Courier mail poll - do you think cyclists are a hazard on the road?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/p...3232-0,00.html

Johnsons wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/p...3232-0,00.html


Wot a stupid poll.Wot road?
On some roads yes, on most roads no.

F Murtz wrote in :

Johnsons wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/p...3232-0,00.html


Wot a stupid poll.Wot road?
On some roads yes, on most roads no.


When I read the poll, my first thought was "are drivers a hazard to
cyclists"?

But yeah, most cyclists would avoid the obvious bad roads.

On 6/02/2010 8:46 PM, Ray wrote:

When I read the poll, my first thought was "are drivers a hazard to
cyclists"?

But yeah, most cyclists would avoid the obvious bad roads.

It's a loaded poll.

If you were to split the poll into more detailed halves to include "do
you belong to the cyclist or car group?", then you'll see the answers
would be rather obvious.

All the cyclists would vote they're not a hazzard, and all the car
drivers would vote cyclists ARE a hazzard.

From here, it's just a question of numbers. On any given day, the
statistical Courier Mail reader would by far more likely be a car driver
than a cyclist.

This means the numbers are guaranteed to be skewed towards "cyclists
are a hazard".

In other words, it's all bull****.

John Tserkezis wrote:

This means the numbers are guaranteed to be skewed towards "cyclists
are a hazard".

Naayh, its going to be slewed to whichever group can interest the
numbers in voting.

On 6/02/2010 11:54 PM, terryc wrote:

This means the numbers are guaranteed to be skewed towards "cyclists
are a hazard".

Naayh, its going to be slewed to whichever group can interest the
numbers in voting.

Ah yes, if the resulting numbers are repeatable and predictable, it's
all in the question you ask:

If you want a particular answer, ask a particular question.

John Tserkezis wrote in news:4b6dbbb7$0
:


Ah yes, if the resulting numbers are repeatable and predictable, it's
all in the question you ask:

If you want a particular answer, ask a particular question.


Memories of the Republic referendum years ago.

On 7/02/2010 8:57 AM, Ray wrote:

Ah yes, if the resulting numbers are repeatable and predictable, it's
all in the question you ask:
If you want a particular answer, ask a particular question.

Memories of the Republic referendum years ago.

While discussing the silliness with Daylight Savings, a friend in Perth
said they tried at least three times to bring it in.

It's either the people (sensibly) don't want it, or, the government
hasn't asked the "right" question yet.

But really, silliness aside, well, aside from the silliness there's
nothing left. The government wants it, and the only way they can get it
is via referendum. And it's pretty hard to get your way without asking
a question in manner that isn't going to raise *more* questions.

I was going to say, short of some crafty PR work, they're not going to
do it. Till I had a quick look at where they're up to, and yes, the PR
word mongers are at work. Why am I not surprised?

Don't think they go the result they were looking for - 48% agreed and 52%
disagreed.
An editorial today that stated the obvious - everyone on the road should
obey the road rules. Motorists should learn the rules as they apply to
cyclists and be aware. Can't recall what lessons they gave cyclists.
However, the CM also ran a story on cyclists not wearing helmets ...

I get the feeling the editorial may have been different if the results were
not so even.

not too much agro on the ride in this morning either (thankfully).

"Johnsons" wrote in message
...
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/p...3232-0,00.html