Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Should ear warmers and hats be banned?

Should hearing tests and a minimum hearing ability be required?

All of this goes back to allowing adults autonomy and the right to take responsibility for their own safety as they see fit and feel comfortable. What you consider as an obvious safety measure may not be considered in the same terms by another person.

It's funny (and this isn't directed at you by the way, just a broader observation), the outcry for imposition of measures on cyclists, with little to no evidence to justify it. And the apparent readiness of the legislature to take steps. Yet - and you know where I'm going now - the idea of restricting the ability of motorists to wreck havoc on our streets is seemingly outrageous and unworkable. Couldn't possibly be done. Speed cameras?? Red light cameras??? More roads policing????? Vehicle colour and better lighting standards for cars???????? Speed limiters?????????????? Internet blockers?????????????????? Infotainment restrictions????????????????????????????????????????

None of that could possibly be looked at apparently.

I'm more than happy with the steps I take for my own safety on a bike and I won't listen to any calls for debate around changing laws for cyclists while there's a deafening silence regarding the number one nuisance and cause of death life changing injuries on the roads. People looking for that can come back to me when they lose the chip on their shoulder and are willing to have a full and reasonable discussion of all things road safety.

Edit: apologies if that came off as a rant at you - it's not intended to be… I understand the points you're making and have no issue with anyone taking whatever steps they feel worthwhile to feel safer on their bikes.

In most cases the person is totally oblivious to the cyclist approaching from behind. if you shout or ring a bell they get a fright/panic and will immediately react by moving left or right, possibly directly into your path.

Much better to just pass them. They will still get a fright but you'll have passed them by then.

I wear earbuds while commuting (or cycling solo) by bike. In fact I feel naked without them.

The biggest issue I have with them is my iPhone has being monitoring my listening habits and advised my that I listen to music at a volume that may affect my hearing. As a result it has limited the volume and won’t let me increase it!!

I know my hearing is good and at first I was a bit pissed off with Apple for introducing this feature, but I guess limiting the volume I listen to music is a good thing. Ive been cycling with earbuds since the late 80’s and I’ve never had an issue hearing traffic, sirens etc. and I feel I am more observant than most because I wear earbuds while cycling.

Everyone is different though…for some people earbuds are a distraction and I often think that if I was younger and just learning to cycle now I too would not wear them. I also think that maybe it’s because I’m so used to them that’s why I’m very aware that I need to be very observant? Even when I’m driving I always look over my shoulder when merging onto a motorway/parking in a tight spot etc.

that’s a good point…maybe a long “ring,ring” is better than a short sharp “RING!” When you only a foot or so behind the pedestrian?

I wear earbuds too, same as I have a radio on in my car when I drive. It's up to me to be aware of my surroundings in both cases (ie not so loud as you can't hear other road users).

get a two tone bell. People don't tend to get mad when they hear a ding-dong, rather than a shrill pinging.

No, they don't have the ability to play music.

No.

People will do stupid things. I believe in taking away the option to do said thing.

I 100% agree with you on the cars once again. Red light camera's, automatic fines, speed camera's (average too!), better policing with no lackluster attitude should all be done.

No offense taken - we largely agree on things. I do however concede to the motorist lobby/moaners that 'cyclists tend to have sh*t spacial awareness' aswell as pedestrians IMO although thats not specific to cycling. Phones, earphones etc all play their part in this.

I think the above could be an easy win that doesn't given ammunition to the angry motorist crowd (which I despise) and also improves riders safety. Double win.

Once again - no offense taken (we all need to rant).

"I'm not racist, but…." etc.

We've been here before. Concessions breed victim blaming, over and over again.

There has to be a scientific basis for any changes to the law regarding how cyclists should behave. Cyclists have been on the roads longer than cars, and have managed to get by for decades without all this hot air about hi viz, helmets and earphones coming into the debate.

1. Is there a sudden problem that can only be explained by cyclists using earphones and not wearing hi viz or helmets? Or is it all just hearsay and conjecture? Have the number of cyclists involved in accidents suddenly spiked? Are those figures even trending upwards in any unusual way at all?
2. Is there any recent comprehensive reports/ studies/ research IN IRELAND specifically tasked with understanding these issues? Do those studies take into account any reduction in spatial awareness caused by wearing a helmet, for example?
3. Is there any scientific basis for saying that forcing cyclists to wear helmets and hi-viz will bring about an immediate and noticeable reduction in whatever the supposed major issue is? I've no interest is some half-baked selective report put together with a hospital - it's parameters will be nowhere wide enough to show a proper picture. We're all well aware that you can find statistics to support almost any cause you like… "79% of people surveyed who pray at lease once a day live 1,246 days longer than those who masturbate 10 times a week" for example.

To my understanding, serious accidents involving cyclists are relatively infrequent. It's rare enough that you ever hear of them compared to reports of pedestrians or motorists injured in RTAs. So why the sudden interest in fixing a problem that doesn't exist?

And has the overall balance of convenience in term of the greater good to society been considered in this discussion - i.e. you can make cycling so inconvenient that people just stop cycling - you'll see less 'nightmares' caused by cyclists and presumably a corresponding reduction in accidents involving cyclists, but will the increase in car usage - more traffic jams, less parking, more congestion, more accidents involving motorists, and more harmful emissions - be worth it?

Acceding to the rants of motorists just because it's not too much of an inconvenience isn't an acceptable ground to support changes to the law. You're immediately creating criminals out of people for simply continuing to do what they always did without any meaningful justification other than 'it would shut up the motorists'.

There has to be an adult debate about this, and if the angry Journal comment section motorists are capable of that then I'm certainly not going to support any call to change the law just to appease them.

And again, this whole discussion is taking place where the elephant in the room is the absolute carnage on the roads caused by motorists. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. That judge talks about the nightmare on the roads caused by cyclists - I'd encourage him to listen to the traffic reports any morning/ evening where there will be without fail mention of delays caused by a motor accident. That's thousands of people whose days is actually affected because of driver behaviour, not some fanciful perception of a judge who doesn't like cyclists on the road around him. One single RTA between two cars anywhere on any road at rush hour and it's chaos. Where's the call for new laws, measures and policing there? There is none. The response is "we need more roads". So forgive me for taking a firm stance on calls by those same people for pathetic restrictions to be placed on a cohort of road users where there is no peer reviewed and substantiated evidence to say are causing any issues with road use.

Only briefly (a couple of hundred metres at most) … I can't remember where it was, somewhere in Kildare I think. Wouldn't be my choice though.

One of whom lives on Sherkin Island 🙄

Journal commentary not good for one's mental health.

It's quite depressing to process that we co-exist in this country with such a nasty intolerant cohort of "citizens".

The 42 do a podcast.