An irritating article. Though Greenwood's injuries and medical costs are serious, rego is a rich response upon which to frame her story into a news article. 

What about her criminal compensation when they find the cyclist guilt of neg driving? What about reforming the MAA to cover cycling incidents? What about not getting all worked up about incredibly rare ped-cyclist collisions in the first place (noting that the only similar incident the newspaper could find was from 2002!)

And finally what about balanced coverage? Where is the response from an appropriate bicycle advocacy group?

Views: 3459

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Try again!

and if you've not had enough already....I didn't have enough patience to persist with all the ads, eff me!!!

And now this in the Herald by Elizabeth Farrely (who used to be quite sane but seems to be losing the plot a bit lately).

Registration worth trying to curb the bike bullies

Executive summary: she was abused by a crackpot whilst walking in Redfern *shock!* Crackpot was riding a bike so if all cyclists were registered the crackpots would somehow be cured of their mental health issues and that nice lady would get her teeth back.

"Registration worth trying to curb the bike bullies"

Yeah, coz it's worked so well curbing the motorists' bullying.

This is still sitting in my SMH comments pending folder (others published - smashing Virgin Lounge wifi this morning!). I can't see the issue with it being posted - oh well, may as well share with you guys then...


That's a horrible story Elizabeth, honestly. I would not want anyone to be subjected to that. But the problem wasn’t a "cyclist" per se, it was an idiot. Possibly with personal issues. No form of transport is immune from having idiots in charge. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles or pedestrians -  plenty of stories of other mode bullies engaging in similar, and sadly worse behaviour. And even if their mode is identified by registration - what penalties do you think that person faces? I can tell you there are many cases where even where registration and identity is clear, yet unless you are seriously injured or killed, then no action whatsoever is taken - or if it is by police, it is subsequently dismissed in the courts (word count restrictions prohibit me going into these examples).  I feel desperately sorry for Ms Greenwood too and wish her a successful recovery, but again, registration is a fallacy in terms of satisfactory accountability. Insurance (which I have even for when I am walking, let alone anything mechanical!) is a similar fallacy. It reduces the impact, but does not remove it. In any event registration basically still relies on a decent person stopping, exchanging details and accepting their responsibility. Registration does little to enforce this, apart from make people a little more likely to voluntarily accept their responsibility. If you are hit by a car, and they take off, registration is not as powerful as you would think. Most simply call themselves to report the car stolen, or was lent to someone and they knew not who was driving. Then you end up having to have positive person identification and witness statements to corroborate - unlikely - still on your own. Sadly, this is more about human attitudes to others in Sydney. 

Outside the Greek Orthodox Church is a shared use path, a continuation of the Alfred Park SUP.  It is not a footpath.  Doesn't excuse failure to give way to other traffic though.

I appreciate that riding on the footpath is illegal, but it seems to me in this case that if both Elizabeth F and Bike Bully had each shown a bit of respect and tolerance for each other, this regrettable incident may have been avoided.
As for riding on Cleveland Street, it's a death trap !

While not condoning the bike idiots ridiculous bevhaviour, this is another article by Elizabeth of a similar content.

I do walk a lot too and don't seem to have recurring issues with cyclists, even on non-shared paths. I just keep left as a courtesy to other path users and minimise disharmony. A potential strategy for Elizabeth perhaps? She kind of appears to be waging a 'good fight' for the pedestrians of the city, notwithstanding her historical support for cycling.

Please! Liz long ago showed her true colours when she wrote about giving up GoGet and then waxed lyrical about buying a new car. She has shown her true colours and the are wrapped around a four door wheel chair. She is not a true supporter of cycling, or walking, or anything in paricular that is the latest fad that will get her the most readers (clicks). Nothing wrong with that per se (we all have to eat) but just be aware she can turn around an bite those who think she is a supporter at any time.  I stopped reading her self righteous dribble ages ago. 


Cleveland is safe enough imho, if you take the lane, the whole lane:

  • Downhill from City Road to as far as Abercrombie (exit left at Wiley or Abercrombie)
  • Downhill from George / Regent to as far as Shepherd
  • Downhill from Elizabeth through to as far as South Dowling

Reverse I ride:

  • up through Seymore Centre crossing to Victoria Park (all SUP) or Myrtle + illegal footpath
  • up via Meagher + illegal footpath, or straight up Cleveland's illegal footpath to the SUP outside Greek Orthodox, or avoid the issue by going via The Block, Lawson and Wells
  • North to South: Devonshire then Nobbs/Parkham; Belvoir/Goodlet then Devonshire; James/Cooper then Surry Hills Shopping Centre, then Boronia, then Chelsea/Charles/Thurlow; or southern most Redfern, Young, Zamia, reserve path & overpass 

Nice positive piece of Youi advertorial here: (Brought to my attention by Mr O' via Twitter. Thanks, O'man.) which turned into a rego-whingefest in the comments. (Who'da thunk?)

But that NeilA guy seems to have been commenting in there, too:

Get real, people. Stop whinging about cyclists getting a free ride and realise that you, and your family too, can take advantage of the benefits of cycling.
Then you'll be able to demonstrate your competence and exemplary rule-following ability and make a positive difference to road safety.

Discussion of NZ No Fault scheme here in a NSW Parliament report 2005. Seems to work very well, and very cheaply, but a few caveats about "moral hazard" if you don't get to use the legal system and find fault. However the body responsible for administering the scheme is charged with developing schemes to improve safety.

Also history of attempts to get a NF scheme here. We were close in 1975 when Labor introduced a Bill, which never got voted on for well known reasons. Also partial NF schemes in Tas and Vic.

Perversely, finding fault in this case or even identifying the offender, may work against a good outcome for the injured women. If offender is not identified a victim can sue the "nominal defendant" and get compensation for injuries, or so I believe- not sure if it only applies to motor vehicle related injuries or all injuries on roads. There is also Victims Compenation where the offender is not known, again I am not sure if this could be a source of compensation in this case.

So all the bullsh!t about cyclist rego being essential is just that? Bullsh!t.


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service