Journalism and cycling

mr spuckler

aside from absurdity of the OPW both applying for and granting permission for this development, it's astonishing that we still see fit to provide so much parking in the city, as well as ignoring all of the council's concerns around traffic.

also, the initial exclusion of the greenway from the plans by a state body such as the OPW is incredible. who knows what the below means in practise!

While no changes were made to the parking plans for the development, the OPW has altered the scheme to provide a passage for the cycleway.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/plans-for-80m-garda-command-centre-approved-for-dublin-1.3594068

radia

Consultation has just opened in the UK on proposed new cycling offences including 'death by dangerous cycling' and 'death by careless cycling'. Similar proposals for serious injury. Also consuits on potential penalties if these offences were introduced.
BBC report
The actual consultation documents

mr spuckler

radia wrote: »

Consultation has just opened in the UK on proposed new cycling offences including 'death by dangerous cycling' and 'death by careless cycling'. Similar proposals for serious injury. Also consuits on potential penalties if these offences were introduced.
BBC report
The actual consultation documents

it really is incredible. all this on the back of 1 death where you'd at the very least say there was some level of shared responsibility. meanwhile hundreds of cyclists die every year in the UK...

Chris Boardman is very strong on this topic.

Department for Transport figures for 2016 show that 448 pedestrians were killed on Britain's roads, but only three cases involved bicycles.

By contrast, Cycling UK said that 99.4% of deaths on the road in the last ten years involved a motor vehicle.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

Council failing to meet demand for cycle infrastructure, documents show
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/council-failing-to-meet-demand-for-cycle-infrastructure-documents-show-1.3594056

not much meat to that. FOI request shows public is unhappy. there's no actual quantification of demand.

One woman repeatedly contacted the council after her toddler was nearly knocked from his tricycle by “a couple of very professionally dressed cyclists speeding down the bicycle path” between Dollymount and Sutton in north Dublin.

Suits and ties perhaps?

Rechuchote

Seriously

a) what eejit lets a toddler on a trike ride in a bike lane?
b) what eejit goes at that kind of speed in a bike lane?

Fighting Tao

Rechuchote wrote: »

Seriously

a) what eejit lets a toddler on a trike ride in a bike lane?
b) what eejit goes at that kind of speed in a bike lane?

a) someone who thinks nothing of putting their child’s life in danger. A trike belongs on the footpath.

b) what speed? None was mentioned and it could have been 5 kph for al we know. Also ‘nearly’ could mean that the bikes were a metre away. Too much emotion and not enough facts in that quote. Btw, I’m not saying they weren’t travelling at 40 kph or that it was 5 mm distance. The facts are absent.

magicbastarder

the bike lane/footpath between dollymount and sutton is a public amenity, where you have people walking their dogs, and doing all sorts of generally enjoyable things. i see no issue with bringing a kid out on a trike on it.

the last time i shouted at another cyclist was on this path, because the group was being collectively, a bunch of dicks.

mr spuckler

Rechuchote wrote: »

a) what eejit lets a toddler on a trike ride in a bike lane?

Fighting Tao wrote: »

a) someone who thinks nothing of putting their child’s life in danger. A trike belongs on the footpath.

for real? we talk about "cycling for all" and now we're complaining about children being in cycle lanes? that's one of the best protected / traffic segregated cycling facilities in Dublin, yet it's also only separated from a footpath by a painted line. you don't know whether the child was in the cycle lane or on the footpath close to the cycle lane yet you're very quick to label the mother an eejit!

I often bring my 2 1/2 year old on that footpath on his balance bike and have never had an issue with cyclists when he's veered towards the cycle lane. I'm constantly looking around for approaching cyclists but in almost all cases they slow down and prepare for him to possibly move unexpectedly - that's what kids do.

on the flipside when cycling towards town a couple of weeks back I was forced out of that lane and very close to pedestrians because a group cycling 2 abreast bullied through me in exactly the same way that motorists do on the road sometimes.

the knee jerk reaction to blame the mother is akin to motorists automatically blaming cyclists without knowing facts. much like the group above basically used their size to bully me off the cycle lane.

Fighting Tao

mr spuckler wrote: »

for real? we talk about "cycling for all" and now we're complaining about children being in cycle lanes? that's one of the best protected / traffic segregated cycling facilities in Dublin, yet it's also only separated from a footpath by a painted line. you don't know whether the child was in the cycle lane or on the footpath close to the cycle lane yet you're very quick to label the mother an eejit!

It was a trike Which is far safer on a footpath.

mr spuckler wrote: »

I often bring my 2 1/2 year old on that footpath on his balance bike and have never had an issue with cyclists when he's veered towards the lane. I'm constantly looking around for approaching cyclists but in almost all cases they slow down and prepare for him to possibly move unexpectedly - that's what kids do.

Maybe you need to read my post again. Footpath is the safest and best in your case.

mr spuckler wrote: »

]
on the flipside when cycling towards town a couple of weeks back I was forced out of that lane and very close to pedestrians because a group cycling 2 abreast bullied through me in exactly the same way that motorists do on the road sometimes.

Thankfully never happened me out there and anytime I’m in a group we’d single out when encountering others. Some people are dicks.

mr spuckler wrote: »

]
the knee jerk reaction to blame the mother is akin to motorists automatically blaming cyclists without knowing facts. much like the group above basically used their size to bully me off the cycle lane.

Trike on bike path where bikes travel quite fast... wouldn't put any child in that position yet alone my own. Common sense approach with a bit of risk assessment should be used so a child is not put in a position of danger. There has to be some responsibility placed on he adult that is supervising the child. No one can rely of everyone else behaving in a certain way.

Chips Lovell

Kids are perfectly entitled to use that cycle path. There's no age restriction. Any one who uses it with any regularity will know that there's a good chance you'll encounter younger children on it.

Blaming the parents for letting a child cycle there is, in quite an ironic way, quite reminiscent of motorists blaming cyclists for putting themselves in harm's way by cycling on the road.

mr spuckler

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Blaming the parents letting the child cycle there is, in quite an ironic way, quite reminiscent of motorists blaming cyclists for putting themselves in harm's way by cycling on the road.

thanks for articulating my point better than I did!

Fighting Tao

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Kids are perfectly entitled to use that cycle path. There's no age restriction. Any one who uses it with any regularity will know that there's a good chance you'll encounter younger children on it.

Blaming the parents letting the child cycle there is, in quite an ironic way, quite reminiscent of motorists blaming cyclists for putting themselves in harm's way by cycling on the road.

Children can’t do risk assessment like adults. While I cycle carefully on that path I see plenty that don’t. I wouldn’t let my son on that path on a trike (when he’s old enough to be on a trike) due to the people who couldn’t care less about his safety and see him as a hindrance. It is not possible to control others behaviour and so it’s up to the parent to be responsible to ensure that their child is not put at risk.

You wouldn’t let a child play football on the road running alongside the track but you may on a road in an estate just off the road that doesn’t have much traffic. It’s the parents place to assess the risk.

As I said in my first post. Maybe the cyclists were goin at 5 kph, were very careful passing and were not near the child or maybe they were doing 40 kph and brushed by the child. The article lacks facts and contains emotion that can’t measure facts.

mr spuckler

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Maybe you need to read my post again. Footpath is the safest and best in your case.

maybe you need to read mine again, we were on the footpath

you're right though about adults risk assessing - I deem it safe to have my son on that footpath, even though he sometimes swings into the cycle lane. if you saw me with him you'd think my neck was rubberised I'm that hyper-attentive to his safety and aware of approaching cyclists. I manage the relatively minor risk inherent in having him there as best I can. but tbf, most passing cyclists further reduce that risk through their actions. I'm certainly not going to shelter him from risk as he grows up, but will teach him how to assess and minimise it as well as I can.

I'm also happy to have him in the trailer behind my bike on the roads around where I live and on his seat on my bike as I take him to creche - lots of people aren't. some people assume you're crazy and endangering your child for doing so and yet happily strap kids into cars where far more children die each year...

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/TRAFFIC-COLLISIONS-LEADING-CAUSE-OF-CHILD-MORTALITY-IN-IRELAND/

Grassey

https://mobile.twitter.com/modacitylife/status/1027401844711030786

Dutch teens are among the healthiest and happiest on earth, with the lowest rates of obesity and antidepressant usage in the world: (link: http://bit.ly/2KEl4rk) bit.ly/2KEl4rk

Dutch teens also cycle—on average—an astonishing 2,000 km. each year: (link: http://bit.ly/2KBxNuB) bit.ly/2KBxNuB

Fighting Tao

mr spuckler wrote: »

maybe you need to read mine again, we were on the footpath

you're right though about adults risk assessing - I deem it safe to have my son on that footpath, even though he sometimes swings into the cycle lane. if you saw me with him you'd think my neck was rubberised I'm that hyper-attentive to his safety and aware of approaching cyclists. I manage the relatively minor risk inherent in having him there as best I can. but tbf, most passing cyclists further reduce that risk through their actions. I'm certainly not going to shelter him from risk as he grows up, but will teach him how to assess and minimise it as well as I can.

I'm also happy to have him in the trailer behind my bike on the roads around where I live and on his seat on my bike as I take him to creche - lots of people aren't. some people assume you're crazy and endangering your child for doing so and yet happily strap kids into cars where far more children die each year...

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/TRAFFIC-COLLISIONS-LEADING-CAUSE-OF-CHILD-MORTALITY-IN-IRELAND/

Nope. Read yours correctly and that’s why I said you were right to be on the footpath. You assessed the risk and acted accordingly. That’s what all parents should do. However, the toddler was on a trike in an area that even the dog on the street knows that others don’t cycle in a safe manner for everyone. So the mother failed in her risk assessment. Seems like the RSA also highlight risk assessment in the link you posted. I wonder how many people that think cycling is too dangerous perceive other situations being safer than they actually are.

I also have no problem with you having kids in a trailer. From what I’ve seen online that drivers take extra care when kids are involved compared to when it’s adults only. A trailer is on my shopping list for when the wee fella is old enough.

Rechuchote

The Daily Telegraph has this piece, which appears to be an appeal for sense on sentencing of killer drivers, but contains a big steaming pile of cyclist-blaming:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/40-cyclists-killed-4-drivers-jailed-exclusive-investigation-reveals-only-one-in-10-drivers-are-9034187.html

Drivers have only a one in 10 chance of being sent to jail after being involved in the death of a cyclist, an Evening Standard investigation reveals today.

An analysis of police data on the 40 cyclists killed in London between 2010 and 2012 found that drivers had been imprisoned on just four occasions.

The police documents … set out how the Met records in stark terms what is believed to have happened immediately prior to, and as a result of, the collision - often before an inquest has been held.

In the case of climate change scientist Dr Giles, 34, who died last April, the documents state: “Lorry is waiting in traffic to turn left. Vehicle is indicating and has an audible warning on. Cyclist has cycled up the nearside of the lorry.

“Lorry has moved off when lights turn green and turned left. Lorry has clipped wheel of cycle, knocking rider off. Lorry then drives over victim. Case complete as no evidence of offence by motorist.”

Rechuchote

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/karla-roman-coach-driver-accused-of-killing-young-architect-as-cycled-to-work-in-east-london-was-a3910561.html

On one of London's cycle superhighways:

Opening the prosecution's case on Monday, Harpreet Sandhu said: "The defendant began a left-hand turn and into the path that Karla Roman was on, he did not see her in the mirrors as he turned because he was not paying attention.

"He did not see her in the mirrors as he continued to turn as he was not paying attention, and when he made that left-hand turn into her path, his coach collided with her and ended up dragging her with her bike under the wheels of the coach."

Mr Sandhu said Northcott's "deliberate decision" to enter the cycle stop box, which is there to provide safety, "deprived one cyclist of that".

The court heard how he later told the police he often disregarded the rules about the cycle stop box to "stop himself being swamped by cyclists".

mr spuckler

indirectly cycling related. it really is frightening that no matter what you do on the road to try to ensure your own safety, you could be the unfortunate one who gets in the way of someone like this.

Inquest hears jogger killed by disqualified hit-and-run driver

AndrewJRenko

This tweet certainly brought all the tired oul anti-cycling clichés out of the closet

https://twitter.com/IrishTimesPol/status/1029388685223944193?s=19

Duckjob

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This tweet certainly brought all the tired oul anti-cycling clichés out of the closet

https://twitter.com/IrishTimesPol/status/1029388685223944193?s=19

A politician comes out and says that a law that is being rampantly ignored should be enforced, and the IT makes a headline out of this? It's no wonder enforcement of any traffic law (especially one that might affect motorists) is such a crock in this country.

eclipsechaser

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/passing-distance-for-bikes-and-ministers-1.3597431?mode=amp

If an additional 1.5m “buffer zone” were required between cyclists and cars, then either such roads would need to be widened by up to 20-30 per cent or cars would only be able to pass cyclists by crossing over the white line into opposing traffic.

Imagine having to cross over the broken white line to overtake. Unthinkable!

Lumen

eclipsechaser wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/passing-distance-for-bikes-and-ministers-1.3597431?mode=amp

Imagine having to cross over the broken white line to overtake. Unthinkable!

Your selective quoting of that letter is rather unfair.

amcalester

Lumen wrote: »

Your selective quoting of that letter is rather unfair.

Why? The rest of it was nonsense as well.

The letter complains that motorists in rush hour won't be able to pass cyclists if MPDL came in and this will lead to increased congestion.

That's a bit of a leap considering it's the cars causing the congestion, not the cyclists.

Corca Baiscinn

amcalester wrote: »

Why? The rest of it was nonsense as well.

The letter complains that motorists in rush hour won't be able to pass cyclists if MPDL came in and this will lead to increased congestion.

That's a bit of a leap considering it's the cars causing the congestion, not the cyclists.

Plus, if there's already congestion how does it advantage the car to overtake to get as far as the next car or next traffic light? If 1 metre is not possible how close to the cycist does the writer think it's ok to go? If the road is too narrow for a cycle lane is the cyclist supposed to get into his/her car instead and add to the congestion?

I agree the rest was nonsense for above reasons. Dear knows I'm no cheerleader for SR & he may have been trying to pull a fast one on RT FF whose amendment re MPDL was tabled for Transport Committee but he was responding to a sustained 5 year campaign for an Irish MPDL & since it was at the time in place in 43 jurisdictions, (now 47) earliest being in 1973 it wasn't such a strange idea to adopt.

eclipsechaser

Lumen wrote: »

Your selective quoting of that letter is rather unfair.

Does it misrepresent what the writer was saying?

Grassey

A cyclist is being treated at the scene of a collision involving a lorry in Dublin.

The incident occurred shortly after 9am at the busy junction at Guild St and North Wall Quay near the Samuel Beckett Bridge.

The full extent of the cyclists injuries are not yet known but believed to be serious.

Gardaí are at the scene and are directing traffic while the scene of the accident is examined.

Motorists are advised to take caution approaching the area.

AndrewJRenko

Grassey wrote: »

A cyclist is being treated at the scene of a collision involving a lorry in Dublin.

The incident occurred shortly after 9am at the busy junction at Guild St and North Wall Quay near the Samuel Beckett Bridge.

It's a very busy junction, and a bit chaotic. There are dedicated bike lanes across the bridge, and on Guild St. There is a dedicated lane along the quays on the west side of the bridge, which dissappears at the weighbridge thingy close to the junction.

There are loads of pedestrians around too, coming from all directions, including lots of 'new to the city' visitors from the Convention Centre. It's a bit of a free for all, with little compliance to red lights by trucks or bikes.

Muahahaha

The photo in that Indo article of the bike under the lorry made me shudder. Hope the cyclist recovers.

Internet Friend

Muahahaha wrote: »

The photo in that Indo article of the bike under the lorry made me shudder. Hope the cyclist recovers.

See here

BikeRacer

The Journal comments on that story are absolutely toxic. By leaving victim blaming comments up like that are they not opening themselves (The Journal) up to the likes of a defamation lawsuit or similar?