Journalism and cycling

De Bhál

Grassey wrote: »

A woman who fell off her bike and hurt her back when it skidded as she cycled near her Tipperary home has been awarded €66,000 by the High Court.



Can we start claiming that most cycle lanes are now nuisances and see the $$$ roll in? *



* She did seem to suffer pretty serious injuries in fairness

.if my memory serves me correctly, there was a similar one in Tipp about a month ago where a cyclist got a payout due to faulty council workmanship.

must be judge who's an avid cyclist

Seth Brundle

De Bhál wrote: »

must be judge who's an avid cyclist

...or one that can spot the pathetic workmanship (from design right through to build and maintenance) that is allowed by all of our councils

De Bhál

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...or one that can spot the pathetic workmanship (from design right through to build and maintenance) that is allowed by all of our councils

hopefully

magicbastarder

not good news for journalism in general, but also not good news in a cycling context given that the editor is a keen cyclist:

Times Ireland to make most editorial staff redundant
Irish print edition of UK newspaper to cease publication with small number to continue working on digital product
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/times-ireland-to-make-most-editorial-staff-redundant-1.3899808

CramCycle

I feel bad for them as it was, in my opinion, a better paper than many other broadsheets. I wonder if the title "Irish Edition" turned off many purchasers. Alot of the red tops dropped the "Irish Edition" bit years ago and changed their titles to "The Irish...". Sounds like a small thing but I can see some people would.

meeeeh

They couldn't use The Irish Times. Anyway I'm subscribed to it but I mostly read it for British news, business section and lifestyle (fashion). I almost never visit Ireland section and get Irish news from Irish Times. I always felt Irish section is a bit of an afterthought.

magicbastarder

similar with me. i'm on the €5 a week plan for the IT, and balked a little at subscribing to a paper whose irish edition seemed a bit of an afterthought (that said, i was surprised to find they had 20 employees, i thought it was a smaller operation).
i also subscribe to dublin inquirer and the guardian, so a fourth subscription seemed a little of a stretch.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

They couldn't use The Irish Times. Anyway I'm subscribed to it but I mostly read it for British news, business section and lifestyle (fashion). I almost never visit Ireland section and get Irish news from Irish Times. I always felt Irish section is a bit of an afterthought.

I actually thought they gave more effort to their Irish Section than the IT gave in its entire paper.

magicbastarder wrote: »

similar with me. i'm on the €5 a week plan for the IT, and balked a little at subscribing to a paper whose irish edition seemed a bit of an afterthought (that said, i was surprised to find they had 20 employees, i thought it was a smaller operation).
i also subscribe to dublin inquirer and the guardian, so a fourth subscription seemed a little of a stretch.

I just couldn't stomach paying a sub to IT after Kate Fitzgerald, itself and the Independent just took a nose dive over the past few years IMO

magicbastarder

no bicycles involved, he was driving:

Former Cycling Ireland president “lucky to be alive” after road rage attack
Former Cycling Ireland president and national cyclocross champion, PJ Nolan, has said he was lucky to be alive after an unprovoked road rage attack.

Last Sunday week he was left unconscious on a road close to his home in Navan, Co Meath, after being attacked by another driver.
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/former-cycling-ireland-president-road-rage-attack/

Grassey

http://www.ruotalibera.org/simplog/upload/file20060729131932.pdf

Came across this, havent finished reading it but the general thesis seems to be that the environmental benefits of cycling and getting people out of cars are outweighed by the increased resource usage by these people living longer.

Clearly live fast die young to save the planet!

Substituting bicycling for driving is frequently promoted as a means of reducing energy consumption and the associated degradation of the environment. This paper estimates the magnitude of this effect. ...The environmental benefits of human power are, however, strongly coupled to the environmental costs of increased population, due to increased longevity of those who engage in physical activity. Paradoxically, increased use of human power for transportation is unlikely to reduce substantially the use of energy because of this second-order effect. Humanpowered transportation is therefore less an environmental issue and more an issue of public health. The interplay between longevity and environmental impact is a central feature of the conflicting societal objectives of improving human health and increasing environmental sustainability.

JMcL

Grassey wrote: »

http://www.ruotalibera.org/simplog/upload/file20060729131932.pdf

Came across this, havent finished reading it but the general thesis seems to be that the environmental benefits of cycling and getting people out of cars are outweighed by the increased resource usage by these people living longer.

Clearly live fast die young to save the planet!

I had a skim over it and while on the surface he makes a plausible hypothesis, I find his reasoning a bit simplistic:

He mentions "several dozen studies" (no references - they may be in the bibliography but aren't referenced) attributing a reduction in 20-35% in mortality burning around 1000 calories/week. Does this mean you're going to live 20-35% longer? I doubt it, so while we all hope will get a few extra years by being active, age does kick in eventually. He does quote that "..increasing longevity does not change fundamentally the pattern of end-of-life healthcare requirements" but from this infers that the middle years of energy use will be extended.

All fair and well. Now he states an energy requirement for a US gas guzzler of 3.8Mj/km - mostly one would assume single occupant - to 17Kj/km for a cyclist; a factor of about 220:1. There's no reason to assume that if somebody is fit and healthy they won't displace car usage for active transport while they are able - especially if they're accustomed to it. And a car sitting outside the house will produce 0Mj/km. And the bit that I love - "The ratio of work done to food energy consumed for a cyclist at commuting power levels is
approximately 22 percent (McDaniel et al. 2002), and so in dietary equilibrium, the cyclist consumes 77 kJ/km of fuel in the form of food to fuel this activity.". Motorists of course live on fresh air (except of course for white van drivers who subsist entirely on jumbo breakfast rolls). He manages to roll in cost of food production, transportation etc and pile it on to the cyclist to come up with a figure of 443Kj/km, but doesn't adjust the gas guzzler.

Nor is there any account taken of the likelyhood that somebody heading out in a car will either end up stuck in a traffic jam, or may end up cruising around looking for parking so the car journey may be considerably longer than the bike journey. Nor is any estimation of the energy and opportunity cost of providing and maintaining road infrastructure to support car usage provided.

Sorry, just don't buy it

tomasrojo

I think habitual cyclists live about five years longer than habitual motorists. I do remember somebody saying it was a gain equivalent to giving up smoking.

Other than that, this sounds like another specious argument about how doing the right thing is in fact the wrong thing.

Mickiemcfist

Doesn't bother me in the slightest imo, even if it's carbon neutral, I'd rather live longer, with better quality of life, with less transport cost than I would have otherwise. If it's good for the environment, great.

tomasrojo

Luckily, by his logic, you'll shave some time off your fellow citizens' lives by driving a NOx-emitting vehicle, so that should reduce energy consumption too.

rubadub

Decision on E-scooter regulations due shortly, as minister says electric scooter users should have a driving licence

silverharp

its the 21st century Indulgences. You can stand over the personal benefits of cycling and at a push if you want to press the smugness metre you have done you city a tiny favour by either being having one less car using scare roads or freeing up a space on public transport at peak hours. I save about ~1200 euro a year not using public transport or 4k to 5K a year not having a second family car. As I’m not in the habit of tearing up the money saved, somewhere down the line it will get spent on air travel or something made in a factory or end up in other people’s pockets for them to drive.

tomasrojo

Just looking to see what rules they have actually imposed in Berlin and Paris, I find this.

Often, they are seen strewn on squares, abandoned in front of buildings or clustered around Paris landmarks.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/transport/paris-berlin-draw-up-tough-rules-for-e-scooters

I haven't been to Paris or Berlin in a few years, but I remember cars answering this description.

(The "tough rules" aren't very tough. Though Germany requires the user to have insurance.)

Chips Lovell

Grassey wrote: »

Came across this, havent finished reading it but the general thesis seems to be that the environmental benefits of cycling and getting people out of cars are outweighed by the increased resource usage by these people living longer.!

Could we not just kill the poor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

Fian

rubadub wrote: »

Decision on E-scooter regulations due shortly, as minister says electric scooter users should have a driving licence

As expected, below the line this is mostly a discussion on bicycles.

Somebody should tell the drivers that since e-scooters are captured by Section 56 of the road traffic act MIBI are on the hook for any injuries caused by an uninsured or unidentified e-scooter rider. Which in turn means the cost is borne by those who insure cars. Which includes most cyclists as well ofc.

Grassey

How can they say its a grey area and then follow up in the next paragraph


E-scooters and powered skateboards fall into this category and are therefore considered to be mechanically propelled vehicles. Any users of such vehicles in a public place, as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1961, must have insurance, road tax and a driving licence,†said the minister.

tomasrojo

It's not a grey area, except that they're illegal to take on the road without insurance, but there's no way to insure them.

I think they might fall foul of lighting regulations for mechanically propelled vehicles too, given that there's no way to fix a red light to them at a decent height about the road. Not sure of the exact regulation there, but for bikes the height of a rear light has to be about 35cm off the ground or more.

tomasrojo

The motor tax for an electric car is over €100, isn't it? That seems a bit over the top for a skateboard with a T-bar and a tiny motor.

Duffryman

€120 annual tax for an electric car.

Interestingly though, €35 annual tax for an electric motorbike. Don't know how many of those are actually on the road, but it would seem a closer 'fit' for escooters if they're to be taxed too.

Mickiemcfist

Have to say as a non-scooter....er. Forcing them to be taxed & insured is such an Irish solution. Brilliant, we have lots of young people out in the fresh air, reducing traffic & what do we do- effectively ban it.

Seth Brundle

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Have to say as a non-scooter....er. Forcing them to be taxed & insured is such an Irish solution. Brilliant, we have lots of young people out in the fresh air, reducing traffic & what do we do- effectively ban it.

We haven't effectively banned it. The law was there first!
By design, they fell foul of the existing legislation (which is being amended to account for these).

Chiparus

Suprised the assailant in yesterdays murder not described as a "cyclist" .

Journalistic standards slipping in an upward direction?

zurbfoundation

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Have to say as a non-scooter....er. Forcing them to be taxed & insured is such an Irish solution. Brilliant, we have lots of young people out in the fresh air, reducing traffic & what do we do- effectively ban it.

Other cities have banned and restricted them. Outside of Oireland 'n all 'n anyways

Rechuchote

silverharp wrote: »

its the 21st century Indulgences. <snip> As I’m not in the habit of tearing up the money saved, somewhere down the line it will get spent on air travel or something made in a factory or end up in other people’s pockets for them to drive.

Really? That's very interesting! In our house the money saved goes on food, shelter and clothing.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think they might fall foul of lighting regulations for mechanically propelled vehicles too, given that there's no way to fix a red light to them at a decent height about the road..

You can fix a light to the rider.

There's no need for people to get sneery about "Oirland" (always a sign of a self-hating sneerer); other countries have made legal provision for them; our legislators can consider these laws and if suitable follow suit.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/17/germany-legalises-e-scooters-but-bans-them-from-the-pavement

German lawmakers voted on Friday to allow e-scooters to take to the streets making the UK the last major European economy to still ban them.

The text approved by the Bundesrat on Friday enables battery-powered scooters to circulate on roads and cycle paths but forbids them from being used on the pavements. Users must be 14 or over and must respect a 20 kilometres per hours speed limit.

Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer said on Twitter that with the vote, Germany is "paving the way for the mobility of the future with the greatest possible road safety."

"The regulation takes into account the interests of all road users," he added.

Achim Berg, president of Bitkom, the country's largest digital association. said that "e-scooters can be an ideal complement to bus and train for the last few kilometres to the destination. This makes public transport more attractive and can reduce car journeys."

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just looking to see what rules they have actually imposed in Berlin and Paris, I find this.



https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/transport/paris-berlin-draw-up-tough-rules-for-e-scooters

I haven't been to Paris or Berlin in a few years, but I remember cars answering this description.

(The "tough rules" aren't very tough. Though Germany requires the user to have insurance.)

They have them in Brussels as well, i found that the descriptions of them being thrown everywhere were blatently untrue. Loads of people using them, bar a few kids acting like maggots, all seemed pretty safe, and even then, those kids were not exactly reaching the levels of stupidity i did on a bike at that age.

tomasrojo

Rechuchote wrote: »

You can fix a light to the rider.

That's a perfectly pragmatic approach, but I don't think it's legal. I'll have to look up the wording, but that isn't even a legal approach on a bicycle, let alone a "mechanically propelled" vehicle.

Using lights on your person instead of your bicycle is permitted in some countries, but I don't think it suffices here. (They can be used in addition to lights fixed to the bike, obviously.)