Journalism and cycling

Pinch Flat

Weepsie wrote: »

There's a thread over in motoring started by a regular anti cycling ranter about possible measures to reduce speed limits on motorways. All fail to see that possible positives ie a possible 15% savings in emmisions, fuel consumption and all that goes with that. I can only imagine what they'd think about this proposal.

It seems almost a badge of honour on the motoring forum to boast about the highest speed people have achieved on a motorway - some claim well over 200 kph - and it's considered abnormal to drive at or out about the legal limit.

Yet a few cyclists breaking a red light and every one gets their knickers in a twist

I can't work it out Joe

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

When I used to drive, I went back and forth to Galway a few times a year. At first I'd get up to 120 and stay there when possible, but I always arrived pretty stressed. So I eased back to 90ish. Not only did I arrive more relaxed, the journey also, mysteriously, took the same length of time.

i think my attitude is largely informed by my experience of driving a bit around ireland in the pre-motorways days (late 90s); i used to work in an IT company which had a contract with a large semi-state which meant i could be in portlaoise one day and cork two days later.

anyway, i realised quite quickly (again, on the N roads) that how long the journey took was based on how slow you went on the slow bits rather than how fast you went on the fast bits.

Macy0161

average_runner wrote: »

Once your in the slow Lane and not driving in the right hand lanes unless your overtaking, best of luck.

No slow lane on a motorway. There's a driving lane, and then one (or more) over taking lane.

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

Once your in the slow Lane and not driving in the right hand lanes unless your overtaking, best of luck.

The "slow" lane, for those who want to obey the speed limit.

TheChizler

whiskeyman wrote: »

Even the headline on the print copy reads as 'now we have to put up with this crap because of feckin cyclists??'

Is that correct where they say it's only being considered for roads with a greater than 50 km/h limit?

buffalo

TheChizler wrote: »

Is that correct where they say it's only being considered for roads with a greater than 50 km/h limit?

From elsewhere:

the minimum passing distance would be 1.5 metres on roads with a speed limit of 50km/h or higher, and 1 metre for roads with a speed limit below that.

Chuchote

Foamers are out in force in the comments:

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/motorists-now-face-80-fine-and-penalty-points-for-driving-too-close-to-cyclists-35471559.html

TheChizler

buffalo wrote: »

From elsewhere:

Cheers for that. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the majority of drivers knew the difference though...

Pinch Flat

Chuchote wrote: »

Foamers are out in force in the comments:

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/motorists-now-face-80-fine-and-penalty-points-for-driving-too-close-to-cyclists-35471559.html

Most of them probably stuck in traffic and replying :pac:

I've tried to counter a few of the arguments in the comments section. My comments are not being posted - they're set out with facts and not breaking any of their posting rules.

Sounds like the indo wants to whip this one up. What a rag.

ThisRegard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The minimum passing story has gotten front page headlines on the indo to ensure it causes maximum frothing at the mouth from motorists. George Hook is probably being treated for an aneurism as we speak.

I caught a bit of him yesterday and they were talking about pedestrian crossings and some lady was in talking about motorists just ploughing on tree, but of course Hook preceded the piece saying he thought cyclists were a bigger problem. He's just a troll.

Then Newstalk were running ads yesterday for the breakfast show with that clown Williams asking do cyclists need better watching out for, or are they a scourge?

FFS, I was going to contact the station about it but thought better of it, it's exactly a rise they're looking for.

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

The "slow" lane, for those who want to obey the speed limit.

No for those not overtaking. You can break the law in the slow Lane if going faster than the speed limit.

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Sounds like the indo wants to whip this one up. What a rag.

I hate to say it but they are all rags nowadays, the odd respite with a bit of proper journalism form one or two but in general, I wouldn't use it for training puppies lest it affect their IQs.

ThisRegard

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have had people actually get annoyed with me when i tell them my typical speed on a motorway is 90km/h.

There's a rabid clique that would want you banned from the roads for that, they seem to think that if you don't drive every road at the speed limit then you're incapable of driving.

average_runner wrote: »

Once your in the slow Lane and not driving in the right hand lanes unless your overtaking, best of luck.

Are you being serious?

Chuchote

CramCycle wrote: »

I hate to say it but they are all rags nowadays, the odd respite with a bit of proper journalism form one or two but in general, I wouldn't use it for training puppies lest it affect their IQs.

Not all rags - the Examiner (as well as running excellent investigative journalism from Mick Clifford) has a quiet, unsensational report of the proposed law:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/fine-gael-bill-proposes-penalties-for-motorists-who-drive-too-close-to-cyclists-778294.html

rubadub

We already have laws against dangerous driving, I wonder what these people who consider this radical think should be the miminum passing distance before it would fall under the current laws. Maybe they think it only counts if you actually knock the person off.

Sort of reminds me in a way of these "bin it" chewing gum campaigns, I remember hearing people saying "see it's illegal to throw chewing gum on the ground now" -now?!?!

magicbastarder

sean o'rourke on radio 1 is discussing minimum passing distance now.

check_six

Heard some of this on the radio this morning. I kind of assumed that close passing was an offence to begin with and they are just now proposing that there should be penalty points in addition. Am I getting mixed up? Was the 1.5m passing distance just a recommendation form the Rules of the Road or was it a law already?

Chuchote

I'd imagine that this will be as vigilantly policed as the law against using a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle… :eek:

JazzyJ

Jesus, that comments section though. I always instantaneously regret clicking into it's and the journal's section.

Pinch Flat

JazzyJ wrote: »

Jesus, that comments section though. I always instantaneously regret clicking into it's and the journal's section.

Its a magnet for borderline psychopaths. Thankfully, a lot of them limit themselves to the keyboard. Experiences in the real world differ a lot.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

sean o'rourke on radio 1 is discussing minimum passing distance now.

the very first text he read out was absolutely chock full of idiocy and whataboutery. 'are they going to ban cyclists doing a close pass on my car?' sort of stuff.

AndrewJRenko

whiskeyman wrote: »

Imagine if the journo was a cyclist and put 'Finally' instead of the word 'Now' :pac:

Little things like that affect the thought of the reader though. It's all nudge theory. Just feeding further into directing ire towards cyclists.

Why not let him know how you feel?

https://twitter.com/CormacMcQuinn/status/834319887996686342

ThisRegard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why not let him know how you feel?

https://twitter.com/CormacMcQuinn/status/834319887996686342

The Indo, probably until they're faced with court or financial penalties, won't make such corrections. They ran with a story over 2 days a couple of years ago with one of the main elements, the location, incorrect. I both mailed the editor and responded to their link to the story they posted on Facebook and they never acknowledged me or corrected the story.

rubadub

Chuchote wrote: »

I'd imagine that this will be as vigilantly policed as the law against using a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle… :eek:

While it may not be 100% enforced I think it willl certainly cause a big reduction in deliberate "punishment passes".

I have seen a huge reduction in people using mobiles in cars since that was introduced.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why not let him know how you feel?

https://twitter.com/CormacMcQuinn/status/834319887996686342

the journalist may not have written the headline. could have been a sub.

Chuchote

rubadub wrote: »

While it may not be 100% enforced I think it willl certainly cause a big reduction in deliberate "punishment passes".

I have seen a huge reduction in people using mobiles in cars since that was introduced.

I haven't. I saw a reduction when it was policed, but as soon as the gardaí slackened off, people started texting and playing games and checking social media again while in their cars. Just look into every car at the traffic lights you pass and you'll find that the people supposedly in charge of these tons of steel are playing with their smartphones. And don't say "Oh, well, at traffic lights" - they're driving, they're in charge of a vehicle, they should not have a phone in their hand.

RobertFoster

rubadub wrote: »

We already have laws against dangerous driving, I wonder what these people who consider this radical think should be the miminum passing distance before it would fall under the current laws. Maybe they think it only counts if you actually knock the person off.

Sort of reminds me in a way of these "bin it" chewing gum campaigns, I remember hearing people saying "see it's illegal to throw chewing gum on the ground now" -now?!?!

When I see signs at the side of the road saying "Dumping Strictly Prohibited" I wonder if there are people who think, "Oh, I guess I'll find a ditch without a sign to chuck this fridge. That should be OK."

CramCycle

Heard Paul Williams on Newstalk this morning. I moved jobs and house recently so had not listened to the morning show in awhile. Awful, awful radio host. I go against the grain and say he is an awful, awful crime journalist as well. Having lived near some of the families he wrote about in the past, it is fair to say they loved him and none of his stories even came close to reality, if anything, it could be said he unwittingly worked for them.

He clarified his anti cyclist rant with, I am a part time cyclist (then went onto say he drove everywhere).

Very much the epitome of the phrase, give me a picture and I'll give you a story type of person.

average_runner

ThisRegard wrote: »

There's a rabid clique that would want you banned from the roads for that, they seem to think that if you don't drive every road at the speed limit then you're incapable of driving.



Are you being serious?

It's just taking the piss, same way the over taking lane was nickname the fast lane.

Easily upset.

ThisRegard

average_runner wrote: »

It's just taking the piss, same way the over taking lane was nickname the fast lane.

Easily upset.

I wasn't upset, it was a question asking if you were serious or taking the piss, I genuinely didn't know.