Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

We just need to show Sorcha in the Land Rover that prices of bikes have a crazy wide range too and she can be just as happy looking down on the prols on their Carreras from her Pinarello Dogma F12 as she was from her urban tank

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Church claims west London cycle superhighway 'will do more damage than the Luftwaffe'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/church-claims-west-london-cycle-superhighway-will-do-more-damage-than-the-luftwaffe-a3652441.html


The same project is criticised by leading Tory Brexiteer who wanted French citizenship...
Lord Lawson says cycling is most damaging thing for London since the Blitz

https://road.cc/content/news/173223-lord-lawson-says-cycling-most-damaging-thing-london-blitz

Hes a Brexiteer who lives in France and a member of the Lords who is crying about discrimination. Amazing

Grassey wrote: »

I've seen some of the 'material' circulating arounds residents in Blackrock.
You'd swear that people will be blocked into their estates as the main road at the exit will have been taken away to put in cycling superhighways.
People I know who are supportive of the changes from Blackrock Main St etc are swallowing this guff

The Deans Grange peasants are revolting too.

Ironic that they're co-opting environmentalists protest imagery to keep something that is inherently damaging to the environment.

Speaking of PK, on todays show he's going to be taking a pop at talking about the proposed new cycle lanes in S Dublin.

Prepare for the the usual rhetoric from PK about the "hard pressed motorist" and the ensueing slew of off-topic whiney texts about cyclists, red lights and road tax.

Pat Kenny has a segment coming on now in a minute

buffalo wrote: »

Can't stand to listen, interested to hear how he frames the 80%+ in favour of restrictions in his own poll.

Its really not going his way so I bet he ignores it.


Interesting that the comments are about 50/50 pro v anti which just shows that as usual the anti bike people are just a very loud minority.


Todays favourite is the guy claiming that DCC are trying to force the old out of the city centre by banning cars. Surely if you are too old to get on a bus you are probably not fit to be driving a car but hey logic never comes into it

zell12 wrote: »

Sindo letter

I wish the RSA would come out with an advert saying why cycling 2 abreast is ok.

With that include a video from behind doing this......depending on their positioning it may seem that are 3 abreast but that's purely due to some overlap in s tight bunch......the camera can then pan over them showing 2 abreast....

Finally....do a clip actually showing what 3 abreast actually looks like ......

zell12 wrote: »

Sindo letter

Shame that he's only a keen cyclist himself. I only take such comments seriously from people who are avid cyclists themselves.

zell12 wrote: »

Sindo letter

Is that a repost of an original letter. I could have sworn I have read it before.

That aside, he obviously missed the letter from the RSA 'Expert' Brian Farrell, who is also their own communications manager a couple of years ago.
A letter which was discussed here as to the nonsense that was contained within it.

Also, this 'cycling 3 abreast' lark leads me to think Dan is yet another driver prone to hyperbole.

Another road tax letter

Cyclists and motor tax
Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 00:06

Sir, – Perhaps you could refrain from publishing any letter which refers to “road tax”.

This colloquial term belies its nature, which is more accurately communicated by its actual name, motor tax.

Calling it road tax gives the impression that it is a beneficent levy on motorists that covers the cost of building and maintaining our public road infrastructure, for the good of all – motorists, bus passengers and cyclists alike. However, this is paid from general taxation – €1.3 billion according to the latest budget.

Motor tax is a charge to take a destructive and polluting vehicle on to the public roads, and it has raised far less than even €1 billion in any of the last five years. Far from motorists paying for our roads, their use is subsidised by all taxpayers. Please, no more talk of “road tax”. – Yours, etc,

BRIAN McARDLE,

Leixlip,

Co Kildare.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-motor-tax-1.4400292

Stark wrote: »

Someone posted a great breakdown a while back which unfortunately I can't find but it showed that when you included all costs/benefits (pollution, maintenance, cost of providing parking, healthcare, injury claims vs income from motor tax, fuel taxes, VRT, insurance levies, economic activity etc.), then the gap was far more than 300 million. Cycling on the other hand was a significant net benefit for every km travelled by bike. The truth is the total opposite to the "hard pressed motorist" myth.

In a societal sense that's certainly true, we're all paying for our collective motoring excesses, but there's no doubt that, for the individual driver (and I'm a keen drivist myself ), the cost of buying, maintaining and running a car is awfully expensive. My motor tax alone would buy me, annually, a very nice bike indeed.
In a way, it is the very fact that the driver is (literally) so invested in their car that incentivises its use, or rather disincentivises its non-use. There's a long argument in favour of moving motor tax (essentially a standing/driveway charge) to fuel (a genuine usage tax) that would put people more at ease about leaving the car at home and using an alternative mode of transport, whatever that would be.

Anyway, I thought even PK was more moderate in his views in that last segment -more evidence of the tide of opinion turning. -And he is right in my opinion in his bell argument - a close, unannounced pass from behind is as distressing for a walker (being buzzed by a person on a bike) as it is for a cyclist (being buzzed by a driver of a car).

fat bloke wrote: »

In a societal sense that's certainly true, we're all paying for our collective motoring excesses, but there's no doubt that, for the individual driver (and I'm a keen drivist myself ), the cost of buying, maintaining and running a car is awfully expensive. My motor tax alone would buy me, annually, a very nice bike indeed.
In a way, it is the very fact that the driver is (literally) so invested in their car that incentivises its use, or rather disincentivises its non-use. There's a long argument in favour of moving motor tax (essentially a standing/driveway charge) to fuel (a genuine usage tax) that would put people more at ease about leaving the car at home and using an alternative mode of transport, whatever that would be.
.

My motor tax is 200 euro per annum. Not much more than the cost of maintenance/depreciation for my bike. My income tax bill on the other hand runs into tens of thousands and that's before adding on things like VAT and various stealth taxes. No way am I under the illusion that the motor tax portion of my tax contribution is the only part of my tax contribution that's paying for the roads.