Advertisements

Steve Bennett blogs

…about maps, open data, Git, and other tech.

The Australian’s menacing editorial


An editorial published in The Australian on the 21st of March set a new low standard in writing about conflicts between cyclists and cars. Prompted by video of a cyclist colliding with a taxi door, the editorial combined a strong anti-cyclist viewpoint (as it’s entitled to do in the opinion section) with some astonishing ignorance and lousy argumentation.

It’s so terrible, I’ve commented on each sentence. (Even the grammar is bad: “The problem of city cyclists reached their apogee…”, “clogging-up lanes”)

The Australian says…

Comment

The  arrogant sense of entitlement in our inner cities is also evident in the ever-growing number of cyclists snaking their way through pedestrians on overcrowded pathways, darting between cars and clogging-up lanes on our congested roadways.

Cyclists are entitled to ride on roads. Just ask our Police Chief Commissioner, Ken Lay.

Cyclists don’t “clog-up” roads. If anything, the opposite is true, since each takes up less room than a car.

The problem of city cyclists reached their apogee in Melbourne this week when a cyclist was “doored” on busy Collins Street, after a passenger opened a taxi door and a rider crashed into it.

(Nothing factually wrong here, although the “problem” described is obviously subjective.)

Neither the taxi nor its passenger could be deemed at fault because a narrow “bike lane” inhibited the taxi from stopping next to the kerb.

 

1. The passenger is clearly committing the offence of causing a hazard to a cyclist by opening a door.

2. This stretch of road is a no-stopping area: the taxi could not have stopped anyway.

3. Cars are allowed to stop in bike lanes.

4. Even if cars weren’t allowed to stop in bike lanes, the suggestion that this would excuse the opening of a door into the path of a cyclist is outrageous.

The passenger was lucky to avoid serious injury.

The risk to the passenger in this case is much lower than the risk to the cyclist, as the collision risk is in the moment immediately following the door being opened – before the passenger gets out. The suggestion here is absurd.

What makes this incident even more absurd is that, although the lane was marked by a bicycle symbol, it was not actually a dedicated bicycle lane.

Whether or not the cyclist was in a bike lane is irrelevant to the offence committed. I can’t fathom what “absurdity” is created by the painted bike lane not being an actual bike lane.

Melbourne bike lanes must have signage, fixed to a pole, that shows the start and finish of a lane, as well as clear markings on the road itself.

This may be true, but not relevant.

The state’s bicycle operations officer — yes, there is such a position — admits there is confusion for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.

This is possibly a reference to this interview in the Age on March 20. This statement doesn’t seem relevant, other than to imply that the cyclist is somehow at fault for being doored, due to being “confused”. (Why is it surprising that there is a police officer dedicated to cyclists? There are whole sections devoted to motorists)

Cyclists, including the one “doored” this week, are using cameras to film such incidents so they can make insurance claims.

Very few cyclists use such cameras, which is why this incident is getting so much attention. There is an unpleasant (possibly unintended) implication here that users of such video cameras are somehow actively seeking such incidents.

The Victorian government imposed even tougher on-the-spot fines in 2012 for people who opened car doors in the direct path of cyclists.

True. (As far as I know.)

For too long, authorities have bowed to the demands of selfish cyclists and their lobby groups.

This hyperbolic statement doesn’t seem well supported by facts. The equivalent statement for motorists is much better supported.

Truth is, our cities are dominated by cars because they are sprawling.

Certainly true in outer suburbs that lack good public transport, but irrelevant when discussing an incident in the CBD.

We have no equivalent of Amsterdam and should stop pretending we do.

Australia has no equivalent of Amsterdam? Or Melbourne is no Amsterdam? If the implication is that cycling is fundamentally incompatible with Melbourne’s geography, then this is demonstrably incorrect. Currently about 15% of commuters to the CBD each day travel by bike. This is not a fringe activity, by any stretch.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: