Anyone else see the problem here?

[norbs]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/societ ... 1769908505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Crowella]

You'll be pleased to know, Cr Doyle and Mr Baillieu, that despite my accident, my head is fine, but my neck is wrenched, my ankle swollen, my knee strained and my left shoulder, rib cage and thigh bruised, and I don't wear a helmet.

He's not putting a really good case here if he doesn't wear a helmet and doesn't really help the cause.

[J.D.]

Yeah, this wasn't a very wise move.

[CLP]

The article makes good points, but is unfortunately clouded by the lack of helmet issue, which is instantly jumped on by the cyclists are evil bandwagon. The author would do so much better to separate the two issues and fight them one at a time.

[Duke]

Yeah I read & thought you twat. As CLP says the Helmet Law issue is a separate thing all together & by trying to stick it in this story just doesn't help either cause.
I guess he was trying to make the point that even though he went A over T without a skid lid on he didn't sustain any head/brain injury.
But it sends the wrong message & I reckon he was farken lucky considering the nature of said incident.
I'll keep my eye out for him and once I'm done with him maybe he wished he was wearing a helmet. Tosser!!!

As for the crux of his article I agree whole-hardheartedly as i also deal with this everyday I ride in Melb.
But I also think Melb isn't the only one suffering this issue.
It's just typical politics, they talk the talk to win votes but when it comes to walking the walk it either is poorly implemented / executed or just doesn't happen at all.

[J.D.]

There are all sorts of problems with this article.

Firstly, and most obviously, there is the helmet issue. I have a mate in Sydney who is against helmets because he sees them as an infringement on his rights and they won't stop you breaking your neck... He's actually a very intelligent man, believe it or not. The major point though is that this particular individual is breaking the law. That does cyclists a major disservice.

Secondly, she tells us picks herself up and screams at the motorist. We don't know the circumstances of the incident so that line serves no purpose other than to make her look aggressive.

Thirdly, this article is written from the point of view of someone who regards herself as being part of an oppressed minority. I'd be the first to agree that cycling in major Australian cities is not well enough supported and that alternative forms of transport should be actively encouraged at a legislative level. The trouble is that it's a two-way street and this kind of I-told-you-so attitude is not likely to improve anyone's chances.

As a person who drives more that he cycles, I cannot understand the imputation that any sane motorist would deliberately use a car as a weapon against unprotected skin and bone. This one is an exception:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cyc ... 17512.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and of course there was that Critical Mass incident in Brazil a while ago.

When you up the ante by framing the terms of reference in the way the author does, it's very difficult to keep the debate rational. The first couple of pars are nothing more than invective and victimisation.

I drive up Beach Rd to work every Saturday and Sunday morning during peak cycling times. I accept that on those days cyclists ride in very large packs which occupy an entire lane. This is a very different situation from weekdays when you pass them one at a time. In any case, I have seen very few cyclists doing anything stupid. You will always get the odd idiot but they're probably in the same proportion as idiot motorists. You cannot simply regard all cyclists or all motorists the same way. Accidents happen and it's simply impossible to predict how someone will react when they're in shock.

I witnessed this accident a few years ago:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 30690.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact that the cyclist appeared to be at fault didn't change the shocking outcome. I hope I never see anything like it again.

[CLP]

As a person who drives more that he cycles, I cannot understand the imputation that any sane motorist would deliberately use a car as a weapon against unprotected skin and bone.

Unfortunately, this happens a whole lot more than is recognised in the media.

[J.D.]

This seems to be a common assertion but the media can only really report it if the Police pursue the matter.

It is simply impossible to enter a he-says-she-says argument. That is my point about this person's opening paragraphs. We don't know the other side of the story.

Fact is, safety is everyone's responsibility. Motorists need to be cognizant of the results of flinging a tonne and a half of metal at unprotected flesh and bone and cyclists needs to be aware that they can't always do the same things cars can.