Pinging @ApeNo1@lemm.ee, who left a lengthy critique of the video which, while ultimately wrong, was at least more reasonable than some of the dumb takes that have been left up in this thread by other users.

The issue with motornormativity is the notion that penalising people who choose modes of transport other than car in precisely the same way as cars are penalised without regard for the actual level of risk involved is insane. Hundreds of people die in this country every year as a result of cars. Guess how many die because of cyclists? Going 10 km/h over the speed limit in a car is a much, much greater danger to the public than going 10 km/h over the speed limit on a bike.

This is even greater when the speed limit itself is poorly thought-out. We allow cars to drive past schools full of 6 year-olds at 4 times the speed we allow cyclists to ride the Kurilpa Bridge. When the Minister for Transport himself, escorting a foreign dignitary, shares himself going an average of 6 km/h over the speed limit on the bridge, it's a pretty solid indication that the speed limit here is inappropriate. As the video itself said, the normal minimum speed you'd expect a bike to be doing on a shared path is about 16 km/h, and going under 11 km/h is—according to the government's own recommendations—unstable and risky.

Something the video didn't quite go in to as explicitly, but hinted at in a way that was very clear for those already aware, is how the speed limit changes are indicative of the hefty car-brain of our current government. This speed limit was changed at some point after November 2021, without any consultation or public information. That never happens with roads. Even a modest change reducing a speed limit on a residential street from 50 to 40 undergoes heavy review and is unlikely to happen if even a small vocal minority opposes it. That's motornormativity in action.

What's more, this speed limit change (and frankly, even the old speed limit itself) was made completely without evidence. There have been no pedestrian injuries on this bridge in the last 20 years. Usually, we try to make policy based on evidence. Or if we don't, that's certainly what we should be aspiring to. The evidence here tells us: this is not necessary. If there's an area where cyclists are frequently endangering pedestrians, first of all: we already have rules in place to enforce that, without going to unreasonable speed limits. But second, maybe, if there were evidence suggesting it would actually help, we could consider putting a speed limit in place in that location. The simple fact is: cyclists aren't expected to have speedometers, so trying to enforce speed limits against them is ridiculous.

And, if you were going to enforce it, the fine should not be the same as it is for drivers. Because the amount of damage they're likely to cause is orders of magnitude less.

[–] ApeNo1@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I took down my comment as I kept on reading more articles after I posted it and saw there was more to it than just this video and individuals comments and felt my comment was pretty misinformed. Glad you took the time to respond as again I had never seen the term motonormativity before and was keen to learn more.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah for sure, it's a term that's fairly new to me too. I probably first heard it earlier this year. I actually thought your comment was a really respectful one, even if I disagreed with it.

Another term you might come across is "car-brain". This term is basically synonymous with motornormativity, though perhaps somewhat more focusing on how motornormativity infects individuals, and less so on its systemic problems.

[–] ApeNo1@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I found on many government sites that a fairly common consensus was that safe bike speeds for areas shared with pedestrians should be around 12km/h to 25km/h, one even said 15 to 25, so being fined $400+ for doing 22km/h was unnecessary. I still believe having speed limits defined for these types of areas is important to ensure public safety, but agree 10km/h, which is essentially just a jogging pace, is unreasonable, with a more appropriate fine being say sub $100 for people doing 30km/h+ in a shared zone.

The complication I also saw is that few people would have a speedometer on their bike so it would need some common sense and judgement. People could use their phones for this but it would make more sense that they are looking at their surroundings and what is up ahead rather than looking down at a phone screen.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

which is essentially just a jogging pace

It's slower than a slow jog.

The complication I also saw is that few people would have a speedometer on their bike so it would need some common sense and judgement

This exactly. But you don't need speed limits to do that. Just enforce the usual reckless driving/riding laws.

Police like speed limits because they're lazy as fuck and can just set up a trap without having to do any real work. They like it against cyclists especially because they're arseholes who hate cyclists. (As evidence for this, I submit the fact that they regularly do "bell blitzes" despite the fact that bells are a completely useless implement when you have a voice, as well as how they enforce these ridiculous speed limits. And the fact that they refuse to ever prosecute dangerous driving by drivers when reported by cyclists with video evidence.)

[–] ApeNo1@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think saying it is slower than a slow jog underplays it a bit. 10km/h is a 6 min km which is a common running speed for amateur runners and a reasonable speed, 12km/h is a 5 min km which requires above average fitness, and 15km/h is a 4 min km which is an elite amateur pace. Anything approaching 20km/h is elite professional athlete level.

I think the point is still the same though. You have now introduced another new term to me. “Bell Blitz”. Really going after those worst of crimes.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm a runner and personally, my slow easy runs might go as slow as 5:30s, at the extreme end, which is why I said that 10 km/h is slower than a slow jog. 5:00s is more my usual slow run pace for runs less than 12 km in distance. But yeah, I guess it's mainly a semantic point. The important thing is that when running, one can easily exceed the supposed speed limit on that bridge, which is just crazy.

The bell blitzes strike me as the same kind of stupid as when they crack down on "jaywalking" by pedestrians in the CBD. In a better world, our entire CBD would be a shared-use zone where cars can drive if they need to, but pedestrians always have right of way. Likewise, the bell law should just be done away with. But our politicians are so car-brained the idea of these is abhorrent to them.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He hasn't really convinced me that cyclists shouldn't be fined for breaking the law the same as drivers. He has however convinced me that the speed limit on that bridge is laughably too low.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

He hasn’t really convinced me that cyclists shouldn’t be fined for breaking the law the same as drivers

Yeah the video didn't really focus as much on that point as it probably should have to earn its title. It made a few points in that regard, but the focus was more on that specific speed limit.

But I would ask, very simply: why should the punishment be the same? That's really the most relevant way of framing it, because that's the positive claim being made, and you can't really prove a negative other than to suggest that there's no evidence in favour of the positive. (I can't prove "there's no yeti", but I can say "well there's no evidence on which to justify believing in a yeti.") It shouldn't be on cycling advocates to justify why the punishment should be less, but on the car-brained to explain why they should be the same.

So why should the punishment be the same? The risk is drastically less, as evidenced by the crash rates and crash severity. So what is it?

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But I would ask, very simply: why should the punishment be the same?

For the same reason we don't fine drivers $10 for driving like idiots. If cyclists can ride around town with no regard for safety and the law, because the worst they'll face is a $10 fine, then why should they be safe riders?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's the car brain talking. It's not a cogent explanation.

Why, when cyclists factually do not cause anywhere near the same level of harm as drivers, should the fine be the same?

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's nothing to do with that. It's about lack of consequences. A $10 fine is no deterrent at all for obeying the law. For any road user.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's well-known that severity of punishment has very little bearing on deterrent effectiveness. What works is likelihood of facing that punishment at all.

But again, enforcing speed limits on bikes just makes no sense. It's responding to a risk that basically doesn't exist, and any resources that could be spent on it would be far better spent ensuring drivers don't break the law.

Of course, that would require cops doing the right thing in the interest of actual safety. But the truth is, cops don't give a fuck about that. They're as car-brained as our politicians, if not more so. They'll spend heaps of resources enforcing these nonsense speed limits, while they refuse to enforce laws like the minimum passing distance for cyclists even when they're literally handed the evidence needed.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] red_one@lemmy.probabilitydegeneration.xyz 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because riding around unsafely is a good way to end up in the back of an ambulance.

It's not about the $, it's about the survivability of an accident.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Sitting here, that sounds like a reasonable argument. Yet experience shows us that people are idiots. They go around with the mentality of 'It will never happen to me.'

Have a look at this on the ABC today. Specifically the bit about the lack of road rules in the late 60's:

In the 1960s, seatbelts weren't mandatory, speed cameras hadn't yet been introduced and drink driving went virtually unchecked. It was a time of carnage on our roads.
In 1970, the worst road toll year on record, 3,798 people lost their lives.
That's more than three times higher than the figure for last year, when 1,194 people died.

There you are - evidence that laws about road safety save lives. That's no statistical outlier. Road deaths plummeted after the introduction of safety laws. Yes, they have reduced even further in the past 20 years with the introduction of better vehicle safety features, but that doesn't come close to explaining all of it.

I know we're not literally talking about removing the laws for cyclists. Yet, my argument remains: If the fines for cyclists are negligible, they will be disregarded. They may as well be removed.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Please do not post comments that do not engage with the arguments raised in the video. Not just it's clickbait-y title. Further low-effort responses will be removed

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't necessarily think the title was click-baity, to be honest. It's a pretty honest assessment of the content of the video.

It's a bit inflammatory perhaps, but only because the facts are so far out of step with the beliefs of the car-brained way most Australians have been brought up to think.

That aside, thanks for trying to keep the tone here better. Some of the low-effort comments here were quite disappointing to read.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago

The annoying thing is the Lemmy API has been changed to not return the child comments of a removed comment. It's really annoying because sometimes (like this) I get in too late and there's a comment that should be removed but there's a good discussion following it (rarely with the original commenter). I'll create an issue at some point unless they've already fixed it

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago

It always amuses me when people downvote moderator warnings. I'll take it to mean that you don't want civil and respectful discussions to occur and just want to engage in some flame war. If you would like to see some changes, feel free to let me know

[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i dont fully agree with the points made, but i do think there are edge cases where rules that apply to cars dont make sense for cyclists, probably the main one that comes to mind is Stop signs and coming to a complete stop. I dont think that is a rule that makes sense for bikes (and can be less safe in some cases) but where rules apply, i dont see why fines should be any different

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i dont see why fines should be any different

Very simple. A driver going 10 km/h over the speed limit has a far higher chance of causing far more damage than a cyclist does.

[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

sure, but then we have to do everything by weight class (like that chart i think it was you that posted?) be the same for motorbikes, trucks etc.

Also need to consider its not just about the potential direct damage that can be caused, a cyclist breaking certain rules could endanger other drivers indirectly such as blowing through a stop sign causing breaking which could lead to an accident caused by a vehicle etc. I say all these things as a cyclist by the way (username checks out?)

edit: by the way the situation mentioned on that bridge is definitly a strange one and really needs some sort of change there

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

but then we have to do everything by weight class (like that chart i think it was you that posted?)

Not me. Someone else posted that.

But I mean, would that be the worst thing? We already do rego based on weight class, up from bikes which don't require rego to heavy trucks which pay the most.

But anyway, no, we wouldn't have to do it that way. Up until the Newman Government instituted the changes, we had a fairly sensible policy (something that could, frankly, be said about a lot of Newman's policies). Most of the world still has sensible laws in this regard.

such as blowing through a stop sign

fyi literally any expert will tell you that stop signs being treated as give way signs is far better for safety than actually trying to enforce stop sign laws for cyclists. It's called the "Idaho stop".

Anyway, all this "could" is all well and good, but our policies should be based in evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that it's either necessary or helpful.

[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 4 points 11 months ago

We already do rego based on weight class

fair point, cant fault that argument actually

I agree on the stop sign comment by the way, I touched on that in my initial comment although in this one 'blew through' i implied a little more than an Idaho stop :) just first thing that came to mind but im sure there are other examples, or take a red light or something.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seems to be a case of low speed limits are good for other people but not him, which I do find a little amusing. Overly low speed limits are a bugbear of mine so I do sympathise with the feeling but since he's a 'huge advocate' for 30km/h zones in a car it's pretty ironic. After all the same reasons for 30km/h zones (e.g. people might be on the road and slower moving vehicles means less risk of injury) do also apply to riding a bike over a busy bridge where there's basically guaranteed to be people in the way. I do like the mention of bicycles being designed to travel at higher speeds considering that's a common sentiment for those of us in cars and motorbikes as well.

I kind of like the idea of reducing fines based on mass though, us motorbike riders would support that...

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seems to be a case of low speed limits are good for other people but not him

Umm, did we watch the same video? He literally spends a significant amount of time pointing out that the government's own guidelines explain why the speed limits are inappropriate. Their data says going under 11 km/h can be unstable, and that the comfortable minimum speed should be 16 km/h. And their own guidelines say that enforcement of speed limits is not a viable option.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What I found amusing was the bringing up of these ideas:

Breaking the speed limit is different to exceeding a safe speed for the conditions.
My self assessment of a particular area and my skill limit indicates there should be a higher speed limit.
My vehicle is designed to operate safely at higher speeds than the limit.
My vehicle is designed in a way that makes sticking to the lowest speed limits awkward.
Police are fining people huge amounts of money for exceeding a speed limit myself and many others think is too low.

These are all very familiar to me as a driver and motorbike rider so that's where the irony comes in - despite being a proponent of low speed limits he's complaining about a low speed limit using similar arguments as everyone else now it affects him.

For what it's worth I agree with him that the speed limit there is too low (as it is on many roads), but I think the better response should be to raise it to something sensible (for what is apparently a busy shared path 20km/h seems a more reasonable limit) rather than either removing the limits or saying you can't fine riders for exceeding them.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The first two and last bullet points might apply to motor vehicles, but the third and fourth certainly do not. Anyone claiming that it's not safe to operate a car at 30 km/h is just lying. There's just no way to make that argument without deliberately saying something that you yourself know to be completely untrue.

for what is apparently a busy shared path 20km/h seems a more reasonable limit) rather than either removing the limits or saying you can’t fine riders for exceeding them

The thing is, the Goodwill Bridge, at the other end of Southbank, is 20 km/h. But it's very notable that this is still inappropriate there. While 20 km/h is a reasonable speed for someone on an upright dutch-style bike riding on the flat, the Goodwill Bridge has rather steep inclines—and, more pertinently, declines. Staying under 20 km/h on a road bike on a fairly steep downhill is not much less ridiculous than the 10 km/h limit of the Kurilpa Bridge.

But then it comes back to the simple matter of logistics. Cyclists aren't required to have speedometers, and while some sports cyclists have them anyway, they usually rely on GPS which is much less accurate, especially around the inner city, than the direct-drive speedometers of a car. It doesn't make any sense to enforce a rule where it's impossible for the culprit to know they are in violation.

The fact that this conversation is even taking place is a sign of some pretty severe car-brain on the part of people who support the speed limits. Speed limits aren't in place for cars arbitrarily. They were created because cars are really, really dangerous. Cars kill hundreds of people per year in this country alone. Speed limits make sense, because they're one of many tools to help keep that number from getting even higher. No evidence exists to support the need for speed limits on bikes. The only argument that is ever made essentially boils down to "cars have them, so bikes should too."

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The first two and last bullet points might apply to motor vehicles, but the third and fourth certainly do not

They certainly do. It's a fact that most cars and motorbikes are designed to be able to travel safely at speeds greater than our highway limits, and it can indeed be awkward to do low speed limits in a motor vehicle. For example my VTR runs faster than 20km/h at idle in first gear, which makes travelling in 20km/h zones annoying because I have to be on the clutch constantly. I could also claim that it's unsafe to go that slow on a motorcycle due to instability, but really that's just as true as saying 10km/h is too slow for stability on a bicycle - there is an element of truth in it but we both know it's perfectly doable for anyone who's been riding for a while.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments