Journalism and cycling

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Should we take the same approach to road developments? No new roads until the whinging drivers start sticking to the speed limit?

Put down the pitchfork and read what I said again.

We need to deal with the reality of what we face now as well as campaigning for better infrastructure

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Put down the pitchfork and read what I said again.

We need to deal with the reality of what we face now as well as campaigning for better infrastructure

I read what you said. You suggested that there is some collective responsibility on cyclists for the behaviour for other cyclists. Which is nonsense.

If you don't think it's nonsense, what are you plans to deal the reality of the motorists who killed three or four people each week - because in your world, ALL motorists are responsible for the behaviour of those motorists?

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I read what you said. You suggested that there is some collective responsibility on cyclists for the behaviour for other cyclists. Which is nonsense.

If you don't think it's nonsense, what are you plans to deal the reality of the motorists who killed three or four people each week - because in your world, ALL motorists are responsible for the behaviour of those motorists?

I did nothing of the sort.

What I said was that there are some people who put themselves in danger and it might be a good idea to maybe get a bit of a message out there that maybe not putting yourself in danger is a good idea.

To head off another misinterpretation, I'm not referring to wearing a builders vest thinking it's a suit of armour.

Of course if you'd rather shout about the us v then nonsense and do nothing constructive that's your own lookout

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

I did nothing of the sort.

What I said was that there are some people who put themselves in danger and it might be a good idea to maybe get a bit of a message out there that maybe not putting yourself in danger is a good idea.

To head off another misinterpretation, I'm not referring to wearing a builders vest thinking it's a suit of armour.

Of course if you'd rather shout about the us v then nonsense and do nothing constructive that's your own lookout

And do we need to do the same thing about motoring - get a message out about people not putting themselves (or more importantly, others) in danger before we go looking for more roads?

What is the actual connection between safe cycling and segregated bike lanes ?

Would, for example, a press release from the Dublin Cycling Campaign satisfy you here, even though you well know it will have negligible impact on cycling behaviours?

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And do we need to do the same thing about motoring - get a message out about people not putting themselves (or more importantly, others) in danger before we go looking for more roads?

What is the actual connection between safe cycling and segregated bike lanes ?

Would, for example, a press release from the Dublin Cycling Campaign satisfy you here, even though you well know it will have negligible impact on cycling behaviours?

I'd love nothing more than to wake up in the morning to see that plenty of pristine segregated cycling tracks with billiard table smooth tarmac have sprung up but guess what that wont happen. At a minimum you're going to be looking at 2 years for that to happen.

Now how many cyclists are going to be killed in those 2 years? What can we do to try and cut this number down? How about we look at the things we can control rather than make unproductive noise over what we can't.

What can we control? How about the position we take on the road when our on the bike? How about what gaps we try to nip through? Yep we can control that. What about the knowledge we have that an inexperienced cyclist may not have? You bet your Shimano 105 we can and should share that.

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Now how many cyclists are going to be killed in those 2 years? What can we do to try and cut this number down? How about we look at the things we can control rather than make unproductive noise over what we can't.

What can we control? How about the position we take on the road when our on the bike? How about what gaps we try to nip through? Yep we can control that. What about the knowledge we have that an inexperienced cyclist may not have? You bet your Shimano 105 we can and should share that.

How exactly can we control the behaviour of other cyclists?

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How exactly can we control the behaviour of other cyclists?

Something's getting lost in translation here.

We can't. All we can do is try educating them. I don't see any effort being done to do this.

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Something's getting lost in translation here.

We can't. All we can do is try educating them. I don't see any effort being done to do this.

So what kind of campaign do you have in mind, and who do you expect to fund it?

Ah give it a f'n rest AndrewJRenko you're always at this scutter picking arguments with people where none need to be had. Everyone is on the same side here but it's bloody tiresome to read yet another needless rant and nit picking by you.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what kind of campaign do you have in mind, and who do you expect to fund it?

Advocacy for infrastructure continued.

Less tweets giving out about the misbehaviour of motorists and the inaction of gardai. It serves no point but to antagonize and reduces the impact of the advocacy.

More tweets offering practical advice. Eg how to position yourself at a pinch point to avoid close passes or where the blind spots of a truck are and to stay the bejaysus away from them or to get the help out of them if you find yourself in one.

A few tweets pointing out the negative impact that things like breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths can have on the advocacy

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Advocacy for infrastructure continued.

Less tweets giving out about the misbehaviour of motorists and the inaction of gardai. It serves no point but to antagonize and reduces the impact of the advocacy.

More tweets offering practical advice. Eg how to position yourself at a pinch point to avoid close passes or where the blind spots of a truck are and to stay the bejaysus away from them or to get the help out of them if you find yourself in one.

A few tweets pointing out the negative impact that things like breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths can have on the advocacy

Tweets from who?

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Tweets from who?

The cycling lobby bodies with a large social following.

Hell I'd set one up myself if its needed. I've built pages and campaigns in the past with no issue. The only concern I'd have doing something like that is you could end up with a Judean Peoples Front v People's Front of Judea type of situation

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

The cycling lobby bodies with a large social following.

Hell I'd set one up myself if its needed. I've built pages and campaigns in the past with no issue. The only concern I'd have doing something like that is you could end up with a Judean Peoples Front v People's Front of Judea type of situation

To me, it's a nonsense idea. Here's why:

1) It will be completely ineffective. You don't change public behaviours with a few tweets. The vast majority of cyclists don't identify as 'cyclists'. They don't follow lobby groups on social media. They just cycle.

2) It will be a distraction. There is no evidence that cyclist behaviour is a significant factor in road deaths. The cycling lobby groups need to focus on priorities, not dilute their attention.

It smacks of 'false equivalence' to me.
https://www.roadbikerider.com/views/1194-correcting-the-false-equivalencies-in-the-cars-vs-cyclists-debate

It smacks of acceptance of the idea of 'collective responsibility' for cyclists only - that other cyclists or cycling groups are responsible for the behaviour of all cyclists - an idea that is never applied to the motorists who kill and maim each week on the roads for some strange reason.

It looks like a sop to the anti-cycling sentiment that we frequently hear in the media, that we have to reach some mythical standard of behaviour before 'we can have nice things'.

If you or anyone else thinks this is a good idea - knock yourself out. To me, it's a bit of a self-hating thing. But whether you agree or not, it hasn't a hope in hell of having any impact on any significant number of cyclists.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To me, it's a nonsense idea. Here's why:

1) It will be completely ineffective. You don't change public behaviours with a few tweets. The vast majority of cyclists don't identify as 'cyclists'. They don't follow lobby groups on social media. They just cycle.

2) It will be a distraction. There is no evidence that cyclist behaviour is a significant factor in road deaths. The cycling lobby groups need to focus on priorities, not dilute their attention.

It smacks of 'false equivalence' to me.
https://www.roadbikerider.com/views/1194-correcting-the-false-equivalencies-in-the-cars-vs-cyclists-debate

It smacks of acceptance of the idea of 'collective responsibility' for cyclists only - that other cyclists or cycling groups are responsible for the behaviour of all cyclists - an idea that is never applied to the motorists who kill and maim each week on the roads for some strange reason.

It looks like a sop to the anti-cycling sentiment that we frequently hear in the media, that we have to reach some mythical standard of behaviour before 'we can have nice things'.

If you or anyone else thinks this is a good idea - knock yourself out. To me, it's a bit of a self-hating thing. But whether you agree or not, it hasn't a hope in hell of having any impact on any significant number of cyclists.

Theres no such thing as a nonsense idea in this context tbh. You try something and see if it works.

Imo the current strategy is failing. When you see something failing then its time to try a different tactic.

Refining the idea slightly. Perhaps an intersectional lobby group encompassing cyclists, drivers and pedestrians who aren't assholes might be a way forward

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Theres no such thing as a nonsense idea in this context tbh. You try something and see if it works.

Imo the current strategy is failing. When you see something failing then its time to try a different tactic.

Refining the idea slightly. Perhaps an intersectional lobby group encompassing cyclists, drivers and pedestrians who aren't assholes might be a way forward

I disagree. This is serious stuff. We shouldn't be flapping around just to be doing something.

We know what the problems are that are causing cyclist deaths, and a bit of tweeting isn't going to fix them. If anything, it will be a distraction from the real issue, and will give comfort to those who want to blame victims.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I disagree. This is serious stuff. We shouldn't be flapping around just to be doing something.

We know what the problems are that are causing cyclist deaths, and a bit of tweeting isn't going to fix them. If anything, it will be a distraction from the real issue, and will give comfort to those who want to blame victims.

And deferring to self appointed experts is the way to go?

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

And deferring to self appointed experts is the way to go?

Do you have any idea how governance of the Dublin Cycling Campaign works? If you have something to offer, feel free to get involved and volunteer or run for an executive position, if you're not happy with the current focus.

Or feel free to not defer by running your own campaign. You seemed to indicate that would be a fairly easy thing to do, so why not go for it?

Arcade_Tryer

P_1 wrote: »

I'd love nothing more than to wake up in the morning to see that plenty of pristine segregated cycling tracks with billiard table smooth tarmac have sprung up but guess what that wont happen. At a minimum you're going to be looking at 2 years for that to happen.

Now how many cyclists are going to be killed in those 2 years? What can we do to try and cut this number down? How about we look at the things we can control rather than make unproductive noise over what we can't.

What can we control? How about the position we take on the road when our on the bike? How about what gaps we try to nip through? Yep we can control that. What about the knowledge we have that an inexperienced cyclist may not have? You bet your Shimano 105 we can and should share that.

Noble intentions undoubtedly, but complete nonsense in terms of improving cycling in this country. Poor infrastructure encourages poor behaviour; same applies to cyclists as much as it does for motorists. Dublin's infrastructure is designed to create conflict between private motorists and cyclists at present due to its inability to provide for mass use of both modes of transport. Throw in the Luas and Bus services and its like Armageddon out there. Anyone who cycles regularly in the city centre will testify to this. It is a constant battle. Have no doubt, there is a war taking place on the streets of Dublin, and while remaining neutral and taking the moral high ground is fine, it's never going to lead to a victory. It's not even going to work; it imagines cyclists to be a small, minority group, a community. Whereas in reality, cyclists come in all shapes and sizes, and from all backgrounds, and are in the thousands and growing. Viewing cyclists as a homogenous group will not help, and potentially plays into the hands of those who would criticise cyclists for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths and so forth. What will help cycling is investment in infrastructure firstly, and education of, and enforcement against, motorists, secondly. Because cycling is not difficult. Cycling is not inherently dangerous. And cycling does not generally cause road rage. The same cannot be said for driving. The problem here is not cycling. The problem is cars. And specifically the disproportionate credence offered to cars over bicycles in the planning system. There is not much harm in trying to educate cyclists and promote safer cycling, but there is not going to be much benefit from it either if real solutions are not found to the actual problems that exist with cycling in Dublin.

tomasrojo

I don't find cycling in Dublin city centre all that bad. Though maybe it's like the noise you're not aware of until it stops, and there's a background stress that doesn't register with me consciously (most days anyway).

The weird thing about road allocation in Dublin is that so much of it is still given over to trying to facilitate private cars, and they represent a minority of city-centre journeys.

P_1

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Noble intentions undoubtedly, but complete nonsense in terms of improving cycling in this country. Poor infrastructure encourages poor behaviour; same applies to cyclists as much as it does for motorists. Dublin's infrastructure is designed to create conflict between private motorists and cyclists at present due to its inability to provide for mass use of both modes of transport. Throw in the Luas and Bus services and its like Armageddon out there. Anyone who cycles regularly in the city centre will testify to this. It is a constant battle. Have no doubt, there is a war taking place on the streets of Dublin, and while remaining neutral and taking the moral high ground is fine, it's never going to lead to a victory. It's not even going to work; it imagines cyclists to be a small, minority group, a community. Whereas in reality, cyclists come in all shapes and sizes, and from all backgrounds, and are in the thousands and growing. Viewing cyclists as a homogenous group will not help, and potentially plays into the hands of those who would criticise cyclists for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths and so forth. What will help cycling is investment in infrastructure firstly, and education of, and enforcement against, motorists, secondly. Because cycling is not difficult. Cycling is not inherently dangerous. And cycling does not generally cause road rage. The same cannot be said for driving. The problem here is not cycling. The problem is cars. And specifically the disproportionate credence offered to cars over bicycles in the planning system. There is not much harm in trying to educate cyclists and promote safer cycling, but there is not going to be much benefit from it either if real solutions are not found to the actual problems that exist with cycling in Dublin.

But I'm not viewing cyclists as a homogenous group. If anything it's the likes of DCC that are. I mean if you look at the messaging they put across on social media, youd be forgiven for thinking that all cyclists were a bunch of cry baby whingers who dont know what to do if they encounter a car parked in a cycle lane

Chips Lovell

If cycling infrastructure is your thing, fair enough, campaign away. But what really doesn’t sit well with me is the tactic of using someone’s death to push your own agenda. Accident victims are people. They have relatives and friends grieving for them. They shouldn’t be used as a political football.

Macy0161

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If cycling infrastructure is your thing, fair enough, campaign away. But what really doesn’t sit well with me is the tactic of using someone’s death to push your own agenda. Accident victims are people. They have relatives and friends grieving for them. They shouldn’t be used as a political football.

It's done all the time with Road Traffic incidents - young people speeding, drink driving, and even used against pedestrians and cyclists with hi viz/ helmets.

P_1 wrote:

But I'm not viewing cyclists as a homogenous group. If anything it's the likes of DCC that are. I mean if you look at the messaging they put across on social media, youd be forgiven for thinking that all cyclists were a bunch of cry baby whingers who dont know what to do if they encounter a car parked in a cycle lane

I can see your point to a degree, but I think the whole infrastructure/ free the cycle lanes is really aimed at people who are not confident on the bike or who wouldn't go on the bike because of stuff like this.
This morning on the Clonskeagh road, there was a lad and dad cycling to school - I'd say the lad was 8ish, and struggling up the hill. I'm sure his dad on his own would've been fine with a parked car in the cycle lane, but it would've been a stressor this morning trying to negotiate the child out and around (well would be for me anyway!).
The infrastructure/ free the cycle lane stuff is important to getting more people on bikes, and the critical mass/ saftey in numbers that helps us all, including those of us that really aren't bothered whether we're on the road or in a cycle path.

buffalo

jon1981 wrote: »

Jaysus was there nobody else?

I know of a few reasonable people who were approached but refused because, well, media segments on cycling don't tend toward reasonableness. Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy I know, but nobody wants to be that one person drowning in a sea of hi-viz and road tax comments.



edit: I haven't seen last night's segment btw, so this post is not a judgement on the level of reasonableness on display.

magicbastarder

yeah, i think i was at a DCC meeting soon before the prime time a few months back which had the woman from the road haulier's association, and some mad old chap they'd swept up off the street - the job of going on to appear on that panel was being treated like a hot potato by some of the DCC people i talked to.
most of the people in DCC seem to be decent reasonable people; but that sort of organisation will attract a few, i'll call them 'adamant', types.

amcalester

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i think i was at a DCC meeting soon before the prime time a few months back which had the woman from the road haulier's association, and some mad old chap they'd swept up off the street - the job of going on to appear on that panel was being treated like a hot potato by some of the DCC people i talked to.
most of the people in DCC seem to be decent reasonable people; but that sort of organisation will attract a few, i'll call them 'adamant', types.

Mannix Flynn was the other fella, heard him on Newstalk recently talking about the epidemic that is seagulls.

Something needs to be done about them apparently.

P_1

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's done all the time with Road Traffic incidents - young people speeding, drink driving, and even used against pedestrians and cyclists with hi viz/ helmets.


I can see your point to a degree, but I think the whole infrastructure/ free the cycle lanes is really aimed at people who are not confident on the bike or who wouldn't go on the bike because of stuff like this.
This morning on the Clonskeagh road, there was a lad and dad cycling to school - I'd say the lad was 8ish, and struggling up the hill. I'm sure his dad on his own would've been fine with a parked car in the cycle lane, but it would've been a stressor this morning trying to negotiate the child out and around (well would be for me anyway!).
The infrastructure/ free the cycle lane stuff is important to getting more people on bikes, and the critical mass/ saftey in numbers that helps us all, including those of us that really aren't bothered whether we're on the road or in a cycle path.

I agree too. However I would fear the cause for better infrastructure may be harmed by some of the attitudes towards other road users (namely the militant attitude towards all cars), the lack of meetings they have with decision makers seems indicative of a lack of effectiveness.

On the other hand Phil Skelton's Stayin Alive at 1.5 page doesn't do that and he seems to be getting more results/meetings with decision makers.

Read into that what you will.

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's done all the time with Road Traffic incidents - young people speeding, drink driving, and even used against pedestrians and cyclists with hi viz/ helmets.


I can see your point to a degree, but I think the whole infrastructure/ free the cycle lanes is really aimed at people who are not confident on the bike or who wouldn't go on the bike because of stuff like this.
This morning on the Clonskeagh road, there was a lad and dad cycling to school - I'd say the lad was 8ish, and struggling up the hill. I'm sure his dad on his own would've been fine with a parked car in the cycle lane, but it would've been a stressor this morning trying to negotiate the child out and around (well would be for me anyway!).
The infrastructure/ free the cycle lane stuff is important to getting more people on bikes, and the critical mass/ saftey in numbers that helps us all, including those of us that really aren't bothered whether we're on the road or in a cycle path.

I agree too. However I would fear the cause for better infrastructure may be harmed by some of the attitudes towards other road users (namely the militant attitude towards all cars), the lack of meetings they have with decision makers seems indicative of a lack of effectiveness.

On the other hand Phil Skelton's Stayin Alive at 1.5 page doesn't do that and he seems to be getting more results/meetings with decision makers.

Read into that what you will.

Could you give some examples of this 'militant attitude towards all cars' that you've seen please?

AndrewJRenko

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If cycling infrastructure is your thing, fair enough, campaign away. But what really doesn’t sit well with me is the tactic of using someone’s death to push your own agenda. Accident victims are people. They have relatives and friends grieving for them. They shouldn’t be used as a political football.

Any highlighting of particular deaths has been done by, or at least with agreement of grieving relatives.

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Noble intentions undoubtedly, but complete nonsense in terms of improving cycling in this country. Poor infrastructure encourages poor behaviour; same applies to cyclists as much as it does for motorists. Dublin's infrastructure is designed to create conflict between private motorists and cyclists at present due to its inability to provide for mass use of both modes of transport. Throw in the Luas and Bus services and its like Armageddon out there. Anyone who cycles regularly in the city centre will testify to this. It is a constant battle. Have no doubt, there is a war taking place on the streets of Dublin, and while remaining neutral and taking the moral high ground is fine, it's never going to lead to a victory. It's not even going to work; it imagines cyclists to be a small, minority group, a community. Whereas in reality, cyclists come in all shapes and sizes, and from all backgrounds, and are in the thousands and growing. Viewing cyclists as a homogenous group will not help, and potentially plays into the hands of those who would criticise cyclists for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths and so forth. What will help cycling is investment in infrastructure firstly, and education of, and enforcement against, motorists, secondly. Because cycling is not difficult. Cycling is not inherently dangerous. And cycling does not generally cause road rage. The same cannot be said for driving. The problem here is not cycling. The problem is cars. And specifically the disproportionate credence offered to cars over bicycles in the planning system. There is not much harm in trying to educate cyclists and promote safer cycling, but there is not going to be much benefit from it either if real solutions are not found to the actual problems that exist with cycling in Dublin.

But I'm not viewing cyclists as a homogenous group. If anything it's the likes of DCC that are. I mean if you look at the messaging they put across on social media, youd be forgiven for thinking that all cyclists were a bunch of cry baby whingers who dont know what to do if they encounter a car parked in a cycle lane

No, you wouldn't be forgiven for that use of dated, macho language to denigrate those who highlight persistent law breaking that endangers cyclists and puts people off cycling, often for no good reason beyond saving the motorist the inconvenience of finding a safe, legal parking space just a minute or two away.

magicbastarder

P_1 wrote: »

On the other hand Phil Skelton's Stayin Alive at 1.5 page doesn't do that and he seems to be getting more results/meetings with decision makers.

phil skelton gave a good talk at one of the DCC meetings and was quite clear that he didn't want to get involved with committees, shared decision making, etc., but had to give up at one point and get politicians onboard.
his message in one way is an easier sell - he's not asking for capital investment to change the way roads are designed, and then to change the roads. he's asking for a single law change.

he's a force of nature though, it's been a second job for him for the last few years. has cost him a hell of a lot of time.

there was some good natured acknowledgement from the DCC hierarchy that they could look to his methods to get things done.