Journalism and cycling

Seth Brundle

Sounds like a good match. Neither he nor the RSA know much about road safety!

Duckjob

The usual entitled “I pay road tax” nonsense was not the biggest surprise for me. It was this gem:

Penalty points are a very serious matter. Not only can they easily add up to a disqualification but they can prove very expensive when it comes to motor insurance. I would suggest speeds detected that are not quite up to the next zone/level should not be liable to penalty points.

For example, if a motorist is caught speeding in a 50kph zone doing less that 60kph (the next zone up) I think penalty points should not apply. Similarly, exceeding 60kph but under the next zone of 80kph should not expose the motorist to points

The guy seems to lack very basic understanding about how points work.

Isn’t the whole “point” of penalty points that’s it doesn’t penalize unduly for a single incident but takes in a much broader fairer picture of how safely somebody is or isn’t driving?

So in practice, if you’re a normally careful driver that strays a little over the limit and gets points it’s not the end of the world- and gives any normally conscientious driver the jolt they need to be more careful.

If it’s a more habitual speeder then getting nearer to 12 points should give them ever greater incentive to cop on and modify their driving behavior.

Seems a pretty fair way to do things to me.

Also I don’t see why there should be any link between what it costs to drive on the road and how rigorously you’re dealt with when you ignore the rules.

Not unless you’re an entitled idiot that is.

Stark

Or this:

I am aware of a detection recently where a motorist was clocked by one of the speed vans doing 69kph in a 60 zone. Again, I have no problem with the fine but imposing penalty points when the margin was relatively low seems to me to be over the top.

Nine kph converted to miles is less that 5.6 mph. which is little more than a fast walking pace.

If you get hit, just subtract the legal speed limit from the impact speed and you're left with a gentle bump! It's the power of math and physics people!

tomasrojo

Wasn't there a case of a judge who exonerated another judge of careless or dangerous driving for driving, blaring his horn, through a line of small children crossing the road, because the latter judge was on his way to court?

tomasrojo

Stark wrote: »

Or this:



If you get hit, just subtract the legal speed limit from the impact speed and you're left with a gentle bump! It's the power of math and physics people!

I love that he's such a dinosaur that he thinks it has to be in mph before anyone can recognise what speed it actually is.

I'm guessing explaining how kinetic energy works in relation to velocity won't work on him.

tomasrojo

Just off the top of my head, a full collision at 69km/h imparts 13% more energy than one at 60km/h. I think. It's not insignificant.

Stark

More than that I would have thought. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. So about 32% more energy.

tomasrojo

Stark wrote: »

More than that I would have thought. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. So about 32% more energy.

Yeah, that's right. Sorry, that was my first calculation (69/60)^2
But then when I double-checked it, it turned into (69/65)^2, for some reason.

Yeah, ~30%

tomasrojo

"Imagine if you will, being struck at 60km/h, or, so normal people can understand it, 5 furlongs per minute, and adding a mere 30% more energy to it. Why, that's equivalent to a gentle push."

Chips Lovell

Thirty percent, schmirty percent. What if you're late for court?

magicbastarder

Stark wrote: »

More than that I would have thought. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. So about 32% more energy.

you're neglecting relativistic effects. a car moving at 69km/h will have more mass than one at 60km/h, so it's not just the velocity which changes.

tomasrojo

Also, the length of the car will change.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I love that he's such a dinosaur that he thinks it has to be in mph before anyone can recognise what speed it actually is.

I had a solicitor advise me not to tell a judge I was cycling at 30kph as they'd think I was going far too fast, but instead say I was going "less than 20mph".

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

I had a solicitor advise me not to tell a judge I was cycling at 30kph as they'd think I was going far too fast, but instead say I was going "less than 20mph".

I know people can be slow to change, but the full switch-over was nearly fifteen years ago.

RobertFoster

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know people can be slow to change, but the full switch-over was nearly fifteen years ago.

What's that in inches?

Cookie_Monster

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know people can be slow to change, but the full switch-over was nearly fifteen years ago.

I'm at the auto correct stage with people on this now. Any time I hear one of those outdated measurements used I just ask them "Whats that in modern?"

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm at the auto correct stage with people on this now. Any time I hear one of those outdated measurements used I just ask them "Whats that in modern?"

How did you get on the last time you asked for a 568.2612mL glass off beer in the pub? :P

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

How did you get on the last time you asked for a 568.2612mL glass off beer in the pub? :P

That's different, it's culturally significant... And a "pint" over here in NZ is 425ml or 440 or 500 or 568 anyway...

tomasrojo

There is a Pfund and livre in use in Europe still informally, but it's half a kilo.

I find half a litre pretty acceptable for beer. I could easily let the pint in pubs go. I don't really care if other people want to hang on to it though. I don't really mind if people want to go on using mph informally either. I just, at this distance from 2005, don't really get people translating it into mph, so you can fully appreciate just how slow something really is.

buffalo

Newspaper accused of being anti-cyclist prints piece saying that criticising cyclists shouldn't be seen as anti-cyclist: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/cyclists-need-to-take-criticism-to-win-friends-1.3986314

I await the tinfoil hat brigade with glee. :pac:

CramCycle

It's just click bait, nothing more. Convinces people who don't like cyclists that they are unreasonable (but there are exceptions, to make it believable), and keeps enough, I agree with your points but, so that if people call him.out, he can claim they are unreasonable. I haven't seen this Twitter discussion he refers too, I suspect it's highly exaggerated and only involves 20 people , like most Twitter discussions.

Pinch Flat

When we have a debate about drivers breaking red lights I’ll take these articles seriously. Red light breaking and “weaving in and out of traffic” are about the only things that seem to piss people off regarding cyclists.

Meanwhile, we have mainly 20% full motorized three piece suites driving around who also break lights, speed, use their phones and having a few drinks before they do so, laying siege to our towns and cities, clogging them up and polluting them.

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

Newspaper accused of being anti-cyclist prints piece saying that criticising cyclists shouldn't be seen as anti-cyclist: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/cyclists-need-to-take-criticism-to-win-friends-1.3986314

I await the tinfoil hat brigade with glee. :pac:

Well theres this tucked in at the end of the piece.

Brian Caulfield is an entrepreneur and venture capital investor. He is a former non-executive director of The Irish Times.

Tombo2001

Thanks for that Buffalo.

Now apart from everything else, we own 'internet abuse'.....

This will come a bit of a surprise to the comments section of thejournal.ie......

magicbastarder

i spotted that about the author of that piece. was that him pulling in a favour so he could complain about people having been mean to him online?

Tombo2001

This to me points to a wider issue with The Irish Times, and other Irish media outlets.

Its all opinion columns, not enough journalism.

And opinions are just opinions, its no different really to what you read on boards.

And in particular, too often the column is "this bad thing happened to me......so I am going to extrapolate from my one experience and say its a major major issue".

You see it all the time. Good example recently with the GAA - Michael Duignan writing about how his Da couldn't watch the Mayo Galway game or whatever, because he doesn't have Sky. Ergo the GAA have sold the public down the swanee with this Sky deal.

Mickiemcfist

magicbastarder wrote: »

i spotted that about the author of that piece. was that him pulling in a favour so he could complain about people having been mean to him online?

He should try cycle commuting in Dublin & how drivers treat cyclists, it would make cyclists being mean to him on twitter pale into insignificance.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its all opinion columns, not enough journalism.

and that's what's curious about the piece in question. there's no suggestion that he's actually a journalist.
am i to believe that the IT commissioned this piece off him? or did he initiate this, and want his piece published?

i would also be very curious as to whether this gets near the print edition. the online and print editions are probably very different beasts, but the behaviour of one contaminates the other.

tomasrojo

I can't recall the exact details, but the Irish Times had an editorial a few years ago where, in passing, it weighed up whether criticisms directed at it online, almost certainly from this forum, were justified, and decided that they were not. It's great when you get to be a player and the umpire.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I can't recall the exact details, but the Irish Times had an editorial a few years ago where, in passing, it weighed up whether criticisms directed at it online, almost certainly from this forum, were justified, and decided that they were not. It's great when you get to be a player and the umpire.

MOD VOICE: Your out :pac: