RTE’s Prime Time are thundering disgrace when it comes to cycling

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: LONG READ: Last night RTE’s flagship night time current affairs TV programme Prime Time covered cycling again and, again, messed it up.

One-way or another the last few Prime Time programmes covering cycling (and transport where cycling should have been mentioned) shows some level of journalist mess up, be it bias or other.

...IrishCycle.com's reader-funded journalism won't survive without your help. With over 762,000 views so-far this year, it's not just "avid cyclists" who read this website, but, if you want it to keep going, more support is needed from readers like you. Now, back to the article...

One of the main problems is pitting cycling safety as a “war between cyclists and motorists” — this was actually said in a preview of last night’s show. The programme starts with a reference to 15 people killed last year — all involved collisions with motorists — and Prime Time feels it’s ok dress the issue up as a war as if both “sides” have deadly weapons.

Another key mistake — which is a common one for broadcast media tacking cycling — is that they took a scattergun approach.

It tried to cover the proposed plan to have a minimum passing distance for motorists overtaking people on bicycles (1.5m in areas over 50km/h and 1m in areas less than that), and did so firmly in the context of the number of cycling deaths rising to 15 last year. But it also tried to cover or let guests mention the likes of:

  • who is mainly to blame in collisions
  • the effectiveness of “safety” gear
  • if “cyclists are their own worst enemies” as the presenter said “some motorists think”
  • cyclists using footpaths
  • cyclists running red lights
  • mandatory use of cycle lanes
  • motorists parked in cycle lanes
  • is it right to exclude motorists from Dublin City Centre (note: there’s no such plan)
  • insurance for cycling
  • training for cyclists
  • training for truck drivers
  • the number of unpaid cycling fines
  • aggression from motorists and cyclists

It’s impossible for humans to discuss so many sub-issues in a relatively short segment on TV while having any respect for the dead or being fair to the issues.

In the introduction to the item presenter David McCullagh tells viewers that “some motorists” think “cyclists are their own worst enemies — breaking traffic lights, weaving in and out of cars, and, unlike any other road users, taking to the footpath when ever it suits them.”

This is said in the clear context of 15 people killed last year when cycling and there’s no balance offered by the presenter to it.

Viewers are also told that there’s 1.2 million people commuting to work by car and they “once had to look out for an occasional cyclist now have to look out for 57,000 of them”.

That’s the wrong figure for people who commute by bike nationally and they strangely use a larger figure later, but you might ask: What’s the harm in using the figures at all? You would be forgiven for asking, but the Prime Time team have a history of letting their views against restrictions on cars in Dublin City centre to influence their coverage of national cycling issues and, in this programme, they sickeningly played a numbers game of motorists vs cyclists in the context they set of 15 people being killed when cycling last year.

And I’m not imagining this — one of the questions McCullagh later puts to a cycling campaigner on the panel discussion asking is it fair to push cars out of Dublin City centre because car users are the majority.

And that’s another problem with Prime Time and cycling figures — this city centre argument hinges on using national figures when bicycle users have started to out number cars (mostly with one person in them) on an increasing number of streets in the city centre.

And there seems to be no realisation why pro-sustainable and active transport policy is being put in place — the status quo is the argument… imagine if presenters took this approach for other social issues we face as a country?

After the introduction we get videos of motorists and cyclists behaving badly. We’re mainly showen motorists at speed passing people on bicycles within inches of their handle bars and other people cycling on footpaths slowly — as if these things are comparably dangerous.

Cycling on footpaths is a problem. Especially for people with slower mobility and those who have disabilities. It would be wrong to brush that away. But cycling-walking interactions still aren’t anyway as much of an issue as motorists overtaking bicycles too close — one is closely linked to deaths yearly, while the other is rarely linked to death. Thankfully there’s none in recent history.

The video clips were interlaced with clips of the Road Safety Authority spokesman Brian Farrell — most of what he said is hard to argue with, everyone needs to obey the law and there’s maybe a stronger duty of care on motorists given the danger motorists poses to others.

Farrell however did the classic official thing of confuse the Rules of the Road and the road traffic law — two things which sometimes differ.

The Rules of the Road state that cyclists must use cycle lanes, but road traffic law does not. Leo Varadkar, when transport minister, removed the the mandatory use requirement — he was clear in the Dail about this and the explanatory note under legislation outlined the same. Explanatory notes come with warning of their limitations but so does the Rules of the Road booklet.

Some civil servants have come to the view that there’s a flaw in the legislation which repealed mandatory use, but they won’t supply proof of this, and, in any case, only the Courts have a firm and final say on what’s illegal or not.

The main road traffic act also states that road users must keep themselves and other road users safe and independent research conducted for the RSA outlines how cycle lanes are not always the safest place to be.

If it was anything but cycling, Prime Time would be asking questions like: why are unelected officials changing their views of the intent of a law change when a minister and now Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) signed off on that intent? Why didn’t they tell anybody about an apparent mistake in the law? Why were the Rules of the Road changed without telling anyone? And why did the current minister for transport go along with this for so long before commissioning expensive research and changing his mind? Why didn’t he just follow Government policy and the clear intent of the previous minister? Why are our cycle lanes in such a state and why aren’t they designed right?

But instead we get Prime Time mixing the deaths of 15 people with the relatively minor actions of others slowly cycling on footpaths — again, to be clear: cycling on footpaths is against the law but clips of people doing it at walking speed is hardly the main issue even for pedestrians.

More to the point, there’s no evidence that the people who were killed were doing something wrong when killed.

And then we get a panel discussion with loads of issues raised but very few discussed in detail.

We get Cllr Mannix Flynn saying he gets aggression from cyclists when he corrects random people on the street — try to ask motorists not to run you over or pedestrians not to walk out in front of you and guess what? You’re also likely to get abuse back. All are human.

Cllr Flynn said that “the biggest problem we have is cyclists behaviour” and cyclists being disrespectful of other road user. This isn’t pick up on by the presenter — they focus on the disrespect, not what is actually the biggest problem — road deaths. When a guest, Irish Examiner columnist Victoria White, tried to say why she thinks cyclists aren’t the biggest problem, Cllr Flynn tries to interject again and is stopped by the presenter. But no questioning of Cllr Flynn’s position that 15 people killed last year isn’t the larger problem then him getting some aggression when he tackles the behaviour of random strangers.

And then we got the president of the Irish Road Haulage Association, Verona Murphy, left unchallenged when she made snide remarks with a smirk on her face (pictured below) about a man who died when cycling and collided with a pedestrian walking on the cycle path in the Phoenix Park.

Murphy thinks that cyclists need to look after their own safety and that safety gear for cyclists is “paramount” when it comes to cycling and truck safety. There’s no evidence to support this. The evidence supports segregation and, in the meanwhile, education of both and removal of blind spots by better vehicle design (something some of her members have also opposed).

The presenter moves onto an apparent annoyance he or someone else on the programme has with space in a city centre being transferred from cars to sustainable transport (not just cycling).

And then onto a high figure of unpaid fines for cycling offences — as if running red lights was relevant to the 15 people killed last year when all were killed away from junctions and mostly miles away from any traffic lights or footpaths.

There’s strong indications in Ireland that motorists overtaking cyclists ranks high in the collisions causing cycling deaths in recent years (it will take time to confirm how prevenient this is. But, in the meanwhile, the international evidence points out that cyclists are rarely at fault (see: this, this, etc).

I’m just left wondering what was the programme all was about. Did any of it further road safety? Did it make things worse? Was maligning the dead worth it?


  1. Brian Farrell was brought in as the RSA “expert”.

    He went on to refer to Article 29 of the Road Traffic General By Laws
    S.I. No. 294/1964 – Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.

    These were superseded in 1997 by S.I. No. 182/1997 – Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997


    Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964 ( S.I. No. 294 of 1964 )”

    These are the people who will then be advising the Minister on the enforceability of the MPDL law?

  2. That second when Ms Murphy mentioned the death in the Phoenix park – I thought she was saying (incorrectly) that a cyclist had killed someone in the Phoenix Park. And the disgusting snipe expression on her face…. omg, if I was the wife of the cyclist killed by the actions of that pedestrian, I’d be apoplectic at the behavior of Ms Murphy.

  3. I feel suitable chastened after listening to this. Now I know that I am hostile, generally rude, elitist, disrespectful, not insured, and I haven’t read the rules of the road. I also have a disregard for my own safety and I am under the illusion that I am saving the world. I was also interested to learn that I do not know how mechanical vehicles work.

  4. @Brendan Grimes
    I noticed Verona and Mannix congratulating themselves on a job well done getting their obnoxious message across at the end of that piece.
    The pro-cycling advocates were articulate, but just too nice to put the boot into these bullies, while the presenter was at best spineless, at worst biased himself.

  5. The most useful thing to come out of the discussion in my opinion is that more motorists may now be aware that it is perfectly legal to ride two abreast on Irish roads when conditions allow.

  6. It’s pretty despicable. Would the woman from the Road Haulers Association be happy with talk about the way between trucks and private cars? Would she be happy to be questioned about why haulage companies and lobby groups are well aware, and even publicise, the fact their trucks have a huge death zone all around them and their solution is for people to keep away if they don’t want to get killed? Why the hell ISN’T that a topic of conversation.

    Motorists still have the vast majority of infrastructure dedicated to them, with (very) grudging acknowledgments that other modes can use it so long as they know their place. This whining about how they are being forced out really means that the private car is going to be given 90% of the public resources instead of 99%. Perhaps if each individual driver used up as little space as a cyclist, pedestrian, bus or tram user this would be sustainable but unfortunately for them that’s not the case.

    I love the rubbish about how it was ok when their were only a few cyclists. As I’m sure everyone here knows things get safer for cyclists when there are more of them. I think what that person really meant was “in the old days there were so few cyclists that the chances of you hitting one when you are flying along with your head in the clouds was tiny, now you actually have to pay attention!”

    Anyone who thinks cyclist behavior is the biggest problem on the road is a fucking moron. Cllr. Mannix Flynn I am talking about you. I suspect Flynn is in the habit of accosting cyclists who aren’t actually doing anything wrong. I also suspect he never accosts motorists who park on double yellow lines, or block the path, or slip through on ‘sure, it only just turned red’.

    I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg but the ridiculous, over entitled, fantasy version of reality where car drivers and poor put upon victims is self reinforcing. People stuck in traffic (because of other cars) see a cyclist and think they are to blame, their complain to all their idiot mates, and their idiot mates agree. Eventually someone’s idiot mate goes on TV or the radio and trots out the same nonsense. The audience gets their own nonsense attitude reinforced by agreement and feels that their position is shared and justified.

  7. Excellent analysis of all that was wrong with that program Cian. I was going to let it go but am now going to lodge a complaint (again) with RTE.

  8. to be honest. I watched it and as a cycling advocate here in Clare I was firstly so delighted to see a panel discussion on cycling on Prime Time for starters and I think any ordinary punter in any way intelligent watching it would have felt that cyclists came out on top because everything Damien and Victoria made common sense and most of what the other 2 said was ridiculous… I have low expectations of RTE so overall I felt positive after watching it

  9. There is constant underlying trend of ‘casual racism’ with regard to showing proper regard for cyclists. We are referred to as lycra clad, smug , aggressive, routine law breakers with regard to red lights, cycling furiously on pavements etc and all this as prequel to excluding us from basic rights. Reasons are rolled out like, not insured, don’t pay road tax, don’t know the rules of the road etc – basically any reason again to deny people the right to share the road. for the record even if a person was all of the above, they still should be afforded space on the road. Also for the record I have driven and cycled for 30 years – I pay all my taxes, I am even insured on bike – I know and obey the rules of the road whether driving or cycling and I would hope that I show courtesy and consideration whether driving or cycling and I demand the same in return!

  10. Great Article.
    However the cycling representatives on the show were very poor.
    We have to be Bob Geldof about this. Banging on desks and making a nuisance also stop answering questions, nobody else does on radio/tv. Just go on and repeat the mantra.
    More segregated cycle lanes….


Leave a Reply to JohnCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.