Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

human909 wrote:

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.

That could be a valid explanation. Though I think Occam's razor applies here.

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.)

Yes, but why is the "cyclists run red light stereotype" used? Why did they think it would be effective? They're still telling people to fix their brakes so they don't kill or injure a vulnerable road user.

human909 wrote:
That could be a valid explanation. Though I think Occam's razor applies here.

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.

You may think it is convoluted but your argument is only valid if you already accept the argument.

You: "It demonstrates that they hate cyclists"
Me: "Pray tell me more. How do you know that that is why they did so?"
You: "Because they hate cyclists."

And I doubt that William of Occam, if alive today, would have ever accused todays highly sophisticated and manipulative advertising industry of only attacking directly from the front.

AdelaidePeter wrote:... Either they're unchanged or they're repackaged, but either way, "Cam the loser cyclist" still features heavily.

I remember seeing the originals. It looks like they have been re-packaged. However the message that cycling is a negative is still very clear.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:You: "It demonstrates that they hate cyclists"
Me: "Pray tell me more. How do you know that that is why they did so?"
You: "Because they hate cyclists."

Except that isn't what I am claiming.

Of all the possible emergency braking scenarios that could be depicted a cyclist running a red light is an extremely rare one.

The question then would get asked is why it is chosen. Two possible explanations put forward:
-it is an out groups that is stereotyped as frequently running a read light and causing motorists to brake
-they are a group that tugs at peoples emotional heartstrings and that motorists empathise with them and are afraid of causing cyclists injury.

In my opinion the latter strains credibility in the current Australian social mindset. If you want to continue clutching at those straws go ahead.

human909 wrote: Of all the possible emergency braking scenarios that could be depicted a cyclist running a red light is an extremely rare one.

Perhaps a better one would be a cyclist getting doored and flung into the traffic path while another vehcile is alongside? Covers braking for the unexpected and being careful to open your door in the same image.

bychosis wrote:

human909 wrote: Of all the possible emergency braking scenarios that could be depicted a cyclist running a red light is an extremely rare one.

Perhaps a better one would be a cyclist getting doored and flung into the traffic path while another vehcile is alongside? Covers braking for the unexpected and being careful to open your door in the same image.

Like that one [assuming no one was actually hurt]

The reason we are at disagreement is that we are seeing to scenarios to the background of this;
1. Protecting the venerable road user, in this case the cyclists. This is what we should be seeing, however some of us have a different view;
2. A rat bag scumbag cyclist runs the red light and we need to take evasive action to protect our car being damaged. This view has been generated thru the constant slur on cycling.

human909 wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:The issue is the accumulative negativity to cyclists. In the past it was blatant, now its more supple.

Unless you are in WA. Which has decided to proceed with their campaign of maligning cyclists.

Yeh saw this one yesterday. Apparently the minister of roads has pulled it, but the explanation of the pull could of used better wording.

It also says that if you ride a bike that your GF is going to dump you

human909 wrote:
(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.)

Actually, if you look at the video on the web site, they do exactly that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjmp9zkaFec . So rather than tell the same message twice, they have two different sets of vulnerable road users in two different parts of their ad campaign.

bychosis wrote:

human909 wrote: Of all the possible emergency braking scenarios that could be depicted a cyclist running a red light is an extremely rare one.

Perhaps a better one would be a cyclist getting doored and flung into the traffic path while another vehcile is alongside? Covers braking for the unexpected and being careful to open your door in the same image.

OK. On the basis that they used a particular example that, IYO, is the one perfect and therefore only example, you have me convinced.

It's not that some people here are predisposed to see the world through a particular set of filtered glasses. Rather, every person who ever says anything about cycling and is not a cyclist is part of a huge conspiracy against cyclists.

Of course, the problem with reporting the world as viewed through those glasses is that the only people you will ever convince will be the already converted. The rest of the world simply stop listening, even when your complaints do have merit. Or, Wikipedia puts the moral of the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf: "this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them."

Clearly and unsurprisingly neither of us will move an inch from what has already been said. So I will invoke Godwin's Law and finish up with "Hitler".

ColinOldnCranky wrote:It's not that some people here are predisposed to see the world through a particular set of filtered glasses. Rather, every person who ever says anything about cycling and is not a cyclist is part of a huge conspiracy against cyclists.

Of course, the problem with reporting the world as viewed through those glasses is that the only people you will ever convince will be the already converted. The rest simply stop listening, even when your complaints do have merit. Or, Wikipedia puts the moral of the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf: "this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them."

While I've had a different view to you in this thread, I strongly agree with these sentiments. It is very important that environments like this, forums and advocacy can be echo chambers.

Personally I do get on a soap box regarding the poor state of affairs of cycling in Australia. But I balance it by taking note of the smiles and wave and nods from many courteous road users. (motorists, pedestrians and others....) I'm a glass half full person and I think it is important to maintain a positive outlook.

human909 wrote:
Personally I do get on a soap box regarding the poor state of affairs of cycling in Australia. But I balance it by taking note of the smiles and wave and nods from many courteous road users. (motorists, pedestrians and others....) I'm a glass half full person and I think it is important to maintain a positive outlook.

Geez Human, you know how to reopen a Godwin shutdown!

I'm fortunate in that
(1) It is very rare for anyone to take offence at a unicyclist - though I did once have to report a punishment pass to the local plod

and
(2) When I was a bike commuter cyclists were rare, motorists seldom took offence and bus drivers were not nearly as pressed to make unrealistic deadline.

The one time that I ever collided with a car, the driver (cut in front and then turned left in front of me) did a runner, so some things have not changed. I had her plate number which I passed onto Mr Plod. Bugger the legal niceties, I stopped giving left hand hand signals on main roads after that.

To my mind the tribal nature of cyclists vs motorists started about the time that the cycle courier sub-culture arose with it's aspirations to anti-hero status. Rich pickings for commercial TV journalism.

mikesbytes wrote:
It also says that if you ride a bike that your GF is going to dump you

If your girlfriend dumps you over riding a bike, that's probably a good thing.

Those campaigns in the past has left cycling in Sydney with a negative status, as quoted in the article below;

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/sh ... 4zqkn.html

The opposition to the dockless bikes also owes much to the culture of venomous hostility to all bicycle riders from motorists on Sydney's streets

ColinOldnCranky wrote:To my mind the tribal nature of cyclists vs motorists started about the time that the cycle courier sub-culture arose with it's aspirations to anti-hero status. Rich pickings for commercial TV journalism.

I've been trying to track this for some time. And in particular when cycling puff pieces turned into venomous attacks.

As far as I can tell it was mid 2004, based on the earliest beat-ups I can find. (There are much, much earlier ones but we're talking HRH QEII not Empiress Vicky.)

That's pre-hipster. Peak rant was about 2010 (Hi Magda) which does roughly align with the peak of the pistadex. It's also the nadir of judicial behaviour (see the William Angel case)

Of course 2GB land seems to be in a bubble all of it's own.

ps - anyone have any early pro/anti pieces I'd love to get them (or references to the same)

In NSW I'd put the finger on the ramp up when the fight to not have the epping rd cycle-way installed in conjunction with the M2 going in

mikesbytes wrote:In NSW I'd put the finger on the ramp up when the fight to not have the epping rd cycle-way installed in conjunction with the M2 going in

Got dates and, particularly, before/after articles?

I know that a lot of the recent noise in NSW has been attributed to an anti-Clover Moore sentiment in a certain section of the media, with bicycle users simply being collateral damage

Sure there have been lightning rods. But I would hardly say they are the cause. Most states and cities have had particularly polarising things that might include events, pieces of infrastructure or particular politicians.

IMO it is simply a culture clash between bogan motorists (which have been around for have a century at least) and the rise of the MAMIL. The MAMIL is a much easier group to hate and express anger towards than say little eleven year old Timmy or the old lady with a basket on the front of her bike. Sure lets throw in the hipsters too, but realistically there is far less of them on the roads particularly in the habitat of the bogan motorist.

The MAMILs and hipsters both encapsulates so much of what your common suburban variety bogan hates anyway. Combine this with frustrations about traffic and they are an easy scapegoat to direct you anger towards. World history is full of scapegoats that bigots direct their unrelated frustrations towards.

Thoglette wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:In NSW I'd put the finger on the ramp up when the fight to not have the epping rd cycle-way installed in conjunction with the M2 going in

Got dates and, particularly, before/after articles?

If your keen to pin point it then have a search for an article by the NRMA where they stated that only 25 cyclists use Epping road a day. There's probably no specific point that can be clearly stated as the start, its not like war was officially decleared. It was about this time I also discovered that 2GB existed and have a look where they are located, I'm guessing that someone lost their parking spot

Thoglette wrote:I know that a lot of the recent noise in NSW has been attributed to an anti-Clover Moore sentiment in a certain section of the media, with bicycle users simply being collateral damage

Yeh to some extent the COS bike paths have been used as a political football. I drive down College st Wednesday mornings and the removal of the bike path has made zero difference to getting the cage thru there

mikesbytes wrote:

Thoglette wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:In NSW I'd put the finger on the ramp up when the fight to not have the epping rd cycle-way installed in conjunction with the M2 going in

Got dates and, particularly, before/after articles?

If your keen to pin point it then have a search for an article by the NRMA where they stated that only 25 cyclists use Epping road a day. There's probably no specific point that can be clearly stated as the start, its not like war was officially decleared. It was about this time I also discovered that 2GB existed and have a look where they are located, I'm guessing that someone lost their parking spot

Thoglette wrote:I know that a lot of the recent noise in NSW has been attributed to an anti-Clover Moore sentiment in a certain section of the media, with bicycle users simply being collateral damage

Yeh to some extent the COS bike paths have been used as a political football. I drive down College st Wednesday mornings and the removal of the bike path has made zero difference to getting the cage thru there

They did the same when the M2 Upgrade was being approved. They did a bike count to show how many cyclists used the M2 in order to justify kicking cyclists off the M2 for a number of years. They did a 5 day bike count, but it was done manually, in the middle of winter, only between 7am and 3pm, and on at least 2 of those days it was raining heavily. They claimed that for some of the count periods, there were zero cyclists, despite evidence on Strava for the same day showing otherwise.
In fact, in their propaganda "consultation" document, they included a Strava Heat Map that was put in there to show alternate routes that cyclists use. Despite assertions that the M2 was not used by cyclists, on the heatmap, the M2 was lit up like a Christmas Tree, in contrast to the alternates.

Basically, they knew what answer they wanted, then undertook a "consultation" designed to give them the expected result. It would be the same if I set up a counter for cars between the hours of 10pm and 4am,then claimed that hardly anyone uses the M2.

Thoglette wrote:

ColinOldnCranky wrote:To my mind the tribal nature of cyclists vs motorists started about the time that the cycle courier sub-culture arose with it's aspirations to anti-hero status. Rich pickings for commercial TV journalism.

I've been trying to track this for some time. And in particular when cycling puff pieces turned into venomous attacks.

As far as I can tell it was mid 2004, based on the earliest beat-ups I can find. (There are much, much earlier ones but we're talking HRH QEII not Empiress Vicky.)

That's pre-hipster. Peak rant was about 2010 (Hi Magda) which does roughly align with the peak of the pistadex. It's also the nadir of judicial behaviour (see the William Angel case)

Of course 2GB land seems to be in a bubble all of it's own.

ps - anyone have any early pro/anti pieces I'd love to get them (or references to the same)

So many today seem to have never been aware of or do not remember that the tribalism of today is not an historical constant. I'm likewise curious.

I wonder if it would achieve our aims better if this is hived of into a separate thread of it's own.

Thoglette, here's a few that turned up from the search string in Google of "bike-messenger red-lights" and filtered to only include pre 1Jan2000.

They indicate an angst in the US even then. I was commuting into the city down St Georges Tce and I make the observation that it was not present in Perth anywhere near that early.

Bike Messengers Love to Hate Their Low-Paying Jobs
Get in the Way of These Kamikaze Bikers and...

It might be fruitful to track down how how far back Harold Scruby started the ant-bike part of his one-idiot crusade. It would not be surprising if bikes featured in his initial motivation.

BJL wrote: If your girlfriend dumps you over riding a bike, that's probably a good thing.

True, probably dodged a bullet there.

mikesbytes wrote:

human909 wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:
It also says that if you ride a bike that your GF is going to dump you

I thought it only applies to mtbers like this video said

opik_bidin wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:

human909 wrote:

I thought it only applies to mtbers like this video said

LOL, that's R-1

PS I didn't know there were so many types of MTB's and now I know I desperately want them

opik_bidin wrote:

mikesbytes wrote:

human909 wrote:

I thought it only applies to mtbers like this video said

thanks for posting needed a laugh.