Melbourne Bicycle User Group

Media: The Age
Date: 5th September 2013
Headline: More people are riding their bikes to work than last year
Link: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-people-are-riding-their-bikes-to-work-than-last-year-20130905-2t7ft.html
Journalist: Marnie Banger

The article is about a count done annually by Bicycle Victoria in Swanston St, for one hour in the morning.  This year it showed an increase, as it did last year – compared to each preceding year and an increase in the proportion of women.  The Age then asked for comments from Cycling Victoria and proceded to discuss sport cycling, with examples from sport cycling clubs of women who race.

As Pip Carroll from The Squeaky Wheel remarked when speaking at a recent Melbourne Writers Festival event, the cultural perception of cycling is that it is a sport, done with special equipment and special clothing.

But the intersection of Swanston and Bourke Streets isn't a good place for racing, and it's hardly the place to look for sport cyclists. It's a good place to see people getting around on bikes.  Not racing, just getting about.

Media: ABC News 24 Breakfast
Date: 7th May 2012
Headline: Drivers who open doors on cyclists facing increased fines: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-07/car-door-bikie-hits-increase-in-melbourne/3995038
Presenters: Karina Carvalho and Michael Rowland
Reporter: Simon Lauder

Cyclists in Melbourne would no doubt welcome the increased interest in dooring from the mainstream press, however they would have been left rather perplexed by this question from ABC News 24’s Simon Lauder to Bicycle Network Victoria spokesperson Garry Brennan:

Are you worried that by increasing [the penalty for dooring] it might be sending a message that it’s always the motorist’s fault?

The issue of fault was then discussed by the live news channel’s breakfast presenters, Karina Carvalho and Michael Rowland:

Rowland: Now just to even the ledger up a tiny wincy bit, did I hear [Brennan] say it’s always the motorist’s fault or is my hearing failing me?

Carvalho: No, we both heard that, and I would say that you would probably need to take that comment with a little bit of caution, because it’s not always the driver’s fault.

Rowland: …a sack of salt, not just a grain of salt, because without pillorying cyclists….I have seen my fair share of reckless cyclists so I think it’s very unfair to purely blame motorists 100% of the time.

Carvalho: …and more education and more awareness on both sides is what’s needed.

Pointing the finger at reckless cyclists is a regular tactic in trying to deflect motorist responsibility for car/bicycle collisions. No one denies that such cyclists exist and should be held accountable for their actions, but the issue of fault in a dooring incident is not debatable: it is always the motorist’s fault. This underpins the current proposal  to increase penalties for car dooring, which aims to deter motorists from committing this serious offence.

Carvahlo’s suggestion that both sides need more education also needs to be examined. Cyclists are legally required,* and expected by motorists, to ride in poorly designed bike lanes that present a serious dooring risk, so they are regularly advised by cycling groups to stick to the right side of the lane away from the dooring zone. Motorists, on the other hand, are mostly uninformed about the serious danger they present when exiting a vehicle without checking behind them. Education and awareness are definitely required on both sides, but it’s on the motorist side where it’s seriously lacking. Hence the new penalties.

It would be possible to take these comments with (to borrow Rowland’s phrase) a sack of salt, but cyclists who have been involved in or witnessed a dooring incident would perhaps beg to disagree. Rowland and Carvalho were wrong on this issue and made light of an extremely serious concern for regular bike commuters.

*s247 of the Road Rules 2009 requires cyclists to stay in the bike lane ‘unless impracticable.’ Arguably this could extend to unsafe bike lanes, but it needs to be clarified.

Media: Melbourne Herald-Sun
Date: 16th March 2012
Headline: Pic of cyclist with baby sparks fury
Link: http://m.news.com.au/NationalNews/fi984962.htm
Journalists: Elissa Doherty and Courtney Crane

This article attacks a woman carrying a baby on her back.  The baby is too young to wear a helmet, no helmets are available on the market and in any case would likely damage the baby’s neck.  As you know, young babies can’t hold their head up, which is why they are often carried close to their carer, with the head supported against the body of their carer.

What particularly outraged these reporters was that the woman riding the bike was wearing a helmet herself: she was “selfish” for “endangering a baby’s life – but protecting her own”.  Actually she was wearing a helmet to avoid getting fined for the safe and healthy activity of riding a bicycle. Would the journalists have been happier if the rider was not wearing a helmet?

Congratulations to Garry Brennan of Bicycle Network Victoria for defending the woman, and pointing out that this is the normal way to carry very young babies all over the world. BV’s bravery in standing up to the onslaught is to be commended.

As the law in Victoria stands, it is impossible to get around on a bike with a baby too young to wear a helmet. So if the bicycle is your means of transport, you are grounded. How unfair is that?

As usual, the article totally fails to mention the reason why helmets are considered necessary: because motor vehicles endanger cyclists. So not a word about solving the root cause of the problem, ignoring the elephant as usual.