Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

Seth Brundle

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Come on don't get excited.
That segment was RTE just scraping the barrel as a filler because there was no other guest available.
Nobody took it or the 'panel' seriously.
I spent the time scoffing and taking the p*ss out of them..

For once I was watching the LLS (Liam Neeson and Sean Spicer really). The segment was absolute crap, cycling section aside. It was a really bad rip off of BBC's Room 101 .
Nonetheless, it was an inappropriate item to have on TV and some impartiality should have been shown.
Maybe next week, Tubridy will have a "let's slag off rape victims" segment!

Basil3 wrote: »

I'd say the R109 along the bottom of Phoenix Park heading towards the quays is fine, there's also a decent cycle lane there, but should they choose to use the road....

Honestly, I actually had a driver slow down there and using his car steer me off the road on a quiet weekend afternoon. I was cycling close enough to the kerb (without hitting the shore covers) and in absolutely no way inconvenienced him.
Gobshíte was screaming blue murder out the window at me about how I wasn't using the "cycle path". I eventually caught up with him near Hueston.

Wishbone Ash

kbannon wrote: »

....The segment was absolute crap, cycling section aside. It was a really bad rip off of BBC's Room 101 .
Nonetheless, it was an inappropriate item to have on TV and some impartiality should have been shown.
Maybe next week, Tubridy will have a "let's slag off rape victims" segment!....

I was hoping he might toss the Koran into the bin. That would really spice things up.

AndrewJRenko

07Lapierre wrote: »

When cycling on my own, I do the same if there is a tractor or HGV behind me and I know that they won't get an opportunity to overtake me for some time. If I come across a wide driveway, I signal that I'm pulling in and rotate my right arm to indicate to the driver behind me to overtake. As I pull over onto the driveway, the truck passes and I can then rejoin the road right behind the truck without missing a beat.

Sometimes it's nice to be nice on the road to other road users.

Basil3 wrote: »

I have no idea what you're on about.

I was engaging in a civil exchange, and you've decided that because you have nothing further to offer, you're just going to resort to some ridiculous sarcastic comment.

What I'm on about was confirming that the difference between a group cycling two abreast and cycling four abreast for motorists coming behind is negligible. In fact, four abreast might well be better as it is a shorter group to overtake.

tomasrojo

I've seen the clip now, finally.

Apart from the general tone of "cyclists are annoying weirdos" (which Derrane does try to counteract a few times, albeit not effectively), they've rather missed the point of Room 101; the person proposing the pet peeve is supposed to have to defend their choice with wit or some sort of logic; the panel, host and audience aren't supposed to pile on.

Were there other pet peeves under discussion? I presume there were two others? Not that it's that important, except I really hope they didn't set up this laboured and lame micro panel show just to bin cyclists.

magicbastarder

how room 101 should be done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzqjeYBmOAQ

rubadub

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

There is a problem with arrogance amongst some cycling groups and I say that as a cyclist but no less stupid motorists.

after hearing this "arrogant/arrogance" phrase so much I had to look up the definition to see if there was something I was missing, I was genuinely confused, sometimes there is an alternative definition I was genuinely unaware of in dictionaries. Not in this case, maybe you can please share your own definition to set things straight?

On the LL show Derrane repeatedly used the term, when I think another term would have been far more suitable, and far more to the point of what she really meant. It was like some weaseling out of saying what she really intended to say, a weird euphemism she thought was "politically correct", but just made it sound very odd.

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

When driving I'm often grateful to a truck wihich facilitates an overtake by pulling in briefly to the hard shoulder or the other lane if there is one. I may be able to go faster than the truck but not have the power to overtake in the distance I see to be clear. This can happen for example on a good N road with a long hill.

Same here, but I have never heard a truck driver who did not do this to be described as "arrogant" though. They are typically described as "sound" for doing so. If someone thought they were a c**t they would call them so, this "arrogant" business is just odd & confusing!

CramCycle

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was hoping he might toss the Koran into the bin. That would really spice things up.

Wait till they bring John Waters or David Quinn in to throw a baby in the bin :eek:

not making light of the issue but the Late Late wanted a reaction. Its an opinion piece (that this Maura one was told unofficially to run with), would get a reaction, and people would be interested in the LL again. BAI can say little other than instruct them to clarify their stance or offer a counter balance, which they will do although a fewer people will unofficially to create a bit of an uproar, probably with the word snowflake thrown around alot. LL gets more free advertising.

RTE and the late late got exactly what they wanted and to be fair it has been one of their better marketing campaigns.

I am not disagreeing with the reactions, they are justified and warranted but it just annoys me as this is exactly what they wanted.

LennoxR

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What I'm on about was confirming that the difference between a group cycling two abreast and cycling four abreast for motorists coming behind is negligible. In fact, four abreast might well be better as it is a shorter group to overtake.

Look, speaking as a cyclist, that is not true at all. Getting by four riders abreast is very difficult. To be honest I don't know what it's like for motorists as I don't drive.

But there is not reason to cycle more than two abreast unless you are using some road or trail where there is absolutely no other traffic of any kind. Basically it's bad practice and you shouldn't do it.

Thinkingaboutit

Paying taxes and licence fee to keep these useless, waste of space people in funds pisses me off. Could Todd Andrew's nephew/Ryan Tubridy not be binned as pet peeve?

Macy0161

LennoxR wrote: »

But there is not reason to cycle more than two abreast unless you are using some road or trail where there is absolutely no other traffic of any kind. Basically it's bad practice and you shouldn't do it.

It's illegal to be more than 2 abreast unless 2 over taking 1 or vica versa. I think the point, that's getting a bit lost, is that 1, 2, 3 or 4 abreast doesn't really matter in terms of the motorist having to cross the centre line on most roads in the state.

A lot of the commentary about even 2 abreast causing traffic is because motorists think it's ok to squeeze past, not giving enough room, when there's on coming traffic, on a hill, on a bend etc. and not have to cross the white line. That simply isn't possible, if they're giving enough space to the cyclist*, which is why we need a mpdl - whether enforceable or not, it lays out clearly the law and how much space is acceptable.

*and many motorists don't seem to be aware this isn't about making the cyclist feel "better", but is a safety issue. The cyclist needs room in case of a grate, a manhole, pothole, stone, gust of wind etc that means a forced change of line either to avoid or because they've hit something.

AndrewJRenko

LennoxR wrote: »

Look, speaking as a cyclist, that is not true at all. Getting by four riders abreast is very difficult. To be honest I don't know what it's like for motorists as I don't drive.

Really?

CramCycle wrote: »

BAI can say little other than instruct them to clarify their stance or offer a counter balance, which they will do although a fewer people will unofficially to create a bit of an uproar, probably with the word snowflake thrown around alot. LL gets more free advertising.

BAI could do more. They could tell RTE to stop using a vulnerable group that experienced 15 deaths last year when trolling for reaction.

They almost certainly won't, but they could.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

BAI could do more. They could tell RTE to stop using a vulnerable group that experienced 15 deaths last year when trolling for reaction.

They almost certainly won't, but they could.

I didn't see the show, so maybe, but my impression was, if its like room 101, they give the guest the things to pick. Now if done properly, Tubridy would have had research done to provide an alternative view or to challenge the guest into defending their decision. That would be where my hang up is but even then, RTE didn't say it and other than a statement saying they don't endorse or condone the private views of Maura, not sure what else there is they can say.

Did RTE have the helmet or did she bring it in? ie can it be reasonably assumed that this was orchestrated by RTE, or is it a case that she is left out there to dry.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I didn't see the show, so maybe, but my impression was, if its like room 101, they give the guest the things to pick. Now if done properly, Tubridy would have had research done to provide an alternative view or to challenge the guest into defending their decision. That would be where my hang up is but even then, RTE didn't say it and other than a statement saying they don't endorse or condone the private views of Maura, not sure what else there is they can say.

Yeah, you have to follow the proper format really, or it's not funny, particularly in the panel-show manifestation, rather than the old version with a host and a single guest. As I said, Room 101 did have Ross Noble proposing cyclists to go into Room 101, but he was countered amiably by Frank Skinner. Maura Derrane's stipulation of "arrogant" cyclists rather than all cyclists was undermined by everyone else piling on on cyclists in general, which isn't necessarily her fault, but people posting here might have guessed it would have gone that way. You do need some sort of counterbalance, not for the sake of balance in the usual journalistic sense, but because a room full of people having a go at absent people is only funny if you're a bit of a callous arse.

The use of a bin is unfortunate too. The use of Room 101 has also always struck me as a bit weird, as in 1984 it's supposed to be a place where the person is locked in with the thing they fear most, whereas in the game show it's like a quarantine area, locking it up forever. But putting people in bins is metaphorically weird and dehumanising.

tomasrojo

As for the helmet prop, were there two other pet peeves with props? It seems likely enough that they asked the guests what the peeves were going to be and provided props for them. I presume there was a likelihood the props wouldn't go in the bin.

But I think we've given this format more thought than the Late Late Show runners. I guess it's hard to fill two hours of live TV. The audience, host and guests were all smugly callous though.

LennoxR

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really?

Yes, really, the bicycle is my only mode of transport.

Is this a contest in virtue or something? Silly post.

Seth Brundle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I guess it's hard to fill two hours of live TV.

If Tubridy asked his guests some difficult questions rather than fawning over his guests, maybe he would get more time out of his interviews.
Bloody hell, Sean Spicer was a case where he could have put many difficult questions to him but he didn't. Spicer had an easy time there!

(Incidentally I had been wondering why Spicer was coming on the LLS (most guests come on to promote a film or book). He eventually told Tubridy of his forthcoming book which Tubridy appeared to have no prior knowledge of this :eek:)

Tombo2001

This whole conversation - and in particular, the comments section on the Irish Times Facebook post about the Late Late Show - have really got me thinking about
(I) How to improve conditions for cyclists and
(II) The attitude of Drivers to cyclists.

I suppose my conclusion at this point is - Drivers (or a sufficient amount of Drivers to make the point viable) dont care about cyclists, dont see that cyclists should have any rights; think cyclists are an annoyance on the road; think cyclists as people are assjoles; see errant cyclists and extrapolate that to the entire population of cyclists.

Most importantly, I think they will always have this attitude. Regardless of what cyclists do, this attitude simple wont change.

Why? Because that the way people are. They just wont change. Why should they.

Cycling conditions are dangerous because of driver behaviour.

But - there is no point in appealing to drivers to change their behaviour, as they see cyclists as the problem and use this to justify their behaviour.

To get to the ultimate point

The only way we will have better conditions for cyclists, is if there are better bike paths; and stronger laws. There is no other way.

tomasrojo

I'm a bit conflicted, because I don't think that cycling in Ireland in general is all that dangerous(*), and I don't think that drivers in general feel enormous antipathy towards cyclists(**). I do dislike well-paid and insulated media personalities prodding the more excitable members of the population into anger, and I'd feel that way if I weren't a member of the outgroup at the receiving end.

(*) There are definitely some very dangerous roads, but that doesn't make cycling in general very dangerous.
(**) Though I've been at the receiving end of two remarkable road rage incidents, but that's over decades of cycling. I've had garbage flung out of car windows at me once as a pedestrian, and quite numerous times as a cyclist, which does suggest that there's more antipathy towards cyclists than pedestrians.

Tombo2001

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm a bit conflicted, because I don't think that cycling in Ireland in general is all that dangerous(*), and I don't think that drivers in general feel enormous antipathy towards cyclists(**). I do dislike well-paid and insulated media personalities prodding the more excitable members of the population into anger, and I'd feel that way if I weren't a member of the outgroup at the receiving end.

(*) There are definitely some very dangerous roads, but that doesn't make cycling in general very dangerous.
(**) Though I've been at the receiving end of two remarkable road rage incidents, but that's over decades of cycling. I've had garbage flung out of car windows at me once as a pedestrian, and quite numerous times as a cyclist, which does suggest that there's more antipathy towards cyclists than pedestrians.

* On (i), thats debatable I suppose. The thing is you only need to get hit once. Its not dangerous until it is. My own view is that I've had enough near misses for me to think, yes it has been. Is it more dangerous than other countries, or less? Dont know.

** I think there is a lot of antipathy. Not every driver. But maybe 1 in 10 or 1 in 8. More in taxi drivers and bus drivers. And thats enough, when hundreds of cars are passing you every day.
People wont express it unless you ask them.

On your point regarding the outgroup - look, I am not saying the two things are the same - but since I've been a kid, its been ok socially in this country to give out about travellers, 'because they bring it on themselves'......thats never changed since I was a kid. I think it should have changed, and it hasnt. Not that everyone is of this view; but its been acceptable socially to have this view. My wider point is that prejudice in Ireland is something that is tolerated.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

On your point regarding the outgroup - look, I am not saying the two things are the same - but since I've been a kid, its been ok socially in this country to give out about travellers, 'because they bring it on themselves'......thats never changed since I was a kid. I think it should have changed, and it hasnt. Not that everyone is of this view; but its been acceptable socially to have this view. My wider point is that prejudice in Ireland is something that is tolerated.

Yes, I often think about this. I never talk about that subject with anyone I don't know well, as I have no idea where the conversation will go subsequently.

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

Did RTE have the helmet or did she bring it in? ie can it be reasonably assumed that this was orchestrated by RTE, or is it a case that she is left out there to dry.

Tubridy had the helmet on the table.

LennoxR wrote: »

Yes, really, the bicycle is my only mode of transport.

Is this a contest in virtue or something? Silly post.

I'm just surprised that you're able to judge the ease or difficulty involved in overtaking 2 or 4 cyclists if you don't drive?

GreeBo

Basil3 wrote: »

I guess if you're going to reduce it down to 'you're performing one overtaking manoeuvre in which the road in front of you is completely clear and you need to go completely into the opposing lane to complete the move', then yes....it makes no difference.

Harder to give adequate clearance if you are passing 3 abreast, on some roads you'd be in the ditch on the other side by then.

LennoxR

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Tubridy had the helmet on the table.

I'm just surprised that you're able to judge the ease or difficulty involved in overtaking 2 or 4 cyclists if you don't drive?

If you read the post in question, I was talking about the ease of overtaking cyclists more than two abreast as a cyclist.

I think you were trying to make a different point, but in any case, all I'm saying is that from whatever perspective, you should not cycle more than two abreast except on closed roads.

flatface

GreeBo wrote: »

Harder to give adequate clearance if you are passing 3 abreast, on some roads you'd be in the ditch on the other side by then.

This is always brought up about the minimum passing distance and groups etc but it’s just not true. I just don’t believe there are cyclist fully blocking roads so overtakes are not possible. Oncoming traffic dictates there is room for a car on the other side of the road.

If you slow down to the cyclists speed and overtake at a safe point, if the way is clear you can over take. Clearance is subject to your speed. If you are slowing down before performing the overtake you do not need as much clearance as you would if you want to maintain your speed.

It’s horrible being passed close at speed where a car guns it to get through a gap (often at an unsuitable place too) this is what the MPL aims to discourage. Slow overtakes changes the risks considerably.

I still cant see the problem with any number of cyclists side by side as long as there is space for oncoming traffic.

Moflojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

As for the helmet prop, were there two other pet peeves with props? It seems likely enough that they asked the guests what the peeves were going to be and provided props for them. I presume there was a likelihood the props wouldn't go in the bin.

The props were behind Tubridy's desk and he took them out one by one and invited the panelists to give their reasons for including the items. The full list of pet peeves is as follows (spot the odd one out):

1. Unexpected Visitors (James Kavanagh)
2. Baby Books (Maura Derrane)
3. The Late Late Toy Show (Eoin Colfer)
4. Not opening windows on the bus (JK)
5. Arrogant Cyclists (MD)
6. Audience participation in the theatre (EC)
7. Raisins (JK)
8. Unrealistic depictions of teachers in movies (EC)
9. Instant fame (MD)

CramCycle

Tombo2001 wrote: »

To get to the ultimate point

The only way we will have better conditions for cyclists, is if there are better bike paths; and stronger laws. There is no other way.

I disagree with both, though the latter more than the former. The latter is not the issue, there are more than enough laws on the books to put a dangerous driver behind bars. What is missing here is enforcement and a reasonable minimum sentence for such behaviour. The only real change that is needed (and the garda in the AMA thread articulated it well, is a culling of paperwork for gardai on patrol, walking the beat, etc. Almost every offence should have a clear FPN attached with a potential court date a the gardas discretion if they feel it is justified. But other than that they should be able to just print of a ticket like they do in the US, there and then. Cull time in court, free up the legal system for more complex matters (peope fighting black and white cases and getting away with it on a judges opinion that they feel sorry for them is BS).

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm a bit conflicted, because I don't think that cycling in Ireland in general is all that dangerous(*), and I don't think that drivers in general feel enormous antipathy towards cyclists(**). I do dislike well-paid and insulated media personalities prodding the more excitable members of the population into anger, and I'd feel that way if I weren't a member of the outgroup at the receiving end.

(*) There are definitely some very dangerous roads, but that doesn't make cycling in general very dangerous.
(**) Though I've been at the receiving end of two remarkable road rage incidents, but that's over decades of cycling. I've had garbage flung out of car windows at me once as a pedestrian, and quite numerous times as a cyclist, which does suggest that there's more antipathy towards cyclists than pedestrians.

I have cycled in a few countries, cycling in Ireland is by no means dangerous (in comparison). Cycling in the UK is terrifying in comparison, the US is weird once out of cities but felt safe to me. I found the Netherlands to be nicer but not by much than here. Germany was between here and the UK. France was lovely except for Paris, although that wasn't terrible.

I have to say, of all the places I have cycled, England and Wales gave the most terrifying experiences, Scotland on the other hand was a pleasure. Wales was OK once on back roads only. England was a mixed bag.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

* On (i), thats debatable I suppose. The thing is you only need to get hit once. Its not dangerous until it is. My own view is that I've had enough near misses for me to think, yes it has been. Is it more dangerous than other countries, or less? Dont know.

** I think there is a lot of antipathy. Not every driver. But maybe 1 in 10 or 1 in 8. More in taxi drivers and bus drivers. And thats enough, when hundreds of cars are passing you every day.
People wont express it unless you ask them.

On your point regarding the outgroup - look, I am not saying the two things are the same - but since I've been a kid, its been ok socially in this country to give out about travellers, 'because they bring it on themselves'......thats never changed since I was a kid. I think it should have changed, and it hasnt. Not that everyone is of this view; but its been acceptable socially to have this view. My wider point is that prejudice in Ireland is something that is tolerated.

It is indeed the last form of tolerated racism, this said, the legal implications of saying such things by a broadcaster means they need another group to turn against, alas, sometimes it is cyclists. Anecdote time, I always hear that from my parents and others, including people my own age and younger, they bring it on themselves. My only response is that what do you expect when you never give them a chance. I even had one guy telling me they should all be put up against a wall and shot, I kid you not, I asked him would he hold the children and babies up to the wall or would he pull the trigger. People forget we are meant to be a civil society sometimes. Anyway, the anecdote, my local secondary school, they had for the first time families from the local town come in, they turned out to be travellers. The kids got stick, hassle, mainly because their parents told them what they were supposed to be like. Talking to my old art teacher, I asked how the school was getting on. She said terrible, all the kids have no manners or respect anymore, it is torture to teach most of them. Except for the kids who came in from the local town, only ones with manners, who respond with civility and respect, it is a pity the locals were not more like them.

As for the anti cyclist or apathetic drivers, I don't think it is 1 in 10, it just isn't that often to be that many. Also, not every stupid maneuver is done by someone who hates cyclists, many by inattentive fools.

brianomc

flatface wrote: »

This is always brought up about the minimum passing distance and groups etc but it’s just not true. I just don’t believe there are cyclist fully blocking roads so overtakes are not possible. Oncoming traffic dictates there is room for a car on the other side of the road.

If you slow down to the cyclists speed and overtake at a safe point, if the way is clear you can over take. Clearance is subject to your speed. If you are slowing down before performing the overtake you do not need as much clearance as you would if you want to maintain your speed.

It’s horrible being passed close at speed where a car guns it to get through a gap (often at an unsuitable place too) this is what the MPL aims to discourage. Slow overtakes changes the risks considerably.

I still cant see the problem with any number of cyclists side by side as long as there is space for oncoming traffic.

I think what GreeBo and Mr Spuckler are trying to say is that they understand giving cyclists 1.5m when overtaking them. And that it applies for country roads too, but if the cyclists are 3 or 4 abreast then simply moving across the white line to overtake isn't sufficient to give them 1.5m clearance as the rightmost cyclist will be moving on/beside the white line. So you need to move out 1.5m across the white line, which on country roads isn't always possible as the car would be in the ditch/trees on the other side of the road.

So from that point of view, it does matter whether you cycle 2, 3 or 4 abreast.

GreeBo

brianomc wrote: »

I think what GreeBo and Mr Spuckler are trying to say is that they understand giving cyclists 1.5m when overtaking them. And that it applies for country roads too, but if the cyclists are 3 or 4 abreast then simply moving across the white line to overtake isn't sufficient to give them 1.5m clearance as the rightmost cyclist will be moving on/beside the white line. So you need to move out 1.5m across the white line, which on country roads isn't always possible as the car would be in the ditch/trees on the other side of the road.

So from that point of view, it does matter whether you cycle 2, 3 or 4 abreast.

Exactly.
3 or even sometimes 2 cyclists taking the road can force a car to be closer to the far ditch than you would want to be, if you are giving the cyclists adequate clearance.

amcalester

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly.
3 or even sometimes 2 cyclists taking the road can force a car to be closer to the far ditch than you would want to be, if you are giving the cyclists adequate clearance.

I'm not disagreeing with you but it would be good if all motorists would be as concerned about giving the same space to cyclists are you are to the ditch.

flatface

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly.
3 or even sometimes 2 cyclists taking the road can force a car to be closer to the far ditch than you would want to be, if you are giving the cyclists adequate clearance.

But you are not seeing my point. clearance depends on speed! 1.5 is recommended for > 50kmph. If you slow down you can pass with less clearance. Just like 2 cars passing on a small road will slow to judge the pass better, a car can slow then pass slowly the group / obstacle. If there is room for oncoming traffic there is room to pass slowly.