The constant smear campaign against cycling
- Toyopet
- Posts: 164
- 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
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!
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22179
- 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
-
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby BJL » Sun May 13, 2018 8:16 pm
So what do motorists need brakes for? To stop at red lights of course!
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun May 13, 2018 9:25 pm
-
- Posts: 6179
- 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
Agree. Glass half full here.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.
-
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby BJL » Mon May 14, 2018 8:30 am
Where does it say that?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.
"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'.
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 am
It says that in the picture.BJL wrote:Where does it say that?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.
"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'.
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).
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Mon May 14, 2018 10:55 am
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.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).
These advertisements perpetuate the us-vs-them thought process whether it is deliberate or not.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22179
- 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
https://au.news.yahoo.com/new-roundabou ... 14132.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
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:41 pm
How are cyclists being portrayed as evil road users? The whole article puts a positive spin on it.mikesbytes wrote:Absolutely terrible things are happening in Melbourne, motorists are being forced to give way to cyclists
https://au.news.yahoo.com/new-roundabou ... 14132.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
EDIT: OK I see, the word "forced". Well that's pretty minor given the rest of the article, IMHO.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- 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
London Boy 29/12/2011
-
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby Scintilla » Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:01 pm
I reckon the Feral-Hun's comments will be going ballistic right about now as all the motards hear this in the nightly news I cannot verify this as I have exceeded my daily two-article viewing allocation.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.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21456
- 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
About time! I hate having cars push their way through roundabouts.mikesbytes wrote:Absolutely terrible things are happening in Melbourne, motorists are being forced to give way to cyclists
https://au.news.yahoo.com/new-roundabou ... 14132.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
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10599
- 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
-
- Posts: 6179
- 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
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22179
- 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
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- 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 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.
-
- Posts: 43
- 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
https://www.rsc.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/Whats-your-option
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:33 pm
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.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
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:02 pm
Not everything is a conspiracy against cyclists.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!
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,...
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22179
- 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: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.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
What????"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."
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22179
- 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
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 cyclistColinOldnCranky wrote:Not everything is a conspiracy against cyclists.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!
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,...
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:58 pm
Clearly I did not make it clear, though I did not think that I needed to.mikesbytes wrote: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 cyclistColinOldnCranky wrote:Not everything is a conspiracy against cyclists.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!
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,...
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.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:53 am
That could be a valid explanation. Though I think Occam's razor applies here.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.
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.
(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.)
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:00 am
Unless you are in WA. Which has decided to proceed with their campaign of maligning cyclists.mikesbytes wrote:The issue is the accumulative negativity to cyclists. In the past it was blatant, now its more supple.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.