Journalism and cycling

My letter to the editor:

RE: Why cycling safety is a two-way street - Tuesday 4th October 2016

Sir,

While I welcome Dick Ahlstrom's call for increased government funding of cycle infrastructure, I despair of the author's unrelated complaint of cyclists' behavior in the same breath. When talk of budgeting for motorways is raised, do we mention drivers' use of mobile phones or breaking the speed limit?

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of injuries and deaths on Irish roads are as a result of driver error. I would suggest that until cyclists become responsible for a comparable number of tragedies, talk of misbehaving cyclists is treated as the distraction it is. In the meantime, how about we focus on the environmental, economic and welfare benefits that an improved cycling infrastructure will have on our country and its citizens?

Yours, etc,

AlreadyHome

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

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the Irish Times digital editor is Paddy Logue (plogue@irishtimes.com). You are free to voice your opinion/concerns however i'm not sure how serious it will be taken. Editors receive umpteen positive and negative responses to published pieces.

Logue also has a fairly accurate article on cyclists published earlier this year:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/patrick-logue-cyclists-need-to-stop-peddling-excuses-for-rule-breaking-1.2642664

Oh great...so it looks like the editor himself is avidly pro-cycling!

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.

12 sprocket wrote: »

Yes it is really dangerous ..Especially for a gob****e of a cyclist who cycles through on the red!.........

if a cyclist has also broken the red then they won't be in danger from a motorist who has because they'll be traveling in the same direction.

The danger is to crossing pedestrians, motorists and especially cyclists that have just gotten a green light( bikes are usually quicker off the mark)...and of course, the luas.

It also means that designers have to allow a painful amount of dead time between changes to stop these people from causing crashes.

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.

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree, cyclists defending this is ridiculous. The same for cycling on a one way street. It doesn't matter what the rules are in different countries. Respect the laws of the country you are in.

Dont break red lights. Its not that complicated.

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.