Pedestrian Run Down By Cyclist

[LG17]

Originally Posted by superyob

I am not an apolgist for a particular forum member, but that is not what he said. He said they 'pay significant amounts of money to use the roads'...

I get your point but I think that's just an easy out for him.
If it was his take then I guess he also thinks that pedestrians shouldn't be allowed to cross the road as they don't contribute for that.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by marty351

Cyclists want to improve their road safety and reduce statistics, but there is always one (or many) who want to deliberatly contribute to the toll. Apart from registration, licensing
should also be compulsory, proving that the cyclist is aware of their responsibility and road laws. Igrorance and blatant arrogance is NO excuse.

you do get that most of the cyclists in question here are adults and are probably already licenced card drivers right?

And licencing of car drivers has been such a magic bullet in solving all road issues?

As other have said, cyclists like drivers are human - and there are nufties amongst us who do the wrong thing - when driving, walking or riding.

Not all cyclists are like that, in fact few are - but don't let the facts get in the way.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by LG17

I'm guessing you either have never ridden a bike or at the very best haven't ridden one since you were 12...

No idea :(

Nailed it.

Perhaps as part of their 200hours to get their P's, learners should also have to do 20 hours in the CBD on a bike.

Refreshers for existing drivers as well.

That would give some the perspective they so clearly lack.

[aussiblue]

The truck video is interesting.

The rear view shot indicates the truck is no closer to the bike than some of the cars (albeit more intimidating) and shows the cyclists could have seen the truck before he turned into the road from the side street. The shots when it is stopped also shows the truck is wider than those cars so it must have moved over to the cyclist more room.

Could the truck have safely slowed without risking jack-knifing etc ; should the cyclist have waited at the intersection until the truck passed? I don't know; it hard to judge distances with those mild fisheye style lenses.

I do know from riding large trucks always seemed closer and scarier than other passing vehicles; especially at speed when the side wind almost appears about to blow you over. I guess this begs the question about if articulated trucks and cycles should be allowed to share the same road space; restricting such trucks to certain routes and lanes (i.e. centre lane as happens in WA with Leach Highway) and out of the CBD?

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by tempted

Please elaborate. No idea about what?

The truck driver should deal with the cyclist 'obstacle' like he would any other legal obstacle ie slow down down and go around.

What would he do if it was:
* a parked car?
* a horse and cart?
* or even a slow moving car?

Cyclists and other similar legal road users are banned from some roads (pay roads, freeways etc) to avoid these scenarios. But on 'normal' stop/start roads this situation is legal and is to be expected by drivers to happen.

So why should he do something different such as try and squeeze past a legally, slow moving vehicle just because he thinks he can?

The seconds he may save by this decision may cost him a lot more time in jail as well as cost the cyclist his life, leaving the cyclists kids without a father/mother......clearly worth the seconds it may save.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by tempted

[LEFT]
Of course there would be an uproar.

Mate you need a history lesson, so here goes:
* Roads are built out of consolidated revenue for which we all pay. Except for toll roads that cyclists can't legally use. Perhaps you should rewrite your rant that people on benefits who pay no tax can't use the roads. Then again they pay GST when they make purchases so they qualify as well. We all pay for roads and we can legally all use them.

Rego (a large chuck of which is CTP which doesn't cover cyclists unless hit by a car) and fuel tax is used as income to consolidated revenue not roads! Who knows you fuel tax is probably being used to promote get fit campaigns by cycling!!

* The first roads were actually built for bikes and the 4 wheel version of bikes that were the forerunner to motorised cars. Extending that further, bikes were here first so maybe you should be happy cyclists share their roads with you??

* Greens - you must live in Victoria? In the recent State elections, the party that won bent over backwards to get Green preferences. Neither major would have taken a position remotely anti-Green.

* Laws are slowly changing - in favour of cyclists - look at the Queensland 1m matters rule - and will continue to do so to protect vulnerable road users form both motorists and in some cases their own stupidity.

I love you use of stats pulled out of nowhere - links to fact based sources would make you credible....

[aussiblue]

Any truckie forum members have a view on the video; should and could the driver have done something different?

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by Hell Cat

Cyclists shouldn't be banned from using the road BUT, i honestly think there a sections of some main roads where cyclists shouldnt be allowed to ride on between certain times- due to safety and traffic flow. - there are always back streets to take.

i can ride the whole way to brisbane city from the northside via back streets and bike ways.

When i was Doing lots of cycling I would leave really early in the morning and have really good lights on the back.

What i dont get is guys riding at night with a ****-farting little light on the back that can only be seen from 2m away but then some million watt front light pointing upwards to blind on coming people. ( they need atleast x2 good bright rear lights and tilt the front light down a bit)


I have been out riding and have had stuff thrown at me, even when i was as far left as possible, had a glass bottle thrown at me by an oncoming car, I had a passenger throw a towel over me as they drove past, been called all sorts of names out the window also. Pretty stupid.


Some sort of ctp insurance would be good but its not like everyone will pay it....... just like the unlicenced and uninsured driver who wrote off my work van.

Mate - I hear you.

My 20km direct commute is not what I do - instead 1 do 30+km taking tertiary roads to avoid the roads I could legally use yet would get me killed.

I have 4 rear lights and 2 front lights - if a rear light failed (batteries or whatever) wouldn't know until afterwards - can't be too careful in mitigating risks as much as possible.

Despite top health cover I was out of pocket $15k following a road accident on the bike. Would love to have the same cover on the bike as I do in my 3 cars via CTP - I would be first in line to pay any rego/CTP levy.

[Guzz226]

Looking at the truck video, some perspective for folks that don't ride on roads much.

When overtaking how much space do you allow another car? Would you allow more if you thought the car may swerve without notice?

Cyclists riding to the left often encounter more road debris and other issues such as potholes requiring them to alter their course. The stuff that constant car traffic pushes to the side of the road etc

If cars 'buzz' a cyclist or otherwise fail to leave enough room when passing, should the cyclist have to swerve there may not be enough room.

This is also a contributing reason for cyclists not riding extreme left in the gutter and sticking to the same patch on the road that cars do.

It seems many car users don't appreciate this and think cyclists are just being painful and if they haven't ridden on the road much there is no way they would have learnt this first hand.

Anyway, food for thought next time you see this...there maybe a valid reason.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by b0son

I committed an act that might hopefully make the cyclist reconsider treating pedestrians with contempt. Do you think doing nothing will affect his behaviour?

An illegal, violent and dangerous act, all to try and teach someone a lesson, you must be like those jihadists who place no value on a human life.

You can take the moral high ground all you want, I wonder how a judge would view it at the manslaughter trial after the cyclist smashed his head against the kerb and died.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by tempted

The truck gave the cyclist more than adequate space

Define adequate? You confess you don't ride so how would you actually know what a cyclist actually needs?

But don't take it from me.

In some state already, 1m has been established as the legal minimum for good reason. On higher speed roads it is now 1.5m.

Without seeing your response, I have already provided some insights as to why cyclists need space as I appreciate not everyone contributing to this discussion has the same experience.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

Mate you need a history lesson, so here goes:
* Roads are built out of consolidated revenue for which we all pay. Except for toll roads that cyclists can't legally use. Perhaps you should rewrite your rant that people on benefits who pay no tax can't use the roads. Then again they pay GST when they make purchases so they qualify as well. We all pay for roads and we can legally all use them.

Rego (a large chuck of which is CTP which doesn't cover cyclists unless hit by a car) and fuel tax is used as income to consolidated revenue not roads! Who knows you fuel tax is probably being used to promote get fit campaigns by cycling!!

* The first roads were actually built for bikes and the 4 wheel version of bikes that were the forerunner to motorised cars. Extending that further, bikes were here first so maybe you should be happy cyclists share their roads with you??

* Greens - you must live in Victoria? In the recent State elections, the party that won bent over backwards to get Green preferences. Neither major would have taken a position remotely anti-Green.

* Laws are slowly changing - in favour of cyclists - look at the Queensland 1m matters rule - and will continue to do so to protect vulnerable road users form both motorists and in some cases their own stupidity.

I love you use of stats pulled out of nowhere - links to fact based sources would make you credible....

I'm loath to get in the middle of this cat fight but I'd think the point is how much do motorists contribute ie in rego and fuel tax compared to what road costs to build and maintain. Whether it goes via an indirect funding path isn't the point.

Similar argument to cigarette taxes, they don't go directly to funding smoking related illness but people are happy to try to link the two.

Btw, I have no idea on how much tax is collected vs how much is spent on roads.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by superyob

Automatic reaction/self preservation mode maybe?

or just "Immature Tosspot Mode"

[Guzz226]

My point is it is a simple, flawed argument, just like other examples you sighted.

If adopted, should cyclists pay rego but a lower Medicare levy etc

FWIW I am more than happy to be bike rego and have been shouted down within extreme cyclist groups for my stance. If nothing else it kills one of the simple anticycling arguments. Paying $20 a year (using the current formula) would be worth it.

I also pay for fuel for my bike that includes GST.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

An illegal, violent and dangerous act, all to try and teach someone a lesson

A reflex, he was that close. Speaks for itself that you consider that no big deal. I also wonder what your attitude be if the person on the crossing had been a mum pushing a stroller.

I wonder how a judge would view it at the manslaughter trial after the cyclist smashed his head against the kerb and died.

And if I'd been hit? He wouldn't get a manslaughter trial because he'd bolt like most cyclists do ... anyway, seeing as we're manufacturing make-believe scenarios, I'm off to drive my Lamborghini....

[b0son]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

or just "Immature Tosspot Mode"

What would your reaction be if I drove that close to you on a crossing in my car? And why is it ok if I do it on a bike? Why do cyclists continue to assume that they are harmless to pedestrians?

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

My question though is, where does all of this stop? Let's change the scenario above a little: cyclist is minding their own business doing nothing wrong as they approach an intersection where they have a green light. At the last moment a pedestrian, not observing their surroundings (probably too pre-occupied with their "smart" phone), steps out on to the pedestrian crossing part of the intersection in front of the cyclist, the cyclist just brushes against the pedestrian but takes a tumble and is badly injured. The pedestrian is fine, apart from a little bit of a scare.

Do we now 'licence' pedestrians to ensure they have CTP so that if they cause someone else injury the third party is not left vulnerable and with a large medical bill they have to fund?

This could quite quickly get out of control, with every man and his dog (literally!) needing to have CTP

Craig H

Isn't that why bikes are supposed to have bells?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Any truckie forum members have a view on the video; should and could the driver have done something different?

Looking at the vid a few times and I could see the Truck driver moved over and was just sitting on the broken centre line when he passed the cyclist.

If he moved any further right he would have been just over into other lane which would no doubt would have been captured on a passing cars cam (and also posted on Youtube as "Truckie all over the road" )

I also thought that cars in the vid were not moving over as much as the Truck (if moving over at all) which due to the (cyclists) wobbling cam he didn't know was coming.

I have seen some cyclists with a form of rear view mirror, perhaps if this one had a mirror he would have seen the Truck approaching and been a little more prepared for it.

[LG17]

Originally Posted by tempted

Regardless of where or how the government spends the revenue, if owners of motor vehicles did not pay these fees they would not be allowed to use the road plain and simple.
Not only do cyclists use the road for free, but they have the audacity to demand and take room away from those who are PAYING to be on the road.

Roads were built for horse and cart and eventually cars and trucks. If roads were built for cyclists then why is this not evident in their design? Barely and roads have bike lanes of facilities to accommodate cyclists.

God help pedestrians then who have the audacity to stop traffic just so they can cross the road freely!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Any truckie forum members have a view on the video; should and could the driver have done something different?

Its not something I would have done.
I'd have called him all the names under the sun, but I wouldn't just blast past him.
I'd have wacked the indicator on a soon as I saw him enter the road ahead, got off the peddle and looked for a gap to open up for me before I got to him.
If he was playing his part he would have seen me coming and got up to speed quickly allowing me further time to get over.
Its not rocket science.

Having said that, I will stand by my view that, whilst cyclist have every right to use main arterial roads, none of the legalities will matter if **** hits the fan because you will be dead, or seriously injured at best.
When a driver jumps behind the wheel in the morning the last thing he wants to do is clean up some poor bastard, but if events unfold that bring them to that moment in time, I know what I'd rather be operating.

I look at this way, no one sets out to kill anyone.
It is a fact that cyclist are the most vulnerable road users, their armour consists of a plastic hat.
Then its motorcyclist, a helmet and leathers, cars with airbags and at the top of the food chain, trucks.
It needs to be a two way street for it to work.
I will appreciate your fragile existence on the road if you promise not to do anything stupid in front of me.
The same goes when im on a bike or driving my car.

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

That was something which picked up popularity in the 1990s and early 2000s, blast from the past, don't see that too much anymore, anywhere really.

You'd be surprised. lol
I live on my inline skates, own at least 6 pairs as well as ice and old school roller skates.

You have a lot of good rinks available in Vic.
I'm on the QLD roller hockey team & whenever we play down your way I like to go check out the local rinks, geat fun!

[mik]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

The truck video is interesting.

The rear view shot indicates the truck is no closer to the bike than some of the cars (albeit more intimidating) and shows the cyclists could have seen the truck before he turned into the road from the side street. The shots when it is stopped also shows the truck is wider than those cars so it must have moved over to the cyclist more room.

Could the truck have safely slowed without risking jack-knifing etc ; should the cyclist have waited at the intersection until the truck passed? I don't know; it hard to judge distances with those mild fisheye style lenses.

I do know from riding large trucks always seemed closer and scarier than other passing vehicles; especially at speed when the side wind almost appears about to blow you over. I guess this begs the question about if articulated trucks and cycles should be allowed to share the same road space; restricting such trucks to certain routes and lanes (i.e. centre lane as happens in WA with Leach Highway) and out of the CBD?

as a bloke who has done stacks of riding around melbourne and country and also driven trucks, looking at that video the guy on the bike was in no more danger from the truck than any other vehicle , as far as i can see the truck was as far over to the right as far he could get .
i might add it is probably worse for the trucky if hes going slower in this situation and he has a rider pacing him in the left lane and he has to keep looking in the mirror taking his eyes off the road to try and see where the cyclist is, then you can get a situation where the truck might start moving around a bit because his eyes are in the mirror and not looking/concentrating mostly ahead.

Seriously some of these blokes on bikes need to get it in their head if your going to ride in fast moving heavy traffic on a narrow road there are going to be times when you come close to other vehicles,
for cyclists own self preservation they have to make a judgement decision ....... ok i have riden on that dangerous bit of road once, should i do it again or pick a safer route ?

Common sense would say the latter .............. as for bikes in some areas being legal to ride 2 abreast, well that is all good and well , but in my own riding experience i always had it in my head if the road was on the narrow side and i was riding with a mate or mates, we would only break singe file if it would not impede other traffic or cause difficulty for other road users to get past.
its not rocket science, firstly its self preservation and secondly it is common courtesy.

perhaps something the riding lobby could do is put up recommended safer riding routes, some roads are just not safe , even if it turns into a car park and said biker is wizzing down in between the cars and trucks , there is a big chance some pedestrian will step out to cross the road.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by b0son

A reflex, he was that close. Speaks for itself that you consider that no big deal. I also wonder what your attitude be if the person on the crossing had been a mum pushing a stroller.

Strange reflex would you have the same reflex if it was a motorbike or car ?

I don't consider it no big deal, I thought that went without saying (just like motorists that do the same thing) but your reaction was worse.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Strange reflex would you have the same reflex if it was a motorbike or car.

Cant say I've ever needed to with a motorcyclist. Funny that strapping a motor to it and making them pay for the privelege of using the road makes them take their responsibilities seriously..... Cars? I do give their window or door a loud enough whack for them to realise someone was there.

[LoudPipes]

You’d never get me on a bicycle, not with my skinny legs.

The tread started off about compensation for pedestrians as victims of cycling accidents and has now bogged down into who is entitled to what considerations and a blame game between cars and bikes.

The road laws have already determined who can do what and if drivers and cyclists stick to the laws then the bulk of these arguments are solved.

Unfortunately the laws do not make up for the typical Aussie road user’s tradition of showing no courtesy, being overly aggressive and intimidating to others, their belief they are the sole user of roads, their lack of knowledge for road rules and that they are a product of a poor driver education and licencing system and that applies to cyclists, motorcyclists, cars, trucks and pedestrians.

Of cause there are road users that are an exception to the above, me being one of them.

Be patience and show a little friendliness and your life will be a far less stressful journey.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Its not something I would have done.
I'd have called him all the names under the sun, but I wouldn't just blast past him.
I'd have wacked the indicator on a soon as I saw him enter the road ahead, got off the peddle and looked for a gap to open up for me before I got to him.
If he was playing his part he would have seen me coming and got up to speed quickly allowing me further time to get over.
Its not rocket science.

Having said that, I will stand by my view that, whilst cyclist have every right to use main arterial roads, none of the legalities will matter if **** hits the fan because you will be dead, or seriously injured at best.
When a driver jumps behind the wheel in the morning the last thing he wants to do is clean up some poor bastard, but if events unfold that bring them to that moment in time, I know what I'd rather be operating.

I look at this way, no one sets out to kill anyone.
It is a fact that cyclist are the most vulnerable road users, their armour consists of a plastic hat.
Then its motorcyclist, a helmet and leathers, cars with airbags and at the top of the food chain, trucks.
It needs to be a two way street for it to work.
I will appreciate your fragile existence on the road if you promise not to do anything stupid in front of me.
The same goes when im on a bike or driving my car.

Well said

[noflac52]

I'm not for or against bikes, I think that they are a great recreational vehicle and I own one that I ride on bike/walking tracks, with a bell and manners that I use when I encounter other track users.

But after reading all the posts by members who ride on the road I reckon you would have to have rocks in your head to do this regularly on our present road system especially when there are plenty of bike tracks around now.

According to the pro bikers you have to try to avoid glass, grates, rocks, rubbish, pot holes gravel, wood, sticks, bits that have fallen off vehicles etc if you ride in the bike lanes that are provided or near the edge of the sealed section and if you ride one, two or three abreast, singly or in a group you are then subject to heavy vehicles, light vehicles, motor bikes and all other forms of motorised transport that can kill or maim you at any given moment and leave your family without a mother or a father. You can't stop at pedestrian crossings, intersections or lights because your feet are locked in clips and if you stop completely you are likely to fall over thus injuring yourself or maybe falling in front of a vehicle that's still moving and getting killed, again leaving a family without a parent.

It doesn't sound like any form of fun to me!

The perils of riding on the road seem endless for push bike riders!!!!

I used to ride on the roads occasionally but with the high level of danger I was subjecting myself to I wised up and stopped. I also rode a motorcycle to work for a lot of years but when I encountered too many dangerous situations due to drivers not seeing me because of inattention I stopped that too and took up a much safer pursuit, motorcycle and car racing.

The point is that in todays road system with the lack of design elements for bicycles and the general low standard of numerous car drivers it is an environment that is not suited to push bikes anymore. Even if they were here first!!! Horses were here long before push bikes but you don't see horse riders forcing the issue and riding them on main roads anymore and then complaining about their lack of safety, but they do get much enjoyment from them riding them in appropriate places.

If safety is the main concern the ultimate responsibility lies with the person pursuing the dangerous activity and they have to consider whether the danger level is justified and weigh it up against their own family being left without a parent to their children.

The reality is that riding in traffic is a dangerous pursuit. Wether you think its someone else's fault or not doesn't change that fact.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by noflac52

I'm not for or against bikes, I think that they are a great recreational vehicle and I own one that I ride on bike/walking tracks, with a bell and manners that I use when I encounter other track users.

But after reading all the posts by members who ride on the road I reckon you would have to have rocks in your head to do this regularly on our present road system especially when there are plenty of bike tracks around now.

According to the pro bikers you have to try to avoid glass, grates, rocks, rubbish, pot holes gravel, wood, sticks, bits that have fallen off vehicles etc if you ride in the bike lanes that are provided or near the edge of the sealed section and if you ride one, two or three abreast, singly or in a group you are then subject to heavy vehicles, light vehicles, motor bikes and all other forms of motorised transport that can kill or maim you at any given moment and leave your family without a mother or a father. You can't stop at pedestrian crossings, intersections or lights because your feet are locked in clips and if you stop completely you are likely to fall over thus injuring yourself or maybe falling in front of a vehicle that's still moving and getting killed, again leaving a family without a parent.

It doesn't sound like any form of fun to me!

The perils of riding on the road seem endless for push bike riders!!!!

I used to ride on the roads occasionally but with the high level of danger I was subjecting myself to I wised up and stopped. I also rode a motorcycle to work for a lot of years but when I encountered too many dangerous situations due to drivers not seeing me because of inattention I stopped that too and took up a much safer pursuit, motorcycle and car racing.

The point is that in todays road system with the lack of design elements for bicycles and the general low standard of numerous car drivers it is an environment that is not suited to push bikes anymore. Even if they were here first!!! Horses were here long before push bikes but you don't see horse riders forcing the issue and riding them on main roads anymore and then complaining about their lack of safety, but they do get much enjoyment from them riding them in appropriate places.

If safety is the main concern the ultimate responsibility lies with the person pursuing the dangerous activity and they have to consider whether the danger level is justified and weigh it up against their own family being left without a parent to their children.

The reality is that riding in traffic is a dangerous pursuit. Wether you think its someone else's fault or not doesn't change that fact.

Nothing more could be said on the subject, this is it in a nutshell.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Is this still going....again????

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=143

Craig H

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Is this still going....again????

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=143

Craig H

It does seem that, like the wheel, it's going around in circles.