Journalism and cycling

Miklos

Weepsie wrote: »

He only got a 15 month driving ban. That's ludicrous

Hopefully that'll see him out.

hesker

I found the wording used by the judge to be spot on. Can only hope some motorists get to read it and take note.

buffalo

Hanley’s lawyer, Stephanie Varle, said her client had type 2 diabetes and experienced a sugar low during the incident, which could make his behaviour “unpredictable”. It was a “moment of madness”, she said.

Is this a realistic defence CramCycle? Or just some distraction to throw at the judge?

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

Is this a realistic defence CramCycle? Or just some distraction to throw at the judge?

Its BS. Type 2s rarely experience hypoglycaemia, more an issue for type 1s. For example, if I don't test my blood sugars before driving and every 45 minutes while driving, my insurance is null and void.

Maybe a possiblilty if he was type 1, or a type 2 on insulin/certain meds but highly unlikely but I would err on the side of a distraction for the judge.

Stark

I have to imagine admitting to driving while hypoglycaemic to the point where your behaviour has become aggressive and erratic doesn't paint a good picture. Extra reason for being disqualified from driving until you've proven the condition is under control I would have thought. Something similar happened to a friend of mine with a different condition on two occasions and both occasions resulted in him being banned from driving from 12 months so he could prove that the new medication was working effectively for at least a year.

(Similar as in reduced consciousness, not similar as in assaulted someone for the record).

CramCycle

Stark wrote: »

I have to imagine admitting to driving while hypoglycaemic to the point where your behaviour has become aggressive and erratic doesn't paint a good picture. Extra reason for being disqualified from driving until you've proven the condition is under control I would have thought. Something similar happened to a friend of mine with a different condition on two occasions and both occasions resulted in him being banned from driving from 12 months so he could prove that the new medication was working effectively for at least a year.

(Similar as in reduced consciousness, not similar as in assaulted someone for the record).

I think the issue is that the guy was type 2, not type 1. Hypoglycaemia is not impossible but highly unlikely. It was a lazy ploy by the solicitor and if the judge had known more (not his fault) he would have hauled the solicitor and client over the coals for BS.

xckjoo

IMO he should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. Could have killed that kid

CramCycle

ABC7 New York have a story up about a car mounting a pavement and killing a 10yo boy. Story thinks that the child being on a phone is an important factor. I really don't know what to say when a car mounts a pavement, kills a child and then hits a building and somehow, the child being on a phone is an important factor.

Poor child, and the parents, it is terrifying.

magicbastarder

i saw a report (i think on twitter) that this trope of 'distracted pedestrian' being a cause of fatalities does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. must try to find it.

buffalo

CramCycle wrote: »

ABC7 New York have a story up about a car mounting a pavement and killing a 10yo boy. Story thinks that the child being on a phone is an important factor. I really don't know what to say when a car mounts a pavement, kills a child and then hits a building and somehow, the child being on a phone is an important factor.

Poor child, and the parents, it is terrifying.

Right up there with the guy wearing earphones who was hit by a crashing helicopter.

Stark

CramCycle wrote: »

ABC7 New York have a story up about a car mounting a pavement and killing a 10yo boy. Story thinks that the child being on a phone is an important factor. I really don't know what to say when a car mounts a pavement, kills a child and then hits a building and somehow, the child being on a phone is an important factor.

Was the building wearing hi-viz?

xckjoo

CramCycle wrote: »

ABC7 New York have a story up about a car mounting a pavement and killing a 10yo boy. Story thinks that the child being on a phone is an important factor. I really don't know what to say when a car mounts a pavement, kills a child and then hits a building and somehow, the child being on a phone is an important factor.

Poor child, and the parents, it is terrifying.

Is there a link to this? I had a look and can find a few articles related to a 10yr old being hit by a car, but none mention him on a phone.

mr spuckler

xckjoo wrote: »

Is there a link to this? I had a look and can find a few articles related to a 10yr old being hit by a car, but none mention him on a phone.

I saw it on Twitter this morning as well, will see if I can find it again.

CramCycle

xckjoo wrote: »

Is there a link to this? I had a look and can find a few articles related to a 10yr old being hit by a car, but none mention him on a phone.

it was in the video of the news report, not in the printed article. https://abc7ny.com/out-of-control-car-jumps-brooklyn-sidewalk-kills-10-year-old-boy/5529113/

"lost in his cell phone", which is just irrelevant.

Is it as bad as people make out on twitter, I don't know, a kid is dead, not being on his phone would not have made a difference, the concern is that some people will make it out that if the kid waiting for a bus had not had his phone, something would have went differently. I just don't agree. Although I don't think the reporter is trying to make that link, more that he was innocent but others hear it as scape goating. I wrote my post based on written reports, but all I can find is the video now.

Grassey

Green Party: we'll increase property tax by 15% to make Cork the e-bike capital of Europe

Seth Brundle

Grassey wrote: »

Green Party: we'll increase property tax by 15% to make Cork the e-bike capital of Europe

Because the public hadn't enough anger towards cyclists

work

Grassey wrote: »

Green Party: we'll increase property tax by 15% to make Cork the e-bike capital of Europe

I wonder who makes this stuff up. "Green party tries to shoot themselves in the face " would be a good headline.... they could just say from general taxation or just do it but saying exactly how they will hurt all the car drivers is not smart.

magicbastarder

or else you could phrase that as 'green party proposes green solution which will piss off voters who were unlikely to vote green anyway'.

JMcL

Morning Ireland just had a decent piece about An Taisce calling for efforts to increase the number of girls cycling to school. It's down to 1 in 10 cycling today from 1 in 4 in 1996. They had interviews with a few girls in a Dublin school that actually do cycle as well. Don't have a link yet, but I'd imagine it'll be available later on - I'll update if i get a chance.. It started about 45 minutes into the show

magicbastarder

i think it's 1 in 10 cycle to school overall, not 1 in 10 girls. IIRC in the last census, only 800 girls were recorded as cycling to school.

plodder

I heard it and thought it was rather negative. Anecdotally, some schools have a much higher percentage than 1 in 10. Why don't they talk to them and see what works? I suspect (non) uniform policies have a lot to do with it. Again anecdote, but this morning, I noticed a fair number of the girls cycling didn't have helmets. Helmets aren't required. If girls prefer to cycle without them, they should be allowed and encouraged. Put effort into teaching safe cycling practices instead.

magicbastarder

plodder wrote: »

Anecdotally, some schools have a much higher percentage than 1 in 10.

i would guess a lot of that could be simple geography. my niece goes to a school where - last time i asked, several years ago - only one girl in the whole school was cycling in.
they have a uniform, but it's also not a particularly easy school to get to.

Macy0161

My own daughter is itching to cycle to school, but even at approaching 11, isn't happy with the bike parking facilities and the inability of the school to stop "the boys messing with the bikes and scooters"

plodder

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would guess a lot of that could be simple geography. my niece goes to a school where - last time i asked, several years ago - only one girl in the whole school was cycling in.
they have a uniform, but it's also not a particularly easy school to get to.

I'm sure geography is important, but the school I'm talking about (in D3) wouldn't be that different geographically to the girls school in D4 that was mentioned in the report.

Tombo2001

,,,,,

Tombo2001

JMcL wrote: »

Morning Ireland just had a decent piece about An Taisce calling for efforts to increase the number of girls cycling to school. It's down to 1 in 10 cycling today from 1 in 4 in 1996. They had interviews with a few girls in a Dublin school that actually do cycle as well. Don't have a link yet, but I'd imagine it'll be available later on - I'll update if i get a chance.. It started about 45 minutes into the show

Funny enough - 1 in 10 sounds about right; 1 in 4 seems extraordinarily high for 1996 though I really don't know....

However
- Back in 1996 it was absolutely a-ok for kids to cycle on the pavement, or through parks. Nowadays thanks to negative media campaigns amongst other things, there is bound to be some driver or pedestrian shouting abuse at them along the way if they do same. And cycling on the roads really is just not an option for kids.

An additional factor - bike theft is a real big issue these days, and a lot of kids have really nice bikes that they get for Christmas, and don't want to risk them in a the crummy bike lock facilities that a lot of schools have.

buffalo

JMcL wrote: »

Morning Ireland just had a decent piece about An Taisce calling for efforts to increase the number of girls cycling to school. It's down to 1 in 10 cycling today from 1 in 4 in 1996. They had interviews with a few girls in a Dublin school that actually do cycle as well. Don't have a link yet, but I'd imagine it'll be available later on - I'll update if i get a chance.. It started about 45 minutes into the show

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0918/1076789-girls-cycling/

magicbastarder

aha - it's one in ten students who cycle are female; not that one in ten female students cycle. that makes more sense.

rubadub

JMcL wrote: »

It's down to 1 in 10 cycling today from 1 in 4 in 1996.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think it's 1 in 10 cycle to school overall, not 1 in 10 girls.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Funny enough - 1 in 10 sounds about right; 1 in 4 seems extraordinarily high for 1996 though I really don't know.

It is of those who cycle to school (very few), only 1 in 10 are girls. I see extremely few teenage girls cycling to school on my route, which passes a school, there are less walking these days too. I see an increase in primary schoolkids cycling. Very few males kids are cycling too, I cycle partially on my old route to secondary school and it used to be packed with lads.

Tombo2001

rubadub wrote: »

It is of those who cycle to school (very few), only 1 in 10 are girls. I see extremely few teenage girls cycling to school on my route, which passes a school, there are less walking these days too. I see an increase in primary schoolkids cycling. Very few males kids are cycling too, I cycle partially on my old route to secondary school and it used to be packed with lads.

In primary school I would say its more like 50/ 50.

In secondary school - there definitely seems to be a thing of teenage boys and their bikes - they all have the same type, big flash mountain bike from Trek or Giant, bright colours, that they can barely fit on to begin with.

Doesn't seem to be the same thing for girls - will go off piste now slightly and say as a parent of boys and girls that they types of things that are marketed to boys are much more associated with sport and activity and/or computer games; whereas the types of things that are marketed to girls or much more to do with appearance. Part of that is in the mindset of parents also.