Journalism and cycling

Rechuchote

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1120264120249528321

Muahahaha

Its unreal to report it as "the car lost control" as if the driver wasn't controlling the car.

Duckjob

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its unreal to report it as "the car lost control" as if the driver wasn't controlling the car.

So true, this bullsh*t has to stop. All the media outlets are the same- Its always the cars fault, responsibility always dutifully brushed away from anyone, except of course the victims if they weren't wearing hi-vis or a helmet.

Not talking about any case in particular, but I'm always amazed how even if a car is flipped over or half crushed in a 50kph zone nobody seems willing to ask what are obvious questions.

It's like our version of the Trump style "thoughts and prayers" approach to shootings in the US.

Chiparus

Independent have pulled the article.

AndrewJRenko

Chiparus wrote: »

Independent have pulled the article.

That's amazing really.

mr spuckler

Chiparus wrote: »

Independent have pulled the article.

and published a new one which includes this wondrous line.

Bridget was riding her bike near Ballinasloe, Co Galway, when a car was involved in a collision.

jjpep

I don't know if it's any better. What is wrong with something actually accurate along the lines of 'the driver lost control of the vehicle which then struck the person on the bike'.

It can't be liablous to say 'lost control' especially if the alternative is that the driver was in control of the vehicle and still managed to hit someone with it.

xckjoo

mr spuckler wrote: »

and published a new one which includes this wondrous line.

Jesus. Collision sounds so wrong. To me that implies some level of equality of size. I don't collide with the grass when I walk through a field.

Seth Brundle

Interesting tale of a cycle along the border...
Cycling the Border: ‘Unhindered, unchecked, unharmed; I cycle past the post’

Large bottle small glass

jjpep wrote: »

It can't be liablous to say 'lost control' especially if the alternative is that the driver was in control of the vehicle and still managed to hit someone with it.

I presume they are afraid of lawyers, not so much for liable but in the event of a DPP prosecution.

Not talking of Galway accident in particular, but in general we don't know as media consumers know why a collision occurred. If you assume it was driver error you will be right in all probability most of the time, but a proper investigation takes time, a cool head and an open mind.

He could have had a catastrophic mechanical suspension/tyre failure, surface defect, diesel spillage, a third party emerging suddenly onto road etc etc; only the Garda Forensic team/PSV inspector can say in the early stages.

There has been three road fatalities in the area I'm from in last few months; all on the same road. You might conclude that the road is very very dangerous; all three on the information I have are beyond the remit of all but the most broad of road safety policies.

Tombo2001

Does Dublin Cycling have a Facebook page? I'd like to Share but dont do twitter.

AndrewJRenko

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Does Dublin Cycling have a Facebook page? I'd like to Share but dont do twitter.

https://www.facebook.com/dublincycling/?ref=br_rs

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

I presume they are afraid of lawyers, not so much for liable but in the event of a DPP prosecution.

Not talking of Galway accident in particular, but in general we don't know as media consumers know why a collision occurred. If you assume it was driver error you will be right in all probability most of the time, but a proper investigation takes time, a cool head and an open mind.

He could have had a catastrophic mechanical suspension/tyre failure, surface defect, diesel spillage, a third party emerging suddenly onto road etc etc; only the Garda Forensic team/PSV inspector can say in the early stages.

There has been three road fatalities in the area I'm from in last few months; all on the same road. You might conclude that the road is very very dangerous; all three on the information I have are beyond the remit of all but the most broad of road safety policies.

all this may be true, but saying 'the driver lost control' is a simple statement of fact, it is not ascribing blame in any way.
if there was a catastrophic brake failure, for example, this would mean the driver had lost control of the car; you don't have to say or speculate why he lost control, just that he did.

Large bottle small glass

magicbastarder wrote: »

all this may be true, but saying 'the driver lost control' is a simple statement of fact, it is not ascribing blame in any way.
if there was a catastrophic brake failure, for example, this would mean the driver had lost control of the car; you don't have to say or speculate why he lost control, just that he did.

Do you seriously think a good defence barrister could make hay with that statement in relation to pre judging of his/her client?

A lot of people will interpret that phrase as driver error.

If it was your family member who lost control and killed someone due to a mechanic failing to do his job/road workers failing to do theirs/someone not putting on a diesel cap would you like them to be vilified in the media before all facts were available?

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Do you seriously think a good defence barrister could make hay with that statement in relation to pre judging of his/her client?

no, i don't think it's legally actionable, but if you've evidence that it is, i'd be curious - and surprised.

Rechuchote

Rechuchote wrote: »

I wonder if the "black saloon car" was an Audi.

Always curious about how people can defend the "all cyclists break red lights" while simultaneously holding the belief that "all Audi / BMW drivers are scumbags".

Hurrache

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Do you seriously think a good defence barrister could make hay with that statement in relation to pre judging of his/her client?

A lot of people will interpret that phrase as driver error.

If it was your family member who lost control and killed someone due to a mechanic failing to do his job/road workers failing to do theirs/someone not putting on a diesel cap would you like them to be vilified in the media before all facts were available?

It's a statement of fact so there's no argument. What would be open for argument is the reasons as to why they lost control of the car they were driving.

Lumen

As I understand it, the bar for "not being in control" of a motor vehicle is quite low. You can be (unreasonably, in my view) prosecuted for wheelieing a motorbike on the basis that you can't steer it with the front wheel off the ground, and are therefore not in control.

The problem in Irish courts seem to be the ridiculously low expectations of drivers. If, for instance, you go round a blind bend and run over a fallen cyclist, I would fully expect you to get off, despite the fact that it's at least careless and incompetent to do so.

IMO the road traffic acts should really be amended to bring in statutory offences for certain specific driving behaviours, like "driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the space you can see to be clear and is likely to remain so". There would, of course, be uproar from morons.

Tombo2001

Lumen wrote: »

As I understand it, the bar for "not being in control" of a motor vehicle is quite low. You can be (unreasonably, in my view) prosecuted for wheelieing a motorbike on the basis that you can't steer it with the front wheel off the ground, and are therefore not in control.

The problem in Irish courts seem to be the ridiculously low expectations of drivers. If, for instance, you go round a blind bend and run over a fallen cyclist, I would fully expect you to get off, despite the fact that it's at least careless and incompetent to do so.

IMO the road traffic acts should really be amended to bring in statutory offences for certain specific driving behaviours, like "driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the space you can see to be clear and is likely to remain so". There would, of course, be uproar from morons.

Compared to where?

The issue is that its subjective. How do you know someone is speeding unless they are timed and clocked.

RobbieMD

Hurrache wrote: »

It's a statement of fact so there's no argument. What would be open for argument is the reasons as to why they lost control of the car they were driving.

Is it a statement of fact though? Who knows what happened. Maybe the driver did it on purpose. Maybe they didn’t lose control. It’s all just speculation at this stage.

RobbieMD

Lumen wrote: »

As I understand it, the bar for "not being in control" of a motor vehicle is quite low. You can be (unreasonably, in my view) prosecuted for wheelieing a motorbike on the basis that you can't steer it with the front wheel off the ground, and are therefore not in control.

The problem in Irish courts seem to be the ridiculously low expectations of drivers. If, for instance, you go round a blind bend and run over a fallen cyclist, I would fully expect you to get off, despite the fact that it's at least careless and incompetent to do so.

IMO the road traffic acts should really be amended to bring in statutory offences for certain specific driving behaviours, like "driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the space you can see to be clear and is likely to remain so". There would, of course, be uproar from morons.

I would say the last thing the Road Traffic Acts need is another amendment. It should be consolidated alright. What you’re describing is covered under Section 51(a) 52 and 53 of the act, and if the judge feels the evidence merits it, he/she can convict you of the lesser or more serious charge.

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

Maybe the driver did it on purpose. Maybe they didn’t lose control.

if so, the driver should welcome a statement of 'the driver lost control'.

Hurrache

RobbieMD wrote: »

Is it a statement of fact though? Who knows what happened. Maybe the driver did it on purpose. Maybe they didn’t lose control. It’s all just speculation at this stage.

Well if you're arguing that it's not fact, the only implication is that the driver did what he/she did purposely as you say. So that blows your argument out of the water about the term being used.

- Excuse me judge, I'd like to flag a newspaper story that casts my client in a bad light. For the record we'd like to document that he is indeed an excellent driver and in no circumstance would lose control of his car.
- Guilty of manslaughter so.
- Er...

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

if so, the driver should welcome a statement of 'the driver lost control'.

If that’s the case I imagine they would. The issue though is that everything is just speculation and the driver enjoys the presumption of innocence.

Muahahaha

Duckjob wrote: »

So true, this bullsh*t has to stop. All the media outlets are the same- Its always the cars fault, responsibility always dutifully brushed away from anyone, except of course the victims if they weren't wearing hi-vis or a helmet.

Not talking about any case in particular, but I'm always amazed how even if a car is flipped over or half crushed in a 50kph zone nobody seems willing to ask what are obvious questions.

It's like our version of the Trump style "thoughts and prayers" approach to shootings in the US.

The reporting on cars knocking over cyclists is crazy at times. I wonder is it worth a complaint to the Press Council or do they only deal with cases effecting individuals rather than a broader style of reporting?

Hurrache

RobbieMD wrote: »

If that’s the case I imagine they would. The issue though is that everything is just speculation and the driver enjoys the presumption of innocence.

But saying the driver lost control of the car is not an assumption of guilt either.

RobbieMD

Hurrache wrote: »

Well if you're arguing that it's not fact, the only implication is that the driver did what he/she did purposely as you say. So that blows your argument out of the water about the term being used.

- Excuse me judge, I'd like to flag a newspaper story that casts my client in a bad light. For the record we'd like to document that he is indeed an excellent driver and in no circumstance would lose control of his car.
- Guilty of manslaughter so.
- Er...

I’m not sure what argument you blew out of the water. I’m not arguing with you. You presented something as fact. I don’t think it is. Maybe it was done with intent. Who knows. Maybe the two families have been at each other’s throats for years. Who knows. Also if it was done with intent I’d prefer to see a murder charge than manslaughter.
I know you’re being flippant but Chief Justice Susan Denham has a lot to say in relation to the Irish situation on trial by media

Large bottle small glass

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, i don't think it's legally actionable, but if you've evidence that it is, i'd be curious - and surprised.

You don't spend a lot of time in court houses dude.

I see you ignored rest of my post, so I can take it you'd be happy with the "driver lost control" phrase when it's your loved one who killed someone due to someone else's negligence.

As a simple phrase, ignoring our cycling tinted glasses, can people not see how a reasonable person could infer fault on behalf of driver?

The car/vehicle can't ever be charged so a newspaper is way safer with the phrase "car went out of control".

As an aside I recently had a file in front of me with a vehicle on its roof which was travelling on a straight road. GPS data showed it was doing 35mph . A lot of people in this thread would of course have concluded driver error as they wouldn't have had GPS data or a metallurgist report on suspension member.

When you have very little facts, a there is a potential criminal trial and no doubt a civil one being careful with language is pretty prudent.

As a moderator are you ok with people being so loose with language around doping in cycling/medical advice etc or are things a little different when it's your call?

Hurrache

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’m not sure what argument you blew out of the water. I’m not arguing with you. You presented something as fact. I don’t think it is. Maybe it was done with intent. Who knows. Maybe the two families have been at each other’s throats for years. Who knows. Also if it was done with intent I’d prefer to see a murder charge than manslaughter.
I know you’re being flippant but Chief Justice Susan Denham has a lot to say in relation to the Irish situation on trial by media

Yes, but you argued in the context that a solicitor would have something to say about the phrase in defence of their client when it came up in court.

TheChizler

Saying the driver lost control does make it sound like the incident was their fault, maybe it was or wasn't but it's speculation. It's entirely possible that they flipped the car trying to avoid a collision that was somehow unavoidable. It's possible to correct the language without bringing it to the other extreme.