blybo Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The problem with separating cars and bikes is that it's simply not possible to do. Are you going to build a bike lane on every road in Melbourne? The whole way out to Kinglake or up Mt. Dandenong to Sassafras? All road users need to share the road, unfortunately a few idiots from all sides wreck it for everybody. I've never had an issue with a cyclist when driving even though I do 25-30k around metro Melbourne every year, I also commute on the bike every Friday and do have an issue with cars on an almost daily basis, thankfully they are just near misses.
jezzaboogie Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Complete bullschit. Does this add anything to the discussion except to polarise opinion? Well from my perspective it's not bullshit. At this stage in the argument I always love to tell the story of explaining to my kids that the real danger when they go outside is the not African animals (tiger, lions and hypos etc) as are commonly found on a lot of baby/toddler paraphernalia, but the big metal boxes on wheels. It progresses the discussion because it provides perspective. It's not my fault that making this point pisses people off.
Orpheus Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Well from my perspective it's not bullshit. At this stage in the argument I always love to tell the story of explaining to my kids that the real danger when they go outside is the not African animals (tiger, lions and hypos etc) as are commonly found on a lot of baby/toddler paraphernalia, but the big metal boxes on wheels. It progresses the discussion because it provides perspective. It's not my fault that making this point pisses people off. I think that the problem is calling driving "an act of aggression", because this appears to attribute a motive to the driver. It is fair enough to make the point that it is an inherently dangerous activity, particularly for those unprotected people on foot or on bicycles who risk coming into contact with these very heavy, very fast metal boxes. The interior of a car is such a serene place that it is easy to lose sight of this fact.
jezzaboogie Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I think that the problem is calling driving "an act of aggression", because this appears to attribute a motive to the driver. Sure, I accept that. Particular usage withdrawn.
Phantom Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Well from my perspective it's not bullshit. At this stage in the argument I always love to tell the story of explaining to my kids that the real danger when they go outside is the not African animals (tiger, lions and hypos etc) as are commonly found on a lot of baby/toddler paraphernalia, but the big metal boxes on wheels. It progresses the discussion because it provides perspective. It's not my fault that making this point pisses people off. Since almost everybody on this forum doesn't live in Africa, your point about teaching kids about the dangers of encountering tigers and lions is bogus anyway. Of course they should be educated that vehicles can and do present dangers when inadequately operated but baby and toddler paraphernalia is delivered to stores by big metal boxes on wheels. It also doesn't progress the discussion because rather than providing perspective, it actually provides an extremist viewpoint. One last thing..................it doesn't "piss me off " at all. it's just another out there opinion. Sorry to disappoint you, but my theme about cars and cycles is to live and let live and do unto others......... Edited March 24, 2014 by Phantom
CryptiK Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 It seems that we are in agreement about quite a lot of things. I agree with most of this post. The only part of the post I don't know whether I can agree with because I don't understand it is "I'm just suggesting some things might level the psychological playing field in the mean-time". I'm not sure what things you are taking about. I've lived here 4 years now, and I've seen probably 4 mirrors hit (I mean saw it happen), the aftermath of quite a few others (mirrors hanging by the wiring or bent the wrong way). I'd say 10 if you want me to put a number on it. I don't mean the mirror folded in automatically out of courtesy. It's an active bike path and street and I drive it more than twice a day so I'm there often. The level playing field I mean the rego/insurance/license thing. if you guys have to do what motorists do and a statement was made to the public saying this is now the way it is, cyclists are paying licenced insured vehicle owners like everyone else it might propagate a greater acceptance.
Orpheus Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Since almost everybody on this forum doesn't live in Africa, your point about teaching kids about the dangers of encountering them is bogus anyway. Of course they should be educated that vehicles can and do present dangers when inadequately operated but baby and toddler paraphernalia is delivered to stores by big metal boxes on wheels. It also doesn't progress the discussion because rather than providing perspective, it actually provides an extremist viewpoint. One last thing..................it doesn't "piss me off " at all. it's just another out there opinion. Sorry to disappoint you, but my theme about cars and cycles is to live and let live and do unto others......... JB's clarified the point. I don't think he'd be disappointed by your theme . I think the point about the tigers, etc, etc, is that children's stories are full of these sort of creatures. Interestingly, they are usually quite friendly. Which is as it should be, because for young children, it is quite reassuring to make friendly what would otherwise be scary. My son loves cars. He's now six, and has loved them since he was about two. He is a very cautious boy, though, and is very careful of them on the road. I remember loving some of my books with cars in them. I remember particularly chitty-chitty bang bang in a book, and the pictures were seductive.
Orpheus Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I've lived here 4 years now, and I've seen probably 4 mirrors hit (I mean saw it happen), the aftermath of quite a few others (mirrors hanging by the wiring or bent the wrong way). I'd say 10 if you want me to put a number on it. I don't mean the mirror folded in automatically out of courtesy. It's an active bike path and street and I drive it more than twice a day so I'm there often. The level playing field I mean the rego/insurance/license thing. if you guys have to do what motorists do and a statement was made to the public saying this is now the way it is, cyclists are paying licenced insured vehicle owners like everyone else it might propagate a greater acceptance. THis is really my point, CryptiK. 4 mirrors hit. Not necessarily "ripped off", just hit in annoyance. Mirrors hanging by their wiring, but you are only assuming that a cyclist did it. You certainly don't know when it happened, or where it happened, it is unlikely that they all happened while the cars were parked in that spot. As for your other point, that's been discussed in the thread. It hasn't been "deflected", it's been dealt with head-on. You don't accept the counter-argument, but that doesn't mean your point of view has been ignored, or avoided.
Phantom Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Cheers Orpheus for a very nice post. It's refreshing in a sometimes divisive thread like this one. I am not a parent myself but your joy and pride is obvious and really nice to read 1
jezzaboogie Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Since almost everybody on this forum doesn't live in Africa, your point about teaching kids about the dangers of encountering tigers and lions is bogus anyway. Of course they should be educated that vehicles can and do present dangers when inadequately operated but baby and toddler paraphernalia is delivered to stores by big metal boxes on wheels. It also doesn't progress the discussion because rather than providing perspective, it actually provides an extremist viewpoint. One last thing..................it doesn't "piss me off " at all. it's just another out there opinion. Sorry to disappoint you, but my theme about cars and cycles is to live and let live and do unto others......... Sure, the clothes are shipped around in big metal boxes on wheels. I'll cop that. I accept that cars/trucks etc have their place, that's fine. I also agree that you and I don't live in Africa (!), but that is exactly the point of the story. The point is that it is sad to have to tell a kid that as soon as they walk out the door pretty much 90% of public space around them is reserved for an activity that has the potential to kill them if they take the wrong step. I think it's a great way of highlighting that fact. As an added bonus, it's actually meant to be funny. Kids and African animals, what's that all about? Oh, we are educating them about the dangers out there! It's obviously the wrong answer; that's why it's funny and makes the point. Often it feels like the responses in these discussion are framed by the idea that cyclists will one day realise it's all just too dangerous and pack it in. Certainly it's possible to imagine a world without cyclists on the roads and it's fairly common to either think that or even say things like "bikes shouldn't be on the roads to begin with!" For balance, it's nice to imagine a world world where there are no cars on the road. Even better, it's even nicer to imagine a world without roads at all. Of course, it wouldn't be practical (c.f. trucking African baby suits around), but it makes the point that often the status quo is so far shifted one way that it is hard for some to understand where the angst on the other side comes from.
CryptiK Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 THis is really my point, CryptiK. 4 mirrors hit. Not necessarily "ripped off", just hit in annoyance. Mirrors hanging by their wiring, but you are only assuming that a cyclist did it. You certainly don't know when it happened, or where it happened, it is unlikely that they all happened while the cars were parked in that spot. As for your other point, that's been discussed in the thread. It hasn't been "deflected", it's been dealt with head-on. You don't accept the counter-argument, but that doesn't mean your point of view has been ignored, or avoided. I meant hit as in broken, slapped riding past or the rider stopped and grabbed them reefing them off.
Orpheus Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Sure, the clothes are shipped around in big metal boxes on wheels. I'll cop that. I accept that cars/trucks etc have their place, that's fine. I also agree that you and I don't live in Africa (!), but that is exactly the point of the story. The point is that it is sad to have to tell a kid that as soon as they walk out the door pretty much 90% of public space around them is reserved for an activity that has the potential to kill them if they take the wrong step. I think it's a great way of highlighting that fact. As an added bonus, it's actually meant to be funny. Kids and African animals, what's that all about? Oh, we are educating them about the dangers out there! It's obviously the wrong answer; that's why it's funny and makes the point. Often it feels like the responses in these discussion are framed by the idea that cyclists will one day realise it's all just too dangerous and pack it in. Certainly it's possible to imagine a world without cyclists on the roads and it's fairly common to either think that or even say things like "bikes shouldn't be on the roads to begin with!" For balance, it's nice to imagine a world world where there are no cars on the road. Even better, it's even nicer to imagine a world without roads at all. Of course, it wouldn't be practical (c.f. trucking African baby suits around), but it makes the point that often the status quo is so far shifted one way that it is hard for some to understand where the angst on the other side comes from. If all the money which is currently poured into cars and their needs, privately and publicly, were devoted to trains and trams, we could certainly have a pretty spectacular public transport system. It's not going to happen for another 50 years, I suspect. In the mean-time, I intend to enjoy driving to difficult to get to places and to carry things around, catching the train, walking, and running to work as it suits me, and I'll continue to respect the right of bicycles to share the road with me when I drive.
joz Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Up until a little while ago my wife was quite sympathetic to riders,being one herself. That was until one day she was driving along Beach Rd Elwood. She was in the right hand lane and had just over taken a group of cyclists in the left lane. But she had realised that she had to turn left just ahead. Instead of racing ahead and cutting the cyclists off while turning left she waited for them to pass.She thought that be the right thing to do and just plain polite. Well she was rewarded with one of them swinging out a bit wider and smashing his pump into her passenger side door, WTF? So of he rode unidentified while intentionally causing damage. He was a C U Next Tuesday alright. Now as a driver we couldn't get away with not being identified, that F@RCK could. Pricks like him make my liver curdle!
Orpheus Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I understand you being upset on her behalf, Joz, but I don't understand why these isolated incidents lead to a whole group of people being written off.
jezzaboogie Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Or what any of us are meant to do about it. What are the options?
Jake Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Joz, the wanker on the bike was undoubtedly a wanker....on a bike. However, your wife should probably have not stopped, would be better on a busy road like that to just keep going and turn back where safe to do so.Just sayin'.
proftournesol Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I'm amazed at the tone of this thread, so much anger and aggression. This is the real problem, we are living in a way that makes many of us angry, and this anger is easily directed at targets: drivers, cyclists, asylum seekers, single mothers, 'dole bludgers' etc. It's too easy to demonise the 'other' by: seeing 'them' (as opposed to 'us') as a collective who deserve collective punishment - 'all drivers, all cyclists' etc seeing only 'the car' or 'the lycra' rather than seeing them as fellow citizens, people like us. We have transformed the 'Common Wealth' of Australia into the 'F off, get outta my way, you are interfering with my personal rights' Australia and it's a sad sad thing. Riders make mistakes, drivers make mistakes, we all get angry at times but we need to start working in a more cooperative empathic respectful way: ripping off mirrors, kicking cars, deliberately running bikes of the road, tooting your horn at cyclists, yelling abuse and throwing urine at cyclists is a symptom of the mindless angry individualism that infects us all. Nobody here has mentioned saying sorry in a single post, admitted to making an error, or seen any value in empathy or cooperation. Sad. 4
RockandorRoll Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 same way as car drivers i suppose Orph, we cant steroe type on a few bad eggs. Theres more than 2 instances of politeness from the cars end, being rewarded with the opposite from the bikes end
joz Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I understand you being upset on her behalf, Joz, but I don't understand why these isolated incidents lead to a whole group of people being written off. Joz, the wanker on the bike was undoubtedly a wanker....on a bike. However, your wife should probably have not stopped, would be better on a busy road like that to just keep going and turn back where safe to do so.Just sayin'. I know quite a few people that still ride ( family friends that my wife rode with for about 15 years) and wish them all the best. But yes things like that really do leave a sour taste that lingers for a long time.
jezzaboogie Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I know quite a few people that still ride ( family friends that my wife rode with for about 15 years) and wish them all the best. But yes things like that really do leave a sour taste that lingers for a long time. Sure but I tend to agree with Jake. Tell that same story with both parties being in cars and it takes on a very different complexion. If you switch the roles of car driver and cyclist then it is just kind of bizzare (although still imaginable on a downward slope I suppose).
joz Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Perhaps courtesy is bizarre to some? No need for role reversal. Perhaps the dude was just your typical A type?
peacewise Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 On 21 st of June 2006, my hifi nut neighbour kept me up till 2 am playing his damned heavy metal so friggin loud! Hence I absolutely hate all hifi nuts, most especially anyone who listens to metal. And neighbours, crikey don't get me started. Err, wtf? 1
nofixedaddress Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I'm amazed at the tone of this thread, so much anger and aggression. This is the real problem, we are living in a way that makes many of us angry, and this anger is easily directed at targets: drivers, cyclists, asylum seekers, single mothers, 'dole bludgers' etc. It's too easy to demonise the 'other' by: seeing 'them' (as opposed to 'us') as a collective who deserve collective punishment - 'all drivers, all cyclists' etc seeing only 'the car' or 'the lycra' rather than seeing them as fellow citizens, people like us. We have transformed the 'Common Wealth' of Australia into the 'F off, get outta my way, you are interfering with my personal rights' Australia and it's a sad sad thing. Riders make mistakes, drivers make mistakes, we all get angry at times but we need to start working in a more cooperative empathic respectful way: ripping off mirrors, kicking cars, deliberately running bikes of the road, tooting your horn at cyclists, yelling abuse and throwing urine at cyclists is a symptom of the mindless angry individualism that infects us all. Nobody here has mentioned saying sorry in a single post, admitted to making an error, or seen any value in empathy or cooperation. Sad. Well said Proft - the only thing I would change is " ​you are inferring with my personal wants" because legal rights sometimes get completely ignored if it doesn't fit with what people want to do. NFA
proftournesol Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Yes, the tragedy is that 'rights' and 'wants' become synonyms when self-interest is paramount. "I've got the right to ride in the middle of the road", "I've got the right to not be delayed for even 20 seconds by someone on a bike"....
betty boop Posted March 24, 2014 Author Posted March 24, 2014 the rights and wants as I said ..as a cyclist soon become irrelevant when being scraped off the road...as I know a bicycle vs car or anything motorised I know which will come off second best !
Recommended Posts