Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Losing the PR battle

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by twistngo, Sep 26, 2010.

  1. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclists-face-increased-injury-risk-20100925-15ro3.html

    We get hammered by the police and TAC etc but cyclists just push for better conditions. WTF. We pay registration and a bloody levy.

    When the figure for all serious injuries to cyclists, including crashes where police were not called, was taken into account, cyclists have 34 times the risk of car users of being injured

    Cyclists were also 4½ times more likely than a car occupant to die in an accident, the research showed. Dr Garrard said police figures showed the proportion of car occupants seriously injured on the road had dropped by 5 per cent during the same period, while the cyclist proportion of serious injuries rose by 3.5 per cent.

    Dr Garrard said governments had concentrated on laws to improve driver safety but not cyclist safety. She accused them of a ''cycling blind spot''.

    She conceded that bicycle lanes were unaffordable on every main road but said other safety measures could include dropping the speed limit to 30 km/h on suburban roads, improving driver attitudes, giving cyclists traffic light priority to proceed before lights turn green, and teaching bicycle skills to adults and pupils.
  2. Who is this Dr Garrard and is she costing us money? She should just fuk off! The community is sick to death of these people and these stories.

    Why is the Age running this article and who commissioned the report? Poor form by the Age.

    Bicycle riders know the risks when they use the roads.
  3. So basically drivers are at fault because cyclists cannot fathom the idea of moving slightly off the road out of the way of 1.5 tonnes of metal coming at them.
  4. you got it kenny :D

    as correctly stated by twistngo, they don't even pay rego and levies!
  5. so you reckon if we start riding obsessively slow whilst wearing lycra and not caring about our own safety and we'll get our own set of laws?
  6. I find it really hard not to think that many cycling accidents are largely self inflicted. Yesterday in the car I encountered 2 cyclists riding on the side of the road in a 100kmh zone, and as I was coming up one of the cyclists swung out around the other to change positions, coming well into the lane and into my path.

    The only reason I wasnt surprised by it was because of prejudice and thinking to myself "...I bet that bloody cyclist is going to...."

    But no we should all make other vehicles travel at their pace. Holy shit.
  7. This just shows that they know how to run PR.

    We have similar (yes incorrect but they're the ones constantly quoted) stats but find ourselves painted in a negative light. Perhaps we need to put more focus on the benefits of motorcycling to make it appealing to a broader range of people.

    - Cheaper running costs
    - More environmentally friendly
    - Lower congestion (I think this needs to be separate to being environmentally friendly)
    - Free parking
    - Free and discounted tolls

    Cheaper running costs of course doesn't apply to all bikes, but to increase motorcycle commuting we'll need to accept the importance of scooters, and maybe even push them harder than the motorcycle angle.

    Instead of households having a second car as a second vehicle, it should be a motorcycle or scooter. Basically anywhere that is too far for most people to commute by bicycle, we should be pushing for them to get onto a powered two-wheeler.
  8. Lower speed limits to 30kmph..??!?! Is that actually a joke? 50 is already so slow you might as well get off and push..
  9. Eliminating deaths is an admiral goal, but should be balanced by other factors.

    In our society, we now have amazingly little death compared to most times in history. Even outside the periods where half of people were dead by twenty, our medicines and other technologies have blessed us with more life than we have ever had before. It is regrettable that we are still shadowed by death, but it is a small shadow, and will forever haunt us.

    A death may devastate a group of people -the family and more- but as long as we live, we must live with death.

    Hopefully my point hasn't been lost in the rambling :oops:
  10. I agree with this.

    However, different people can hack different commuting distances on a bicycle. Some people whinge about a 2 K bicycle ride whereas others are willing to go the distance and think a 50 K round trip is piss easy.

    Personally I don't mind cyclists on the road but the speed differential should be factored in. Anyone who's even half serious about riding a pushie will have read somewhere about how to stay safe on roads. Too many cyclists just jump on a bike and a public road without a thought about what will make them safer. I was actually surprised about how little thought went into self preservation on a cycling forum that I joined. This compared to the constant ATGATT spiel being pushed in the motorcycling community and self reliance on accident avoidance.

    It should also be factored into the argumentation that a bicycle is a zero emissions vehicle and thus is much less of a band-aid environmental solution than a petrol powered motorcycle.

    Having said this all, I still have to admit, no matter how tricked out my push bikes can get, they will never be as cool as my motorcycles.

  11. "34 times the risk"
    haha, love it... now, where have i seen that little gem before i wonder.

    just once i'd like to see statistics that were'nt entirely based around an anti viewpoint toward a specific group of road users that just happen to be a minority group.

    turn it around, drivers are 34 times more likely of causing death or injury to fellow road users than cyclists.
    but no.. you won't read that anywhere, because the people who write this shit only ever drive cars.. they need to take a good hard look at themselves and see where they fit into the big picture, recognise their role in road trauma.

    wankers all... you've got one arse to transport to work and back... why do you need 5 seats for it.... cars should be banned

    it's the majority thart need the reality check.
    THEY are the ones who CAUSE all the hurt and trauma... but no, you don't see any proposals to delegate special lanes for cars.
    you"ll see that attitude put forward for trucks though, becase the majority are "vulnerable" to trucks.

    year after year the majority pumps out this shit to place the blame away from themselves.
    it's a diversion tactic to preserve their freedom to use a vehicle that can't be justified with logic.
    an entirely inneficient and wastefull means of transport, when the world should be rationing it's resources responsibly.

    their time will come.. this attitude can't last for much longer.. and they know it and they are scared.
    and so the rhetoric and nonsensical "more likely" or "higher risk" or "more vulnerable" crap is pumped out at an ever more frantic rate.
    and none of it actually has any true meaning.
    wtf does "more likely" mean???... does it mean 'maybe' or 'it's possible' or 'in theory'
    it means NOTHING.
  12. Yep, too much sugar again, sorry about that.
  13. #13 ogden, Sep 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    FFS коннор, that's the sort of unforgivable complacency that stops filling up politician's diaries with things to do. It also pushes policy analysts out of their jobs and onto the streets, where its dangerous, and they risk getting run over as they cross the road.

    Out of all we can learn about life from books, nothing appears surer than that all proper stories end, just as they must begin, in sex and death. Death and sex. Sex and death. Just like Hamlet, and Jane Austin, and David Copperfield. It's tragic, but that's just the way it is. Motorcycles are sexy. All that leather is sexy. Therefore those that ride them must die.

    Push bikes, however, are not sexy. They are safe. Which is why cycling appears in the [URL="]Life Be In It[/URL] ad campaigns, and motorcycles do not. Cycling is the picture of innocence, and that is why these that ride them - with their shiny noses, and their sleek lycra, their long powerful legs, and their big, cleated feet - must be protected. Anyone that says otherwise is a murderer!
  14. In Geelong at the moment we have several hundred lycra clad suicides waiting to happen..
    The world championships are in town and these imbeciles have no concept of self preservation or road rules. Red lights are there for everyone else, and green lights are not for the 70 year old pensioner who waited for the green then had another careful look as 5 of these idiots came past traffic stopped at the red light. If I'd been driving we would have really tested their reflexes.
  15. #15 коннор, Sep 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    So, your post tongue-in-cheek? I feel it best I make sure, in case I need to rephrase something.
  16. No, no, коннор. I was just saying that the logic that drives government policy can't deal with the type of clear-sighted perspective iterated in your post. What you said is true, which is why its a scandal to say it.
  17. Exactly! For those that don't want to cycle we need to push them towards powered two wheelers. If they're happy to do 25 Km each way that's fine, but the majority certainly wont.

    For the second point, you're spot on. We need to target the people for whom a bicycle isn't practical in their eyes and make a powered two wheeler practical. Motorbikes are much more efficient than cars for single person transport, and from what I remember are equivalent to 0.8 effective cars on the road. Not only is it more environmentally friendly for you to ride, it also increases the efficiency of the entire road network.

    As a comparison, I think a bicycle on a road without a bicycle lane is equivalent to 1.2 effective cars, just because of the mini jam they cause when cars are trying to get around them safely.

    I think as much as possible we should be on good terms with bicycle riders. As two vulnerable road user minorities to some extent we face the same dangers. Yes there are plenty of douchebag cyclists, but there are also plenty of douchebag drivers and motorcyclists.
  18. Why? If people don't want to go outside their comfort zone in relation to PTW, why push them? It will only end badly for all involved parties.

    Out of the rest of my family, my sister is the only one likely to ever consider venturing onto ptw. My bro and mum are way to scared, and dad isn't physically up to it - poor coordination and balance, and wouldn't want to anyway.

    Anyhow, the idea of bikes being more efficient than cars is rubbish. The most efficient cars can almost compete with many 250's and significantly better the flagship model bikes. Don't even think about a large v-twin. Hell, a commode with that variable piston thing could give a vtr1000 a run for its money. Once you get more than one person in the car, it's not even a competition.

    And then take expenses into account... and there is really no benefit from commuting via ptw, other than beating the traffic.
  19. People are scared because of the stigma attached. I don't think most people don't ride bicycles because they think it's particularly dangerous, but the risks seem to be similar. It's still not for everyone but anyone that would consider riding a bicycle should also have an open attitude to getting a powered two wheeler instead of just saying "it's too dangerous". And the more people start to ride the safer it will get as other motorists become much more aware of us.

    Yes, most bike's aren't as efficient, I think a lot of that has to do with how you ride when on a bike. I know that I use more of my bikes performance relative to when I drive the car, it just eggs you on a bit and it's fun to boot. If I take it easy I can easily do better than 4L/100km on my 250 riding in traffic.

    I mention powered two wheelers a lot because for many scooters would be the choice to go with. They are the little run around hatchbacks and small sedans of the bike world and perfect for most people not passionate about riding a bike. At the moment probably most motorcycle riders would be classed as enthusiasts, and we generally go after the higher performance machines, but there's no reason why we can't push towards powered two wheelers being a legitimate transport option for non-enthusiasts. In that sense I think the points I outlined are good arguments to work with.
  20. Rego doesn't pay for the roads FFS. Rego pays for the administration of vehicles that represents a danger to other road users. Get with the program.

    What a shock, if u don't have a cage around you you're more likely to be injured in a crash. Thankyou captain obvious.

    Just like MCs, when it comes to two vehicle collisions it's usually the driver at fault... Yet the bad press is all against the vulnerable user. What crap!

    Yes, the injury rate has gone up in absolute terms, sure, just like with bikes, but in real terms it's dropped. More riders on the roads crashing less still means more injuries overall.

    I hate these fracking academics.