Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

HivemindXX

bilbot79 wrote: »

That level of awareness is definitely something that needs worked on however, I do think the reaction from the cycling world to some statements in an entertainment scenario is too exaggerated. It would different if these comments were made by the department for transport or something like that but to think that you can gag the population from saying 'cyclists annoy me' is naive at best and I don't think it's an assault on cyclists either. If it came from government yes but from the late late no.

Go easy on me folks, it's important to allow people to express their opinions.

Don't worry, people are certainly allowed to express their opinions. Don't be fooled by other posters. Making inflammatory comments and then crying about censorship and bullying and mischaracterising responses when they are disagreed with is straight out of a playbook.

I disagree with what you are saying about this not mattering because it comes from RTE. This is just as bad as if it was from the DoT in my opinion. The DoT may have the power to impose restrictive legislation and put up lots of "NO CYCLING" signs but at least they can be held accountable unlike "it's just a bit of a laugh" RTE. This is the national broadcaster, regardless of RTEs attempts to weasel out of responsibility this allows people with a certain mindset to think their anti-cyclist agenda is acceptable. Psychic Maura's claim of what cyclists are thinking when they are in your way will affect what people think and do when they are held up. If you bumped in to someone in a bar how would you like it if someone started whispering in their ear about how you did it deliberately to piss them off, they can tell by the little smirk they (and only they) saw? I have had motorists scream abuse out the window at me for being in their way, even though I was on my own and they had plenty of space to pass. I have had motorists pass me too close and then swerve in front of me even though that put them closer to the verge than to the centre line. Segments like this empower those sort of people when what we should be doing is telling those people in no uncertain terms that they are the arrogant ones and that their behaviour has no place in our society. What this segment does is tell them that what they are doing is ok (because they only do it to 'arrogant' cyclists) and that the majority of people agree with them.

Lemming

Chiparus wrote: »

A few years ago a journo suggested placing piano wire acress cycle tracks -

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-smug-and-deserves-to-be-decapitated-5k877kjgfpk

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He's a very well established political commentator in the UK, and former Tory MP. Roughly equivalent to Ivan Yates coming out and suggesting that a particular group of people need to be decapitated.

And it appears in a mainstream broadsheet newspaper.

Just to add something to these comments; in and around the same time as the call to piano-wire cyclists appeared in a mainstream, UK broadsheet newspaper penned by a former politician, there were a spate of such incidents occurring - if I recall rightly - around Essex & Brighton where cyclists collided with wire strung across cycle paths. Now just to be clear here, we're talking about purpose-made cycle paths, not off-road trails or anything, but council-built, tarmac dedicated cycle paths. So there has - in the past - been a direct correlation between hate sh1te spouted in the media and violence carried out by members of the general populace against cyclists.

There have also been on-and-off periodic episodes of off-road "traps" being built to do everything from take mountain bikers off their bikes via branches to the wheels, wire to the neck, to impaling them on giant punji stake traps (I'm really not making that last one up ... ). Indeed there was even such an incident in Wicklow about two years ago with barbed wire strung across a trail to catch unwary mountain bikers.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Just to add something to these comments; in and around the same time as the call to piano-wire cyclists appeared in a mainstream, UK broadsheet newspaper penned by a former politician, there were a spate of such incidents occurring - if I recall rightly - around Essex & Brighton where cyclists collided with wire strung across cycle paths. Now just to be clear here, we're talking about purpose-made cycle paths, not off-road trails or anything, but council-built, tarmac dedicated cycle paths. So there has - in the past - been a direct correlation between hate sh1te spouted in the media and violence carried out by members of the general populace against cyclists.

There have also been on-and-off periodic episodes of off-road "traps" being built to do everything from take mountain bikers off their bikes via branches to the wheels, wire to the neck, to impaling them on giant punji stake traps (I'm really not making that last one up ... ). Indeed there was even such an incident in Wicklow about two years ago with barbed wire strung across a trail to catch unwary mountain bikers.

For balance, it should also be noted there was absolutely no suggestion of any violence towards any group of cyclists on the Late Late, unlike in the article.

AndrewJRenko

Basil3 wrote: »

For balance, it should also be noted there was absolutely no suggestion of any violence towards any group of cyclists on the Late Late, unlike in the article.

For balance, it should be noted that there was considerable online commentary on the issue that DID incite violence against cyclists.

From https://www.facebook.com/irishtimes/posts/10155354104906158

Run them over
Yeah, farm animals are useful

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For balance, it should be noted that there was considerable online commentary on the issue that DID incite violence against cyclists.

From https://www.facebook.com/irishtimes/posts/10155354104906158

So you're now saying random comments by idiots on Facebook is the same thing as if RTE directly incited violence?

As I've said, if you can't be rational and balanced, then Joe Public will struggle to get on side with you.

In my opinion, the letter sent by the cycling group to RTE is far too unbalanced. I'd only say one of their 5 highlighted points is valid. It would have also been sensible to say that they also don't condone cyclists doing anything illegal, such as riding 3 or 4 abreast.

Weepsie

Basil3 wrote: »

So you're now saying random comments by idiots on Facebook is the same thing as if RTE directly incited violence?

As I've said, if you can't be rational and balanced, then Joe Public will struggle to get on side with you.

In my opinion, the letter sent by the cycling group to RTE is far too unbalanced. I'd only say one of their 5 highlighted points is valid. It would have also been sensible to say that they also don't condone cyclists doing anything illegal, such as riding 3 or 4 abreast.

They explicity highlight how many abreast is legal. It's not unbalanced given that it's a complaint to a completely idiotic segment in a well past its date show that shut be put out to pasture.

He has just proved that the segment has fanned flames of public opinion.

AndrewJRenko

Basil3 wrote: »

So you're now saying random comments by idiots on Facebook is the same thing as if RTE directly incited violence?

As I've said, if you can't be rational and balanced, then Joe Public will struggle to get on side with you.

Where exactly did I say 'the same thing'? And you want me to be rational and balanced? Sheesh.

It's not the same thing. But it is connected. This kind of casual hatred empowers and enables hate speech that threatens violence. And violent hate speech empowers and enable violence.

And at risk of going off topic, were the water charges campaigners rational and balanced? Were the repeal campaigners rational and balanced? We're long past rational and balanced.

Chiparus

Lemming wrote: »

Just to add something to these comments; in and around the same time as the call to piano-wire cyclists appeared in a mainstream, UK broadsheet newspaper penned by a former politician, there were a spate of such incidents occurring - if I recall rightly - around Essex & Brighton where cyclists collided with wire strung across cycle paths. Now just to be clear here, we're talking about purpose-made cycle paths, not off-road trails or anything, but council-built, tarmac dedicated cycle paths. So there has - in the past - been a direct correlation between hate sh1te spouted in the media and violence carried out by members of the general populace against cyclists.

There have also been on-and-off periodic episodes of off-road "traps" being built to do everything from take mountain bikers off their bikes via branches to the wheels, wire to the neck, to impaling them on giant punji stake traps (I'm really not making that last one up ... ). Indeed there was even such an incident in Wicklow about two years ago with barbed wire strung across a trail to catch unwary mountain bikers.

Happens in the UK as well.

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/cyclist-posts-photo-of-injury-sustained-from-barbed-wire-strung-across-trail/

Lemming

Chiparus wrote: »

Happens in the UK as well.

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/cyclist-posts-photo-of-injury-sustained-from-barbed-wire-strung-across-trail/

Has happened up and down the UK although a lot of it - or at least those incidents that make it into the media in general - seems to be focused around the greater London region & the south of England. Mate of mine up here in Yorkshire got taken off his bike by wire whilst out mountain biking a few years ago. Broke his collar-bone. I've routinely encountered branches dragged across trails but most are easily roll-able or can be bunny-hopped so rate higher on the bemusement scale than the annoyance scale. But there's plenty of crazy going around all over. A mountain biker was found dead with bullet wounds suffered under "suspicious circumstances" whilst out riding in California (I think it was; west coast USA anyway) a few months ago, and a woman in Canada was prosecuted last year for being filmed at night dragging branches & creating dangerous obstacles at a bike park of all places; like she should even have been there in the first place.

My earlier point, , is that hostile sh1te appearing in print or broadcast across the mainstream media gets wide exposure. Direct correlation can be seen shortly after any such release on official page comments by the general public which can - and has in the past - act as a confirmation bias for anyone who has either anger management issues or is a bit unhinged to act upon what they now perceive as tacit approval of their thoughts of hurting cyclists. To take it away from cycling for a moment; look at Brexit. It has given confirmation bias to a lot of people who would otherwise have kept their thoughts to themselves that public displays of racism & bigotry are now acceptable fare, and in more extreme cases, that murdering "foreigners" or anyone seen to be defending foreigners is perfectly acceptable. It may seem extreme to compare Brexit & hate towards cyclists - I'm not as a matter of note - but what is similar is the way in which the media has affected public opinion and in some cases spurred members of the public into illegal acts ranging from the farcical to the extreme in their desire to "punish" their target-group/object of hate.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The point is absolutely not that cyclists are in the same marginalized position as Jews or black people or travelers. It would be daft to suggest this, and it's a complete straw man to make out that this is the argument cyclists are making.

In fact, it's the all-or-nothing argument that is farcical. What, you think you're being discriminated against in the same way Jews have historically been? Well, you're obviously not; therefore, this is harmless banter.

I mean, redheaded children, for example (children!) were being mocked in the media a few years ago in the UK and then the not unreasonable subsequent offence of the children and their parents was then mocked in turn. It's not a historical worst, but the type of people who enjoy this type of thing are pretty dark-hearted.

magicbastarder

if you think someone is trolling, there's a 'report post' button to deal with that. several posts deleted, no further discussion re trolling in thread please

have2flushtwice

It really annoys me when cyclists are two abrest. They are depending on other road users to be aware of their position. We all know that drivers don't pay 100 percent attention all the time.

Putting yourself out there at the mercy of a force of a vehicle is ridiculous, while thinking I got my gear on it's not my fault if they don't see me. Then go crying when they get into an accident that's perceived to be the drivers fault.

ednwireland

have2flushtwice wrote: »

It really annoys me when cyclists are two abrest. They are depending on other road users to be aware of their position. We all know that drivers don't pay 100 percent attention all the time.

Putting yourself out there at the mercy of a force of a vehicle is ridiculous, while thinking I got my gear on it's not my fault if they don't see me. Then go crying when they get into an accident that's perceived to be the drivers fault.

errrrrrr. If you hit a cyclist because you don't See them its called driving without due care and attention. Most deaths this year have been in daylight.

have2flushtwice

ednwireland wrote: »

errrrrrr. If you hit a cyclist because you don't See them its called driving without due care and attention. Most deaths this year have been in daylight.

Correct. So get in and don't get hit. All.well and good saying yiur entitled to the road, but when your in a wheelchair or out of work , it will still be the motorist fault, but the cyclist is the one in pain. So why the heck do cyclist continue to cycle two abrest outside the hard shoulder?

Chips Lovell

Please read the charter before posting further.

magicbastarder

i must admit to being in two minds about some of the responses to the late late segment myself - there's a balance to be struck between robust defence and picking the right battles; too easy for someone to turn around in this context and respond with 'hey, why are you so sensitive, it was just a joke' (which is a classic passive-aggressive technique).

i wonder if maura derrane is cursing whoever came up with the idea; it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that she was fed her lines, and - typical irish anecdote here - i know someone who has dealt with her on several occasions in a professional context and said she's dead sound.

martingriff

have2flushtwice wrote: »

It really annoys me when cyclists are two abrest. They are depending on other road users to be aware of their position. We all know that drivers don't pay 100 percent attention all the time.

Putting yourself out there at the mercy of a force of a vehicle is ridiculous, while thinking I got my gear on it's not my fault if they don't see me. Then go crying when they get into an accident that's perceived to be the drivers fault.

Sorry but no you are wrong. They are perfectly legal to go 2 abreast and you and me a driver's should be always 100% be aware of our sourounding ( so should cyclist and pedestrians). If they get in an accident and it is because the driver was not paying attention guess what IT IS THERE FAULT not the cyclist unless they were erratic and weaving. There is a lot I have problems with some cyclists (red light ?bad illumination, helmets) but 2 abreast is not 1. I be more peeved if I had to pass 6 cyclist single then 3 pairs.

I remember when I was doing my test 19 odd years ago and my instructor said how much should you keep from a cyclist I said 6 foot as that was how much I felt they would fall if they did as I was passing them. He went good

have2flushtwice

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry but no you are wrong. They are perfectly legal to go 2 abreast and you and me a driver's should be always 100% be aware of our sourounding ( so should cyclist and pedestrians). If they get in an accident and it is because the driver was not paying attention guess what IT IS THERE FAULT not the cyclist unless they were erratic and weaving. There is a lot I have problems with some cyclists (red light ?bad illumination, helmets) but 2 abreast is not 1. I be more peeved if I had to pass 6 cyclist single then 3 pairs.

I remember when I was doing my test 19 odd years ago and my instructor said how much should you keep from a cyclist I said 6 foot as that was how much I felt they would fall if they did as I was passing them. He went good

I agree with you, perfectly legal to cycle abrest, and yes the driver should be aware, but the driver is not always aware, and of the two parties it's more likely that the cyclist will fare worse should a collision take place.

Lemming

have2flushtwice wrote: »

I agree with you, perfectly legal to cycle abrest, and yes the driver should be aware, but the driver is not always aware, and of the two parties it's more likely that the cyclist will fare worse should a collision take place.

And how do you suggest changing driver attitude and/or awareness? The whole point of two-abreast is to disabuse drivers of any notion of "ah shurrre I'll just squeeze past here at 80kph" when there isn't really the space to be carrying out an overtake, never mind potentially running another road-user off the road as a result of your actions.

Would you, as a driver, drive into a rubbish skip outside someone's house on the road? Or fencing erected by work-men because they've dug up the side of the road? Or a tractor? Or a bus? Or a parked car? Or would you, as a driver, have a good think to yourself about the fact that there's an obstacle or slow(er) moving vehicle on the road in front of you and whether or not you can overtake without colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

Now, considering your answer to the above, what would be your reaction to a driver who did in fact drive into the back of one of the above mentioned items? Would you lay the blame for the driver's lack of attention (because that's what you would call it) or on the parked or slow(er)-moving object?

Consider your answers, and then consider them in light of what you've said about cyclists.

Edit: The same-old, same-old clearly isn't working and the matter is only getting worse. So general attitudes and awareness need to be tackled. Look at drink-driving and the efforts taken to halt it. If I think back to the 1980s, there was an air of it being considered socially tolerated (if not accepted) in the larger urban areas, and generally accepted as a thing in rural areas. Now look at where we are. None of that happened because the population just woke up and decided that drink-driving was really, really bad. It took real effort, and enforcement, to adjust driver attitudes and awareness to what and how much they were drinking before climbing behind the wheel.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

When cyclist will have a history of discrimination, holocaust, slavery then start with this nonsense but otherwise cop on. You are not a victim of historical persecution, you are middle age, financially comfortable white man. You wonder why people roll their eyes when you think systemic discrimination is the same as someone not being nice to you on tv once.

I shouldn't give out about a person with a national platform saying that kids who are bullied are just soft and they should get over it, it will toughen them up. You know, because its not quite as bad as that time a load of protestants down in Cork. FFS.

have2flushtwice wrote: »

I agree with you, perfectly legal to cycle abrest, and yes the driver should be aware, but the driver is not always aware, and of the two parties it's more likely that the cyclist will fare worse should a collision take place.

But is it not more likely that a collision will occur if they are going single file, encouraging people who don't know the reason for going two abreast to think they will get by. Those who have looked at this in more detail often struggle to comprehend why people give out and don't understand they are doubling the overtaking distance, encouraging dangerous overtaking and that typically, the space needed for two cyclists riding abreast, is the space you should give a single cyclist.

AndrewJRenko

have2flushtwice wrote: »

I agree with you, perfectly legal to cycle abrest, and yes the driver should be aware, but the driver is not always aware, and of the two parties it's more likely that the cyclist will fare worse should a collision take place.

Presumably you believe that drivers shouldn't drive on those roads at all because of the risk of being ploughed into from behind by some idiot not paying attention?

John_Rambo

have2flushtwice wrote: »

I agree with you, perfectly legal to cycle abrest, and yes the driver should be aware, but the driver is not always aware, and of the two parties it's more likely that the cyclist will fare worse should a collision take place.

Yeah, I would have been of the same opinion a long time ago for a very short period, but I've changed my attitude.

On a personal level all of the close dangerous passes I've had are from drivers they were perfectly aware that I was there except on one occasion when the driver veered in to the cycle lane to get a better view of what was slowing the traffic.

The rest of the close passes were malicious or "lesson teaching" but mostly due to carelessness, speed misjudgement, lazy driving and an impatient attitude of "getting in front" of the cyclist by any means.

I've also come across and witnessed (on the bike and in the car) another sinister cohort of drivers that will drive as if they were an "unaware driver" like the one's you describe. This lot will drive dangerously close to cyclists in the pretense that they're unaware of the cyclist and have the "law" on their side because the cyclists are (in their opinion or distorted perception of the rules of the road) are not behaving like they'd like them to be.

have2flushtwice

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Presumably you believe that drivers shouldn't drive on those roads at all because of the risk of being ploughed into from behind by some idiot not paying attention?

You have presumed incorrectly. Please read my previous post. There's no need to explain again.

Weepsie

If a driver isn't capable of being aware all of the time, they shouldn't be driving. Simple

There's been some laughable excuses in court regarding motor accidents, but I would even the most lenient judge would throw the book at someone whose reasoning was they were not aware.

flatface

have2flushtwice wrote: »

It really annoys me when cyclists are two abrest. They are depending on other road users to be aware of their position. We all know that drivers don't pay 100 percent attention all the time.

Putting yourself out there at the mercy of a force of a vehicle is ridiculous, while thinking I got my gear on it's not my fault if they don't see me. Then go crying when they get into an accident that's perceived to be the drivers fault.

Why the victim blaming? I find this attitude baffling. Given cyclists 2 abreast and inattentive motorists in your first paragraph, and you are annoyed by the cyclists?

AndrewJRenko

have2flushtwice wrote: »

You have presumed incorrectly. Please read my previous post. There's no need to explain again.

What's the difference? A motorist can get serious injury if shunted from behind, particularly whiplash. If the risk of injury is so serious to justify keeping cyclists off the road, then why not motorists too?

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's the difference? A motorist can get serious injury if shunted from behind, particularly whiplash. If the risk of injury is so serious to justify keeping cyclists off the road, then why not motorists too?

+1 in fact there's a very good case for making helmets compulsory for motorists as head injuries are very common in road traffic accidents!

Chiparus

07Lapierre wrote: »

+1 in fact there's a very good case for making helmets compulsory for motorists as head injuries are very common in road traffic accidents!

Like in Motorsports?:)

rubadub

Chiparus wrote: »

Like in Motorsports?:)

Motorists & their passengers are said to hugely benefit if wearing open face cycling style helmets, not full face rally style ones. They obviously might worry about "looking cool" if wearing full face ones.

I think the stats I read were that it would be 7 times the benefit for people in cars to wear cycling style helmets than people on bikes wearing one. Not sure how that was figured out.

One thing I am sure of, I have NEVER heard of a coroner or doctor asked if a motor vehicle passenger or pedestrian would suffered a head injury would have still been alive or survived if they had been wearing a cycling style helmet (or any style of helmet). Something a lot appear to be questioned about with people on bicycles.

I still wonder if they do become popular then in 30 years time will we see people pronouncing people who do not wear them to be "mad", even though they themselves will likely have been in motor vehicles without them for decades, even though they were readily available.

Grassey

rubadub wrote: »

I still wonder if they do become popular then in 30 years time will we see people pronouncing people who do not wear them to be "mad", even though they themselves will likely have been in motor vehicles without them for decades, even though they were readily available.

The Future is NOW!!!

The box reads:
"You have made a sound decision to purchase your Davies, Craig Motoring Helmet. Wear it and don’t feel self-conscious. Driving even for the most proficient is dangerous.

Ultimately, motoring helmets will be commonplace, but in the meantime, you will be a leader whilst those who may consider your good sense misplaced, will follow."

From the instruction manual we can learn these important tips:
"Davies, Craig recommends you wear your Motoring Helmet at all times when motoring but particularly at the following, documented high-risk times:

- After consuming any alcohol.
- When other drivers are likely to have consumed alcohol especially 4:00PM to 2:00AM Fridays and Saturdays.
- After dark and during twilight.
- In rain or when the roads are wet.
- During long trips when you may become tired.
- Within five kilometres of your home or destination.
- Christmas, Easter and long weekends.
- If you are aged under 25 or over 60."

Or rather we are now 30 years post release of this and they still haven't caught on....