Regarding the crash, people are going to trot this one out as how dangerous cycling "really" is - at just about every chance they're given. We need to get our counter arguments in line, first and foremost that this is the very model of a "freak" accident and media beat up.
I doubt there are many (if any) equal to the unfortunate Glenhuntley Rd pedestrian fatality. This death would have to be just about effing unique, wouldn't it?
This is a public forum, and the last thing we need is to feed the perception that cyclists a) would take satisfaction from a motorist's death, and/or b) are of the opinion that motorists deserve to die if they hit a cyclist. All it takes is a couple of journalists, syndicated bloggers, or whatever, doing a bit of google 'research' for a controversial angle, or looking at 'linkback' information on the article's site, and we're three steps back.
As far as getting counter arguments in line, I would hope that the cyclist was illuminated for a morning ride, and wasn't riding erratically. The amount of boneheads I see doing bizarre and suicidal things on the roads each morning continue to erode my opinion of the 'wider cycle commuting fraternity', whatever that is.
I'm still trying to work out what I think of seeing the Mad Monk bailed up outside Parliament House after his morning ride, with his helmet all wonky ...
And this is what's wrong with the cycling movement, too willing to agree with the motoring side to avoid an irrational debate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go, sometimes it's just easier to say, "yes, some of our bretheren are their own worst enemy," and I've been as guilty of that (occasionally) as anybody.
This is a cycling community and discussion forum, sometimes we need to discuss issues to an extreme degree to find the limits. That we're a public forum beholds us to set those limits and real in our members who cross them, but that should never stifle robust debate or reasonable humour.
I agree the karma comment was a bit cheap, but hey, let karma sort that out ;-)