Journalism and cycling

Duckjob

Hopefully it's not €400,000 worth of painted lines on the sides of existing roads, if thats the case it's not worth p**s.

Been torturing myself by watching lot of YouTube videos on dutch cycling infrastructure recently.

One of the things that struck me after watching enough of them was that the effect of well designed infrastructure is two fold. There's the obvious benefit of making it physically safer for people on bikes by keeping them away from motorised traffic.

But as well as that there are the psychological effects of reminding motorists that they are not No 1 on the road - narrow roadspace for cars, raised cycle paths, signage reminding drivers literally that they are allowed "as guests" on certain roads. All these things are subtle but they combine to create a culture where motorists are less likely to misbehave because if they did so they would stick out like a knob. The infrastructure here is so setup for cars that it encourages entitled driving.

magicbastarder

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-get-the-green-light-for-longer-junction-crossing-times-in-dublin-1.3646673?mode=amp

It's purchasing a specific technology. A bit of a marginal use car though?

CramCycle

Rechuchote wrote: »

(How do I get rid of that nasty red icon beside my userid, by the way?)

What icon?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

Shane Ross announces €400,000 funding to tackle cyclist safety in Dublin city

http://www.thejournal.ie/shane-ross-announces-e400000-funding-to-tackle-cyclist-safety-in-dublin-city-4261890-Sep2018/

Why did I read the comments

Pinch Flat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why did I read the comments

I’m guessing red light breaking, “road tax”, insurance (for those wing mirrors, ya know) and helmets / hi vis featured

Oh and you also usually get some randomer who suggests cyclists should be run over. These comments usually get a worrying amount of likes.

Hurrache

There's one unfortunate guy who's aunt was 'almost' killed by a cyclist, apparently had his face broken by another, and his cat hunted down by a third. I made one of those up, he probably made up the other 2. Guy really shouldn't venture outside his door for such is the danger he finds himself in.

There's enough masochists on that site calling him out on it anyway.

Hurrache

CramCycle wrote: »

What icon?

Maybe they mean the avatar?

Rechuchote head into you profile settings and you can change it in there.

magicbastarder

They need to allow boards integration to allow boardsies to post there without needing a separate login.

Weepsie

Comments are awful, typical "learn rules of the road" when I'd like to say, Learn the Road Traffic Act

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

They need to allow boards integration to allow boardsies to post there without needing a separate login.

I'd rather they didn't

magicbastarder

Posting because some cycling schemes benefited - mayo got one eighth of the funds from a rural outdoor recreation scheme. Responsible minister is from mayo.

http://www.thejournal.ie/michael-ring-funding-allocations-4261523-Oct2018/

Hurrache

Mayo must really have been lacking in sporting and recreational facilities such is the need for state bodies to throw so much money into it under various schemes over the last couple of years.

Tombo2001

Hurrache wrote: »

Mayo must really have been lacking in sporting and recreational facilities such is the need for state bodies to throw so much money into it under various schemes over the last couple of years.

Thing is didnt they get all that money for the indoor cycling machines to use in the winter, so it makes sense that those guys have trained up and are ready to go out on the road; but of course only if the facilities are consistent with what they are used to.

JMcL

Not bike related specifically, but same principal applies. Morning Ireland had a RSA spokes-body on this morning indulging in some victim blaming re pedestrian fatalities. Didn't get the start of it so no sure what year(s) was being referred to, but apparently 50% of victims had alcohol consumed (by implication then 50% hadn't), and half of that half were well over the driving limit (news for you RSA - it's legal to drink and walk - at least within reason). Most fatalities also occurred in well lit urban areas. She then started to break it up on age etc, but by then I'd gotten past the point of being sure there was nothing constructive going to ensue.

Now, if one assumes that these pedestrians didn't just spontaneously die, there was no mention of the ton+ of metal that presumably killed them, or potential levels of intoxication of whoever was behind the wheel. The solution: A good dose of hi-vis, and none of this slow down and take a bit of care nonsense

what_traffic

JMcL wrote: »

Not bike related specifically, but same principal applies. Morning Ireland had a RSA spokes-body on this morning indulging in some victim blaming re pedestrian fatalities. Didn't get the start of it so no sure what year(s) was being referred to, but apparently 50% of victims had alcohol consumed (by implication then 50% hadn't), and half of that half were well over the driving limit (news for you RSA - it's legal to drink and walk - at least within reason). Most fatalities also occurred in well lit urban areas. She then started to break it up on age etc, but by then I'd gotten past the point of being sure there was nothing constructive going to ensue.

Now, if one assumes that these pedestrians didn't just spontaneously die, there was no mention of the ton+ of metal that presumably killed them, or potential levels of intoxication of whoever was behind the wheel. The solution: A good dose of hi-vis, and none of this slow down and take a bit of care nonsense

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/morning-ireland/programmes/2018/1001/999174-morning-ireland-monday-1-october-2018/?clipid=102940151#102940151

Dr Aoife Kervick, policy and research analyst at the RSA.

Moflojo

what_traffic wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/morning-ireland/programmes/2018/1001/999174-morning-ireland-monday-1-october-2018/?clipid=102940151#102940151

Dr Aoife Kervick, policy and research analyst at the RSA.

Absolutely zero mention of driver behaviour, and no mention of whether infrastructure, or lack thereof, was a factor in any of these "accidents."

For example they mentioned that 60% of pedestrian fatalities were on rural roads, without mentioning whether or not there were footpaths around.

But wear a hi-vis and you'll be fine.

There seems to be a disgusting victim-blaming culture inherent in the RSA.

what_traffic

Moflojo wrote: »

Absolutely zero mention of driver behaviour, and no mention of whether infrastructure, or lack thereof, was a factor in any of these "accidents."

For example they mentioned that 60% of pedestrian fatalities were on rural roads, without mentioning whether or not there were footpaths around.

But wear a hi-vis and you'll be fine.

There seems to be a disgusting victim-blaming culture inherent in the RSA.

True. Hi Viz will save all.
They will even have a big survey to see why the non-believers do not believe this.
Pity not more focus given on the age profile. That tells a story.
Gavin Jennings asked a question on the topic - but seemed to get confused by the end of it.

They were a little better regards age groups on RTE news there. Still mentioned 98% didn't have high vis though. No mention of the how for example how many elderly people were struck crossing a road, where they at a crossing with a green man, was the driver on the phone or intoxicated.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

They were a little better regards age groups on RTE news there. Still mentioned 98% didn't have high vis though. No mention of the how for example how many elderly people were struck crossing a road, where they at a crossing with a green man, was the driver on the phone or intoxicated.

Only a relative fact if the general population has a higher % of hi vis uptake. and substantially so. It grates on me when they do such things, it is misleading and highly inappropriate, correlation and causation, which may not even be in play here, are very different things.

magicbastarder

JMcL wrote: »

apparently 50% of victims had alcohol consumed

50% *of those tested* had alcohol consumed. It was not that 50% had alcohol consumed.
Granted, about two thirds of victims were tested, but given that (crude assumption alert) they're probably much more likely to test if they suspect it's a factor, in the one third not tested they may have had adequate cause to believe the victim was stone cold sooner and thus not test.

So only one third of victims were known to have alcohol taken.

Hurrache

And given the likelihood of when, and where, those people were walking, it's pretty much evident they'll have alcohol consumed anyway.

RacoonQueen

Hurrache wrote: »

And given the likelihood of when, and where, those people were walking, it's pretty much evident they'll have alcohol consumed anyway.

Yep, huge % IIRC was between 6pm and 6am...so during darkness for 6 months + of the year anyway when visibility is lessened and drivers should be driving with more care, particularly in rural areas where there are no footpaths. Alas, must be the fault of the person who is responsibly walking home from the pub in rural areas rather than drive.

Seth Brundle

There appears to be a huge assumption by the RSA that alcohol is a factor in all of these deaths. Just because someone has alcohol taken does not make them responsible for the incident.

I know that some of the incidents may be attributed to behaviour by the pedestrian (see quote below) but this shouldn't mean that everyone who had a drink and walked home is responsible. No mention of the vehicle's inappropriate speed, dangerous roads, etc.

Almost one in 10 of those who were killed (9 per cent) were found to have been killed while lying in the road and 8 per cent were killed standing in the road.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/half-of-all-pedestrians-killed-on-irish-roads-had-alcohol-taken-1.3647965

P_1

It's a massively grey area with sadly very black and white results.

I'm not exactly sure what the RSA's approach here is actually doing to resolve this in a constructive manner

Macy0161

Half of those tested had alcohol taken, but only half of those were over the drink drive limit. I've actually heard old fella's use this type of commentary to justify drink driving, as they say "sure you couldn't be walking, it's too dangerous...". I obviously argue back that it's dangerous because of people drink driving, but this is one of the unintended consequences of the RSA victim blaming approach.

I am actually disgusted that over various news reports I didn't here the RSA spokespeople reference driver behaviour, driving to conditions, driving to the speed you can see and safely stop in. They really do more harm than good.

Rechuchote

Macy0161 wrote: »

I am actually disgusted that over various news reports I didn't here the RSA spokespeople reference driver behaviour, driving to conditions, driving to the speed you can see and safely stop in. They really do more harm than good.

The RSA think inside the car, rather than thinking outside the box. Every statement they make is from the point of view of a driver.

They recently had a scold about how old people are slow on the road and should take extra care crossing. Now, the reason that old people get hit by cars is that as you age, your ability to judge distances declines, so it's harder to see how far a car is from you.

The obvious advertising campaign would be "Drivers: be careful when old people are crossing: slow right down." But no, they went for "Old people, be careful crossing."

RacoonQueen

Provisions for pedestrians are also awful. Pedestrians are secondary to the motor vehicle and wait times for ped lights can be ridiculous which makes pedestrians take risks and cross at the earliest opportunity.

More zebra crossing particularly outside the city would be a benefit (these would also, naturally, slow traffic down). Often, by the time the pedestrian lights change, the pedestrians have already crossed because they got an opportunity to. That behaviour is never going to change where a pedestrian waits at a ped red when there is no traffic about. With this, you then have cars/cyclists waiting at red lights there is no need to wait at (no pedestrians crossing).

If I know a light sequence, I'll usually not press the pedestrian lights when out running so as not to hold up traffic as I know when I can cross safely. Always feel like such a dick if the ped light goes green and cars are waiting there when I've already crossed.



We really need to make better provisions for those not in motor vehicles in this country. The behaviour of motorists on rural roads where there are no footpaths is disgraceful, won't even take their foot of the accelerator as they meet pedestrians who have to dive into ditches to avoid speeding cars.

CramCycle

RacoonQueen wrote: »

More zebra crossing particularly outside the city would be a benefit (these would also, naturally, slow traffic down). Often, by the time the pedestrian lights change, the pedestrians have already crossed because they got an opportunity to. That behaviour is never going to change where a pedestrian waits at a ped red when there is no traffic about. With this, you then have cars/cyclists waiting at red lights there is no need to wait at (no pedestrians crossing).

Pedestrian crossings need far harsher penalties attached as well as CCTV for complaints. In no other country I have been to is there such apprehension at crossing at a zebra crossing. In the last few months I have seen cyclists, motorists and on one occasion a motorbike (doing a wheelie and overrevving) blast through a zebra crossing that had people either on it or about to step on it.

Macy0161

Zebra crossings should be the answer. My experience in my village, and even around town, is that drivers don't know the rules and are just as likely to carry on through whether you've stepped on the crossing or not.

Duckjob

RacoonQueen wrote: »

We really need to make better provisions for those not in motor vehicles in this country. The behaviour of motorists on rural roads where there are no footpaths is disgraceful, won't even take their foot of the accelerator as they meet pedestrians who have to dive into ditches to avoid speeding cars.

That matches my earlier point about how good infrastructure doesnt just regulate road users physically, it also influences their mentality and how they conduct themselves on the road.

Give people a narrow road with no footpaths that looks like nothing other than a car should be there (your average rural road in Ireland), and drivers will automatically assume bikes and pedestrians should not be there and show less respect to anyone on that road who isnt in a car.

There are plenty of roads in Netherlands where drivers could technically drive like a loon and rat race through, but it's very rare to see that, just because everything about the setup of the infrastructure enforces calmness and reminds them that they're are sharing spaces with other road groups.