Journalism and cycling

** whataboutery alert **

I've never seen a piece on motorway funding mention the high percentage of motorists who speed, use mobiles, etc.

buffalo wrote: »

** whataboutery alert **

I've never seen a piece on motorway funding mention the high percentage of motorists who speed, use mobiles, etc.

As I keep on saying, so much motorist law breaking is so normalised it isn't even seen as law breaking. Try driving around at the speed limit and see the build up behind you, or everyone passing you out if it's dual carriageway or motorway. Everyone (eventually) stops for traffic lights. For those couple of minutes, they might see a cyclist break a red to take a left. They'll have a give out, maybe a rant live on twitter. And then when the lights change they'll get back up to a cruising speed above the speed limit without a second thought about law breaking... If they try and enforce the speed limit, it's all shooting fish in a barrel!

Are you suggesting this is a media driven campaign?

In my opinion, all your points are valid in relation to drivers; there are "brats" driving around in cars as you describe.

Dooring is basic stupidity/carelessness, parking in a cycle lane is lack of manners / inconvenient, but these are hazards for everyone. The u-turn, speeding antics are likewise hazards for everyone, not restricted to cyclists.

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?
Cyclists do it all day, everyday.

Numbers driving through red lights compared to cyclists doing likewise? One in five I reckon, is being extremely generous.
Numbers of drivers overtaking in a dangerous fashion compared to cyclists "sharing" occupied lanes, overtaking on the left of a vehicle indicating left / in tight spaces?
One for one? I don't think so.

There isn't a media driven campaign. The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.
I don't see major inaccuracy in the article and I don't see a problem with the timing.

Cyclists should be allowed to proceed slowly through pedestrian crossing reds (like the flashing amber for motor vehicles - go ahead if it's safe to do so). They should also be able to turn left on red.

All of a sudden, the only major thing motorists have to throw at cyclists is out the window; not to mention the fact that the above makes sense given that a bicycle is not a 2 tonne vehicle.

Also, more to the point, none of this would be an issue if there was a bit more patience from cyclists and motorists. Your time isn't that valuable, get over yourselves. !

Motorists have to stop when the lights go red at a pedestrian crossing even if there are no pedestrians.

Actually, this is one of the most persistent offences done by motorists. Especially left turns through pedestrian crossings when there is only a straight-ahead green, and barrelling through pedestrian crossings that aren't at a junction, where there is no risk to the driver from collisions with cross-traffic.

Biillgirlylegs What are you basing that 50℅ on?

I'll be honest the article isnt all that bad imo. Some of the phraseology is certainly questionable but his over riding points are 1)better infrastructure is needed 2) those who act the bo11ocks should stop doing so and 3) action on the first will help with the second.

I think we all pretty much agree with those three things.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.

Well that's just incorrect. I cycle a 40km round trip each day including the quays in Dublin and dangerous behaviour is not the dominant observation of any road user. Most cyclists stop for red lights but not all, most cars stop for red lights but not all of them. This morning I saw two cyclists make left turns on red and I saw a van and car try to cross Pearse St heading north on Macken Street when there was no space for them, thus blocking all traffic heading east on Pearse Street for an entire cycle of lights. Plenty of pedestrians also walked out across the road without adequately checking for traffic.
The problem with these articles is that

1. any article about cycling seems incomplete without a measure of victim-blaming and a rant about poor cyclist behaviour
2. the proportion of cyclists breaking the laws is always exaggerated
3. other poor behaviour on the roads is ignored, both driving and pedestrian
4. a false equivalence is generated between the dangers of poor cycling behaviour and poor driving behaviour
5. all cyclists and cycling lobby groups are tarred with the same brush in a way that driving lobby groups e.g. Conor Faughnan and the AA are not

Given the recent craven attempt by the Dept. of Transport to undermine the express intent and will of a Ministerial decision by casting doubt over legislation that they themselves created, the car-centric focus of the RSA, the lack of anything bar lip-service to the National Cycle Policy's goal of having 10% of journeys made my bike in 2020 and the repeated cyclist bashing articles in national media, it is difficult to believe that cycling is getting a fair hearing nationally.

As an aside, here are the 19 objectives of the NCPF - I'll let others judge how well these have been implemented over the last 7 years.

Objective 1: Support the planning, development and design of towns and cities in a cycling and pedestrian friendly way.
Objective 2: Ensure that the urban road infrastructure(with the exception of motorways) is designed /retrofitted so as to be cyclist-friendly and that traffic management measures are also cyclist friendly.
Objective 3: Provide designated rural cycle networks especially for visitors and recreational cycling.
Objective 4: Provide cycling-friendly routes to all schools, adequate cycling parking facilities within schools, and cycling training to all school pupils.
Objective 5: Ensure that all of the surfaces used by cyclists are maintained to a high standard and are well lit.
Objective 6: Ensure that all cycling networks - both urban and rural - are signposted to an agreed standard.
Objective 7: Provide secure parking for bikes.
Objective 8: Ensure proper integration between cycling and public transport.
Objective 9: Provide public bikes in cities.
Objective 10: Improve the image of cycling and promote cycling using “soft interventions” such as promotional campaigns, events etc.
Objective 11: Improve cyclists’ cycling standards and behaviour on the roads.
Objective 12: Improve driver education and driving standards so that there is a greater appreciation for the safety needs of cyclists.
Objective 13: Support the provision of fiscal incentives to cycle.
Objective 14: Provide appropriate levels of, and timely, financial resources towards implementing the NCPF.
Objective 15: Introduce changes to legislation to improve cyclist safety.
Objective 16: Improve enforcement of traffic laws to enhance cyclist safety and respect for cyclists.
Objective 17: Develop a structure that can coordinate the implementation of activities across the many Government Departments, Agencies and NGO’s.
Objective 18: Provide design professionals with suitable training / guidance to develop and implement the policies of the NCPF. Support the deepening of knowledge of the subject of planning for cyclists in Ireland.
Objective 19: Evaluate the cycling policy and monitor the success as the measures are implemented.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths?

Nearest miss I've ever had was on the grade separated cycle lane here
A car that was illegally in the bus lane decided to undertake another car illegally in the bus lane (trying to push back into the driving lane) and mounted the kerb and ended up with wheels on the footpath.

The cyclist behaviour nonsense really grates on me. If there were no infrastructure or planning at all and just bicycles then there would be as close to 0% road fatalities as you could get. The problem is that people, not motorists or cyclists, are moronic at times; being moronic on a 15kg bicycle is a lot more forgiving than in a 2000kg car.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

However, driving on footpaths? driving on the wrong side of the road? driving across pedestrian crossings? driving incorrectly on a one way street?
How many times have you seen it?
Cyclists do it all day, everyday.

Have you ever paused to think while cyclists do this? cyclists don't cycle on paths for the laugh or to terrorize pedestrians - they do this because they feel threatened on the road. Lots of kids (and some adults) cycle on the paths where I live - I'd personally prefer this to them being ferried about and contributing to traffic congestion.

Driving down one way streets? how about we being in more contra flows. Problem solved. try cycling from east to west Dublin along the convoluted routes designed to try and address car congestion - one way streets, no left / right turns - all these are done to try and address the impossible - traffic congestion. Lets make our roads more cycling friendly and these problems go away over night.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Numbers driving through red lights compared to cyclists doing likewise? One in five I reckon, is being extremely generous.
Numbers of drivers overtaking in a dangerous fashion compared to cyclists "sharing" occupied lanes, overtaking on the left of a vehicle indicating left / in tight spaces?
One for one? I don't think so.

The reason more drivers don't do this is because it's more difficult - that's not to say 3, 4 or sometimes 5 cars will stream through a red, depending on the junction and in the ever present need to 'beat the traffic'. This morning a case in point - castleknock, lights broke in the center of the village. Park gate street - overtaken by a van, to swoop left up military road, in front of me and another cyclist, through a red. Christchurch - this junction is almost farcical - to the extent that a car (or sometimes several, in addition to some cyclists) will stream through waaaaay after the red.

Cyclists are entitled to move up the left of cars - even if they're stationary and indicating left.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

There isn't a media driven campaign. The behaviour of a significant proportion (more than 50%) of cyclists is a big pain, sometimes dangerous to others - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - and that is why there are so many negative articles and comments.
I don't see major inaccuracy in the article and I don't see a problem with the timing.

the hate against cyclists is media driven - the Irish Times and other publications is heavily subsidized by the car industry through advertising, so they're hardly going to upset their pay masters.

When's the last time you saw an advert for the latest bike, or a "Cycling Section" to counter the motoring one?

Motorists feed on this hate and it's whipped up by the radio - turn into George Hook and you're going to be whipped into a frenzy while you crawl home at 15 kph.

"I'm stuck in a traffic jam I've helped create, who can I blame? Oh look a cyclist breaking a red"

Sent this to the councillors - tried to keep it positive - I figure if there's a debate somebody might stand up and say that DCC have an obligation under the NCPF to fulfill these objectives and perhaps point to Grafton Street as an example of a legacy that the council could point to in future years.

A chara,

I am writing to you in relation to the forthcoming plan for the Liffey Cycle Route in Dublin City centre. I am a regular cyclist who commutes over 30km round trip each day along the quays from the Westmanstown area to Ballsbridge, largely without incident and alongside traffic that is for the most part courteous. Rather than setting forth my own personal opinions of the positives involved in prioritising public transport, cycling and walking within Dublin i would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the aims and objectives contained within the National Cycle Policy, which is at present more than halfway through its lifetime. You may recall that the overall "mission is to create a strong cycling culture in Ireland" with the vision that "10% of all trips will be by bike by 2020".

Dublin City Council has an exciting window of opportunity to be a genuine and inspiring leader in implementing this vision and the proposed plans would fulfill numerous objectives outlined in the National Cycle Policy Framework. As we close in on the 25th anniversary of the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street I would implore you to reflect on the below objectives during your examination of any cycling plans put forward to the Council and to give strong consideration as to the social and infrastructural legacy which you wish to bestow upon this great city.

Yours etc..... - included the 19 objectives as well

The IT had a terrible article on an analysis of motorbike deaths,where they throw in confusing stats, victim blaming and non-sequiturs.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/one-in-three-motorcyclists-who-died-in-crashes-had-drunk-alcohol-study-1.2815259

Headline : One in three motorcyclists who died in crashes had drunk alcohol
29% had - close enough

but now the voodoo begins

IT wrote:

Of those, 29 per cent had consumed alcohol before their crash and 71 per cent of those were over the current blood/alcohol limit (almost half were four times over the limit)

The use of 71% of 29% to inflate the issue, instead of saying 20% were over the current Blood alcohol limit.
The study covers a period when most of the time the blood alcohol limit was higher. It tries to smear people who if they did something now which would be illegal with something that may or may not have been illegal when they did it.

Another shoddy weasle statement

it wrote:

The analysis found that in 86 per cent of motorcycle fatal crashes, the motorcyclist was culpable, or partly culpable,

With no definition of partly culpable given. If someone is 49% culpable does that excuse the more culpable person?

Lastly, the researcher looked at the causes of 887 fatal collisions, but the article focuses only on 93 of them.