Journalism and cycling

Macy0161

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure they'd have framed bike/waling as being cold and miserable but as I said to someone once who asked why I cycled into work on a rainy day, I'd rather be wet and moving than wet and standing around waiting for a bus.

And the wet days are where bike is much faster than car too.

dinneenp

Sorry if already posted, a positive store about the Greenway-
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/ireland/the-story-behind-ireland-s-greenway-success-1.3352239

Pa

bbolger

Borderfox wrote: »

Should have included cyclist and walking going by the distance and speeds involved

I highlighted this to them on Twitter, including the fact that I'd cycled the same route as the car the previous week.

The car took 43mins IIRC. It was 12 mins by bike looking at my Strava activity.

axer

Macy0161 wrote: »

And the wet days are where bike is much faster than car too.

Plus they are the days when public transport are horrible with fogged up windows and being wet and uncomfortable. Cycling is perfectly fine in the wet especially if you have the correct gear and can have a shower at the other end. In fact there is nothing nicer than cycling in the rain and having a nice hot shower before starting work - feels much fresher starting the day than any other transport method.

el tel

Are there no depths to which you bloody cyclists will stoop ? "Armed cyclist tried to rob woman in Belfast"

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/armed-cyclist-tried-to-rob-woman-in-belfast-36550477.html

amcalester

el tel wrote: »

Are there no depths to which you bloody cyclists will stoop ? "Armed cyclist tried to rob woman in Belfast"

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/armed-cyclist-tried-to-rob-woman-in-belfast-36550477.html

That’s actually a good getaway plan, just remove lights don’t wear hi-vis and instantly become invisible.

el tel

amcalester wrote: »

That’s actually a good getaway plan, just remove lights don’t wear hi-vis and instantly become invisible.

Except on a country road, where you will be seen double or triple :pac:

mr spuckler

Sonia O'Sullivan spends time with Aqua Blue in Melbourne

sounds like she's very much into her cycling these days.

cdaly_

axer wrote: »

In fact there is nothing nicer than cycling in the rain and having a nice hot shower before starting work - feels much fresher starting the day than any other transport method.

Sure a bit of shampoo in the hair before you set out and you can skip the shower at the other end...

doozerie

Traumadoc wrote: »

Mixture of everything I find, mountain bikers not so common more road cyclists slipping on ice ( pelvis and collar bones), women not used to cleats ( same), holiday makers who fail to put wheels on properly after they have taken them out of the car and "reassembled" them. Falling on potholes or badly designed cycle lanes- like a 2 inch kerb from a cycle lane down onto road,
Of course cars vs bikes , mostly cars turning into or out of side roads , one cyclist run over.

The estimation of injuries is probably grossly underestimated; the figures given on the above report are 2600 over 24 months, but one Dublin Hospital had over 500 in 12 months.

http://imj.ie/2715-2/

Given it represents approx 1% of attendances in SVH, one could guestimate national figures should be between 10-12000 per year.

That's a very interesting read, thanks for posting the link.

Amongst other things it's interesting to see these figures:

Seventy-nine cyclists (14.8%) presented following a collision with a motor vehicle. Forty-two (7.9%) had a collision with a pedestrian while 17 patients (3.2%) had a collision with a fellow cyclist.

Whenever cyclist safety is mentioned, the primary and sometimes only focus tends to be on the danger posed to cyclists by motorists. The suggestion that we cyclists are a danger both to each other and to pedestrians (and therefore that we too need to be careful and considerate in how we use the roads) is not always welcomed in such discussions, but those numbers above speak for themselves.

Chips Lovell

The remainder of presentations (n=152; 28.4%) involved numerous mechanisms with the documented cause of fall including: uneven surfaces, difficult weather conditions, and photo taking while cycling.

LOL

magicbastarder

i was wondering - was the cyclist posing for the photo or taking the photo?

Traumadoc

doozerie wrote: »

That's a very interesting read, thanks for posting the link.

Amongst other things it's interesting to see these figures:



Whenever cyclist safety is mentioned, the primary and sometimes only focus tends to be on the danger posed to cyclists by motorists. The suggestion that we cyclists are a danger both to each other and to pedestrians (and therefore that we too need to be careful and considerate in how we use the roads) is not always welcomed in such discussions, but those numbers above speak for themselves.

I think a lot of the cyclist v cyclist relates to group cycles, one guy swerves or stops suddenly and the dominoes go over!

The pedestrian issue tends to be pedestrians suddenly stepping off the footpath and walking into the path of cyclists.

Macy0161

I would also suggest that the cyclist often comes off worse in cyclists v pedestrian collisions.

mr spuckler

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would also suggest that the cyclist often comes off worse in cyclists v pedestrian collisions.

certainly was the case in the Phoenix park incident a couple of years ago.

Macy0161

mr spuckler wrote: »

certainly was the case in the Phoenix park incident a couple of years ago.

That was certainly in my mind, but obviously there was the UK case where it was the pedestrian that was killed. I suppose my point was really that with pedestrian and cyclist collisions it's probably more evenly weighted than one being a more vulnerable than the other.

doozerie

Traumadoc wrote: »

The pedestrian issue tends to be pedestrians suddenly stepping off the footpath and walking into the path of cyclists.

I see such near-collisions depressingly frequently. Sometimes it arises when the pedestrian is oblivious and basically steps onto the road unexpectedly and without looking, but most often I see it as pedestrians cross on a green light and a cyclist rattles through a red light and skims past them.

In discussions I've had with other cyclists over the years I've been consistently amazed at how casually many of them dismiss the dangers involved in such situation. When there is no car involved it seems that a lot of people consider the risk to be zero for everyone, despite that clearly not being the case.

It's a very strange mindset, to me it seems just as dismissive of the welfare/safety of others as demonstrated by the worst motorists that routinely drive as if they are the only ones on the road. My guess is that people who cycle with such disregard for others demonstrate the same disregard for others if/when they are driving.

papu

doozerie wrote: »

I see such near-collisions depressingly frequently. Sometimes it arises when the pedestrian is oblivious and basically steps onto the road unexpectedly and without looking, but most often I see it as pedestrians cross on a green light and a cyclist rattles through a red light and skims past them.

In discussions I've had with other cyclists over the years I've been consistently amazed at how casually many of them dismiss the dangers involved in such situation. When there is no car involved it seems that a lot of people consider the risk to be zero for everyone, despite that clearly not being the case.

It's a very strange mindset, to me it seems just as dismissive of the welfare/safety of others as demonstrated by the worst motorists that routinely drive as if they are the only ones on the road. My guess is that people who cycle with such disregard for others demonstrate the same disregard for others if/when they are driving.

My guess is you're very wrong.

Macy0161

doozerie wrote: »

My guess is that people who cycle with such disregard for others demonstrate the same disregard for others if/when they are driving.

Is it not back to the whole them being pedestrians on bikes, rather than cyclists thing? A significant number of pedestrians will cross on a red, a few metres from a crossing, etc. if they deem it safe.

Corca Baiscinn

papu wrote: »

My guess is you're very wrong.

Why do you think poster is wrong? If somebody is selfish/inconsiderate using one mode of transport why would they change spots as it were when they change mode?

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

I see such near-collisions depressingly frequently. Sometimes it arises when the pedestrian is oblivious and basically steps onto the road unexpectedly and without looking, but most often I see it as pedestrians cross on a green light and a cyclist rattles through a red light and skims past them.

The most I see are the opposite, pedestrians illegally crossing at a red light oblivious to the cyclists, this happens most when there are no cars about, or static cars which cyclists are overtaking.

It is evident from the numerous posts I have made before about "jaywalking" that many are unaware it is even a law here.

In the UK collision a while ago if that had been in Ireland she would have been illegally crossing the road. They have no "jaywalking" laws in the UK.

doozerie wrote: »

My guess is that people who cycle with such disregard for others demonstrate the same disregard for others if/when they are driving.

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Why do you think poster is wrong? If somebody is selfish/inconsiderate using one mode of transport why would they change spots as it were when they change mode?

doozerie gave no examples of what they consider "the same disregard", so I have no idea if I agree or not.

People will often "change their spots" due to the likelihood of the garda doing them, and the repercussions. Most garda are sensible and are far more likely to turn a blind eye to a pedestrian breaking a red light than a large truck. If people cannot understand why the gardai do this I really do not think they should be let out on their own.

doozerie

rubadub wrote: »

doozerie gave no examples of what they consider "the same disregard", so I have no idea if I agree or not.

The disregard I was referring to was disregard for the safety of others by cyclists riding through red lights and weaving between pedestrians that are crossing on green, cycling on the pavements to get past queueing traffic (and again weaving between pedestrians), etc.

To me these cyclists show the same attitude, of their progress being far more important than the safety of others, as motorists who so casually break red lights, park on pavements (which obviously involves driving on a pavement if even momentarily), overtake when the shouldn't, etc.

I frequently hear complaints about motorists doing such things, and those complaints are clearly justified, but mention the cyclists' behaviour above to other people who cycle and you are just as likely to hear self-serving justification for such behaviour in response. That justification is usually accompanied by that faithful old chestnut of "but the cyclists are not as dangerous as cars!" which, while generally true, is merely a distraction from the fact that a collision between a cyclist and either another cyclist or a pedestrian can cause significant harm too.

Long story short, as cyclists we undermine our (reasonable) pleas for motorists to drive properly, safely, and with consideration, when far too few of us demonstrate such care and attention towards others.

Or, long story crude, if you are an asshole on a bike, you'll be an asshole behind the wheel of a car too (and vice versa), it's the nature of being an asshole. Stop being an asshole and you instantly make the roads, and the world, a better place.

Corca Baiscinn

doozerie wrote: »

Long story short, as cyclists we undermine our (reasonable) pleas for motorists to drive properly, safely, and with consideration, when far too few of us demonstrate such care and attention towards others.

Or, long story crude, if you are an asshole on a bike, you'll be an asshole behind the wheel of a car too (and vice versa), it's the nature of being an asshole. Stop being an asshole and you instantly make the roads, and the world, a better place.

Disagree with your first point:, car-drivers, hgv-drivers, bus-drivers, pedestrians don't take the misdemeanours of other people who use same mode on board. If I ride my bike to town I'm representing only myself. I'm in in a Cycling Club and I misbehave while wearing the club gear, (Say throwing my gel or bottle in the ditch) then yes I'm letting down the group whose rules I've signed up to but otherwise I'm an individual.

Agree with second point, like I said earlier leopard doesn't change his spots so likely to display quality like impatience for eg when travelling by either mode, tho' yes as another poster pointed out, will modify behaviour if likely to be caught but only temporarily, ie wont become an all round considerate driver or cyclist

NeedMoreGears

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

........ car-drivers, hgv-drivers, bus-drivers, pedestrians don't take the misdemeanours of other people who use same mode on board. If I ride my bike to town I'm representing only myself. ......

I am somewhat depressed* to have to both disagree and agree with you. Allow me to explain.

I think the on-going "bloody cyclists" approach adopted by quite a lot of media has served to create the impression of cyclists as a homogenous class of road user, all of whom behave in exactly the same way (badly as it turns out). This is similar to "bloody taxi drivers" in my view. Hence I do believe that other road users see poor behaviour of individuals within an albeit perceived but not actual class reflecting on badly on the whole class.

You are, of course correct, to indicate you are only representing yourself. The problem is other road users may not see it that way, which is a bit depressing really.

*I'm not actually depressed but I couldn't think of a word that encompassed disappointed/cheesed off/I wish people wouldn't resort to lazy stereotyping etc.

doozerie

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

I think the on-going "bloody cyclists" approach adopted by quite a lot of media has served to create the impression of cyclists as a homogenous class of road user, all of whom behave in exactly the same way (badly as it turns out). This is similar to "bloody taxi drivers" in my view. Hence I do believe that other road users see poor behaviour of individuals within an albeit perceived but not actual class reflecting on badly on the whole class.

This is my view too. Some of the associations with cyclists are blatant, some less so. One of the more blatant ones is breaking red lights being synonymous with cyclists - motorists break lights regularly too, but in my experience that's not a widely expressed view of motorists (except in cycling circles).

Being human we all seem to find comfort in categorising people. We categorise by skin colour, by accent, by dress code, by mode of transport, etc., etc. And like many of those the category of cyclist comes with a lot of baggage, we even have sub-categories like "lycra-clad bastards cyclists", MAMILs, etc., mostly not positive roles as far as many are concerned.

So while I too don't claim to represent cyclists when I'm on a bike, those around me might choose otherwise. The likelihood is that when I stop at a red light that'll count for nothing (and it shouldn't, because I'm doing no more than any other road user should do), but if I were to break a red light that would just serve to confirm that view that all cyclists break lights routinely.

MediaMan

Traumadoc wrote: »

Mixture of everything I find, mountain bikers not so common more road cyclists slipping on ice ( pelvis and collar bones), women not used to cleats ( same), holiday makers who fail to put wheels on properly after they have taken them out of the car and "reassembled" them. Falling on potholes or badly designed cycle lanes- like a 2 inch kerb from a cycle lane down onto road,
Of course cars vs bikes , mostly cars turning into or out of side roads , one cyclist run over.

The estimation of injuries is probably grossly underestimated; the figures given on the above report are 2600 over 24 months, but one Dublin Hospital had over 500 in 12 months.

http://imj.ie/2715-2/

Given it represents approx 1% of attendances in SVH, one could guestimate national figures should be between 10-12000 per year.

Great to see this report, still trying to digest the data. So far the standout sentence for me is:

According to RSA data, there has been an exponential increase in cycling injuries since 20023. However, the RSA does not include hospital statistics in their data collection.

How can a safety authority for anything set policy for the prevention of accidents if they are not even measuring the occurrences of non-fatal accidents? The non-fatal accidents way outnumber the fatal ones, so statistically the data from them should be extremely important.

Traumadoc

MediaMan wrote: »

Great to see this report, still trying to digest the data. So far the standout sentence for me is:

How can a safety authority for anything set policy for the prevention of accidents if they are not even measuring the occurrences of non-fatal accidents? The non-fatal accidents way outnumber the fatal ones, so statistically the data from them should be extremely important.

I think the fact that nearly 1 in 20 fractures were spinal is particularly concerning , although I am sure most were stable fractures without damage to the spinal cord.

Makes you think.

Lumen

MediaMan wrote: »

Great to see this report, still trying to digest the data. So far the standout sentence for me is:

imj wrote:

According to RSA data, there has been an exponential increase in cycling injuries since 2002

That word "exponential" stands out as dodgy right away. These are scientists, right?

Here is a graph from the RSA report that they reference (which doesn't use the word "exponential".



Now I'm no mathser, but AFAIK exponential means something like "a curve that continually becomes steeper or shallower."

That curve does not such thing. It goes down a bit, up a bit, levels off and then spikes with a single data point. Otherwise known as an "outlier".

Traumadoc

Lumen wrote: »

That word "exponential" stands out as dodgy right away. These are scientists, right?

Here is a graph from the RSA report that they reference (which doesn't use the word "exponential".



Now I'm no mathser, but AFAIK exponential means something like "a curve that continually becomes steeper or shallower."

That curve does not such thing. It goes down a bit, up a bit, levels off and then spikes with a single data point. Otherwise known as an "outlier".

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cyclist-injuries-surging-in-bike-boom-road-safety-authority-warns-motorists/

The new head of the Road Safety Authority, Liz O’Donnell has said a report compiled by her organisation which has yet to be published has found an exponential increase in the number of cyclists being injured in crashes in recent years.

CramCycle

Traumadoc wrote: »

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cyclist-injuries-surging-in-bike-boom-road-safety-authority-warns-motorists/

The new head of the Road Safety Authority, Liz O’Donnell has said a report compiled by her organisation which has yet to be published has found an exponential increase in the number of cyclists being injured in crashes in recent years.

I don't think Liz understands the word exponential. It could only mean one of two things, neither of which cpuld be inferred from such data.