Journalism and cycling

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really, yes, they are.

I am a cyclist, I have nothing to do with them or their campaign. Therefore they do not, as an organisation, represent nor are they ALL cyclists. Alot of my views on road safety in regards safety would flow contrary to theirs. I appreciate what they are doing and attempting to do but I do not agree with it.

Everyone in that organisation may be (and most likely are) cyclists, this does not mean they are all cyclists, but in fact that they all are cyclists.

I hope I have the words the right way round. I know what you are saying, not even sure how this began as I thought everyone understood what you meant, when they didn't I thought my explanation might explain to you why some people disagree with your point.

Every cyclist is not a member or interested in DCC. Therefore DCC is not all cyclists. All DCC members are (I think but could be wrong) cyclists, therefore all of DCC are cyclists but not all cyclists are DCC.

To think I actually hate pedantry, I may even be completely wrong.

mcgratheoin

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Banning hate speech is simply banning free speech; it's a negative for society both short and long term.

A bit black and white (and an American-centric view of free speech) - have a read of this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-europe-can-teach-america-about-free-speech/537186/

tomasrojo

plodder wrote: »

I'm just saying from the point of view of the Gardai, when they come across the scene of an RTA, they are usually more cautious about saying what happened, because criminal charges might result from it.

I completely understand the point you're making, and I do know that they are careful to avoid language that imputes blame. But unless the car has motivation and consciousness there is no blame involved in simply stating that a car struck several pedestrians. It could even have rolled down a hilll with no driver in it. It would be different if they said "a speeding motorist struck several blameless pedestrians". Not that I'm saying that's what happened because I don't know; but I do know that a car struck several pedestrians, because there were plenty of witnesses.

Reading between the lines, I'd actually take from that, the opposite meaning from what's being implied here.

Just to be clear, I'm not implying anything about the Gardaí or the Journal or the driver or the pedestrians. I'm just taking issue with the notion, implied by the phrasing, that it will become clearer as the investigation progresses whether the car struck several pedestrians. No it won't, because the Gardaí already know -- to the utmost extent possible within the boundaries of epistemology -- that the car struck several pedestrians.

mcgratheoin

CramCycle wrote: »

I may even be completely wrong.

Completely wrong or wrong completely????

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

I am a cyclist, I have nothing to do with them or their campaign. Therefore they do not, as an organisation, represent nor are they ALL cyclists. Alot of my views on road safety in regards safety would flow contrary to theirs. I appreciate what they are doing and attempting to do but I do not agree with it.

Everyone in that organisation may be (and most likely are) cyclists, this does not mean they are all cyclists, but in fact that they all are cyclists.

I hope I have the words the right way round. I know what you are saying, not even sure how this began as I thought everyone understood what you meant, when they didn't I thought my explanation might explain to you why some people disagree with your point.

Every cyclist is not a member or interested in DCC. Therefore DCC is not all cyclists. All DCC members are (I think but could be wrong) cyclists, therefore all of DCC are cyclists but not all cyclists are DCC.

To think I actually hate pedantry, I may even be completely wrong.

Thanks for the clarification, but the 'all' thing is a distraction. The original comment was "They are not necessarily even cyclists!" - to which I responded that they are cyclists.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that DCC represents all cyclists, which is a totally different issue. How could you even define 'all cyclists'? If I cycled to school 30 years ago but never since, am I a 'cyclist'?

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, but the 'all' thing is a distraction. The original comment was "They are not necessarily even cyclists!" - to which I responded that they are cyclists.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that DCC represents all cyclists, which is a totally different issue. How could you even define 'all cyclists'? If I cycled to school 30 years ago but never since, am I a 'cyclist'?

I was of course being facetious or flippant, I am not sure which, but I certainly was not being serious.

Arcade_Tryer

mcgratheoin wrote: »

A bit black and white (and an American-centric view of free speech) - have a read of this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-europe-can-teach-america-about-free-speech/537186/

The article differentiates between private and state intervention; an extremely significant point. The day the state starts prosecuting people for hate speech as described in other posts, it the same day it gives intellectual cover, and precedence, for potential future Governments to do likewise; except it might not be what you understand hate speech to be at all. That is the point. And it was understood by the founding fathers.

Felexicon

CramCycle wrote: »

Everyone in that organisation may be (and most likely are) cyclists, this does not mean they are all cyclists, but in fact that they all are cyclists.

Jesus Wept

CramCycle

Felexicon wrote: »

Jesus Wept

Indeed, don't get me started on inappropriate capitals.

Cork for example

Chuchote

http://www.modacitylife.com/blog/i-am-not-a-cyclist

Please allow me to get something off my chest: I despise it when someone refers to me as a ‘cyclist’. The phrase ‘avid cyclist’ is even worse. I am no more an avid cyclist than I am an avid walker or avid eater. I am someone who often uses a bicycle, simply because it is the most civilized, efficient, enjoyable, and economical way to get around my city. Though that is dependent on the weather, cargo, timing, and nature of the trip I am taking. As well as possessing a bike, I also own a share in the Modo car co-op, a Compass Card, and many pairs of shoes. The bicycle is merely a means to an end. It is a tool which does not convert me into a cyclist, any more than vacuuming my apartment turns me into a janitor, or brushing my teeth transforms me into a dental hygienist.
(snip)

magicbastarder

methinks he doth protest too much. i'm happy to be referred to as a cyclist - in the correct context, even when i'm not on the bike. i've just been out finishing a bowl, and would not claim that you should only call me 'an amateur woodturner' when i am actually turning wood.

Chuchote

He's exaggerating a bit, but I don't know that I'd call a kid who scoots to school a scooter, or someone who rides his motorbike to work a motorcyclist, etc.

magicbastarder

he writes a blog about cycling (from what i can see), which kinda places him outside the category of 'casual cyclist'.

tomasrojo

The Guardian journalist Peter Walker has had a book about cycling as transport published recently, and was interviewed on the Bike Show on Resonance FM. He mentioned that he's often challenged for using the term "cyclist", and says that, while he understands the reasoning behind "person on a bike" and so on, it's just too awkward to keep using circumlocutions and paraphrases.

Arcade_Tryer

The term cyclist is useful. A person performing the movement of pushing a bicycle being referred to as a cyclist provides plenty of potentially pertinent details with way less words and effort.

Cyclists, motorists and pedestrians are all human beings at the end of the day however. I think. I hope.

Pinch Flat

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/farmers-with-sticks-attack-cyclists-during-road-race-36112213.html

Can we officially say that cycling hatred has reached epidemic levels in the UK?

ThisRegard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/farmers-with-sticks-attack-cyclists-during-road-race-36112213.html

Can we officially say that cycling hatred has reached epidemic levels in the UK?

I read that story and it had me thinking it wasn't because they hated cyclists, more so a protest (however misguided) against road closures causing issues in accessing their land. Would they have done the same if it was a car rally (well maybe not poking sticks into car wheels), I'd like to think they would.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

I read that story and it had me thinking it wasn't because they hated cyclists, more so a protest (however misguided) against road closures causing issues in accessing their land. Would they have done the same if it was a car rally (well maybe not poking sticks into car wheels), I'd like to think they would.

How long does the cycle go on and how many people are cycling through that it stops them crossing the road for two days???

ThisRegard

Chuchote wrote: »

How long does the cycle go on and how many people are cycling through that it stops them crossing the road for two days???

That's something you'll have to ask them, the organisers and the local council. If it's a 1 day event I don't know why they'd close it for more than the day itself.

Kav0777

Chuchote wrote: »

How long does the cycle go on and how many people are cycling through that it stops them crossing the road for two days???

Just had a look on the "Tour o the Borders" sportive website that section of road was estimated to be closed from 6.40am until 11.00am last Sunday Morning.

Also the news report says the Sportive is a "74-mile race" which attracts over 2,000 competitors where as the website says

But remember – it’s not a race!

Edit to say: looks like a really good event to be fair

rubadub

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The original comment was "They are not necessarily even cyclists!" - to which I responded that they are cyclists.

these are the actual comments

rubadub wrote: »

it is "The Dublin Cycling Campaign", other press releases said "cycling campaigners". They are not necessarily even cyclists!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh yes they are.

Which to me meant you were saying it is neccessary to be/identify as a cyclist to be a member of the group. Which is wrong.

Chuchote

https://physiciansfortheenvironment.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/a-national-active-transportation-strategy-can-reduce-chronic-diseases-health-care-costs/?platform=hootsuite

A National Active Transportation Strategy can Reduce Chronic Diseases & Health Care Costs


Eight national health organizations have sent a letter to the (Canadian) Federal Minister of Health asking her to invest in the development of a National Active Transportation Strategy. Signatories to the joint letter include Heart & Stroke, Diabetes Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, The Canadian Lung Association, Asthma Canada, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, Upstream, and CAPE.

The joint letter outlines a powerful public health and financial case for active transportation. Chronic diseases consume 67 per cent of the health care budget in Canada. These diseases cost Canadians $190 billion annually: about $65 billion in treatment and $135 billion in lost productivity. Further, chronic disease rates are increasing rapidly, by about 14 per cent a year. As a result, health care costs threaten to overwhelm provincial budgets across the country.

Fortunately, active transportation can help stem the tide. Physical activity reduces the risk of over 25 chronic health conditions, including coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, breast cancer, colon cancer, Type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis. It also benefits mental health and arthritis. Unfortunately, fewer than one in five Canadian adults get the 150 minutes of physical activity needed to achieve health benefits and fewer than one in 10 Canadian children get the 60 minutes a day of physical activity needed for healthy growth and development. Changes to the built environment and other measures can increase physical activity, significantly reducing chronic diseases and their costs. One study found that the risk of premature death from all causes can be decreased by 28 per cent among people who cycle three hours per week and by 22 per cent among people who walk 29 minutes per day, seven days a week.

(snip)

Chuchote

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/road-rage-driver-17-followed-cyclist-and-stole-his-bicycle-1.3218391

Road-rage driver (17) followed cyclist and stole his bicycle
Incident took place in west Dublin after cyclist allegedly made hand gesture at driver

A Dublin teenager drove after a cyclist who made an offensive hand gesture at him and stole his bicycle, a court has heard.
The 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty at the Dublin Children’s Court to dangerous driving in a manner including speeding and theft of the man’s bicycle in connection with the incident in Clondalkin last March.
The court heard it happened following an earlier incident in which the cyclist allegedly made a gesture to the teenager who was in car.
After the man on the bike raised his middle finger at him, the youth started driving behind him in an “intimidating manner”, the court was told.
The cyclist became nervous and went on to a footpath. The teenager also drove the car on to the path and followed him for a distance.
The man on the bike turned into a housing estate to hide and was followed.
The teenager stole his bicycle and left the scene but was arrested within minutes, the court heard.
The youth, who was accompanied to his hearing by his mother and solicitor, had no prior criminal convictions.

No mention at all of what kind of driving the "hand gesture" might have responded to, but lots and lots of mentions of the gesture. The piece says the driver brought his mammy to court, but doesn't mention if the cyclist he intimidated was in court to give witness.

Weepsie

Chuchote wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/road-rage-driver-17-followed-cyclist-and-stole-his-bicycle-1.3218391



No mention at all of what kind of driving the "hand gesture" might have responded to, but lots and lots of mentions of the gesture. The piece says the driver brought his mammy to court, but doesn't mention if the cyclist he intimidated was in court to give witness.

I wonder if he was driving unaccompanied too, as I imagine he was a learner driver. Should also be given a nice lengthy driving ban.

AndrewJRenko

rubadub wrote: »

Which to me meant you were saying it is neccessary to be/identify as a cyclist to be a member of the group. Which is wrong.

Except that's not what I said. I didn't mention 'necessary' and I didn't mention 'identifying'.

You said 'they're not necessarily even cyclists' and I said 'Oh yes they are' - no more and no less. To be absolutely clear, I meant "Oh yes, they are cyclists" - just in case anyone is genuinely confused.

rubadub

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You said 'they're not necessarily even cyclists' and I said 'Oh yes they are' - no more and no less.

to which I replied

rubadub wrote: »

You are saying I am 100% wrong? you really thing they are all necessarily cyclists, or are you saying they are all cyclists, -not the same thing.

You sounded like you were saying I was wrong. I would continue to state they are not necessarily even cyclists. You still seem to be completely missing my original point about the headline... I think you're the only one confused about it though, so that's fine by me.

AndrewJRenko

rubadub wrote: »

to which I replied

You sounded like you were saying I was wrong. I would continue to state they are not necessarily even cyclists. You still seem to be completely missing my original point about the headline... I think you're the only one confused about it though, so that's fine by me.

They are cyclists, though - you do get that?

schemingbohemia

Any chance of you two cutting this rubbish out? Sorry for back-seat modding, but I keep coming in here expecting to see something interesting rather than you two bickering.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: I think we can leave the whether they are or are not all cyclists, be it as a representative of every cyclist or just that all members use bikes aside.

magicbastarder

actually yeah - guys - please arrange via PMs to have a pint together. far easier to sort this out that way, easier to deal with the nuances.