Kerri-Anne Kennerley fails to mask anti-cycling agenda
A couple of days ago now Kerri-Anne Kennerley who hosts ‘Mornings with Kerri-Anne’ on the channel 9 network had a brief segment on cycling and the public road system.
Instead of facilitating a discussion on the issue, Kerri-Anne chose to repeatedly cut off her guests and inject her own anti-cyclist viewpoints into the segment.
I’m all for coverage in the media of cycling related issues, but what exactly is the point if you go into a debate as a host with a set mindset, don’t respond directly to your guests and just simply throw around loaded questions?
The segment started off with an intro revolving around recent incidents involving cyclists.
Now I'm not defending the cyclist who pushed over the old lady but clearly there's a difference in presentation between the first two incidents and the third.
Kerri-Anne's first question to the two guests is loaded on the assumption that cyclists restrict traffic and don't belong on the roads.
This of course sets the tone for the rest of the segment which quickly degenerates into a mish mash of Kennerley asking more guided and loaded questions, quickly cutting off her guests if she doesn't like their answers and not responding to any of the answers her guests give her.
One of the first points Kennerley makes, after rudely cutting off Ian Luff for daring to suggest that 'there is a place for bikes and cars on our roads', is that cyclists should be put out 'where there's purpose built suburbs'.
No you're not reading that wrong, Kennerley actually suggests we ban cyclists from all major cities and only permit people to ride bicycle in the supposed purpose built suburbs that exist solely for cycling.
I'm not exactly sure where these purpose built suburbs are, but Kerri-Anne seems to be under the impression there's a whole utopia of regional suburbs for cyclists to make use of.
Of course it doesn't matter that they're miles away from workplaces or anything practical to cycle to.
To his credit Ian Luff answers Kennerley's comments by stating that the law says cyclists are perfectly within their rights to ride on the roads of our cities.
Of course Kennerley doesn't respond to this and instead chooses to launch into her next question. 'Why don't cyclists have ID numbers, number plates and pay tax like motorists?'
Kerri-Anne's other guest, Nathan (didn't catch his surname), explains that cyclists do pay tax and that ID numbers and license plates aren't really feasible.
Whilst personally I have no problems with being ID'd (driving a car I'm already used to it) one has to wonder just what use it's going to do?
ID'ing a bike is going to be mostly useless as anyone can claim their bike was stolen. Then there's the issue of fitting number plates reliably onto the thousands of different bicycle configurations out there. Good luck fitting a license plate onto a racer frame with no mounts for anything.
As for licensing riders, well how's that going to work? You can give cyclists ID cards but how does carrying a card in your pocket help anyone identify you? A patch or 'wearing a number' seems unworkable as what then? Am I expected to put this number onto every piece of clothing I might possibly be wearing when riding?
Sometimes I'm out in my jersey but more often then not it's just a tshirt and jeans. Again how is licensing cyclists even workable, let alone how does it help with identification post-incident.
Ever tried to grab the plate of a car fleeing an accident scene? Good luck catching a pushbike rego plate that's potentially less then half the size and easy to cover.
Finally the segment turns ludicrous as Kerri-Anne pulls out the Daily Telegraph newspaper and quotes a story
secret report says we are now, New South Wales, stuck for the next (dramatic pause) twenty years with roads just getting worse and worse and worse.
The irony of course being that if you put each cyclist into a car there'd be even more cars on the road adding to much worse congestion. If you put all the car drivers on bicycles (where practical) the current road system would be more then adequate.
Of course I'm not suggesting that but the roads have a fixed capacity whether it be car or bicycles. There's just no way around it.
Banning bicycles isn't going to alleviate any gridlock problems that already exist on the roads. It's not like traffic flows freely during peak hour and then when a cyclist comes along entire cities grind to a halt.
The roads are already at capacity during peakhour!
Overtime as more and more cars get on the road due to population expansion and the piss poor planning of Australian cities' outer suburbs this peak hour period is only going to get longer.
None of which has anything to do with bicycles simply due to the fact you can't really hold up gridlocked traffic any further.
The entire Kerri-Anne cycling segment can be seen below;
None of the points made by her guests, positive or negative are addressed or even acknowledged.
Australia's roads are going to get worse, regardless of whether bicycles are banned or not. Limited space and an increasing car population will see longer commute times and an increase in commuter frustration.
This in turn leads people to scapegoating whatever they can and going after the cyclist whizzing past as you sit there behind the wheel is a good a target as any.
Rather then squabble about who holding who up it'd be nice to see two parties work constructively to deal with this challenging issue. Sadly I guess our roads haven't gotten worse enough for this to become a reality.
May 28th, 2010 at 9:30 am lemmiwinks(Quote)
You must view that segment bearing in mind that we are dealing with a woman who is not renowned for her intelligence. I have, for the most part, stopped looking at such deliberately inflammatory and divisive pieces as it’s just not worth the aggro.
For my money, Rosemary Sharples put it best in Australian Cyclist a few months ago (one of the few worthwhile things I’ve read in that publication) http://www.australiancyclist.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=19825
As for bicycle rego, let me debunk the myths:
Myth #1 Cyclists don’t pay to use the road.
Status: False. Cyclists do pay to use the road. Roads are funded out of consolidated revenue, not motor vehicle registration. So if you pay land rates, income tax, GST on purchases etc etc etc, then you’ve paid for the road. Besides, the road is a public space which means that (with the possible exception of privately owned toll roads) it’s free for the general public to use within the limits of the law. A law, which by the way, provides for cyclists to be on the road.
Even if motor vehicle registration did pay for the roads (which, lets repeat it does not), nearly all cyclists are also…Motorists! What a shocking revelation.
Myth #2 Cyclists flaunt the road rules.
Status: Plausible. Cyclists are humans, humans don’t always do what they’re told. Lots of people flaunt the road rules in cars, trucks and on motorcycles but apparently that’s OK.
Myth #3 Number plates will stop cyclists flaunting the road rules.
Status: False. Number plates have no impact on motor vehicles breaking the road rules so why would bicycles be any different? I regularly see motor vehicles running a red light (saw one this morning on the way to work) and earlier this week I also saw a dump truck towing a dog trailer turning right through the intersection while chatting away on the mobile phone clamped to his ear.
Yep, he was controlling 20 tons of truck and trailer with 1 hand and less than 1/2 his brain.
Both vehicles in those examples had their number plates (and in the case of the truck, the business name and phone number) proudly displayed. Neither driver looked very worried.
Here’s another thing to consider, if you are involved in an incident (in any kind of vehicle) and you record the number plate of the other party as they do a runner, then report it to the police can you guess what they’ll say? “It’s your word against theirs.”
Number plates are useful for recording offenders when they trip a speed camera (admirable but unlikely on a bicycle) or red light camera (if you’re dumb enough to run a red on a bicycle then you deserve everything you get) as well as identifying who owns what vehicle but they are neither desirable or useful for bicycles.
It’s also worth considering that any funds raised by such a (stupid) scheme would be more than consumed by the administration of said scheme. What, did you think that the RTA, VicRoads or whoever was going to do it for free?
The whole stupid idea would be a massive cost to the taxpayer for absolutely no benefit to anyone.
May 28th, 2010 at 10:33 am cbp(Quote)
Kerii Anne should get her fat bottom out on a bicycle more over and work out that manure in here head – no one’s stopping her.
The proponents of cyclist registration are a weird bunch – particularly because they also tend to be the same people who advocate small government and think that Kevin Rudd is a communist.
Roads aren’t paid for by car registration fees : car registration fees are paid for by car registration fees. Tell this to an anti-cyclist and they will NEVER respond.
For a registration system to be feasible it would need to be in the order of $10-$20 tops, which would not be enough to even begin to cover the administration costs. So the extra money would have to come out of the government’s pocket.
And like you say, there’s no way a number plate system could work, so it would have to finish at simply a sticker on the bike or similar, like they have in other countries where bicycle registration is required.
So the effects would be:
* A big government bureaucratic system to administer the registration (thus, higher taxes)
* More meaningless work for police (thus, higher taxes)
* More cars on the road – meaning more traffic for car drivers to contend with
* More people in hospital due to lack of proper exercise (thus, higher taxes)
* Stickers on bikes that no one can read
May 29th, 2010 at 8:20 am ssf-in-SSF(Quote)
The best, and possibly only way to cure a person’s anti-cyclist mentality is to put her/him on a bicycle (remember it’s addictive). Here’s the plan:
1. Take Ms. Kennerley to a bike store, get her nice looking team jersey (preferably Jelly Belly Cycling Team, Tour of California 2010) and a good road bike.
2. Take a picture of her in full uniforms, weigh her in and collect vital numbers – BMI, blood pressure, blood sugar count. These are before photo and stats.
3. Have a pro cyclist coach her to ride moderate to hard 10 hours a week, mostly on rolling country hills with climbs, some around her imaginary suburb bike path, and occasional city streets, for 3 months.
4. In her show, announce her experiment and planned follow up show on cycling 3 months from now.
5. Have Kerri-Anne watch all 21 stages of TdF in July. She can maintain her current otherwise rich life style, no diet necessary.
6. On August 31, take a picture and weigh her in again, as well as collecting all vital stats.
7. Invite the same two gentlemen to the follow-up show, with her BEFORE and AFTER photos and stats posters as background. (if she doesn’t feel comfortable showing some numbers, just show the delta then)
8. Her show’s rating will shoot through the roof. She should then donate the extra earning from the show as result to the cycling victims’ fund.
If Ms. Kennerley’s viewpoints on cyclists and her interview style do not change at that time, I am then ready to give up cycling and donate my bike to the first homeless person, or the person walking out of McDonalds I bump into on the city street.
May 30th, 2010 at 10:54 pm bill bryson(Quote)
It is not just Kerrie anne, but alot of shows. They keep cutting off the guest……if you have a guest, let them talk. What is the problem!!!