Journalism and cycling

magicbastarder

Roads with most cyclists are 13% safer for riders, new survey says

A pioneering study into the risks of cycling in London reveals that “safety in numbers” protects riders from injury.

Roads with more cyclists are 13 per cent safer — probably because drivers are more aware, or because cyclists shield each other by riding in a “protective ring”.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/roads-with-most-cyclists-are-13-safer-for-riders-new-survey-says-a3826931.html

buffalo

What's a protective ring and where do I get one? I'm not sure if sounds more like a prophylactic or a Captain Planet accessory.

magicbastarder

i think this is the ring cyclists usually wear, cos it makes you invisible.

retalivity

Man down again today at the junction of leeson st and fitzwilliam place in dublin. Was being attended to by a fire brigade and ambulance as i went past.
Hope the cyclist is ok, but that junction is notorious for cars turning right onto fitzwilliam place into oncoming cyclists coming up leeson st with a green light.

MediaMan

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

Haven't come across him before - very well written. The next article on the page (The Many Pitfalls of Cycling Fitness) is hilarious.

Mr. Grieves

MediaMan wrote: »

Haven't come across him before - very well written. The next article on the page (The Many Pitfalls of Cycling Fitness) is hilarious.

He's been blogging a long time, so it might take you a while to get all the in-jokes:

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.ie/

tomasrojo

MediaMan wrote: »

Haven't come across him before - very well written. The next article on the page (The Many Pitfalls of Cycling Fitness) is hilarious.

He's best known as Bike Snob NYC. He's a really fine writer.

The blog that first brought him to public attention isn't updated as often as it used to be, as he writes for more professional outlets now, but it's still a good read.

EDIT: Took a phone call in the middle of writing that, and Mr. Grieves had posted.

Tombo2001

MediaMan wrote: »

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.

I completely support your first comment - I think pretty much every media outlet at this stage
(i) sees cyclist behaviour as a topic that will generate debate, and:
(ii) is firmly on the side of drivers, not wishing to alienate what they see as their biggest audience.....

Of course none of them would ever say that. In this case, while the article obviously presents the cyclists point of view; nonetheless the sub-heading, - which is what readers are drawn to - is very provocative and is not the one written on the original FT article.

Relating to other point.

I do tend to agree with you.

However I would make the following point - at the recent inquest into the death of a cyclist in Dublin, a garda commented to the effect that the cyclist was positioned dangerously at the road, at the trafffic lights while waiting for the lights to go green.

The reason he said this I guess is because the cyclist was in the truck drivers blind spot, just below the LHS side mirror.

What of course he didnt say is that the cyclist was positioned exactly where the Rules of the ROad were saying she should be.

So in that case.....what is the right thing to do?

Tenzor07

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

The points in the article just come across as speed being the priority over safety. .

What I got from the article is that the author would like to conserve movement and safety whilst traveling by bicycle within a road traffic system which is mostly hostile to bicycle users, if that means passing a red at an empty crossing, or hoping up on a pavement free of pedestrians to get past a solid line of vehicles, or going through a red light at a left turn with a big truck behind you then so be it.

Tenzor07

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The reason he said this I guess is because the cyclist was in the truck drivers blind spot, just below the LHS side mirror.
What of course he didnt say is that the cyclist was positioned exactly where the Rules of the ROad were saying she should be.So in that case.....what is the right thing to do?

You will get some here who say that a bicycle user should have positioned themselves Behind the truck and assumed vehicular position in the line of traffic behind..

I don't agree! The real issue is that the advance stop box for cyclists is always invaded by vehicles, and that traffic signals in city centers and areas with high bicycle use need to have bicycle specific lights which allow the bicycle user to proceed 15 seconds before vehicular traffic..

Chips Lovell

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What of course he didnt say is that the cyclist was positioned exactly where the Rules of the ROad were saying she should be.

So in that case.....what is the right thing to do?

Where in the rules of the road does it say you should position yourself in a truck's blindspot? In fact, it says the complete opposite:

• Do not take up a position on the ‘inside’ of a large vehicle out of view of the driver. Instead, stay behind if the large vehicle has stopped at a junction with the intention of turning left.
• Keep clear of the kerb – riding clear will make you more visible and help reduce unsafe overtaking.
• Beware of blind spots – all vehicles have blind zones and a driver may not be able to see you!

What Username Guidelines

Tenzor07 wrote: »

What I got from the article is that the author would like to conserve movement and safety whilst traveling by bicycle within a road traffic system which is mostly hostile to bicycle users, if that means passing a red at an empty crossing, or hoping up on a pavement free of pedestrians to get past a solid line of vehicles, or going through a red light at a left turn with a big truck behind you then so be it.

Conserve movement may be another way of putting it, but why? Agree it can be a hostile environment to cyclists but why not allow vehicles turning left for example nip up on the path? There's a risk that it's empty when you mount the path but wont be clear the entire time you're on it.

I do agree if there was a flashing amber at left turns or ped crossings that allowed cyclists to proceed at their discretion it might help, but a red light is a red light.

Tenzor07

Well there ya go, a number of bicyclists lined up neatly, all in hi-vis/helmets...

https://twitter.com/nickkeeganirl/status/991360574712893440?s=04

Even though the red car at the top of the que has the front section of the car in the ASL box... :rolleyes:

Grassey

Tenzor07 wrote:

Even though the red car at the top of the que has the front section of the car in the ASL box...

Is it an asl box though? The solid white line continuing across the road would indicate its a stop line so all those cyclists (and the golf) at the top have broken the stop line?

buffalo

Grassey wrote: »

Is it an asl box though? The solid white line continuing across the road would indicate its a stop line so all those cyclists (and the golf) at the top have broken the stop line?

Grass by name... :P

You're dead right though, no ASL box there. So the front few cyclists along with the front driver are in breach of the law. Incidentally, check out out the Streetview image: https://goo.gl/maps/W3yL94uqM4C2

Grassey

I was wondering was it a pedestrian crossing once I managed to spot the camouflaged hivis runner in the middle of the bikes.

buffalo

Actually, there's so much wrong with that junction for everyone except drivers.

No ASL box, no pedestrian crossing - despite there being a dished section - the white line right up against where the pedestrians have to cross, leaving them very vulnerable when trying to get across two lanes of traffic to the refuge island. From the refuge island to the far side there will never be a red light for all motor traffic, meaning waiting for a gap or a dash to get across.

AndrewJRenko

retalivity wrote: »

Man down again today at the junction of leeson st and fitzwilliam place in dublin. Was being attended to by a fire brigade and ambulance as i went past.
Hope the cyclist is ok, but that junction is notorious for cars turning right onto fitzwilliam place into oncoming cyclists coming up leeson st with a green light.

And notorious for motorists blocking the section of the junction for bikes and pedestrians to cross, because apparently it is entirely unpredictable that heavy traffic might hold vehicles up at that junction.

Tenzor07

Incoming missiles, everyone run for cover, this onslaught will be BRUTAL!!!!



http://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-bank-holiday-weekend-3989384-May2018/

Pinch Flat

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Incoming missiles, everyone run for cover, this onslaught will be BRUTAL!!!!



http://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-bank-holiday-weekend-3989384-May2018/

Ah here. This is ireland. We don’t do personal responsibility. Expect red light breaking, “road tax”, insurance, helmets and hi vis to feature heavily in the comments. Oh yeah and the odd nutter calling for cyclists to be killed / mown down.

Muahahaha

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Incoming missiles, everyone run for cover, this onslaught will be BRUTAL!!!!



http://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-bank-holiday-weekend-3989384-May2018/

I wouldnt advise anyone to read the comments. However I did and this one had to be my favourite -

On the way to work this morning I was passed by a cyclist who was cycling one handed while holding a baby under his other arm with a young child on a small bike traveling behind him. Both children had no helmets though the cyclist himself did. One small mistake could lead to catastrophic consequences in this situation.

"Cyclng one handed with a baby under his other arm", that is some masterful trolling right there :pac:

Lumen

Muahahaha wrote: »

"Cyclng one handed with a baby under his other arm", that is some masterful trolling right there :pac:

Or some masterful cycling.

I did once cycle back from the playground with my unhelmeted toddler son on my shoulders and his bike under one arm (he was tired).

But I was on the footpad so it doesn't count!

Tenzor07

This definitely doesn't count as journalism... a cyclist hate page on FB: https://www.facebook.com/Dublin-Cyclists-Do-What-They-Want-170222143696843/

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

But I was on the footpad so it doesn't count!

That reminds me, I was able to finish the Irish Times cryptic crossword last Saturday thanks to this forum

14D: By the way, old robber has no getaway vehicle (7)

eeeee

I just learnt how to report a page on Facebook!

Fighting Tao

Tenzor07 wrote: »

This definitely doesn't count as journalism... a cyclist hate page on FB: https://www.facebook.com/Dublin-Cyclists-Do-What-They-Want-170222143696843/

The idiot that owns the page uses a bloody mobile phone while driving to catch these criminals.

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

That reminds me, I was able to finish the Irish Times cryptic crossword last Saturday thanks to this forum

I'm so bad at cryptic crosswords, even when you give me the clue and the answer I still can't figure it out.

Tenzor07

nee wrote: »

I just learnt how to report a page on Facebook!

Reported also, think these sorts of pages were inspired by the originals in Australia...

Fighting Tao

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Reported also, think these sorts of pages were inspired by the originals in Australia...

And created by Boards posters!

What Username Guidelines

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The idiot that owns the page uses a bloody mobile phone while driving to catch these criminals.

€40 fine for cycling through red light
€60 fine for holding the mobile (+3pts)