Journalism and cycling

Moflojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Completely pointless article:

The driver being a 16 year old stoner who is a serial speeder should have been off the road before he had the chance of killing anyone on the road.

Perhaps you missed the point: The police initially concluded that the crash was unintentional, and some of those who commented online blamed the victims for the accident, yet there was substantial evidence that the driver was entirely at fault from the outset. The article is pointing out that the default position amongst the media and law enforcement is often that the driver is blameless, or that the incident was an "accident" (suggesting lack of blame) rather than a "collision".

endagibson

Roadhawk wrote: »

Every road user should have a duty of care when using any road including making themselves visible by using lights or whatever.

Does this extend to when they're on the footpath?

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

Completely pointless article:

Comment like “Wearing dark clothing as a pedestrian is a completely reasonable thing to do. Running people over with a car is not.” in my opinion is completely irresponsible.

Butbutbut, dear Hawk,

Although Vais was found to have nearly twice the legal blood-alcohol level, he was sentenced to a mere 100 days in prison. Incredibly, Judge Nicholas Ford mentioned that Avalos was wearing dark clothing at the time Ford hit him as a reason for the light sentence.

Surely if Avalos was wearing a fluorescent cat suit lit up by full-body Christmas tree lights, a driver so compromised would have seen neither of him?

Chuchote

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/dart-dividend-and-luas-lift-1.2900044

Committing billions on extravagant, possibly ruinous grands projets while low-hanging fruits such as cycleways and bus lanes remain untouched is simply illogical and illustrates a lack of critical thinking in the media and body politic.

Chuchote

Sensible piece about dooring

http://cycling.today/the-truth-about-cycling-safety-passing-distances-and-dooring/

There’s probably no single answer to making cycling safe. But I’d argue that a key missing element at present is a co-ordinated effort by influential bodies, particularly government, to take the heat out of the simmering motorist-cyclist debate and conflict. It has been argued that it is only a minority of motorists harbouring resentment toward cyclists. However, it would seem that the spread of uninformed and illegitimate views, particularly by opinion leaders such as the media and even politicians, is fuelling misconceptions of cyclists and helping normalise dangerous driving directed towards us. A cultural shift in attitudes towards cyclists is possible by reinforcing the message that cyclists are legitimate and vulnerable road users, deserving of motorists’ and society’s respect.

Chuchote

Parked cars on cycle lanes

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/parked-cars-blocking-cycle-lanes-1.2902951

As a cyclist and driver, I constantly see cycle lanes blocked by parked cars, forcing cyclists to move out into the path of other traffic. I have also seen gardaí in patrol cars passing these vehicles parked on the cycle lane, and ignoring them…

tomasrojo

Good discussion of "bikelash" on the The Bike Show podcast.
http://thebikeshow.net/bikelash/

Weepsie

This is on the indo today. A video from staying alive at 1.5 has been released.

The video shows plenty of bad driving, but plenty of equally crap cycling too and an apparent lack of situational awareness from anyone on a bike.

Its a video which will do as much harm as good and fuel whataboutery

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/watch-campaign-group-shares-video-of-near-misses-between-cyclists-and-other-vehicles-on-irish-roads-35290362.html

Pinch Flat

Weepsie wrote: »

The video shows plenty of bad driving, but plenty of equally crap cycling too and an apparent lack of situational awareness from anyone on a bike.

Curious to see which particular situation in the video you felt warranted crap cycling?

Weepsie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Curious to see which particular situation in the video you felt warranted crap cycling?

There appears to be 2 videos in the story. The first one however does not play for me and has only a screen grab.

I'll take back what I said regarding the campaign folk. The second video though ....which is not from them

Roadhawk

Weepsie wrote: »

There appears to be 2 videos in the story. The first one however does not play for me and has only a screen grab.

I'll take back what I said regarding the campaign folk. The second video though ....which is not from them

The first video is on their facebook. It might play for you from there:
https://www.facebook.com/stayinaliveat1.5/

The second video is from Kyran O'Brien (http://www.ppai.ie/photographer/203/Kyran-O-Brien) He seems to capture what I would recognise as usual cyclist behaviour on a daily basis. Perhaps this is because his video was shot in Dublin where the first video seems to be shot in rural Ireland (judging the roads)

Moflojo

Weepsie wrote: »

This is on the indo today. A video from staying alive at 1.5 has been released.

The video shows plenty of bad driving, but plenty of equally crap cycling too and an apparent lack of situational awareness from anyone on a bike.

Its a video which will do as much harm as good and fuel whataboutery

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/watch-campaign-group-shares-video-of-near-misses-between-cyclists-and-other-vehicles-on-irish-roads-35290362.html

Neither video shows anything that remotely resembles good, or even acceptable, cycling infrastructure. Until such infrastructure is put in place then incidents of poor human behaviour will continue to occur.

Weepsie

Moflojo wrote: »

Neither video shows anything that remotely resembles good, or even acceptable, cycling infrastructure. Until such infrastructure is put in place then incidents of poor human behaviour will continue to occur.

Ah now, while I accept that infrastructure definitely needs to be improved, and massively so, it doesn't take infrastructure to know that going up the inside of 3 busses is a bad idea, or jumping off a kerb between a bus and a truck is a bad idea, or squeezing through a gap between two busses across two lanes is a bad idea.

An awful lot can be avoided there using a bit of common sense, and being a bit more predictable, or just being assertive and taking a lane. There's a give and take in this.

As for Roadhawk, it's not the "usual". That implies that everyone on a bike is doing it, or nearly everyone.

Moflojo

Weepsie wrote: »

[snip]...it doesn't take infrastructure to know that going up the inside of 3 busses is a bad idea, or jumping off a kerb between a bus and a truck is a bad idea, or squeezing through a gap between two busses across two lanes is a bad idea.[snip]

Regardless of those risky cycling manoeuvres I don't think you can genuinely argue that those environments are safe for everyone on a bike. Until such environments are built we won't see a reduction in these risky behaviours by cyclists and motorists, and the perception of risk will continue to dissuade regular folk from switching to cycling as a regular and completely normal mode of transport. The money required to "educate and enforce" would have a much better and faster return if spent on infrastructure.

OleRodrigo

Weepsie wrote: »

As for Roadhawk, it's not the "usual". That implies that everyone on a bike is doing it, or nearly everyone.

He is right. This is common behavior in the city center. So is bad driving.

Weepsie

OleRodrigo wrote: »

He is right. This is common behavior in the city center. So is bad driving.

Its common, or usual, that you will see instances of it most days. Its not common or usual that it's the what you would expect from the majority of road users, be they on a bike, car, motorbike, etc.

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

The first video is on their facebook. It might play for you from there:
https://www.facebook.com/stayinaliveat1.5/

The second video is from Kyran O'Brien (http://www.ppai.ie/photographer/203/Kyran-O-Brien) He seems to capture what I would recognise as usual cyclist behaviour on a daily basis. Perhaps this is because his video was shot in Dublin where the first video seems to be shot in rural Ireland (judging the roads)

The second video is half and half, some really poor cycling and situational awareness but then some god awful driving in there as well, several cars and buses overtaking and then pulling in or turning left immediately.

OleRodrigo wrote: »

He is right. This is common behavior in the city center. So is bad driving.

It is not the usual behaviour, it might be common in that you see people do it every day but you do not see the majority.

OleRodrigo

Weepsie wrote: »

Its common, or usual, that you will see instances of it most days. Its not common or usual that it's the what you would expect from the majority of road users, be they on a bike, car, motorbike, etc.

I disagree. Bad roadcraft (by all users ) is so common as to be 'usual ' between the canals, and I think you could probably extend that to within the M50. Beyond that, you might occasionally see instances.

But its at its most concentrated around the inner city center.

Chuchote

Irish road users have become kind of hysterical in the last few years. I was stopped at the crossroads outside Lidl in Terenure last week trying to pick up and re-stash a bunch of big bottles of Saskia water after the package burst on my back carrier. A 4X4 driver kindly put on his hazards and got out and helped me. The lights changed and a Herz van driver went by, blaring a wailing car horn at us before he could have seen why the other driver had stopped. Just one of numerous blaring-horn, swervy, crazy behaviour I've seen that have become the norm. Can we return to the quiet courtesy Irish people used to be renowned for, please?

Meanwhile, a Danish sidecar for kids: https://www.fastcoexist.com/3066548/this-danish-kid-carrying-side-bike-may-be-the-most-scandinavian-thing-ever-made

I'm in two minds about this - motorcycle sidecars used to be considered the most dangerous vehicle of all to travel in. But maybe that was a question of speed. (A friend came off his electric bike going 30km/h last year on a muddy road and broke his arm badly - he didn't realise how fast he was going; on an ordinary bike you'd be more aware of the speed you were generating.)

And how Sweden is cutting road deaths by redesigning streets, rather than the Irish method of finger-wagging at bad drivers:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3066435/how-sweden-has-redesigned-streets-to-route-around-bad-human-behavior

tomasrojo

Sorry to hear about the weirdness, Chuchote.

Chuchote wrote: »

Meanwhile, a Danish sidecar for kids: https://www.fastcoexist.com/3066548/this-danish-kid-carrying-side-bike-may-be-the-most-scandinavian-thing-ever-made

I've seen bike sidecars before, but only online. Looks ok. Not sure it's better than a trailer. Trailers aren't "hard to manoeuvre" really though; not in my experience. In fact, getting off the road when you're boxed in, for example, is easier with a trailer than a cargo bike, as you don't need a drop kerb to exit the road. The problem is filtering is tricky, and people worry about motorised vehices approaching from the rear harming the children.

Chuchote wrote: »

And how Sweden is cutting road deaths by redesigning streets, rather than the Irish method of finger-wagging at bad drivers:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3066435/how-sweden-has-redesigned-streets-to-route-around-bad-human-behavior

Someone told me about a Swedish colleague's bafflement at Accident Black Spot signs in Ireland. "Why don't they just make the road less dangerous?" the Swede said.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

Someone told me about a Swedish colleague's bafflement at Accident Black Spot signs in Ireland. "Why don't they just make the road less dangerous?" the Swede said.

And instead, they've now just taken the signs away, without improving the roads.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Why don't they just make the road less dangerous?" the Swede said.

partly because we - if this graph is accurate - have the second highest km of road per capita. so the county engineers have a lot of road to look after.

data is about 15 years old, though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Highways/Paved/Per-capita

tomasrojo

Yeah, it's probably not an entirely fair response. We do seem to have a lot of roads, including not terribly useful famine roads and the like. But Accident Black Spots were on main roads for ages. I suppose there was no money to fix them for a long time, even on main roads.

check_six

I was listening to a bit of the Pat Kenny radio show before 10am and they were discussing the proposal to extend the 30kph limit to some small residential streets around Dublin City. Holy steamin' jaysis! I felt my mind begin to turn to mush with some of the nonsensical blind alleys they were turning into. They had AA guy Conor Faughnan and a lady from a 30kph advocacy group on the show. They started off discussing motor vehicles. Then they discussed if doing something about turning trucks might help more than a speed limit.

So far so good, but then it veered off towards a single person driving around town at the dead of night and how they might be delayed rather than talking about when the majority of people are actually on the roads.

Inevitably bicycles entered the fray. An inordinate amount of time was spent discussing how fast cyclists travel and how they could be going faster than the 30kph limit. No one thought to point out that the limit would not apply to them. The advocacy lady said that cyclists are only able to travel at >30kph on big urban roads not in the city. They also discussed how dangerous being hit by a speeding cyclist would be compared to a car. The lady suggested that cyclists hitting people cause perhaps 1% of fatalities, although she did point out that this was not the case in Ireland.

Faughnan made a good point about cycle lanes being badly designed at junctions where they were needed, and better designed in areas where they were unnecessary. There was a struggle to determine if more emissions were caused by "slower" cars. He did go on to say that a family will produce more harmful emissions by breathing than a modern car will in 15000km of driving in a year. I suppose we could all help if breathing was a bit more optional.

Other points:
"Road Tax" and who did or didn't pay it appeared, inevitably.
Everyone driving in town is only there to collect a wardrobe, or a grand piano.
Why won't someone think of the people prowling the streets at 4am?
No mention of traffic lights and their effect on traffic.
No mention of lots of traffic having a greater effect than any speed limit.
Pat upset about people being caught for speeding when arriving at a roundabout.

Bizarre jumble of a piece really.

HivemindXX

I'm not at all surprised that this was a mess. Unless you drift in to irrelevancies or inaccuracies (we used to call them lies) it is hard to really argue against the 30kph limit.

I'm very interested in this theory that a family gives out more pollutants than a car. You point out that this is going to happen anyway but I still think there is something very fishy there. Does anyone know where Faughnan got this information from? As far as I know the main problem with car emissions are volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide. I don't think people produce those in any great quantities. People do produce CO2 and I can accept it might be true that a family produces as much CO2 as a car. People and cars produce water vapour too but I don't think it is reasonable to base your claims on the total volume of emissions if the cars are producing far more toxic emissions.

Was there even any mention of the difference in mortality for a pedestrian struck at 50kph versus one struck at 30kph?

magicbastarder

according to the internet, an adult breathes out about 1KG of CO2 per day, so let's say 4KG per family (and that'd be a reasonably large family), or 1,350kg per year.
the EU targets for a small car are 120g/km, or 1,800kg in doing 15,000km.
so he's not too far wrong on the statement if you limit yourself to CO2.

i'm not aware of humans exhaling any of the other gases implicated in vehicular pollution.

HivemindXX

How serious is CO2 as a pollutant compared to those other emissions?

This does sound like the sort of twisted statistics that are used to 'prove' things that people already want to believe. To wit "my car isn't bad for the environment".

magicbastarder

depends on what you mean by 'pollutant'; i don't think CO2 is a major component of smog or pollutants like that - as it's inert. the main issue with it is obviously related to the greenhouse effect.

CO2 is only really mentioned in passing in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

Moflojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

depends on what you mean by 'pollutant'; i don't think CO2 is a major component of smog or pollutants like that - as it's inert. the main issue with it is obviously related to the greenhouse effect.

CO2 is only really mentioned in passing in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

This is exactly why Red Herrings are a logical fallacy. You're now discussing the emissions of people versus cars, when it really has no true relevance whatsoever to the original debate about 30kph zones. Are people allowed inside 30kph zones if they're not inside cars? If yes, this is a red herring.

mcgratheoin

check_six wrote: »

He did go on to say that a family will produce more harmful emissions by breathing than a modern car will in 15000km of driving in a year. I suppose we could all help if breathing was a bit more optional.

Seriously? I broadly like Conor Faughnan, but that is one of the dumbest things I've heard anyone in his position say in a long time. :mad:
Emissions from cars are ultimately the result of taking sequestered carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) and releasing that carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. The whole point of these emissions is that we're shoving tonnes of carbon back into the atmosphere that had been taken out of the system millions of years ago.
Human emissions are part of the carbon cycle - atmospheric carbon is captured by plants, which are eaten by animals, which release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Comparing the two is completely disingenuous and misleading.