Journalism and cycling

Tenzor07

mr spuckler wrote: »

I already had done yesterday evening, that's the worst I've seen in a while

Utter sh,tbaggery on display by a lot of the commenters on that site, however I think it's roughly in line with the general standard of the comments section in the Journo.ie...

I did however report one of the D-bags on the Journo Facebook posting, who'd basically said it would be now easier to drive over the cyclists now they are lying on the ground... And it was removed by Facebook...

Pinch Flat

The journal is a toxic mess. Gave up on it ages ago. Largely commented upon by 40 odd year old weirdos living in their mums box room that are disenfranchised and angry with their miserable lives.

AndrewJRenko

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The journal is a toxic mess. Gave up on it ages ago. Largely commented upon by 40 odd year old weirdos living in their mums box room that are disenfranchised and angry with their miserable lives.

Leave me out of this.

Pinch Flat

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Leave me out of this.

In fairness I was referring to commenters who seem to have an almost pathological dislike of cyclists.

Thinkingaboutit

Tenzor07 wrote: »

For the love of God don't look at the comments section!!


http://www.thejournal.ie/lie-down-cyclists-3978398-Apr2018/

It's a scientific fact that for Journal.ie (same owner as boards) read, IQ drops two points, which part explains why it's the habitat of the stupid. Moreover, it gives an explanation why many online journals or blogs either disable or carefully require comments to be approved. The online lowering of the boundaries to publication isn't always a great idea.

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In fairness I was referring to commenters who seem to have an almost pathological dislike of cyclists.

i think he was making a joke...

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

The phrase 'Legal status' suggests they have interpreted some piece of legislation to mean this. It's not an aspirational or future goal, nor a recommendation. I'd be interested in knowing what piece of legislation they're reading.

The NTA replied six weeks later, with a link to an RSA page on safety for pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horses. How the horses are supposed to access the web, or know how to read, I don't know.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/

Anyway, that would suggest the NTA were talking through their arse at the time. Maybe a cycling advocate hoping to pull a fast one?

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think he was making a joke...

He surely was.

JMcL

Tenzor07 wrote: »

For the love of God don't look at the comments section!!


http://www.thejournal.ie/lie-down-cyclists-3978398-Apr2018/

Probably saved from myself, just getting a spinny loading icon. I did notice a link to the Journal's comments policy though. Should really be a nominee for the Nobel prize for fiction

whiskeyman

Interesting story here.
I'm surprised there's no reference to her wearing a helmet or not?
Surely this must have played a part?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/i-didnt-have-a-scratch-on-me-but-i-knew-something-was-different-young-woman-who-sustained-brain-injury-in-bike-fall-36793191.html

JMcL

whiskeyman wrote: »

Interesting story here.
I'm surprised there's no reference to her wearing a helmet or not?
Surely this must have played a part?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/i-didnt-have-a-scratch-on-me-but-i-knew-something-was-different-young-woman-who-sustained-brain-injury-in-bike-fall-36793191.html

She did say she was wearing one:

There was one crack on my helmet, probably a sign that it had got a good bang.

whiskeyman

JMcL wrote: »

She did say she was wearing one:

Sorry! Odd it was the one bit I missed!
Scary to think how she would have faired without one so!

Pinch Flat

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-didnt-have-a-scratch-on-me-but-i-knew-something-was-different-young-woman-who-sustained-brain-injury-in-bike-fall-36793191.html

Felexicon

Pinch Flat wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-didnt-have-a-scratch-on-me-but-i-knew-something-was-different-young-woman-who-sustained-brain-injury-in-bike-fall-36793191.html

Read up about 4 posts

Pinch Flat

Felexicon wrote: »

Read up about 4 posts

Oops

CramCycle

whiskeyman wrote: »

Sorry! Odd it was the one bit I missed!
Scary to think how she would have faired without one so!

MOD VOICE: Before it starts, let's just leave it at this. There is no way to know and arguments for and against. There is a helmets mega thread if anyone feels the need to talk about it further.

magicbastarder

Pilita Clark: Why I refuse to follow the law while cycling
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/pilita-clark-why-i-refuse-to-follow-the-law-while-cycling-1.3478087

it's an FT article originally, obviously syndicated.

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

Pilita Clark: Why I refuse to follow the law while cycling
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/pilita-clark-why-i-refuse-to-follow-the-law-while-cycling-1.3478087

Good article, would agree with the author..

Thinkingaboutit

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Good article, would agree with the author..

Although breaking lights isn't wise. Lots of cars do it (without the slightest danger to themselves unless from another vehicle), but oftentimes when a light is amber, a vehicle will speed up to pass the junction. That said, taking a very careful look and going a little ahead of a light or California stop is preferable at some dangerous junctions. Excellent article.

CramCycle

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Although breaking lights isn't wise. Lots of cars do it (without the slightest danger to themselves unless from another vehicle), but oftentimes when a light is amber, a vehicle will speed up to pass the junction. That said, taking a very careful look and going a little ahead of a light or California stop is preferable at some dangerous junctions. Excellent article.

never heard of a California stop and on googling it, still not clear. I have heard of an Idaho stop for cyclists, where if it is clear, it is permissible to roll through.

Chips Lovell

A Yield, in other words?

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

A Yield, in other words?

Yes, but only for cyclists, it is a stop for all motorised traffic.

Tenzor07

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Although breaking lights isn't wise. Lots of cars do it (without the slightest danger to themselves unless from another vehicle), but oftentimes when a light is amber, a vehicle will speed up to pass the junction. That said, taking a very careful look and going a little ahead of a light or California stop is preferable at some dangerous junctions. Excellent article.

Do you mean an Idaho stop?

eeeee

I think this is a much better article on the same thing:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2296681/ethics-breaking-traffic-laws

MediaMan

magicbastarder wrote: »

Pilita Clark: Why I refuse to follow the law while cycling
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/pilita-clark-why-i-refuse-to-follow-the-law-while-cycling-1.3478087

it's an FT article originally, obviously syndicated.

Cynical me thinks this it the IT trying to pour petrol on the fire of the motorists vs. cyclists "war" that they and other publications are vested in.

Also I don't agree with the article. I believe all road users should obey the law, unless there's a clear and imminent danger to safety, in which case you take the safer option. Any other approach ends up where people follow the law when it suits them, which is pretty much how it works on the roads in Ireland today.

Edit: meant to also say: If you think the law doesn't make sense, campaign to have it changed.

Budawanny

MediaMan wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

Pilita Clark: Why I refuse to follow the law while cycling
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/pilita-clark-why-i-refuse-to-follow-the-law-while-cycling-1.3478087

it's an FT article originally, obviously syndicated.

Cynical me thinks this it the IT trying to pour petrol on the fire of the motorists vs. cyclists "war" that they and other publications are vested in.

Also I don't agree with the article. I believe all road users should obey the law, unless there's a clear and imminent danger to safety, in which case you take the safer option. Any other approach ends up where people follow the law when it suits them, which is pretty much how it works on the roads in Ireland today.

Edit: meant to also say: If you think the law doesn't make sense, campaign to have it changed.

The Irish Times views on cycling have softened a lot since the previous editor retired about a year ago . Much more balanced now , although not prefect .
Get the feeling some of their own journalists are writing reasonable articles about cyclists through gritted teeth

Budawanny

double post

What Username Guidelines

None of it really gets any sort of point across, and just enforces the stereotype of cyclists being selfish, peppered with the "but motorists.." arguments such as

But I wish drivers who park in bike lanes copped more fines too

The points in the article just come across as speed being the priority over safety. Certainly doesnt sit well with me as a cyclist, if I was a motorist that was fond of commenting on a cycling article by the journal, for example, I'd be pretty pissed off with the entitled tone of it all. The only parts of the article where the author attempts to excuse themselves from breaking the law don't really hold much merit:

1. If I can avoid a menacing line of belching traffic by nipping on to an empty pavement for a few metres, I will do it.

Or just wait? There are many places in a queue of cars to find a safe spot if you're smart about it. Can't get to the top of the queue? Wait amongst the queue and take the lane if needed. Nipping onto the pavement isnt the answer.

2. If running through a red light when the coast is obviously clear lets me get safely ahead, I will do that, too. This has been legal for cyclists for years in cities such as Paris, by the way.

Good for Paris, but illegal here and in UK. Again, why not just wait at the top of the queue in a manner that will also get you ahead safely?

3. And if I am ever near a truck, all bets are off. Officials say lorries have been involved in 53 per cent of London cyclist deaths in recent years, and 18 per cent of pedestrian fatalities, even though they account for just 4 per cent of miles driven.

Agree that trucks are terrifying to be around, but hang back or wait until it is definitely safe to pass when it's stationary and will be while you pass.

magicbastarder

Woman left paralysed after hit-and-run calls for better cycling lanes

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-left-paralysed-after-hitandrun-calls-for-better-cycling-lanes-34718068.html

tomasrojo

nee wrote: »

I think this is a much better article on the same thing:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2296681/ethics-breaking-traffic-laws

Nobody writes about cycling with more poise and wit than Wildcat Rock Machine. Or Eben Weiss, to use his street name.