Journalism and cycling

CramCycle wrote: »

I imagine that would fit in nicely with work on F1 driver reaction times. Fascinating work years ago that showed that reactions, trained ones, actually took a short cut through the brain (laymen's terms here). I can well imagine that regular cyclists have a similar trained reaction. My thinking on it was different than the researchers, they proposed quicker reaction times, I felt it indictated that training meant you had to work through less possible reactions, hence the quicker arrival time to a reaction, also the training meant that , from experience, you reacted to the logical scenario, even in illogical circumstances.

There's probably a degree of that in that if you're coming pelting down a hill at 60km/h+ you have to be able to react quickly to small things that wouldn't trouble a car.

I'd say the cyclists make better drivers as far as the article is concerned is simpler however - you're simply better aware of the damage cars can do, the need to have space etc. There's also the very obvious correlation that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article that if somebody is cycling, thinking in particular of the commute here rather than long spins, then they're not in the car so less likely to have need of making a claim

Weepsie wrote: »

I'd always assumed to be an instructor you had to have gone through some bit of mandatory extra training. I've somehow mixed it up with the training that testers I think go through that I read about some time ago.

I'm only a learner myself, and I'm brutal, and probably worse because I cycle so much and have put it off so long. It's something I should have done at a young age just to have. My observation and such is probably much improved from cycling, but I just get into a car thinking that a minor mistake in this is a hell of a lot worse than one on my bike.

For years the only requirement was a full driver's license. When they brought in the ADI rules, most of them got an amnesty so didn't have to take training.

I remember getting some absolutely brutal advice from "reputable" instructors when learning to drive. Very frustrating when you're paying them quite a lot of money for the privilege.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

work wrote: »

Well done RTE on this and the stupid texts were just that...Bikes shouldn't be allowed use roads or the path, classic.

I wonder would RTE actually read out stupid texts if the issue was a race issue or a religious issue? There doesn't seem to be any filter/decency mechanism when it comes to cycling.

Interesting point; or do interviewers ask inane questions of interviewees when topic is cycling that would never be asked if driving was the topic? There's a twitter thread by Conn Donovan, Cork, re daft questions Dan Boyle was asked last week re how impractical it is to cycle long distances when the actual topic was maintenance/non maintenance of cycle lanes. Can't link to it just now but it's worth reading.

Fian wrote: »

My son did his test yesterday.

If i can venture some unsolicited advice - pick your test centre early, then find out the routes that they use (most centres will have about 6 routes that they use for every test) and practice them repeatedly. You will get to know the pitfalls etc, places where you might find yourself in the wrong lane etc.

Aye back in the mists of time when I did mine, the only time I was... ahem... available for the test was a Wednesday morning. Wednesday at the time was half-day in the town (do these still exist anywhere?) and Wednesday mornings were tumbleweed quiet. It nearly backfired as the day dawned and visibilty was about 30m with fog :eek: I did pass though.

I spent about a year in California shortly after that, and had to do a driving test over there as the car hire company wouldn't accept my Irish license for some reason. Complete joke - drive up the road, turn left, then turn around (on a road so wide a Dodge minivan could just do a u-turn) and drive back. Coming back to the point in discussion, I'm pretty sure I was at that point qualified as a Californian driving instructor :rolleyes:

That cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet when he head-butted that guy. He could have been killed!

Ah nice, a zero emissions headbutt!
Seriously though, what a dirtbag.

Stark wrote: »

That cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet when he head-butted that guy. He could have been killed!

Nah, if you do it properly, it doesn't hurt.

Fian wrote: »

This one is not behind a paywall:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/10/police-hunt-cyclist-who-headbutted-pedestrian-in-london

He is described as a white man in his 40s.”

.. at least he wasn't wearing lycra ...

Roadhawk wrote: »

...just thought i would point out that the pedestrian deliberately made contact with the cyclist before the cyclist stopped and attacked him. As the pedestrian was crossing he used his right hand to shove the cyclists right shoulder.

All as a result of the violent scumbag who ran a red light to begin with.

CramCycle wrote: »

On my phone it looks more like he pulls back in shock, maybe I'm wrong

He raised his hand all right possibly in self defence, impossible to know. Either way, it's the cyclist's fault if contact occurred imo, and the reaction was totally unjustified. I hope he's caught and gets done for assault.

Roadhawk wrote: »

...just thought i would point out that the pedestrian deliberately made contact with the cyclist before the cyclist stopped and attacked him. As the pedestrian was crossing he used his right hand to shove the cyclists right shoulder.

There is not the slightest element of blame attaching to the pedestrian in this instance. No way.

The guy on the bike is completely in the wrong, in fact that is an understatement since it suggests he might have only been careless. As posters above put it he is a scumbag.