cfsmtb said:Shane Stanley said:
It can't achieve much less than hectoring and questioning the motives
of
everyone who disagrees with you.
For goodness sake, some of us are sick to death of people telling us
how
dangerous cycling is. If someone can convince me that ghost signs are
going to get more people out on bikes rather than fewer, terrific. But
I
haven't seen that argued here.
The issue is, why can't sensitive cycling related-topics be broached
without the same repetitve "nothing can be done" approach, or simply
ignoring and turning the other cheek?
They can, quite cheerfully. And, sometimes, your opinion will differ
from others, and we can have a fun little debate. Maybe it's
repetitive, but maybe that's because it's the same issue over and over,
and essentially the same disagreement, because we have different
perspectives and opinions as to what causes increased risks on the
road, and how to deal with same. Me, I like to teach the people I work
with how to ride as safely (reduced risk road riding, I call it) as
they can on the road, and to let real lobby groups (BV) know about the
blackspots that I know about in order to hopefully have some of them
addressed. Case in point, the tram stops on Whitehorse Rd as an
example of a blackspot that I've written to BV and the local council
about. I don't think human nature can be altered significantly, people
will make mistakes, take unacceptable risks etc all the time, and as
long as there's cars & people not in cars mixing, there will be crashes
between them that will result in injuries and deaths. Things can be
better, I think mainly through enforcement of the existing rules and
removal of blackspots that at the moment, I avoid. Will the Lilydale
council/RTA seal the shoulder on Victoria Rd anytime soon? Blind
crests, heavy single lane traffic, and no shoulder. Unpleasant. I
don't do that ride anymore, since the housing estates have gone in to
Yarra Glen and Lilydale that road is a deathtrap. It only took my
being punted into the gravel once ...
I ride on the road, a -lot-, I care about this. For you to suggest
that I have no idea about road safety is ill informed at best. I
practice active road safety every day, and I teach it to the riders I
work with.
Quoted message said:As for cycling is dangerous, that is a complete load of bollox.
No, it's not. Cycling (I assume you mean on the road) is dangerous
sometimes. It's got a level of risk that changes according to the
conditions and the way it's ridden, but it is not a "safe" thing to do,
unless your idea of safe differs significantly from mine. Every day I
risk getting cleaned up by someone not paying attention turning right,
doing a uturn, opening a car door, SMSing on their phone, driving
drunk, drugged, upset, having a heart attack, rage attack, fainting,
you name it ... We ride as best we can to reduce the risks, but they're
very, very real. You ran over a cat and broke ribs, that doesn't
happen doing something safe. Mikey's lucky to be alive, Dutchy's
shoulder, Tim's collection of dented 4wd bullbars in his shed and his
torn knicks soaked in diesel.. Not dangerous? You've got to be
kidding. But, it's not *very* dangerous if and only if, it's ridden
defensively.
Quoted message said:I've
constantly argued strongly against that, and it is disingenuous of you
suggest that I have that approach. You can google that if you wish.
Actually, taking the attitude that is no problem exists all at between
road users & cyclists is extremely disingenuous.
Numerous traffic engineers don't take the needs of cyclists seriously,
some cycling advocates propose separate facilities rather education and
awareness over than dealing with the issues directly. It's all just
[censored]-farting around without utilising clear speaking in tackling the
issue of mixed modes of transport on the roads.
This is where we have, I think, a significant difference. I think
you're trying to say that we can make the roads safer with what could
be called social engineering. If I'm wrong, please correct me, because
that's what it seems like to me. Certainly advocating ghost signs seems
to be an attempt (and a very dumb one, IMO) to change how people think.
I think that social engineering doesn't work in general to prevent
accidental or careless behaviour, and it is accidents and carelessness
that causes most crashes. You can change social attitudes to things
like drink driving, but careless driving? I don't think it's possible
- so *I* think the way forward is an emphasis on defensive riding
skills and blackspot reduction/avoidance. *we* care about our safety
far more than Tina with her SMS at the wheel of her RAV4, or Stevo in
the Ute lining up his next courier pickup or Tony in the Taxi trying to
get his last fare from the other side of the road before his shift ends
and he has to give the taxi back to the owner. We're the only ones that
can reduce our risks by riding defensively. They (drivers) may be in
the wrong, but that doesn't keep us alive.
On Tuesday, I was riding home up Canterbury Rd when I saw a L plater on
a motor scooter get rogered by a burgundy sedan, I stopped to help out,
she was ok, just scared [censored], and the car driver was most
apologetic, but it was "just" a careless thing. She (the L plater)
could have avoided it by anticipating the car's actions (turning right,
going to take a chance on the red or miss the turn). The car driver
was just being a human, unfortunatly, in charge of an unconciously
lethal weapon. You can't stop that from happening, people will always
be distracted, careless, vague, assuming one action when you do another
etc. The two times I've been hit by a car (both on a motorcycle) were
when I did something the car driver did not expect (both were legal,
and I was not at fault, but I *could* have avioded the collisions by
doing less unexpected things, like not turning right from the left lane
at College Cres at the back of Melb Uni and expecting the car in the
right lane to turn right, like their lane marking says they have to.
*We* have to take responsibility for our own safety, no-one else is
going to, and we're not going to alter human thought patterns with a
few pithy signs, it would take genetic engineering!
Along the way, we all want more people riding, more often (sorry BV 🙂
). It's good for us all, not just for expanding circles of care and for
environmental reasons, but mainly because it reduces the sheer number
of cars on the road. I love school holidays, there's something like
20% less traffic, the roads are so much (preceptively) safer.
Quoted message said:I posted the "Ghost Bike" topic as some advocates here and overseas
feel as if it is a legitimate method to convey their message. You don't
like that? Your call.
Correct, a number of us think it's a bad idea. And, we have just as
much right to say so, and debate the issues, as you have to post it in
the first place. If you don't want debate, put it on a locked down
website.
Quoted message said:Personally I believe a "Ghost bike" installation
should only be undertaken with the express permission of the family and
friends of the cyclist, it should never be used as a tokenistic measure
to garner attention from the media.
FWIW, I agree with you on that, at least 🙂
