Journalism and cycling

CramCycle · 03-01-2019 01:36PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Not sure there's any point explaining it again if you have read my posts and still don't get my point. Send me a PM if you genuinely are curious. Or anyone else can for that matter.

I've no wish to derail a thread once we are in to going in circles territory.

I get what your saying, I understand your reasoning. I just think that it requires alot of people to do what is apparently against their nature to do, and that is change.

You seem to believe that those who are aggressive or dangerous towards other road users will change their behaviour because I coughed up 120euro per year or because I signed on to a form saying I own a bike.

Even taking into account the conditions you put forth about ignoring the cost and inconvenience, I am shocked that you think this will change anyones mind who already shows disdain to others based solely on the mode of transport they use. Silly as it is, a mode of transport that reduces traffic volume, reduces enviromental damage, and could reduce the burden on the healthcare system compared to others.

you also seem to think that it will not negatively affect cyclist numbers, whereas every indication of human behaviour is that it will. It is the Opt in / Opt out debate in a nutshell, even if something will benefit a person or others, everytime you put an obstacle in the way, no matter how small, you will reduce the numbers of people doing it.

tomasrojo · 03-01-2019 01:38PM

CramCycle wrote: »

It is the Opt in / Opt out debate in a nutshell, even if something will benefit a person or others, everytime you put an obstacle in the way, no matter how small, you will reduce the numbers of people doing it.

Very true. It's a large part of behavioural economics, these often quite trivial obstacles that stop large numbers of people from doing things.

(Apologies again for two intemperate posts, one of which I've fixed, but since the other has been replied to and is quoted, I'll leave it.)

tomasrojo · 03-01-2019 01:50PM

The "small barriers don't necessarily have small effects" problem is referenced here, near the start:

Central insight: Small barriers to program access can have large impacts on participation and
outcomes

Implementation Guidance for Executive Order 13707: Using Behavioral Science
Insights to Better Serve the American People
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/EO%2013707%20Implementation%20Guidance.pdf

(Ah, the far-off pre-Trump days, when they wanted people to access government programmes.)

magicbastarder · 03-01-2019 02:18PM

the best thing possible for cyclist safety is more bikes on the road. the notion of having to register your bike - even if it was free to do so - would create a downward pressure on numbers, resulting in life being more difficult for cyclists, not easier. it's a counterproductive measure. unless we want ireland to be more like australia.

Lumen · 03-01-2019 02:22PM

CramCycle wrote: »

You seem to believe that those who are aggressive or dangerous towards other road users will change their behaviour because I coughed up 120euro per year or because I signed on to a form saying I own a bike.

Like a Polish Jew proposing rhinoplasty in 1938.

07Lapierre · 03-01-2019 03:09PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I quite regularly see a neighbour commuter cyclist doing about 15-18 kph on a footpath with a cycle lane on the road beside them. Every time I see them, I think that they are making it harder for people to think positively about us as a group. I'm not suggesting that lane is perfect but I can understand how the dislike builds when each side is getting more and more aggrieved because of what the other is doing.

Couldn't agree more! 190+ people killed on our roads last year! (not one of them killed by a cyclist). I say we ban all new road infrastructure until ALL motorists "get their own house in order". Nobody should be allowed to buy a 191 reg car unless they have a full clean driving license, fully comp insurance and a valid "tax" disc. That'll sort it!*

* see how that sounds?

Tell me how · 03-01-2019 03:17PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Couldn't agree more! 190+ people killed on our roads last year! (not one of them killed by a cyclist). I say we ban all new road infrastructure until ALL motorists "get their own house in order". Nobody should be allowed to buy a 191 reg car unless they have a full clean driving license, fully comp insurance and a valid "tax" disc. That'll sort it!*

* see how that sounds?

07Lapierre · 03-01-2019 03:29PM

Tell me how wrote: »

As long as you give 1.5meters im happy.

Duckjob · 03-01-2019 06:48PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm suggesting that we look at what we can do to promote improvement, not just lament that we are the ones who suffer and are entirely blameless for the perception others may have of us

Serious question:

For those of us that do our best to be a conscientious and considerate user of the road while on a bike, what can you suggest We do in addition to improve perceptions and lessen our chances of having our lives endangered by hostile passing, hooking etc etc etc ?

This is a genuine question because I for one am clueless as to how else I can make things safer on the roads than now for myself and for all those who choose to use a bicycle on our roads?

Online, When there is a suggestion of anything to improve safety for people on 2 wheels , and the first reply is "F*ck cyclists!" , I really don't know how I can engage with that in any meaningful way. I've tried posting up reasoned responses several times but people seem to just have their ears closed off to them.

I think The responses you are getting are genuine exasperation from people regarding why they must have their lives endangered on a daily basis, due to the "sins" of other people that they don't know from Adam.

07Lapierre · 03-01-2019 09:03PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Serious question:

For those of us that do our best to be a conscientious and considerate user of the road while on a bike, what can you suggest We do in addition to improve perceptions and lessen our chances of having our lives endangered by hostile passing, hooking etc etc etc ?

This is a genuine question because I for one am clueless as to how else I can make things safer on the roads than now for myself and for all those who choose to use a bicycle on our roads?

Online, When there is a suggestion of anything to improve safety for people on 2 wheels , and the first reply is "F*ck cyclists!" , I really don't know how I can engage with that in any meaningful way. I've tried posting up reasoned responses several times but people seem to just have their ears closed off to them.

I think The responses you are getting are genuine exasperation from people regarding why they must have their lives endangered on a daily basis, due to the "sins" of other people that they don't know from Adam.

The answer is you can’t do more. If obey the ROTR, use lights at night, then you are doing your bit.

Road safety is not shared equally across all modes of transport. “With great (horse) power, comes greater responsibility”.

magicbastarder · 04-01-2019 09:28AM

Plans for Liffey bridge derailed by Dart Underground scheme

Plans for a €17 million bridge spanning the River Liffey in Dublin’s Docklands have been scuppered amid concerns over the potential impact on the shelved Dart Underground scheme.

An Bord Pleanála has refused permission to Dublin City Council to move the proposed bridge 150m further away from a site that had been intended as a station for the underground line.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plans-for-liffey-bridge-derailed-by-dart-underground-scheme-1.3746924

this was to be the pedestrian and cycling bridge between the beckett bridge and the east link. to be fair, where they were talking about building it was a little odd.

meeeeh · 04-01-2019 02:03PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Couldn't agree more! 190+ people killed on our roads last year! (not one of them killed by a cyclist). I say we ban all new road infrastructure until ALL motorists "get their own house in order". Nobody should be allowed to buy a 191 reg car unless they have a full clean driving license, fully comp insurance and a valid "tax" disc. That'll sort it!*

* see how that sounds?

Actually it was 149, the lowest on record. Cyclist deaths are lower too for last year.

07Lapierre · 04-01-2019 04:32PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually it was 149, the lowest on record. Cyclist deaths are lower too for last year.

Yes great to see the numbers are down isn't it? Must be all the RSA Hi-Viz vests!

AndrewJRenko · 05-01-2019 02:48PM

rubadub wrote: »

Poor pricks have only so many groups they can lash out against, in another era they would be screaming on lashings.

I think this is part of the issue - these are frequently the people who would have been lashing out at de blicks and de queers and de jews in the past, but they can't do that in polite company now.

But they can lash out against cyclists in polite company today.

Tell me how wrote: »

I quite regularly see a neighbour commuter cyclist doing about 15-18 kph on a footpath with a cycle lane on the road beside them. Every time I see them, I think that they are making it harder for people to think positively about us as a group. I'm not suggesting that lane is perfect but I can understand how the dislike builds when each side is getting more and more aggrieved because of what the other is doing.

Have you considered speaking to the neighbour in question? I spoke to two cyclists about them having no lights this week. I didn't get a warm, cuddly response, but at least they might be starting to realise that it isn't a great idea.

The idea of the 'gives them all a bad name' is utter nonsense.

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree. But it might take one of their arguments away.

That's not a sound basis for spending years working on public policy and legislation and millions on a bureacratic system. It would be a huge distraction from dealing with the real road safety issues.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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.

I was assaulted by young lads hanging out the window of a car years back. When I reported the reg to the Gardai, they told me that the car was officially 'off the road' after being written off. There was no registered owner, so there was nothing more they could do.

magicbastarder · 06-01-2019 09:21AM

Cyclist, 90, stripped of world record after failing drugs test
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/06/cyclist-90-stripped-of-world-record-after-failing-drugs-test

Grassey · 07-01-2019 02:08PM

Brompton stockpiles £1m of bike parts in case of hard Brexit

Equates to about 1 month worth of stock!

Greaney · 07-01-2019 06:03PM

I'm appalled at the lack of info journalists put out there re;cycling. From one of our Irish Times headlines, you'd think there was no legislation regarding bikes and safety equipment.

Cycling does have laws governing it, for example, there is certian mandatory safety equipment like having and using ones lights at night. A quick google regarding this and up pops the citizens information page with all the information.

Lumen · 07-01-2019 08:17PM

Greaney wrote: »

I'm appalled at the lack of info journalists put out there re;cycling. From one of our Irish Times headlines, you'd think there was no legislation regarding bikes and safety equipment.

Cycling does have laws governing it, for example, there is certian mandatory safety equipment like having and using ones lights at night. A quick google regarding this and up pops the citizens information page with all the information.

But not helmets or hi vis, which is the subject of the article.

Greaney · 07-01-2019 11:04PM

Lumen wrote: »

But not helmets or hi vis, which is the subject of the article.

I understand, however, lights were quoted in the first sentence & I noted on the Irish Times face book page, folk keep complaining that there should be a law regarding bike lights (in the comment section) because they don't seem to know it's already law.

Arcade_Tryer · 07-01-2019 11:38PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-will-not-be-compelled-to-wear-safety-equipment-says-ross-1.3745943

Christ he really is clueless. He actually wants compulsory wearing of helmets and hi-vis introduced.

This guy's good days in office are when he avoids creating awful, detrimental policy by pure happenstance. Frightening that he is Minister for Transport, but entirely unsurprising given the state of transport services and cycling investment in the country.

Corca Baiscinn · 07-01-2019 11:47PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-will-not-be-compelled-to-wear-safety-equipment-says-ross-1.3745943

Christ he really is clueless. He actually wants compulsory wearing of helmets and hi-vis introduced.

I thought the interview was poor, it wasn't clear in the intro if it was the journalist or the minister who didn't realise lights already mandatory.

Re the bit re Minister going to do all in his power short of compulsion to press for the wearing of hi-viz and helmets the journalist didn't ask "Why?" "What difference do you think it would make and what evidence do you have for this point of view?"

Lumen · 07-01-2019 11:50PM

Pinch Flat · 08-01-2019 10:51AM

Good to know that one of the topics on Claire Byrne live last night was the use of digital breath readers for people who enjoy a drink while driving. We really have a peculiar relationship between drinking and driving.

Grassey · 08-01-2019 11:00AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Good to know that one of the topics on Claire Byrne live last night was the use of digital breath readers for people who enjoy a drink while driving. We really have a peculiar relationship between drinking and driving.

INDEPENDENT TD MICHAEL Healy-Rae has called on the government to supply every household around the country with the same breathalyser devices used by gardaí.

Speaking on RTÉ One’s Claire Byrne Live last night, the Kerry TD said he believed everyone should be able to breathalyse themselves to “make sure” they are not over the limit the morning after consuming alcohol.

Is 2019 going to be a continuation of removing all social responsibility and requiring handholding for everything?

Macy0161 · 08-01-2019 12:47PM

I don't think they should be provided by the state, but it'd be a good thing if people were aware of the effects*? I've often thought that the gardai should blitz a pub car park and test people before getting in their cars to wake a few people up, but educate rather than prosecute - much the same way they seem to love blitzing commuter routes and insist on hiviz and crap lights for cyclists.

fwiw If I could get one that I could trust, I'd probably buy one - not to avoid being caught*, but to see how I'm affected the morning after and/or avoid driving over or even close to the limit the morning after.

*I know that's not why Healy-Rae was proposing it, I'm sure his logic is so that people can push right up to the limit.

Grassey wrote: »

Is 2019 going to be a continuation of removing all social responsibility and requiring handholding for everything?

Wishful thinking.

CramCycle · 08-01-2019 01:34PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

*I know that's not why Healy-Rae was proposing it, I'm sure his logic is so that people can push right up to the limit.

The issue being though is you maybe under the limit when you do the test and then you could be over the limit 20 minutes later when the gardai pull you over. Happened a neighbour of mine, he came out of the pub years ago, had a few pints in quick succession. Got pulled over coming out of the car park and breathalysed. Passed even though he said he had more than the perceived limit. Garda asked him had he been drinking and how much. He told the truth and the Garda sent him on his way, warning him that in about 20minutes he would fail it.

I can see such rubbish being pointlessly dragged to court. Healy Rae should be hauled over the coals for even suggesting it.

Mickiemcfist · 08-01-2019 01:45PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

fwiw If I could get one that I could trust, I'd probably buy one - not to avoid being caught*, but to see how I'm affected the morning after and/or avoid driving over or even close to the limit the morning after.
.

I got one of the cheap groupon ones for 6 quid. It was eye opening. The way to look at it is that the % might not be entirely accurate, but if it's showing anything, don't drive. It's had positive reads when I've comfortably passed 2 hours per drink of down time.

I've tried it a load of times on days after I haven't drank just to make sure it's not completely off the wall & never returned anything, so it's definitely detecting something when it gives a reading.

Tombo2001 · 08-01-2019 02:05PM

Relevant to the thread in a roundabout way:

I had to laugh last week at the letters page of the Irish Times - with Pedestrian deaths recording a 32% increase last year, needless to say the blame is with.....

Pedestrians......

Where have we heard that one before.

Sir - The Road Safety Authority and the Minister for Transport deserve our congratulations in that the number of persons killed on our roads continues to decline year on year.

However, the fact that there is an increase of 32 per cent in pedestrian deaths in 2018 over 2017 should be a cause for concern. This figure could be reduced if it were made an offence to walk on unlit roads in the dark without wearing reflective gear.

jhenno78 · 08-01-2019 02:11PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

passed 2 hours per drink of down time..

Isn't it absolute minimum of 1hr per (not irish) unit?
So if you're counting pints as a drink then 2hours isn't enough.

CramCycle · 08-01-2019 02:29PM

jhenno78 wrote: »

Isn't it absolute minimum of 1hr per (not irish) unit?
So if you're counting pints as a drink then 2hours isn't enough.

He does say 2 hours per drink, ie 2 hours per pint. The thing alot of people don't realise is that a) everyones metabolism is not the same so that arbitrary figure is pulled out of the sky. b) this was more useful in regards the law when there was a far higher allowed limit, from what I can tell the clearance tapers off, as well as sitting in your stomach after a skinful.

If I went out to a nightclub and had 4 pints in the last two hours, at best it would be out of my system (closing at 2am) at 8am to 10am the next morning. That's if all went as quickly as possible. I wouldn't have been hammered but I would have been in good humour, yet many think well, I wasn't drunk , therefore I will be OK.

Another friend of mine was out at a gig in town, had a few bottles of beer, low abv, stopped at 12, taxi home, up to pick up his daughter from work at 10am the next morning. he had been not drinking for 10 hours, had at most 6 units (about three pints), he is 6'2 and I'd say at least 15 stone. In the olden days he would have passed but nowadays he failed, had to leave the daughter at the side of the road while driven to the station where he passed the blood test, barely.

The truth is, if a drink crossed your lips the night before, you really just shouldn't drive the next day. I know plenty of people who won't touch a drop for at least 24hours before work due to the nature of their jobs.

Journalism and cycling

Comments