Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Seth Brundle

The legal system is also set up to assume that an un-helmeted cyclist is partly responsible for any head injuries incurred when a driver hits them

MojoMaker

So you're saying it's just an ingrained unconscious bias?

magicbastarder

there's a thread elsewhere (which i'm not going to link to) about a woman who got a multimillion euro payout after being struck by a car on the swords bypass. whatever the actual ins and outs of the case, it's notable to see how many people take the attitude of 'you're a pedestrian on a dual carriageway so all bets are off, the outcome is purely your fault'; as if 'the pedestrian was in the wrong place' is completely synonymous with 'this completely absolves the driver'.

AndrewJRenko

More safety theatre;

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1360564609892163588

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

More safety theatre;

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1360564609892163588

I don't know about here but in London now groups of school kids have to wear hi-vis any time the teachers take them out for a walk

magicbastarder

i think that's as much about child herding as it is about road safety.

CramCycle

My daughter's school got them all to wear neon pink baseball caps and possibly pink bum bags a few years ago as so many schools had hi Vis teachers couldn't pick them out.

Stark

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

More safety theatre;

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1360564609892163588

Tweet deleted.

AndrewJRenko

Stark wrote: »

Tweet deleted.

Maybe they didn't get permission from some of the parents beforehand?

Seth Brundle

It looks like Alonso incident involved him getting a right hook from a car turning into a supermarket car park.
I'm puzzled at how the Swiss police describe the incident. It's like they don't realise he was cycling - no mention of a helmet or high-viz. Not just that, they don't seem to blame the cyclist (see the response from formula1.com in the second tweet below)...

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1360326753747668996?s=19

Breezer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It looks like Alonso incident involved him getting a right hook from a car turning into a supermarket car park.
I'm puzzled at how the Swiss police describe the incident. It's like they don't realise he was cycling - no mention of a helmet or high-viz. Not just that, they don't seem to blame the cyclist (see the response from formula1.com in the second tweet below)...

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1360326753747668996?s=19

Ah, but if cyclists had to have a licence...

Cetyl Palmitate

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-tesla-bubble-bursts-catastrophe-wont-follow-11613221203?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/0GZJV47bPt

Interesting comparison between current mania in electric car and battery tech stocks to a bike tech price bubble in the late 19th century.

"The closest parallel is not the dot-com bubble, for all the similarities, but the British bicycle mania of the 1890s. Bicycles were the electric cars of their day: breakthroughs in tire and gear technology made them into convenient and environmentally friendly transport, albeit still expensive. Investors rushed in and stock promoters spotted the opportunity to float any company with a connection to the industry, mostly in Birmingham. Heavy investment led to further breakthroughs; and, at the peak, bicycle-related patents made up 15% of all the patents issued."

Large bottle small glass

MojoMaker wrote: »

Extremely severe and extremely suspended.

Yup.

Just death by car......i.e. not a real death.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0212/1196809-crash-court/#:~:text=A%2021%2Dyear%2Dold%20man,at%20on%20a%20snapchat%20video.

Whatever about the the charge, whether it was dangerous driving causing death or manslaughter the sentence was in line with manslaughter.

47% of manslaughter sentences are in the 2-5 year bracket with a similar percentage in the the 5-10 year bracket. So he got a longer sentence than most manslaughter convicts.

This guy was always going to get a decent sentence, other than pleading guilty his behavior was abhorrent.

The light/no sentences come when the Gardai/lawyers/jury can identify with the Accused. The moments inattention yarn (like the mother who killed the cyclist(Donal O'Brien) in Cork on Ballincollig bypass will then get traction. Hard to prove its the end result of a lifetime of bad habits, even though it's very likely.

"Sgt Pat Lyons told the court Harkin was driving along the bypass with her two young children after visiting Smyth’s Toys when one of them asked her to remove a tag from one a toy. She turned around to respond and took her eyes off the road."

hesker

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0212/1196809-crash-court/#:~:text=A%2021%2Dyear%2Dold%20man,at%20on%20a%20snapchat%20video.

Whatever about the the charge, whether it was dangerous driving causing death or manslaughter the sentence was in line with manslaughter.

47% of manslaughter sentences are in the 2-5 year bracket with a similar percentage in the the 5-10 year bracket. So he got a longer sentence than most manslaughter convicts.

This guy was always going to get a decent sentence, other than pleading guilty his behavior was abhorrent.

The light/no sentences come when the Gardai/lawyers/jury can identify with the Accused. The moments inattention yarn (like the mother who killed the cyclist(Donal O'Brien) in Cork on Ballincollig bypass will then get traction. Hard to prove its the end result of a lifetime of bad habits, even though it's very likely.

"Sgt Pat Lyons told the court Harkin was driving along the bypass with her two young children after visiting Smyth’s Toys when one of them asked her to remove a tag from one a toy. She turned around to respond and took her eyes off the road."

That case crosses my mind frequently. It came up in a family discussion at the time and an in-law couldn’t help but comment “tsk tsk...cyclists....hi-viz...blah blah blah....” which led to a short heated exchange.

I often wonder did phone use have a contribution in that death. I would think there are few kids that notice or bother complaining about tags on their toys.

Tombo2001

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0212/1196809-crash-court/#:~:text=A%2021%2Dyear%2Dold%20man,at%20on%20a%20snapchat%20video.

Whatever about the the charge, whether it was dangerous driving causing death or manslaughter the sentence was in line with manslaughter.

47% of manslaughter sentences are in the 2-5 year bracket with a similar percentage in the the 5-10 year bracket. So he got a longer sentence than most manslaughter convicts.

This guy was always going to get a decent sentence, other than pleading guilty his behavior was abhorrent.

The light/no sentences come when the Gardai/lawyers/jury can identify with the Accused. The moments inattention yarn (like the mother who killed the cyclist(Donal O'Brien) in Cork on Ballincollig bypass will then get traction. Hard to prove its the end result of a lifetime of bad habits, even though it's very likely.

"Sgt Pat Lyons told the court Harkin was driving along the bypass with her two young children after visiting Smyth’s Toys when one of them asked her to remove a tag from one a toy. She turned around to respond and took her eyes off the road."

Ye olde 'it could happen to any of us' argument, with the us being firmly drivers.

Its almost like an insurance token, it means if that if I'm driving and I do the same then I'll get a light sentence also. And so I continue on with those bad habits, that I know can result in serious accidents.

p15574

Fernando Alonso discharged from hospital after fracturing jaw in cycling accident

"Cycling accident", not "crashed into by inattentive motorist turning into a supermarket"

cletus

p15574 wrote: »

Fernando Alonso discharged from hospital after fracturing jaw in cycling accident

"Cycling accident", not "crashed into by inattentive motorist turning into a supermarket"

I understand the intent of your post, buy if he was walking, or driving a car himself, do you think the headline would include the phrase "crashed into by inattentive motorist turning into a supermarket"

Chips Lovell

p15574 wrote: »

Fernando Alonso discharged from hospital after fracturing jaw in cycling accident

"Cycling accident", not "crashed into by inattentive motorist turning into a supermarket"

Is there any suggestion that it was intentional? If not, then "accidental" is probably the best description.

fat bloke

p15574 wrote: »

Fernando Alonso discharged from hospital after fracturing jaw in cycling accident

"Cycling accident", not "crashed into by inattentive motorist turning into a supermarket"

Direct quote from the article:

He "collided with a car". :mad:

breezy1985

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Is there any suggestion that it was intentional? If not, then "accidental" is probably the best description.

But why is it a cycling accident. Surely it is a motoring accident and the word accident as has been discussed her plenty of times before gives the impression that no one was at fault despite the fact the car driver was at fault

Chips Lovell

You can at course be at fault for an accident. People are prosecuted for dangerous driving or careless driving all the time. But there is a difference between hitting someone intentionally and hitting someone accidentally due to your own carelessness.

breezy1985

Chips Lovell wrote: »

You can at course be at fault for an accident. People are prosecuted for dangerous driving or careless driving all the time. But there is a difference between hitting someone intentionally and hitting someone accidentally due to your own carelessness.

It's about how papers frame the story. Cyclist (person) hits car (innocent object) should read motorist hits cyclist or car hits bike

magicbastarder

sounds like there are two issues here.
one is with the word accident, and one is with the word cycling.

if indeed, this was caused by an inattentive motorist, calling it a 'cycling' accident is misleading. the accident is unrelated to the cycling.

if i was out walking and was knocked down by a car driven by an inattentive motorist, i'd be hesitant to call that a 'pedestrian' accident. it's a motoring one.

Chips Lovell

I think you're overthinking it here. Do you think any reasonable person would open a paper and think that just because the word "accident" is used then nobody is to blame. Frequently the verbiage used in news reporting is taken straight from police reports which tend to focus on the victim, e.g. "the man died when his car collided with...."

I think it's a bit of distraction to see an intent to mislead when a.) there is none there and b.) nobody is being misled.

Tombo2001

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you're overthinking it here. Do you think any reasonable person would open a paper and think that just because the word "accident" is used then nobody is to blame. Frequently the verbiage used in news reporting is taken straight from police reports which tend to focus on the victim, e.g. "the man died when his car collided with...."

I think it's a bit of distraction to see an intent to mislead when a.) there is none there and b.) nobody is being misled.

Yes. Thats absolutely what they would think.

Am I missing something here.....

You may be correct on (a) but certainly not on (b).

And also - it is absolutely consistent, by design or coincidence, with a media approach that his frequently hostile to cyclists (not cycling, but specifically cyclists).

As mentioned- we never hear of 'pedestrian' accidents or 'walking accidents'.

tomasrojo

I do think a lot of people do think "accident" means anything that isn't assault, and even then I think I've seen an example of what I'd regard as assault with a motorised vehicle against a cyclist called an accident in the newspaper report somewhere.

tomasrojo

A lot of research went into Hot Fuzz, and one detail that is real is the modern, by-the-book protagonist insisting on "road traffic collision" instead of "accident", as "accident" is increasingly regarded as framing an incident in a prejudicial way.

Eamonnator

I think, that calling collisions accidents trivialises them.
"ahh sure, it was an accident, nobody's fault."
If you stub your toe on the leg of the bed that's an accident.
If you're cycling along the road and the driver of a car turns into a driveway in front of you, knocking you off your bike in the process. That is not an accident,
It's a collision.

magicbastarder

all that said, i don't have much truck with this argument that we should not say, for example 'the cyclist was struck by a car'; the typical reason being it removes the actions of the motorist from the equation.
'the cyclist was struck by a motorist' is incorrect, and 'the cyclist was struck by a car driven by a motorist' is very clumsy.
i can see the reasoning for it, but i don't see an elegant alternative.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

all that said, i don't have much truck with this argument that we should not say, for example 'the cyclist was struck by a car'; the typical reason being it removes the actions of the motorist from the equation.
'the cyclist was struck by a motorist' is incorrect, and 'the cyclist was struck by a car driven by a motorist' is very clumsy.
i can see the reasoning for it, but i don't see an elegant alternative.

Although I have seen people up in arms about that, I think it's more to do with agency.

"The car fled the scene"
"The car turned left"
"The car broke the red light and sped down the road"
"The car mounted the kerb"

All arguably correct, but for some reason you never hear about bikes breaking red lights...