Hell Ride Bike Bullies - what is the answer?

Originally Posted by Bleve

Donga wrote:
> >From a distance, I expect it will blow over and go back to the usual
> high tension status quo, with the same behaviour, on which lots of
> people have an opinion, but with no one having a real answer. Some
> riders will choose to change their habits for the better. Why should
> this incident be the trigger for a watershed, if it's been waiting to
> happen?

I'm inclined to agree. The fuss will blow over in a few days, but it
hasn't helped "us" as road cyclists one bit that the inevitable finally
happened.

Originally Posted by warrwych

http://tinyurl.com/lapkv

Almost a balanced argument. At least it's not inflammatory, coming from the Hun. Makes The Age look like the New Idea. Unfortunately it still bundles up all Beach Rd cyclists with the HR group. And how to you determine "threatening behaviour" by a cyclist to a pedestrian on a bike path?

Originally Posted by EuanB

The facts paint a very differnt picture. Reported in the print edition of The Age and not available online as far as I can tell are the Cyclist v Peds and Vehicles v cyclists stats. I typed them up here http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1917

The fact is that one incident does not a trend make.

Originally Posted by warrwych

aah yes.. the facts... nothing like cold hard figures to turn theories into facts.

Unfortunately, your facts are meaningless, because your data is not adequately described - we are left to guess what killed/injured the peds - drivers or cyclists? And what point are you trying to make? That more cyclists are killed than peds? Does that make a trend?? Maybe I have been staring at too many pics of the dressage ponies at the World Equestrain Games this arvo......

One incident make not make a trend, but it lights a torch for people. A whole foundation (Amy Gillet Foundation) was created out of one incident.

Originally Posted by cfsmtb

It all comes back to Attitudes. Cyclists are perceived as a out group so therefore it's open season on being as critical, or as illogical, as you wish. Peoples attitudes towards the Paxtons, Big Brother crap, Muslims blah, blah, blah, it's pretty much a similar social process.

Quote from UK's Transport Research Laboratory, courtesy of Wikipedia’s “Bicycle Safety” entry:

" .. A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours.

In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. […] This aligns with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’ .. "

**************

Stats are only one aspect - attitude is a major factor we have to encounter and challenge.

Originally Posted by warrwych

aah yes.. the facts... nothing like cold hard figures to turn theories into facts.

Unfortunately, your facts are meaningless, because your data is not adequately described

Originally Posted by warrwych

- we are left to guess what killed/injured the peds - drivers or cyclists?

Originally Posted by warrwych

And what point are you trying to make?

Originally Posted by jimmy/bvforums

Heres the fatals in Vic for you Euan

Number of Fatalities

Between 01/01/2000 and 31/07/2006



2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fatalities 59 81 58 42 49 49 35

DataSource: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Originally Posted by warrwych

One incident make not make a trend, but it lights a torch for people. A whole foundation (Amy Gillet Foundation) was created out of one incident.

Originally Posted by Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:28:07 +1000
warrwych <warrwych.2ddxkz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lapkv
>
> Almost a balanced argument. At least it's not inflammatory, coming from
> the Hun. Makes The Age look like the New Idea. Unfortunately it still

has one interesting idea...

Those who feel they are obeying the law should wear numbered bibs. Or
if not numbers, then something unique and easy to spot at a distance.

Originally Posted by EuanB

Not my data, data quoted by The Age which was sourced from TAC.

Hmm, topic line's not very clear on phpBB. I've edited the post, hopefully it's clearer now.

Not me, it's data published by The Age. I thought it would have been more relevent to have a car v peds breakdown to compare to the cyclists v peds breakdown.

Later on in the thread the following is provided:

The difference is that the Amy Gillet Foundation was very much a straw that broke the camel's back scenario. Regardless of what the sensationalist media will have you believe there are far greater dangers to pedestrians out there than cyclists. That's my point, not sure what the Age's point was.

That's not to say that we should do nothing, I'm fully in favour of raising the bar with regards to standards of road use although I can't claim to have any idea how that might be achieved at a national level.