Journalism and cycling

AndrewJRenko

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.

The good spokespeople (pun intended) are there, and have put in good appearances from time to time. Damien O'Tuama was on a previous Prime Time. Keiran Ryan and Domhnall Egan from DCC have appeared in very clips. Some of the IBikeDublin guys and gals appeared from time to time.


The press don't really want the voice of reason. They want extreme views that generate conflict. They've no interest in the issue or fixing the problem - they just want to generate more views and clicks.



My stomach turned when I saw Keith Redmond, based on what I had seen from him on Twitter. In fairness, he was actually fairly measured and professional, even if I disagreed with just about every word out of his mouth - but he was picked because PT just wanted to stir things up.

tomasrojo

Keith Redmond falls into the category of libertarians(*) who think regulations and restrictions are tyranny, but only when applied to people like themselves (his campaigning to retain the eighth amendment, for example, doesn't seem very "Classical Liberal", as he describes himself).


(*) I like the description whose provenance I can't remember: Libertarians believe everything is slavery and rape, except for slavery and rape.

tomasrojo

(I guess the relevance of all that is that he regards restrictions on parking and driving as abhorrent, but road designs hostile to cyclists don't seem to bother him one bit.)

CatFromHue

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Good insights into Terenure incident reported yesterday in this thread
https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1037595468191211520?s=19

3. Reluctantly, the driver's competence must be questioned.

If you're going to say that then you need to also say

Reluctantly the competence of the cyclist must be questioned

Going up the inside of a left turning vehicle, let alone a truck, is a big no no.

Rechuchote

CatFromHue wrote: »

Going up the inside of a left turning vehicle, let alone a truck, is a big no no.

This is certainly true.

However, I have read many accounts of fatal crashes in which a garda (who was not a witness to the crash) asserts that "the cyclist rode up on the inside of the truck". I have never heard a coroner ask if there is footage of this, or ask to hear from an eyewitness.

jjpep

Rechuchote wrote: »

This is certainly true.

However, I have read many accounts of fatal crashes in which a garda (who was not a witness to the crash) asserts that "the cyclist rode up on the inside of the truck". I have never heard a coroner ask if there is footage of this, or ask to hear from an eyewitness.

Yep, this is an important distinction. I never go up the inside of a truck or bus but I've vehicles like this pull up next to me and put me in their blind spot. So then I need to pull out in front of them (technically breaking the light).

CatFromHue

I'm not disputing either point, in this case though the eye witness said the truck was at the roundabout first.

Tenzor07

Mods delete pls

RobbieMD

Rechuchote wrote: »

This is certainly true.

However, I have read many accounts of fatal crashes in which a garda (who was not a witness to the crash) asserts that "the cyclist rode up on the inside of the truck". I have never heard a coroner ask if there is footage of this, or ask to hear from an eyewitness.

To be fair though, a coroner would have all the witness statements/ photography/videos etc already. A lot of modern HGVs now have Cctv cameras on their mirrors. AGS gather this evidence on behalf of the coroner.

The coroner usually only calls a small number of witnesses to give evidence, mainly around the deceased's identity. It's not like a criminal trial where every witness is called. The coroner has the ability to admit written statements into evidence without the person giving it orally.

Have you attended many inquests? The coroner usually opens the floor to anyone present to ask questions of the Garda investigating the death.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

Apologies for the delay getting back to you. In London and the data is patchy at best.

I'm not going to name individual Twitter handles as its not fair but take the many helmet cam videos posted that appear to be hectoring the Gardai. In my eyes that's counter productive and can lead to a boy who cried wolf situation.

Look I'm of a solutions mindset and anything I see that gets in the way of solutions I will call out

magicbastarder

times (irish london times) review of the prime time segment on cycling.
i haven't read it - well, just the first paragraph or two which is free.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spokesperson-qrl7kskg8

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

I'm not going to name individual Twitter handles as its not fair but take the many helmet cam videos posted that appear to be hectoring the Gardai. In my eyes that's counter productive and can lead to a boy who cried wolf situation.

Look I'm of a solutions mindset and anything I see that gets in the way of solutions I will call out

In fairness, there is a big leap between 'hectoring the Gardai' and "namely the militant attitude towards all cars". This stuff about 'you want to ban all cars' seems to be the default response to any suggestion that cyclists should be able to cycle safely, even though 'banning cars' is the last thing on anyone's mind. Strangely enough, most cyclists have cars, and most cyclists use their cars when they're not using their bikes, so banning cars isn't normally an attractive idea for most cyclists.


What you call 'hectoring the Gardai' could probably also be described as giving clear, indisputable video evidence of the problems and dangers facing cyclists routinely. It's not a huge leap to suggest that the recent positive statement on Twitter from the Minister for Justice and the recent actions by the Gardai on some cycle lanes were inspired by some of these actions.


So my view would be - keep on hectoring. We're in a political world where, for good or for bad, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. That's why we don't have water charges any more - it's not because people tugged their forelock and asked nicely.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

times (irish london times) review of the prime time segment on cycling.
i haven't read it - well, just the first paragraph or two which is free.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spokesperson-qrl7kskg8

Decent article, and it confirms my own view stated above that Prime Time were just trying to stir up a sh1tstorm, but the tactic didn't work.

If the broadcaster was expecting a good-old back-street brawl, well, it never really kicked off, despite the best efforts of moderator Miriam O’Callaghan to light the fuse.

monument

P_1 wrote: »

Apologies for the delay getting back to you. In London and the data is patchy at best.

I'm not going to name individual Twitter handles as its not fair but take the many helmet cam videos posted that appear to be hectoring the Gardai. In my eyes that's counter productive and can lead to a boy who cried wolf situation.

Look I'm of a solutions mindset and anything I see that gets in the way of solutions I will call out

So, you're not going to give examples of not "all cars"? ...maybe tweets giving out about some car users should have to include #notallcars?

If these accounts are the group / campaign accounts you mentioned with loads of followers, I can't see what the harm is naming them. If it's individuals, so what?

Going by your previous comments, you clearly don't care that much about motorists parking in cycle lanes -- others do and, in that context it's not crying wolf, illegal / loading parking is epidemic in a lot of places.

And speaking about calling things out -- I think you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about... I honestly don't know which one it is... let's go back to what is for me your most annoying comment...

P_1 wrote: »

It's a good insight alright but my issue with the likes of the DCC is that they seem to think infrastructure is a magic bullet that will solve all the world's problems. Its not. There are assholes out there on bikes. There are headless chickens out there on bikes. Were not going to get segregated cycle lanes everywhere and the more they bleat on about them the more people are going to identify cyclists as whingers which causes the rest of us all sorts of problems.

Skipping over the hyperbole you have here, Dutch-style infrastructure is the closest thing we can get to a magic bullet.

Dutch-style infrastructure is built around the concept of sustainable safety, as BicycleDutch explains:

The main objectives of this vision are preventing severe crashes and (almost) eliminating severe injuries when crashes do occur. It was introduced and quickly adopted by all road managers in 1992 and has since been very successful. In 2005 it was revised and extended. The approach began with establishing that the road system was inherently unsafe. The goal was to fundamentally change the system by taking a person as a yardstick. The guidelines for design were to be the physical vulnerability of a person, but also what a person can and wants to do (humans make mistakes and don’t always follow rules). There is now an integral approach to the road system which refers to ‘human’ (behavior), ‘vehicle’ (including bicycles!) and ‘road’ (design). Roads and vehicles must be adapted to the human capabilities and the human has to be educated enough to be able to operate a vehicle on a road in a safe manner. The approach is pro-active, it wants to remedy gaps and mistakes in the traffic system before crashes occur. So Sustainable Safety is about a lot more than just infrastructure.

In your terms, Dutch infrastructure goes a long way to solving the problem of "assholes out there on bikes" and "headless chickens", and those in cars too.

Nobody is suggesting having segregation everywhere -- yes on roads and streets with high speeds or volumes of traffic.

As for people calling people out and talking about people who bleat on about segregation: People like you -- who claim in one breath to be fine with campaigning for better infrastructure just after the previous breath you were complaining about those campaigning for such -- are more of a problem than all of the Keith Redmond etc of this world.

Your suggestion that educational campaigns (while needed on an on-going bases) are some how more important than infrastructure is not supported by the decades of experience of educational-focused cycling safety in Ireland, the UK etc.

You also seem to be firmly rooted in the thinking that the alliterative to Dutch-like infrastructure is no infrastructure, when the realty is that what's coming without campaigners is more of the same or just slightly better infrastructure which suits fewer people and gets more people annoyed and sometimes infrastructure that puts people in more danger.

magicbastarder

more a comment on how RTCs are reported than on cycling per se, but there was one reported on the news this morning where a fatality occured 'when the van left the road'. which makes it sound like the van decided to do so.

tomasrojo

Not sure how much he tweets anymore, but @absentdriver on Twitter used to be good for news items about what appears to be the vanguard of autonomous vehicles.

(Think it's run by the same guy as @beztweets. News items are predominantly UK ones anyway.)

P_1

monument wrote: »

P_1 wrote: »

Apologies for the delay getting back to you. In London and the data is patchy at best.

I'm not going to name individual Twitter handles as its not fair but take the many helmet cam videos posted that appear to be hectoring the Gardai. In my eyes that's counter productive and can lead to a boy who cried wolf situation.

Look I'm of a solutions mindset and anything I see that gets in the way of solutions I will call out

So, you're not going to give examples of not "all cars"? ...maybe tweets giving out about some car users should have to include #notallcars?

If these accounts are the group / campaign accounts you mentioned with loads of followers, I can't see what the harm is naming them. If it's individuals, so what?

Going by your previous comments, you clearly don't care that much about motorists parking in cycle lanes -- others do and, in that context it's not crying wolf, illegal / loading parking is epidemic in a lot of places.

And speaking about calling things out -- I think you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about... I honestly don't know which one it is... let's go back to what is for me your most annoying comment...

P_1 wrote: »

It's a good insight alright but my issue with the likes of the DCC is that they seem to think infrastructure is a magic bullet that will solve all the world's problems. Its not. There are assholes out there on bikes. There are headless chickens out there on bikes. Were not going to get segregated cycle lanes everywhere and the more they bleat on about them the more people are going to identify cyclists as whingers which causes the rest of us all sorts of problems.

Skipping over the hyperbole you have here, Dutch-style infrastructure is the closest thing we can get to a magic bullet.

Dutch-style infrastructure is built around the concept of sustainable safety, as BicycleDutch explains:

The main objectives of this vision are preventing severe crashes and (almost) eliminating severe injuries when crashes do occur. It was introduced and quickly adopted by all road managers in 1992 and has since been very successful. In 2005 it was revised and extended. The approach began with establishing that the road system was inherently unsafe. The goal was to fundamentally change the system by taking a person as a yardstick. The guidelines for design were to be the physical vulnerability of a person, but also what a person can and wants to do (humans make mistakes and don’t always follow rules). There is now an integral approach to the road system which refers to ‘human’ (behavior), ‘vehicle’ (including bicycles!) and ‘road’ (design). Roads and vehicles must be adapted to the human capabilities and the human has to be educated enough to be able to operate a vehicle on a road in a safe manner. The approach is pro-active, it wants to remedy gaps and mistakes in the traffic system before crashes occur. So Sustainable Safety is about a lot more than just infrastructure.

In your terms, Dutch infrastructure goes a long way to solving the problem of "assholes out there on bikes" and "headless chickens", and those in cars too.

Nobody is suggesting having segregation everywhere -- yes on roads and streets with high speeds or volumes of traffic.

As for people calling people out and talking about people who bleat on about segregation: People like you -- who claim in one breath to be fine with campaigning for better infrastructure just after the previous breath you were complaining about those campaigning for such -- are more of a problem than all of the Keith Redmond etc of this world.

Your suggestion that educational campaigns (while needed on an on-going bases) are some how more important than infrastructure is not supported by the decades of experience of educational-focused cycling safety in Ireland, the UK etc.

You also seem to be firmly rooted in the thinking that the alliterative to Dutch-like infrastructure is no infrastructure, when the realty is that what's coming without campaigners is more of the same or just slightly better infrastructure which suits fewer people and gets more people annoyed and sometimes infrastructure that puts people in more danger.

Ah maybe I'm just too much of an individual on these matters. I'm one of those types who never marches to the beat of anyone else's drum if that makes sense. My philosophy on someone who thinks that's dangerous is fook em

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

more a comment on how RTCs are reported than on cycling per se, but there was one reported on the news this morning where a fatality occured 'when the van left the road'. which makes it sound like the van decided to do so.

I noticed exactly that too, they do tend to say "collision" nowadays rather than "accident" so maybe it will come. Do they use report as it comes from the Garda? I imagine so

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

times (irish london times) review of the prime time segment on cycling.
i haven't read it - well, just the first paragraph or two which is free.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spokesperson-qrl7kskg8

It was quite short so you got most of it. I joined in the discussion here a few days ago re what Victoria White and Keith Redmond said. I was impressed wth Neil Fox and the man from Kildare who was badly injured but I had actually missed the point that Spokesperson was making in the article, that framing the discussion via a question to VW as, "is provision for cycling a question of space rather than money?" was setting up for a ding-dong rather than enlightenment.

BTW, you know you can read 2 free articles a week when you register but not sure if covers entire paper and suppose you get emails hassling you to sign up then

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Ah maybe I'm just too much of an individual on these matters. I'm one of those types who never marches to the beat of anyone else's drum if that makes sense.

Honestly, the attitude and approach that I'm getting from you is far from individualistic. It is straight out of the George Hook/Pat Kenny/Jeremy Clarkson/Ivan Yeates playbook.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

P_1 wrote: »

Ah maybe I'm just too much of an individual on these matters. I'm one of those types who never marches to the beat of anyone else's drum if that makes sense.

Honestly, the attitude and approach that I'm getting from you is far from individualistic. It is straight out of the George Hook/Pat Kenny/Jeremy Clarkson/Ivan Yeates playbook.

Well seeing as I dont drive that's rather ironic. Look if you're happy being infantilised then knock yourself out. I'm not so I'm speaking out on it

AndrewJRenko

P_1 wrote: »

Look if you're happy being infantilised then knock yourself out. I'm not so I'm speaking out on it

By labelling those who choose to speak out on the blocking of cycle lanes as 'hectoring' and 'militant attitude towards all cars'.

Macy0161

RobbieMD wrote:

To be fair though, a coroner would have all the witness statements/ photography/videos etc already. A lot of modern HGVs now have Cctv cameras on their mirrors. AGS gather this evidence on behalf of the coroner.

They have cameras for use in inquests, not able to have cameras to eliminate the blind spots?

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not sure how much he tweets anymore, but @absentdriver on Twitter used to be good for news items about what appears to be the vanguard of autonomous vehicles.

(Think it's run by the same guy as @beztweets. News items are predominantly UK ones anyway.)

i wonder why they follow that convention. is it because they think that saying 'the driver lost control of the car' is implying the driver was at fault? in that maybe the journalist has to consider that they had to swerve to avoid a pedestrian, and the newspaper's legal team are very gunshy about apportioning blame?

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wonder why they follow that convention. is it because they think that saying 'the driver lost control of the car' is implying the driver was at fault? in that maybe the journalist has to consider that they had to swerve to avoid a pedestrian, and the newspaper's legal team are very gunshy about apportioning blame?

Heard the Laois report again on evening tv news and this time they said "The garda reported that the drver..." so it does come from the garda and it's they who need to ackowledge that vehicles are not driverless

RobbieMD

Macy0161 wrote: »

They have cameras for use in inquests, not able to have cameras to eliminate the blind spots?

It's not that they have cameras for use in inquests, it's that if there are cameras, then that can form part of the evidence for the inquest, along with any other evidence.

Maybe that would be an idea for HGV manufacturers, however if you've ever sat in a HGV, there's are huge blindspot areas down the sides of them. I'd say the CCTV cameras on HGVs are more to do with thefts from the trucks and liability in collisions. Like in cars with reverse cams, there's always the warning to not just rely on the camera and to ensure its safe to move.

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

By labelling those who choose to speak out on the blocking of cycle lanes as 'hectoring' and 'militant attitude towards all cars'.

Whatever pal. Im just out of a gig in a proper city. Sick to the back teeth of this poxy island where youre mislabled as some kind of asshole if you have the temerity to question the cosy narrative

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

By labelling those who choose to speak out on the blocking of cycle lanes as 'hectoring' and 'militant attitude towards all cars'.

Whatever pal. Im just out of a gig in a proper city. Sick to the back teeth of this poxy island where youre mislabled as some kind of asshole if you have the temerity to question the cosy narrative

tomasrojo

P_1 wrote: »

Whatever pal. Im just out of a gig in a proper city. Sick to the back teeth of this poxy island where youre mislabled as some kind of asshole if you have the temerity to question the cosy narrative

The cozy narrative, driven by hectoring militant cyclists.

Rechuchote

RobbieMD wrote: »

It's not that they have cameras for use in inquests, it's that if there are cameras, then that can form part of the evidence for the inquest, along with any other evidence.

Maybe that would be an idea for HGV manufacturers, however if you've ever sat in a HGV, there's are huge blindspot areas down the sides of them. I'd say the CCTV cameras on HGVs are more to do with thefts from the trucks and liability in collisions. Like in cars with reverse cams, there's always the warning to not just rely on the camera and to ensure its safe to move.

Hmm. When I used to drive I paid around £50 (amazon.co.uk) to instal one of those beep-beep things to warn me when I was backing close to something. Nowadays, one of these with a camera costs around £33.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AUTO-VOX-Rearview-Waterproof-Assistance-Installation/dp/B071D9TWSG/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1536565176&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=parking+camera&psc=1

Surely it would be simple enough to put these sensors on the blind spots and for drivers to stop and check them before turning? You could also add a "turning imminently" sound and vision signal to trucks without great expense.

And just keep the damned things out of cities.