and maintain (it wouldn't be of course) what argument is there against it?

Would doing so not remove the go to arguments for many anti-cyclists and force the light on them for their behaviour?

One of the points, I was trying, in my cack handed way, to make, is that I never dealt with a hit and run collision, committed by a cyclist. In the few collisions involving cyclists, that I dealt with, the cyclist always hung around.

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think that it might have made a difference if someone said "Bike 123ABC was on the footpath, hit a lady, and rode off".

There are two types of people here, person A who would stop, wait and assist. Then there is person B who would turn to the Garda and say, really, I wasn't there at all today. Theses people are not much different than motorists but the chances of either Person A or B killing or critically injuring somone is minimal, whereas in a car it is quite likely. Even if it was freee for the person, the cost to society alone makes it something to be avoided. the only country who ran this system also abandoned it in recent times AFAIK.

Say it was cost neutral to implement and maintain (it wouldn't be of course) what argument is there against it?

It is a barrier to cycling, it aids the view that cycling is dangerous and therefore needs such things when it is not. Even if free, it would still require people to get the paperwork in order and send off every year, change it everytime you sold a bike or bought it etc. The truth of the matter is if the government had an active policy to increase cycling numbers, it would pay for itself if successful over time with reduced health issues, traffic issues and so on. this policy will actively decrease cycling numbers and be an overall net negative to us in regards health and environment.

Would doing so not remove the go to arguments for many anti-cyclists and force the light on them for their behaviour?

Your error here is that you think it will change anything in the mindset of someone who is anticycling in general anyway. The people who sit in a car giving out about cyclists and running lights, blaming them for every perceived slight will find something else to latch onto. Once the registration is complete it will turn to tax, once tax is complete it will turn into mandatory use of lanes that are unfit for purpose and exclusion from certain roadways without lanes (ie 99% of the country), then to mandatory helmets and Hi Vis. The truth is, they simply will not be happy until cycling as a reasonable mode of transport is gone and nothing will change that. The irony being once they achieve that, they sadly will have less to give out about but alot more time to do it.

seamus wrote: »

That it won't accomplish anything?

It will accomplish reducing cycling numbers, which is what those people want.

Chips Lovell

rubadub wrote: »

"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!

Fighting Tao

How many people have had cars damaged by other cars in carparks etc and the other car drove off. They have registration plates but are rarely caught.

Now compare that to the number of cars damaged by bikes in total.

An educated guess would be that the number of bikes involved in the second scenario would be minuscule in comparison to the number of cars leaving the scene in the first scenario.

Registration plates are useless in many situations. Regardless of mode of transport, if someone is adamant about leaving the scene because they reckon they will get away with it, there is nothing stopping them.

Another thing to bear in mind about registration plates on bikes, how big would they have to be to be seen? The same size as a cars (that is often not read completely)?

Would someone be able to identify a bike e.g. the registration number was 181 D but I can’t remember the rest. It was a red...eh I dunno because I didn’t recognise the name or model. It’s easier with cars but still useless a lot of the time.

Then what about the 100,000s of bikes out there. No one knows how many there is so how would it be known if they were registered?

The whole idea is bizarre and an attempt to deflect from the real dangers on the road that can be identified much easier. These real dangers are often not identified either.

I’m rambling a bit but I’m sure there a couple of points in there somewhere.