And here is the esteemed panel:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

Views: 1321

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think Eddie is a keen cyclist, he was at the end of last year's Tour de France riding around. 

Lin Fox might have some views from a truckie's point of view (?)

The 'vibe' will be interesting.

I'll put a tenner on the 'cyclists don't pay rego' chestnut getting a run out.

I cannot find mention of cycling regarding tonight's program.  Can you direct me please Mr O'?

He might got the insider trading whispers.

The source was twitter. 

To wit


QandAMar 23, 2:38pm via TweetDeck

Safety for cyclists is on the agenda with a recent “dooring” incident of a Melbourne cyclist going viral#QandA
ab.co/1hLw0yQ

That was sooooo pointless

Lucky Rachel Griffith took up most of the time, so Lin Fox didn't get a chance to develop his theme of cyclists shouldn't be on St Kilda Rd. Ms Griffiths got in some good points about cars being weapons, and neatly changed the topic away from the dooring incident to the SC Drive incident.

I did have issue with her characterisation of the incident as being a deliberate attack, though. I don't think there is any evidence that it was. The problem on the roads is not sociopathy, it is negligence.

 The problem on the roads is not sociopathy, it is negligence.

Really? If I stood in a street / public space with a known lethal weapon and 'negligently' use it to maim / kills someone  would that be innocently negligent? deliberate negligence? criminal negligence? 

And does it really matter if a loved one is maimed or dies because of my actions and lack of care? Or do you want to know that I had a late night or a bad couple of months or I was tying my shoelace or  whatever else my lawyer / press decides to highlight to the courts? 

It would be criminal negligence. Did I suggest otherwise? "Deliberate negligence" is just about an oxymoron.

Of course it make a difference. It might not make a difference to the pain caused to your loved one if the person that runs them down does so intentionally or does so because they were reading a text message, but it makes a difference to how we as a society respond to the problem. A different cause requires different measures to try to ensure that that kind of accident either can't happen or can be mitigated.

Making claims that people are out there intentionally running down cyclists is actually harmful to cycling. It isn't true. It perpetuates the idea of a war on the roads which does not actually exist. It perpetuates narratives of fear and danger which are counter-productive to increasing cycling participation. It is thoroughly counterproductive to mischaracterise the problem.

+1

If I thought there were a large number of people deliberately trying to kill me I not only wouldn't ride my bike, I doubt I'd get out of bed.  I don't want to live in that society.

Actually most people on the roads aren't negligent, aren't likely to kill me and can't all be characterised as evil. 

Actually most people on the roads aren't negligent, aren't likely to kill me and can't all be characterised as evil.

Thank goodness that applies to the majority of the population, however the fact is there are always a small % of people out to prey on the vulnerable public - it's the same reason why my kids do not go to public toilets unescorted, and yes, you do live in the same society.  The question is what is the "public" view or attitude towards a vulnerable user crime like above and how the public reacts to a case of "negligence" that can easily affect a cyclist entire life and their families.

RSS

© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service