Journalism and cycling

Corca Baiscinn · 20-01-2019 08:41PM

The RSA recommends that children younger than 12 should not ride bicycles in any type of traffic.

Every time Shane Ross is asked about spending on cycling he includes a reference to the Cycle Right scheme which is open to primary school children (think from 4th class up) So, in the light of the above RSA advice, should this training only be available in areas which have Greenways or parks? It does include a road elemen;t so is the advice given - "Now children, remember you wont be able to do this again until you are twelve so be sure to remember everything you're learning"

Seth Brundle · 20-01-2019 09:23PM

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

Corca Baiscinn · 20-01-2019 09:29PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

Country road likely to have fewer but maybe faster cars?

In fairness,they've failed to the extent that the focus of their awareness campaigns is so skewed towards motorised traffic but by checking trucks, administering the driving test etc they're doing something and it's Gov who has failed by not funding safe cycling infrastructure and enforcement of road traffic legislation.
Having said that driving test should of course include a requirement to cycle so as to experience the view form the handlebars and not just the windscreen

Seweryn · 20-01-2019 09:30PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

It would be interesting to hear their response regarding the above. I.e. why they don't recommend kids cycling "in traffic" (the young kids on bikes are obviously some kind of road furniture?). Is this backed up by ROTR?

And finally, what changes are required to be done after which Mr RSA would recommend young kids to cycle in traffic.

tomasrojo · 20-01-2019 09:55PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

Remember, the RSA update of the old Safe Cross Code ad doesn't show children actually crossing the street.

Doc07 · 20-01-2019 10:02PM

RSA probably would use this if they could

Doc07 · 20-01-2019 10:05PM

RSA probably would use this if they could

https://youtu.be/Yiu1uLgwF1E

mr spuckler · 21-01-2019 11:44AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm curious as to how they define traffic. Does cycling on a country road fall into their "kids shouldn't cycle in traffic" definition even though there's a lower likelihood of meeting a car?
Surely if the road safety body think there's a problem with kids cycling on a road then they've failed at their job?

I tweeted exactly the same thing to them last night, not that I expect a response.

even if you ignore the responsibility for infrastructure (which at the very least they should be actively lobbying the government for), their messaging is so skewed against cycling & cyclists as to further reinforce existing motorist behaviours & attitudes and hence contribute to the environment which makes it unsafe for kids to cycle on the roads.

JMcL · 23-01-2019 04:04PM

ED E wrote: »

Funnily enough UPS in the states do that to, no left turns.

Kind of makes sense in the US. Not sure about other states, or even present day for that matter, but when I lived in California in the 90s red equated to "yield" for right turns

Seth Brundle · 23-01-2019 04:07PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

I tweeted exactly the same thing to them last night, not that I expect a response.

Did you get a response from the RSA?

mr spuckler · 23-01-2019 04:22PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Did you get a response from the RSA?

I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question :pac:

https://twitter.com/SpucklerMr/status/1087101289857728514

Seth Brundle · 23-01-2019 04:35PM

If I was a Twitterbook user, I'd reply reminding you that the RSA tell people "don’t cycle on the footpath"
e.g. http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

mr spuckler · 23-01-2019 04:45PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If I was a Twitterbook user, I'd reply reminding you that the RSA tell people "don’t cycle on the footpath"
e.g. http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

yep and I'd reply asking how otherwise to cycle safely with a young child while going against the flow of traffic. again I wouldn't expect a reply.

magicbastarder · 23-01-2019 10:07PM

not sure if this was posted before:

Can Videos from Cyclists be Used to Tackle Dangerous Driving?
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/10/24/can-videos-from-cyclists-be-used-to-tackle-dangerous-driving

interesting to note the differing level of concern between the gardai and the police in the UK about the worries over video being doctored.

Muahahaha · 23-01-2019 11:01PM

The whole camera/dash cam and Gardai thing here is strange. They regularly ask for dash cam footage to help solve a crime but the courts don't seem to allow it as evidence or at least I havent heard of it happening.

There was a time years back when CCTV wasn't accepted as evidence but all that has changed. Hopefully cycle camera and dash cam footage will be accepted at some stage in the near future.

Tell me how · 23-01-2019 11:17PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

The whole camera/dash cam and Gardai thing here is strange. They regularly ask for dash cam footage to help solve a crime but the courts don't seem to allow it as evidence or at least I havent heard of it happening.

There was a time years back when CCTV wasn't accepted as evidence but all that has changed. Hopefully cycle camera and dash cam footage will be accepted at some stage in the near future.

It's an area that needs looking at and the development of guidelines or legislation around it.

I wonder where does GDPR lie in this respect. For example, someone knocks you off the bike, you point out your camera caught them approaching at speed and hitting you. They request that you delete the footage as they did not give consent to be videoed.

Maybe irrelevant given it is a public space and so on but there is huge scope for different interpretations in this area.

magicbastarder · 23-01-2019 11:35PM

i'm sure a lot of you are familiar with them, but dublin inquirer certainly are a very cyclist friendly bunch.

Cyclists Say a Deadly Junction in East Wall Remains Dangerous
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2019/01/23/cyclists-say-a-deadly-junction-in-east-wall-remains-dangerous

24-01-2019 12:18AM

Tell me how wrote: »

It's an area that needs looking at and the development of guidelines or legislation around it.

I wonder where does GDPR lie in this respect. For example, someone knocks you off the bike, you point out your camera caught them approaching at speed and hitting you. They request that you delete the footage as they did not give consent to be videoed.

Maybe irrelevant given it is a public space and so on but there is huge scope for different interpretations in this area.

I'm pretty confident that you can film in a public place without consent here otherwise for example in the near miss thread today people wouldn't be getting usb sticks of footage from Dublin bus under foi and any street facing cctv would be usless, but not so sure about whether someone in their car could claim they are in private space or not in the eyes of the law? Unlikely.

24-01-2019 12:25AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm sure a lot of you are familiar with them, but dublin inquirer certainly are a very cyclist friendly bunch.

Cyclists Say a Deadly Junction in East Wall Remains Dangerous
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2019/01/23/cyclists-say-a-deadly-junction-in-east-wall-remains-dangerous

They had a collision tracker as well a few years back I see https://www.dublininquirer.com/2015/10/21/bicycle-collision-tracker-identifying-dangerous-intersections which could be useful for certain bodies

Hurrache · 24-01-2019 09:44AM

Live Drive have started adding cycling related info to their tweets.
https://twitter.com/LiveDrive/status/1088351726892183552?s=19
https://twitter.com/LiveDrive/status/1088351068973658112?s=19

What Username Guidelines · 24-01-2019 09:53AM

Hurrache wrote: »

Live Drive have started adding cycling related info to their tweets.

Infuriating that those pesky cyclists travelling six times faster than I are slowing me down and getting in my way :pac::pac:

jjpep · 24-01-2019 10:31AM

Hurrache wrote: »

Live Drive have started adding cycling related info to their tweets.
https://twitter.com/LiveDrive/status/1088351726892183552?s=19
https://twitter.com/LiveDrive/status/1088351068973658112?s=19

That's really positive. It was something similar that got me cycling in the first place.

Seth Brundle · 24-01-2019 10:36AM

Hurrache wrote: »

Live Drive have started adding cycling related info to their tweets.
https://twitter.com/LiveDrive/status/1088351726892183552?s=19
https://twitter.com/LiveDrive/status/1088351068973658112?s=19

That'll be helpful to those people looking at the Live Drive twitter feed whilst sitting in their cars.

I wonder if they make the same claims in their radio announcements.

07Lapierre · 24-01-2019 10:37AM

jjpep wrote: »

That's really positive. It was something similar that got me cycling in the first place.

It seems to be the ONLY positive!... every other tweet is about delays, roadworks et.etc.

Hurrache · 24-01-2019 10:40AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That'll be helpful to those people looking at the Live Drive twitter feed whilst sitting in their cars.

I wonder if they make the same claims in their radio announcements.

I usually check their tweets out before I've to take a drive somewhere cross city, or before my wife leaves her office to come home. I was listening to the station for a bit this morning but tuned out when they got to the traffic part so don't know if they mention it.

Still, it's a good idea, really hammers home to those that have a relatively short commute in the city how much time they're wasting.

Macy0161 · 24-01-2019 10:55AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I wonder if they make the same claims in their radio announcements.

I'd have live drive on if I'm commuting by car or by bike (I drive so far and commute). I haven't noticed them say it so far tbh. It's run out Traffic control - pity they wouldn't flash up bike journey times on the car park info boards like they have opposite RTE.

mr spuckler · 24-01-2019 11:20AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

The whole camera/dash cam and Gardai thing here is strange. They regularly ask for dash cam footage to help solve a crime but the courts don't seem to allow it as evidence or at least I havent heard of it happening.

There was a time years back when CCTV wasn't accepted as evidence but all that has changed. Hopefully cycle camera and dash cam footage will be accepted at some stage in the near future.

I don't know about that - I submitted camera footage of a collision that I witnessed, no problem with accepting it and it was offered in court for evidence in the careless driving charge which followed. there wasn't a question for a second of it not being allowed or it being challenged, either by the Garda or the defence.

now, that Garda used to race himself so maybe he was more amenable than others but the judge / defence barrister had no issue with it. so I wonder is there really a concern about the legality / admissibility at all, or is it just a smokescreen to avoid the hassle. I suspect the latter.

RobbieMD · 24-01-2019 01:13PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

I don't know about that - I submitted camera footage of a collision that I witnessed, no problem with accepting it and it was offered in court for evidence in the careless driving charge which followed. there wasn't a question for a second of it not being allowed or it being challenged, either by the Garda or the defence.

now, that Garda used to race himself so maybe he was more amenable than others but the judge / defence barrister had no issue with it. so I wonder is there really a concern about the legality / admissibility at all, or is it just a smokescreen to avoid the hassle. I suspect the latter.

Did the defendant plead guilty or take a hearing? Were you crossed examined by the defence?

mr spuckler · 24-01-2019 01:39PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

Did the defendant plead guilty or take a hearing? Were you crossed examined by the defence?

it was one of those court sittings where loads of cases are called for mention. I happened to be sat beside the defendant so heard her entire conversation with her barrister.
she came to court planning to plead guilty, to her credit. he then tried to discourage her from doing so, saying that they could file for discovery of the video footage, which was the only evidence in the case as the victim didn't report it. his reasoning to her was that she could review it to ensure it tallied with her recollection, so that at least she could be fully ok with her plea. not once did he suggest anything potentially untoward about the video.
when the Garda was called before the judge he referenced the video evidence. bearing in mind then that the victim didn't report it, the judge happily suggested in response in front of court that perhaps the reason she didn't report it was because she was a foreign national living here illegally. she wasn't.
the driver pleaded guilty.

so I can't say with 100% confidence that the veracity of the video wouldn't have been challenged further if it went to trial but I can say that at no point when I was involved with the process did anybody even begin to suggest that it might not stand up as evidence.

edit to say I provided the Garda with the full unedited files as well as the trimmed down version which I'll upload here later if I get the chance.

RobbieMD · 24-01-2019 02:07PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

it was one of those court sittings where loads of cases are called for mention. I happened to be sat beside the defendant so heard her entire conversation with her barrister.
she came to court planning to plead guilty, to her credit. he then tried to discourage her from doing so, saying that they could file for discovery of the video footage, which was the only evidence in the case as the victim didn't report it. his reasoning to her was that she could review it to ensure it tallied with her recollection, so that at least she could be fully ok with her plea. not once did he suggest anything potentially untoward about the video.
when the Garda was called before the judge he referenced the video evidence. bearing in mind then that the victim didn't report it, the judge happily suggested in response in front of court that perhaps the reason she didn't report it was because she was a foreign national living here illegally. she wasn't.
the driver pleaded guilty.

so I can't say with 100% confidence that the veracity of the video wouldn't have been challenged further if it went to trial but I can say that at no point when I was involved with the process did anybody even begin to suggest that it might not stand up as evidence.

edit to say I provided the Garda with the full unedited files as well as the trimmed down version which I'll upload here later if I get the chance.

Fair play to you. I suppose when it’s a guilty plea no evidence is examined. It’s all accepted by the defence. Court only really gets interesting for the hearings.

Journalism and cycling

Comments