Journalism and cycling

meeeeh

I think city centers should be closed off. With online shopping a lot town shops will disappear anyway. Town and city centers should be made more pedestrian friendly so people would have other reasons to spend time there. I think cycling lanes into the center are important but there should be no reason why you couldn't slow down cyclists in busiest pedestrian areas. Once you persuade pensioners or kids to cycle it will slow every one else down in areas with more dense cycling and pedestrian traffic anyway. And once the speeds are reduced there is no reason why cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't mix in certain areas and the same facilities can be used by both. From my experience works perfectly fine in especially smaller town centers.

meeeeh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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


-Cycling is unhealthy
-Cyclists are nut jobs

I thought one of the studies you linked claimed there are health benefits to cycling but number of collisions should be lowered by better cycling infrastructure.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

He wrote a particularly damning piece - 'cyclists are the spawn of the devil' - that was quite early on in the trend for media bashing of cyclists.

Given his prominence, and the content of what he said - I felt it set the tone for a lot of what was to follow.

In particular - it set the tone for seperating out Cyclists, from Cycling - and isolating Cyclists as a particular group in society that could be targetted for abuse.

Tombo2001

meeeeh wrote: »

I thought one of the studies you linked claimed there are health benefits to cycling but number of collisions should be lowered by better cycling infrastructure.

Maybe - but the overall message - in a nutshell, is that cycling is dangerous.

Its a deterrent to anyone considering cycling.

Tombo2001

plodder wrote: »

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

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.

Tell that to anyone with osteoarthritis.....

meeeeh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Maybe - but the overall message - in a nutshell, is that cycling is dangerous.

Its a deterrent to anyone considering cycling.

So your reply is cycling facilities don't need to be improved because cycling is not dangerous. You'll never get bigger cycling numbers if you want to look at it only through the eyes of fit, strong, grown up man. (Larger cycling numbers will slow down more competitive cyclist too.) I wouldn't let my kids cycle in most of Dublin (at least parts I know) and it is dangerous for them. I also don't expect many 65 year women cycle into towns. Cycling at the moment in Ireland is considered safe by fit younger and middle age adults nobody else.

silverharp

Happened in London , jaysus

https://twitter.com/itvlondon/status/1124005667235356675

Tombo2001

meeeeh wrote: »

So your reply is cycling facilities don't need to be improved because cycling is not dangerous. You'll never get bigger cycling numbers if you want to look at it only through the eyes of fit, strong, grown up man. (Larger cycling numbers will slow down more competitive cyclist too.) I wouldn't let my kids cycle in most of Dublin (at least parts I know) and it is dangerous for them. I also don't expect many 65 year women cycle into towns. Cycling at the moment in Ireland is considered safe by fit younger and middle age adults nobody else.

I didnt say that......

However, the piece is calling out Dublin as a dangerous place for cyclists, given current infrastructure.

And it says - and you dont need to be Einstein to make this claim - that it would be safer for cyclists with better infrastrucuture.

But given the pace of change in this country......given the anti-cyclist backlash that we've seen, such that there is likely to be active opposition to any heavy investment in cycling infrastructure.......given the huge opposition we would see if cycling infrastructure were introduced that would take road space away from cars.......

I think its realistic to say that there will not be a meaningful improvement in cycling facilities on core commuter routes in the next ten years.

I just cant see it happening.

Tombo2001

silverharp wrote: »

Happened in London , jaysus

https://twitter.com/itvlondon/status/1124005667235356675

Wow - he was really walloped.

I just dont get how anyone could drive off after that.

silverharp

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Wow - he was really walloped.

I just dont get how anyone could drive off after that.

I havnt had a chance to listen to it but going by the comments the police didn't do anything and the guy had to do his own investigation, the police are going to write a letter to the car now :rolleyes: , to me it looks like attempted murder

Seth Brundle

silverharp wrote: »

Happened in London , jaysus

https://twitter.com/itvlondon/status/1124005667235356675

Jaysus! :eek:
I'd expect that unhelpfulness here but I thought the UK police would have been better!

meeeeh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I didnt say that......

However, the piece is calling out Dublin as a dangerous place for cyclists, given current infrastructure.

And it says - and you dont need to be Einstein to make this claim - that it would be safer for cyclists with better infrastrucuture.

But given the pace of change in this country......given the anti-cyclist backlash that we've seen, such that there is likely to be active opposition to any heavy investment in cycling infrastructure.......given the huge opposition we would see if cycling infrastructure were introduced that would take road space away from cars.......

I think its realistic to say that there will not be a meaningful improvement in cycling facilities on core commuter routes in the next ten years.

I just cant see it happening.

Frankly that also partly because nobody has a vision for Dublin (and other towns). Local planners can do only so much, strong local government with a mayor who is judged by the achievements during the mandate would improve a lot.

meeeeh

silverharp wrote: »

I havnt had a chance to listen to it but going by the comments the police didn't do anything and the guy had to do his own investigation, the police are going to write a letter to the car now :rolleyes: , to me it looks like attempted murder

If that kind of driving is tolerated something even a lot worse will happen. This is not someone making a mistake this was intentional dangerous driving and police attitude is disgusting.

Tombo2001

meeeeh wrote: »

If that kind of driving is tolerated something even a lot worse will happen. This is not someone making a mistake this was intentional dangerous driving.

I know we give out about Dublin....

The few times I've been in London recently, what has surprised me is the position of priority that cars still have in the city, given that there are way more pedestrians than drivers.

If anything - the new congestion charges means there are less cars; so the ones that are there can get around more easily - drive at speeds on city roads that they might not be able to do otherwise.

Looking purely at the numbers game, its quite normal to be at a pedestrian lights on somewhere like Oxford Street with literally 100s of pedestrians waiting to cross; but having to wait quite long periods for the 10 or 15 cars to pass through.

xckjoo

meeeeh wrote: »

I think city centers should be closed off. With online shopping a lot town shops will disappear anyway. Town and city centers should be made more pedestrian friendly so people would have other reasons to spend time there. I think cycling lanes into the center are important but there should be no reason why you couldn't slow down cyclists in busiest pedestrian areas. Once you persuade pensioners or kids to cycle it will slow every one else down in areas with more dense cycling and pedestrian traffic anyway. And once the speeds are reduced there is no reason why cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't mix in certain areas and the same facilities can be used by both. From my experience works perfectly fine in especially smaller town centers.

This is point that's always missed by local businesses. They worry about losing business if people can't park outside their door, but in reality it's foot fall that they want. I don't have the research to hand, but I think a good chunk of it came our of New York a few years ago when they started revamping their transport infrastructure ideas. Online shopping has hoovered up all the people looking for specific things, but if there's nice pedestrian friendly areas, people come out to walk around and browse/impulse buy.

Tombo2001

xckjoo wrote: »

This is point that's always missed by local businesses. They worry about losing business if people can't park outside their door, but in reality it's foot fall that they want. I don't have the research to hand, but I think a good chunk of it came our of New York a few years ago when they started revamping their transport infrastructure ideas. Online shopping has hoovered up all the people looking for specific things, but if there's nice pedestrian friendly areas, people come out to walk around and browse/impulse buy.

I would agree with this to a point.

The way people shop here - particularly for groceries and household shopping - it requires a car.

You go to a supermarket, you buy a heap of stuff, you put it in the boot.

The type of shopping that suits a pedestrian is where you shop every day, you have a backpack, .you nip into the butcher/ grocer/ baker - maybe a tesco express.....

Thats not how families shop here; and the shops dont exist for it either. There are very few bakers/ grocers left. The small shop units are more likely to be hairdressers or charity stores or estate agents.

Spars and Centras are no good for this type of shopping.

xckjoo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I would agree with this to a point.

The way people shop here - particularly for groceries and household shopping - it requires a car.

You go to a supermarket, you buy a heap of stuff, you put it in the boot.

The type of shopping that suits a pedestrian is where you shop every day, you have a backpack, .you nip into the butcher/ grocer/ baker - maybe a tesco express.....

Thats not how families shop here; and the shops dont exist for it either. There are very few bakers/ grocers left. The small shop units are more likely to be hairdressers or charity stores or estate agents.

Spars and Centras are no good for this type of shopping.

You're talking about supermarket shopping and doing the "big shop" :pac:. Local shops lost that battle a few generations ago and supermarkets are generally placed in a mall or on the outskirts of towns/cities to accommodate this need. But they only make up a small percentage of the actual shop units overall. Most shops/businesses stay out of that space as they know they can't compete. At a guess I'd say clothes shops make up the majority of the units in my city.
Side-note, but we generally do our weekly shop by walking to a nearby Dunnes and getting them to deliver. Very useful

meeeeh

I don't think clothes shops will survive in large numbers. A serious number of Uk retailers are in trouble there is also a trend away from fast fashion that will only get stronger in next few years. 2018 UK store closures increased 36% on 2017. My suspicion is luxury goods and concept stores will become more prevalent, at least in bigger cities and spaces which cater to families or other groups as a meeting point. Millennials spend their money on experiences and less on buying clothes and similar. Shopping as a hobby is becoming a little bit outdated and I don't think cities and towns can rely on generic shop and cafe chains.

blackwhite

silverharp wrote: »

Happened in London , jaysus

https://twitter.com/itvlondon/status/1124005667235356675[url][/url]

I’m struggling to see how that was anything other than intentional from the driver

plodder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Tell that to anyone with osteoarthritis.....

Indeed. Non weight-bearing exercise is better for some people, but for the population as a whole, it would be wrong to say that non weight-bearing is better than weight bearing. I was talking to a woman a few weeks ago who was diagnosed with osteoporosis (not the same I know). GP put her on medication, but she took up running off her own bat, and is off the medication now.

check_six

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Jaysus! :eek:
I'd expect that unhelpfulness here but I thought the UK police would have been better!

"Well, we could follow this up, but it would be your word against theirs..."

TheJak01

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

Out of interest, did you actually read the pieces you have shown here, or did you just look at the highlights? It's not quite as anti cyclist as you think, and that becomes clear in the full paper.

In the first study they say cyclists are inelastic to improvements in infrastructure while pedestrians are elastic to these improvements based on a preference study. However, people are suddenly become very responsive to switching to cycling when journey times improve. It's suggested this is a proxy for infrastructure - cyclists don't just want safe cycle lanes, they want infrastructure that gets them there faster including things like priority at junctions over cars. I think most of the cyclists here would happily agree with that point - cycle lanes are great but if I'm giving way at every junction or it takes me off my route and slows me down I'm unlikely to use them.

Also, on the pedestrian note, the survey was investigating preferences for 2-4km distances. The study doesn't suggest that walking is the preferred method for all travel. It also doesn't talk about whether we should fund either cycling or walking, it just states that commuters in the Greater Dublin Area have a preference for infrastructure when walking, yet speed when cycling. Those can be achieved simultaneously.

In the report of the second paper it states that there is a health benefit of cycling, but that there is a risk of getting into a collision (with an overall benefit of the health benefit of cycling, minus the risk of collision). Every Kilometre you cycle increases the risk of collision by the same rate, the more you cycle the higher change there is of getting hit, while the additional health benefits decrease with every extra Kilometre cycled. At some distance, the total risk hits a certain level that it outweighs the total health benefits, so some commuters travelling long distances have a negative health impact. That negative health impact only occurs if they actually get into a collision, so to keep cycling the healthier than cars at long distances we need to create safer cycling conditions.

Finally, the third. 60% of cyclists break red lights at two busy Dublin junctions, particularly during the pedestrian phase. We need to find out the reasons they break the red lights so we can create better junctions for cyclists so they no longer feel this need.

In total that gives us: People require faster cycling times to increase cycling as a preference for short journeys, we need safer cycling infrastructure to ensure that the risk of a collision doesn't outweigh the health benefit of cycling, and we need to create better junctions for cyclists so they don't need to break red lights.

Doesn't sound quite so bad now, does it? Often the perceptions of these studies comes down to how somebody has decided to summarise them.

meeeeh

TheJak01 wrote: »

Finally, the third. 60% of cyclists break red lights at two busy Dublin junctions, particularly during the pedestrian phase. We need to find out the reasons they break the red lights so we can create better junctions for cyclists so they no longer feel this need.

In total that gives us: People require faster cycling times to increase cycling as a preference for short journeys, we need safer cycling infrastructure to ensure that the risk of a collision doesn't outweigh the health benefit of cycling, and we need to create better junctions for cyclists so they don't need to break red lights.

No offense but both of those conclusions only apply to certain demographic, I will speculate it is demographic you belong to (adult, male, fit, confident in traffic). I'm pretty sure stopping at traffic lights won't be an issue for pensioners or kids and if there more cyclists across different groups red light jumping stats would fall because at the moment cycling in Ireland is dominated by a group that is most likely to jump red lights. In the same way faster cycling times will be a lot less important than the ease and senselessness of cycling to young or older cyclists. Frankly facilities need to be tailored to those who are reluctant to cycle now not to those who will abandon cycling lane and go on the road or ignore red lights because that is too slow for them.

TheJak01

No offence taken. I agree fully, but that then becomes an issue with study design, rather than any proof of an anti cyclist bias. It is only possible to report upon data that has been collected and at no point do the authors speculate beyond that. It's very much a case of "given what we have collected, this is what we found", nothing wrong with that. It's a fairly simple preference study; for a 2-4km trip would you prefer to use a car, bike or walk? If we make cycling facilities better, does your preference change or not? Most of those involved in the study were not cyclists, so I'd say the finding is valid for the majority of people, or at least the majority of the demographics represented in the study.

I'd possibly argue with the red light point though. Fact is they found 60% of cyclists breaking red lights at whichever two junctions they were looking at. I think we can all agree that's too many. Those groups you mention are likely in the 40% that don't break lights anyway. Either way, if better junction design leads to less people breaking red lights (regardless of the reason), then I think it's something all cyclists will benefit from. Priority to cyclists at junctions doesn't just help speed, it should also make waiting on red the safest option.

Mickiemcfist

To be fair there's varying degrees of breaking red lights IMO - I just know from my own routes - the Junction at the dodder between Rathfarnham Village & Terenure: Cyclists in the lanes going in or out of town stop at red lights, but before that light goes green, the pedestrian & cyclist light goes green for each of the 4 sides of the junction, so most cyclists go - to most that's red light breaking but it's actually the safest way up the hill on the way to town before the bus lane reappears.

magicbastarder

i do have one major issue with the 'research' done about the prevalence of red light breaking:

The study observed two junctions in the city – one with a cycle lane and one without.

there's no indication of why they chose those two junctions, but that's a massive missing piece of the puzzle. an average of two - when one of the two values is a claimed 98% - is just a bizarre thing to publicise.

Greentree_uk

Red lights should be Giveway for Cyclists IMO at a sensible speed given the conditions and visibility, solve all these red light debates anyway. and let us all focus on the health benefits.

Tombo2001

plodder wrote: »

Indeed. Non weight-bearing exercise is better for some people, but for the population as a whole, it would be wrong to say that non weight-bearing is better than weight bearing. I was talking to a woman a few weeks ago who was diagnosed with osteoporosis (not the same I know). GP put her on medication, but she took up running off her own bat, and is off the medication now.

Yes you are right.

However younger bodies can put up with the strains of weight bearing exercise much more easily than older bodies.

The original conversation was about walking as a commuting alternative to cycling.

Take Dublin - if we are talking about commuting distances of between 4-8km - then doing this ten times a week briskly on concrete will be a challenging over time for a lot of people over 50. Not from a cardiac point of view, but from the point of view of joints.

I think your point of view stands up well if you are talking about jogging 2 or 3 times a week, mixed with swimming and cycling.

Seth Brundle

Jesus we're resorting to see whether people will walk a number of kms rather than cycle?
Most people currently are reluctant to walk to a bus stop so I can't see how they'll suddenly walk several kms.

Grassey

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Y
I think your point of view stands up well if you are talking about jogging 2 or 3 times a week, mixed with swimming and cycling.

We need to cater for the triathletes now too!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: