Journalism and cycling

Chips Lovell

meeeeh wrote: »

I would assume competitors in a race don't need to and would be protected by organizers.

You assume wrongly. Any time you race on open roads you need to obey the rules of the road and are regularly reminded of this by race organizers.

meeeeh

Chips Lovell wrote: »

You assume wrongly. Any time you race on open roads you need to obey the rules of the road and are regularly reminded of this by race organizers.

So basically all organizers do is pocket the starting fee?

Chips Lovell

meeeeh wrote: »

So basically all organizers do is pocket the starting fee?

The best you can hope for is to break even. Most of the entry fee will go on things such as arranging ambulance cover, renting finish line camera equipment, the prize fund, etc.

mr spuckler

I've competed in multiple adventure races where the bike leg is on open roads and you're obliged to obey all rules of the road. there tends to be marshals at the major junctions to try to keep you moving but otherwise you're on your own and I can't see how it could possibly be any other way.

there's nothing in the reporting that suggests the cyclist in any way contributed to the collision, there's sh1t loads that suggests she's 100% culpable and that she basically saw driving her car as a way to catch up on her correspondence. in some way suggesting that the organisers might carry a burden of responsibility for that is so far off the mark as to be laughable imo. she has proven through her actions that she isn't fit to drive a car.

magicbastarder

i fail to understand why the penalty is not similar to a manslaughter penalty.

hesker

magicbastarder wrote: »

i fail to understand why the penalty is not similar to a manslaughter penalty.

Agree.

The way this thread has headed reminds me of so much of the discussion on cycling safety in this country.

The approach by some people seems to be to deflect attention away from where it should be focussed by muddying the waters with irrelevant details. cycling insurance....cycling licences.... hi vis blah blah blah

Tombo2001

hesker wrote: »

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.

This......



Deputy District Judge Liam McStay said it as a “tragic case”. She added “cyclists need the protection of the court” and imposed 80 hours of community service and a one-year driving ban.


Reminded me a bit of this.......


In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence



Cyclists need the protection of the court, but just not this court.

Tombo2001

One comment additional comment on this:

The number of fatalities from cycling gets a lot of attention. The number of injuries from cycling far less so. But for any one of us, that is a far more likely outcome.

I broke my wrist last year falling of the bike; it was sore, took a while to recover, am still having problems with it. It might sound like a minor thing, but for me its not. It affects me in a lot of different ways, for example playing hurling with the kids or sometimes typing on a key board or cutting an onion.

As you get older, the damage from a fall becomes worse as you are less able to recover.

There is very little data or coverage on this. "Cyclist breaks wrist" is not going to make any headlines.

But in the scheme of things, being paralysed is very severe.

I do think the issue here is the perception in the courts of the severity of the crime. In other words, they are not taking it seriously enough.

check_six

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This......

Deputy District Judge Liam McStay said it as a “tragic case”. She added “cyclists need the protection of the court” and imposed 80 hours of community service and a one-year driving ban.

Holy carp! One year driving ban? I've been reading this all wrong. I thought it was a one year custodial sentence and I was thinking *that* was a bit soft!!!

ED E

Prosecution: You shot him in the chest
Defendant: Yeah, but it was an accident your honor, don't know what happened
Judge: €500 to the poor box, next!

Seth Brundle

I'm only after seeing this from yesterday's Irish Times...
Attitudes toward cyclists

Sir, – A fairly common experience for a cyclist is that a car driver will overtake them and then turn left, forcing the cyclist to brake, assuming they are lucky enough to notice the car coming around them.

A fairly common experience for a cyclist who gives out about nearly being knocked down by a careless or aggressive driver is to hear that cyclists often fail to stop at red lights.

This makes no sense. It clearly doesn’t work as an argument justifying a motorist knocking down a cyclist when the cyclist is abiding by the rules of the road, but it is put out there anyway, as if some cyclists breaking red lights should be regarded as being in some way exculpatory when, in another circumstance, a drivers runs a cyclist off the road.

To some drivers, all cyclists are simply jaywalkers on wheels. It is possible that a belief that cyclists aren’t legitimately part of the traffic might leave some drivers less disposed to yielding right of way to a cyclist, and feeds into snap decisions that leads them to cut across a cyclist’s path? – Yours, etc,

COLIN WALSH,

Templeogue, Dublin 6W.

Hurrache

The little known story of America's first black sports hero.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-little-known-story-of-major-taylor-americas-first-black-sports-hero-who-became-a-world-champion-during-the-jim-crow-era-of-1890s/2019/05/02/f675b0cc-3ded-11e9-a44b-42f4df262a4c_story.html

....
Marshall “Major” Taylor was unlike any racer the spectators had seen at such an event. He was a black man. Not just black, the press reported, but “a veritable black diamond” and “the black meteor.” Those were the kind descriptions. At this moment, bicycling was the nation’s most popular sport, and the biggest contests typically had been restricted to white men, reflecting a racist society. No contest was bigger than the one about to be held at America’s greatest sports venue, the second of what would be several iterations of Madison Square Garden. It was a six-day race, with only short breaks for rest; whoever cycled the most miles over the course of the contest would be declared the winner....
.

Pinch Flat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm only after seeing this from yesterday's Irish Times...
Attitudes toward cyclists

I’m Sure some busy body is writing a reply along the lines of if cyclists had mandatory insurance, registration, helmets and hi vis that these incidents wouldn’t happen.

Pinch Flat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm only after seeing this from yesterday's Irish Times...
Attitudes toward cyclists

I’m Sure some busy body is writing a reply along the lines of if cyclists had mandatory insurance, registration, helmets and hi vis that these incidents wouldn’t happen.

Duckjob

Just overheard Pat Kenny giving his intro of what's coming up on his show saying:
"Spend money on walkers, not the CYCLISTS".

Not sure what the story is, but sounds already like it's set up in the usual incendiary way and ready to once again , get diverted to the usual red light / road tax drivel.

magicbastarder

i think i saw a story that some research has found that the most efficient way of getting people out of their cars is to invest in walking infrastructure, it's more cost effective than spending the money on cycling infrastructure.
i suspect that's what he's referring to.

jjpep

When it comes to cycling Pat is like one of those fundamental religious people who keep going on about gay people...

Mickiemcfist

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think i saw a story that some research has found that the most efficient way of getting people out of their cars is to invest in walking infrastructure, it's more cost effective than spending the money on cycling infrastructure.
i suspect that's what he's referring to.

Is this a rural thing? I've never in my life thought "I'd love to walk, but the paths could do with an upgrade first"

Duckjob

First thoughts are that cycling and walking infrastructure can actually mix quite well in close proximity, and can go quite easily go side by side and shared in some cases, so financially, it's should be very nearly as easy to cater for both at the same time rather than one or the other.

Also, solutions like banning cars from some city streets and areas, provides an instant common benefit by freeing up space for both walkers and cyclists. Its only when you continue pandering to people in the most space wasting, most noisy most polluting mode of transport, that people on bikes and people walking need to be in competition fighting it out for the remaining space.


Of course, that's if you're looking at it with a cool, calm, logical mindset. If your mindset is a little bit bitter and twisted towards one of those modes of healthy travel then obviously you will have a different approach.

Tombo2001

jjpep wrote: »

When it comes to cycling Pat is like one of those fundamental religious people who keep going on about gay people...

Well thats it really.

If you look at the age profile of those people in Irish media who are most anti-cyclist, by and large they are male and aged above 60. Fintan O'Toole, Ivan Yates, Pat Kenny, George Hook......they are all broadly from the same generation......their outlook will differ on somethings; but they all come from a generation that grew up with the concept of the car as a status symbol, and that would have looked down on cycling as being something for people who cant afford a car.

Was listening to Pat Kenny yesterday interviewing an English guy about Brexit - and the English chap was talking about some politician who had to resign because of accusations of sexual harassment. And then the English chap says -"In my day we called it sexual advances, but nowadays its sexual harassment" - and then.......himself and Pat have a good old chuckle at it. I really couldnt believe he would carry on like that.

He reflects a bygone era across a range of issues, and cycling is one of those.

magicbastarder

this was where i saw it; it's paywalled, so i only saw the bare detail.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/better-pedestrian-infrastructure-would-cut-number-of-drivers-7kxsnzgl6

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If you look at the age profile of those people in Irish media who are most anti-cyclist, by and large they are male and aged above 60. Fintan O'Toole

i do remember one article from FOT, but wasn't aware it was a consistent thing?

North of 32

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think i saw a story that some research has found that the most efficient way of getting people out of their cars is to invest in walking infrastructure, it's more cost effective than spending the money on cycling infrastructure.
i suspect that's what he's referring to.

I'd believe it. Thinking about some towns I've walked around in Ireland - Limerick, Galway, Letterkenny, Sligo - they are horrible places to be as a pedestrian. Utterly dominated by cars.

But as someone suggested already the most rationale thing would be to invest in both simultaneously.

Tombo2001

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X18303871

The study shows a marked inelasticity of commuters to react in response to improvements made to the level of service of cycling.

I'd agree that pedestrians are second class citizens - but the reality is that Dublin is very spread out. A walk from anywhere outside the canals it going to be half hour or more.

Second - walking is fine in your 20s or 30s but as you get older, walking long distances every day is going to be a challenge for a lot of people.

Any physio will tell you that cycling is a non load bearing exercise, unlike walking.

THird - the claim in italics above - jasus, what is he talking about. How many cyclists are on a route that has benefitted from 'improved infrastructure' - there is little or no 'improved infrastructure'.

magicbastarder

As a means of appraising the hypothetical introduction of a range of active mode policy incentives, a stated preference experiment (SP) was created as an instrument for gathering decision making, mode choice and socio-demographic data from a sample of commuters in the GDA

does this mean 'we did a survey' or does this mean 'we created a mathematical model based on what we think would happen'?

Tombo2001

Previously from the same department at TCD, led by Brian Caulfield.

https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/how-healthy-is-your-bicycle-commute-in-dublin/

https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/60-of-dublins-cyclists-run-red-lights/

So
-Cycling is unhealthy
-Cyclists are nut jobs
-Govt is better of investing in better footpaths than cycling infrastructure - as if its an either/ or situation.

This guy is the Chair of the Irish Transport Network.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

does this mean 'we did a survey' or does this mean 'we created a mathematical model based on what we think would happen'?

The funny and not surprising thing is -

They dont publish the paper.

We dont know what the findings are based on.

The media publish the outcome as if its a done deal.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

this was where i saw it; it's paywalled, so i only saw the bare detail.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/better-pedestrian-infrastructure-would-cut-number-of-drivers-7kxsnzgl6

I'm all for open spaces catering to both walkers and cyclists, but a pedestrian way for example from Swords to Dublin City Centre isnt going to attract a lot of people from Swords out of their cars. A safe, hi-quality cycle dutch style cycle path (where the cycle path actually, <<SHOCK HORROR>>> gets priority over the road way at roundabouts etc would see a lot of people from such areas leave their cars at home, just like it does in advanced cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht

Give cycleways priority means people journeying on bikes have to stop less. Means higher average speeds of cycle trips and opens up cycling as an option for longer distance trips to more people.

plodder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X18303871

The study shows a marked inelasticity of commuters to react in response to improvements made to the level of service of cycling.

I'd agree that pedestrians are second class citizens - but the reality is that Dublin is very spread out. A walk from anywhere outside the canals it going to be half hour or more.

Second - walking is fine in your 20s or 30s but as you get older, walking long distances every day is going to be a challenge for a lot of people.

Any physio will tell you that cycling is a non load bearing exercise, unlike walking.

Though load bearing exercise is good for you. That's what keeps the bones strong.

THird - the claim in italics above - jasus, what is he talking about. How many cyclists are on a route that has benefitted from 'improved infrastructure' - there is little or no 'improved infrastructure'.

Was wondering the same. I'd like to read the whole study, but I ain't paying 35 bucks for it. It depends on how they define "improved infrastructure". A lot of what passes for cycling infrastructure isn't an improvement at all.

magicbastarder

if it was based on a survey, i would love to see the questions.
walking and cycling are different answers to different questions, but if they're doing a 'which is better' i suspect it could have been an either/or choice presented.