The constant smear campaign against cycling

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:28 am

OK I see, that's Southern Cross Group Stadium on the left, on Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware, NSW.

Google Street View doesn't quite match the photo (e.g. no convex mirror in GSV), but according to GSV, that is technically not a cycling lane, because there is no "bicycle lane" sign. As for parking, it's no stopping where the photo was taken, but there's legal parking just up ahead (the "bike lane" ends and becomes a full width 3rd lane, but parking is allowed).

Even though that would mean it's legal (unless they're riding 3 abreast) I don't like it because I generally think it's better to be in the left lane even when it's not a technically a bicycle lane. But then, as has been pointed out, who knows if the left lane is blocked up ahead.

fat and old
Posts: 3715
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:56 pm

Are we looking at different streets?

AdelaidePeter wrote:OK I see, that's Southern Cross Group Stadium on the left, on Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware, NSW.

Google Street View doesn't quite match the photo (e.g. no convex mirror in GSV), but according to GSV, that is technically not a cycling lane, because there is no "bicycle lane" sign.


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.038 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.039 ... 312!8i6656


The only parking area I saw was exactly where they were riding, for a short stretch along the front of that joint. Everywhere else is no standing. Bike lane diverts onto footpath at roundabout. Same street?

human909
Posts: 9070
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:01 pm

fat and old wrote:The only parking area I saw was exactly where they were riding, for a short stretch along the front of that joint. Everywhere else is no standing. Bike lane diverts onto footpath at roundabout. Same street?


What a horrible little street for pedestrians. How far would a pedestrians have to walk to cross the damn road. Those centre pedestrian barriers seem pervasive in some states. It really is a big middle finger towards pedestrians in the name of 'safety'. (AKA cars have priority here and screw everybody else.)

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:09 pm

fat and old wrote:Are we looking at different streets?

AdelaidePeter wrote:OK I see, that's Southern Cross Group Stadium on the left, on Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware, NSW.

Google Street View doesn't quite match the photo (e.g. no convex mirror in GSV), but according to GSV, that is technically not a cycling lane, because there is no "bicycle lane" sign.


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.038 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.039 ... 312!8i6656


The only parking area I saw was exactly where they were riding, for a short stretch along the front of that joint. Everywhere else is no standing. Bike lane diverts onto footpath at roundabout. Same street?


I only went back to the previous traffic light. Technically the bicycle lane ends at that intersection, unless there is another "bicycle lane" sign immediately after the traffic light (or a bicycle sign AND the word "lane" on the road), and there is not. So I think that by the letter of the law, it is not a bicycle lane (though that is the clear intention so I still think it would have been better if they were using it, if practicable).

You're right about the parking. It's "no stopping" before the stadium and "no parking" in front of it (presumably to allow drop-offs during games?), and I mis-remembered the "no parking" as some sort of limited parking.
Last edited by AdelaidePeter on Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BJL
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby BJL » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:11 pm

fat and old wrote:Are we looking at different streets?

AdelaidePeter wrote:OK I see, that's Southern Cross Group Stadium on the left, on Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware, NSW.

Google Street View doesn't quite match the photo (e.g. no convex mirror in GSV), but according to GSV, that is technically not a cycling lane, because there is no "bicycle lane" sign.


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.038 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.039 ... 312!8i6656


The only parking area I saw was exactly where they were riding, for a short stretch along the front of that joint. Everywhere else is no standing. Bike lane diverts onto footpath at roundabout. Same street?


Referring to Goggle Maps links, what's the deal with all the cars parked on the footpath outside the stadium?

fat and old
Posts: 3715
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:19 pm

It's possible that they're on private property. Not that uncommon. But I have no idea if that's the case...you'd have to access council plans.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19241
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:08 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:
P!N20 wrote:Looks like Mr X is at it again...actually his Photoshop skills were better than that:

Image

You'll need to scroll down:

https://www.news.com.au/national/rush-h ... 040d754d63


I'm genuinely wondering (with an open mind either way), why do you think it's Photoshop?

I don't know if its photoshopped or not, I'm not that good at that kinda stuff. What I can see from the picture is what looks like a standard training ride, which appears to have at least 16 bikes occupying about the same space as 2 motorcars. No doubt there would be a host of reasons why the bike lane is not suitable in this situation
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

hunch
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby hunch » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:16 am

There's been a long running campaign by some Kurnell residents to get bike riders off Captain Cook Drive, so might hold off blaming Mr X and any photoshop! There's the usual presumption that you're incapable of driving a vehicle around the bends out there at any thing less than the speed limit and bicycles "suddenly" appearing were a hazard....they seem to forget in years past, sand used to block the road entirely and memorably, one car was swallowed by a subsidence. Then there were the tankers from the refinery, sewerage plant trucks, large numbers of semis with sand and from the carbon black plant as well as assorted excavators lumbering around out there to slow the speedway.

A few years ago, one of groups out there, went so far as to set up road obstructions in the middle of the night and publicly posted it before a triathalon(?). When the legal implications were pointed out, they pulled the incriminating photos.

Seems to me, travelling in a training ride abreast with any sort of safe margin, the inside "car" lane would be half closed any way - but the passing laws are optional of course. :lol:

AndrewCowley
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:57 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AndrewCowley » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:39 am

2 days in and news.com.au are still running the story on their front page. Humorously though, it has now moved to the Technology section.

User avatar
tallywhacker
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby tallywhacker » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:05 pm


User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby biker jk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:54 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:
fat and old wrote:Are we looking at different streets?

AdelaidePeter wrote:OK I see, that's Southern Cross Group Stadium on the left, on Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware, NSW.

Google Street View doesn't quite match the photo (e.g. no convex mirror in GSV), but according to GSV, that is technically not a cycling lane, because there is no "bicycle lane" sign.


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.038 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.039 ... 312!8i6656


The only parking area I saw was exactly where they were riding, for a short stretch along the front of that joint. Everywhere else is no standing. Bike lane diverts onto footpath at roundabout. Same street?


I only went back to the previous traffic light. Technically the bicycle lane ends at that intersection, unless there is another "bicycle lane" sign immediately after the traffic light (or a bicycle sign AND the word "lane" on the road), and there is not. So I think that by the letter of the law, it is not a bicycle lane (though that is the clear intention so I still think it would have been better if they were using it, if practicable).

You're right about the parking. It's "no stopping" before the stadium and "no parking" in front of it (presumably to allow drop-offs during games?), and I mis-remembered the "no parking" as some sort of limited parking.


It's a bicycle lane from the apartment building, through the traffic lights, until just before the roundabout. Since the bicycle lane disappears just before the roundabout it's much safer to ignore the bicycle lane and ride in the left lane, whether in a group or otherwise.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19241
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:20 pm

I questioned the reason for the smear campaign in another thread siting vested interests. A way to massage the public view is to provided repeated communications of the same or similar message, this is called Mere Exposure Effect and is a method used by the music industry to make you like their music. In the case of the negativity of cycling it has been set up with a strong campaign, which has happened and is now retained with the occasional reminder.

What we need is the Mere Exposure Effect to be applied to the positive benefits of cycling
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 9070
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:41 pm

mikesbytes wrote:What we need is the Mere Exposure Effect to be applied to the positive benefits of cycling

The best exposure effect is to have more regular people cycling more often. The domino effects are readily seen in Melbourne's inner north. People who have never envisaged of cycling let alone cycle commuting start doing it because everybody around them is doing it.

The regular clothes thing can't be overstated. The lycra uniform is not something that a regular joe/jane sees and thinks I should give that a shot.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13217
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby trailgumby » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:33 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:
P!N20 wrote:Looks like Mr X is at it again...actually his Photoshop skills were better than that:

Image

You'll need to scroll down:

https://www.news.com.au/national/rush-h ... 040d754d63


I'm genuinely wondering (with an open mind either way), why do you think it's Photoshop?

I don't know if its photoshopped or not, I'm not that good at that kinda stuff. What I can see from the picture is what looks like a standard training ride, which appears to have at least 16 bikes occupying about the same space as 2 motorcars. No doubt there would be a host of reasons why the bike lane is not suitable in this situation

Not photoshopped. There is, however, a kerb that suddenly juts out, ending the cycle lane abruptly at the entry to a roundabout 100m along from the lead rider in this photo. At 30km/hr that's about 12 seconds.

They're simply riding in a manner that proactively manages the safety of every rider in that group.

Of course that piece of information doesn't suit the propaganda agenda of News Corp, so off they go with their clickbait headlines instead of telling the mouthbreather to pull his head in.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19241
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:50 am

human909 wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:What we need is the Mere Exposure Effect to be applied to the positive benefits of cycling

The best exposure effect is to have more regular people cycling more often. The domino effects are readily seen in Melbourne's inner north. People who have never envisaged of cycling let alone cycle commuting start doing it because everybody around them is doing it.

The regular clothes thing can't be overstated. The lycra uniform is not something that a regular joe/jane sees and thinks I should give that a shot.

This is an example of how they worked to divide us, picking on what cyclists wear they have even convinced cyclists that what other cyclists wear is bad

BTW it sounds like that area of Melbourne has got to critical mass and that's great
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

uart
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby uart » Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:11 pm

trailgumby wrote:Not photoshopped. There is, however, a kerb that suddenly juts out, ending the cycle lane abruptly at the entry to a roundabout 100m along from the lead rider in this photo. At 30km/hr that's about 12 seconds.

They're simply riding in a manner that proactively manages the safety of every rider in that group.

Of course that piece of information doesn't suit the propaganda agenda of News Corp, so off they go with their clickbait headlines instead of telling the mouthbreather to pull his head in.


Yep. That's passing the Cronulla "Sharks" stadium heading east. Here is what awaits them barely 100m down the road. Hardly suitable for a fast pack.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.039 ... 312!8i6656

fat and old
Posts: 3715
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:57 pm

100 meters my arse :lol: Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19241
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:10 am

fat and old wrote:100 meters my arse :lol: Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?

I know that piece of road and where the bunch is placed is exactly where I'd put the bunch if I was ride leader. As is often the case they are using an image that misrepresents the cyclist to smear them
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7971
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby find_bruce » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:19 am

fat and old wrote:100 meters my arse :lol: Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?

No such thing as an off road cycle lane. No sane person is going to take a bunch onto a narrow shared path, especially not one that stops just the other side of the roundabout. Like mike its exactly where I would take a bunch

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:45 am

For the record, the "bicycle lane" ends in about 250 metres.
Image

However, the riders are riding legally because this Google Street View picture (which is almost certainly later than the Google Earth picture, despite the GE picture being marked as 2018) shows no "Bicycle lane" sign, so it's not a legal bicycle lane after the traffic light (unless extra signage has gone in after this GSV picture).
Image

fat and old
Posts: 3715
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:47 am

fat and old wrote:100 meters my arse :lol: Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?

mikesbytes wrote: I know that piece of road and where the bunch is placed is exactly where I'd put the bunch if I was ride leader. As is often the case they are using an image that misrepresents the cyclist to smear them

find_bruce wrote:
fat and old wrote:100 meters my arse :lol: Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?

No such thing as an off road cycle lane. No sane person is going to take a bunch onto a narrow shared path, especially not one that stops just the other side of the roundabout. Like mike its exactly where I would take a bunch



As is obvious, I'm playing D/A as usual. I'm a motorist, and you're not convincing me.


First, a cyclist misrepresented the distances involved. Deliberate or not, it shows a lassiez faire attitude towards the facts. How do I know what else has been misrepresented?


Second, why would you take the bunch that way? Why can't you use the cycle lane that's been supplied and then mount the shared path? What is "impracticle" about that? As far as I know, a posted speed limit is not meant to be aspirational.


Thirdly, it's been stated that the cycle lane is not legal due to a missing sign. In what way does that affect it's performance as a cycle lane?


Fourth, If the attitude is that as the cycle lane is not legal, and therefore can be ignored legally, are you prepared to accept a literal, no nonsense approach to all road rules, applying to everybody without complaint?


Don't cry foul, fight back!

Edit: on the OP subject, yeah, just another smear. Like last night's news story about cycle delivery people. I understand and share the frustration, but still like to argue from as secure a position as possible....hence the call on "100m".

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19241
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:12 pm

You are getting picky Fat & Old :) :) :)
Even at 250mtrs its important to get the riders into that lane at a time when there's minimal risk of being hit by a car that changes lanes suddenly, so the rider at the rear would of made a call as to when to pull over into the lane as safety is more important than a few seconds of other road users times. BTW I'm guessing from their posture that the bunch is already starting to slow down for the intersection, perhaps they are behind a slowing car, you can't tell from the photo what is in front of them.

Anyway as we are saying the photo is all about denouncing cyclists and ignoring the reasons they are there in the first place
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

uart
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby uart » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:15 pm

fat and old wrote:Don't cry foul, fight back!


Ok then.

1. It's about 120m from the position of the lead rider to the point on the road where the end of the lane is in view and it's almost too late to try and merge.

2. A group like that is likely travelling about 40+ km/hr, and the time until it would be too late to merge safely would be 10 to 15 seconds max.

3. Most importantly. It's a Sunday morning and look at how much traffic is (not) being held up. The car immediately ahead of the car with the dash cam appears to not have a single car ahead of them in frame.

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Jmuzz » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:47 pm

As if a bunch of road bikes doing 30 to 40 are going to chuck a near 90deg turn (you will probably protractor it to argue) into this.

Image

If you are playing devil's advocate for that then it's just pointless, can't reason with such irrational thinking.

fat and old
Posts: 3715
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:33 pm

Jmuzz wrote:As if a bunch of road bikes doing 30 to 40 are going to chuck a near 90deg turn (you will probably protractor it to argue) into this.

Image

If you are playing devil's advocate for that then it's just pointless, can't reason with such irrational thinking.


What? They don't have brakes? Aren't competent enough to use them?

It's not me you have to worry about, it's the people who genuinly don't understand why that's not an option. Sure, there's lots out there who won't cop any exlanation; they just don't want bikes on the road. But there will be people out there who can be reasoned with, and that's where you start. IMO, anyway.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users