Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean the bit near DCU?

Ah, I'm an idiot. I meant Griffith Avenue, the bit towards Marino.

tomasrojo

radia wrote: »

Refreshingly, the Irish Examiner doesn't seem to have the Irish Times anti-cyclist mindset. (I'm being charitable here; I was going to say 'agenda'.)

Yesterday's Examiner: A new attitude - Cycling in the city


Today's Examiner: Nespresso turns aluminium capsules into bike

The latter is basically just a press release from Nespresso, but at least the Examiner has managed to present it without a snarky side-swipe at cyclists.

The Examiner may be trying to adjust to its parent company's ethos:
https://twitter.com/CorkCyclingCrew/status/1162685648320520192

This may be more blaming triathletes though, which this forum may have a more ... nuanced opinion on.

EDIT: Might as well quote the bit. There's a lot of stuff about speeding drivers, artic.s getting stuck in the alleyway, and motor vehicles colliding with the couple's house, but the final paragraph is:

However, the fact that the street forms part of the Ironman cycling route, which will take place in the town again next June, may be one of the factors to explain why speed ramps to date have not been installed.

Thargor

I hate when people report stories like that, screenshot the relevant bit or quote it, dont make hundreds of people click through to their site to see it or you're just rewarding them.

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

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

There is a mechanism for reporting anyone for any crime. Are you suggesting everyone needs to wear an ID number at all times to facilitate their identification for crimes?

tomasrojo

Thargor wrote: »

I hate when people report stories like that, screenshot the relevant bit or quote it, dont make hundreds of people click through to their site to see it or you're just rewarding them.

The replies to the Cork Cycling Campaign tweet have the nub of the issue, but I probably should have quoted the relevant bit myself. Laziness really.

Added it now.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is a mechanism for reporting anyone for any crime. Are you suggesting everyone needs to wear an ID number at all times to facilitate their identification for crimes?

Would it be ok then to scrap reg plates for cars etc? Or do you not accept that it aids in the identification of drivers?

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Examiner may be trying to adjust to its parent company's ethos:
https://twitter.com/CorkCyclingCrew/status/1162685648320520192

This may be more blaming triathletes though, which this forum may have a more ... nuanced opinion on.

EDIT: Might as well quote the bit. There's a lot of stuff about speeding drivers, artic.s getting stuck in the alleyway, and motor vehicles colliding with the couple's house, but the final paragraph is:

I'd be interested in seeing the route of any race on that road, be gas if the route sent them up hill there making the speed ramps a bit redundant

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

Would it be ok then to scrap reg plates for cars etc? Or do you not accept that it aids in the identification of drivers?

I'd imagine that the difference in danger between cars, cyclists and pedestrians would be relevant here. There's only one of those three groups that kills two or three people each week. So that might be a good reason for a registration system?

tomasrojo

Time magazine had a piece once on why licence plates were introduced:
https://time.com/4301055/license-plate-history/

It wasn’t a wild idea in 1901 that automobiles were suffering from the lack of official acknowledgement: the New York Tribune later echoed that “one of the objects of the law was to put a stop to the harassing of the owners of automobiles with local regulations,” and the journal Turf, Field and Farm called cars an “unnatural vehicle” in their reporting on the bill. After the licensing and registration law passed, however, local authorities—even if they controlled a highway or street—could not ban cars from using it. The law also imposed a minimum speed limit (8 mph in cities and 15 mph in rural areas) below which local speed limits could not go.

(Though I see the Netherlands was the first country to have a national licence plate system.)

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd imagine that the difference in danger between cars, cyclists and pedestrians would be relevant here. There's only one of those three groups that kills two or three people each week. So that might be a good reason for a registration system?

I’d say it’s disingenuous to suggest the reason for reg plates is because of the higher danger posed by cars. They were introduced over a hundred years ago when top speeds were basically a running speed. It had nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with government bureaucracy.

Road safety has become a by product of reg plates. I imagine the roads would be absolute carnage without a reg plate system for motorists because they know there’s a greater likelihood of being caught for their transgressions. I think this is what average runner was alluding to, not that everyone has to wear an ID number as you said.

Earlier you said -
“There is a mechanism for reporting anyone for any crime. Are you suggesting everyone needs to wear an ID number at all times to facilitate their identification for crimes?”

If it was mandatory for cyclists to have a reg plate then I imagine less cyclists would break the law too. I’d hate to think it would ever happen and to be honest I don’t think it will. But it’s this perception that aggrieves motorists, that cyclists can break the law and unless a Garda sees them doing it, that they’ll get away with it, but the motorist can be generally found via the car reg.

I can see where average runner is coming from. In busy traffic I’ll stop at the lights, but if it’s quiet I’ll happily roll through a red light if I think it’s safe to do so when cycling, but I wouldn’t do it when I’m driving, even if I judge it to be safe, because there is a greater chance of being caught via my reg plate.
I understand that when cycling, if I get it wrong, I’ll come out the worst if there’s a crash, but am I as a cyclist held to a lesser standard because the risk I pose is to myself and is a lesser risk than a motorist?

plodder

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’d say it’s disingenuous to suggest the reason for reg plates is because of the higher danger posed by cars. They were introduced over a hundred years ago when top speeds were basically a running speed. It had nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with government bureaucracy.

Road safety has become a by product of reg plates. I imagine the roads would be absolute carnage without a reg plate system for motorists because they know there’s a greater likelihood of being caught for their transgressions. I think this is what average runner was alluding to, not that everyone has to wear an ID number as you said.

Earlier you said -
“There is a mechanism for reporting anyone for any crime. Are you suggesting everyone needs to wear an ID number at all times to facilitate their identification for crimes?”

If it was mandatory for cyclists to have a reg plate then I imagine less cyclists would break the law too. I’d hate to think it would ever happen and to be honest I don’t think it will. But it’s this perception that aggrieves motorists, that cyclists can break the law and unless a Garda sees them doing it, that they’ll get away with it, but the motorist can be generally found via the car reg.

I can see where average runner is coming from. In busy traffic I’ll stop at the lights, but if it’s quiet I’ll happily roll through a red light if I think it’s safe to do so when cycling, but I wouldn’t do it when I’m driving, even if I judge it to be safe, because there is a greater chance of being caught via my reg plate.

Not sure that is true. Reg plates on bikes would have to be fairly large if they were to be useful for reporting cyclists who break the law, and that is not going to happen imo.

I've made this point before, but I think motorists and cyclists basically break the law up to a point that they perceive themselves as safe and where they feel they aren't impacting on other road users. Motorists run lights when they first go orange/red whereas cyclists are more likely to, before the red to green transition. It's unusual for cars to break a red light at that point, but I saw it happen a while back at a x-road junction in North Dublin (2 BMWs) - one went early and the other late, and it resulted in a collision. The vision limitations and large profile of cars make that much more likely outcome, which is why you don't see it as much.

For some reason, motorists feel it's their duty to complain and point out the errant behavior of cyclists, but generally less so towards other motorists, and I think that is because most motorists do the same things themselves and they just don't see it as wrong. A motorist will only honk at another car that does something they wouldn't do (at that time).

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’d say it’s disingenuous to suggest the reason for reg plates is because of the higher danger posed by cars. They were introduced over a hundred years ago when top speeds were basically a running speed. It had nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with government bureaucracy.

Road safety has become a by product of reg plates. I imagine the roads would be absolute carnage without a reg plate system for motorists because they know there’s a greater likelihood of being caught for their transgressions. I think this is what average runner was alluding to, not that everyone has to wear an ID number as you said.

Earlier you said -
“There is a mechanism for reporting anyone for any crime. Are you suggesting everyone needs to wear an ID number at all times to facilitate their identification for crimes?”

If it was mandatory for cyclists to have a reg plate then I imagine less cyclists would break the law too. I’d hate to think it would ever happen and to be honest I don’t think it will. But it’s this perception that aggrieves motorists, that cyclists can break the law and unless a Garda sees them doing it, that they’ll get away with it, but the motorist can be generally found via the car reg.

I can see where average runner is coming from. In busy traffic I’ll stop at the lights, but if it’s quiet I’ll happily roll through a red light if I think it’s safe to do so when cycling, but I wouldn’t do it when I’m driving, even if I judge it to be safe, because there is a greater chance of being caught via my reg plate.
I understand that when cycling, if I get it wrong, I’ll come out the worst if there’s a crash, but am I as a cyclist held to a lesser standard because the risk I pose is to myself and is a lesser risk than a motorist?

You know that we have four out of five registered/plated motorists breaking speed limits? You know that the majority of registered/plated motorists use their phones while driving?


And you think that diverting the attention of legislators, policy makers, bureaucrats and enforcers for a couple of years to bring in registration plates for cyclists would be a good use of resources?


What benefit would arise in terms of road deaths and serious injuries?

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is a mechanism for reporting anyone for any crime. Are you suggesting everyone needs to wear an ID number at all times to facilitate their identification for crimes?

Wasn't suggesting reg for bikes, my point was stats are not reliable as there isnt an easy way to report a cyclist etc. If a cyclist goes pass me on the footpath how do i report that in such a manner it gives the gardai something to follow up on if they wanted.

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know that we have four out of five registered/plated motorists breaking speed limits? You know that the majority of registered/plated motorists use their phones while driving?


And you think that diverting the attention of legislators, policy makers, bureaucrats and enforcers for a couple of years to bring in registration plates for cyclists would be a good use of resources?


What benefit would arise in terms of road deaths and serious injuries?

You know the majority of road users break the rules and that includes cyclists. Loads of cyclists uses their phones when on their bikes or spend time fixing their headphones when cycling. Spend more time in Dublin city centre especially the quays in the evening

ED E

average_runner wrote: »

You know the majority of road users break the rules and that includes cyclists. Loads of cyclists uses their phones when on their bikes or spend time fixing their headphones when cycling. Spend more time in Dublin city centre especially the quays in the evening

Its not an offence for a cyclist to use their phone. Might wanna educate yourself a bit there.

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

Wasn't suggesting reg for bikes, my point was stats are not reliable as there isnt an easy way to report a cyclist etc. If a cyclist goes pass me on the footpath how do i report that in such a manner it gives the gardai something to follow up on if they wanted.

You report it in the same way as you report any other crime like a mugging or an assault - who/what/when/where/how. Do you shy away from reporting those crimes because the assailants don't have serial numbers tattooed on their foreheads?

average_runner wrote: »

You know the majority of road users break the rules and that includes cyclists. Loads of cyclists uses their phones when on their bikes or spend time fixing their headphones when cycling. Spend more time in Dublin city centre especially the quays in the evening

As others have pointed out, there is nothing illegal about a cyclist using a phone, wearing headphones or fixing headphones. But regardless, I'll agree with your general contention that most road users break traffic laws, including cyclists.


That doesn't answer my question about what benefit would arise from a registration system for cyclists in terms of deaths or serious injuries.

Seth Brundle

average_runner wrote: »

You know the majority of road users break the rules and that includes cyclists. Loads of cyclists uses their phones when on their bikes or spend time fixing their headphones when cycling. Spend more time in Dublin city centre especially the quays in the evening

Leaving aside the non-illegal things youve mentioned above, dont confuse the ROTR with actual legislation.
In many regards the ROTR aren't worth the paper they're written on.

tomasrojo

average_runner wrote: »

my point was stats are not reliable as there isnt an easy way to report a cyclist etc. If a cyclist goes pass me on the footpath how do i report that in such a manner it gives the gardai something to follow up on if they wanted.

I really doubt that if you were to try and report a motorist for parking on the footpath in the suburbs it would end up in statistics anywhere, so I also doubt whether you ringing up the cops to tell them that cyclist Dub-20820 was spotted cycling on the footpath at 8 a.m. in Ringsend is going to be memorialised for number crunching either. They don't really care unless someone is hurt, or unless they see the incident in person, and mostly in the second case they don't care either.

I especially doubt there'd be follow-up for cyclists either, since a large number of cyclists in this hypothetical regime will just say their bike was stolen that morning, or something like that, or that somebody borrowed it, and it wasn't them.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know that we have four out of five registered/plated motorists breaking speed limits? You know that the majority of registered/plated motorists use their phones while driving?


And you think that diverting the attention of legislators, policy makers, bureaucrats and enforcers for a couple of years to bring in registration plates for cyclists would be a good use of resources?


What benefit would arise in terms of road deaths and serious injuries?

I understand motorists commit offences. I’m not defending them in any way, much like how I don’t defend cyclists who break the law. But those caught speeding are caught because they have reg plates. It’s reasonable to assume that if cyclists had reg plates, then more cyclists would be detected committing offences too.

Just in case I wasn’t clear in my previous post, I dont want reg plates for bicycles at all. I do think it would serve a purpose for offence detection committed by cyclists but I wouldn’t like to see it come into force in any way. I think the cons of it would far outweigh the pros.

Stark

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question about what benefit would arise from a registration system for cyclists in terms of deaths or serious injuries.

The smug sense of satisfaction people would get would help injuries heal quicker.

(It's as good a theory as any)

meeeeh

ED E wrote: »

Its not an offence for a cyclist to use their phone. Might wanna educate yourself a bit there.

But only morons do. That's the thing you can be a complete spa cycling around putting primarily yourself and others in danger or you can be responsible there are no real consequences either way. However if you behave like a moron on the road you also won't get any support for the facilities you want. It's not very productive approach.

tomasrojo

meeeeh wrote: »

However if you behave like a moron on the road you also won't get any support for the facilities you want. It's not very productive approach.

This is a bit close to the "cyclists don't deserve proper street designs until they get their house in order".

Cyclists aren't especially prone to idiotic behaviour, and it's not difficult to identify them when they misbehave, on account of them having faces, same way you identify pedestrians who misbehave.

I don't really know where this conversation is going. Licence plates are a non-starter, and the main reason they're ever suggested is really spite, so it's not really worth discussing them, even in the realm of hypotheticals.

shootermacg

I'm a cyclist and tbh, if someone sent me a plate for my bike, I'd happily put it on the frame. I really don't care and if it made some murderous idiot in a car behave in a more responsible way then all the better.

Of course it wouldn't though..would it?

meeeeh

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is a bit close to the "cyclists don't deserve proper street designs until they get their house in order".

Cyclists aren't especially prone to idiotic behaviour, and it's not difficult to identify them when they misbehave, on account of them having faces, same way you identify pedestrians who misbehave.

I don't really know where this conversation is going. Licence plates are a non-starter, and the main reason they're ever suggested is really spite, so it's not really worth discussing them, even in the realm of hypotheticals.

Licence plates are nonsense and cycling infrastructure is **** in Ireland. But as long as cycling infrastructure will be just good enough for the most confident cyclists those of us who would like something that we can use with our families really won't care weather it's legal to cycle and text at the same time. I have enough issues with trying to help my 10 year old to navigate roundabouts. Frankly I and I think many others don't give a damn about what testosterone fueled Twitter battles people have but it would be nice to have infrastructure that all generations of pedestrians and cyclists could enjoy. And when use of mobile phone and the fact that you can cycle drunk in Denmark are pointed out as positives you know very well that it's again just about convenience for some.

average_runner

ED E wrote: »

Its not an offence for a cyclist to use their phone. Might wanna educate yourself a bit there.

While using the phone is not an offence, not taking due care is and you cant use a phone and have due care at the same time.

ED E

You would have to be observed cycling dangerously to be charged.

RobbieMD

ED E wrote: »

You would have to be observed cycling dangerously to be charged.

Cycling without reasonable consideration. It’s to a lesser standard than cycling dangerously. It’s not defined but considered to be cycling in a manner considered to be a “nuisance”. It’s quite a vaguely worded offence to be fair and open to abuse imo

magicbastarder

yeah, i have wondered if say a garda pulled you over for not using a provided bike lane, could he or she (in a fit of pique after learning there's no offence associated with that) do you for cycling without reasonable consideration?
as i would assume that that offence is there to give the gardai leeway in preventing something too specific to set down in law. though i guess the fact that as mandatory use by cyclists of facilities is addressed in law, that would prevent the garda from doing so?

Eamonnator

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i have wondered if say a garda pulled you over for not using a provided bike lane, could he or she (in a fit of pique after learning there's no offence associated with that) do you for cycling without reasonable consideration?
as i would assume that that offence is there to give the gardai leeway in preventing something too specific to set down in law. though i guess the fact that as mandatory use by cyclists of facilities is addressed in law, that would prevent the garda from doing so?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/91/enacted/en/html

I wonder, could Section 91 be stretched to cover a Garda, in uniform, directing a cyclist to use a cycle lane to avoid congestion?

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i have wondered if say a garda pulled you over for not using a provided bike lane, could he or she (in a fit of pique after learning there's no offence associated with that) do you for cycling without reasonable consideration?
as i would assume that that offence is there to give the gardai leeway in preventing something too specific to set down in law. though i guess the fact that as mandatory use by cyclists of facilities is addressed in law, that would prevent the garda from doing so?

To prosecute for that offence, one would have to be cycling without reasonable consideration for others. Merely cycling on a road instead of a cycle lane wouldn’t create sufficient nuisance to others. I can’t see any Garda trying to FCPN for that. Its more likely to be used if a cyclist is involved in a collision.