Make cyclists pay for their sweet ride.
In response to the increasing tension on the roads caused bycyclists’ inviolable freedoms which jeopardises the safety of the community, Tom Elliot wrote a fervent opinion piece published in the Herald Sun on the 8th of March 2014 outlining the necessity of implementing bike registration and other penalties which promote a more egalitarian road culture. Elliot appeals both to the “morally upright” drivers, “weekend warrior” cyclists, specifically in Melbourne, the wider road-using community, and local government members when he presents how cyclists’ ignorance and flippant attitude toward the law jeopardise the safety and security of society.
Elliot initiates with the title “Make cyclists pay for their sweet ride” which immediately suggests an urgent need for reform and change driven by the community from the imperative “Make”. Further Elliot appeals to the hip-pocket nerve of car-drivers through the pun “pay for their sweet ride”, which suggests cyclists are exploiting the funds of car-drivers registration and consequently living an idealistic lifestyle through the imposition of others as insinuated by the mocking adjective “sweet”. “Pay” also insinuates that cyclists ought to be held accountable and responsible, as motorists are, for their atrocities. In moving into the opinion piece, Elliot appeals to the community’s sense of safety and justice when he acrimoniously outlines cyclists’ flagrant disregard of road rules. He immediately establishes himself as a credible, non-bias source through his confession of being a cyclist and thus having “broken the rules of the road”. This personal anecdote, as accentuated by the bold capitals “I HAVE”, also expands his audience range, as he outreaches to the motorists byacknowledging their hardships in regard to “camera-generated fines” whilst simultaneously acknowledging, and slightly validating, the behaviour of cyclists as they, like himself, are all subject to human flaws. However he positions himself against the cyclists and further debases their overall image and perception in Melbourne, through the shameful andembarrassing connotations implied from his angst at having a “serious confession”. Through the loaded phrase “Tour de France Wannabes” he opines the absurdity of cyclists whendressing in “Lycra” and grouping in “giant pelotons”, despite merely being amateurs. By referring to one of the most prestigious races of the professional cycling circuit and then juxtaposing Melbournian cyclists as merely “wannabes”, perhaps Elliot is seeking to discredit the overall purpose of bike riders, and portray them as an insignificant and unnecessary nuisance to the serenity of the road atmosphere.(can I say that?) Elliot narrows his target audience when he evidentially implements prominent Melbourne landmarks such as “Crown Promenade” and “Beach Road”. The locations are synonymous with the image of family-friendly environments, and hence through the implication that thecyclists are violating public safety, Elliot appeals tocommunity-values within his audience when exemplifying the threat of allowing cyclists to continue on their errant behaviour. The long shot photograph supports Elliot’s argument of the threat cyclists pose to all-road users through the pedestrian sign in the top left corner. As one of the cyclists in the image is talking to his peloton counterpart, the photograph connotes the generalisation that all cyclists areignorant, or rather do not care of their negative impact on society because of their ability to evade fines. The cyclists are the salient feature in the photograph, taken from the angle of an oncoming car which encourages motorists to feel levels of injustice and rage against the cyclists. Further the cyclist’sposition demonstrates their sense of inflated self-entitlement juxtaposed to the smaller depicted cars. This disparity is supported through the contrasting adjectives “pushbikes” and “engine-powered vehicles” which presents cyclists as unworthy road-users and degrades their power, significance, and contributions to society as they are not required to pay fees, like motorists, to maintain the road systems. In using the positive imagery of “morally upright” motorists, Elliot highlights the extent to which many cyclists have become amoral because of their freedoms, whilst also quite optimistically suggesting the attitude and behaviour of motorists ought to be a source of inspiration for the cyclists.The antagonistic manner in which Elliot portrays the unethical road behaviour of cyclists, and their subsequent threat to the peace and prosperity of pedestrians, exemplifies his belief ofthe necessity for cyclists to “pay a form of registration”.
Elliot progresses from antagonising cyclists to suggesting solutions through which they may “regain the trust and respect” of other road users. These solutions are blatantly presented through Elliot’s numerical listing through the adjectives “first”, “second”, “third” and “finally”, and due to the simplistic structure in which he presents these solutions perhaps Elliot is subtly mocking the intellect and perceptive ability of cyclists as their inability to adhere to simple road rules may suggest their incapability of conceptualisingsimplistic ideas. Elliot continues in this condescending manner as the solutions he presents, be them “obey all…road laws”, “indicate using their arms” and so forth, are overtly commonsensical and shrewd. The pejorative phrase “obey all the road laws” is particularly patronising and degrading to cyclists as it outlines measures which are considered assumed knowledge by the general public, when on the road follow road rules. The basicity of this solution further insinuates the lowly level to which cyclists have ethically fallen, as they are unable through their tainted and sullied free minds (that doesn’t make sense does it?), to recognise and follow the basic code of conduct when riding on the road. Elliot augments the level to which cyclists are now morally degraded through the noun “antithesis”, as it implies these cyclists are adverse in every possible manner from motorists and thus propels his argument that registration must be enforced on them, not only as a means of ensuring public safety and equality, but also as a necessary measure in saving the modern “menace” of a cyclist. The negative generalisation of all cyclists as a “menace”, particularly when they are “bunched together [in a] big group” portrays imagery of a frightful, indestructible force which is raging throughout the roads of Melbourne. Through this connotation Elliot accentuates the threat cyclists pose to the security of society, and also reinforces his previous imagery of the absurdity of cyclists. In hyperbolicallysuggesting they are a “menace” Elliot transforms his audience’s perception of cyclists from breakers of road rules, to people who actually ride in the design of inciting fear andinstilling terror amongst the other road-users. Elliot presents simplistic solutions to his audience and induces the necessity of enforcing these measures so the “menace” on the roads can be subdued and an egalitarian road culture achieved.
Elliot validates his previous solutions and appeals to the logic and reason of motorists, cyclists, and possibly local electorate politicians, that in addressing the behaviour of cyclists on the road and enforcing measures through which they can be held accountable for their actions, their behaviour shall improve. Elliot immediately targets the morality of cyclists when he inclusively refers to “our annual sticker subsidies” and their funding of “The Transport Accident Commission”. In establishing the good will and charity of motorists in funding an ethical commission, Elliot attempts to question the cyclists as to why they are superior to aiding worthy institutions which may actually be necessary to themselves one day. He seeks to present them as a narcissistic force, and through his attack on their lack of moral decency, impel the cyclists within his audience to accept his solutions and attempt to re-define their public image in a more positive community-minded manner.He does concede that camera-fines can appear “overly zealous”, suggesting they are perhaps over-used and regarded as a nuisance, however through this personification of camera settings he may also be suggesting that due to the current “unidentifiable” nature of cycles an overly zealous punishment system is exactly the arrangement required to subdue cyclist’s spree of crimes. The noun “transgression” supports Elliot’s opine of the seriousness of cyclist’s threat as it has connotations of violations and sinning. Through augmenting, nearly exaggerating, the means to which cyclists’ evade the law, Elliot supports his previous insinuation that zealous regimes of enforcing registration are necessary to mitigate the unruly, unlawful and unethical force.
Elliot concludes informally through outlining how registration fees will diminish the breaching of road rules by cycles and thus subdue the furor present on roads. Through the positive adjective “identifiable” Elliot reinforced his previous argument of the invisibility, anonymous state of cyclists, and thus given the opportunity to transgress societal structures, they do so increasingly. However in enforcing the solutions previously listed by Elliot, cyclists may become an “identifiable” aspect of society as they are in the range of the law. “Identifiable” also has positive connotations as it establishes a sense of equality between the motorists and cyclists as both are subject to the same lawful boundaries. Elliot colloquially opines how “rego stickers” will be the means through which this equality is achieved as they prevent cyclists from encroaching the rights of road users and car drivers alike. Ultimately Elliot connotes to governmental figures, cyclists, motorists and the wider road-using community the necessity of enforcing stricter road regulations on cyclists by presenting the positive, idealistic image of society being “a peacer place for all”.
No comments:
Post a Comment