ABC 14th July : Is Media Putting Cyclists at Risk?

[Scarfy96]

i.e. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOG2ifKydqA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Half decent turnaround on this one (shameless self promotion)
take a hit, disarm, defuse... & start to build

If you are going to do it live you have to be very well prepared to bust up their misinformation as they go in with an agenda and you have to be ready for it.

eg, their crap about no-one using the cycleways that Clover has put in, you must have known that was coming yet you let them run with it and opened up them finishing with it as well "if there is room to put another lane in then it will be for cars", please. eg - independent counts of bikes in Kent st show more cyclists during peak hour down the cycle lane than down a lane of traffic etc. Increase in cycle numbers in Sydney CBD from 25,000 to over 60,000 a day etc. There are plenty of real figures to have ready to expose their campaigns of stupid misinformation.

As for "we are for licencing" - speak for yourself there and don't rope others in. It is a dumb idea and would result in a greater barrier to entry and result in less people cycling. Education programs sure, other incentives to get training sure but licencing is just dumb. You could have been a lot stronger on the stupidity of rego as well. I am NOT against a cyclist being identified but bike registration is stupid on so many levels and that should have been more strongly put.

Couriers - they are a completely separate kettle of fish IMO and shouldn't be grouped in with commuters. Couriers should be registered and clearly identified IMO.

[Scarfy96]

2. it was pretty early on before I started doing a lot of digging & research work, I now have a lot of other things to fill the gaps

You don't have to win the battle to win the war... you also cant change everyone's view in a heartbeat.
Look at what happened when I went a bit head to head & challenged them... they kicked off on their rant & started to get aggressive.

You also assume that a clear level headed approach, backed with evidence would win them & their viewers over...
It would be like choosing to only doing interviews on ABC because its fair & balanced - great idea, but not exactly getting to the target audience.

OK just saw this after my other post - 2. fair comment, sounds like you would be more prepared now.

Other stuff, I still don't think you can let absolute crap and misinformation go unchallenged. They will sprout rubbish as "facts", IMO you can't leave that there. You don't have to be aggressive about it but you do have to correct it and be on the record for correcting it. If they get aggressive something like "don't attack me if you don't like the facts, they are what they are, go and check them yourself"

[CKinnard]

i.e. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOG2ifKydqA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Half decent turnaround on this one (shameless self promotion)
take a hit, disarm, defuse... & start to build

If you are going to do it live you have to be very well prepared to bust up their misinformation as they go in with an agenda and you have to be ready for it.

The good thing is though, the media's agenda is so predictable, illogical, and based on ignorance of the research, that it is easy to punch holes in it.

- their rego creed is for what exactly? to get a number plate put on bikes, to identify when they do things wrong like run red lights. The obvious retort to this is unless there's red light cameras at an intersection, it's pointless. Motorists have no avenue or motivation to report motorists who infringe road rules, and the police would laugh at them. If cyclists need number plates, then should they be front and back, and lit by lights so they can be read at night? Anti-cycling consciousness is just visceral gut reaction that doesn't calmly discern the logical end point of their arguments.

- the angle cycling advocates want to include in debates is urban congestion and solutions for it. The most logical proven solution is a congestion tax for entering inner urban areas in private motor vehicles. But this is vigorously resisted by anti-cycling conscousness. It's taking something away from them!

- if involved in a live interview, a strong point could be made by asking the antagonsists several questions about road rules as they pertain to cyclists. The outcome would be a given imho, that these people would not know the rights of cyclists, thus highlighting the anti-cycling problem is very much to do with motorist ignorance of the road rules. The solution for this is to ensure driver license testing has more devoted to cyclists' rights, and ~5 year retesting.

- and of course, the stats should be thrown out there, that the majority of accidents involving cyclists are due to motorist error. This highlights most of the solution is in improving motorist attitude, knowledge, and skill. Cyclist registration will do nothing for that, and highlights anti-cyclist consciousness is primarily about preserving motorist ignorance and apathy.

[yugyug]

I agree with IP on this. Your manner and delivery was impressive, but your attitude to licensing is messed up. You missed a golden opportunity to explain to the hosts that the only reason, the real and historical reason, for drivers to be licensed is because they are in control of machines which can easily main and kill....

2 things...
1. you can believe everything you hear on the media... do I actually believe this? do others? maybe not
2. it was pretty early on before I started doing a lot of digging & research work, I now have a lot of other things to fill the gaps

You don't have to win the battle to win the war... you also cant change everyone's view in a heartbeat.
Look at what happened when I went a bit head to head & challenged them... they kicked off on their rant & started to get aggressive.

You also assume that a clear level headed approach, backed with evidence would win them & their viewers over...
It would be like choosing to only doing interviews on ABC because its fair & balanced - great idea, but not exactly getting to the target audience.

The second one was even funnier, the whole 40km/h debate - they all thought it was about cyclists & were about to beat up on it, but it was easy enough to deflect that one onto pedestrians & pull a few stats on that.

Well I don't really know what you are getting at in your point 1. above, but anyway, its all good and I don't mean to be a d**k about it. I am genuinely impressed with your ability to wade into the lions den. Keep on fighting

Scarfy has some great points though, and I think it should be assumed that a "clear level headed approach" does win people over - it just requires good bit of rhetoric to cushion the facts.

[human909]

Rego and licensing!!!!? Please don't shoot cyclists in the foot. The ideas are absurd and will destroy cycling in this country.

[Xplora]

The YT video from Nate is 3 years old. The landscape and the arguments put forward on BNA have moved forward a long way in almost 4 years.... and only an idiot relies on rego or licencing because a brief think about it realises that it's not an answer - a lot of those thinks have happened in the public sphere already. I think that's the key. We want people in the media, even doing a bad job, because any conversation is better than none... and let's face it, we can't all agree on everything. I am vehemently opposed to a lot of what Dave from SCA is about, because of his disinterest in helmet laws and so forth, but agree with a lot of his other views.

There has to be room to move on all sides, but if cyclists aren't in the media talking about it at all, then there is little chance that a driver's prejudice will change.

[Scarfy96]

The YT video from Nate is 3 years old.

I didn't notice that until after I had read the later post and then replied again. Yes that puts it in a bit more perspective, a lot of water under the bridge in that time for sure and a changing landscape. Would be very hard pressed for people to claim that Clovers cycleways aren't working now! (but I am sure some people still do).

[Nate]

Well I don't really know what you are getting at in your point 1. above, but anyway, its all good and I don't mean to be a d**k about it.

I wasnt necessarily telling the truth
but if you get into an arguement with a muppet... well...
Notice how that whole part of an arguement/attack suddenly flew out the window.

The other option - I dont think licencing cyclists is going far enough!
Apply it to peds as well - they're road users right?.... & onwards.. basically use their arguements against them - hard for someone to argue against themselves.


My other pet hate is people not wanting a voice as not 100% of everything that is said is what they exactly want.
So if you dont unite on at least a few common points & go to battle (because you dont like the colour of the swords) - then you end up being a disorganised group without a common goal - VERY easy to attack & take apart (which is whats happening).

[ColinOldnCranky]

Womble got his head on TV. What's the world coming to?

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Oh well, porn seems to be acceptable these days in all it's forms.

[Xplora]

A segment by Media Watch (ABC) on how or whether the media is fuelling hatred towards bike riders: Rage against riders
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 045873.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good grief, I only just watched the video.

I can only assume that the halfwits saying crap about riders don't bother proofreading what they have written, or listen back to the recordings of what they have said. Oxford's video sums up quite plainly why they need to pull their head in. They can't be so stupid to believe that they didn't have an impact in the cowardly attack on Ox's rear wheel.

If I replace the term cyclist in their rants with "my kids/grandkids" it really reveals how subhuman it is. They have tried zero human decency quite a lot across the globe, it doesn't go so well. Ironically media people don't seem to do as well as they do in kinder societies either.

[CKinnard]

....

- if involved in a live interview, a strong point could be made by asking the antagonsists several questions about road rules as they pertain to cyclists.

....

Easier to ask them about road rules that apply to motorists, they should know that information, if they have a license, that would be more embarrassing to them. Then say so that is what licensing is doing for drivers....

Yes I got a mouthful from a motorist a few months ago for not riding in the bike lane. He then starts quoting the road Qld rule to me....I asked him whether it was his or my decision to determine 'when practicable' and if he understood the meaning of practicable. Of course it's this ignorance behind so much of the righteous indignation, ney, rage, of these smug galahs.

[CKinnard]

Even better, I have the road rules in PDF format on my phone,

gee, that's thinking ahead Oxford! It's amazing the things we take for granted, like the police actually might know the rules they are supposed to enforce.
think I'll copy you. though I'll probably come up against a policeman who thinks I am being a right tosser, and get all antagonistic.

[Nate]

I also record the conversations I have with the police (as they do and let them know I am doing it).

yeap - really interesting that one... watch this space

Interesting about the legal requirement for this.
its not illegal if its inadvertent
Phone calls etc are a no no without explicit permission. (telecom surveillance etc)

[Dragster1]

Its all legal as long as you tell them, that's why these days they have a disclaimer on most phone calls to government departments say the wrong the thing and the have you.

[Nate]

Its all legal as long as you tell them, that's why these days they have a disclaimer on most phone calls to government departments say the wrong the thing and the have you.

Thats for phone stuff...

NSW Law:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 10/s7.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dragster1]

Its all legal as long as you tell them, that's why these days they have a disclaimer on most phone calls to government departments say the wrong the thing and the have you.

Thats for phone stuff...

NSW Law:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 10/s7.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you tell the police officer that you are recording them, there is nothing they can do, your are not using it as SURVEILLANCE its not hidden. If you do not tell them well that's a different matter.

[Nate]

Found it... interesting read:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/rev ... &wpmp_tp=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Seems the intent is key...
"If it is KNOWINGLY installed to record a PRIVATE conversation."
Or...
"is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party"


So if it wasnt installed to listen to a conversation... or it was knowingly installed to a record a conversation to protect my lawful interests... it *should* be ok.

[Xplora]

I like the line where use of a recording device may impede the police. I would really like to see how that works? The only reason filming would impede them is that they cannot use a bit of a touch up on persons of interest.

I am struggling to find a justification too. I can certainly see how it could work if the cops needed to stretch the truth during questioning but I don't think that is how the good guys are supposed to win.

[redsonic]

I like the line where use of a recording device may impede the police. I would really like to see how that works? The only reason filming would impede them is that they cannot use a bit of a touch up on persons of interest.

I am struggling to find a justification too. I can certainly see how it could work if the cops needed to stretch the truth during questioning but I don't think that is how the good guys are supposed to win.

I took that to mean that they didn't like the media obstructing them in their work. It probably isn't useful to them to be questioning someone (say, a rape victim) and having a camera shoved in that person's face at the same time.

[Mulger bill]

I've seen footage of officers claiming innocent bystanders filming them are hindering them, simply because what they were doing was somewhat questionable. That's why I made the comment.

Really wonder why some Plods have a problem with this.
After all, if they're doing nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about!

[yugyug]

An important counter balance to power (and corruption) is transparency. Privacy is important for citizens going about their lives, it doesn't extend to policemen in the course of their duties wielding power given to them by state.

[Xplora]

Yep, until a citizen is legally allowed to arrest, incarcerate and question the police will just have to accept that they are not private citizens when they invoke the authority of their badge.

[Dragster1]

Have a look at this, nothing they can do. This bloke videos the police for an estimated speeding fine
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152253594383519

[casual_cyclist]

The rage against cyclists helps no-one

Can we please avoid treating the roads as a battleground between cars and bikes? Can we please be more forgiving of each other? This is David Mark's plea as a cyclist and a motorist.

language warning

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/m ... ne/5611652" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[archetuthus]

Omar Khalifa, founder and president of the Australian Cycling Party, told Neil Mitchell he wants to end the 'war' between motorists and cyclists.

Pretty good handling of the 3AW talkback shockjocks. Replying with actual stats shuts down the presenter.

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitche ... 3ccrd.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

listen to the 8min talk in full