Journalism and cycling

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.

magicbastarder

amcalester wrote: »

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.

tell him the seagulls are a menace due to overfishing driving them inland, so maybe he'll go hassle the fishermen so.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I think its clear we favour different approaches here. Look its Friday and the suns shining. We both want the same thing, I'm sure our energy will be better spent shouting at the gob****e parked in the cycle lane than each other.

amcalester

magicbastarder wrote: »

tell him the seagulls are a menace due to overfishing driving them inland, so maybe he'll go hassle the fishermen so.

I get the distinct impression that Mannix is problem oriented thinker more so than a solution oriented one.

Corca Baiscinn

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Jaysus. Just caught the end of it. Who is that woman? Shouty, hysterical...we’re all going to die if we are on a bike.

I disagree with that assessment and alentejo's. Yes, Victoria White was a bit emotional but last time she was on it was with Mannix Flynn as metioned further down the thread and he took over ranting re cyclists so I'd guess she was expecting more of the same and prepared accordingly.

She didn't say we're all going to die but did highlight dangerous infrastructure and looked for a far higher spend on cycling. There's a debate to be had re the negative effects of "dangerising" cycling versus saying "could do with a few tweaks but it's grand". Imo until we see any randomer betwee 8 ad 80 cycling regularly in urban or rural areas it's not safe. Current cyclists, majority male, have learnt to negotiate the situation but many others are deterred from ever cycling.

Sometimes on the Near-Miss thread posters say that on foot of a near-miss they lost the plot and shouted expletives at the driver. They put their behaviour down to the adrenaline coursing through them as a result of the fright they got. I think Victoria White was in that mode, exasperated up to her eyeballs with the crap cycling infrastructure she and her kids encounter and the patronising downright inaccurate guff politicians come out with when confronted with their failure to provide for cycling

Muahahaha

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

It was nteresting that the FF cycling policy was jointly launched by Robert Troy and John Lahart and if FF are to increase their number of seats in next election they have to gain seats in Dublin where they are represented in only 6 of the 11 constituencies. FF arent blind to the huge numbers cycling in Dublin so for once a party might listen to the concerns of cyclists.

Nail on the head, FF never do anything unless there is something in it for themselves. Also BusConnects promises to deliver 200km of extra cycling lanes, when the time comes FF will be taking credit for that too. Nonetheless even though their motives are cynical their campaign is still to be welcomed, they have Youtube videos about cycling doing the rounds which can only be a good thing.

buffalo wrote: »

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.

Havent seen last nights Prime Time yet but I have felt for a while now that the cycling campaigns need to band together and appoint 2 or 3 good spokespeople to go on tv and radio when required. No matter what the anti-cycling arguments they are easily refuted but this is not really happening. A few media savvy spokespeople going out to bat whenever required could change things considerably imo.

P_1

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nail on the head, FF never do anything unless there is something in it for themselves. Also BusConnects promises to deliver 200km of extra cycling lanes, when the time comes FF will be taking credit for that too. Nonetheless even though their motives are cynical their campaign is still to be welcomed, they have Youtube videos about cycling doing the rounds which can only be a good thing.



Havent seen last nights Prime Time yet but I have felt for a while now that the cycling campaigns need to band together and appoint 2 or 3 good spokespeople to go on tv and radio when required. No matter what the anti-cycling arguments they are easily refuted but this is not really happening. A few media savvy spokespeople going out to bat whenever required could change things considerably imo.

True. Remember a radio interview a while back where the rep was going great till the red light question came up. Alas he rather mumbled off saying nothings and quickly lost credibility and was torn to shreds. The interview ended soon afterwards.

Fighting Tao

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I disagree with that assessment and alentejo's. Yes, Victoria White was a bit emotional but last time she was on it was with Mannix Flynn as metioned further down the thread and he took over ranting re cyclists so I'd guess she was expecting more of the same and prepared accordingly.

She didn't say we're all going to die but did highlight dangerous infrastructure and looked for a far higher spend on cycling. There's a debate to be had re the negative effects of "dangerising" cycling versus saying "could do with a few tweaks but it's grand". Imo until we see any randomer betwee 8 ad 80 cycling regularly in urban or rural areas it's not safe. Current cyclists, majority male, have learnt to negotiate the situation but many others are deterred from ever cycling.

Sometimes on the Near-Miss thread posters say that on foot of a near-miss they lost the plot and shouted expletives at the driver. They put their behaviour down to the adrenaline coursing through them as a result of the fright they got. I think Victoria White was in that mode, exasperated up to her eyeballs with the crap cycling infrastructure she and her kids encounter and the patronising downright inaccurate guff politicians come out with when confronted with their failure to provide for cycling

As I said, I only caught the end of the segment. I can’t comment on the rest of it. It sounded very Chicken Licken to me. Hysterics makes good tv, but more as an entertainment value rather than getting people to listen to good points. I understand why she would be like that but it’s probably not the best place for it.

magicbastarder

it'd be sooo much more constructive - if they want 'balance' - if they split it across two shows. the first show - talk to DCC and the other pressure groups, let them set out their stall - what they want, how they think it should be done, the benefits etc. to public health and CO2 emissions, whatever.

the next week, have someone on complaining about cyclists running red lights and that they should be stopped by the gardai. job done.

Macy0161

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.

Read into that what you will.

Not diminishing the work he's done (which I support and admire), but we still don't actually have a mpdl.

CramCycle

amcalester wrote: »

I get the distinct impression that Mannix is problem oriented thinker more so than a solution oriented one.

I get the distinct impression he is not a thinker at all.

mr spuckler

CramCycle wrote: »

I get the distinct impression he is not a thinker at all.

just an accident black spot.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nail on the head, FF never do anything unless there is something in it for themselves. Also BusConnects promises to deliver 200km of extra cycling lanes, when the time comes FF will be taking credit for that too. Nonetheless even though their motives are cynical their campaign is still to be welcomed, they have Youtube videos about cycling doing the rounds which can only be a good thing.



Havent seen last nights Prime Time yet but I have felt for a while now that the cycling campaigns need to band together and appoint 2 or 3 good spokespeople to go on tv and radio when required. No matter what the anti-cycling arguments they are easily refuted but this is not really happening. A few media savvy spokespeople going out to bat whenever required could change things considerably imo.

Good PR people cost money. I can't imagine the cycling lobby is terribly well funded.

amcalester

mr spuckler wrote: »

just an accident black spot.

That reminds me, when he was on Prime Time he recounted all the times he was nearly killed by cyclists, motorists etc.

Well, the seagulls have it in for him too. They've had a go at him as well.

Surprised he hasn't developed agoraphobia by now.

magicbastarder

well, given his history, you'd excuse a persecution complex.

Corca Baiscinn

P_1 wrote: »

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.

Have you some evidence that DCC or its parent group cyclist.ie hasn't met with decision-makers, you have access to the list of who they've met in the past few years?
As someone else pointed out cycling campaigns are competnig for air-time with groups such as the road haulage people, gov spokespeople and the aa, all of whom can afford paid staff, PR companies and media training so imo they are doing a mighty job to have cycling as much on the agenda as it is.
Phil Skelton runs a one issue campaign but he is more than supportive of other campaigns for safer infrastructure etc and has had rather sharp tweets @gardatraffic asking why they don't follow West Midland's Police's/Surrey Road Cop's attitude to dangerous overtaking.
Also DCC has plenty of info on its website re cycle training, safe cycling and other cycling info so it's not all militancy as you seem to imply.

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

it'd be sooo much more constructive - if they want 'balance' - if they split it across two shows. the first show - talk to DCC and the other pressure groups, let them set out their stall - what they want, how they think it should be done, the benefits etc. to public health and CO2 emissions, whatever.

the next week, have someone on complaining about cyclists running red lights and that they should be stopped by the gardai. job done.

I read today that the BBC has finally decided that it no longer needs to provde "balance" by having a crackpot climate change denier on every time they talk to a climate scientist so with a bit of luck the trend might spread and RTE will see that one can discuss what people who cycle need as in your week one and with a bit of luck they could scrap week two but failing that yours is a good plan!

magicbastarder

from what i understand, DCC have adopted an approach of 'work within the system' - they meet with the councils and department of transport, moreso than with the actual politicians, and i bike dublin - which i think is a sister project involving people who are also involved in DCC - is designed more to be a 'work outside the system' approach.

Horrible news re: Kristina Vogel after her training crash earlier this year

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kristina-vogel-left-paralysed-after-horror-training-crash/

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

from what i understand, DCC have adopted an approach of 'work within the system' - they meet with the councils and department of transport, moreso than with the actual politicians, and i bike dublin - which i think is a sister project involving people who are also involved in DCC - is designed more to be a 'work outside the system' approach.

And maybe both approaches are needed to effect change. Think about the US Civil Rights Campaigns or the NI Troubles and Peace Process. You had Civil Rights Marches and Civil Disobedience Camapigns who mobilised support and garnered publicity but you also had people with limitless patience like George Mitchell who stuck with the process for months on end and kept talking.

Think its good to have people who make a fuss and insist on getting their agenda noticed but also those who have the patience for the nitty gritty of what to provide, where and how?

monument

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

No. His line is like one straight out of talk radio.

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

It's less about not knowing what to do and not having to tolerate illegal parking.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Havent seen last nights Prime Time yet but I have felt for a while now that the cycling campaigns need to band together and appoint 2 or 3 good spokespeople to go on tv and radio when required. No matter what the anti-cycling arguments they are easily refuted but this is not really happening. A few media savvy spokespeople going out to bat whenever required could change things considerably imo.

You might not mean it, but you're treating "the cycling campaigns" like some people view cyclist -- the cycle campaigns are not one group, none of them are paid so they have jobs etc, and keeping broadcast interviews going in one direction or another might seem easier that it actually is and that goes far more for when there's a panel discussion.