Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

not sure where to post this, just a heads-up

Ciaran Cannon asserts

there remains a deep culturally embedded idea that the people who walk and cycle are somehow subservient to those who drive cars.. This notion is hardwired into all of us from the day we're born.

“We look at the media. We look at how we hand out high-vis gilets to little junior infants, telling them it is your responsibility to stay safe on the roads, not the adults’ responsibility to ensure that you're not walking and cycling in a hostile environment. Which is what we do"

Cycle lanes are perceived as optional or secondary infrastructure. A lingering perception runs through the whole of society, all the way into the decisions that are taken by engineering staff or construction companies

https://www.dublininquirer.com/cyclists-in-clontarf-say-they-seem-again-barely-an-afterthought-in-diversions-for-works/

Was it a charger or a battery

Unbelievable. Are they going to ask for the removal of all dashcams from cars now too? All private CCTV that looks onto public streets? Ring doorbells? All the Tesla cameras?

And this:
"‘Where An Garda Síochána, or any agency, intends to use a digital image for a prosecution, An Garda Síochána must, in the first instance, be able to prove the veracity of the digital image. Therefore, An Garda Síochána cannot accept unsolicited images."
How does soliciting it make the veracity better than unsolicited? If it's about the complainant having to go to the station in person to have the image/video downloaded directly from the device, it makes no sense. If you can alter an image you're putting onto USB, you can alter it on the device itself anyway.

I took it that its being re-run now on the basis of attempts by media to get clarity from AGS and their response, subsequent to the initial story a while back which was basically just one fella complaining online about the treatment he received from AGS.

It strikes me as one gobs**te in an AGS acting the d**k, and AGS now trying to fudge the issue.

At the end of the day, people using cameras on bikes, in cars, on public transport vehicles, at the rear of trucks/ vans etc. etc. is par for the course. If there was a functioning roads policing body in this country you wouldn't have fellas going off on solo runs. He may be a crank, but at the end of the day all most people are asking (especially those without the luxury of protection inside a multi tonne vehicle) is to be able to use the roads safely and for AGS to enforce the law.

Strikes me as more of the same "sit down and stop making a fuss, sure you'll get your thoughts and prayers" attitude to our roads.

The phrasing of the story is not that @righttobikeit was warned, but he shared a letter sent to somebody else.

A cycling road safety campaigner behind the @righttobikeit account on X has since shared a picture of the letter received by the cyclist after he offered video footage of the alleged road traffic violations to gardaí.

@righttobikeit has gotten pushback in the past, but I think it was the Gardaí penalising him for behaviour on the road rather than data protection issues.

No, but it mentions the letter was received from someone who wasnt RTBI and that was shared by RTBI

'A cycling road safety campaigner behind the @righttobikeit account on X has since shared a picture of the letter received by the cyclist after he offered video footage of the alleged road traffic violations to gardaí.'

It's a little bit laboured, but reading the article as a whole, it's clear that the cyclist is referred to as a separate entity from RTBI.

Yep!

What does the line have to do with it when it's about an overtake with oncoming traffic forcing the road user (the cyclist) with right of way to take evasive action?

As always, District Court judges making it up as they go along.