Journalism and cycling

Utter Consternation

Grassey wrote: »

This annoys me so ********* much!!!

Comments on his attire are irrelevant - It was 10:15am in the middle of their summer.
Likewise whether he had/hadn't earphones would make zero impact to the fact that he was hit by a driver texting. All it does is dog-whistle the whole "sure he probably/maybe was doing something slightly questionable there, better question his character to let the driver off with a slap on the wrist, sure how could she have avoided him if he'd earphones in and not heard her coming..."

I don't wear my earphones anymore when cycling. Not because i think it's dangerous, but i'd be blamed in the event of an accident because i had them in. :mad::mad:

magicbastarder

Hurrache wrote: »

Another shameful court result
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/irish-cyclist-paralysed-mark-millar/

The court was told Adu could not explain how the crash happened but was greatly distressed about what had happened.

i can explain. she wasn't looking where she was going. was she not challenged on this?

What Username Guidelines

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I don't wear my earphones anymore when cycling. Not because i think it's dangerous, but i'd be blamed in the event of an accident because i had them in. :mad::mad:

I was told by a passer by, after nearly being hit by a van running a red, that I shouldnt be wearing headphones cycling. When I asked why, it was because "You wont hear cars beeping at you" :rolleyes:

Skrynesaver

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

I'd love a coordinated "strike" of cyclists just one day where we all either drive or get the bus. Cause gridlock in Dublin & help drivers to understand that we're actually shortening their commute not hampering it. Remember the days of Luas strikes, it was mayhem & Cyclists outnumber Luas users.

While it would be a great way of emphasising the hell that Dublin would descend into if we didn't cycle, it would mean being an active participant in that hell.

I'm not sure I could handle driving in to work anymore

Utter Consternation

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

I was told by a passer by, after nearly being hit by a van running a red, that I shouldnt be wearing headphones cycling. When I asked why, it was because "You wont hear cars beeping at you" :rolleyes:

I hope you let them know where they could place their ignorant comment.

Duckjob

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

I was told by a passer by, after nearly being hit by a van running a red, that I shouldnt be wearing headphones cycling. When I asked why, it was because "You wont hear cars beeping at you" :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I did LOL at that

Reminds me of that saying: "Never argue with stupid. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I wouldn't wear earphones on the bike, but the reason certainly isn't to accommodate ignorant drivers that think I'm "in the way"

Doc07

Grassey wrote: »

This annoys me so ********* much!!!

Comments on his attire are irrelevant - It was 10:15am in the middle of their summer.
Likewise whether he had/hadn't earphones would make zero impact to the fact that he was hit by a driver texting. All it does is dog-whistle the whole "sure he probably/maybe was doing something slightly questionable there, better question his character to let the driver off with a slap on the wrist, sure how could she have avoided him if he'd earphones in and not heard her coming..."

Agree ridiculous but did you notice the line
‘ she ran over and killed a champion cyclist'

I’ve never seen that in an irish newspaper/online/news etc.
I have a feeling it would be reported as ‘his bike was in a collision with her out of control car’ in Ireland

What Username Guidelines

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I hope you let them know where they could place their ignorant comment.

It was a lad unloading a truck in the fruit market in smithfield that said it. I was still fuming from the van going through the red, so managed to utter "Ah F**k off back to your bananas" which I'm not sure if it's the stupidest or cleverest thing I've ever said. Likely the former.

magicbastarder

Duckjob wrote: »

Reminds me of that saying: "Never argue with stupid. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

i'm fond of 'you know, it's better to stay quiet and let people think you're stupid, than it is to open your mouth and confirm it for them'.

Hurrache

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can explain. she wasn't looking where she was going. was she not challenged on this?

Maybe because she was a pastor the court saw her as someone as white as the driven snow.

magicbastarder

plus, she was upset. can't crack down on someone who's crying.

Pinch Flat

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

I was told by a passer by, after nearly being hit by a van running a red, that I shouldnt be wearing headphones cycling. When I asked why, it was because "You wont hear cars beeping at you" :rolleyes:

I ignore all cars beeping at me.

meeeeh

This was a race right? I'm not excusing her behaviour or saying sentence is too lenient because I don't know. But either she was insanelly negligent or organizers were also negligent in their duty of care to the competitors. Can you organise events without providing clear markings, escort cars and police traffic management? Or did she ignore all this and that would be almost wilful negligence.

buffalo

meeeeh wrote: »

This was a race right? I'm not excusing her behaviour or saying sentence is too lenient because I don't know. But either she was insanelly negligent or organizers were also negligent in their duty of care to the competitors. Can you organise events without providing clear markings, escort cars and police traffic management? Or did she ignore all this and that would be almost wilful negligence.

A TT rather than a race, so just single cyclists pedalling along a road.

magicbastarder

a 100 mile TT at that. that's quite a lot of road for the marshals to have to marshal.

meeeeh

buffalo wrote: »

A TT rather than a race, so just single cyclists pedalling along a road.

But it was an organized competition. I'm not saying you need Giro or Tour type of organization but you need something, especially at bigger junctions, narrower stretches of road and so on. Anyway I don't know, there is an amateur race (156km) going through my hometown and there are a lot of closures that day, I realize TT is different but still. Anyway they do TT 44km long and part of the road cyclists go on is marked of with the traffic cones.

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

But it was an organized competition. I'm not saying you need Giro or Tour type of organization but you need something, especially at bigger junctions, narrower stretches of road and so on. Anyway I don't know, there is an amateur race (156km) going through my hometown and there are a lot of closures that day, I realize TT is different but still. Anyway they do TT 44km long and part of the road cyclists go on is marked of with the traffic cones.

If it was organised or not shouldn't matter when someone is driving along a straight stretch of road and there's a cyclist pedalling along up ahead.
All road users need to be attentive and considerate to other road users, especially vulnerable ones!
This driver was not and pretty much escaped punishment!

meeeeh

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If it was organised or not shouldn't matter when someone is driving along a straight stretch of road and there's a cyclist pedalling along up ahead.
All road users need to be attentive and considerate to other road users, especially vulnerable ones!
This driver was not and pretty much escaped punishment!

I absolutely agree. It's just from my experience of race events I saw you couldn't miss there was a race going on if you were allowed on the road at all. There a few more smallish events that happen in the neighbourhood where I come from. Day stage finnish of Giro was also in front of my high school when I was going there but I wouldn't expect that type of organisation. (Tgey were driving our chemistry teacher nuts for a week setting up everything). Anyway even larger group of club cyclists out for training will be accompanied by a car with hazard lights. I'm not excusing drivers behaviour, it's just I didn't see any signage or anything else mentioned and wondered if that is even allowed. Organizers do bear some responsibility for competitors.

hesker

Why should it matter whether there was a race on or not.

I’m appalled at the leniency and feel there is very little incentive for drivers to modify their behavior based on this.

meeeeh

hesker wrote: »

Why should it matter whether there was a race on or not.

If race was properly marked and she still ploughed into him then that would be some serious negligence. I'm just wondering is there any regulation how to organize races? And if not there is also very little initiative for organizers to organise things properly.

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

If race was properly marked and she still ploughed into him then that would be some serious negligence. I'm just wondering is there any regulation how to organize races?

Stop - it's as if you think what she did wasn't too bad.
She was driving an un-roadworthy car "on a straighter piece of road you would be hard pushed to find".
He is lucky that she didn't kill him despite leaving him with drastically life changing injuries.
Anyone who hits a cyclist does so out of either maliciousness or inattention. Either way they should not be driving.
The fact that tohere could be a TT race is completely irrelevant so please stop making it out to be a factor!

meeeeh

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Stop - it's as if you think what she did wasn't too bad.
She was driving an un-roadworthy car "on a straighter piece of road you would be hard pushed to find".
He is lucky that she didn't kill him despite leaving him with drastically life changing injuries.
Anyone who hits a cyclist does so out of either maliciousness or inattention. Either way they should not be driving.
The fact that tohere could be a TT race is completely irrelevant so please stop making it out to be a factor!

It is not a factor in the accident or excuse for her.

However I'm asking are 'pocket the money and ignore the safety of competitors' races allowed in UK or Ireland. What kind of cowboy system is that?

Edit: just to say someone driving with defective tyres should actually increase the penalty. No argument there.

Large bottle small glass

meeeeh wrote: »

would be some serious negligence.

Hitting a solo cyclist on a straight section of road is serious negligence anyway.

If someone can't see a cyclist in daylight, bar every cyclist has a following vehicle ala race around Ireland, I'm not sure what race organisers could do.

The 2016 race was 7 14 mile laps or so; what are you proposing they should do?

Have you a draft safety/traffic management plan in mind?

meeeeh

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Hitting a solo cyclist on a straight section of road is serious negligence anyway.

If someone can't see a cyclist in daylight, bar every cyclist has a following vehicle ala race around Ireland, I'm not sure what race organisers could do.

The 2016 race was 7 14 mile laps or so; what are you proposing they should do?

Have you a draft safety/traffic management plan in mind?

As I said TT know is 22km lap (2 laps) and track is cordoned off with traffic cones. Regular racers I know of poluce close of the area cyclists are in for whatever time is needed. The track was going past my granny's house so I was caught couple of times visiting her. The usually know wgen the next batch is comming and let you trough and then close it again. I'm talking about amateur event not professional ones.

magicbastarder

assuming the race was held on open roads, what could the organisers have done when a driver who was unable to explain why she hit a cyclist from behind, on a straight road, in daylight, was driving on that road?

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

assuming the race was held on open roads, what could the organisers have done when a driver who was unable to explain why she hit a cyclist from behind, on a straight road, in daylight, was driving on that road?

I don't know, obviously nothing considering the attitude here.

Chips Lovell

Why are you trying to pin the blame on the organizers when the authorities decided to prosecute the motorist and the courts found them guilty?

Surely if the organizers were in some way culpable (and I can't see how they would be), they would have been prosecuted too?

meeeeh

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Surely if the organizers were in some way culpable (and I can't see how they would be), they would have been prosecuted too?

Maybe it's the experience of events in different jurisdiction. It seems to me a bit of a cowboy way of organising things. It might not be illegal.

Chips Lovell

meeeeh wrote: »

It seems to me a bit cowboy way of organising things. It might not be illegal.

How's it cowboy? It's how pretty much every TT in this country and the UK is run. Riders go off individually. If you think they need closed roads or need to be cordoned off in some way, then anyone riding a bike would need same.

meeeeh

Chips Lovell wrote: »

How's it cowboy? It's how pretty much every TT in this country and the UK is run. Riders go off individually. If you think they need closed roads or need to be cordoned off in some way, then anyone riding a bike would need same.

Anyone cycling outside competition needs to obey the rules of the road. I would assume competitors in a race don't need to and would be protected by organizers.

I'm not saying the cyclist was doing anything wrong in this case, not at all. But were they expected to stop and give way on a junction or stop at red lights? I wouldn't say that competing in an event is the same as me cycling with the kids on Saturday afternoon. If nothing else you need similar conditions for all competitors and they really shouldn't be expected to navigate traffic.