Journalism and cycling

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

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".

basing this on maths lessons from 25 years ago, so a bit hazy - IIRC, to be exponential, it has to increase by a certain *factor* year on year - so as you mention, a curve that would tend to infinity.

e.g. a trend that went (from year 1) 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc, is clearly linear, but if it was 1, 1.1, 1.21, 1.331, 1.4641, etc, it'd be exponential (based on a multiplier of 1.1 every year).

i fully expect my old maths teacher (hi, flea!) to pop in and correct me.

tomasrojo

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".

The thing about that single data point as well is that it is almost all non-serious injuries. As judged by Gardaí admittedly, but then so are the serious injuries.

There is a rise in "serious" injuries in that outlier year, but it's not huge. Certainly not in proportion to the rise in "non-serious".

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

basing this on maths lessons from 25 years ago, so a bit hazy - IIRC, to be exponential, it has to increase by a certain *factor* year on year - so as you mention, a curve that would tend to infinity.

e.g. a trend that went (from year 1) 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc, is clearly linear, but if it was 1, 1.1, 1.21, 1.331, 1.4641, etc, it'd be exponential (based on a multiplier of 1.1 every year).

i fully expect my old maths teacher (hi, flea!) to pop in and correct me.

That's pretty much correct. I really doubt Liz O'Donnell is using it in that sense.

tomasrojo

Traumadoc wrote: »

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.

Mandatory spine guards?

#justonelife

tomasrojo

I've said it before, but the data analysis bit needs to be taken off the RSA and given to a university department, or something like that. You can't have a campaigning body in charge of data analysis; they're completely different mindsets, and skill sets.

AndrewJRenko

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's pretty much correct. I really doubt Liz O'Donnell is using it in that sense.

What other sense is there for exponential?

tomasrojo

Colloquially, a huge increase. But that's not what it really means. It means a trend where each subsequent value is, at least approximately, a fixed proportion of the previous. So if it's rising at 1% per year, you won't see a worrying increase in five years: roughly 5%. If it doubles every year though, the total will be 32 times bigger within five years.

So while an exponential trend can show huge increases, a trend showing huge increases is not necessarily exponential; you can have have a hundred extra cyclists being injured every year and that's a linear trend, not exponential.

barleyman

Hi All,

over the last three weeks the attached articles have been published in a local magazine. They have caused a lot of upset in the cycling fraternity here in the Killarney Cycling Club.

For those of you who have time i'd appreciate if you could read the three articles and give your feedback\opinions on same.

the first article is titled "We all use the roads"
second article contains a letter from the club in response to the first article and the magazines response to the letter.

the third article is on pg 18 in the second link.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_KS4KQnei6MGSw8MmmJIjuit0jRGL2gE?usp=sharing

https://issuu.com/killarneyadvertiser/docs/killarney_advertiser_2nd_february__/2


Cheers,
Barleyman

Doc07

If the response you and your club mates are looking for is 'Cormac Casey is a gobsh&te and a terrible journalist' , then I'm happy to oblige.

Weepsie

<MOD Note> Merged with Journalism thread as it's quite similar

doozerie

barleyman wrote: »

For those of you who have time i'd appreciate if you could read the three articles and give your feedback\opinions on same.

My response in your original thread seems to have been lost in the merge with this thread, but here is the gist of it:

The first letter is bile, written by someone expressing bias against cyclists but trying (badly) to dress it up as concern. Their stance of "I used to cycle a bit myself" is a common enough ploy of people who believe it excuses them saying just about anything.

Some specific bits from their letter:

* ‘increased numbers [of cyclists] on our roads makes cyclists extremely vulnerable” - how does that work, how do increased numbers of cyclists make each of us more vulnerable. Nonsense.

* “In recent years the RSA has supported sweeping laws to protect the cyclist” - what sweeping laws would those be exactly? Personally I see little if anything the RSA does as doing anything good for cyclists.

* The suggestion that going single file removes you from risk is well established nonsense. People who argue for that either have no idea of what a safe overtake is, or simply don't care. They are motivated by wanting cyclists out of their way, the safety of the cyclists means nothing to them. If cyclists were able to disappear from their path by riding off a cliff then such motorists would advocate for that as the "proper" approach.

* There is no suggestion that the “frustrated motorists” should moderate their own behaviour, it essentially implies that a frustrated driver that overtakes dangerously is doing so because somehow they've been forced to do so. That's basically victim blaming.

Weepsie

Sorry doozerie, you must have replied around the time I merged them. How curious.

Wholly agree with your points.

Their stance of "I used to cycle a bit myself" is a common enough ploy of people who believe it excuses them saying just about anything.

On this point. Always a red flag for me, especially on the forum.

magicbastarder

to be honest, and this is my usually internal grammar nazi coming out, but when i read lines like 'the cyclist is going to fair out worse', it kinda undermines the heed i will pay to the argument.

Grassey

Deleted User wrote: »

They missed a great opportunity on prime time there, should have included bikes in that race.

Looks like Dublin Cycle Campaign are going to recreate 'the race' calling on all those see. Sense trial users.

Calling all Dublin Cycling members using the SeeSense ICON lights for the Smart cities cycling trial. We will be repeating the RTE "Race" next Monday morning at 8.15am and cycling from Ulster street to Lesson street bridge. A distance of 4.4km. Please let us know if you are interested by directly messageing us on FB on this post or sending an email to info@dublincycling.ie You have to have the app installed and be part of the recent smart cities trial for this to work. We want to show how effective the bike is as a transport option! https://seesense.cc/pages/smart-cities

P_1

Grassey wrote: »

Looks like Dublin Cycle Campaign are going to recreate 'the race' calling on all those see. Sense trial users.

Wondering why they're only looking for folk using the SeeSense mind. Kinda reminds me of that European bike month thing that only allowed you to particiate if you used their awful app

CramCycle

minikin wrote: »

Where have I said otherwise? That image shows the difference between sensible cyclists and those who may be less so. You can clearly see those in hi-vis, even though they're much further away than those in black.

Thats not true

P_1 wrote: »

Wondering why they're only looking for folk using the SeeSense mind. Kinda reminds me of that European bike month thing that only allowed you to particiate if you used their awful app

Probably because it is an already filtered group of people and there is no risk that a load of people turn up at an unofficial race.

Dons skinsuit and gets out TT bike :cool::cool::cool:

Tombo2001

The Tallaght Hit and Run is getting huge coverage in Independent.it and on IrishTimes.ie

For once, there are no smart arse comments on the facebook pages......maybe there is a line in the sand when its a child that is hit.

Going back to the whole Tubridy/ Late Late fiasco.

I note that Rte News has made absolutely no mention of either the Tallaght hit and run, or the the legal case last week where a driver was given community service for inflicting serious injuries on a cyclist.

You would think there'd be some offset or 'mea culpa' reaction to the farm animals business, but no.....

On the other hand, considerable coverage on RTE this week given to 'hurtful social media comments' regarding Maura Derrane's dress sense, and the hurtful things that people say needlessly in social media.....Ryan and Maura have been teasing this issue out......

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

On the other hand, considerable coverage on RTE this week given to 'hurtful social media comments' regarding Maura Derrane's dress sense, and the hurtful things that people say needlessly in social media.....Ryan and Maura have been teasing this issue out......

They put human beings in a bin.

mr spuckler

I only got around to watching the Prime Time race last night. my wife often mocks me for how much of an "activist" I've become when it comes to cycling and cyclist's rights. however watching that race last night, her blood was boiling just as much as mine if not more!

if the poor production value and the ridiculousness of the woman missing the Luas (and hence losing the race) because she had to call to ask for permission to use the camera wasn't enough to put you off, the fact that they gave such a fleeting acknowledgement to the fact that both cycling and walking would've gotten you there faster was incredible!

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The Tallaght Hit and Run is getting huge coverage in Independent.it and on IrishTimes.ie

For once, there are no smart arse comments on the facebook pages......maybe there is a line in the sand when its a child that is hit.

Going back to the whole Tubridy/ Late Late fiasco.

I note that Rte News has made absolutely no mention of either the Tallaght hit and run, or the the legal case last week where a driver was given community service for inflicting serious injuries on a cyclist.

You would think there'd be some offset or 'mea culpa' reaction to the farm animals business, but no.....

On the other hand, considerable coverage on RTE this week given to 'hurtful social media comments' regarding Maura Derrane's dress sense, and the hurtful things that people say needlessly in social media.....Ryan and Maura have been teasing this issue out......

They must have read your post there's a piece there on the incident now https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0207/938961-hit-and-run-tallaght/

mr spuckler

seems from the other witness statement that the driver was relatively blameless in this case but while not specifically cycling related the flippant nature of the Skype comment here really gets me.

“My sister got a haircut and asked if she could Skype call so I could look at it,” Miss Pyper told the court. She ended the call while waiting at traffic lights before turning onto the N11, the court heard.

“The phone was in my lap. It was on loudspeaker. I said I’ve got to go because I’m going onto the N11,” she said.

so before she was on the N11 it was fine to be on a Skype video call on her phone?

Kaisr Sose

Not cycling related but involving a motorcyclist. A truck driver got 10mths yesterday for causing the death of a motorcyclist. The accused driver was disqualified at the time, and has since been disqualified for another matter. The Judge was quite gracious/sympathetic in her comments:

Full story here/

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/disqualified-truck-driver-who-caused-death-of-fatheroftwo-jailed-for-10-months-36579677.html

Weepsie

Judge Martin Nolan. That did not surprise me.

that the deceased man probably panicked when he saw the oncoming lorry and applied the brakes forcefully. The victim was thrown from the bike and fell under the wheel of another lorry.

From said judge. Probably shouldn't come into it. Facts, and only facts. The driver shouldn't have been on the road.

I overreacted in my blanket statement towards judges in Ireland in a separate thread, but I actually fully believe Mr. Nolan shouldn't be presiding over any court.

Kaisr Sose

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Not cycling related but involving a motorcyclist. A truck driver got 10mths yesterday for causing the death of a motorcyclist. The accused driver was disqualified at the time, and has since been disqualified for another matter. The Judge was quite gracious/sympathetic in her comments:

Full story here/

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/disqualified-truck-driver-who-caused-death-of-fatheroftwo-jailed-for-10-months-36579677.html

Once I saw the judges name I said to myself here we go this should be good (in a bad way)

buffalo

mr spuckler wrote: »

seems from the other witness statement that the driver was relatively blameless in this case but while not specifically cycling related the flippant nature of the Skype comment here really gets me.



so before she was on the N11 it was fine to be on a Skype video call on her phone?

Here's a great line:

“I didn’t see her until she was right in front of the car. I couldn’t have not hit her given how she was suddenly in front of me,” she said.

She was suddenly in front of me, i.e. the 82-year-old woman must've have sprinted straight out in front of my car.

mr spuckler

Weepsie wrote: »

Judge Martin Nolan. That did not surprise me.

From said judge. Probably shouldn't come into it. Facts, and only facts. The driver shouldn't have been on the road.

I overreacted in my blanket statement towards judges in Ireland in a separate thread, but I actually fully believe Mr. Nolan shouldn't be presiding over any court.

bit of a contradiction in the below statements, no?

Sentencing McArdle, Judge Martin Nolan said this was a tragic accident but that there was no element of speed or recklessness in McArdle's driving.

McArdle was driving on the wrong side of the road for up to ten seconds, during which time he met the motorcyclists.

and then this nonsense!

He was covered by insurance for the accident, the court heard.

how the fvck does that work if he's disqualified from driving?

“He prided himself as someone who had never touched another vehicle in his work life,”

but was alright with his drink driving ban and subsequent unrelated 10 year driving ban.

jesus wept.

You could take a random person in off the street to sit and hear these cases and judge them, I guarantee they would say something like "are you for real?" to some of the defences offered in those cases before throwing the book at them.

There are circumstances that can be out of peoples control but the skype one above takes a rather large biscuit.

Grassey

http://www.thejournal.ie/teenager-tallaght-hit-and-run-appeal-3840006-Feb2018/

THE FATHER OF a 14 year old boy who was seriously injured in a late night hit-and-run incident has appealed to those responsible to “have some morals” and to come forward.

What I thought was interesting reading this was that in the comments there is pretty much universal outrage against the driver:

This crime is at the top of the scale and I hope the Gardai get the driver. If they don’t hand themselves in and because they chose to run then same as attempted murder. If there is no insurance this young lad deserves a Fundraiser of some sort.

Which was followed by

if this was top of the scale the guy who was sentenced last week for a hit and run of another cyclist would have been sent to prison.

So I guess the bar is that cycling is for children and it's reprehensible to injure/kill them, but once you cross into adulthood you are fair game as you shouldn't be on the roads?

Grassey

mr spuckler wrote: »

so before she was on the N11 it was fine to be on a Skype video call on her phone?

I had to look up "The jury returned a verdict of misadventure."

Death caused by a person accidentally while performing a legal act without negligence or intent to harm

How could a jury come back with that - how is driving, on a skype call, not being aware of surroundings, not using a hands free kit not negligence?

mr spuckler

it says - and seems to have been accepted - that she had finished the Skype call a few mins before the collision.