Journalism and cycling

rubadub

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Can you imagine them publishing a similar piece about travellers, or about farmers, or about LGBT, or about immigrants.

+1, also it is very common to see phrases like this

The absolute unwillingness to accept that there might be some among their number whose behaviour is a danger to themselves and others (just as there are among drivers and pedestrians) is also extraordinary.

this odd presumption that in the case of cyclists the only people who would defend that group/minority MUST be from that group/minority. I see it all the time on twitter, somebody says something ridiculous about cyclists, someone tells them their comment is out of order and then its "oh YOU bloody cyclist defending them", when you would not see "YOU bloodly black/traveller etc".

The only thing extraordinary about it all was that he thought it was extraordinary (or so he claimed, the whole thing seemed disingenuous)

Stark

tomasrojo wrote: »

The problem with the "I feel more threatened by cyclists than cars" is that you really *have* to be at least subconsciously filtering out all the times they close pass you, or mount the footpath alongside you, or even just all the times you defer to them because you know they're not going to stop. Not to mention all the times you end up walking on the road because somebody with a car has blocked the entire footpath.

Yeah now that I think about it... Don't notice it as much in the city center funnily enough but I'm often on edge walking/jogging further out in residential land. Big bugbear is people who speed out of side roads only stopping a couple of metres after the stop line. Regularly have close calls on the street where I live with those (and have one housemate who did get hit, luckily not injured).

CramCycle

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Great article to be fair.

Well written AND INFORMED.

Pity it wont feature in a national newspaper.

Apparently anyone can write an opinion piece and get it published in national media. Might be worth sending in a link to their letters page and asking would they publish it, if Cian Ginty gave permission of course.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i genuinely can't think of anyone i know who was injured by a cyclist on the footpath, or (bike on bike collisions excluded) anywhere else for that matter.
i know plenty of people who were injured in car collisions though, and one friend who was killed.

My daughter had her heel tapped by a cyclist running a red, and when I was 14, a kid ran into my ankle and fell off. On a similar note, I run out of fingers when I try and count up the number of people killed who I knew in such a manner as to be classed a friend, who have been killed by motor vehicles.

average_runner

magicbastarder wrote: »

i genuinely can't think of anyone i know who was injured by a cyclist on the footpath, or (bike on bike collisions excluded) anywhere else for that matter.
i know plenty of people who were injured in car collisions though, and one friend who was killed.

A friend of mine had his leg broken by cyclist going through a red light down at the junction by the Olympia.


I had a cyclist hit me at speed on a footpath 5 years ago, he came around the corner with no care in the world. Ended up with a knee injury that kept me running from running for 4 weeks. I had a marathon 8 weeks later in America, which I spent alot of money on.

Media doesn't report stuff that doesn't sell, but there is plenty of injuries caused by careless cyclists out there that you would never hear of.

Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen but also if we were all just that bit more patient and careful, the roads would be a nice place. But that won't happen in Ireland because of the attitude from the majority on the road.

magicbastarder

any idea at all if those collisions were captured in any stats?

average_runner

magicbastarder wrote: »

any idea at all if those collisions were captured in any stats?

Garda and Ambulance was present for the first one. For the second one, I just went home and didn't feel the effects till the next day.

Not everything is recorded and stats are pointless

Chips Lovell

The absence of some stats doesn't mean that the stats that do exist are pointless.

average_runner

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The absence of some stats doesn't mean that the stats that do exist are pointless.

But you can manipulate stats to prove anything.

Mickiemcfist

average_runner wrote: »

But you can manipulate stats to prove anything.

You can make up empirical evidence to prove anything

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

But you can manipulate stats to prove anything.

Not really, despite the popular belief that you can, you can misuse stats to incorrectly show what you want, but there is a difference there. Happens in Science all the time where people use the wrong type of analysis because they don't really understand stats and therefore pick the number that sounds most impressive, even if it is wildly inappropriate.

Tombo2001

One useful aspect of stats is that they can easily DISPROVE false claims.

Thats the starting point to the Irish Times article debate - the claim that pedestrians are more at risk from cyclists than motorists.

The 'stats' shuts this argument down immediately.

And then it moves into your territory Average Runner - what about minor injuries that arent captured by say hospital or emergency service numbers......thats where cyclists do the real damage. We dont have stats on this, so we are open to your argument which is - oh my cousin or my brother or my granny was walking in the park and a cyclists almost knocked them over and that happens every five seconds in every park in the country.

The hearsay nonsense.

I can say, based on personal experience of walking the kids to school every day for five years that not once have they had a close shave with a cyclist.

However on a near daily basis - when they are at the pedestrian crossing, a car will break the green pedestrian light.

Thats no exaggeration, it happens most days.

I have it drilled into them - you do not cross JUST because its a green man. When its a green man, you wait until the traffic stops, and then you cross.

Do I extrapolate from this that, for pedestrians, cars are more of a risk than bikes? I certainly would. I think its absolutely daft to see it any other way.

But without stats, you can easily counterargue with something that happened to your cousin or your aunt.

And then the discussion goes nowhere.

Duckjob

flatface wrote: »

I can’t believe cyclists are not only the scourge of the road but now of twitter too!

You've just given TV5 the idea for their sequel!

average_runner

Tombo2001 wrote: »

One useful aspect of stats is that they can easily DISPROVE false claims.

Thats the starting point to the Irish Times article debate - the claim that pedestrians are more at risk from cyclists than motorists.
And then it moves into your territory Average Runner - what about minor injuries that arent captured by say hospital or emergency service numbers......thats where cyclists do the real damage. We dont have stats on this, so we are open to your argument which is - oh my cousin or my brother or my granny was walking in the park and a cyclists almost knocked them over and that happens every five seconds in every park in the country.

The hearsay nonsense.

I can say, based on personal experience of walking the kids to school every day for five years that not once have they had a close shave with a cyclist.

However on a near daily basis - when they are at the pedestrian crossing, a car will break the green pedestrian light.

Thats no exaggeration, it happens most days.

I have it drilled into them - you do not cross JUST because its a green man. When its a green man, you wait until the traffic stops, and then you cross.

Do I extrapolate from this that, for pedestrians, cars are more of a risk than bikes? I certainly would. I think its absolutely daft to see it any other way.

But without stats, you can easily counterargue with something that happened to your cousin or your aunt.

And then the discussion goes nowhere.

First of all I agree with you about the pedestrian crossing.

But minor things are never reported, it's near impossible to report a cyclists.

For example out running in Sandymount today, the path way clearly says No cyclists or skating" and a sign "no dogs off the lead" but guess what, in a space of 500m there was 3 bikes and 2 dogs off the lead.

How do we report this ? How can it be recorded if we can't report it? I think that's where alot frustration comes, cyclists can't be held responsible.
The 'stats' shuts this argument down immediately.



I can report a car no problem and have in the past.

Tombo2001

average_runner wrote: »

First of all I agree with you about the pedestrian crossing.

But minor things are never reported, it's near impossible to report a cyclists.

For example out running in Sandymount today, the path way clearly says No cyclists or skating" and a sign "no dogs off the lead" but guess what, in a space of 500m there was 3 bikes and 2 dogs off the lead.

How do we report this ? How can it be recorded if we can't report it? I think that's where alot frustration comes, cyclists can't be held responsible.
The 'stats' shuts this argument down immediately.



I can report a car no problem and have in the past.

Absolutely.

Big style.

But the same applies to cycle paths. On road, they become taxi ranks. Off road, they become footpaths.

Cycle path down the centre of the phoenix park is redundant because of the amount of people walking on it.

Running clubs use it routinely, for absolute sure they do, including in the dark.

So your issue is that you cant report cyclists?

The ultimate issue is that people showed half as much concern about their own infringements as they did about other peoples infringements, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Chips Lovell

Dogs off the lead?

The solution is clearly registration plates for dogs.

Stark

If you're referring to Strand Road, that used to be my regular after work running spot and yeah it's a particular location where you do regularly encounter cyclists on the footpath. It's a particular spot that has a lot of pedestrian space and very narrow road space with a lot of aggressive drivers blaring the horns at cyclists and squeezing them off the road (despite the fact that they're going to end up in a tailback of traffic a couple of hundred metres up the road). If I was having near misses on my runs, I'd be frustrated, but any of the people I've encountered on bikes there have given me plenty of room, so I just leave them off as they're just trying to get home avoiding as much aggro as they can.

From Chapelizod up to Palmerstown was a similar story before they designated it a shared pedestrian/cycle way. Lots of people cycling a stretch of footpath to avoid the alternative which was a detour onto a busy dual carriageway and then trying to cross 3 lanes of speeding traffic in order to get back to where you were. Thankfully common sense prevailed and the council expanded the footpath to give more room and marked it shared so people just trying to get home safely weren't branded lawbreakers.

average_runner

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Absolutely.

Big style.

But the same applies to cycle paths. On road, they become taxi ranks. Off road, they become footpaths.

Cycle path down the centre of the phoenix park is redundant because of the amount of people walking on it.

Running clubs use it routinely, for absolute sure they do, including in the dark.

So your issue is that you cant report cyclists?

The ultimate issue is that people showed half as much concern about their own infringements as they did about other peoples infringements, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Phoenix Park is so badly designed. I feel sorry for cyclists there and never understand the running on the cycling lane there, isn't something I do.

I believe cyclists do get a raw deal at times.

My issue is not about reporting people, but its about people not behaving and then people using stats when it doesn't show the full picture

average_runner

Stark wrote: »

If you're referring to Strand Road, that used to be my regular after work running spot and yeah it's a particular location where you do regularly encounter cyclists on the footpath. It's a particular spot that has a lot of pedestrian space and very narrow road space with a lot of aggressive drivers blaring the horns at cyclists and squeezing them off the road (despite the fact that they're going to end up in a tailback of traffic a couple of hundred metres up the road). If I was having near misses on my runs, I'd be frustrated, but any of the people I've encountered on bikes there have given me plenty of room, so I just leave them off as they're just trying to get home avoiding as much aggro as they can.

From Chapelizod up to Palmerstown was a similar story before they designated it a shared pedestrian/cycle way. Lots of people cycling a stretch of footpath to avoid the alternative which was a detour onto a busy dual carriageway and then trying to cross 3 lanes of speeding traffic in order to get back to where you were. Thankfully common sense prevailed and the council expanded the footpath to give more room and marked it shared so people just trying to get home safely weren't branded lawbreakers.

I would let them off but then they throw back in your face when someone is in their way. It works both ways and traffic was low today

average_runner

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Dogs off the lead?

The solution is clearly registration plates for dogs.

Could you imagine it, one hanging out of the collar and the other out the tail:D

average_runner

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Dogs off the lead?

The solution is clearly registration plates for dogs.

Could you imagine it, one hanging out of the collar and the other out the tail:D:D

Tombo2001

average_runner wrote: »

Phoenix Park is so badly designed. I feel sorry for cyclists there and never understand the running on the cycling lane there, isn't something I do.

I believe cyclists do get a raw deal at times.

My issue is not about reporting people, but its about people not behaving and then people using stats when it doesn't show the full picture

Having been in a running club there myself - I completely get why they run there at night time - Its the only place they can do their training safely. They have nowhere else to go.

The nearest running tracks are in Tallaght and Santry.

Same deal with cyclists and footpaths. No cyclist would be on a footpath if they could cycle on the road safely.

Or if there was a dedicated cycle path.

Footpaths are no fun to cycle on. It takes ages, there are always things in your way, people are giving you dirty looks even if you are walking pace. But on the other hand.....you feel safe. Which is far more important than people giving you dirty looks.

flatface

I get what people are saying about unreported injuries caused by cyclists and in lieu of proper stats it’s tempting to believe it’s a big underrated problem.

My issue with this is that all other stats that we do have show the opposite of this. When a study is done of RLJ it shows, not what motorists would expect, it’s not mostly cyclists.

I suspect strongly if we got a proper study of the risks of injury to pedestrians in various areas, urban and rural, we would again see a surprising pie chart where cyclist danger is a very small slice - and the goalposts would be swiftly moved.

tuxy

Is anyone watching "Now You See Me" on RTE?
I've just caught the end of it where they show the recent cycling infrastructure in Copenhagen. It's not up to the standard of Ducth cycling infrastructure yet but still looks like paradise. And not a single hi-vis and maybe 1 in 10 with a helmet.

Edit: Made in association with the RSA! I was wondering why they were not trying to identify and realistic solutions in the program.....

I only saw small sections of the program so maybe there were some positive points to it that I didn't see.

Stark

I spent some time in Copenhagen in July. It was wonderful. Everyone there is so relaxed. I'd meet people for drinks in the evening and a lot of people would cycle out to the pub in the evening knowing the streets are safe for them to do so. Pretty much every street I saw had a cycleway which was physically separated from the main road and had bus stops between the cycleway and the road so people didn't have to worry about buses pulling in front all the time. They have priority at traffic lights too. As an aside, all their waterways are bathing quality. Fantastic to walk through the city centre and see people going for a dip in the main canal in the middle of their day. I imagine if Dublin had those things, everyone there would be a lot happier too. Granted they pay higher taxes than us, but I think I'd be happier paying higher taxes too if we got the same return the Danes get on them.

Was pretty depressing coming home and facing back into the usual aggro commute, that's for sure.

CramCycle

Pretty much the same as Belgium, over one day and the front of a national newspaper (and my translation is poor) was giving out about a 10minute wait in AandE. All I could think was I would happy paying More tax if we could get our health service to come close to that.

tomasrojo

I was taking the kids to something on the north side of Dublin yesterday in the cargo bike, coming from the south side, so, just to be cautious, I went along the Grand Canal cycle route towards the east, and took some minor roads through Fairview, and back over to Whitehall, just to avoid the city centre (thinking mainly of Christchurch, the quays and College Green, which are all much worse than they have to be -- and, now I think of it, Dorset Street and the bridge over the Tolka).

Maybe I was being overcautious, but the city centre is exactly where there should be a few calm arterial routes for bikes, based on what you see in a lot of other European countries. Just to encourage people away from driving, if nothing else.

tomasrojo

Looking at Collins Avenue Griffith Avenue yesterday, that footpath is *enormous*. Has there every been a suggestion of trying to put a cycling route of some sort along it? The four two traffic lanes between the trees are pretty narrow and used by a lot of people in a hurry. I see that most cyclists seem to use the wide footpath anyway, and at least a large minority used to use it, back in the day when I cycled that way frequently.

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

How do we report this ? How can it be recorded if we can't report it? I think that's where alot frustration comes, cyclists can't be held responsible.
The 'stats' shuts this argument down immediately.

I can report a car no problem and have in the past.

How do we report the four out of five motorists that break speed limits? Motorists AREN'T being held responsible.


I reported a car after being assaulted by a passenger hanging out the window, and the Gardai could do nothing, as it was a written off banger.

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How do we report the four out of five motorists that break speed limits? Motorists AREN'T being held responsible.


I reported a car after being assaulted by a passenger hanging out the window, and the Gardai could do nothing, as it was a written off banger.

At least there is a mechanism for reporting them and identification. Gardai actions is another issue.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Looking at Collins Avenue yesterday, that footpath is *enormous*

you mean the bit near DCU?