The constant smear campaign against cycling
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:28 am
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.
-
- Posts: 6179
- 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
https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-34.038 ... 312!8i6656AdelaidePeter 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/(AT)-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?
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:01 pm
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.)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?
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:09 pm
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).fat and old wrote:Are we looking at different streets?
https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-34.038 ... 312!8i6656AdelaidePeter 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/(AT)-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?
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.
-
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby BJL » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:11 pm
Referring to Goggle Maps links, what's the deal with all the cars parked on the footpath outside the stadium?fat and old wrote:Are we looking at different streets?
https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-34.038 ... 312!8i6656AdelaidePeter 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/(AT)-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?
-
- Posts: 6179
- 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
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- 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
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 situationAdelaidePeter wrote:I'm genuinely wondering (with an open mind either way), why do you think it's Photoshop?P!N20 wrote:Looks like Mr X is at it again...actually his Photoshop skills were better than that:
You'll need to scroll down:
https://www.news.com.au/national/rush-h ... 040d754d63
-
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby hunch » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:16 am
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.
-
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:57 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AndrewCowley » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:39 am
- tallywhacker
- Posts: 1775
- 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
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- 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
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.AdelaidePeter wrote: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).fat and old wrote:Are we looking at different streets?
https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-34.038 ... 312!8i6656AdelaidePeter 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/(AT)-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?
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.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- 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
What we need is the Mere Exposure Effect to be applied to the positive benefits of cycling
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:41 pm
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.mikesbytes wrote:What we need is the Mere Exposure Effect to be applied to the positive benefits of cycling
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.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- 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
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.mikesbytes wrote: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 situationAdelaidePeter wrote:I'm genuinely wondering (with an open mind either way), why do you think it's Photoshop?P!N20 wrote:Looks like Mr X is at it again...actually his Photoshop skills were better than that:
You'll need to scroll down:
https://www.news.com.au/national/rush-h ... 040d754d63
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.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- 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
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 badhuman909 wrote: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.mikesbytes wrote:What we need is the Mere Exposure Effect to be applied to the positive benefits of cycling
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.
BTW it sounds like that area of Melbourne has got to critical mass and that's great
- uart
- Posts: 3208
- 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
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.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.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-34.039 ... 312!8i6656
-
- 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 Oct 21, 2018 11:57 pm
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- 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
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 themfat and old wrote:100 meters my arse Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10579
- 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
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 bunchfat and old wrote:100 meters my arse Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that bunch?
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:45 am
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).
-
- Posts: 6179
- 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 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: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 bunchfat and old wrote:100 meters my arse Besides which the cycle lane goes off the road at the roundabout. What makes the use of that lane legally impractical for that 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".
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- 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
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
- uart
- Posts: 3208
- 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
Ok then.fat and old wrote: Don't cry foul, fight back!
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.
-
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 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 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:33 pm
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.
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
- 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
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- 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.