Journalism and cycling

Stark

meeeeh wrote:

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.

meeeeh wrote: »

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. .

What point are you trying to make exactly with your rant?

You want cycling infrastructure because you want a safe place for your kids to cycle or you don't want cycling infrastructure because you don't like other cyclists?

Point about not building infrastructure because a minority of the users are badly behaved is moronic. It's like saying we shouldn't build roads in Donegal because the rest of the country has a bad impression of the drivers there. Infrastructure should be built according to need, not the virtues of its users. We're not a fascist state like China allocating resources according to social credits.

meeeeh wrote:

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.

Who said anything about cycling drunk. Not all cultures head out in the evening with the intent of getting ****faced. The point was the type of people who you wouldn't see cycling in Ireland feel comfortable cycling at nighttime there because the streets are safe for them to do so.

What should transport be about if not about convenience. If it wasn't about convenience, we'd all walk everywhere.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

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.

You seem to be missing the important point that a tiny percentage of those speeding are caught speeding. The vast majority of motorists speed, and a relatively tiny number are caught each day. So having reg plates is far from a panacea to addressing law breaking.



But even if we put that aside - if more cyclists WERE detected committing offences, so what? What benefit would arise for society from this outcome

shootermacg wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and tbh, if someone sent me a plate for my bike, I'd happily put it on the frame.

Part of the problem is that it would never work that way. If this were to be taken as a serious proposal, it would engulf legislators, policy makers and enforcers in the road traffic area for a couple of years, while motorists continue to kill 2 or 3 people each week. It would be looking in the wrong place for the wrong solution.

average_runner wrote: »

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.

That's a very definitive statement about a fairly complex legal issue, with no precedent to support your claim.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be missing the important point that a tiny percentage of those speeding are caught speeding. The vast majority of motorists speed, and a relatively tiny number are caught each day. So having reg plates is far from a panacea to addressing law breaking.



But even if we put that aside - if more cyclists WERE detected committing offences, so what? What benefit would arise for society from this outcome

Do you not believe having reg plates deters motorists from committing offences? It’s not a panacea but definitely part of the solution.

How many offences do you believe motorists commit daily? Is it in the 100,000s? Millions?

What benefit is it to society? That those who break the law are held to account. Cyclists aren’t immune from prosecution because they aren’t as dangerous as motorists. And before you say it, the vast amount of resources in Garda Roads Policing goes to detecting motorists and not cyclists.

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

the vast amount of resources in Garda Roads Policing goes to detecting motorists and not cyclists.

i know i'm deliberately pulling your quote out to highlight something you didn't say, but you used 'vast' in the 'overwhelming majority' sense, rather than the 'vast amount of resources in the Garda roads policing' sense. and that's the issue.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

Do you not believe having reg plates deters motorists from committing offences? It’s not a panacea but definitely part of the solution.

How many offences do you believe motorists commit daily? Is it in the 100,000s? Millions?

What benefit is it to society? That those who break the law are held to account. Cyclists aren’t immune from prosecution because they aren’t as dangerous as motorists. And before you say it, the vast amount of resources in Garda Roads Policing goes to detecting motorists and not cyclists.

Yes, I guess it must be in the millions of offences that motorists commit daily. We have what, about 2m cars on Irish roads. RSA research shows that 60% to 80% of motorists break speed limits. It's not hard to see that a single speeding motorist could commit hundreds of incidences of speeding on a single journey, so I'd guess the total number of unpunished speeding offences by registered and plated motorists must run into millions.


But I'm not really betting the benefit from 'holding people accountable'. Should we have reg plates for smokers to ensure we can hold them accountable for dropping butts, which is against the law?

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know i'm deliberately pulling your quote out to highlight something you didn't say, but you used 'vast' in the 'overwhelming majority' sense, rather than the 'vast amount of resources in the Garda roads policing' sense. and that's the issue.

I get you, and I’m all for more roads policing and enforcement. I’d welcome average speed cameras etc and harsher punishment for repeat offenders.
I agree with AndrewJRenko in the main, but it can’t be a case of apply the law but not to me because I don’t kill or injure people.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I guess it must be in the millions of offences that motorists commit daily. We have what, about 2m cars on Irish roads. RSA research shows that 60% to 80% of motorists break speed limits. It's not hard to see that a single speeding motorist could commit hundreds of incidences of speeding on a single journey, so I'd guess the total number of unpunished speeding offences by registered and plated motorists must run into millions.


But I'm not really betting the benefit from 'holding people accountable'. Should we have reg plates for smokers to ensure we can hold them accountable for dropping butts, which is against the law?

So motorists must actually be generally safe when committing offences then?
If we’ve millions of offences daily, and a yearly figure of approximately 10,000 injury and fatal collisions, then motorists are 99.9% of the time committing offences that cause no harm?

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

I get you, and I’m all for more roads policing and enforcement. I’d welcome average speed cameras etc and harsher punishment for repeat offenders.
I agree with AndrewJRenko in the main, but it can’t be a case of apply the law but not to me because I don’t kill or injure people.

No one said not to apply the law though, just that a) with limited resources, target the issue causing the most damage and b) license plates will not solve anything, and would have other hugely negative side effects discussed at length elsewhere.

Cyclists are as easy to enforce the rules on as motorists, license plates are not necessary. Red light cameras could identify junctions where heavy breaches of the law are committed by cyclists, and then just target the junction randomly till it drops.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

So motorists must actually be generally safe when committing offences then?
If we’ve millions of offences daily, and a yearly figure of approximately 10,000 injury and fatal collisions, then motorists are 99.9% of the time committing offences that cause no harm?

Safe, or just lucky?

RobbieMD wrote: »

I get you, and I’m all for more roads policing and enforcement. I’d welcome average speed cameras etc and harsher punishment for repeat offenders.
I agree with AndrewJRenko in the main, but it can’t be a case of apply the law but not to me because I don’t kill or injure people.

I don't think we're too far apart, and I've never suggested that the law shouldn't apply to cyclists or be enforced for cyclists. But all these calls for extra road tax or insurance or registration for cyclists is just nonsense. And I get the feeling most of those making the calls know well that they are nonsense, but just want to divert attention from motoring.

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

I agree with AndrewJRenko in the main

this is the point i find interesting/infuriating in these debates (and i'm sorry for pulling yours out as if it's an archetype of what i'm talking about). people - on this forum at least - tend to agree on almost all the issues. but we argue about what should be minutiae. but the 'should be' is the issue; the 'should be' is the fact that every single road user, regardless of method of transport, knows that if they do something colosally stupid and also illegal, knows that their chances of being caught is vanishingly small.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Safe, or just lucky?



I don't think we're too far apart, and I've never suggested that the law shouldn't apply to cyclists or be enforced for cyclists. But all these calls for extra road tax or insurance or registration for cyclists is just nonsense. And I get the feeling most of those making the calls know well that they are nonsense, but just want to divert attention from motoring.

I absolutely agree, tax/insurance/reg plates for cyclists are in the main completely unnecessary and would be a bureaucratic nightmare trying to enforce for kids cycling to school or wherever. To a degree I can see the benefit of having an insurance policy for adult cyclists. Mine is only a couple hundred a year and peace of mind.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the point i find interesting/infuriating in these debates (and i'm sorry for pulling yours out as if it's an archetype of what i'm talking about). people - on this forum at least - tend to agree on almost all the issues. but we argue about what should be minutiae. but the 'should be' is the issue; the 'should be' is the fact that every single road user, regardless of method of transport, knows that if they do something colosally stupid and also illegal, knows that their chances of being caught is vanishingly small.

I think it’s been said here a few times, and I know I’ve heard Ciarán Cuffe say it- the three E’s. Education, enforcement and the cycling environment would solve it all. Until a comprehensive holistic approach is taken, I imagine it will continue as is.

Stark

RobbieMD wrote: »

I agree with AndrewJRenko in the main, but it can’t be a case of apply the law but not to me because I don’t kill or injure people.

What's the point of having a law if it's not to prevent injuries to other people?

Very few of the laws that apply to motorists apply to pedestrians precisely because the damage they can do is minimal. For example, there's no penalty for accidentally bumping into someone on the street. And jaywalking laws are very rarely enforced, similarly because someone can do very little damage as a pedestrian.

Drivers of heavy vehicles like buses and trucks are subject to more laws than drivers of lighter vehicles like family cars also because the potential for harm is greater.

Cyclist fall somewhere between pedestrians and motorists. There should be more laws and penalties than apply to pedestrians, but all these demands for them to be treated *exactly* the same as motorists are ludicrous. Just as calling for every motorist to have to comply with every requirement that a professional heavy vehicle driver has to comply with would be ludicrous.

meeeeh

Stark wrote: »

What point are you trying to make exactly with your rant?

You want cycling infrastructure because you want a safe place for your kids to cycle or you don't want cycling infrastructure because you don't like other cyclists?

Point about not building infrastructure because a minority of the users are badly behaved is moronic. It's like saying we shouldn't build roads in Donegal because the rest of the country has a bad impression of the drivers there. Infrastructure should be built according to need, not the virtues of its users. We're not a fascist state like China allocating resources according to social credits.



Who said anything about cycling drunk. Not all cultures head out in the evening with the intent of getting ****faced. The point was the type of people who you wouldn't see cycling in Ireland feel comfortable cycling at nighttime there because the streets are safe for them to do so.

What should transport be about if not about convenience. If it wasn't about convenience, we'd all walk everywhere.

If you behave ignorantly nobody will support better infrastructure. When cycling is only represented by angry men on Twitter (or Boards) attacking people who have different opinions then good luck with anything. Best countries for cycling have people of all abilities who cycle together the current discussion in Ireland is off putting and mostly about winning arguments. And it's spoiling things for everyone.

As for drinking and cycling, I come from a country where cycling drunk is fairly common among older men and one of the main reasons why deaths are predominantly among male older cyclists (over 60s). Every so often you come across someone preferably without lights swerving across the road or just walking by the bike because they are too drunk to cycle. It's not something I'd want to see in Ireland. Btw I singling out men because a lot of older women cycle too (cycling and hiking seem to be what golf is here for people when they retire) and a lot less older women get into accidents.

tomasrojo

meeeeh wrote: »

If you behave ignorantly nobody will support better infrastructure. When cycling is only represented by angry men on Twitter (or Boards) attacking people who have different opinions then good luck with anything. Best countries for cycling have people of all abilities who cycle together the current discussion in Ireland is off putting and mostly about winning arguments. And it's spoiling things for everyone.

The 70s campaign in the Netherlands was fairly aggressive, or at least would be portrayed as such in the media here. And the cycling campaigns here, as far as I know, aspire to be as inclusive as possible, with the aspiration of a built environment that's suitable for all ages and abilities.

RobbieMD

Stark wrote: »

What's the point of having a law if it's not to prevent injuries to other people?

Very few of the laws that apply to motorists apply to pedestrians precisely because the damage they can do is minimal. For example, there's no penalty for accidentally bumping into someone on the street. And jaywalking laws are very rarely enforced, similarly because someone can do very little damage as a pedestrian.

Drivers of heavy vehicles like buses and trucks are subject to more laws than drivers of lighter vehicles like family cars also because the potential for harm is greater.

Cyclist fall somewhere between pedestrians and motorists. There should be more laws and penalties than apply to pedestrians, but all these demands for them to be treated *exactly* the same as motorists are ludicrous. Just as calling for every motorist to have to comply with every requirement that a professional heavy vehicle driver has to comply with would be ludicrous.

We could ask what is the point of double yellow lines then?
Maybe to keep junctions safe or some reason. That might be valid. But then commercial vehicles can legally park for loading/unloading on double yellows for up to 30 minutes. That seems to negate the point of them. Should double yellows be scrapped so?

Taxis can’t ply for hire at a place other than an appointed stand. Should that law be scrapped because it doesn’t address harm reduction.

There are loads of example of offences that are not on the statute books to prevent harm.

If road safety was the main concern for government then we wouldn’t have the farcical situation of habitual drink drivers receiving token driving ban after ban after ban, as is so often seen in the courts and written in the papers.

Undercover Elephant

tomasrojo wrote: »

The 70s campaign in the Netherlands was fairly aggressive, or at least would be portrayed as such in the media here. And the cycling campaigns here, as far as I know, aspire to be as inclusive as possible, with the aspiration of a built environment that's suitable for all ages and abilities.

The Dutch cycling crowd can still be quite aggressive. If you slight an Amsterdam cyclist, even one who's doing something stupid, expect to be on the end of a rant in which you get called a farmer. The subtext being, you've no idea how a city works.

buffalo

RobbieMD wrote: »

But then commercial vehicles can legally park for loading/unloading on double yellows for up to 30 minutes.

Can they? I mean, I've seen them do it a lot, but are they doing it legally?

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

To a degree I can see the benefit of having an insurance policy for adult cyclists. Mine is only a couple hundred a year and peace of mind.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you have a minute to share details please.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

If you behave ignorantly nobody will support better infrastructure. When cycling is only represented by angry men on Twitter (or Boards) attacking people who have different opinions then good luck with anything. Best countries for cycling have people of all abilities who cycle together the current discussion in Ireland is off putting and mostly about winning arguments. And it's spoiling things for everyone.

The learnings from the water charges and repeal campaigns contradict your suggestion. Remember all those seasoned political heads warming the 'shrill' young ladies about the need to be nice and friendly and bring people with you? Fortunately, most of the campaigners ignored the advice and ran an in-your-face no-holds-barred evidence based campaign. And they won.

I have a feeling that a lot of the advice to be nice and friendly is coming from an era of "women, know your place" and is not relevant.

magicbastarder

a couple of hundred a year for a cycling policy sounds weird. my comprehensive car policy is about €500 i think.

Stark

Cycling Ireland membership is 50 a year and includes a pretty nice personal insurance package (you're covered for injuries sustained during commuting for example). Not sure if they cover the bike itself but that's normally covered under home contents insurance.

CramCycle

Stark wrote: »

Cycling Ireland membership is 50 a year and includes a pretty nice personal insurance package (you're covered for injuries sustained during commuting for example). Not sure if they cover the bike itself but that's normally covered under home contents insurance.

I don't think the CI insurance covers as much as you think. Even the broker at the AGM.wasnt completely sure. If you crash during your commute for example, be sure that you were training and not just commuting.

Stark

Fair enough. It's been a few years since I was a member. Not too surprised to hear they've had to cut back a bit in today's insurance market.

RobbieMD

buffalo wrote: »

Can they? I mean, I've seen them do it a lot, but are they doing it legally?

Yeah they’re legally correct to do so as long as they’re loading/unloading, and don’t exceed 30minutes

It’s in S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.

buffalo

RobbieMD wrote: »

Yeah they’re legally correct to do so as long as they’re loading/unloading, and don’t exceed 30minutes

It’s in S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.

The only reference in that statue to 30 minutes is:

(2) A goods vehicle being used for loading or unloading shall not be parked in a loading bay for a period exceeding 30 minutes.

Double yellow lines do not mark a loading bay.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

a couple of hundred a year for a cycling policy sounds weird. my comprehensive car policy is about €500 i think.

My policy is just a bit over €200 pa. I don’t have the exact figure to hand. It covers more than just having the bike on my home insurance policy anyway. The policies are weak on injury payments but my health insurance is quite good and hopefully would see me not out of pocket. My car insurance is pretty much around €500. My health insurance is a little over €4K for the family

RobbieMD

buffalo wrote: »

The only reference in that statue to 30 minutes is:



Double yellow lines do not mark a loading bay.

Have a look at section 5. The part that deals with exemptions. Specifically section 5 (2)(e). It exempts goods vehicle for the offence under 36 (2)(a) which is the offence of parking on double yellows

buffalo

RobbieMD wrote: »

Have a look at section 5. The part that deals with exemptions. Specifically section 5 (2)(e). It exempts goods vehicle for the offence under 36 (2)(a) which is the offence of parking on double yellows

gah, why do they have '30 minutes' and 'thirty minutes'. Thanks, seems bizarre not to have loading bays where needed instead of double yellows.

So if I pull up at the newsagent to buy my newspaper and some chocolate (goods), and I'm only in there for 25 minutes, that's fine?

RobbieMD

buffalo wrote: »

gah, why do they have '30 minutes' and 'thirty minutes'. Thanks, seems bizarre not to have loading bays where needed instead of double yellows.

So if I pull up at the newsagent to buy my newspaper and some chocolate (goods), and I'm only in there for 25 minutes, that's fine?

You’d be fine if your vehicle was classed as a goods vehicle. This is indicated on the tax disc that ought to be displayed