Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

Sleeper12

Andy Magic wrote:

I think we could end up going round in circles here and I've better things to be doing on my Saturday night, but your answer that you have seen it states a lot and you have clearly made your mind up on cyclists.

That's very unfair. I have no issue with cyclists & I haven't made up my mind on cyclists. I don't see all cyclists the same. I didnt come on here sagging off cyclists. There are good & bad. More good than bad. I just don't get the blind defence of all cyclists. I don't get the blind denial that some cyclists break the law the same as some motorists / pedestrians break the law

Andy Magic

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's very unfair. I have no issue with cyclists & I haven't made up my mind on cyclists. I don't see all cyclists the same. I didnt come on here sagging off cyclists. There are good & bad. More good than bad. I just don't get the blind defence of all cyclists. I don't get the blind denial that some cyclists break the law the same as some motorists / pedestrians break the law

Aggghhh in that case I don't get the blind comparison of all cyclists.. For example someone on a Dublin bike cycling 500 metres down the road to catch a bus compared to an actual cyclist on a club spin or training. They are completely different things.

Arcade_Tryer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't get the blind denial that some cyclists break the law the same as some motorists / pedestrians break the law

Why is that even the subject of discussion here? It's irrelevant. Everyone breaks the law; motorists, cyclists, pedestrians etc. Stop going on about it.

The issue here is that the discussion on the Late Late Stupid Show was overwhelmingly negative towards cyclists and perpetuated a dangerous narrative concerning cyclists i.e. they are an inconvenience to cars and should know their place on the road, which is apparently almost in the ditch according to one commentator.

Sleeper12

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

The issue here is that the discussion on the Late Late Stupid Show was overwhelmingly negative towards cyclists and perpetuated a dangerous narrative concerning cyclists i.e. they are an inconvenience to cars and should know their place on the road, which is apparently almost in the ditch according to one commentator.

In fairness the Facebook link in the opening post and the comments after were about 3 and 4 abreast. I merely pointed out that saying she did not see 3 or 4 abreast, that I & other posters didn't see it, that I can't count properly is really just burying your head in the sand

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

Why is that even the subject of discussion here? It's irrelevant. Everyone breaks the law; motorists, cyclists, pedestrians etc. Stop going on about it.

It was stated on the video in the op that she was behind cyclists on a country road 3 and 4 abreast. This is against the law & this is why she brought it up. She wasn't having a pop at cyclists. She gave an example of where she was annoyed stuck behind arrogant cyclists breaking the law. If they were not breaking the law she'd look a right thick bringing it up. She seemed to be horrified that the other guy compared cyclists in that herd situation to farm animals.

Some posters wanted to know why she'd be annoyed being stuck behind cyclists. It's important to answer them by pointing out that she isn't annoyed being stuck behind cyclists she's annoyed at being stuck behind cyclists breaking the law. The first one makes her out to be a kook but the 2nd one explains that she has a right to be annoyed.

I just don't see how you can discuss the Facebook video without talking about breaking the law.

If you want we can talk about the weather or something but the thread is about what is on the Facebook page on the op.

cython

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was referring to 'other traffic' not 'traffic'.

When I was doing truck and bus lessons/tests, the instructors/testers would refer to 'other traffic' meaning non bus/truck traffic.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

See my post above regarding 'other traffic'.

With all due respect to you and your instructors in the past, their use of a term is not necessarily synonymous with its usage in law. Again, your interpretation to other statutes would frankly result in carnage. For example, vehicles reversing would only have to consider danger to other classes of vehicle and pedestrians:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print wrote:

12. (1) Before reversing, a driver shall ensure that to so reverse would not endanger other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) A driver shall not reverse onto a major road from another road.

(3) A driver shall not reverse from a place adjacent to a public road onto a public road save where it is clear to the driver that to so reverse would not endanger other traffic or pedestrians.

Or indeed no car starting from a stationary position would have to yield to other cars, only buses, trucks, cycles, etc.

8. (1) Save as otherwise indicated by a traffic sign in respect of which an article in these Regulations refers, a vehicle shall yield right of way where a provision of this article applies.

(2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.

(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.

In reality, other traffic in the statutes can fairly obviously be taken to mean simply traffic other than the driver/cyclist themselves (otherwise the roads are even more anarchic than we could imagine!), unless you can demonstrate an actual legal precedent for the particular SI (332/2012) having a unique interpretation consistent with yours?

magicbastarder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's important to answer them by pointing out that she isn't annoyed being stuck behind cyclists she's annoyed at being stuck behind cyclists breaking the law.

you keep saying she has every right to be annoyed about being stuck behind cyclists breaking the law. this is OK, assuming she's correct in the anecdotes she's retelling.
but that does not take into account the fact that getting stuck behind cyclists breaking the law in such a manner is a vanishingly small problem. since i started back cycling five years ago, i've been keeping an eye out for it. in probably 60-70,000km of driving and nearly 10,000km of cycling, i have seen cyclists breaking the law in this manner *once*. and i've never been delayed by cyclists doing this while i'm driving.

but this is brought up on prime time TV as if it's a genuine, consistent problem with cyclists. and it is *not*. can you not understand how cyclists have an issue with this? it's an utter straw man argument, and possibly the most bemusing (if that's the right word to use) thing about it is that cyclists cycling three abreast create no more delay for motorists than cyclists cycling two abreast.

in fact, i'd love to understand why the law states that cyclists cycling three abreast is not permitted. once they are all in lane, i don't see how the outermost cyclist - if they are the third across - can hold up traffic more than when they are the second across.

Arcade_Tryer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In fairness the Facebook link in the opening post and the comments after were about 3 and 4 abreast. I merely pointed out that saying she did not see 3 or 4 abreast, that I & other posters didn't see it, that I can't count properly is really just burying your head in the sand




It was stated on the video in the op that she was behind cyclists on a country road 3 and 4 abreast. This is against the law & this is why she brought it up. She wasn't having a pop at cyclists. She gave an example of where she was annoyed stuck behind arrogant cyclists breaking the law. If they were not breaking the law she'd look a right thick bringing it up. She seemed to be horrified that the other guy compared cyclists in that herd situation to farm animals.

Some posters wanted to know why she'd be annoyed being stuck behind cyclists. It's important to answer them by pointing out that she isn't annoyed being stuck behind cyclists she's annoyed at being stuck behind cyclists breaking the law. The first one makes her out to be a kook but the 2nd one explains that she has a right to be annoyed.

I just don't see how you can discuss the Facebook video without talking about breaking the law.

If you want we can talk about the weather or something but the thread is about what is on the Facebook page on the op.

She was apparently stuck behind cyclists three or four abreast. A pedestrian once walked across a street without a green man. A motorist once drove at 130km per hour on a motorway. Who cares.

The issue for people here is that RTE allowed a lengthy discussion on prime time television criticising and lambasting cyclists, without any balance or reliable evidence. That is irresponsible, and serves to perpetuate the idea of cyclists being nothing more than an inconvenience to motorists on the roads.

John_Rambo

mrcheez wrote: »

They tend to frequent the Clontarf cycle lane, blocking the way for faster cyclists to overtake them

Weekend warriors! GETTOUTA MY WAY B!!!! I GOT KIDS TO FEED.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have definitely seen it a lot. Maybe it's because I live close to Howth that if seen it a lot. But look if she only ever saw it once in her life she's right calling these particular people arrogant.

I live close to Howth and I spend a good bit of time in Howth and I see a lot of two abreast that can look like three abreast when you're driving a distance behind them, but when I overtake they're actually two abreast.

I see a good bit of impatience from drivers.

eeeee

Watched that bit of the show and what a vile, vile, vile segment. I sincerely hope this is not representative of what's broadcast on that 'show'

On Derrane's rant, it plays to the divisiveness and negativity towards cyclists on the road now, that is increasing, and increasing this dissonance people of her ilk seem to create between a 'cyclist' and a person. I have also serious doubts about the opinions of someone convicted for dangerous driving on any driving/road/traffic issues.

I do a fair amount of pedalling, and outside of racing, I have never, ever seen a bunch of cyclists bowl along the road more than 2 abreast. Ever. I do know that a bunch riding two abreast looks totally different from a car. That isn't to say she didn't see it, or people haven't, but it is rare. Very rare. Again I link to the image in a tweet already linked in this thread of a bunch riding two abreast that can look different from a motorist's perspective:

https://twitter.com/SafeCyclingEire/status/775814457423437825

Sleeper12

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

She was apparently stuck behind cyclists three or four abreast. A pedestrian once walked across a street without a green man. A motorist once drove at 130km per hour on a motorway. Who cares.

magicbastarder wrote:

you keep saying she has every right to be annoyed about being stuck behind cyclists breaking the law. this is OK, assuming she's correct in the anecdotes she's retelling. but that does not take into account the fact that getting stuck behind cyclists breaking the law in such a manner is a vanishingly small problem. since i started back cycling five years ago, i've been keeping an eye out for it. in probably 60-70,000km of driving and nearly 10,000km of cycling, i have seen cyclists breaking the law in this manner *once*. and i've never been delayed by cyclists doing this while i'm driving.

Assuming she is correct and apparently she was stuck. This is typical of language used on this particular thread & I really don't understand it. Other posts suggest that people can't count above one without making a mistake. If she said she was stuck behind 3 or 4 abreast then I have to take her word for it. What is wrong with her statement being accurate and truthful. Does it hurt the cycling world that much that this might have happened to her? That doesn't mean that it happens every day. The viewing public is also on the roads and can easily decide from their own experiences if this happens every day or something they have rarely seen. I don't for a second believe that because she told that story that the viewers opinions of cyclists has changed one way or the other. I would expect most people to form their opinions from experience and not a story on TV.

I'm not anti cycling. I saw a cyclist almost getting creamed by a dangerous driver before Christmas. I don't think he ever knew that he almost killed someone. I caught up with him at the next set of lights at North strand fire station. I got out to politely tell him what happened and try be more careful. He was all apologies but he was also out of his head on drugs. Anyway I'm just saying that I see it all on the road. I put up close to 30,000 K per year in Dublin. I don't blame any one type of road user. I blame for each individual act. I have never come close to hitting a cyclist. I don't speed. I give cyclists plenty of space & time. If I know what the cyclist wants to do I'll break & let him in front of me, change lanes or whatever. I put up so many miles that I'm never in a hurry. I let cars, bikes and buses in front of me all day long and it wouldn't make my driving day 5 minutes longer.

That's very long winded way of saying that I do not have a problem with cyclists.

I honestly believe that the type of language used here is far more damaging to the publics perception of cyclists than the story of 3 and 4 abreast on the late late show.

I must stress that I only saw the Facebook video. I did not see the whole program. I don't see anything wrong with what she said. The guy beside her seems a fool and I can understand cyclists not liking being compared to farm animals.

magicbastarder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Assuming she is correct and apparently she was stuck. This is typical of language used on this particular thread & I really don't understand it.

i don't think you understand my point - regardless of the legality, if it had been two cyclists or three cyclists in front of her, she'd have been equally as 'stuck'. in that she'd have had to wait for a clear chance to overtake. it is not any easier to overtake two cyclists than it is to overtake three (obvious caveat being that the outermost cyclist is in the oncoming lane).

Sleeper12

magicbastarder wrote:

i don't think you understand my point - regardless of the legality, if it had been two cyclists or three cyclists in front of her, she'd have been equally as 'stuck'. in that she'd have had to wait for a clear chance to overtake. it is not any easier to overtake two cyclists than it is to overtake three (obvious caveat being that the outermost cyclist is in the oncoming lane).

But you are missing her point. Yes she'd be stuck either way. She's not annoyed that she is stuck. She's annoyed that she is stuck behind someone breaking the law and cycling in a dangerous manner.

I'd always prefer to be stuck behind someone who isn't breaking the law. I find that less annoying. I'm one of the most easy going drivers you'll ever meet. Driving Miss Daisy hasn't a patch on me but I can still get worked up about someone breaking the law.

I'll leave it there. No one wants to read me repeat myself over & over. Look for what it's worth I think cyclists have every right to be offended by the farm animal crack from the other guy. I totally agree that was over the top.

Kurtosis

Whatever about three abreast, I'm wondering how many roads can physically accommodate cyclists traveling four abreast while remaining on the right side of the road/in the one lane?

AndrewJRenko

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've seen 3 & 4 abreast on country roads. 3 & 4 abreast is illegal on all roads so the country roads part of her statement is irrelevant. You'll see it on howth Hill every weekend.

I watched the clip and I totally get what she was saying. She even stressed that she wasn't talking about all cyclists, she was talking about arrogant cyclists. She was talking about an illegal act and I don't think she said anything wrong. The other fool beside her made the farm animal comparison. I thought she was making a valid point & was doing quite well till the other guy tried to help her make her point.

I'm not having a pop at all cyclists. I see bad cyclists, pedestrians and drivers every day. We just happen to be talking about cycling here.

How do you make the jump from 'illegal' to 'arrogant'? So maybe they are breaking the law (just like the vast majority of all road users break the law - speed limits anyone?), but how do you get to judge someone as 'arrogant' from behind the windscreen? Are they supposed to tug their forelock to the superior motorist or something in passing?

Lemming

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But you are missing her point. Yes she'd be stuck either way. She's not annoyed that she is stuck. She's annoyed that she is stuck behind someone breaking the law and cycling in a dangerous manner.

Coming from a cretin who was convicted of dangerous driving (for speeding well and above the fastest legally permissible speed possible), I'm not sure I would be so quick to assume her side of a polished turd, never mind a story she's spinning. Doubly so when she's complaining about being "stuck behind someone".

I'd always prefer to be stuck behind someone who isn't breaking the law. I find that less annoying. I'm one of the most easy going drivers you'll ever meet. Driving Miss Daisy hasn't a patch on me but I can still get worked up about someone breaking the law.

If you're stuck behind someone, you're stuck behind them and it doesn't matter what they're doing and the medium of transport involved because if you attempt an unsafe overtake or engage in dangerous driving that results in an accident, it's all on you for exercising shockingly poor judgement and/or self-control.

endacl

Who, or what, is a ‘Maura Derrane’?

CramCycle

I am more shocked that so many people apparently still watch the late late show. I don't know who the person everyone is on about is, and I am not going to google them either.

Last old person comment, dear lord, "social media influencer". Someone used this term earlier in the thread. That term alone should have left watchers with two choices, either change the channel, or throw something through the screen. Actually three, you could also pick up the TV and throw it out the nearest window.

Duckjob

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How do you make the jump from 'illegal' to 'arrogant'? So maybe they are breaking the law (just like the vast majority of all road users break the law - speed limits anyone?), but how do you get to judge someone as 'arrogant' from behind the windscreen? Are they supposed to tug their forelock to the superior motorist or something in passing?

Nail on the head.

This, for me the most alarming element of Derrane's rant - the ignorant and incorrect negative assumption of the cyclist mindset -
"trying to piss you off"
"looking back at you like (sneering)"

No Maura, I'm not trying to piss you off. I don't know a single cyclist that derives any pleasure from cycling with car(s) waiting behind them - it's by far the most stressful and unenjoyable part of any cycle.

No Maura, when I look back I am not sneering at you, I am checking in case you or another motorist has lost patience to wait a couple of seconds and instead is about to endanger my life to get past. I am doing it so that if that situation arises (which is frequently), then maybe, just maybe I can take some evasive action to avoid being smashed up the arse with 2 tonnes of steel.

This sort of incorrect supposition from behind the driver wheel about what the cyclist is thinking needs to be called out for what it is - devisive and dangerous.

Lawdie

This is a call to all forum members.

Here’s why http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/arrogant-cyclists-late-late/

So. Please email Complaints@rte.ie

Here’s a sample:
I wish to make a formal complaint about the Late Late Show and it’s hatred driven segment against cyclists. This is totally irresponsible behaviour by any broadcaster, especially a state sponsored organisation.

This needs to be done, it will take 1 minute. I don’t support any “arrogant” cyclists or cycling but they fail to mention “arrogant” car drivers and keep this firmly weighted anti bike, this is dangerous, especially the image of throwing a cyclists helmet in the bin!

Do it now lads, just post up when done, thanks

mod note - post merged into existing late late thread.

ednwireland

Complaint sent thanks

Getting fed up with media think pitching groups against other is entertaining or news?

brianomc

Have we got it all wrong, have RTE just become to first broadcaster to acknowledge that cycling isnt as dangerous as everyone (outside this forum) previously thought? Bin the helmet, next stop, burn the hi-vis.

In the PC environment we currently live in, there’s not too much that’s socially acceptable to give out about. Women, homosexuality, travellers, muslims. They’ve all had their moment in the limelight. Unfortunately, people using a bicycle is still there. Would she have said something like “bad women drivers really annoy me”. Hell no she wouldn’t.

Fair play to Cycling Ireland for speaking out though, they are often silent on matters when we might wish they would be vocal. They are probably the closest thing to a governing body for cyclists, in the same sense than the AA or RSA speak for all motorists, which obviously they don’t.

Outside of sportives I’ve never seen cyclists more than 2 abreast, and in sportives its only for a few km on closed/marshalled roads, thinning out to 2 at the first hint of a hill. The exception being younglads out to make a nuisance of themselves, but that’s like seeing a joyrider breaking every law going and saying that all motorists are a menace.

Mercian Pro

Complaint sent, apology demanded and more balanced reporting of cycling issues requested.

Doc07

Complaint sent

triggermortis

complaint sent.

koutoubia

Complaint Sent!

Annie get your Run

Complaint sent

Dowee

Complaint sent

trek climber

Complaint sent

secman

Complaint sent

Danbo!

Complaint sent

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to acknowledge your email and thank you for taking the trouble to write to us.

The RTÉ Complaints Office is closed for the Christmas/New Year holidays until 03.01.18.

:rolleyes: