RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

[briztoon]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/- ... ne-qld-mp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why oh why are the media continuing with the "war" language? We want things to calm down on the road, yet the language being used by channel 7 is just going to incite those anti cycling motorists.

Cycling advocacy bodies, one thing I would like to see is a concerted effort on your part to challenge the media on how the media present cycling "news". We want to see a change in the Australian culture where cyclists are respected on the road and don't have to ride in fear. One way to help achieve this is to change the language used by the media when discussing cycling related issues, whether they are positive or negative news articles.

I was sure I saw an add on Cannel 7 this morning about a segment to appear tonight about whether cyclists should pay the same fines as motorists for breaking the road rules.

[marinmomma]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/- ... ne-qld-mp/

Why oh why are the media continuing with the "war" language? We want things to calm down on the road, yet the language being used by channel 7 is just going to incite those anti cycling motorists.

Cycling advocacy bodies, one thing I would like to see is a concerted effort on your part to challenge the media on how the media present cycling "news". We want to see a change in the Australian culture where cyclists are respected on the road and don't have to ride in fear. One way to help achieve this is to change the language used by the media when discussing cycling related issues, whether they are positive or negative news articles.

I was sure I saw an add on Cannel 7 this morning about a segment to appear tonight about whether cyclists should pay the same fines as motorists for breaking the road rules.

+1, media needs to be held to account for the language used to promote their stories...

Yes, I saw some promo for yet another anti-cyclist story...I'm heading to the safety of the track in the morning just so I can ride in peace, boring as it might be

[The 2nd Womble]

I watched the entire hearing live. Bruce Flegg himself said that when he addressed the committee.

[il padrone]

Had the driver of the cement truck applied his brakes, recognising that there was not sufficient clearance to pass lawfully, Richard would still be with us," he said

This.

The key to solve the problem but somehow Australian drivers are just too arrogant and impatient to accept it.

[g-boaf]

Australians have been brought up by politicians to be savage. It's a dog eat dog world out there - so you'd better destroy your opponents before they get you.

This mentality invades our workplaces, the sporting fields (witness Rugby League all in brawls including parents of players), and it extends to the roads with angry and impatient drivers.

Politicians and media are to blame.

[rustychisel]

Politicians and media are to blame.

too easy, too cheap, too glib.

All errant drivers are responsible, as are all errant cyclists. 'Responsibility' menas exactly that

[VRE]

Had the driver of the cement truck applied his brakes, recognising that there was not sufficient clearance to pass lawfully, Richard would still be with us," he said

This.

The key to solve the problem but somehow Australian drivers are just too arrogant and impatient to accept it.

...and a lot of cyclists. I regularly get overtaken on shared paths by cyclists too impatient to wait until it's safe to overtake. I suspect some of them just translate their driving technique to cycling. When will people learn to drive to suit the conditions (congestion, obstacles, wet weather, etc.), and stop being so damned impatient? Generally this just means they have to wait a bit longer at the next red traffic light, anyway.

Politicians and media are to blame.

too easy, too cheap, too glib.

All errant drivers are responsible, as are all errant cyclists. 'Responsibility' menas exactly that

Agreed, blaming others is just a cop-out.

[jcjordan]

This is one of the reasons I have always said that we need to look to our own behaviour as cyclists.

If we want respect on the roads we have to show it by following the law as it stands. It does not matter if it more convenient or 'safer' (the amount of time that I have seen that excuse on these forums for jumping a red is depressing).

Fine if the law is wrong work on changing it, but while it's in place follow it.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

[g-boaf]

This is one of the reasons I have always said that we need to look to our own behaviour as cyclists.

If we want respect on the roads we have to show it by following the law as it stands. It does not matter if it more convenient or 'safer' (the amount of time that I have seen that excuse on these forums for jumping a red is depressing).

Fine if the law is wrong work on changing it, but while it's in place follow it.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

You can follow the law all you want, but it will not change entrenched opinions of the anti cycling crowd. I follow laws to the letter - but it doesn't achieve anything.

I take it you've never gone through a red after deciding it was never going to change, or some other similar circumstance.

[jcjordan]

Actually on the red I can saw yes I have never gone through just because it won't change.

Generally where this happens here I have just rolled over to the Ped crossing, hit the button and rolled back to the streets.

I do agree that we will never change the full anti cyclists ranters.

I can see why a great deal of drivers get uppity when cyclists bounce on and off the road, roll through the pedestrian crossing red lights and push forward on thin roads where there is no bike lane

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

[sumgy]

I was sure I saw an add on Cannel 7 this morning about a segment to appear tonight about whether cyclists should pay the same fines as motorists for breaking the road rules.

They should.

Funnily I went into the CBD today.
Must have been a gazillion pedestrians (give or take a few dozen) who crossed at red lights ( or at no lights at all), and I did not here anyone honk their horn or yell at them etc that they were breaking the law.
Funny how nobody seems to care about that or all of the driver indiscretions that happen every day, but if a cyclist does something "wrong" it is WAR!!

[jcjordan]

I was sure I saw an add on Cannel 7 this morning about a segment to appear tonight about whether cyclists should pay the same fines as motorists for breaking the road rules.

They should.

Funnily I went into the CBD today.
Must have been a gazillion pedestrians (give or take a few dozen) who crossed at red lights ( or at no lights at all), and I did not here anyone honk their horn or yell at them etc that they were breaking the law.
Funny how nobody seems to care about that or all of the driver indiscretions that happen every day, but if a cyclist does something "wrong" it is WAR!!

Its known psychological effect. Most drivers are also pedestrians, and have most likely committed the same infractions, and as such can not 'blame' them for their actions as they would also be blaming themselves. Generally they attach some reasonable excuse inside their mind on why the other group (or sub group when it comes to different types of drivers) has to do the act and as such excuse them from blame. In many cases this happens so quickly in their mind that it does not even register in their immediate conscious. One of the reasons that they don't see their group committing as many infractions.

As the majority of drivers do not have any association with our group (cyclist) we can always be held to blame and they also see more infractions per our numbers.

[human909]

If we want respect on the roads we have to show it by following the law as it stands.

Who is we?

It does not matter if it more convenient or 'safer' (the amount of time that I have seen that excuse on these forums for jumping a red is depressing).

I will not endanger myself or jump through absurdities simply to follow laws that aren't at all appropriate for bicycles.

Fine if the law is wrong work on changing it, but while it's in place follow it.

Many unjust laws have been changed due to civil disobedience.

I can see why a great deal of drivers get uppity when cyclists bounce on and off the road, roll through the pedestrian crossing red lights and push forward on thin roads where there is no bike lane

I see a great deal of bogans who get uppity about same sex relationships. The problem is with the bigots not their targets.

I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it. The other time was me ignoring road work signs and not dismounting and walking in the middle of the road.

[jcjordan]

If we want respect on the roads we have to show it by following the law as it stands.

Who is we?

It does not matter if it more convenient or 'safer' (the amount of time that I have seen that excuse on these forums for jumping a red is depressing).

I will not endanger myself or jump through absurdities simply to follow laws that aren't at all appropriate for bicycles.

Fine if the law is wrong work on changing it, but while it's in place follow it.

Many unjust laws have been changed due to civil disobedience.

I can see why a great deal of drivers get uppity when cyclists bounce on and off the road, roll through the pedestrian crossing red lights and push forward on thin roads where there is no bike lane

I see a great deal of bogans who get uppity about same sex relationships. The problem is with the bigots not their targets.

I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it. The other time was me ignoring road work signs and not dismounting and walking in the middle of the road.

So it is perfectly justifiably for a vehicle to cut across a bike lane, cutting in front of you or skin past you in a distance which is to close.

The 1m or 1.5m pass rule is not convenient or suitable for motor vehicle.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

[Mulger bill]

Except they are both not "Anatidae"

I have no problem when riding or driving if a semi trailer needs more than one lane to negotiate a roundabout or tight bend but will bare minimum at smaller vehicles doing so.

Dunno 'bout the rest of AU but I'm 99% sure that where an infringement applies to both types here (some laws ARE different, see line 1) that similar sanctions apply.

Its known psychological effect. Most drivers are also pedestrians, and have most likely committed the same infractions, and as such can not 'blame' them for their actions as they would also be blaming themselves. Generally they attach some reasonable excuse inside their mind on why the other group (or sub group when it comes to different types of drivers) has to do the act and as such excuse them from blame. In many cases this happens so quickly in their mind that it does not even register in their immediate conscious. One of the reasons that they don't see their group committing as many infractions.

As the majority of drivers do not have any association with our group (cyclist) we can always be held to blame and they also see more infractions per our numbers.

QFT, perception is usually bigger than reality.

EDIT, fixed the quotes

[human909]

So it is perfectly justifiably for a vehicle to cut across a bike lane, cutting in front of you or skin past you in a distance which is to close.

The 1m or 1.5m pass rule is not convenient or suitable for motor vehicle.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I would not equate risking another person's life with ignore an stupid sign indicating cyclists should dismount in the middle of a road. If you see these things as similar then I question your ability to behave safely on the roads.

[Mulger bill]

So H, where was that? Looks familiar...

Shaun

[jcjordan]

So it is perfectly justifiably for a vehicle to cut across a bike lane, cutting in front of you or skin past you in a distance which is to close.

The 1m or 1.5m pass rule is not convenient or suitable for motor vehicle.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I would not equate risking another person's life with ignore an stupid sign indicating cyclists should dismount in the middle of a road. If you see these things as similar then I question your ability to behave safely on the roads.

Considering I have seen rider punch a red light which causes them neatly bowl over a pedestrian. Let's also consider the mental trauma on a driver who has to break hard because a rider jumps out without warning.

Ok maybe my examples were a bit to strong for you.

How about a driver parking in the bike lane because it is inconvenient to use a car park or blocks a clear way across a shared path crossing because leaving a gap make is a little more difficult to see.

As for your other points

We can not just pick and choose what laws we will abide by and expect others to feel the same, except this judgement or not to decide to break a law which we want followed.

Yes civil disobedience has been used to help change laws that the majority felt were wrong but more often they are changed by appropriate lobbying with popular support.



Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

[FuzzyDropbear]

...

+1, media needs to be held to account for the language used to promote their stories...
...

I agree with this 100%. I recently saw a small snippet in the community comment type section of a well known Melbourne Newspaper which had a 2 paragraph submission from an older lady who had apparently solved the problem some elderly people were having in locating their brake pedal in their car. For those that don't know, we had a bit of media coverage surrounding people running into shops, signs, fences all over the state. Anyway, we shall call this newspaper the Serald Hun; decided to print this ladies submission for people to use their handbrake to slow the car down instead of the foot brake... It worked well to her and it was the only way she felt safe to drive and she couldn't see any possibly negative impacts that it could have and thus, all elderly people should rely on their park brake to slow vehicles down if they didn't feel comfortable with a foot brake......

I dunno.... I can see a few negatives. lol. But that just might be me. I know there's probably some legal out for the newspaper, but I wonder if there is any responsibility put on the newspaper for suggesting these sort of things to people.

[Lukeyboy]

I agree with this 100%. I recently saw a small snippet in the community comment type section of a well known Melbourne Newspaper which had a 2 paragraph submission from an older lady who had apparently solved the problem some elderly people were having in locating their brake pedal in their car. For those that don't know, we had a bit of media coverage surrounding people running into shops, signs, fences all over the state. Anyway, we shall call this newspaper the Serald Hun; decided to print this ladies submission for people to use their handbrake to slow the car down instead of the foot brake... It worked well to her and it was the only way she felt safe to drive and she couldn't see any possibly negative impacts that it could have and thus, all elderly people should rely on their park brake to slow vehicles down if they didn't feel comfortable with a foot brake......

I know why

[Xplora]

Same penalties for infractions on the road? Don't be ridiculous. The penalties are lower because cyclists pose a far smaller risk than motor vehicles. The penalties are lower because the risk of a bad cyclist decision is going to affect the cyclist as much as the victim. Motor vehicles cannot claim this. Anyone who doesn't understand this really shouldn't be on the road, and clearly doesn't understand why trucks have different enforcement regimes either.

It's not about picking and choosing the laws to obey. It is about recognising the rationale behind the laws, and making sensible decisions in light of that. I don't need lawabiding car drivers, I need safe drivers who won't put my life at risk. It has been famous put that "the law is an ass"; the entire Traffic Act is one High Court decision from being wholly redundent. Unlikely, and laughable to think it would be repealed in court, but the fact remains that obedience to the law does not resolve justice or safety issues fully. "To err is human" and as such, you need "safety" as the modus operandi, rather than "legality" or "convenience" or "urgency". You can have safe driving without any laws at all. But you can certainly have completely legal, unsafe driving. In the event of a mechanical failure, a fatality won't result in a prosecution, despite the death technically being the result of unsafe driving (too fast to respond to any situation).

Waving the Traffic Act around helps shape behaviour but it certainly doesn't stop people from doing silly things.

[sumgy]

Same penalties for infractions on the road? Don't be ridiculous. The penalties are lower because cyclists pose a far smaller risk than motor vehicles. The penalties are lower because the risk of a bad cyclist decision is going to affect the cyclist as much as the victim. Motor vehicles cannot claim this. Anyone who doesn't understand this really shouldn't be on the road, and clearly doesn't understand why trucks have different enforcement regimes either.

It's not about picking and choosing the laws to obey. It is about recognising the rationale behind the laws, and making sensible decisions in light of that. I don't need lawabiding car drivers, I need safe drivers who won't put my life at risk. It has been famous put that "the law is an ass"; the entire Traffic Act is one High Court decision from being wholly redundent. Unlikely, and laughable to think it would be repealed in court, but the fact remains that obedience to the law does not resolve justice or safety issues fully. "To err is human" and as such, you need "safety" as the modus operandi, rather than "legality" or "convenience" or "urgency". You can have safe driving without any laws at all. But you can certainly have completely legal, unsafe driving. In the event of a mechanical failure, a fatality won't result in a prosecution, despite the death technically being the result of unsafe driving (too fast to respond to any situation).

Waving the Traffic Act around helps shape behaviour but it certainly doesn't stop people from doing silly things.

So if you held up a liquor store with a fake gun you should receive less penalty than if you held that store up with a real gun because the risk is less?
Doubtful.
Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.

[bychosis]

, all elderly people should rely on their park brake to slow vehicles down if they didn't feel comfortable with a foot brake......

Oh dear lord... IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH A FOOT BRAKE SIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR!

Anyhow, media make a mess of lots of things. If at the very least we could get those promoting war with motorists to ad some truthful educational bits into their stories it would go a long way to making the world a better place.

[human909]

So H, where was that? Looks familiar... Shaun

Royal Parade and Grattan Street intersection. The sign has been appearing there for the last two months. Sure they have needs to close the bike lane South of Gratten for construction access. No complaints there. However having cyclists dismount signs is clearly absurd. There are fundamental issues with how our road authorities act towards and understand cycling. (Sure this was a private contractor erecting these signs, but I have little doubt that the authorities were consulted regarding traffic diversions.)

Considering I have seen rider punch a red light which causes them neatly bowl over a pedestrian. Let's also consider the mental trauma on a driver who has to break hard because a rider jumps out without warning.

Mental trauma?
If a cyclist running a red light nearly bowls over a pedestrian then we can agreed that that is not acceptable road behaviour.

How about a driver parking in the bike lane because it is inconvenient to use a car park or blocks a clear way across a shared path crossing because leaving a gap make is a little more difficult to see.

If it endangers life then that is totally unacceptable.
If it inconveniences other road users then they that is rude and they deserve a fine.
If nobody is inconvenience because nobody is there then I don't care.

We can not just pick and choose what laws we will abide by and expect others to feel the same, except this judgement or not to decide to break a law which we want followed.

Stop being hypocritical. EVERYBODY picks and chooses what laws we will abide by. Have you ever recorded TV onto a VHS? Have you ever started cross when there was a red man flashing? If people pick and choose in a sensible and safe manner then I no objections.

It's not about picking and choosing the laws to obey. It is about recognising the rationale behind the laws, and making sensible decisions in light of that. I don't need lawabiding car drivers, I need safe drivers who won't put my life at risk.

Precisely.

Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.

HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?

[sumgy]

Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.

HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?

Yes it is.
You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?
Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.