Journalism and cycling

Pinch Flat

cjt156 wrote: »

I remember that morning; the fog can be like a wall in Kildare alright. But surely the hint to slow down is when you literally cannot see, regardless of any warning signs.

Yep, there are people out there so stupid that they have to be told by someone to slow down. Personal responsibility is a trait that's pretty thin on the ground in this country.

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

In relation to so many things. This panic over waste charges, reduce your waste and it won't be a problem. No, we get environmental terrorists dumping their waste all over the countryside.

It is comical, most electrical retailers will take some of the goods you see dumped in Wicklow. The sheer effort it must take to haul it up there rather than into Harvey Norman or Power City is immense.

ThisRegard

And I've been seeing what is basically sorted and bagged green waste dumped in ditches. FFS, the bring centres will take them off you for free.

greenspurs

mr spuckler wrote: »

incredibly low numbers, given what we all see every day

WOW.... i would have thought there would be more than that !!! :eek:

Why would there be a reduction in offences in December?

*Dangerous driving - December is 2nd lowest for the year
*Road transport offences (??) - December is lowest (1/3 of the highest!)
*Seatbelts - lowest of the year
*Mobile phones - lowest of the year
*Speeding - lowest of the year (nearly half of the highest)

And hardly surprising, but still amazing that
Driving while intoxicated - Highest of the year !

Is that motorists being aware of an increase in Garda on the roads?, and adjusting their driving to be more careful etc..

ED E

Detection rates and offence rates are not the same thing.

mr spuckler

greenspurs wrote: »

Is that motorists being aware of an increase in Garda on the roads?, and adjusting their driving to be more careful etc..

probably less cars on the roads in December due to nights out etc (apart from the drink drivers :pac:) and a reallocation of resources towards breath checks i'd imagine.

HivemindXX

Regarding people doing 120kph in heavy fog. People who want to speed tell themselves, and everyone else, that it is the people who are going too slowly who are the real danger on the roads. This seeps in to the public consciousness to the extent where people are more worried about going too slowly than about whether they can see. To be fair there is some point to this since there is a chance you will be hit from behind by some asshole going 140kph in poor visibility. However the solution is clearly not for everyone to drive at full speed regardless of the conditions and hope for the best.

Regarding mobile phone usage, this seems to be just like drink driving was 30 years ago. Everyone agrees in theory that people who are completely plastered shouldn't be driving, but equally everyone think their own habit of having a couple of pints is no big deal. Thus we see people saying that their habit of texting at the lights is nothing wrong. People driving around corners spending half their time looking down at their phones who think they are not dangerous drivers. I'm sure the people I've seen jerk the wheel when they realise they have drifted in to oncoming traffic (ie: me) write off their dangerous driving as a 'momentary lapse of concentration' and do not put the blame where it really belongs, their decision to time share their attention between driving their car and using their phone.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DaleCalkins/status/879768319045193728

"Collides with".

As discussed upthread IIRC.

Also:
https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/880003433574522880

The page he links to has this:

Participants who were asked the “smashed” question thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the “hit” question. The participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph), followed by “collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted” (31.8 mph) in descending order.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

So I guess the use of the "the bike collided" not only (arguably) imputes (some) blame, it definitely puts forward the idea that the bike was going at speed.

I'm not sure where I stand on this personally. Except that "the cyclist was injured in a bicycle-car collision" seems pretty straightforward, if a standard phrasing is required. (And it even hints at the driverless car trope, so beloved of news reports.)

greenspurs

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not sure where I stand on this personally. Except that "the cyclist was injured in a bicycle-car collision" seems pretty straightforward, if a standard phrasing is required.

and maybe " the driver of the car was unhurt in the collision" ......... :rolleyes:

RobertFoster

greenspurs wrote: »

and maybe " the driver of the car was unhurt in the collision" ......... :rolleyes:

"The driver, encased in over 1500kg of metal, plastic, and glass, was unhurt in the collision with the 100kg blob of carbon fibre and soft tissue."

Arcade_Tryer

I alluded to the above in another thread recently regarding a report of an accident.

Drivers and cyclists are the same i.e. humans. Motorised vehicles and bicycles are most certainly not the same. You may think this is quite an obvious distinction, but it's amazing how often it is glossed over in the whole "driver v cyclists" debates. The often vitriolic nature of such discourse clouds both reason and logic in relation to the absolute chasm between the two modes of transport, and how drivers are literally in control of a killing machine.

tomasrojo

greenspurs wrote: »

and maybe " the driver of the car was unhurt in the collision" .........

And perhaps an appeal to think about how badly affected the driver is by what his car has done.

Chuchote

I don't think I've ever read a report of a cyclist knocking someone over that said how terribly upset the cyclist was, as fatal drivers are often reported to be (not that reports of cyclists knocking people over are common anyway).

tomasrojo

Actually, one case where a cyclist killed a pedestrian (courier going the wrong way down a one-way street, startled a pedestrian, who staggered backwards, tripped over a kerb and hit his head) resulted in the endless demonisation of the cyclist who had a complete breakdown. And he was genuinely remorseful to begin with. Stayed to help the man, although the reports had him crashing into the man (not true) and then fleeing the scene (not true).

That's my understanding anyway. Please correct me if I've got that wrong.

greenspurs

tomasrojo wrote: »

And perhaps an appeal to think about how badly affected the driver is by what his car has done.

If they thought about how affected they would be before they checked that text, or tweet, or tried to squeeze between the cyclist and the oncoming car....

magicbastarder

the last fatality a cyclist was responsible for was a sorry tale - the cyclist ended up suffering from depression and developing a drug habit afterwards, iirc.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

the last fatality a cyclist was responsible for was a sorry tale - the cyclist ended up suffering from depression and developing a drug habit afterwards, iirc.

That's the one I'm thinking of.

Chuchote

The RSA just tweeted: "Make a conscious effort to look out for cyclists on our roads. Please #SlowDown." along with a video showing correct driving. Fairplay to them!

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

The RSA just tweeted: "Make a conscious effort to look out for cyclists on our roads. Please #SlowDown." along with a video showing correct driving. Fairplay to them!

here it is

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/879690531017605120

mr spuckler

Deleted User wrote: »

here it is

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/879690531017605120

love the creepy look from the lady cyclist at 43s :pac:

Arcade_Tryer

Twitter? Really?

Facebook would be more beneficial than Twitter if social media is the medium.

A full scale tv campaign should have been rolled out earlier this year concerning cyclist safety. The RSA have dropped the ball, or been dropped, on this occasion.

Eamonnator

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Twitter? Really?

Facebook would be more beneficial than Twitter if social media is the medium.

A full scale tv campaign should have been rolled out earlier this year concerning cyclist safety. The RSA have dropped the ball, or been dropped, on this occasion.

That ad has been on TV for months, shows how much good that did.

rubadub

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Facebook would be more beneficial than Twitter if social media is the medium.

They have a facebook page. Yesterday I see they posted an interesting 360 degree video thing

Experience the vulnerability of cyclists in 360º. Always ensure you leave adequate space (1.5m) when overtaking cyclists.

https://www.facebook.com/RSAIreland/videos/1753030511393254/

Pinch Flat

rubadub wrote: »

They have a facebook page. Yesterday I see they posted an interesting 360 degree video thing



https://www.facebook.com/RSAIreland/videos/1753030511393254/

Top comment:

"Little sympathy for cyclists on the road. In my experience they have no respect for car drivers. Cycling out beside the white line, 3 and 4 abreast. Holding up traffic and causing drivers to pass dangerously to get past. I must add I'm talking about country roads not city streets."

Jesus wept.

magicbastarder

https://www.facebook.com/stayinaliveat1.5/photos/a.507185152678839.1073741829.491406574256697/1490623977668280/?type=3&hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Annie get your Run

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Top comment:

"Little sympathy for cyclists on the road. In my experience they have no respect for car drivers. Cycling out beside the white line, 3 and 4 abreast. Holding up traffic and causing drivers to pass dangerously to get past. I must add I'm talking about country roads not city streets."

Jesus wept.

Started reading those comments yesterday and closed straight out of it. No sign of the RSA correcting the commentators which would be the right thing to do here rather than post & run!

Arcade_Tryer

Eamonnator wrote: »

That ad has been on TV for months, shows how much good that did.

I watched the ad. It's about 5 years old as I remember it was filmed in the West of Ireland. Surely a new campaign could have been launched, perhaps a bit more hard-hitting as well as educational. Can imagine a lot of people, including myself, turning the channel as soon as that ad comes on.

I love Sean nos

Every road user also has a right to share the road equally with others

I hate this "share the road" nonsense. It's not a sharing relationship. Some road users use very little space (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) and others use almost all of it by driving around for the most part alongside an empty armchair, with a sofa in the back.

All people using bicycles are asking for is (a) not to be killed and (b) not to be threatened with being killed (close pass).

It's that simple.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/stayinaliveat1.5/photos/a.507185152678839.1073741829.491406574256697/1490623977668280/?type=3&hc_ref=NEWSFEED

just gettign back to this - i can kinda see why he went for such a sturm und drang approach; it's a column written for the mail, and mail readers probably want something which doesn't do nuance.

I love Sean nos

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

And I hope he gets a long sentence where he can contemplate his misplaced loyalty at leisure.

I don't.

Every weekend he should be made ride a bicycle around country roads while randomly selected members of the public are plied with alcohol and then tasked with driving at him in state-supplied landcruisers.