Comments on: Compare and Contrast

By: ChrisS

ChrisS — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:07:33 +0000

Don’t get me started on this, or the Gould case. One tragic death on Beach Road was used at whim to flog Melbourne’s diverse riding community for non-compliance. Or the continuing Other Case in South Australia (since 2005), although we have to be careful how any mention is made of that in public.

Is there a similar stance in the media towards vehicle drivers other than sad, tired pleading from the police?

By: david tiley

david tiley — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:23:19 +0000

As an inveterate cyclist, I have been pursued by bread knife assassins several times.

If we had a real respect for the systemic injury of people on our roads, car doors would all slide open like vans. Which would also make parking easier..

Then again, if we were being rational about car design, they would all be covered in rubber and the airbags would be on the outside.

By: Girl on The Avenue

Girl on The Avenue — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:13:54 +0000

“It’s like debating the difference between an automatic weapon and a bread knife. Wouldn’t we all laugh if a law was passed which articulated killing by bread knife?”

Exactly. Well put.

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:59:00 +0000

[...] Cars v. bicycles: Cast-iron Helen detects a double standard in the prosecution of dangerous driving. [...]

By: David F

David F — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:56:47 +0000

We had a case here in Darwin last year where an elderly man was killed by a speeding driver while he crossed the road.
I believe it was mentioned in the defense that people speed all the time and don’t kill (so there must have been another cause?).

Yes cyclists can behave dangerously but I tend to agree. There appears to be a reluctance to hold people accountable for what they do behind the wheel of a far more dangerous machine. I think the statistics would show that cars are virtual weapons of mass destruction… Isn’t that why we need a licence to drive them? I think your argument is quite relevant. It’s like debating the difference between an automatic weapon and a bread knife. Wouldn’t we all laugh if a law was passed which articulated killing by bread knife?

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:20:44 +0000

Fighting with a lawyer every Saturday morning? That doesn’t sound very relaxing …

By: Pavlov's Cat

Pavlov's Cat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:29:27 +0000

Sorry Helen, I haven’t really been clear either — I got what you meant, but I was going off at a tangent via Jeremy’s lawyerly response, which reminded me of the fight I have nearly every Saturday morning. Just doing my dithering on the one hand this and on the other hand that routine, rather than addressing you, sorry.

As far as cyclists are concerned I think you are all crazy brave to be venturing onto the road at all in any city, much less (gulp) Melbourne.

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:57:24 +0000

OK, I think I haven’t been clear. Here’s a cut and paste from RTS, where some others also think I’m making the tumbrils ready for Towle:

I agree with you, but my point was not specifically to call for a harsher sentence for Towle. Bad writing on my part perhaps, but (as the comments on my own blog show) I’ve failed to put my specific point across, namely:

1. Driver drives, with lethal consequences, in such as way as to make “culpable driving” seem almost laughable;

2. Driver fails to notch up a culpable driving charge.

3. Bike rider is guilty of an egregious riding incident but it’s not as outrageous, nor does it cause as much carnage (AND I AM NOT EXCUSING it),

4. Victorian government says it’ll change the law to make the penalty on the cyclist harsher.

Do you see what I’m on about?

As I said, I blame myself for not being clear, not the readers as you and DD are certainly no slouches in that sense.

By: The Doctor

The Doctor — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:11:15 +0000

I agree with Helen.
It is nearly impossible for a cyclist to do serious damage to a pedestrian, and walk away. Consequently, cyclists are a lot more careful than motorists.
The motorists are usually in charge of 500kg minimum, of lethal machinery compared to cyclists 20kg or so max.

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:40:15 +0000

Jeremy and Pav, you have got me completely. wrong.

Look again. I’m saying that a car driver does that, and it’s not even considered culpable driving.

A cyclist does something horrendous, but in the vast scale of things, much less horrendous than what the driver has done.

And they want to change the law to charge the cyclist with culpable driving, while they would’t even put that charge on the car driver!

That’s my point.

I’m disappointed that either of you would think I was a Herald-sun type “lynch’em” sort of person.

As for lack of evidence, in Towle’s case, I don’t get that.