Journalism and cycling

Macy0161

Again, it's the reluctance of the Gardai/ State to use technology that exists, and the RSA to really push for it. Uploading of camera footage doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, restricted to cyclists. And wouldn't necessarily require a Garda to make the final decision on prosecution (as they don't in other cases, which the DPP make the call).

Gardai are only interested in camera footage to support other "serious" crimes.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

never really got to the usual chaotic levels last week, as people were taking extended annual leave.

Colleges back today.

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Usual comments on the IT FB page.

nearly 200 now. i suspect that if the IT could get even 10% of the people who comment on these articles, to actually subscribe to the paper, their financial woes would end.
i'm not wading in this time. though i will mention here that it's obvious why cyclists get knocked down by motorists - if so many motorists cannot see what the bleedin' point is about an article about punishment passes, they're not going to be able to see past the end of their nose.

Seth Brundle

Not much of a response to the IT article on Twitter - just this...

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

nearly 200 now. i suspect that if the IT could get even 10% of the people who comment on these articles, to actually subscribe to the paper, their financial woes would end.
i'm not wading in this time. though i will mention here that it's obvious why cyclists get knocked down by motorists - if so many motorists cannot see what the bleedin' point is about an article about punishment passes, they're not going to be able to see past the end of their nose.

Agreed, a lot of the commentators wouldn't fit the catchment of the Irish Times reader. Just a lot of disgruntled cagers who see cyclists as an easy vent ,whereas the reality is them commuting form their Semi-D in their single occupant car multiplied by a few hundred thousand is the real source of their woes.

Yeah nothing like an article about cyclists in mid-January to trigger motoring Joe Public.

Duckjob

Cycling being "discussed" on Ciara Kelly Lunchtime on NT.

As usual, Voice being given to the usual uninformed leprechaun nonsense about helmets, red light breaking etc

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

Colleges back today.

Thankfully UCD is another week, I dread their return on my commute.

rubadub

Still comment on facebook under the impression that there are distances stated in the new law, due to that weasel Shane Ross who deliberately set out to deceive people.

Even in the IT article the cyclist says

“Under new legislation it’s an offence to cause an inconvenience or endanger a cyclist when overtaking. The first time he passed me it was an inconvenience, the second time I was endangered.”

as though it was not the case before.

The law was originally

(1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

“(1) (a) A driver shall not overtake or attempt to overtake if to do so
would endanger or cause inconvenience to a pedal cyclist.
(b) A driver shall not overtake or attempt to overtake if to do so
would endanger or cause inconvenience to a person other
than a pedal cyclist.”.

so the only change is to split them out for the purpose of fines. The fine has increased from €80 to a whopping €120 (Its a €150 fine if you throw an apple butt from your car).

The points remain the same, 3 points. I had read several articles which suggested the points increased.

Seth Brundle

Bloody Cyclists again...

https://twitter.com/MatteoDonneo/status/1216708358889230338

plodder

Pat Kenny did an interview this morning with the CEO of Bleeper bike, who are introducing e-bikes to their fleet in Dublin soon.

Seth Brundle

plodder wrote: »

Pat Kenny did an interview this morning with the CEO of Bleeper bike, who are introducing e-bikes to their fleet in Dublin soon.

Was it a good interview or the usual anti-cyclist nonsense from Kenny?

Pinch Flat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bloody Cyclists again...

https://twitter.com/MatteoDonneo/status/1216708358889230338

There's probably two cyclists travelling two abreast up Dame Street causing this :rolleyes:

Miklos

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Was it a good interview or the usual anti-cyclist nonsense from Kenny?

It wasn't too bad. He did try shoehorn in the helmet/hiviz thing but yourman was smart enough to dodge it.

plodder

Miklos wrote: »

It wasn't too bad. He did try shoehorn in the helmet/hiviz thing but yourman was smart enough to dodge it.

I think Pat was asking a list of prepared questions. You could tell it wasn't going to be too controversial. Though 'yourman' did defer to the RSA on the helmet/hiviz question, but Pat was really just wondering if Bleeper would provide them, which they aren't obviously.

It's going to be interesting to see how this works. As the chap said, while the bikes cost 3 times as much as pushbikes, they won't be able to charge 3 times the current charge for casual use because they see themselves as competing with buses/Luas and an 8km say journey into the city can't be much more than 2-3 euro as a result.

Weepsie

Not so much about cycling, but a long read about Strava in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jan/14/kudos-leaderboards-qoms-how-fitness-app-strava-became-a-religion

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

Not so much about cycling, but a long read about Strava in the Guardian

Interesting read. I've never set up the Strava Segment stuff to my watch or bike computer. However, what I do use them for is post spin assessment - quite often when my RPE has been high on a spin, the evidence is there (positive or negative) in the times.

I had summit, but cancelled it in protest when they cut Relive from using my data. This year I've set everything as private by default, and then changing activities (like outdoor spins) after the fact. I'm finding I visit the app far less, which is less time staring at my phone, which is a good thing imo.

The Fit File podcast has discussed Strava a few times in recent months, as to how they're going to make any money. If anything, as a recording device, it's going backwards by removing sensor supports. What does it really do, that say Garmin Connect doesn't in terms of analysis?

Seth Brundle

Dropbox to Support Dublin Cycling Campaign

On Thursday 23rd January 2020, Dropbox will formally launch its initiative to support everyday cycling in Ireland at an event in its European Headquarters in Hatch Street in Dublin. Dropbox has agreed to support the work of the Dublin Cycling Campaign and to help it develop as a stronger cycling advocacy force.

Dropbox is the first company in Ireland to formally support the work of Dublin Cycling Campaign as Business Members. This follows its pioneering support for other progressive causes over the years such as the Marriage Equality and Pride campaigns.

...

https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/dropbox-support-dublin-cycling-campaign

micar

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Dropbox to Support Dublin Cycling Campaign

https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/dropbox-support-dublin-cycling-campaign

Dropbox just happen to be in the same building I work in.

Wonder if my employer will get involved

Seth Brundle

The thick eejit :rolleyes:

Police officer blames cyclist for taxi driver close pass – road safety experts (including another traffic officer) disagree

Breezer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The thick eejit :rolleyes:

Police officer blames cyclist for taxi driver close pass – road safety experts (including another traffic officer) disagree

And relative to a lot of the stuff posted here and ignored by Gardaí, it wasn’t even that bad a pass.

Any chance PC Mark Hodson would like to come and give a talk to our boys and girls in blue?

Seth Brundle

The law is an ass

edit: according to one twitter response, the driver had bull bars fitted (to a feckin Berlingo ) which are illegal but again nothing happens

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1217527671179161602

rubadub

^^ very good point in one of the replies

Missed opportunity to check the drivers phone and see if there was activity immediately before he hit the cyclist - should be a routine check for incidents like this

Harrybelafonte

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The law is an ass

edit: according to one twitter response, the driver had bull bars fitted (to a feckin Berlingo ) which are illegal but again nothing happens

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1217527671179161602

Hi, AFAIK, they're not outright illegal but are regulated.

Seth Brundle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Hi, AFAIK, they're not outright illegal but are regulated.

I mnote the following on the RSA site:

Once vehicles are in service they must adhere to the requirements set out in the Road Traffic Construction, Equipment & Use of Vehicles regulations S.I. No. 190 of 1963. Article 32 states that vehicles ‘shall not have any inessential object in a position where it is likely to strike any person involved in a collision with the vehicle, unless injury is not likely to be caused by reason of the projection of the object’.
Article 96 states that ‘every vehicle while used in a public place shall be such, and so maintained and used, that no danger is likely to be caused to any person’.
Owners or drivers of vehicles breaching these regulations may be found guilty of an offence under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended.

https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Vehicle_Parts/FAQs%20on%20Bull%20Bars%20on%20Vehicles.pdf

I'll hazard a guess that they are not essential on a Citroen Berlingo

CramCycle

They are illegal on new vehicles in the EU since mid last year AFAIK but before that, so long as they were in the manufacturers specs, they were not illegal. Cost you a pretty penny on your insurance if people are to be believed as they would cause more damage in an accident but my daughters boyfriend has them on his Dacia Duster and he said his insurance was not more than expected. Not a fan of them myself

RobbieMD

rubadub wrote: »

^^ very good point in one of the replies

I imagine that would be a nightmare to try to legislate for. It would have to grant powers to the Gardai to demand pin codes or require the person to unlock it, and powers to search the vehicle and person. But then could they read your personal texts etc. If someone was using a phone they could deny ownership of it. There is no requirement to keep a register of phones, would the Gardai have to prove you owned a phone? Or if other people were in the car then perhaps the phone was used by someone else. To try examine if emails were read or videos watched or apps being used, I imagine the phone would have to be seized, and even then I’m not sure if that information would be available. Also the Garda computer crime unit is running on a 4yr backlog. Most driving offences would be statute barred at that stage. It seems massively cumbersome to legislate for, when better alternatives exist.

Driving on the phone should be an immediate 3 month disqualification with the penalty doubling for subsequent offences. At the minute the penalty is so low that people will gladly risk it. Or do what New South Wales did and introduce mobile phone detection cameras. But we prefer to do things on the cheap and not invest in smart technology. It’s infuriating the amount of drivers not just talking on their phones but the ones with their heads buried on Facebook or whatever.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

I imagine that would be a nightmare to try to legislate for. It would have to grant powers to the Gardai to demand pin codes or require the person to unlock it, and powers to search the vehicle and person. But then could they read your personal texts etc. If someone was using a phone they could deny ownership of it. There is no requirement to keep a register of phones, would the Gardai have to prove you owned a phone? Or if other people were in the car then perhaps the phone was used by someone else. To try examine if emails were read or videos watched or apps being used, I imagine the phone would have to be seized, and even then I’m not sure if that information would be available. Also the Garda computer crime unit is running on a 4yr backlog. Most driving offences would be statute barred at that stage. It seems massively cumbersome to legislate for, when better alternatives exist.

Driving on the phone should be an immediate 3 month disqualification with the penalty doubling for subsequent offences. At the minute the penalty is so low that people will gladly risk it. Or do what New South Wales did and introduce mobile phone detection cameras. But we prefer to do things on the cheap and not invest in smart technology. It’s infuriating the amount of drivers not just talking on their phones but the ones with their heads buried on Facebook or whatever.

There have been quite a few cases in the UK where phone use was detected immediately before fatal crashes, including the preacher who was downloading a sermon on his phone, and the truck driver who killed a mum and three kids while changing his music choices;

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-34540151

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/lorry-driver-who-killed-family-while-using-phone-gets-10-years-1.2849455

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/wrongway-driver-who-killed-safety-patrol-cyclist-while-on-phone-jailed-a4252011.html

https://www.irishnews.com/news/2019/06/27/news/driver-who-knocked-down-and-killed-man-while-using-mobile-phone-escapes-jail-1650793/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6306195/driver-who-killed-pedestrian-sacked-from-job/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-49987479

I don't recall any such clear-cut cases over here, though it's not unreasonable to suggest that phone use is very likely to have been a factor in serious collisions.

We need to find a way of proving this.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

phone use was detected immediately before fatal crashes, including the preacher who was downloading a sermon on his phone

not quite 'immediately before'

The court heard Noble later told a colleague he had been reaching across his cab to play a sermon on his mobile phone just before hitting the cyclist

magicbastarder

aha - i read your post as the *detection* of the phone use was immediately before the crash, rather than the phone use itself was immediately before the crash.

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

Driving on the phone should be an immediate 3 month disqualification with the penalty doubling for subsequent offences. At the minute the penalty is so low that people will gladly risk it. Or do what New South Wales did and introduce mobile phone detection cameras. But we prefer to do things on the cheap and not invest in smart technology. It’s infuriating the amount of drivers not just talking on their phones but the ones with their heads buried on Facebook or whatever.

100% agree, make it like the untaxed Diesel fine, that its unlikely you will be caught but if you are, you will feel it. In fact, hand over fines directly to Revenue, I guarantee you they would find a way to enforce payment very quickly. Seize and crush the car plus the 3 months.
I went the long way home the other day and the Drummartin link road was actually worse than the N11 for phone use. I let a roar at one who was merging over and they genuinely looked confused and went back to their phone. A friend of my daughters failed their test (and rightly so) because they thought it was alright to answer their phone mid test because the car was not moving. Some people, I just despair. Same driver then broke a red, right beside a Garda car who had his blue lights flashing to pull someone else in, lights went red and she actually started moving, went through the red and overtook the Garda car who was pulling in the other car. It is insanity that someone like that is let out of the house alone, let alone drive a car.

Harrybelafonte

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I mnote the following on the RSA site:

https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Vehicle_Parts/FAQs%20on%20Bull%20Bars%20on%20Vehicles.pdf

I'll hazard a guess that they are not essential on a Citroen Berlingo

Maybe, maybe not, depends on what the van is used for and whether it passed the CRVT with them on. But as I said, they're not outright illegal, but are regulated. I was simply clarifying that. I do not believe myself they are essential for almost any road vehicle in Ireland unless dedicated to off-road use and have never had them on 4x4s or vans I have owned.