Journalism and cycling

magicbastarder · 04-10-2016 3:32pm

a motorist breaking a red is not dangerous to a cyclist breaking the same red; but at many (most?) junctions, the motorist breaking the red is dangerous to those driving through a green light, rather than other road users breaking a red.

Roadhawk · 04-10-2016 3:46pm

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.

Roadhawk · 04-10-2016 3:51pm

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, typical day, today I was crossing the street, wheeling my bicycle, in Rathmines. The pedestrian light was flashing amber, giving me right of way.

Does a flashing amber give a pedestrian right of way at a pedestrian crossing? I would have thought so at a zebra crossing but not a pedestrian crossing.

04-10-2016 3:56pm

I love the way the thread has proved its own point. Here we are talking about cyclists breaking red lights again.

As accurately observed above, imagine if ANY conversation about cars / investment in roads was immediately hijacked by people going on about speeding all the time. Absurd.

NiallBoo · 04-10-2016 3:57pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Does a flashing amber give a pedestrian right of way at a pedestrian crossing? I would have thought so at a zebra crossing but not a pedestrian crossing.

Flashing amber means that a motorist/cyclist may proceed only if the crossing is clear.

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.

Although zebra crossings are different to light-controlled crossings.

Roadhawk · 04-10-2016 3:57pm

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.

NiallBoo · 04-10-2016 4:00pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

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.

...It's every bit as blatant. In spite of what people might tell themselves about it supposedly not harming anyone, they know damn well they're breaking the red.

Weepsie · 04-10-2016 4:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I love the way the thread has proved its own point. Here we are talking about cyclists breaking red lights again.

As accurately observed above, imagine if ANY conversation about cars / investment in roads was immediately hijacked by people going on about speeding all the time. Absurd.

Ive often thought about starting such absurd topics in the motoring threads and whatnot.

04-10-2016 4:03pm

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.

How is it not? You are just making excuses now.

I thought you were serious about road safety, with all your 'red lights are not confusing' talk. Clearly not.

Weepsie · 04-10-2016 4:04pm

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.

Oh wow, this is up there with the stupidest things on here. You say yourself it's illegal, so yes, yes it is.

From the cyclist point of view jumping early may be because they don't trust the car behind them in the lane to have any patience and squeeze by (I get this everyday), but of course they might just be an arse thinking the light is nothing but an inconvenience to them. In some, some cases I'd understand it, but don't do it.

From the driving point of view, it seems to be ah sure I'll gamble, save a minute or so, my journey is terribly important. In no cases except medical emergency to I understand it

beauf · 04-10-2016 4:07pm

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.

buffalo · 04-10-2016 5:13pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

You did? Under which name?

Trojan · 04-10-2016 5:14pm

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

Pinch Flat · 04-10-2016 5:14pm

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.

beauf · 04-10-2016 5:19pm

No excuse for poor journalism either.

the.red.baron · 04-10-2016 5:20pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Is it just me, or does this......

contradict this?

I'd say it's just you

greenspurs · 04-10-2016 5:20pm

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

beauf · 04-10-2016 5:24pm

greenspurs wrote: »

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

It's a vicious cycle...

the.red.baron · 04-10-2016 5:43pm

beauf wrote: »

It's a vicious cycle...

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

beauf · 04-10-2016 7:57pm

Everyone would want to get their spoke in.

Veloce150 · 04-10-2016 8:09pm

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.

Pinch Flat · 04-10-2016 11:15pm

the.red.baron wrote: »

I'd say it's just you

Apparently not :pac:

Cookie_Monster · 04-10-2016 11:53pm

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

Trojan · 05-10-2016 1:06am

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.

Trojan · 05-10-2016 1:11am

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

AlreadyHome · 05-10-2016 1:19am

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...

Trojan · 05-10-2016 1:27am

AlreadyHome wrote: »

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).

Chuchote · 05-10-2016 6:41am

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.

Chuchote · 05-10-2016 6:57am

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.)

Pinch Flat · 05-10-2016 7:11am

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.

randomname2005 · 05-10-2016 7:44am

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"

Weepsie · 05-10-2016 8:20am

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

magicbastarder · 05-10-2016 8:33am

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?

Fian · 05-10-2016 9:00am

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

Chuchote · 05-10-2016 9:15am

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

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

magicbastarder · 05-10-2016 9:15am

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

at least the comments are leaning in the right direction.

Weepsie · 05-10-2016 9:35am

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

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

Tenzor07 · 05-10-2016 9:54am

Fian wrote: »

irritating clickbait in the indo this morning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

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

AlreadyHome · 05-10-2016 10:02am

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

beauf · 05-10-2016 10:18am

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.

Chips Lovell · 05-10-2016 10:31am

The entire point of opinion pieces by writers such as O'Doherty, Kevin Myers, Clarkson etc. is to be provocative and get people riled up.

If you clicked on it, read it, and got angry, then they've done they're job and the Indo makes its money.

ThisRegard · 05-10-2016 10:36am

Another Cycling segment coming up on Pat Kenny on Newstalk now. They already had one this morning, and you can imagine the tone when he mentioned earlier they were going to talk about license plates for cyclists.

Edit: Whoop Whoop! It's Ian O'Doherty discussing it!

AlreadyHome · 05-10-2016 10:44am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The entire point opinion pieces by writers such as O'Doherty, Kevin Myers, Clarkson etc. is to be provocative and get people riled up.

If clicked on, read it, and got angry, then they've done they're job and the Indo makes its money.

You're absolutely right, but I'd argue there's something positive about seeing the majority of responses coming from cyclists. The more coverage the cycling debate gets, the better. Take that Irish Times piece, for example. Pro-cyclist letter responses outnumbered the car driver's response 3 to 1.

AlreadyHome · 05-10-2016 10:50am

"I'd be more concerned about being injured by a cyclist in Dublin, than I would be of being injured by a car"

Ian O'Doherty trumps your statistics with his +5 mouth noise.

ThisRegard · 05-10-2016 10:54am

He can be full of ****e on most topics. After having to listen to him I'm sure he's a regular on the various cyclist threads, it was like he was playing bingo with all the cliches he trotted out, motorists pay tax, dangerous cyclists etc etc.

Tombo2001 · 05-10-2016 11:02am

The thing about being a cyclist for me anyway is.....

They all hate us anyway....

......why should we care what they think.

Absolutely no doubt that newspapers/ media have fostered and encouraged this friction between motorists and cyclists.

I've lost count of the amount of letters and articles I've seen in the Irish Times complaining about cyclists; mostly written by people who haven't been on a bike this century.

tomasrojo · 05-10-2016 11:02am

Pat Kenny seems to have a few hobby horses. Rather into spirtualist healing flim-flam too, very sympathetic to guests who operate in that area, and is clearly dismissive of climate change too.

I'm not a regular listener, so perhaps I'm being unfair, but I've heard him show these traits enough to avoid him.

Tombo2001 · 05-10-2016 11:04am

ThisRegard wrote: »

Another Cycling segment coming up on Pat Kenny on Newstalk now. They already had one this morning, and you can imagine the tone when he mentioned earlier they were going to talk about license plates for cyclists.

Edit: Whoop Whoop! It's Ian O'Doherty discussing it!

Nothin personal against Ian O'Doherty.

Opinion journalism is what he does.

The issue here is Newstalk....

......we are running an opinion section on cyclists. Lets invite this person in who will really put the boot into cyclists......

The station has the agenda. It will claim to be objective and neutral of course.

Chuchote · 05-10-2016 11:08am

I'm no chicken myself, but I'm amazed at how many of the radio gurus are from my generation. Are there no fit young cyclists who'd be good radio jocks?

gaffmaster · 05-10-2016 11:09am

I think an awful lot of bad or lazy journalism stems from the journalist having to write about something they know little about. So they regurgitate the loudest or most recent piece of information they've heard on the topic in their own words. In the case highlighted very well by the OP, it's the fact that some people on bicycles break red lights sometimes.

Trends develop. You see this type of thing all the time when football pundits are asked about certain topics. One of them will form an opinion, then the rest will copy it until it's a fact. A lot of the time it's nonsense.

Journalism and cycling

Comments