The Amy Gillett Foundation Ride Right poster campaign

[The 2nd Womble]

There is a very bruising thread on Sydney Cyclist ATM regarding the recently rolled our AGF poster campaign. I've well and truly said my piece, but as its such a hot topic south of the border in the last couple of days and as it hasn't already been posted here, I was wondering who else has seen it. Many others have voiced their concerns and appreciation of the campaign almost as loudly as me.

http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topi ... 8#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.amygillett.org.au/rideright/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AUbicycles]

Thanks for sharing. I understand the issues are:

- implentation: the style is a matter of taste

- the message is not very clear / hard to deciphre

- it speaks to / targets cyclists which some people feel is the wrong approach i.e. it should target society or motorised road users instead.

With this last point, the style also pictures 'the bad cyclist' and can incorrectly represent cyclists.


I get the point of the campaign and feel that there is also merit in asking cyclists if they can be better road users. Potentially society can also see "cyclists are try to be better road users" however the AGF is speaking for all cyclists which may not find favour - some cyclists don't feel that it represents their interests or see other priorities for when the AGF is public in these matters.

[munga]

i've never seen a crocodile while out riding. maybe its a territory thing. too hot to ride up there tho. beats me. maybe they found a vector pack on the pc and went nuts at lunchtime.

[The 2nd Womble]

[greyhoundtom]

Not impressed. Massive fail

[Riddley]

I have posted some critical comments on the FB page.

But IMO these ads are in very poor taste, they characterise cyclists as either stupid or aggressive.

Not impressed at all.

[roller]

This is ridiculous, it looks to be a campaign based on (perceived) foibles of cycling/cyclists that you might read about on http://www.news.com.au" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm surprised there isn't a poster devoted to "don't talk too loudly when riding your bike" or one related to "lycra".


AGF should have one consistent clear message/campaign "whatever happens, don't hit a cyclist with your car, give them room" or something to that effect.

I also noticed this:

"Collisions – the facts
Every year an average over 2,550 cyclists are either killed or injured on our roads.
Analysis of collisions show that while the causes are many, they are equally shared between motorists and cyclists. Each of us has a responsibility to drive and cycle responsibly."

Are the causes really shared equally? I thought I remember reading some stats recently that the majority of collisions and crashes were caused by cars.

Regardless, for the average cyclist, you could do everything in the "ride right" campaign without exception 24/7, 365 days a year but that still won't save you when a car doesn't give you enough room and ploughs into you.

Cars are the problem, the only reason bikes cop the brunt is because car drivers just don't like to share the roads, they aren't conditioned to it, and there are thousands more of them so any anti-cyclist whinge in the press is jumped on by the spoilt motoring public because we're on "their" roads.

This campaign will do nothing to change that, infact it will just make that way of thinking more prevalent by making it seem like the biggest priority of the nation's most prominent cycling safety body is to make sure cyclists "behave".

It's very disappointing to see the AGF adopt this "we're SO sorry we're on YOUR roads" attitude.


this just chewed up 15 minutes of my day. now i'm really mad.

[jules21]

I also noticed this:

"Collisions – the facts
Every year an average over 2,550 cyclists are either killed or injured on our roads.
Analysis of collisions show that while the causes are many, they are equally shared between motorists and cyclists. Each of us has a responsibility to drive and cycle responsibly."

Are the causes really shared equally? I thought I remember reading some stats recently that the majority of collisions and crashes were caused by cars.

it depends on whether you restrict the analysis to vehicle-bicycle collisions, or all cycling injuries/crashes. obviously, cyclists will be proportionally more responsible for the latter (which is what they seem to be quoting).

womble - i struggle to understand why you seem so obsessed with the perceived failings of AGF. they're out there trying to help cycling. if you've got any better ideas, no one is stopping you from taking them up. it seems a lot like jealousy to me.

[The 2nd Womble]

Jealous? Not a chance in hell. Miffed at the AGF for trying everything they can to shut us down over the last 6 months after their advocacy manager said something totally inappropriate to myself and another female peer before going on a rampage? Yes, but that's beside the point.
Think about the peak body they go to great pains to represent themselves as at the expense of SCA and others who are no longer willing to share their ideas (which has lead them to this recent track record). Their support of BNV in actively not calling for demerit points in relation to dooring offences until public submissions were held at the Victorian Enquiry. I know of the politics relating to that refusal. Their steadfast support of Sane Warne and the Victorian 20/20 squad given the events leading up to the Christmas campaign that disgusted nearly every cyclist. The absolutely rediculous Android app which if you aren't aware, had your mobile phone block calls and texts whilst driving and required activation in much the same way that either muting or turning off your mobile in the first place achieved. And then finally, this poster roll out. To give you an example if just how pointless this is becoming for them let me post these pics. Note that the Share The Road signage, which we had involvement with, has been there approaching three years. A week after the AGF poster at this site was posted on socials media nationally, it was replaced with two ads for a show at QPAC and chewing gum. Brisbane's long standing (and more recognisable) signage of which this is merely one site (selected by the AGF most likely) location will be there for years to come.



While the AGF (held as the face of recreational cycling nationally in the eyes all who are aware of its existence) blunders
from one disaster straight into the next, our non funded campaigns and other work are broadly well received.
We managed 2012 (I kid you not) on a sub $1000 budget. If we had the 7 figure budget of the AGF I'm supremely confident that cyclists would have seen a much improved outlook in 2013/14 than they do now.
Thanks to our now thousands of supporters we can see that at least in Brisbane, cyclists are slowly starting to be cut the slack they deserve.
Would we swap positions with the AGF? Not for a second. As evidenced by the pics, the AGF seeks short term headlines while the countless other groups in Oz seek long term change. The rot has well and truly set in.

[jules21]

basically what you're saying is that cycling would be years ahead if cyclists donated to your fund, instead of AGF, as your ideas are good and theirs are crap. it's not a constructive stance - why not focus on what you can do, rather than worry about AGF "stealing" your limelight.

[The 2nd Womble]

If we were asking for the AGF's funding there would be far more constructive ways of going about it. Besides, the AGF finds itself in this position precisely because of that funding. I have always said I would rather eat my own bike than accept money with strings attached. That position won't change. Ever. I was making my point, not making a case for financial assistance.

[Pax]

Thanks to our now thousands of supporters we can see that at least in Brisbane, cyclists are slowly starting to be cut the slack they deserve.

Based on what evidence? (Honest question)

[The 2nd Womble]

The recounted experiences of cyclists over the last four years that we've been doing this. That the recent finding that Brisbane traffic flow is easing and that we are blessed with some of the better infrastructure of any of our major cities is also a bonus for us up here as well, but the situation is still far from ideal. Nevertheless in arguably the most aggressive city in Oz for driver behaviour, Brisbane riders are telling us things are improving. We aren't claiming a win because if it, but we all like to think we're helping to contribute. If riders are reporting percieved improvement in driver behaviour here, then who are we to argue.

[g-boaf]

So, what is AGF doing about aggressive drivers?

Except for telling us that cyclists need to obey the road rules. I suppose that will magically make the aggressive driver problem go away?

And what is AGF doing with regards to dooring of cyclists? Shouldn't it be the car occupants responsibility to check their surroundings before opening their door. The driver can use mirrors to look back, as can the front passenger. And if they don't, it should cost at minimum some demerit points. It's more dangerous than speeding in some respects.

[darkelf921]

I am a member of BQ and have donated to SCA (and will do again soon). I doubt I would donate to AGF as they are a name but I do not see any results of their work. I see a lot of results from SCA.

I don't care about the politics of what happens in the background. I simply look at which organizations are trying to help cyclists be safe on the road and try to help them. They are helping me after all. Regardless of what happens in the media (be it social or mainstream), surely it should be about keeping cyclists safe?

So thanks SCA for all of your hard work.

AGF, whilst I appreciate what you are trying to do, I am a very courteous cyclist to others on the road, including motorists. I'm not sure what to make of your posters but I doubt the motorists who target us on the road will take much from them other than to think it gives them the right to get angry with cyclists.

[macca33]

Talk about flogging a dead horse. They are having a go and attempting to highlight cycling / road safety issues - aimed at all road users, in an attempt to promote road (cyclist / driver / pedestrian) safety. I understood the messages; they are not difficult to decipher and I'm not that clever.

It seems that some here (and elsewhere) believe it is their God-given right to ride however they please, wherever / whenever they ride, yet other road / pathway users are not to be provided with similar privilege, ie cars / trucks do stupid things, or the blardy pedestrian was walking along the SHARED path and got in my way - I was only riding at 35kph at the time. Some of the proffered opinion / attitude (and pontification) beggars belief and to be frank, tends to make those who subscribe to such narrow-minded views look a tad silly.

Cyclists / pedestrians / motorists all have rights and responsibilities, ie; ALL road users, not just select road users.

[The 2nd Womble]

So explain to us how the AGF campaign speaks to all road users again?

[jcjordan]

So explain to us how the AGF campaign speaks to all road users again?

Like any campaign its going to be broken down to speak to different parts of the community.
- a meter matters speaks to drivers to remind them that coming to close is scary
- the ride right speaks to riders and reminds they also have a responsibility to act in a manner which is appropriate if they expect other road users to treat them with respect.
- road right speaks to new drivers and works to educate them in the rules correctly right from the beginning.

There is not point in speaking to most of the haters, they are going to continue to hate regardless of what education packages are out there.

They are also not going to be put off by greater penalties or enforcement.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk HD

[The 2nd Womble]

If there's no point talking to "the haters", most of whom are merely ignorant, what's the point of talking at all???

[jcjordan]

If there's no point talking to "the haters", most of whom are merely ignorant, what's the point of talking at all???

The haters that I am referring to are the small core of people who really believe that bikes don't belong anywhere. From my experience these are the really angry ones that try the aggressive stuff like deliberately coming to close, slamming the breaks, etc.

The majority can be talked to and educated for the most part and I think that AGF is doing just that.


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk HD

[rheicel]

I am supporting this campaign. Common guys, in one morning or afternoon, try to observe in one intersection where cyclists are crossing. You will be surprised how many cyclists run on red lights. Red means stop, period! Car Drivers get fined for crossing Red lights, Cyclists don't.

[AUbicycles]

If the police see a cyclist or a motorised vehicle go through red, they will each be fined. A cyclist may be more likely to knowingly ride red, just as a pedestrian may cross the lights on a red signale or a driver of motorised vehicle may exceed the speed limit a few kilometres. None of it is right though some members in each road user group ignore some laws even if there actions don't represent the views or behavior of everyone.

[human909]

Oh dear! AGF really have no idea do they.

[Xplora]

I am supporting this campaign. Common guys, in one morning or afternoon, try to observe in one intersection where cyclists are crossing. You will be surprised how many cyclists run on red lights. Red means stop, period! Car Drivers get fined for crossing Red lights, Cyclists don't.

Peds do this constantly, cars do it constantly... everyone runs a lot of reds. It's a major problem when cars do it because they weigh over a ton and don't stop so good at 50kmh. But no one cares about peds doing it because the primary sufferer if they misjudge is themselves.

If you honestly think a campaign needs supporting, then you need to demand better attitudes towards driving from the whole community. There are lots of people who don't take driving seriously. There are lots more people who get hurt because of poor driving and poor behaviour on the roads, than anything to do with cyclists. Literally ANYTHING. The road toll every holiday (not every year, every holiday!) almost matches the fatalities involving cyclists for the entire year. There is a much higher priority on drivers being stupid than cyclists if you want to improve the roads. Cyclists and peds can't defend themselves against cars... bikes and peds are basically on a level playing field.

If you want to help demonise cyclists, then support the AGF. I have a feeling Amy would be turning in her grave seeing what they are using her name for. She died because cars drove too close to her... not because she was a law flouting renegade on a bike.

[trailgumby]

There is not point in speaking to most of the haters, they are going to continue to hate regardless of what education packages are out there.

They are also not going to be put off by greater penalties or enforcement.

An obvious camera aimed in their general direction seems to help, though. I refer to them as my bogan repellent to co-workers.