Journalism and cycling

homer911

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-45497026
Pedestrian dies a month after hit-and-run cyclist on pedelec..

AndrewJRenko

Rechuchote wrote: »

Most of those with a phone "just in their hand" are posting on social media, I suspect.

There is a group who just seem to want to have the phone in their hand. They're not actually reading it, and they don't appear to be on a hands-free call. But they have the phone tightly gripped, usually using the back of one hand on the steering. It's as if they are congenitally unable to put it down



I guess it might save them maybe 0.25 of a second at each stop if they don't have to pick up the phone from their lap and orient it - so they just hold it, all the time.



There is no way they can be in full control of the car in an emergency situation.

Hurrache

Pay Kenny getting agitated this morning over the introduction of the new reduced 30kph speed limit and how cyclists don't adhere to them. He reckons he can easily break the limit on a flat road, and he's always being passed by cyclists when he sticks to it. And Faughnan is being a particular dick this morning.

zell12

Hurrache wrote: »

Pay Kenny getting agitated this morning over the introduction of the new reduced 30kph speed limit and how cyclists don't adhere to them. He reckons he can easily break the limit on a flat road, and he's always being passed by cyclists when he sticks to it. And Faughnan is being a particular dick this morning.

Ah that was fun: "I suspect Conor did not have his weetabix this morning"
Really weak arguments put across by the two motorists (Pat and Conor) against Ciaran Cuffe

Hurrache

Faughnan can normally put on a facade that makes him look reasonable on these matters, always throwing in the fact he cycles in the city. But whatever happened him this morning you were left in no doubt that he's an out and out lobbyist for motorists and was regulated to attacking the man and not the facts.

magicbastarder

i don't see what difference it'll make to motorists. i cycle up newtownpark avenue in the mornings at about 7:30am - i suspect long before it gets properly busy - and i still beat cars up it to the N11.
if a car can't beat a cyclist before rush hour on a decent uphill, 50km/h limits are moot.

Hurrache

That's the irony isn't it, the reduced limit will have negligible effect on journey times.

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see what difference it'll make to motorists. i cycle up newtownpark avenue in the mornings at about 7:30am - i suspect long before it gets properly busy - and i still beat cars up it to the N11.
if a car can't beat a cyclist before rush hour on a decent uphill, 50km/h limits are moot.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how traffic works in the city centre. You could set the limit to 120kph in the city centre and your journey times through the city where there are traffic lights every 100m or less would not change. There would be lots more high energy crashes, but your journey time would be the same.

So the question has to be whether it is worth having more high energy crashes for the same throughput of traffic just to get to that next red light slightly quicker, or would it be better to ask everyone to go that bit slower to reduce high energy crashes and have no impact of journey times.

The other elephant in the room is that the city centre can get kind of busy and at those times being able to reach 30kph is but a distant dream for motorists.

It would be nice to see a computer model which could show the progress of a vehicle through the city centre at different speeds taking into account all the traffic controls. I know people were doing crude estimates of distance vs time for a given speed, but this in no way adds in the effect of the traffic lights.

Grassey

check_six wrote:

The other elephant in the room is that the city centre can get kind of busy and at those times being able to reach 30kph is but a distant dream for motorists.

In my last place if I was to drive the avg speed was 9km hour... Cycling 22km/h...

The 50km speed limit along the route was clearly the problem when I drove... 🀣

Rechuchote

Where exactly are the new limits planned? Is it planned to have everywhere between the canals under 30km/h, which would seem the sensible idea?

Corca Baiscinn

Hurrache wrote: »

Pay Kenny getting agitated this morning over the introduction of the new reduced 30kph speed limit and how cyclists don't adhere to them. He reckons he can easily break the limit on a flat road, and he's always being passed by cyclists when he sticks to it. And Faughnan is being a particular dick this morning.

What time was that on? dont see the podcast up yet

Hurrache

About 10:10/10:15.

Grassey

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/locals-react-businesses-scenic-kerry-13247494

Donal O’Sullivan manages the Cahersiveen branch of Quinlans fishmongers and he believes the town will be “finished” if the greenway doesn’t go ahead.

“It’s a pity about the [greenway] dispute – if it is lost, I think Cahersiveen is finished. Hopefully it can be sorted out between the farmers and the council. It would be shame to see it not go ahead.”

“The greenway, we’re hanging on it. If it doesn’t go ahead, I’m not going to say there’s no future for the town, but the future doesn’t look too bright.”[\quote]

Grassey

Positive comments on the fake clamping of cars in phibsborogh this morning on today fm...

... And then Ian Dempsey followed up with "haha 'ill just be 5 mins, very good' but there are 2 sides to every story... Like some cyclists can't see lights and sail through them. And, they also seem to think they are both pedestrians and motorists too.

Ffs. What an inane and irrelevant comment!

Rechuchote

Grassey wrote: »

Positive comments on the fake clamping of cars in phibsborogh this morning on today fm...

... And then Ian Dempsey followed up with "haha 'ill just be 5 mins, very good' but there are 2 sides to every story... Like some cyclists can't see lights and sail through them. And, they also seem to think they are both pedestrians and motorists too.

Ffs. What an inane and irrelevant comment!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals

Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals

Duckjob

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6198581/Cyclists-able-ride-Lands-End-John-OGroats-without-seeing-car-new-plans.html

Interesting.

We're swiftly being left behind by the rest of the europe in the area of making it easier and safer for people getting around on bikes.

UK really seems to be making an effort in this area now. It's like the penny has dropped there that encouraging more people out of their cars is a win win for everyone.

Although, interesting to note the same tired old voices in the comments whinging about red light breaking, road tax, riding 10 abreast, and whatever you're having yourself.

Lambay island

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/its-one-consolation-for-us-having-lost-our-beloved-son-jury-recommends-changes-to-phoenix-park-junction-871102.html

Seems to be quite a bit of victim blaming in this. Cant quite figure out where exactly he was crossing and how the driver wouldn't have seen him. Its almost a footnote that the driver was breaking the speed limit too.

buffalo

Lambay island wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/its-one-consolation-for-us-having-lost-our-beloved-son-jury-recommends-changes-to-phoenix-park-junction-871102.html

Seems to be quite a bit of victim blaming in this. Cant quite figure out where exactly he was crossing and how the driver wouldn't have seen him. Its almost a footnote that the driver was breaking the speed limit too.

Agreed on the speeding, but I'm not sure how you can label eye-witness testimony that the victim made an error as 'victim blaming', which would presumably exonerate the victim completely?

Lambay island

buffalo wrote: »

Agreed on the speeding, but I'm not sure how you can label eye-witness testimony that the victim made an error as 'victim blaming', which would presumably exonerate the victim completely?

Well, I suppose that's why I was trying to picture the scenario where he was trying to cross etc. The witness in the passenger seat is the individual quoted to the "bad error" comment which may be accurate but could certainly perceived as a bit of bias. The other independent witness said he seemed like he was in trouble as soon as he went on the road. That indicates to me that the car was approaching too fast to stop safely along with the victim making a mistake. I just find in these scenarios the person who cant defend themselves quite often takes full blame despite the other party breaking the law.

magicbastarder

The driver was not proven to be breaking the speed limit, it was a post-incident forensic estimate.

buffalo

Lambay island wrote: »

Well, I suppose that's why I was trying to picture the scenario where he was trying to cross etc. The witness in the passenger seat is the individual quoted to the "bad error" comment which may be accurate but could certainly perceived as a bit of bias. The other independent witness said he seemed like he was in trouble as soon as he went on the road. That indicates to me that the car was approaching too fast to stop safely along with the victim making a mistake. I just find in these scenarios the person who cant defend themselves quite often takes full blame while despite the other party breaking the law.

The witnesses were in another car. The driver who struck the cyclist was Maria McGeever, the witnesses were another driver Rachel Kay and their passenger Charles Forrester.

Lambay island

buffalo wrote: »

The witnesses were in another car. The driver who struck the cyclist was Maria McGeever, the witnesses were another driver Rachel Kay and their passenger Charles Forrester.

Ah, I see that now.... carry on

magicbastarder

Also, there was an article in the Irish times a year or two ago, a somewhat more than usual in-depth look at a pedestrian fatality. Anyway, IIRC, the driver in that incident reckoned he was doing about 90 (in a 100km/h zone) but the garda estimate was that he was doing about half that. Doesn't point to the process being an exact science.

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

Also, there was an article in the Irish times a year or two ago, a somewhat more than usual in-depth look at a pedestrian fatality. Anyway, IIRC, the driver in that incident reckoned he was doing about 90 (in a 100km/h zone) but the garda estimate was that he was doing about half that. Doesn't point to the process being an exact science.

was that the one where the victim was a farmer wearing dark clothing that the driver didn't see despite supposedly using full headlights on a dark road in good weather conditions?

magicbastarder

I think so. Trying to find a link but the search terms I can think of are to vague to be useful.

Corca Baiscinn

buffalo wrote: »

The witnesses were in another car. The driver who struck the cyclist was Maria McGeever, the witnesses were another driver Rachel Kay and their passenger Charles Forrester.

It's good that thes jury recommended change to the junction layout but is it not strange that cyclist would have been stopped waiting to cross and then apparently made a dash for it? Also I'm not trying to judge the driver, just to think about how it happened; when driving in a busy urban area would you not be scanning ahead for vulnerable road user?. And is the speed limit appropriate for a busy urban area? Heard Rod King of UK's 20's Plenty speak once and one of his key points is that you have to drive in a way that allows for somebody to make a mistake without it having fatal consequences.

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

I think so. Trying to find a link but the search terms I can think of are to vague to be useful.

the one I'm thinking of was discussed here last year but the indo link from that post has disappeared...

edit...the page itself is here

Martin thought he was travelling at around 85km/hour but the inquest, which took place some months later heard that a Garda report found he was travelling at between 47 and 56km/hour, based on the forensics, from impact and where the body was found.

buffalo

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

It's good that thes jury recommended change to the junction layout but is it not strange that cyclist would have been stopped waiting to cross and then apparently made a dash for it? Also I'm not trying to judge the driver, just to think about how it happened; when driving in a busy urban area would you not be scanning ahead for vulnerable road user?. And is the speed limit appropriate for a busy urban area? Heard Rod King of UK's 20's Plenty speak once and one of his key points is that you have to drive in a way that allows for somebody to make a mistake without it having fatal consequences.

Eye witness testimony may be quite unreliable, but it's more reliable than someone who wasn't there speculating based upon a few snippets of information gleaned from a brief news report on the inquest. Maybe the cyclist thought the car driver had given him a wave, maybe the driver was looking at their phone, maybe the cyclist fell over, maybe... The inquest had access to independent witnesses and forensic evidence, and reached an appropriate conclusion.

Agreed on the general principles of driving to the conditions and lowering speed limits in urban areas. I pass through the junction involved regularly enough, and the ghost bike is a stark reminder not to trust anyone.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

Also, there was an article in the Irish times a year or two ago, a somewhat more than usual in-depth look at a pedestrian fatality. Anyway, IIRC, the driver in that incident reckoned he was doing about 90 (in a 100km/h zone) but the garda estimate was that he was doing about half that. Doesn't point to the process being an exact science.

It is well accepted among forensics (read, the friends I have who are forensic scientists) that the techniques and methodologies used here for certain things (speeding being one) are horrendously unreliable and would not be accepted elsewhere. They are accepted here because they usually underestimate a drivers speed. I think Tomasrojo had a link on to their skid analysis test which is not used elsewhere AFAIK.

This is not a dig at forensics teams here (and by team, typically one person), it is just the methodologies they are given and an unwillingness by higher ups to change.

In this incident, I have no idea, I have only the statements given. The only one that would concern me is that the driver did not see the cyclist. it was 2.05pm, sun was most likely past the highest point and by the description the driver was going East. I can only read this as lack of due care and attention. It was not intentional, there maybe some blame on the cyclist for a gap they couldn't get through, pedals slip, people don't pull off as quick as expected but in this scenario, the driver should have expected the unexpected and been paying more attention and been ready to brake going through. Like most inquests, in my opinion, they have went for the result that offends the least amount of people still here after the fact. Regrettably I have no way of knowing whether that constitutes enough to agree with the assessment.

Corca Baiscinn

buffalo wrote: »

Eye witness testimony may be quite unreliable, but it's more reliable than someone who wasn't there speculating based upon a few snippets of information gleaned from a brief news report on the inquest. Maybe the cyclist thought the car driver had given him a wave, maybe the driver was looking at their phone, maybe the cyclist fell over, maybe... The inquest had access to independent witnesses and forensic evidence, and reached an appropriate conclusion..

It may have but afraid I don't share your confidence that it necessarily did. The Policing Commission Report last week said that in relation to inquests gardai are required to fulfil tasks for which they are not trained and Cram Cycle below has referenced problems with forensics. Dr Mike McKillen from Dublin Cycling Campaign who has attended numerous inquests involving the death of a cyclist has also pointed to problems such as families often having no legal, representation, gardai not being challenged re evidence etc

I am aware that I'm relying on snippets from a brief report but phrased my puzzlement in the form of questions as of course I can't know.