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.

miranda devine column today on cyclists....she's a complete ****

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by evelknievel75, Oct 29, 2009.

  1. yeh i read the article this morning.

    First i've heard of her but I did not appreciate the tone of the article. We don't need more people jumping on the bandwagon saying how bad cyclists are. There are many douche bags in cycling and i don't have time for them but its just like any other fringe group. There are good people and bad people in it. I take cycle tracks and whenever i'm stuck on a road i'll make sure i hang the pace above 30 k's an hour and avoid any roads with a speed limit over 60 k's.

    She is a clueless woman.
  2. I agree that the tone of the article was very negative, she makes some big generalisations by lumping all cyclists into one category. Having said that, i tend to agree with what she is saying. Roads are for cars/bikes/trucks. Any vehicle that does not have the same or similar capabilities does not belong and causes an unnecessary hazard.

    Cycling is a valid form of transport and needs to be promoted and catered for (proper infrastructure etc). But as it stands, i don't think they should be sharing the roads with an entirely different class of vehicle.
  3. could be put to the whole motorised two wheel and 4 wheeled+ transport sharing the road Wentworth, be careful what you say, people would see similarities.
  4. When challenged regarding the seeming impunity of cyclists in NSW, the Police the other day produced some statistics to say that 60,000 breach notices had been issued to cyclists (although I didn't hear the time frame for that, I would think that would be in more than one calendar year). The DID give a breakdown of the specific offences, but nowhere did I hear the obvious one, which infuriates every city and suburban rider/driver; riding through red lights.
  5. I can see where she's coming from.
  6. I just wonder if it was decided to allow, nay, to encourage, another slow means of wheeled transport for our congested roads, STILL petrol-powered, if it would get Government approval and attract the millions of dollars of spending presently used on bicycles?
  7. as one of the 452 comments her article attracted said, it's the law that they ride on the road, not the foothpath. THE LAW!

    typical article by her. think of her as sydney's andrew bolt but less political. right wing with an agenda
  8. If the law requires that they ride on the road (nothing wrong with protecting pedestrians) and they are a dangerous hazard on the road, then there is only one alternative, surely....
  9. I saw the title of the article and refused to read it.
    I reckon she appeals to a certain breed of sunburnt australian.
  10. miranda devine is an idiot of the worst kind. This is not the first time she's produced sensationalist garbage. These "opinion" pieces are just that - her opinion. It is just a shame that she can propagate anti cyclist sentiment with these opinion (not fact) based tirades.

    Her email address is at the bottom of the article. Tell her what you think. I did.
  11. I enjoyed the article. Perhaps because I'd just seen the footage of the knobber who attacked the bus driver.

    It is quite a narrow minded piece of writing though.
  12. Roads and road rules are designed for cars because that is where the votes are.

    By your definition all else should be banned.

    Be careful. Stupid laws often start from what seem reasonable ideas.
  13. What i disapprove of is the failure to make the distinction between "cyclists", and "a douchebag riding in a transit lane illegally guilty of assault".

    the cyclist was in the wrong, both in terms of being in the transit lane and then letting his anger get the better of him. There is not one cycling forum in sydney that is defending the silliness of the cyclist in being in the wrong place at the wrong time and committing assault - he has been universally panned for his twattish actions.

    But I'd like to point something out.

    We have a whole section devoted to "near misses", and multiple posts where drivers have taken exception to creative interpretation of the law (ie we lane split, some cagers crack the shits). Sure, it is illegal, but we justify it because we are not bothering anyone nor causing a danger to anyone. Each and every one of us here has something to say about crazy raged cagers needing chill pills when we lane split.

    So, at 5am, this cyclist has used a transit lane, bothering nobody and causing danger to no one. The bus driver, taking exception to creative interpretation of the law, drove a 10 tonne bus dangerously close to a man on a 15kg bike. The man on the bike took exception to having his life threatened and did not have the skills to control his anger, so he clocked the driver. The actions of one not in control of his anger for sure, but anyone who has experienced some sort of road rage simply for doing what motos do should be able to sympathise with the vulnerability and anger at being taken for granted.

    Then devine writes an article about all cyclists being lycra clad louts and that they have no place on the road.

    time to pull out the little used emoticons. The one on the right is devine's editor, pushing her for a deadline. the one on the left is devine producing her latest opinion piece.

  14. Can't help myself... I think she's mostly right. And I cycle, a bit. I know it's unsound but it just strikes a chord of simmering resentment in me.
    She's definitely right about friggin' pedestrians, the inner-city-get-up-at-4pm-stumble across-the-road-for-breakfast kind, anyway.
  15. Point taken.

    But cars, motorcycles and trucks all have one thing in common: the ability to travel at or near the speed limit (if we ignore the operators for the meantime). Indeed, motorcyclists share certain traits with cyclists in that we are far more vulnerable having no external protection. One could use this point to argue that motorcycles pose a far greater risk to their operators and thus should not be allowed on the road. However, unlike bicycles, motorcycles have the ability to match it with other road users in terms of speed and maneuverability.

    I acknowledge that some (increasingly many) powered vehicles on the road can be the cause of unnecessary hazard due to the (non)ability of the operator. However, bicycles will always be a hazard simply because they cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, forcing everyone else to take evasive action. That is why i believe they do not belong on the road.

    Edit: And i would apply the same logic to 50cc scooters that can't do more than 60km/h.
  16. Having cycled 7000km's in sydney over the past year, i was f***ing appauled at that article.

    You know what, people aren't actually that bad to us (cyclists) if you do a few things.

    Stay as far left as you reasonably can if you have to cycle on an arterial road and as Not4resale said, try and stay above 30km/h.

    Try and take the back streets.

    Have heaps of lights at night and always wear a helmet

    Be fit and indicate, and obey the road rules like you would in a car.

    From day one of cycling i had the attitude that i would ride like a car. I have never stacked my bike; i've only had 3 or 4 altercations with motorists, usually who were already prejudiced against cyclists. I think i'm pretty lucky. Most people pass me safely, giving way and genuinely looking out for me. I'd say less than 1% of the road-using population actually tries to make life difficult for cyclists (just like supposed "divine" girl who wrote the article). The rest may not like cyclists being there, but they tolerate it. And tolerance is all that is needed.

    What needs to be understood is that yes, there are some ****heads out there who act like cowboys on bicycles, but there are also alot of other ****heads like me, someone who rides a motorbike, drives a car, someone who is just trying to get to and from work in an enjoyable, healthy, economical fashion. Someone who genuinely understands that cyclists can be irritating.

    Tolerance, my friends, tolerance is key.

    End rant, and for the record if i don't get a high-five from the next motorcyclist who passes me while i'm pedalling my arse to work, i will be very, very upset.:cry:
  17. Interesting

    Here's a thought; in built up areas a push bikes average velocity is often greater than that of a car's. So would it then not therefore make more sence to restrict car speed to the maximum bike speed to ensure their safety.

    25 km/hr would be about right.

    Seems reasonable to me.
  18. Define "built up area".

    I don't spend much time in the city, but i can imagine that, like in NY, bicycles and sometimes even pedestrians average greater velocity during peak times. In this case your point is valid. You could take it a step further and make the CBD a completely car-free zone...

    I made my comments because the commuting i do is all on major roads (Princes Hwy, Wellington rd, Springvale rd etc) and even in peak times, the traffic is still travelling at ~50-60km/h. Most mornings there's a bicycle or two, and everyone in the left lane has to either squeeze around them (if they're riding in the gutter) or change lanes.
  19. I believe that is Victorian Greens policy, actually.