The constant smear campaign against cycling

User avatar
Toyopet
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:43 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Toyopet » Sun May 13, 2018 10:46 am

Q: Why do cars need good brakes?
A: To avoid crashing into cyclists running red lights.

(so says the photo at top-left below)

Image

The car gets its brakes checked whenever it goes into the dealer for a service. But it annoys me that they pick on a cyclist for their (set up) test report photo. Yes, emergency braking is sometimes required, but it’s usually due to the actions of other drivers, not wayward cyclists!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun May 13, 2018 7:59 pm

Agree Toyopet, they could of used a child crossing the road bringing forward the image of good brakes protecting our children but they use an image of cyclist. It's almost saying that good brakes will protect your car from being damaged by some ratbag on a bicycle
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

BJL
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby BJL » Sun May 13, 2018 8:16 pm

It's a stupid photo anyway. Even though the green lights appear slightly brighter, it also appears that the red lights are illuminated as well. So which is it? And given that the traffic on the other side of the intersection is backed up, it's highly likely that even if the lights are green, it has only just turned green meaning that firstly, the cyclist may have entered the intersection on amber and secondly, it's also likely the car was stationary at the intersection at the red light for a period of time before the cyclist came into view.

So what do motorists need brakes for? To stop at red lights of course!

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun May 13, 2018 9:25 pm

I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.

fat and old
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Sun May 13, 2018 9:48 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.


Agree. Glass half full here.

BJL
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby BJL » Mon May 14, 2018 8:30 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.


Where does it say that?

"Ensure your safety, and that of your family".

To me, they mean the occupants of the vehicle. As if the occupants of the vehicle are at any risk if they drove into that cyclist. Maybe if they showed another car or a truck running the maybe red light.

No mention of the safety of other road users at all. Indeed, the cynic in me says that there will be a few rednecks out there that would look at this and say 'another bloody expense because of those idiot cyclists'.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 am

BJL wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.


Where does it say that?

"Ensure your safety, and that of your family".

To me, they mean the occupants of the vehicle. As if the occupants of the vehicle are at any risk if they drove into that cyclist. Maybe if they showed another car or a truck running the maybe red light.

No mention of the safety of other road users at all. Indeed, the cynic in me says that there will be a few rednecks out there that would look at this and say 'another bloody expense because of those idiot cyclists'.


It says that in the picture.

I've been to a couple of seminars on communication, and they always make the point that communication is not only verbal, but the visual component is at least as important. I've never done a course in advertising but I'm sure they take advantage of the sample principle: one message in the pictures, another message in the words - and they don't have to be identical. So there's no need to say "Ensure the safety of other road users" because they've made that point in the picture. (There's a car ad on TV at the moment which does the same thing, though in that case it brakes for a pedestrian wearing headphones).

human909
Posts: 8744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Mon May 14, 2018 10:55 am

Well said.

AdelaidePeter wrote:(There's a car ad on TV at the moment which does the same thing, though in that case it brakes for a pedestrian wearing headphones).


As a car driver having to brake suddenly or take any evasive maneuvers for pedestrians and cyclists is a rarity. Doing it for my fellow motorist is certainly not uncommon.

These advertisements perpetuate the us-vs-them thought process whether it is deliberate or not.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Absolutely terrible things are happening in Melbourne, motorists are being forced to give way to cyclists

https://au.news.yahoo.com/new-roundabouts-drivers-will-give-way-cyclists-020514132.html

Once again cyclists are being portrayed as being evil road users. Or lets put it another way, I've never seen an article saying that cyclists are being forced to give way to motorists
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:41 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Absolutely terrible things are happening in Melbourne, motorists are being forced to give way to cyclists

https://au.news.yahoo.com/new-roundabouts-drivers-will-give-way-cyclists-020514132.html

Once again cyclists are being portrayed as being evil road users. Or lets put it another way, I've never seen an article saying that cyclists are being forced to give way to motorists


How are cyclists being portrayed as evil road users? The whole article puts a positive spin on it.

EDIT: OK I see, the word "forced". Well that's pretty minor given the rest of the article, IMHO.

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28997
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:10 pm

I like that roundy design, it's not full radial entry but it's a move away from the tangential entry circular chicane that provides so much entertainment for those drivers in a hurry
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

Scintilla
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Scintilla » Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:01 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:How are cyclists being portrayed as evil road users? The whole article puts a positive spin on it.

EDIT: OK I see, the word "forced". Well that's pretty minor given the rest of the article, IMHO.


I reckon the Feral-Hun's comments will be going ballistic right about now as all the motards hear this in the nightly news :lol: I cannot verify this as I have exceeded my daily two-article viewing allocation.

g-boaf
Posts: 9571
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby g-boaf » Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:51 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Absolutely terrible things are happening in Melbourne, motorists are being forced to give way to cyclists

https://au.news.yahoo.com/new-roundabouts-drivers-will-give-way-cyclists-020514132.html

Once again cyclists are being portrayed as being evil road users. Or lets put it another way, I've never seen an article saying that cyclists are being forced to give way to motorists


About time! I hate having cars push their way through roundabouts.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7642
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby find_bruce » Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:34 pm

I really like the ped crossings on every rd

fat and old
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:41 pm

There’s two roundabouts like that for peds next to Sth Melbourne Market. Been there for years.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:41 pm

So why not a heading like "new roundabout design improves safety for cyclists" ? Instead we have "motorists are being forced to give way to cyclists"
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:25 pm

I'm with Adelaide Peter.

I think we are tilting at windmills. Not every statement that just happens to show a cyclist is aimed at faulting cyclists. Indeed we'll look rather paranoid if the next ad in the series involves a pram rolling onto the road or a kid chasing a footy.

The ad attempts to present a plausible example. They certainly can't present an example showing an "average" threatened subject. How do you represent a subject consisting of 1/3rd of a cyclist, 1/3rd of a baby in a pram and 1/3 of a kid chasing a footy. :?
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

commute
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:06 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby commute » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:13 pm

Once again the WA RSC is framing cycling (along with public transport) as negative with an ad campaign.

https://www.rsc.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/Whats-your-option

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:33 pm

commute wrote:Once again the WA RSC is framing cycling (along with public transport) as negative with an ad campaign.

https://www.rsc.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/Whats-your-option


These ads were canned back in February https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 0w82c.html and now they're back. Either they're unchanged or they're repackaged, but either way, "Cam the loser cyclist" still features heavily.

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:02 pm

Toyopet wrote:Q: Why do cars need good brakes?
A: To avoid crashing into cyclists running red lights.

(so says the photo at top-left below)

The car gets its brakes checked whenever it goes into the dealer for a service. But it annoys me that they pick on a cyclist for their (set up) test report photo. Yes, emergency braking is sometimes required, but it’s usually due to the actions of other drivers, not wayward cyclists!

Not everything is a conspiracy against cyclists.

There is seldom a driver who has not had a bingle with another vehicle in the decades of driving. And for most such bingles they are mostly just a fact of driving which, aside from the next insurance premium, we get over pretty quickly.

But the thought of hitting a cyclist? Or a ped? Now THAT would be life changing event to me. And I suspect to most of us.

The choice of featuring a cyclist in the headlights makes sense. Hell, if I was given the job of getting the message across, I'd certainly not rely on the limited psychological impact of a car-on-car crash. Babies in prams, cyclists, pedestrians,...
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:08 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:
commute wrote:Once again the WA RSC is framing cycling (along with public transport) as negative with an ad campaign.

https://www.rsc.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/Whats-your-option


These ads were canned back in February https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 0w82c.html and now they're back. Either they're unchanged or they're repackaged, but either way, "Cam the loser cyclist" still features heavily.



"And because you're back on a bike you'll probably lose your girlfriend, too. This is the startling message from a new advertising campaign from Western Australia's Road Safety Commission."

What????
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18910
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:23 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
Toyopet wrote:Q: Why do cars need good brakes?
A: To avoid crashing into cyclists running red lights.

(so says the photo at top-left below)

The car gets its brakes checked whenever it goes into the dealer for a service. But it annoys me that they pick on a cyclist for their (set up) test report photo. Yes, emergency braking is sometimes required, but it’s usually due to the actions of other drivers, not wayward cyclists!

Not everything is a conspiracy against cyclists.

There is seldom a driver who has not had a bingle with another vehicle in the decades of driving. And for most such bingles they are mostly just a fact of driving which, aside from the next insurance premium, we get over pretty quickly.

But the thought of hitting a cyclist? Or a ped? Now THAT would be life changing event to me. And I suspect to most of us.

The choice of featuring a cyclist in the headlights makes sense. Hell, if I was given the job of getting the message across, I'd certainly not rely on the limited psychological impact of a car-on-car crash. Babies in prams, cyclists, pedestrians,...

The issue is the accumulative negativity to cyclists. In the past it was blatant, now its more supple. They could of showed an object in front of them that would of been of much more risk to the occupants such as a motor vehicle but instead its a bike and your more likely to get killed by lightening than a cyclist
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:58 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:
Toyopet wrote:Q: Why do cars need good brakes?
A: To avoid crashing into cyclists running red lights.

(so says the photo at top-left below)

The car gets its brakes checked whenever it goes into the dealer for a service. But it annoys me that they pick on a cyclist for their (set up) test report photo. Yes, emergency braking is sometimes required, but it’s usually due to the actions of other drivers, not wayward cyclists!

Not everything is a conspiracy against cyclists.

There is seldom a driver who has not had a bingle with another vehicle in the decades of driving. And for most such bingles they are mostly just a fact of driving which, aside from the next insurance premium, we get over pretty quickly.

But the thought of hitting a cyclist? Or a ped? Now THAT would be life changing event to me. And I suspect to most of us.

The choice of featuring a cyclist in the headlights makes sense. Hell, if I was given the job of getting the message across, I'd certainly not rely on the limited psychological impact of a car-on-car crash. Babies in prams, cyclists, pedestrians,...

The issue is the accumulative negativity to cyclists. In the past it was blatant, now its more supple. They could of showed an object in front of them that would of been of much more risk to the occupants such as a motor vehicle but instead its a bike and your more likely to get killed by lightening than a cyclist


Clearly I did not make it clear, though I did not think that I needed to.

My fear of hitting a cyclist is not that he is going to injure me. It is that I am going to kill him. Now THAT has emotional punch, not me hitting a car even though cars hitting cars are more common.

Ever noticed how common it is for people who take out a cyclist or a ped does a runner? The driver knows how deep he is in it.

Now how often do you hear of a runner when a car hits a car? Only for joyriders who WANT a police chase.

I can face a bingle with another car when I am driving. But to run over a ped or cyclist? Uh uh. And I suspect that the same applies to you. And THAT is why the promo is a good choice. Nothing to do with a dislike of cyclists.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

human909
Posts: 8744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:53 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Clearly I did not make it clear, though I did not think that I needed to.

My fear of hitting a cyclist is not that he is going to injure me. It is that I am going to kill him. Now THAT has emotional punch, not me hitting a car even though cars hitting cars are more common.

Ever noticed how common it is for people who take out a cyclist or a ped does a runner? The driver knows how deep he is in it.

Now how often do you hear of a runner when a car hits a car? Only for joyriders who WANT a police chase.

I can face a bingle with another car when I am driving. But to run over a ped or cyclist? Uh uh. And I suspect that the same applies to you. And THAT is why the promo is a good choice. Nothing to do with a dislike of cyclists.


That could be a valid explanation. Though I think Occam's razor applies here.

Your long and complicated explanation about the emotional, moral, and ethical repercussions of hitting a vulnerable road user.

OR

Pick the cyclists run red light stereotype and run with it.

:idea:


(If you are going to run with the emotional angle of vulnerable road users then surely and advertiser would use a much stronger emotional connection. AKA lady with a pram or a young child.)

human909
Posts: 8744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:00 am

mikesbytes wrote:The issue is the accumulative negativity to cyclists. In the past it was blatant, now its more supple.

Unless you are in WA. Which has decided to proceed with their campaign of maligning cyclists.




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users