Saturday, April 29, 2017

Community Safety Bullying Female Aggression Workplace Bullying "Ms Bully" Good Weekend Sydney Mornng Herald JULY 11 2015







Ms Bully

  •  
  •  





I find it easier to get along with males in the workplace," admits Christina N. She sounds sheepish when she says this, and I'm not surprised. Christina is one of the most committed feminists I know.
Tall, stylish Gabrielle A shot to the top of her profession when she migrated to Australia as a young creative. But within a few years, she found herself relentlessly targeted by a squat, middle-aged female manager who'd clawed her way up the ranks and "didn't like any successful women". When Gabrielle objected to being shouted at in front of her workmates, she was told, "Toughen up, princess."
When Belinda L went to her manager to call out a trio of female thugs whose Mean Girls-style tactics were regularly reducing a secretary to tears, "He kept watering it down, saying, 'It must have been an accident.' " It was only later that Belinda twigged that the bullies' ringleader was having an affair with him.
Over a 30-year career, public sector lawyer Sheila K led several high-level investigations into workplace bullying and harassment. But when she herself was targeted - by a swaggering female boss she calls "the Alpha Bitch" - Sheila was blind-sided. In the end, she elected to take a redundancy rather than initiate formal proceedings. "It's a nasty process with no real outcome," she tells me with a sigh. "I would have liked to have the courage to front it. But I just didn't think it was going to get me anywhere."
"Victim" is the last word that occurs to you when you talk to women like these. They are strong, funny, articulate, insightful. They are highly regarded within their professions. Ironically, perhaps, they are also women with a strong sense of sisterhood, who genuinely like and support other women.
Yet each of them has had her career in some way ambushed by a female co-worker. And they are hardly isolated cases. Research indicates that women target other women twice as often as they do men. (Male bullies take a more equal-opportunity approach to on-the-job harassment.) And the fall-out they experience is especially toxic. Figures show that nearly nine in 10 women who are bullied by female colleagues will lose or leave their jobs as a result.
Until about 25 years ago, the term "bullying" was pretty much restricted to big kids stealing lunch money from little kids. As a category of organisational dysfunction, it's still an emerging concept. As an object of study, woman-to-woman workplace bullying is newer still.
Last year, the issue of workplace bullying was addressed in Australian law. Workers who believe they have been targeted can now apply to the Fair Work Commission for a stop order, and action can also be taken through state health and safety authorities and the Australian Human Rights Commission. Now all we need to do is figure out exactly what "workplace bullying" means. Definitions remain vague and variable, and drawing a hard line between actionable harassment and bad management can be a human-resources minefield.
Psychologist Evelyn Field, a corporate consultant and author of four books on the subject, defines bullying broadly as "an abuse of power that results in some form of injury or damage". Most experts, including Australia's Fair Work Ombudsman, stress that the key factor is a persistent pattern of behaviour that causes distress. A single incident - no matter how loud or larded with obscenities - does not a bullying charge make.
By any definition, on-the-job bullying appears to be a growth industry. Tectonic economic shifts - all of which boil down to the fact that people don't have jobs for life any more - are probably the main culprit. But researchers also cite the influx of women into managerial roles, the breakdown of community and even the decline of religion as contributing factors.
In a 2012 survey of government workers in NSW, almost half reported witnessing bullying in the workplace in the past 12 months, and 29 per cent had personally experienced it. More than one in five had submitted a formal complaint. (Those are especially high figures - about double the average international incidence, according to a recent review.) A 2012 federal parliament inquiry into workplace bullying estimated the cost to the Australian economy could be as high as $36 billion annually. That's not lunch money.
Here's another surprise: up to a third of the bad guys aren't guys at all. The question of why women workers mistreat other women - and how they do - generates strong opinions. But hard evidence remains thin.
Everybody secretly loves a catfight. Yet everybody fears it, too - probably because female aggression runs so counter to our stereotypes around feminine "niceness". When women have their claws out, blokes fear to tread. And other women run for cover too, instinctively protecting their flanks.
"Be honest," I urge Dr Sara Branch, an organisational psychologist and member of Griffith University's Workplace Bullying team. "Are women just bitchier?"
"I would say it's more complicated than that," she replies carefully. "It's not as simple as saying women are horrible to women. Bullying isn't just an interaction between two parties. It's the workplace environment, plus the two people, plus the bystanders."
That makes sense. Female workers still cluster in "pink ghetto" industries such as teaching, nursing and retail, or in woman-heavy departments such as human resources or publicity. So women simply have more opportunity for same-sex bullying.
There's another factor, too. Research shows that any single-gender-dominated workplace will be more prone to bullying compared to those with a balance of men and women. The average childcare centre is a battlefield; so too is the average mine site.
But it's when Branch points out that women are more likely to be bullied in both female- and male-dominated workplaces that I get confused.
At first, I think I misheard her. "Wait, are you saying women are just more likely to be bullied, full stop?"
"Well, yes," she replies.
Again, when you think about it, it makes sense. The least powerful people - whether on the school bus or in the boardroom - will always be the ones most vulnerable to abuse. And the research results are pretty clear on this one. While woman-to-woman bullying tends to get the press, overall "the vast majority of bullies are men", according to American psychologists Ruth and Gary Namie. Their 2014 US Workplace Bullying Survey found that 69 per cent of all perpetrators were male, and six out of 10 targets were female.
That doesn't prove women are nicer. In fact, the opposite position - that women really are hard-wired to scratch each other's eyes out, given half a chance - has support from some surprising quarters. Feminist theorist Phyllis Chesler, for example, argues that women are oppressed "not because men beat up on us but because we don't want to be shunned by our little cliques".
The author of the classic work Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, Chesler argues that "the feminist view that women are morally superior to men, are compassionate, nurturing, maternal and also very valiant under siege" is pure myth. In a nutshell, Chesler's take is simply that yes, girls are mean. Really, really mean. Not because they're female, necessarily. Because they're human.
But what about the oft-repeated view that "women are their own worst enemies"? Bullyblocking author Evelyn Field muses that "because of the lack of support for women within the higher echelons in industry everywhere, I suspect women are fighting women for the fewer jobs that are available to women". But, she concludes, "the basic fact, at the end of the day, is that men support men, but women don't support women. Whereas men do. Men will press the 'reset' button. Women take it personally. Women are more sensitive, more vulnerable and very nasty in a subtle way."
"But isn't that just a stereotype?" I prod. "I mean, isn't that simply the Mean Girls scenario that pop culture has led us to expect?" Field exhales, clearly impatient. "There's not a sisterhood," she repeats briskly.
And I get that. I'm sad about it, but I get it. What I don't get is the evidence that males are any less cutthroat or competitive. "Don't you ever watch Mad Men?" I want to ask her. "Or read the Bible, or Homer, or Shakespeare? Haven't you ever seen World Wide Wrestling, or Question Time?"
All bullying is a bid for power and control. But do female workplace bullies use different tactics to achieve their dastardly ends? Griffith University's Sara Branch explains there is a lack of direct data about perpetrators, who naturally enough "don't often put their hands up to be studied. What we do know from targets is that men are more open in their aggression, but women tend to use exclusion and tactics that embarrass the other person. They tend to be a little more covert."
"Tend to" is the key phrase here. Belinda L was bullied by a classic girl gang who dressed in matching, sexed-up corporate uniforms and even tried to dictate whom she could and couldn't have lunch with. But the majority of the women I talk to have been subjected to so-called "male-style" bullying by their female bosses.
Sheila K described her wrecking ball of a boss as someone who was simply "very powerful and very inclined to use power to intimidate", who would fix subordinates with a death stare, even in the hall or the lift.
Christina N described her female boss as "more aggressive-aggressive" and her male boss as more passive-aggressive. "Scott would say things behind your back, and say things to other people. But face to face, he'd be as nice as pie." It was the bloke who was the Mean Girl, in other words.
Gabrielle A's female boss also played against type, "going for me full-on, with both guns - and in an open-plan office". It was a volatile, deadline-driven workplace, Gabrielle concedes, and as a manager she'd had her own share of aggressive encounters with her mostly male colleagues. But these were "normal barneys" and quickly resolved. "Being blokes, it was black, white, done, over" and often ended in a laugh.
The contrast illustrates the difference between what researchers call "predatory" and "dispute-related" behaviour. The latter has a good chance of being resolved. In the former, you've basically got Buckley's. "All the training in the world will not help you if you just have a predator, who is just nasty," says Branch.
Evelyn Field is more optimistic about the predator's chances for rehabilitation. Yes, "their brains are different and their level of empathy is different. But they're not idiots. They know that if they don't change the way they work with other people that they're out of a job."
Experts agree that there's no such thing as a "typical" target of female bullying. Case in point: popular, powerful Network Ten broadcaster Sandra Sully, who was bullied relentlessly by a woman who was her subordinate. (The term for that, I learn, is "upward bullying" - and yes, it's a thing.)
"I was gobsmacked when I realised I'd been bullied," Sully told me. "I kept groping and grappling for the right way to describe this ongoing targeting, this vindictive behaviour that was aimed at me. In the last 10 years, people are like, 'Yes, well, you were being bullied.' " The bully's tactic - which turns out to be a classic manoeuvre - involved framing Sully as "the problem".
"Being a woman, and talent, it's just so easy to be perceived as being difficult," says Sully. "And that adds an extra level of complication to it all."
In Belinda L's workplace, an older, "victim-y" woman had been the first to be targeted. She would respond to taunts by breaking down in tears. In contrast, at age 28, funny, outspoken Belinda could not have been further from the office-doormat type.
But after a few months of being deliberately sidelined from meetings and conferences, she found her confidence dwindling. She could see herself transforming into a victim - and it scared the hell out of her.
Women who have been bullied, especially by other women, are less likely to resolve their workplace issues than to abandon them - by quitting their jobs, seeking redundancies or moving strategically sideways. (Perpetrators, on the other hand, generally stay put.) Managers are reluctant to get their hands dirty - and often for good reason. "He said/she said" is hard enough. But "she said/she said"? Forget about it.
"Any male CEO I've ever spoken to about this has said, 'Oh, you so don't want to go there as a bloke,' " says Sully. "Even female bosses have said, 'You just can't deal with a crying woman.' "
As a public-sector lawyer, Sheila K was routinely tasked with investigating bullying claims. The experience left her with a lot of sympathy for management. "There's this very long grey area of 'What is acceptable behaviour in the workplace?' - and, 'When does unacceptable behaviour amount to bullying?' "
For targets, she knows too well, lodging a formal complaint can be as stressful as the bullying itself. "It's not just a simple matter of making a complaint, yes or no. People have to give evidence against their workmates. Will you stand up and be counted? What are the consequences if you do? Will it be held against you? Will your career suffer? And don't forget, you've got to have corroborated evidence."
Sheila herself opted for a redundancy, for exactly these reasons. Gabrielle did pursue a claim and, while the settlement she received was "bugger-all really, considering I lost half a year's salary", the outcome was a symbolic vindication. But the impact on her life, professionally, socially and emotionally, has been devastating. She has moved overseas and is trying to rebuild. After 12 years with the one organisation, it's been tough. "You don't win," she told me. "You just don't. But it's not about the money. It's about putting a line under this and getting on with your life."
For the small percentage of targets who stay in their jobs, the challenge is all about putting energy into what they can control - their own responses - and leaving personalities and attitudes out of it.
In most cases, bullying isn't a personal problem. It's a cultural one. Some workplace cultures show zero tolerance. Others permit, or even implicitly invite, harassment and intimidation. In those cases, observes Belinda, "Management say they care about it, but once a bullying culture is set up, I've never seen anybody effectively change it."
Yet Belinda was able to turn the tables, with help from a counsellor who advised her to fight fire with fire. To shut her door, physically. To make new friends. To respond mockingly rather than meekly to verbal put-downs. To call out the bullying in public wherever possible. Victory came the day she looked her boss straight in the eye during a meeting and asked coolly, "Why are you rolling your eyes? Is there something funny about what I just said?" At that moment, she recalls, her tormentor "absolutely caved. After that, she had no power."
Looking back, Christina admits that her male colleagues stood their ground in a way that she was never able to manage. "The men were able to tell managers to back off, and they did. Maybe I was never as assertive or aggressive. But why do you have to be?"
Sandra Sully speaks for many when she says that if she had her time over again, she would call out bullies much, much sooner. She counts her failure to do so as one of the biggest mistakes of her career.
"It would have made my life so much easier if I just could have said, 'I'm being bullied. By this person. This is what they're doing.' It's a term that employers are finally starting to understand."





http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/ms-bully-20150709-gi8q2o.html

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Cycling Safety Cycling Safely Beach Road Bunch Cycling Bicycle Brake Response Distance Muggaccinos Road Rule 126 Keeping a safe stopping distance behind bicycle vehicles Negligence Community Safety No Stopping Zones




There are “No formal training programs to develop bunch riding skills...”


Monash University Accident Research Centre (2009)





  • Supervision is the key. Don’t let your child near the road unsupervised until you are sure they can stop safely and cross roads safely.




Bicycle Victoria's Report into Cycle Deaths in Victoria (2002)













Road Rule 126.

Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles

A bicycle is a vehicle.

The CycleSport Victoria and Amy Gillett Foundation submission to Coroner Johnstone’s inquest into the death of Pedestrian James Gould stated:

“The evidence establishes that there can be difficulties,
especially for inexperienced cyclists, in stopping safely 

when traffic lights are red, when they are riding in bunches.”


I argue it is negligent for a cycling bunch to be a “No Stopping Zone”

as it affects the safety of all road users.


Bunch cyclists have a duty of care to each other, and to other road users 

to keep a safe stopping distance behind the bicycle vehicle in front

and to form cycle bunches which can stop safely.


Pete Dowe
Road Safety Advocate




“Most rules in the Road Rules apply to bicycle riders in the same way

as they apply to drivers—

There are some other rules that are for bicycle riders only,

or that have exceptions for bicycle riders.”


Road Rules Victoria 1999

Victorian Government Gazette



Road Rule 126. Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles


A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle 
travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, 

if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with 

the vehicle.



http://petedoweroadsafetyadvocate.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/cycling-public-liability-negligence-all.html




Bicycle Brake Response Distance



A cyclist who is concentrating will have a Brake Reaction Time of about 2½ seconds to apply his/her brake levers in an emergency situation.  By using the Bicycle Brake Stop Calculator,


if the cyclist is travelling at 40 km p/h which equates to 11.11 metres p/s,


the Bicycle Brake Response Distance would be 27.78m.


(That means the cyclist has travelled nearly 28 metres before the brakes have been applied PD)



Bicycle Brake Reaction Time of 2½ seconds, which has been used in “Guide for the development of bicycle facilities” by the 'American Association of state highway and transportation officials', is the mode Bicycle Brake Reaction Time used in most bicycle modelling.





Bicycle Brake Reaction Distance means the distance a bicycle travels, prior to applying the brakes, whilst a cyclist -


• sees a danger ahead;
• perceives what it means;
• decides on a response; and
• instigates that response by applying the brakes.


A cyclist who is concentrating will have a Brake Reaction Time of about 2½ seconds to apply his/her brake levers in an emergency situation.  By using the Bicycle Brake Stop Calculatorif the cyclist is travelling at 40 km p/h which equates to 11.11 metres p/s, the Bicycle Brake Response Distance would be 27.78m.


Bicycle Brake Reaction Time of 2½ seconds, which has been used in “Guide for the development of bicycle facilities” by the 'American Association of state highway and transportation officials', is the mode Bicycle Brake Reaction Time used in most bicycle modelling.







The following is the Federal Requirement for bicycle stopping distance with a hand brake.  It is in 16 CFR 1512.5.  Hope it helps.

(1) Stopping distance. A bicycle
equipped with only handbrakes shall be
tested for stopping distance by a rider
of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight in accordance
with the performance test,
§ 1512.18(d)(2) (v) and (vi), and shall have
stopping distance of no greater than
4.57 m (15 ft) from the actual test speed
as determined by the equivalent
ground speed specified in
§ 1512.18(d)(2)(vi).
Nigel Waterhouse & Associates
Aeronautical Consulting Engineers



On a two wheeled vehicle, you cannot jam the brakes on for a 'full' in an emergency stop.
You have to achieve weight transfer first. This means an initial gentle application of the brake before a big squeeze. If you jam them on instantaneously without moving the body weigh backwards, ideally over the seat, the front end can go out from under you, particularly if you have powerful brakes like hydros.



Also on a bike, when braking heavily you'll find that you subconsciously lift off the brakes momentarily as you cross bumps etc on the road surface (eg cracks, manhole covers etc). This is to stop the wheel locking as it is unweighted over the bumps. In a car this isn't necessary.

Cycling Safety Cycling Safely Beach Road Bunch Cycling Bicycle Brake Reaction Time 2.5 Seconds Muggaccinos Road Rule 126 Stopping Safely Negligence Community Safety No Stopping Zones





This Blog strongly opposes 
certain reforms 


VicRoads is currently considering:

"under one suggested reform, 


cyclists could be allowed to treat red lights as Give Way signs. 

And the same could also APPLYhttps://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/fdDifr8ftEgvXndZ0r7ZbejIv3bH9PEMAzDuVktprso-jQe6NoLUa4a6NTcALrzaNr2_xf8DLp8cqHxlE6dGm82RFn3jDHZwUMRk-jBYh0T9=s0-d-e1-ft#http://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png at pedestrian lights."   

Also

"PERMITTING cyclists, riding cautiously, to proceed past a stationary tram;"



"ALLOWING all riders to use the footpath, provided that they give way to pedestrians."

Herald Sun 12.9.14









There are “No formal training programs to develop bunch riding skills...”


Monash University Accident Research Centre (2009)





  • Supervision is the key. Don’t let your child near the road unsupervised until you are sure they can stop safely and cross roads safely.




Bicycle Victoria's Report into Cycle Deaths in Victoria (2002)















Bicycle Brake Reaction Time means the time a cyclist needs to -


• see a danger ahead;
• perceive what it means;
• decide on a response; and
• instigate that response,



when the bicycle continues to travel at is velocity.
A cyclist who is concentrating will have a Bicycle Brake Reaction Time of about 2½ seconds to react

to 'instigate a response' by squeezing his/her brake levers according to different, 

previously determined, pressure levels for the front and rear brakes when in an emergency situation.


http://www.muggaccinos.com/Liability/BrakeCalcs/Braking_formula/BicycleBrakeReactionTime.htm



Bicycle Brake Reaction Distance means the distance a bicycle travels, prior to applying the brakes, whilst a cyclist -

• sees a danger ahead;
• perceives what it means;
• decides on a response; and
• instigates that response by applying the brakes.

A cyclist who is concentrating will have a Brake Reaction Time of about 2½ seconds to apply his/her brake levers in an emergency situation.  By using the Bicycle Brake Stop Calculatorif the cyclist is travelling at 40 km p/h which equates to 11.11 metres p/s, the Bicycle Brake Response Distance would be 27.78m.




A Brake Reaction Time of 2½ seconds, which has been used in the below separate formulae for km/p/h and m/p/h on page 41 of  


'American Association of state highway and transportation officials' is the mode Bicycle Brake Reaction Time used in most modelling.













http://www.muggaccinos.com/Liability/BrakeCalcs/Braking_formula/BicycleBrakeReactionTime.htm


Road Rule 126.

Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles

A bicycle is a vehicle.

The CycleSport Victoria and Amy Gillett Foundation submission to Coroner Johnstone’s inquest into the death of Pedestrian James Gould stated:

“The evidence establishes that there can be difficulties,
especially for inexperienced cyclists, in stopping safely 

when traffic lights are red, when they are riding in bunches.”


I argue it is negligent for a cycling bunch to be a “No Stopping Zone”

as it affects the safety of all road users.


Bunch cyclists have a duty of care to each other, and to other road users 

to keep a safe stopping distance behind the bicycle vehicle in front

and to form cycle bunches which can stop safely.


Pete Dowe
Road Safety Advocate




“Most rules in the Road Rules apply to bicycle riders in the same way

as they apply to drivers—

There are some other rules that are for bicycle riders only,

or that have exceptions for bicycle riders.”


Road Rules Victoria 1999

Victorian Government Gazette



Road Rule 126. Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles


A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle 
travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, 

if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with 

the vehicle.


Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Cycling Safety Cycling Safely Do cycling helmets save lives? Researchers reject doubters and say fatal injuries greatly reduced 774 ABC MELBOURNE BY STEPHANIE CHALKLEY-RHODEN SEP 22 2016 Victoria’s cycling strategy Focus on encouraging/ increasing cycling “participation” may be Negligent. Cycling Participation Negligence Duty of Care Any Kind of Cycling More Often? Victoria's Cycling Strategy Ride2School and Comment by Pete Dowe



The University of NSW study presented to an injury prevention conference in Finland showed helmets reduced fatal head injuries by about 65 per cent.

"...before and after helmet laws, and we found there was no change in the number of people cycling," 

Dr Jake Olivier
774 ABC 22/9/16


The dogma of the goal to increase cycling participation by 
“making it easier for people to take up riding” or the focus on encouraging/ increasing cycling “participation” 
is that it dictates we must have unsafe cycling or people won’t cycle.
So for instance unsafe helmet-less cycling has been put forward by the 
Freestyle Cycling Campaign as a means of boosting participation.
If one finds the helmet requirement can be deemed too onerous,
one wonders which other cyclists’ responsibilities could not be deemed a prohibitive disincentive
to “making it easier for people to take up riding”? or the focus on encouraging/ increasing cycling “participation” 
a set of Bike lights?
Fundamental road safety measures
such as risk reduction behaviour,
and the responsibility to show a duty of care to one’s own safety as well as to other road users
can also be deemed a disincentive to
“making it easier for people to take up riding” or the focus on encouraging/ increasing cycling “participation” 
The Freestyle Cycling campaign also deems the requirement to wear a helmet a disincentive to cycling participation because it reminds people of the risks of death, truncation of life and serious injury.
Remaining ignorant as to the risks involved in cycling has therefore also been put forward as a 
means of “making it easier for people to take up riding” or the focus on encouraging/ increasing cycling “participation”

Pete Dowe


















Do cycling helmets save lives? Researchers reject doubters and say fatal injuries greatly reduced

774 ABC MELBOURNE BY STEPHANIE CHALKLEY-RHODEN
Sydney Road cyclists
PHOTO 
Sydney Road has one of the highest accident rates for cyclists in Victoria.
SUPPLIED: BICYCLE NETWORK VICTORIA

A new study has put to bed the notion that helmets can make cycling injuries worse or prevent people from riding, researchers say.
The University of NSW study presented to an injury prevention conference in Finland this week showed helmets reduced fatal head injuries by about 65 per cent.
Statistician Jake Olivier presented the findings and told 774 ABC Melbourne's Libbi Gorr the results were overwhelming.
"We collected data from 40 different studies using data from over 64,000 injured cyclists," he said.
"We found that helmet use was associated with about a 50 per cent reduction in head injuries of any severity, about a 70 per cent reduction in serious head injuries and those are usually skull fractures and inter-cranial injury or bleeding in the brain."
There was no association between helmet use and neck injuries, Dr Olivier said.
"Most specialists, we've known for a long time that bicycle helmets are effective. Usually the arguments against come from groups that are on the fringe."

Helmet laws 'don't stop people riding'

Australia and New Zealand are among the few countries in the world with mandatory helmet laws.
Austria has recently introduced mandatory helmet laws for children under 12 and had found there was a significant reduction in head injuries in that age group.

















But the weight of opposition against the laws meant the Austrian Government felt it could not enforce helmet wearing for adults.
Many who argue against the laws say helmets prevented people from cycling, particularly commuters.
Dr Olivier said there was no credence to the idea.
"We published a study right before this one in the Medical Journal of Australia where we looked back at some really good high-quality studies ... before and after helmet laws, and we found there was no change in the number of people cycling," he said.



http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/cycling-helmets-save-lives-researchers-say/7867904?pfmredir=sm