Beating my head against the proverbial brick wall

[Shut Up Legs]

I just sent a letter to the Herald Sun and The Age, Melbourne's two mainstream high-circulation newspapers, text as follows:

Some facts for the misinformed:
1. Road funding comes from consolidated tax revenue.
2. The bulk of this revenue comes from our income taxes, paid by motorists and cyclists alike.
3. Bicycles do not use fuel, and so do not, and should not, be subject to fuel taxes.
4. Bicycles, unlike motor vehicles, are not inherently dangerous machines, and so do not, and should not, be subject to registration fees.
5. Motor vehicle registration fees pay for this registration, and DO NOT fund roads.
6. Except for a few road rules specific to motorists or to cyclists, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists on our roads, and deserve equal respect.
7. Cyclists follow the road rules AT LEAST AS WELL as motorists, and contrary to popular belief are not scofflaws.
8. Australia is a nation with a firmly-entrenched love of motoring and prejudice against cyclists. This prejudice needs to stop, because it is irrational and is putting cyclists in danger. Cyclists are people: they are your friends, relatives, and co-workers, and do not deserve to be vilified simply because of their choice of transport mode.

I've sent this text before to both these newspapers, but haven't managed to get it published yet, but I keep trying, in the hope that one of them will publish it. It's under the 200-word limit for The Age (the Herald Sun's limit is just defined as 'short', whatever that means).

I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall, though, because the amount of ignorance in Australia about the road rules relating to cycling, and the true sources of road funding, is staggering.

Hopefully, I'll eventually get this letter published, and I intend to keep re-sending it until this occurs.

 

[AndyRM]

Whilst I admire your efforts, I'd maybe consider softening the tone a bit?

Your final sentence was the best IMO as it targets the real issues which are essentially respect and tolerance, as well as thinking about road users as humans.

I fully get your frustration, just IME the softly softly approach often works better than the big stick.

Thanks for teaching me the word scofflaw by the way, that's a new one for me!

 

[classic33]

Would one of these be the anti-cycling paper?

Why not send it in after a similar letter has appeared from the drivers side. In the interests of balancing the subject out, allowing the paper to present both sides of the argument.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Would one of these be the anti-cycling paper?

Why not send it in after a similar letter has appeared from the drivers side. In the interests of balancing the subject out, allowing the paper to present both sides of the argument.

Yes, that idea has merit, but I prefer to send these letters of my own accord, not simply in response to another anti-cyclist letter. Although, given that there's no shortage of the latter, any letter I get published would probably appear not long after the last anti-cyclist letter anyway.

 

[classic33]

Yes, that idea has merit, but I prefer to send these letters of my own accord, not simply in response to another anti-cyclist letter. Although, given that there's no shortage of the latter, any letter I get published would probably appear not long after the last anti-cyclist letter anyway.

It was more so they could be seen as trying to balance the arguments out more than anything else. Giving equal time, and space to both.
It'll never happen, but worth trying to point it out to them.