ABC Australian Story "One Perfect Day" repeat - on now!

Due to industrial action on the ABC, the Amy Gillett story from earlier
this year is being repeated as a fill in for Friday's Stateline - right
NOW!

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specia...ay/default.htm


--
cfsmtb

cfsmtb wrote:


Due to industrial action on the ABC, the Amy Gillett story from earlier
this year is being repeated as a fill in for Friday's Stateline - right
NOW!

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specia...ay/default.htm


Thanks for letting us know, and for the url.

I hope you'll excuse me but I got a bit cranky when I read about the Amy
Gillett Foundation's aims: "Basically trying to make motorists and cyclists
more aware of each other on the road and make it a safer place to be."

Amy Gillett was not killed because she lacked a general awareness of
motorists. From my somewhat biassed viewpoint, it is overwhelmingly
motorists who need the education, and pretending otherwise makes cycling
more dangerous than it needs to be. Many motorists still don't think that
cyclists have the same right to a lane as a motor vehicle, for example.

Today I gave a friendly wave to a motorist behind me blasting his horn
because I had the audacity to use a right-turn lane for turning off Reid
Highway.

Cheers,

Vince

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:52:26 +0800
Vincent Patrick wrote:
Amy Gillett was not killed because she lacked a general awareness of
motorists. From my somewhat biassed viewpoint, it is overwhelmingly
motorists who need the education, and pretending otherwise makes cycling
more dangerous than it needs to be. Many motorists still don't think that
cyclists have the same right to a lane as a motor vehicle, for example.

Everyone has a responsibility on the road.

When there are no cyclists running red lights for example you can say
"we don't need no education".

The education cyclists need might be different but no one is born
knowing how to ride in traffic!

Besides, road safety is about marketing. It's about finding a way to
make a message acceptable and accepted. If I was the Amy Gillet
Foundation marketers I'd try and avoid being seen as agin motorists
too. It's a bad place to start from.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:52:26 +0800
Vincent Patrick wrote:
Amy Gillett was not killed because she lacked a general awareness of
motorists. From my somewhat biassed viewpoint, it is overwhelmingly
motorists who need the education, and pretending otherwise makes cycling
more dangerous than it needs to be. Many motorists still don't think
that cyclists have the same right to a lane as a motor vehicle, for
example.

Everyone has a responsibility on the road.

When there are no cyclists running red lights for example you can say
"we don't need no education".

I wasn't singing that... ;-)

Yet in comparison with cyclists it is motorists who far more commonly kill
or maim others through a 'misjudgement'. I would have hoped that if any
organisation were to recognise this, it would be the Gillett Foundation.

The education cyclists need might be different but no one is born
knowing how to ride in traffic!

I agree that children should be provided with life saving road skills.
Current cycling experience may be the best teacher for adult cyclists,
since the rate of mortality per kilometre decreases with the number of
kilometres recently ridden.

Besides, road safety is about marketing. It's about finding a way to
make a message acceptable and accepted. If I was the Amy Gillet
Foundation marketers I'd try and avoid being seen as agin motorists
too. It's a bad place to start from.

If someone threatens a cyclist's life, it is hardly reasonable for the
cyclist to accept the blame just for being there. This is the situation
Amy Gillett and her cohort was in - and I don't think the survivors should
all be sent for education on obeying traffic lights.

One view is that cyclists are deliberately placing themselves in danger by
riding on the road. It would be nice if the 'self inflicted danger' view
was reduced, since it doesn't encourage safer driving.

Cheers,

Vince

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:52:26 +0800
Vincent Patrick wrote:

Amy Gillett was not killed because she lacked a general awareness of
motorists. From my somewhat biassed viewpoint, it is overwhelmingly
motorists who need the education, and pretending otherwise makes cycling
more dangerous than it needs to be. Many motorists still don't think that
cyclists have the same right to a lane as a motor vehicle, for example.


Everyone has a responsibility on the road.

When there are no cyclists running red lights for example you can say
"we don't need no education".

lol, apologies for bicyclists does not help the situation and if this is
something that the Amy Gillet Foundation believes then it is a total
waste of space.

If peeps want to run red lights, then they will run red lights, not
matter what their means of transport and there is nothing you are going
to do to chance that short or permanent incarceration.


The education cyclists need might be different but no one is born
knowing how to ride in traffic!

Besides, road safety is about marketing.

It is also about enforcement, but we see precious little of that.

It's about finding a way to
make a message acceptable and accepted. If I was the Amy Gillet
Foundation marketers I'd try and avoid being seen as agin motorists
too. It's a bad place to start from.

Just what we need, another apologist organisation. We have plenty of
those already.

The law makes it very clear that we have to share the road and if tell
and charging motorists for not sharing the road is what is neccesary,
then that what the call needs to be. You do not give into thugs and
bullies which has been the approach of current bodies, bar one.