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

In order to protect my remaining sanity and my rapidly diminishing belief in the goodness of humankind I gave up viewing commercial television long ago but it has not been enough as it has been followed by needing to give up viewing ABC or SBS TV as well and more recently I have had to stop reading even the SMH, especially online as it has gone post tabloid too.  Considering the reported readers comments it just seems the SMH is following it's readership down some thinking sinkhole, I was never tempted to read "News Limited" publications". No real loss as anything of importance will be summarised and digested on SC for me although I am starting to have doubts about some of you, so be careful.

You bet.

We stopped getting the paper and don't watch either.

ABC is really a commercial for the government, disguised as it is.

And SBS is of course commercial these days, carrying plenty of commercial messages.

It's amazing how much actual thought goes on without these.

Don't watch TV. Install adblockers on your browsers. More peaceful life.

We are reaching new lows in media and in government.  When a Minister can sit on information for over a year that informs him that registration in unworkable and against good regulatory policy, we see that this is just an ongoing distraction that serves the government well when so many issues appear beyond them. 

We are contesting in the upcoming elections because we have had enough and think it is time we backed ourselves and for a better way forward.

From our FB post this evening:

While the NSW media is running hot with the unfortunate accident between a cyclist and a pedestrian and a follow-on inflammatory SMH Elizabeth Farley opinion piece (followed by 524 comments!) about her incident with an apparent hoonish cyclist, the facts are that very few pedestrians are actually seriously injured by cyclists. It is not a cause for alarm or sudden, drastic measures.

In the latest study at hand, pedestrians injured by cyclists numbered 40 over a year for all of Australia out of a total of 2,700 pedestrian transport-related injuries. A cyclist is 5 time more likely to injure another cyclist. Motor vehicles seriously injure 2,500 pedestrians, 1,100 cyclists and more than 15,000 people overall. We won't hold our breath to hear such facts reported, but we share the summary table here.

If we want to move the conversation on from this sort of nonsense we need people in government who see the world differently and don't pander to "shock and awe" media reporting that distorts the public perception. Help us bring better sense to government, if you live in NSW, please join us and vote for the ACP in the upcoming elections.

Good response Omar - exactly the kind of response the original SMH article should have included and I hope the ACP are contacted by media more in future. 

Where is the table from and do you have a link to the whole document? 

Clearly in NSW and Qld, bicycle rego is a tool for pollies to win points with the majority by marginalising a minority.

They and their talkback buddies will swim that little turd out whenever they feel like they need a popularity boost - or to change channels when there is a really big turd about to surface!

A shift in popular opinion would make the bicycle rego turd sink without a trace.

Thanks, here is the the link to the pdf report:  the parent site is worth noting for other papers.

It is sad to see media become so lobotomised (with a few notable exceptions) when it comes to any balanced reporting and even attempt at background research.  Balance clearly doesn't create the headlines or clicks they seek.   If they truly bothered looking for balance there are many who could equally provide it including the numerous people doing the research and certainly Sophie at BNSW or Stephen Hodge at CPF - both very eloquent and fact-ready.

The media at one time played the keeping them honest role.  Now that has been distilled down to the occasional "Fact Check" as though this is something really special in news reporting today!

This is the frustration that is driving us, because we see no other way to move forward - and we must move forward.  We hope the ballot box will begin to give them a clue... 

Another misleading headline but the facts are interesting. UK figures but probably similar here

Prof Grzebieta did the analysis here and found chance of a cyclist killing a pedestrian was one in 75 million bike trips.

I had a letter published in the SMH on 25/8/12, responding to a letter calling for registration and insurance for cyclists (it keeps coming back!) Letter was based on a paper by Professor Raphael Grzebiata from UNSW on risks of bicycle-related pedestrian injury, in ACRS journal.

"In response to Angela Wawn's letter (''Don't back-pedal on safety fears'', August 24), Professor Raphael Grzebieta from the University of NSW has researched the risks pedestrians face from a bicycle hitting them.

He finds there is one pedestrian death for every 75 million bicycle trips in Sydney, a very low figure. There is about a 20 times greater risk that a pedestrian will die from a stumble and fall, with no other vehicle involved, and a 700 times greater risk of being killed by a car. He equates the risk of being injured by a bicycle as about the same as being in a plane crash. There is a greater risk of death from being struck by lightning.

Then there was this from the RTA
Last link no longer found on rms site. It's there somewhere,I'm sure. I've asked them to update on the bicycleinfo site under research.
Quick work, bicycleinfo.

I like this comment in the report

We conclude from our experience that the number of hours required to personally observe a sufficient number of conflicts for a statistical analysis would be exorbitant and not cost-effective. If indeed the RTA wishes to follow through with this part of the exercise we suggest the possible use of electronic observations or a follow up with actual injury victims or reported incidents."

One weakness they admit is that injury data on SUPs was based on Police reports, and many injuries go unreported.

I note another letter in SMH today, this time about the Victoria Rd bus shelters. The report above was scathing about the poor quality of the shared path.

Thanks to you too Bob. I find this information very interesting. 

It seems to me that, by miles travelled, because pedestrians are more likely than cyclists to be killed or seriously injured by motorists, and because motorists put other road users at risk more than cyclists, cycling as a transport mode is the best compromise between protecting yourself and other road users, i.e it is the safest mode of transport with all factors considered (not including public transport which is not an end to end service). Sure, you are apparently safer in a motorcar by miles travelled than a pedestrian (a strange irony) and sure, a pedestrian is less likely than a cyclist to injure another road user (if they even can), but my conclusion is that cycling is the best compromise between personal safety and consideration of the safety of others. 


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service