Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

If it hasn't already been posted this is an interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opini ... ef=opinion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No absolutely not.*

*Unless you are driving a motor vehicle.

Daniel Duane wrote:So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect.

Those cyclists disobeying the road rules deserve to die for it. And all cyclists disobey the road rules don't they? /troll

Sounds a bit like victim blaming at the end of the analysis to me.

A good article IMO, and any article that helps to highlight the utterly disgusting lack of justice in car/bike crashes is a good thing. People need to be outraged.

"Is it OK to kill cyclists with a car?" … Sure is!

this problem isn't unique to cycling and cyclists - it's known as tyranny of the majority, in which democratic will serves to act against the interests of a minority group, rather than as an effective means of governing society as a whole.

there are countless examples - racial discrimination against minorities, ideological discrimination against communists in the 50s/60s, discrimination against catholics in past decades and muslims today. more comparative examples to cycling include shooters and 4wd enthusiasts.

Can't see 4WD enthusiasts as a discriminated minority

The 4WD market is currently a huge slab of the motoring sector, and their vehicles enjoy a number of favourable treatments.

il padrone wrote:Can't see 4WD enthusiasts as a discriminated minority

The 4WD market is currently a huge slab of the motoring sector, and their vehicles enjoy a number of favourable treatments.

i meant off-roading - they are always complaining about having access to tracks restricted. you could argue that is just, but we'd be getting off-topic.

jules21 wrote:

il padrone wrote:Can't see 4WD enthusiasts as a discriminated minority

The 4WD market is currently a huge slab of the motoring sector, and their vehicles enjoy a number of favourable treatments.

i meant off-roading - they are always complaining about having access to tracks restricted. you could argue that is just, but we'd be getting off-topic.

But it is all quite true. Rock-climbing is in the same boat. Though most of the time it flys under the radar. When it doesn't, the relevent authorities love to wield the ban stick. Simply because they can.

Australia and Australians have so little concept of freedom it is sad.

Here's a response to the article by BikeSnobNYC http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com.au/2013 ... again.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In Australia over 70% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault. This may sound surprising - but its because most of them are children or young people jumping straight out onto the road without looking. So when some commuter cyclist gets run over by a truck, it gets completely buried in the stats. Whats 4% of cyclist deaths by close passes compared to 70% of deaths by cyclists being idiots, 10% by cyclists being drunk, and 10% by cyclists running stop signs and getting taken out?

The sad truth of the "1m pass distance" campaign is that they have no legitimate superiority to be ranked against ways of saving lives. Educating families and stopping their kids riding out onto roads will save way more lives than a 1m pass distance will. Cracking down on cyclists running stop signs seems to have saved more lives than than 1m passing distance will. This is simply an unfortunate reality of the death statistics and it will not change until the number of commuter cyclists (And the number killed) increased by an order of magnitude.

The only option a commuter cyclist really has is to do their own risk assessment. I am a commuter cyclist. But I find it absolutely stupid to ride on most roads with cars. I think people who do it on any thing other than wide 50km/hr back streets are silly. It doesn't matter how much you prosecute people for breaking the law - people will make mistakes. The very concept of having multi-tonne hunks of metal flying around with no safety system to prevent them would be banned if invented today. Likewise if bicycles were invented today, there is no way in hell they would ever be allowed on the road with the 'rights' they have today.

Our road rules are mainly based on historical grandfathering to prevent social upheaval. They are NOT about safety. Once you realise this, you start to realise why the minorities on the road will never get the laws that are needed to protect them. The laws to protect cyclists will come only when the majority of the population take up cycling because of other social issues (cost of fuel, congested roads). Those European countries with great cycling rules that people go on about did not get to their positions by passing tough laws or creating infrastructure. Governments are responsive and retroactive. Rules are regulations (and infrastructure) come as an after thought to try and match the social trends.

Cycling will become safe when a huge number of people do are forced to do it, not sooner.

myforwik wrote:In Australia over 70% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault. This may sound surprising - but its because most of them are children or young people jumping straight out onto the road without looking. So when some commuter cyclist gets run over by a truck, it gets completely buried in the stats. Whats 4% of cyclist deaths by close passes compared to 70% of deaths by cyclists being idiots, 10% by cyclists being drunk, and 10% by cyclists running stop signs and getting taken out?

By your logic since murders make up as small percentage of deaths we should worry about trying to prevent them or prosecute them after the fact.

myforwik wrote:The sad truth of the "1m pass distance" campaign is that they have no legitimate superiority to be ranked against ways of saving lives. Educating families and stopping their kids riding out onto roads will save way more lives than a 1m pass distance will.

That won't keep me safe on the road. Nor are these proposals a binary choice.

myforwik wrote:Cracking down on cyclists running stop signs seems to have saved more lives than than 1m passing distance will. This is simply an unfortunate reality of the death statistics and it will not change until the number of commuter cyclists (And the number killed) increased by an order of magnitude.

I don't know where you get that notion from.

myforwik wrote:The only option a commuter cyclist really has is to do their own risk assessment. I am a commuter cyclist. But I find it absolutely stupid to ride on most roads with cars. I think people who do it on any thing other than wide 50km/hr back streets are silly.

Thanks for calling me silly and stupid. I did not appreciate it!

myforwik wrote:Those European countries with great cycling rules that people go on about did not get to their positions by passing tough laws or creating infrastructure.

You sure about that?


A build it and they will come can be seen quite clearly in some inner Melbourne councils. You can see vast differences in cycling rates as soon as you cross some council lines.

myforwik wrote:In Australia over 70% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault. This may sound surprising - but its because most of them are children or young people jumping straight out onto the road without looking. So when some commuter cyclist gets run over by a truck, it gets completely buried in the stats. Whats 4% of cyclist deaths by close passes compared to 70% of deaths by cyclists being idiots, 10% by cyclists being drunk, and 10% by cyclists running stop signs and getting taken out?

Care to back that up with some facts? References please. There's been 46 cycling fatalities on roads this year in Australia. http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/number-of-cycli ... 2xg56.html

myforwik wrote:In Australia over 70% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault.

That is an interesting claim indeed. Can you point to the research that supports this?

What research I have seen suggests otherwise:

[1] Profiling Cyclists Injured in Crashes: South Australian Data - In 79% of the reported incidents motorists where found to be fault;
[2] Robertson, J. & Saulwick, J. (August 31, 2013). Close encounters of the hostile kind. The Sydney Morning Herald. This article suggests 88% of motorists at fault in cyclist versus motorist incidents.
[3] Helmet-cam captures bike accidents (and could make cycling safer) - The Conversation - 87% of recorded incidents - fault of motorist. The related peer reviewed paper can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21050610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

The only other analysis of sorts of cyclists deaths in Australia I am aware of is the ATSB Road Safety Report 2006 and I do not recall it attributing blame.

So very interested in your references that support your statement.

Regards
Andrew

queequeg wrote:There's been 46 cycling fatalities on roads this year in Australia. http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/number-of-cycli ... 2xg56.html

If that figure is correct that means nine people have died on our roads since October 1 which is shocking . The latest statistics from BITRE are to the end of September, 2013 when the death toll for the past 12 months was 37 .

Andrew

myforwik wrote:In Australia over 70% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault.

I too am impressed with your big opening stat, Myforwick.

Reference?

clackers wrote:

myforwik wrote:In Australia over 70% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault.

I too am impressed with your big opening stat, Myforwick.

Reference?

Myforkwik follows the principal that 83% of statistics are made up 67% of the time for 85% of any argument.

It is sound and I 50% those claims in 50% of the post.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

Give him.a break. Why waste time hunting down references when you can make up your own evidence? After all, truth is relative these days. What's true for you may not be true for me

The notion that an objective reality actually exists that is independent of your point of view is so ... Baby Boomer.

Tapatalk ... how is it supposed to be better?

Over 70% of myforwik's post is 100% bollocks.

I too would like to see some substance behind Forkwiks precise and definite statements.

If not then I suggest Forkwik is on the wrong forum. Though not perfect, this forum is heavily disposed to thoughtful argument and supporting data. Those seeking support for dogmatic statements removed from reality should google Durianrider and head there instead.

btw Forkwik, claims sound so much more authorative with an extra decimal place or two.

In Australia over 72.31% of cyclist deaths are 100% cyclist at fault.

Apologies if I sound a little facetious Forwik. But extraordinary claims require extraodinary references. You didn't bother to even supply ANY references. It is hard not to think of trolls when that happens.

KenGS wrote:

Love it Ken

Andrew

human909 wrote:By your logic since murders make up as small percentage of deaths we should worry about trying to prevent them or prosecute them after the fact.

We have limited resources. If the same amount of time money can stop twice as many deaths if it is directed another way, then we do that.

human909 wrote:That won't keep me safe on the road. Nor are these proposals a binary choice.

Its not about you. These are large social issues with a limited budget, and they are generally binary choices. Especially over a new rule that will require massive advertising campaign and initial police blitz, initial cases and prosecution.

human909 wrote:I don't know where you get that notion from.

From the facts. After 2006 the NTSB recommended police and advertising blitz around cyclists running red and stop signs. Deaths from these incidents have halved since then.

human909 wrote: You sure about that? A build it and they will come can be seen quite clearly in some inner Melbourne councils. You can see vast differences in cycling rates as soon as you cross some council lines.

You movie shows nothing and confuses itself. So they supposedly built it so they will come? Then why did they have massive protests? The protests and cyclists came before the infrastructure. The infrastructure propelled it forward, but was not the initiator or even the biggest factor. Australia needs shorter work trips for it to ever get anywhere close to what they have, doesn't matter what you build.

All the stats I have said are in the 2001 2006 and 2011 ATSB road safety reports - "Death of cyclist due to road crashes"

People don't like facts when they don't fit their views.

For example: nearly 45% of cyclist that are killed are not wearing helmets, which is why everyone still goes on about helmets. Yet I doubt anyone here will believe that stat either, even though it clearly says so in all the reports - with women being the major violators, two of the reports show EVERY women killed not wearing a helmet.

myforwik wrote:All the stats I have said are in the 2001 2006 and 2011 ATSB road safety reports - "Death of cyclist due to road crashes"

People don't like facts when they don't fit their views.

For example: nearly 45% of cyclist that are killed are not wearing helmets, which is why everyone still goes on about helmets. Yet I doubt anyone here will believe that stat either, even though it clearly says so in all the reports - with women being the major violators, two of the reports show EVERY women killed not wearing a helmet.

That's about as useful as someone in a discussion about religion saying "Oh, it's in the Bible."

Chapter, verse, and (more importantly) context?