Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Journalism and cycling

13567334

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If someone hurts themselves cycling on a mountain trail. Someone is sure to make red light breaking somehow related. Any comment arguing otherwise derided as defending red light breaking.

    The issue is not defending red light breaking. It's the misrepresentation of opinion usually flawed and unresearched as fact. Especially by the media.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,037 ✭✭✭buffalo


    i threw that in as a comment on the article for you.

    You did? Under which name?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,402 ✭✭✭✭Trojan


    I sent in a letter to the IT similar to some of the posts mentioned above.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Is it just me, or does this......
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Look, the red light/green green light laws could not be clearer. Stop on red go on green.There is no satisfactory explanation for anyone on any mode of transport who decides to break a red light. Level of risk depending on what mode you are using is not a factor...ever.

    contradict this?
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Exactly, its quite simple but must apply for all modes of transport. Im fully aware that some cars will squeeze an amber or early red (which is still illegal) however it not as blatant as a deliberate act to jump the lights at any stage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    No excuse for poor journalism either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Is it just me, or does this......



    contradict this?

    I'd say it's just you


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭greenspurs


    the usual "Going around in Circles" arguments have started ...
    ...... unfollow.....

    "Bright lights and Thunder .................... "



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    greenspurs wrote: »
    the usual "Going around in Circles" arguments have started ...
    ...... unfollow.....

    It's a vicious cycle...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    beauf wrote: »
    It's a vicious cycle...

    Now cyclists and roundabouts, that would make a good liveline topic...sure....sure....sure....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Everyone would want to get their spoke in.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Veloce150


    NiallBoo wrote:
    The pedestrian still has right-of-way until it becomes a red man on the pedestrian crossing.
    I suppose you could say that the crossing is essentially a zebra-crossing while it's flashing amber.

    Flashing amber (facing the pedestrian) means don't start crossing.

    Once a pedestrian is crossing, they have right of way even if the lights change to 'red-man'. Motorists and cyclists must always give way to pedestrians once they are crossing. It does not matter if the pedestrian has ignored a 'red-man' or starts crossing on flashing amber. You're not allowed endanger or injure them & if you do, you'll be liable. Jay-waliking is a matter for the Gardai.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    I'd say it's just you

    Apparently not :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,462 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Look, the red light/green green light laws could not be clearer. Stop on red go on green. There is no satisfactory explanation for anyone on any mode of transport who decides to break a red light. Level of risk depending on what mode you are using is not a factor...ever.

    well considering you just got them wrong maybe they could...

    Go on green only if safe to do so


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,402 ✭✭✭✭Trojan


    And you can go on red if it's road works and you can still see the back of the car in front of you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,402 ✭✭✭✭Trojan




  • Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭AlreadyHome


    Trojan wrote: »
    Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut :)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419

    Delighted! Although unfortunately don't have a subscription so will have to take your word for it...


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,402 ✭✭✭✭Trojan


    Delighted! Although unfortunately don't have a subscription so will have to take your word for it...

    Right-click the link and open in a private window (removes the cookies so you can view it).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Veloce150 wrote: »
    Flashing amber (facing the pedestrian) means don't start crossing.

    Once a pedestrian is crossing, they have right of way even if the lights change to 'red-man'. Motorists and cyclists must always give way to pedestrians once they are crossing. It does not matter if the pedestrian has ignored a 'red-man' or starts crossing on flashing amber. You're not allowed endanger or injure them & if you do, you'll be liable. Jay-waliking is a matter for the Gardai.

    Could you give a source for that? I've always understood a flashing amber (when driving, cycling or walking) to mean "proceed with caution".

    Great letters in the times. Keep 'em coming; there's bound to be a lot of little motorists bouncing up and replying "But… red lights…" in the next few days. Might be worth mentioning Paris and other places that allow cyclists to proceed through red lights when safe.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-babin-bicycle-laws-20161003-snap-story.html

    And one tweeter had a great analogy: 'It's like covering an assault on a pensioner by saying "Yebbut old people can be annoying!"'

    I see today's story on cycling in The Irish Times is

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/car-ban-on-parts-of-liffey-quays-mooted-in-cycle-path-plan-1.2816621
    Car ban on parts of Liffey Quays mooted in cycle path plan
    Dublin City Council proposing ban on private cars and lorries from Ellis and Arran Quays

    including
    Dublin City Council chief executive Owen Keegan in June 2014 had said the proposed Liffey cycle route would reduce the space for general traffic on the north quays from two lanes to one. This was met with opposition from some motorists and city centre retailers who said it would worsen daily gridlock along the quays, particularly during morning rush hour.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Incicentally, I'm disappointed to see the Dublin Cycling Campaign posting a comment on the article with the silly statement that imagines all cyclists as a single group, "There is no doubt that poorly behaved cyclists give us all a bad name."
    This is a concept that should be stamped out, and an unscientific and stupid way of thinking.
    Poorly behaved cyclists give themselves a bad name, not me. Poorly behaved drivers, too.
    (On the other hand, the commenter does point out that cycling means better health. Perhaps the next and subsequent protest cycles should also stop at the Department of Health.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Trojan wrote: »
    Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut :)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419

    JD Mangan, on the other hand, believes motorists pay this mysterious "road tax" and makes the inexplicable link between insurance and infrastructure, overlooking of course that 22,000 cyclists have voluntary insurance through Cycling Ireland and that there's 100,000 (a figure that's likely to rise given the urgent state of the insurance market) uninsured drivers on our roads.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    JD Mangan, on the other hand, believes motorists pay this mysterious "road tax" and makes the inexplicable link between insurance and infrastructure, overlooking of course that 22,000 cyclists have voluntary insurance through Cycling Ireland and that there's 100,000 (a figure that's likely to rise given the urgent state of the insurance market) uninsured drivers on our roads.

    And the cyclists who also own vehicles which require "road tax"


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Mangan is a regular contributor to the letters page and is possibly the author of this book. Occasional ranting, occasional unsubstantiated, paranoid ramblings that make for good letters to the editor.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/J.-D.-Mangan/e/B0055DVH72

    Chip and shoulder come to mind


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,974 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Trojan wrote: »
    Nicely done by Brian, Peter and Joan. I didn't make the cut :)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-safer-infrastructure-1.2816419
    is Joan a boardsie?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭Fian




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Fian wrote: »

    Ah, this writer is the equivalent of the 19th-century 'Man in the Street' controversialist in penny-dreadful papers.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,974 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Fian wrote: »
    at least the comments are leaning in the right direction.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Fian wrote: »

    Rag of a paper anyway owned by a man with less than honest motives and an insalubrious past and staffed by ars3h0les.

    It's the paper that gives Barry Egan columns. That alone is enough to boycott it, even with out Ian O'Doherty and his really poorly written crap.

    I know a few journalists, across different organisations. They all take an amount of pride in their work and put a lot of hours into it and the research. Stuff like this must make them weep


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,249 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Fian wrote: »

    I think this person fancies himself as the "Jeremy Clarkson" of the Indo.... Massive fail there!


  • Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭AlreadyHome


    at least the comments are leaning in the right direction.

    You're right...I wonder is this all a result of boardsie chat or if perhaps the cycling protest might have brought some previously silent individuals out of the woodwork.

    I quote my own response only to highlight what I've been thinking about lately in terms of the significance of the bicycle as an invention in and of itself. It's easy to forget that we really haven't made many significant changes to a machine introduced in the late 19th century:

    Without even getting into what a poorly argued piece this is, the author is woefully misinformed about simple issues like the oft-quoted, non-existent "road tax". All of our taxes pay for road infrastructure. There is no road specific tax. There is a motor tax: "...the tax rates are based on the carbon dioxide emissions of the car while in operation" Once the penny drops on this one, I'm sure we'll hear the author moaning about how much CO2 those ruddy cyclists are huffing all over his streets.

    Moving on from that minor detail...

    The political significance of cycling, as mentioned, cannot be understated. As women's rights and anti-slavery advocate Susan B. Anthony stated in 1896: "Let me tell you what I think of bicycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world."

    Let us add to that how effectively the bicycle levels the playing field when it comes to transport for the less well off. In Dublin, one can pay off the cost of a decent bike in the space of 2 months of not using public transport 5 days a week.

    What about people who don't want to cycle everywhere? Well, they might well be covered by the remaining 90% of the budget. I know it's only the dregs, but it's something at least.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Rag of a paper anyway owned by a man with less than honest motives and an insalubrious past and staffed by ars3h0les.

    It's the paper that gives Barry Egan columns. That alone is enough to boycott it, even with out Ian O'Doherty and his really poorly written crap.

    I know a few journalists, across different t organisations. They all take an amount of pride in their work and put a lot of hours into it and the research. Stuff like this must make them weep

    +1

    If they want to know why newspapers can't make money its this drivel.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement