Irish Times - Rag

Bluefoam · 17-06-2013 07:57AM #1

The Irish Times have a series of articles on cycling at the moment & each and every one is written from a negative perspective. Whether its implying that cyclists are some sort of anarchic scourge or whether they are trying to put women off cycling through negative 'lifestyle' pieces...

The Times has descended into a rag over the past few years, but I can only view this series of articles as a targeted agenda against cyclists... I don't know whether this comes from the top, a bitter editor or just a lack of culture within their offices... but its time for me to abandon both their printed paper and their online version...

I don't think its any great loss, as they seem to be an outlet for Reuters rather than an investigative journal these days....

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/cycling

Idleater · 17-06-2013 08:10AM

I lolled at colm keena who's article on Saturday about how his journey "obeying all the rotr for bicycles" took him 8 minutes longer. With the barest of minimum of law regarding cycle lane usage he would have found the repealed mandatory law and then only had to wait for the traffic lights he should be stopping for anyway.
Would have been a better article.

ford2600 · 17-06-2013 08:19AM

Read a book about 4 years ago, can't remember the name, about the demise of newspapers.

It was mainly from an English perspective, but gave details on staff reductions and consequent falling off in standards. Ditto for PA and Reuteurs where papers lift most of their articles.

Haven't bought a paper since

Jawgap · 17-06-2013 09:02AM

In my unscientific survey it seems that over half the photos use feature cyclists without helmets :eek:

On the more general idea of the IT's standards, I think they're being much more sophisticated than people realise - what better way to kick off a debate about cycling in Bike Week than by lobbing a few grenades about.

Everyone (ok, a lot more people than usual!) are talking about and discussing cycling - many more than you'd get if they wrote a few pages of flowery prose (with obligatory references to Flann O'Brien) describing only benefits of cycling.

The fact they are driving awareness and generating debate, I think, is a good thing - others no doubt differ.

LeftBlank · 17-06-2013 09:41AM

Idleater wrote: »

With the barest of minimum of law regarding cycle lane usage he would have found the repealed mandatory law

I don't believe the repeal actually ever happened, it was only proposed (open to correction, ymmv etc...)

buffalo · 17-06-2013 09:46AM

Jawgap wrote: »

On the more general idea of the IT's standards, I think they're being much more sophisticated than people realise - what better way to kick off a debate about cycling in Bike Week than by lobbing a few grenades about.

I don't think so - have you seen today's article? http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/tumbles-tantrums-and-tales-of-a-terrible-new-cyclist-1.1429213

And then the heavens open and you have to get off the bike, whimpering “I’m a terrible cyclist; please, please will someone give me a lift?” to those who pass unaware, ensconced in their motorised bubbles, with radios on.

Translation: cyclists get wet, are terrible, and constantly scab off drivers, who are safe and warm and comfortable.

Every article they've ran so far for Bike Week has been negative.

edit: and this is coming from someone who takes the Times daily, and will defend it as the best national paper in the land.

Alek · 17-06-2013 10:01AM

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think so - have you seen today's article? http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/tumbles-tantrums-and-tales-of-a-terrible-new-cyclist-1.1429213

Cycling on cobble-stones [...] is pure pleasure.

She's not only self proclaimed terrible cyclist, she's a masochistic one :eek:

Jawgap · 17-06-2013 10:10AM

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think so - have you seen today's article? http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/tumbles-tantrums-and-tales-of-a-terrible-new-cyclist-1.1429213

Translation: cyclists get wet, are terrible, and constantly scab off drivers, who are safe and warm and comfortable.

Every article they've ran so far for Bike Week has been negative.

edit: and this is coming from someone who takes the Times daily, and will defend it as the best national paper in the land.

Have to disagree with you there:D

I read her article as saying that cycling has it's not inconsiderable downsides which are aggravated by a lack of ability but for all that, those odd moments of bliss make up for the hours of drudgery - and isn't that what cycling is about, those hours spent hammering into a headwind, or fixing a puncture by the side of the road with frozen fingers are all forgotten, compensated for, in those odd 20 minutes you get to cycle with a proper tailwind on a decent surface!

Or another way to put it - my worst day on the bike is nearly always better than my best day in the car!

Idleater · 17-06-2013 10:19AM

LeftBlank wrote: »

I don't believe the repeal actually ever happened, it was only proposed (open to correction, ymmv etc...)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html
Quote:
new and amended requirements for use of cycle tracks (only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory)

Tombo2001 · 17-06-2013 10:28AM

Irish Times has run several articles over the past few years that are strongly anti-cyclist.

I'm not sure why they do it. I suspect its because their employee base is predominantly middle class, middle aged, male, car users. I suspect their readership base is a little more broadly based, but only a little.

But there is no doubt, the newspaper has been highly critical of cyclists and is strongly anti-cyclist.

As a reader of the paper, it is very disappointing to see this and would make me question the people who work there, would make me question how progressive they are.

As a cyclist, I just feel that the paper is feeding the sense of entitlement that has long existed in the minds of drivers, but is now to the fore - that the road is theirs, and everyone else should just get the hell off it.

I strongly feel the whole issue of cyclists breaking the rules is a red herring. Motorists would be complaining regardless.

Bunnyhopper · 17-06-2013 10:31AM

alkos wrote: »

Cycling on cobble-stones [...] is pure pleasure.

She's not only self proclaimed terrible cyclist, she's a masochistic one :eek:

"Masochistic" suggests she finds it painful…

droidus · 17-06-2013 10:46AM

ford2600 wrote: »

Read a book about 4 years ago, can't remember the name, about the demise of newspapers.

It was mainly from an English perspective, but gave details on staff reductions and consequent falling off in standards. Ditto for PA and Reuteurs where papers lift most of their articles.

Haven't bought a paper since

Flat Earth News - Nick Davies

valleyoftheunos · 17-06-2013 10:49AM

I actually found todays piece to be very well written and enjoyable even if I didn't agree with its over reaching sentiments.

Alek · 17-06-2013 11:06AM

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

"Masochistic" suggests she finds it painful…

Yes and no.

"masochism describe a personality type characterized by the individual deriving pleasure and gratification from [...] receiving physical pain"

dogsears · 17-06-2013 11:10AM

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I actually found todays piece to be very well written and enjoyable even if I didn't agree with its over reaching sentiments.

I thought the piece was really badly written but ultimately intended to be something of a valentine to cycling - the criticisms are of the infrastructure, her personal lack of skills, the habits of drivers etc - when freed of those e.g. when cycling with friends in the evening, the sensations are all positive.

Just a pity it comes across as a stereotype-affirming confirmation of the inherent "dangers" of cycling.

Although I bet there's a spike in the bike traffic over those cobbles.....;)

Bunnyhopper · 17-06-2013 11:16AM

alkos wrote: »

Yes and no.

"masochism describe a personality type characterized by the individual deriving pleasure and gratification from [...] receiving physical pain"

I know what masochism means. I was just trying tactfully to suggest that there might be reasons for a woman to enjoy cycling on cobblestones that have nothing whatsoever to do with pain…

Alek · 17-06-2013 11:31AM

...

ford2600 · 17-06-2013 11:40AM

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I know what masochism means. I was just trying tactfully to suggest that there might be reasons for a woman to enjoy cycling on cobblestones that have nothing whatsoever to do with pain…

How did the Junior cert go?

McTigs · 17-06-2013 11:55AM

Why is it that there is an underlying assumption from non cyclists that people principally cycle for 2 reasons a) The envoirnment and b) can't afford a car when most of the time it's neither

tomasrojo · 17-06-2013 11:56AM

I remember as a kid puzzling over a joke my father found very funny:

John Wayne was a masochist. He enjoyed a cold shower in the morning, so he never had one.

Tombo2001 · 17-06-2013 12:02PM

One point I never see mentioned in the financial times....

Safer cycling often means breaking the rules.

An example:

On my cycle to work, I cycle through Phibsboro. I go via Munster Street, which is a one way street. I cycle the wrong way down a one way street. Dozens of school kids on their way to St Vincents school do the same. I rarely pass a car on Munster St.

If I was to obey the rules, I would cycle down neighbouring Connaught St and be caught in the maelstrom of one car lane dividing into two car lanes with the customary four inches left on LHS for cyclists to squeeze through. In other words, I just would not cycle that way in rush hour, full stop. Its not safe.

Does the Irish Times propose sending all those school kids onto the busiest traffic junction in Phibsboro? So that the rules are to obeyed?

Jawgap · 17-06-2013 12:07PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

I remember as a kid puzzling over a joke my father found very funny:

John Wayne was a masochist. He enjoyed a cold shower in the morning, so he never had one.

Masochist to sadist: Hurt me!!!

Sadist: No!:D

Bunnyhopper · 17-06-2013 12:12PM

ford2600 wrote: »

How did the Junior cert go?

I'm old enough to remember the Inter Cert, but thanks for the snide comment and best of luck with that sense of humour.

bren1000 · 17-06-2013 12:20PM

I'm very new to cycling and was very surprised that most of the articles in the Irish Times cycling series were negative. Plus it's laughable that it's entirely focused on commuting so far

HivemindXX · 17-06-2013 01:46PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

On my cycle to work, I cycle through Phibsboro. I go via Munster Street, which is a one way street. I cycle the wrong way down a one way street. Dozens of school kids on their way to St Vincents school do the same. I rarely pass a car on Munster St.

What if you do? That road seems very narrow to me. If you don't wish to take an alternate route the option of walking along that section is always open to you.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If I was to obey the rules, I would cycle down neighbouring Connaught St and be caught in the maelstrom of one car lane dividing into two car lanes with the customary four inches left on LHS for cyclists to squeeze through. In other words, I just would not cycle that way in rush hour, full stop. Its not safe.

Seems perfectly safe to me. I assume that this streetview is the maelstrom to which you refer?

galwaycyclist · 17-06-2013 02:01PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

What if you do? That road seems very narrow to me. If you don't wish to take an alternate route the option of walking along that section is always open to you.

I looked at it on streetview. It is wide enough for 1) a row of parked cars 2) vans parked illegally on the other side -half on/half off the footpath. And still leave space for moving cars.

So it is clearly wide enough to permit contra-flow cycling.

I would have thought that the "tell the cyclists to get off and walk" school of traffic management is now falling out of favour?

HivemindXX · 17-06-2013 02:11PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I looked at it on streetview. It is wide enough for 1) a row of parked cars 2) vans parked illegally on the other side -half on/half off the footpath. And still leave space for moving cars.

So it is clearly wide enough to permit contra-flow cycling.

I would have thought that the "tell the cyclists to get off and walk" school of traffic management is now falling out of favour?

Until contra flow cycling is allowed in law I'll stick with the "obey the rules of the road" school of traffic management.

RainyDay · 17-06-2013 02:14PM

buffalo wrote: »

Every article they've ran so far for Bike Week has been negative.

edit: and this is coming from someone who takes the Times daily, and will defend it as the best national paper in the land.

If you'd stop feckin taking it, and start paying for it, they might be able to afford some decent journalists.

galwaycyclist · 17-06-2013 02:16PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

Until contra flow cycling is allowed in law I'll stick with the "obey the rules of the road" school of traffic management.

Its been legal since 1998. It just requires the council to put up a sign and revise the road markings at the entry.

However even without the 1998 exemption for cyclists, they could still have done it by using a small traffic island to create a "false one-way street".

Tombo2001 · 17-06-2013 02:16PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

What if you do? That road seems very narrow to me. If you don't wish to take an alternate route the option of walking along that section is always open to you.

Seems perfectly safe to me. I assume that this streetview is the maelstrom to which you refer?

To answer your post:

Seems perfectly safe to you. Based on a single streetview snapshot taken midafternoon 6 years ago? I have a photo here of the M50 motorway with no cars on it.....I guess that makes the M50 perfectly safe for cyclists too, by your logic anyway.

On the other......you are right, a cyclist meeting an oncoming car would need to veer to the side of the road on that particular one way street. However, I would say I meet a car on that road once every 3 months or so, in the morning time.

galwaycyclist · 17-06-2013 02:22PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

To answer your post:
On the other......you are right, a cyclist meeting an oncoming car would need to veer to the side of the road on that particular one way street. However, I would say I meet a car on that road once every 3 months or so, in the morning time.

A cyclist meeting another oncoming driver, or cyclist, on a narrow road section should not need to "veer" anywhere.

The process is to slow down, hold your lane, make eye contact with the other person and negotiate past each other. It happens between car drivers all the time. The process is no different between cyclists and car drivers.

It happens all the time on narrow two-way residential streets. The fact that a similar street is one-way for cars does not change the process.

Irish Times - Rag

Comments