Indo: 'outrage' over cyclists not using bike lane

Firedance

endacl wrote: »

I think we've reached that point...

Any chance of boards setting up a sister site where all these pointless cyclist/driver threads could be redirected?

talktoyourselves.ie perhaps?

Or, why don't 'we' complain to radio stations & newspapers about their negative reports. Can't hurt *goes off to type angry email to the indo*

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

Thought Hook had retired. Interesting. If someone took this advice and assaulted a cyclist from the car, could they cite Hook as a co-defendant if the injured cyclist sued?

I think he only retired from the rugby punditry, though he is winding down elsewhere too, as far as I know.

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Incitement to hatred surely

Traditionally (and indeed in the eyes of the law) cyclists are not one of the groups that it is a crime to incite hatred against, and it's actually one of the things that bugs me to see people frivolously trying to invoke it like that:

Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989 wrote:

“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

Grassey

Does using a bicycle as a valid mode of transport, and being part of a secret not-road-tax-paying sect not make us members of the travelling community?

2RockMountain

biZrb wrote: »

The road is on the way to/from Richmond Park, its quite narrow, so I understand why he's annoyed as cyclists can 'hold up' cars as its difficult to overtake them.

Same street at this one, apparently - must be something in the water over there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs

cython wrote: »

it's actually one of the things that bugs me to see people frivolously trying to invoke it like that:

Not quite sure what is 'frivolous' about trying to save lives on the road. The real impact of Hook's hatred is the kind of aggression you see in this video and even more overt aggression, as seen elsewhere on YouTube.

Don't Chute! wrote: »

There was a guy on George Hook today who said he was walking down by Sandymount this morning and decided to challenge cyclists on the footpath. He said he challenged nine of them on his journey with varying responses. Hook then told him "there is one thing you can do, if you have a walking stick you can hit them". To which yer man said well I was using one to stop them.
Now, while obviously a lot of cyclists behave very badly is it really acceptable for a national broadcaster to be saying things like this? I find Hook and his hate talking about cyclists gets a lot of idiots riled up and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or worse.
I'm starting to get quite worried about all of this ignorant anti cyclist propaganda going around

This is fairly outrageous. Check out the BAI Code of Programme Standards;

http://www.bai.ie/en/download/128555/

Robust debate is permissible as is the challenging of assumptions but programme material shall not stigmatise, support or condone discrimination or incite hatred against persons or groups in society in particular on the basis of age, gender, marital status, membership of the Traveller community, family status, sexual orientation, disability, race, nationality, ethnicity or religion.

So the BAI code does not restrict incitement to those designated groups.

Broadcasters shall not broadcast anything likely to promote, or incite, to crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State.

Is telling someone to stick a walking stick into a bike wheel incitement to commit a crime?

Is Hook's broadcast still online?

Kaisr Sose

Firedance wrote: »

In that video they all ended up at a red light yes? So what, really, is his issue?

Doh! Motorists just love being the first one to a red light and even have races to see who can get there first, who waits longest before green and who was going fastest before having to stop and wait. It's really competitive.

Chuchote

But if you come to me and say "I'm being bullied by this guy in work", and I reply "Hit him a dunt in the gob", have I not incited you to commit an act of violence that will harm the person?

If you follow my advice, and then the alleged bully (AB) comes back and sues you for medical expenses for his broken jaw, and you point out that you were only following my perfectly sensible suggestion, can AB not join me in the suit, on the basis that you were quite peaceful until I made the suggestion?

I don't know, wouldn't know these legal things, but would be a bit surprised if he couldn't.

Not, obv, suggesting that anyone should sue Hooky. But maybe it would be an idea for some cyclists to phone him and put the point of view that cyclists are not a homogenous group, that I'm not responsible if some stranger happens to cycle badly, just because both of us share the two-wheeled mode, any more than Hooky is responsible for all the other people who drive Ford Prefects, or whatever it is that he drives, if they don't signal, or if they use their mobile phones while driving, or if they break red lights, or if they make dangerously close passes on cyclists.

In this article

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/george-youre-the-criminal-matt-cooper-slams-newstalks-george-hook-on-ireland-am-31349206.html

there's a classic quote:

Outspoken Newstalk presenter Hook (72) admitted that the last time he was actually on a bike was "the day John F Kennedy died" in 1963.

Also a nice one from Matt Cooper:

Yet, his Today FM counterpart Matt Cooper (49) took more offence to Hook's "criminals" comments by retorting: "George, you're the criminal. You've a string of road traffic convictions".

Lemming

2RockMountain wrote: »

Same street at this one, apparently - must be something in the water over there.

I don't think it's anything "in the water" and a simple case of statistical probability. Most of the crazy footage posted tends to be around the south of England and London in particular. London alone has 10 million people living in it; traffic is a pain in the proverbial whatsits, parking even more so, and some roads you'd be lucky to fit a skateboard down; combine all that and simply put you'll find idiots with short fuses who would take umbrage at a school crossing guard doing their job ensuring children can cross safely, never mind a cyclist.

Another thing to note is that cycling is a lot more widespread & encouraged in the UK (or parts of it at least), and not just down to simple statistical numbers.

Personally speaking I've rarely encountered much in the way of aggressive driving when cycling in and around Sheffield & its surrounds. Whilst my commute is not London (or anything remotely that intense; I get to have some off-road fun before & after work ... the joys of Yorkshire), those parts of my commute that involve roads involve some busy 'arterial' roads (complete with school traffic of both the primary & secondary variety) and a particular roundabout that I hate driving on in a car, never mind on a bike. And despite all of that, I could count the number of aggressive acts that I've encountered on one hand over several years.

tomasrojo

I don't think many judges would regard Hook's antics as incitement to hatred. Even if you treat people who travel by bike as a distinct subculture (in more than an academic way), you still have to get around his obvious defence that he's only joking.

"Only joking", of course, is a great way to obscure bullying and and other objectionable punching down, but I think most people would accept that he's not seriously advocating violence, but that he's using humorous exaggeration to express the level of his frustration.

These aren't my attitudes, incidentally. I don't think this stuff is harmless.

Chuchote

He hasn't been on a bike in 53 years :pac:

ThisRegard

He done some publicity thing recently where he actually jumped on a bike but I can't find the photos. Maybe he used the Right to be forgotten law to have them all removed.

CramCycle

ThisRegard wrote: »

He done some publicity thing recently where he actually jumped on a bike but I can't find the photos. Maybe he used the Right to be forgotten law to have them all removed.

He was a famous face for a charity cycle a few years ago, possibly cancer research. He just stood on the bike though. He also recently accepted an invitation from someone in Dublin (a cycling advocacy group, I think). He wobbled around a partially cobbled street, went on the footpath, turned back against traffic on a one way street and then got off.

There is a video as it was on the newstalk site for a bit and there was definetly a link in here somewhere but I will be damned f I can find it.

ThisRegard

Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking off, no trace of it using a combination of different key words that I can think of. Best I can find is him holding a bike for some kick-start promo.

Ronaldinho

On the basis of the first 30 seconds or so he's dead right.

2 lads cycling on a narrow road when there's what seems to be a perfectly good cycle lane they could be using.

What's the point in going to the expense of putting in cycle lanes if people aren't going to use them?
May as well just paint lines on the road and then the traffic will have room to overtake.

He is total d!ck though - no argument there

patrickbrophy18

While it is frustrating to see roads used instead of perfectly good adjacent cycle lanes, all my sympathy for the motorist and his cause:rolleyes: are completely lost knowing that he was using his phone while driving to film his dilemma. Here are some extremely alarming points to take from the video:

• He is seen a few times taking his eyes (and phone camera) off the road during crucial points along the road and for a few seconds at a time when all it takes is a split second for a *major accident to occur.
• This is all in the space of 85 seconds:eek:.
• In some of these incidents, he had his eyes off the road when overtaking cyclists.
• While overtaking, he failed to leave the requisite 1.5 meters of space.
• *: One wrong move could mean the difference between life and death for any of the cyclists he was passing out.
• While a distant last, throughout the video, he is frequently making derogatory remarks towards what is official cycling attire.

All of these points on top of the fact that he uploaded evidence of his highly illegal road conduct has placed him in a very actionable position.

Bottom line, if he or someone else is going to go out and film the exploits of various road users to make a point, at least have the decency of having a mounting device or cradle of some sort on the dashboard.
That way, they aren't holding the camera/phone while driving AND worse, endangering the lives of their fellow road users.

realitykeeper

I think cycle lanes are great but in the video there were low tree branches over hanging the cycle lanes. Low branches are also a problem on some footpaths. I have pedestrians step out on the road to due to overhanging foliage.

CramCycle

What if it was a tractor, what if it was animals being moved, what if it were any other legally entitled road user, except a cyclist. It's funny how people often can't see the wood for the trees.

I drive a car, a tractor, occasionally a lorry, I cycle, I walk. 2 cyclists on a narrow road is no worse than a slow tractor (caught behind several in all transport forms bar walking), a lorry (caught behind in all transport forms except a tractor and walking in the city), animals going or returning from milking (who hasn't been stuck).

Basically, people are d1cks, sometimes because they are, sometimes because they know no better.

I'm at the point where I will raise my hand or ask "did you realise?", but the amount of people who do not realise, trust me, I know ignorance, I was born and bred into it, still full of it.

If people who accidentally think that inducing fear in another person or potentially harming them is a reasonable response to being inconvenienced (and thats all that it is), then **** YOU.

If my kids want to cycle, then I encourage them, but unlike when I ignore the stupidity that risks my own life, if I ever find a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist who threatens the safety of my children, I will find you and drag you from your bed at night and leave you upside down, felling the wooziness as the blood drains from your body.

magicbastarder

Ronaldinho wrote: »

On the basis of the first 30 seconds or so he's dead right.

2 lads cycling on a narrow road when there's what seems to be a perfectly good cycle lane they could be using.

okay; let's assume the cycle lane was perfectly serviceable.
*why* did the cyclists choose not to use it? what point were they making that they decided cycling on a narrow road was preferable to use what we have assumed is a well designed and maintained cycle lane?

Jawgap

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

While it is frustrating to see roads used instead of perfectly good adjacent cycle lanes, .......

Therein lies the problem. There are very few 'perfectly good' cycle lanes - there's some quite adequate ones but the majority vary between downright dangerous and 'pain-in-the-arse' (literally and metaphorically).

To a motorist, pedestrian etc a cycle lane might look pretty good or adequate but not to a cyclist. For example, pretty much without fail (in this country) if you use a cycle path running parallel to main road you immediately lose the right of way you had while on the main road - my view is it's better to stay on the main road and not have to worry about every gate, lane and entrance opening on to the cycle track.

Likewise, roads tend to go from point 'A' to point 'B' while cycle tracks running parallel to them tend to take crazy meanders through all kinds of chicanes and slaloms at junctions - again, much easier to stay on the road rather than trying to navigate a load of barriers, dished kerbs and hairpin turns at a junction.

Then there's maintenance - coming into the autumn any track under or near trees will quickly become covered in mulched leaves which at best muck up your bike and at worst can cause an accident - better to stay on the roads because at least they are swept, cleaned and even gritted occasionally.

Hunterbiker

magicbastarder wrote: »

okay; let's assume the cycle lane was perfectly serviceable.
*why* did the cyclists choose not to use it? what point were they making that they decided cycling on a narrow road was preferable to use what we have assumed is a well designed and maintained cycle lane?

When you say perfectly servicable cycle lane are you jus treferring to the surface and low hanging trees around it or do you also mean that the lane wasnt broken by side roads. As this forces cycles to give way to vehicles from the side road (unlike the cars and cyclists using the road where the cyclelane is....)

Chuchote

The Daily Mail unexpectedly has a law-and-order take on the story (and rather pointedly uses a picture of a cyclist not using the lane which clearly shows foliage hanging into the lane where any cyclist would run into it)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797924/Angry-4x4-driver-shouts-abuse-beeps-horn-cyclists-thinks-using-cycle-lane-appears-breaking-law-using-phone-wheel.html

but the commenters are still lunatic self-entitled drivers squeaking about cyclists.

Deafening silence from the police, who surely should have arrested this guy for filming on his phone, close passes, etc; cycling organisations have reported him, but no action…

Hunterbiker

More Indo outrage on the way (once they see the story online

Standard balancing things up
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/selfish-cyclists-slammed-for-dropping-litter-after-richmond-park-deer-deaths-a3350046.html

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Well of course cyclists or anyone shouldnt litter. Disgusting behaviour be it a cigarette being thrown from a car or a cyclist dropping a gel pack or a wrapper.

Or what I suspect is the main danger to these deer: non-housetrained families (and I'm talking about the parents here) discarding babies' disposable nappies rather than taking them home to put in the bin. See it all the time in Sandycove.

Coffee Fulled Runner

I'm wouldn't consider myself a cyclist, but I think some of the cycle lanes are just far too dangerous to use. I think country councils received grants to install them but in most cases they just painted a line along the side of the road or split a footpath in two with a line.

PaulieC

CramCycle wrote: »

Basically, people are d1cks, sometimes because they are, sometimes because they know no better.

I think that sums the whole thing up rather well. I would further qualify it though, to say that "mostly because they are"

nomdeboardie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

More comedy Gold!

LINK

From the title (Cycle Lanes To Be Renamed ‘Extra Footpath’), I expected it to be a skit on the fact that the cycle lanes frequently are used as foothpaths already

ETA: Point already made by a previous poster - must stop commenting before reading full thread

nomdeboardie

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why are we commenting on an irish newspaper reporting about something happening in England?

Indeed...but it would help if Irish 'newspapers' would occasionally bother to edit the text they copy from the foreign 'press' to specify the country involved. Granted I could have inferred "Priory Lane near Richmond Park" was in England if I had thought about it (and Googled if necessary), but easy enough to gloss over local names and assume they might be in the country of origin of the relaying rag

Chuchote

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Indeed...but it would help if Irish 'newspapers' would occasionally bother to edit the text they copy from the foreign 'press' to specify the country involved. Granted I could have inferred "Priory Lane near Richmond Park" was in England if I had thought about it (and Googled if necessary), but easy enough to gloss over local names and assume they might be in the country of origin of the relaying rag

Under the ownership of asset-strippers or profit-worshippers, a lot of the papers have got rid of their Irish sub-editors and are 'outsourcing' their editing to Britain, whose subs genuinely don't know that Ireland's a different country. So you find them referring to "An Irishman", "the mainland", etc. And they either buy in stuff that people have already read online in the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc, or simply plagiarise stories. As their readership drops, the owners keep making these budget-slashing decisions, and scratching their heads over why people don't want to read their stuff any more.

average_runner

People on here were complaining about glass on the n4 cycle/walk way. Ran on it last night, its in perfect condition!

magicbastarder

not that this is the place for such discussions, but newspaper budgets are generally plummeting regardless of the quality of content. the fall in quality is as a result of the revenue falloff, not necessarily a cause of it.

average_runner

Deedsie wrote: »

Ya I am sure you had a perfect view of it while running on it at night.

Considering the lighting on the n4, yes you would have a perfect view and ps it doesn;t get dark till 8:15!!!