http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/west-end-cycling-accid…
Among all the people on here who believe people should get a "second chance" on the road by posting complaints of thier fines, complaining about their entitlement; the consequences of your negligence leaves others often with no second chances.
We really need instant disqualification for road traffic offences…
This article is about the consequences of car crashes involving cyclists.
I am a commuter cyclist with insurance and a drivers licence.
When a car hit me they were given a ticket for failing to give way and the police identified they were at fault. The driver also had insurance and a licence. Three months on and the driver still won't start an insurance claim and I'll have to take him to the magistrates court…
Insurance and a licence don't always mean much.
Been there as well, lady hit me was doing 60 kph and hit me on a signposted cycle crossing path (same as zebra crossing but for bikes). She was reaching into the back seat to one of her kids and not watching the road when she hit me! Cops told me they had charged her with traffic offences. luckily I had bike insurance that paid for everything.
If you had insurance, then you claim through your insurance. Your insurance then goes after the other person. That's literally why you have insurance.
Of course, if you have insurance but are an idiot, then the insurance isn't going to help much.
That's a very militant attitude, and unfortunately indicative of a lot of the cycling community. The simple facts are, that a bike + car doesn't end well for the bike. No spite or rage or entitlement will change this, and cyclists will continue to be killed, if they insist on cycling in heavy traffic, regardless of their rights. Being aggressive about it, doesn't change simple physics. People often feel anger towards cyclists who display aggressive or provocative behaviour in the pursuit of defending their 'rights'. I have a couple of cases in point. Rush hour, Beaconsfield parade, St Kilda to Port Melbourne, city bound. This road provides cyclists with a designated cycle lane, seperate from the traffic. It has two lanes, and is seperate from the pedestrian footpaths also. In the morning 99% of cyclists use these lanes, because it is safer for them and the community as a whole. The road itself is bumper to bumper, and the left lane is a designated clearway zone. This does not stop the 1% every morning on insisting on blocking an entire lane of traffic, at 30kmh tops, because they have the right to. They also have the right to be an (profanity), and they are exercising it. No argument a cyclist may have is applicable in this circumstance; claiming that other cyclists are too slow is hypocritical, as they are blocking a whole lane of traffic, and forcing cars to go around them, potentially creating traffic hazards, as the cars split lanes, or cut into other lanes. Case 2, Dandenong Road, outbound from Albert Park Onwards. The speed limit is 80kmh, the road is 5 lanes wide. Cyclists are entitled to use this road, but they danger they put themselves in is insane. There are literally thousands of cars on this road, travelling at speed, and other cars are coming in from the side street, often sticking their noses out. Every day, 1 or 2 cyclists use this road, putting themselves in mortal danger, at a third of the speed limit. Again, this road is a clearway zone. Even in quite times, this road is dangerous for cyclists. While there is no bike path near this road, High street runs parallel, not 100 metres away, and has a more bike friendly 40kmh limit.
Some motorists are aggressive towards cyclists, and while the majority of cyclists adhere to road rules and common decency, it is the few that feel they are upholding their god given rights for road space that give the rest a bad reputation. If you feel that motorists should be punished for their driving when putting cyclists in danger, equally harsh penalties should be handed out to cyclists for dangerous riding.
In heavily biked countries like The Netherlands, people stick to the designated bike lanes. If people did that here, would this thread even exist?
@eggmaster: I think you have noticed the acceptance of equity in other countries, a term Australia has a hard time understanding.
@eggmaster: Up-voting is not enough. I am with you and I am not push-bike rider. Australia is a country of second chances for people who do not deserve second chances. Public apology, letter of apology to family of killed person, tears in court, and off they go ….
People stick to the bike lanes because they're well designed. More often than not (read: almost always) in Australia, bikes have to give way to side streets entering the main road. The opposite is true in the Netherlands. The effect of giving priority to these cars entering the main road means that using the bike bike path is simply not feasible, it's too slow.
@Nuggets: Bullshit reasoning. Bikes are too slow compared to cars. You can't say a bike lane is too slow for a bike.
@Burnertoasty: Maybe you misunderstood my comment.
I'm not commenting on the speed difference between cars and bikes. Absolutely, bikes are slow compared to cars.
The point of my comment above is this: if I were to ride to the Brisbane CBD from the suburbs, taking only bike paths, vs. riding on the road, it would take me far, far longer. One big reason for this is that cyclists have to give way (in fact, they often have to dismount) many times along this bike path, to give priority to side streets entering the road.
Having lived and used bikeways extensively in the Netherlands and in Australia, I can reliably say that this makes a huge, huge difference to why cyclists in the Netherlands stick to the bikeways, whereas the opposite is true here. In fact, riding on the road in the Netherlands can actually be slower for a cyclist, since they are given right of way at every crossing point.
I hope that helps you to understand my comment.
Would I be right in saying you are voting NO on the gay marriage survey?
Just an inference from your inability to stay on topic
Upvote.
Near where I live we have a long downhill road where the speed limit is 50km/h and 40km/h at school times, most cars stay below 60 and guess how fast the bicycles often do? I bet they are over 80s in most of the time!
A number of times I saw a rider pass a car about to move off the kerb like a lightning, he could be dead even if he hit the mirror and lose balance. And of course these are professionals rather than commuters.
Why shouldn't they get licence, rego, insurance and penalty for dangerous riding?
Who says they aren't licenced? Most cyclists already have a drivers licence, why need a separate one for cycling, the rules are the same. You can still be charged for dangerous riding even without a licence, just like any other road user - and don't say you can hide your identity, the cops have the power to compel you to identify yourself, and the skills to work out when you are telling porkies.
Most of them have a driving licence, but you never know. Will them get demerit points for not obeying road rule? Will they be prohibited from riding if they lost all 13 points? They probably can't drive any more but it's not necessary for riding.
If I saw a car driving like that I can report its rego number, but for a lightning fast bicycle, what can you do? And to be honest, they all look the same in their professional gears.
@mily: No, there are no demerit points for cycling, but there are fines.
Have you reported a car for driving 'like that'? and what was the outcome? I saw a car 'driving like that' this morning, pulled out in front of me on my bike. I didn't catch the rego, but could have. I could report it, but I suspect there would be no action.
@Euphemistic: I suspect there would be no action too, however at least there's something I can do. I did reported a couple red light running in front of my dashcam, didn't hear about the consequences. I will do the same if the crazy cyclists are trackable.
@mily: If it is a regular thing, why not report it. The police may set up a speeding operation in the area if speeding is a problem.
And that's why I only cycle at Sydney Olympic Park nowadays. I have seen too many close calls myself and it frightens me to see how many bad drivers there are on the road.
It's an unfortunate but true statement. Many people are resorting to this as a safer way to get their ride in.
the worst prang i had was actually on an area similar, path is along the river marked for bike use and i've learn't that you can't trust bells (especially with other single riders using headphones) or people in front in general i rang my bell a few times the woman was walking straight then turned cutting me straight off, the knock sent me into the fence, smacking my handlebar into the upright pole sending me over the push chair knocked me out, as soon as i had half a clear thought after someone helped me up from the tangled mess, i ran to the push chair to make sure baby was ok.
The damn lady was using it to carry her dog when it gets tired, it was playing with kids on the grass hundred meters or so away and was gas bagging on the phone to someone else.
Smashed wheel set, seat, helmet brake and gear set selector, and gravel rash from head to shins all clothes were ripped. did nothing to the pushchair it spun away but it was all i cared about at the time it happened.
All i got was oh i'm sorry dear i was watching the dolphin as i limped home a wreck
The government can come up with all the rules it want's you can't predict human behaviour. I give people plenty of space if i'm on the bike or in my car because you just don't know. what's going to happen in an instant.
The more aware we are of each other and education is the key we don't need arguments between cars and bikes fines for not being quite far away enough, we just need solutions that works for all they manage it in other countries.
I had a driver indicating turning left at the last moment and performing the turn. Slamming the brakes still had me running into their vehicle side.
Olympic Park corner of Sarah Durack Ave and Olympic Blvd
People get injured and car sustains damage.
Or they're smeared onto the road, and the truck needs to get hosed down.
Remind me why cyclists want to share the road with traffic again?
Because in some more advanced (and even many less advanced ones) countries; sharing the road works.
Australia is full of much backwards hick mentality. Such example as to wonder why someone may desire to choose a cost superior, environmentally superior and health superior method of transport to work.
I beg to differ, Cyclists here defiantly share the same mentality as you gave to motorists. Im all for cyclists and give it to anyone who's willing to cycle in 38 degree heat but they certainly need to clean up their act as well.
Yes you're probably right, cyclists do react badly. However maybe somebody should try and kill you but just by chance you live, I'd like to see how you react.
@TheBilly: Thats the risk you take driving on roads built for vehicles. I saw cyclists on the Gateway Motorway here in Brisbane yesterday, Like wot!
@TheBilly: As i said in my first comment, I support cyclists. Motorbikes are in a different realm, They can keep up with traffic.
Because in some more advanced (and even many less advanced ones) countries
So why not just say "in other countries"?
Agree, in Australia the attitude is still…. The biggest bull bar wins!
See the real problem is the poor road infrastructure in Australia. It can barely accommodate motor vehicle traffic let alone cyclists. The second factor is poor driver education with a low pass mark on earning a license. I dream of the day when autonomous vehicles are the one and only method of transportation and it gets the human aspect out of the equation. People suck.
@theraque: I reckon the whole driverless thing will be interesting, after all a driverless vehicle wont be able to menace a pedestrian, but if you walk out in the middle of the road the driverless car wont hit you.
I envision all the bogans enraging that they aren't going faster than anyone else.
How else will you be able to assert your privilege?
@eggmaster: When computers are programmed to duck and weave with the best of the bogan's, we'll all be toast:
Bogan makes mistake, bad prang, oncoming traffic, SUVs rolling on roofs… trucks on sides, big mess.
Computer encounters unexpected, extraordinary situation, cannot decide between bad choice 1, 2 or 3. SUVs rolling on roofs… trucks on sides, big mess.
now consider what happen when computer and bogan compete for space, speed or seniority amongst the commuter traffic. What is the result?
Or when johnny burnout finds out how to hack his car's control-module so that it thinks it is going 30% slower than it is actually travelling…
There's a reason the machine-driven cars go slow, (even Teslas): Programming a control system for a logical environment is very different to programming one for a naturally chaotic one, even if it has synthetic/imposed rules. Also, lawyers for auto companies worry about brand damage and reputation so impose 'practices and guidelines'- that limit many parameters, starting with speed to keep damages down.
Or we could eliminate the issue today by taking a no tolerance policy on people who are unable to follow simple road rules. If i walk around with a knife, i can be arrested. It is dangerous. If i speed through a red light; i pay… maybe nothing (if police dont see me and no cameras). Even if i hit someone, i have sum insurance for dat. Its fun right?
A bad cyclist is no difference to a bad pedestrian, its the onus of the car driver to take care.
But for some odd reason when it comes to cyclist some drivers don't take care which is where a lot of accident occur.
I do not know why
You can't control what other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians do but people will always willfully or unknowingly do the wrong thing no matter how exorbitant the penalties are so there is always a chance you may collide with a 1 tonne or more piece of metal. Therefore it's up to you to decide how many precautions you take in order to reduce the risk of injury to yourself or others. Just because you are allowed to travel at 40 km/h on a bicycle down a road doesn't make it a good idea.
If you've seen cars collide at this speed and are aware it is a common occurrence then I don't see why you wouldn't think the same thing could just as easily happen to yourself on a bicycle. As a pedestrian when crossing with the green man there is still a chance a car or cyclist may run a red light so it is up to yourself to take the precaution of looking both ways in order to reduce the risk of being hit.
+1 Phew, some common sense! As the old saying goes 'precaution is better than cure'. We most probably would not be able to control others, but certain we can train ourselves to take precautionary steps!
I think the saying is 'Prevention is better than cure' but I think we know what you meant :)
Yeah, you are spot on. Thanks.
my daughter was hit by car whilst cycling in Beijing last week. drivers front right wheel was on top my daughters front wheel. luckily my daughter was not injured. stupid (profanity) driver was not watching where he was going. we were crossing the street at an intersection with a green pedestrian light. other people were crossing as well. he went through a red light.
With a billion people the odds are even greater I guess. Glad she's ok
While the driver was clearly an idiot, if your daughter was cycling, why was she crossing at a pedestrian crossing on a green pedestrian light?
Different rules in China. The green light is merely a suggestion anyway.
Was that comment directed at me? Seemed unnecessarily hostile…
Firstly, I have traveled to five of the seven continents and go overseas at least annually (including to China) so I'm hardly ensconced in a suburban bubble.
Secondly, while I am sure many people do this - I am yet to find a country in which it is legal unless the crossing is a 'toucan' style crossing.
Not only can you do that in China, you can do that in the Australian Capital Territory.
I guess you're referring to this:
"A two year trial which started on 1 November 2015 allows cyclists to ride slowly across pedestrian crossings. When riding a bicycle, cyclists will be able to ride slowly across pedestrian crossings (at no more than 10km/h). Cyclists will be required to slow to 10km/h on the approach to the crossing and check for any approaching traffic and be prepared to stop. This is to allow motorists to see and respond to the cyclist before they make the crossing. Cyclists must also keep to the left of the crossing and give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. More information on the trial is available on the Justice and Community Safety website."
Interesting. Here in WA cyclists of any age can now ride on the footpath. While that can be annoying it is EXTREMELY annoying when they ride on the footpath when there is a cycle path immediate adjacent to the footpath!
and Queensland
Yeah we have footpath riding in the ACT as well. I was actually surprised to learn a few years ago that it wasn't standard. I would never ride interstate…
We get good pedestrians, good drivers, good cyclists, bad pedestrians, bad drivers, and bad cyclists. Mostly it seems to work reasonably well.
@jacross: For most of my life I was taught that bicycles are vehicles and must follow rules analogous to cars.
Nowadays it seems that they are becoming far more like pedestrians and can follow those rules when it suits, or cars when they suit.
Interesting, I was never taught that.
I did grow up in a rural area and then in Canberra though.
Then again I suppose cars were very different in rural areas anyway…
In any case I think it is an error to restrict bicycle riding beyond sensible levels. Particularly for children. Who are very fat these days. Fat little kids. Very round.
Not sure why the negs are for. I think it is illegal to cross the street on a cycle when it is green for pedestrian light in QLD. When people ride their cycles to cross the road (on green pedestrian light), they are violating traffic lights.
People of course do it - some of them don't know better.
(I don't know about China).
The negs are because people reject either:
a, the notion that that rule is important enough to be mentioned here.
b, the mindset that disallows someone to recognise that the rule of their particular jurisdiction may not apply universally, or even commonly in this case.
I would imagine largely the latter, though probably the former in an implicit sense.
The animosity between cyclists and drivers is ridiculous and unfortunately often nasty.
I am both a driver and commuter cyclist and am (un)lucky enough to cycle up and down the entire length of Chapel Street (Melbourne) five days a week to and from work. I would say on average I have to take evasive action (slam on brakes / swerve) 4-5 times per week due to drivers either opening their car doors on me or pulling out of / into side streets / car park spaces.
All of the above can be avoided by simply LOOKING for a cyclist, I'm not asking you to get out of your car and do 100 burpees, I'm asking you to move your head and look before you open your door / pull out.
I used to get angry and shout at offenders but realised this probably just adds to the problem, so now I simply pull alongside them and calmly tell them they almost hurt me and next time to please look. You would think most people would be apologetic but no, THEY didn't do anything wrong, it's MY fault.
Just last week a 50 year old woman opened her car door on a cyclist who was cycling 10 metres in front of me causing her to swerve across traffic (a natural and often unavoidable reaction), I stopped and talked to the lady, saying that she almost hurt the cyclist and she should look before opening her door, her reaction? "OH GO AWAY!" - I was gobsmacked and couldn't resist calling her ————- (removed foul language), she deserved it.
So, calling all cyclist hating drivers, what are your thoughts on the above? How would you react if you almost killed / seriously injured me by opening your door and I calmly came and spoke to you?
Im not calling them all cyclist haters.
I am simply pointing out the lack of rammifications for hitting a cyclist.
In aome countries it would be instant jailtime.
Whatever happens in other countries is irrelevant. We live in Australia and we are bound by those laws. If you prefer the rules in other countries pack up your belongings and move to wherever you think the norms of that country suit you best.
"gotta luv it or leave it".
Bet you are fun to hang around.
One of those Dutton Supporters who believe the world is one dimensional; we should be locking up children and paying refugees to go back to certain death (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/19/australia-offe…)…. because… well… itz da lawwwww….
In keeping with the spirit of the law; how come there are so many people here who hate the speed limits? isn't that also Australian law?
Cant wait for drug testing for welfare and cashless welfare card for you people… dw.. it will be the law….
Perhaps tell gays to (profanity) off because thats not lawful (nor is getting an abortion in nsw… lucky we have the law to tell women what to do right bro? … )… its… its da lawwwww
(edit: I am already getting downvoted…. just pointing out some of the highlights of the Australian law to the guy preaching "love it or leave it")
what a topic change bro.
What happened to telling people they are bound by Australian law?
Or is the law only worth talking about when it suits your privileged arse?
@eggmaster: You know nothing about me and I'm not your bro. When you can string together an intellectual and grammaticaly correct sentence please let us all know.
Just quoting you:
We live in Australia and we are bound by those laws.
And I brought up laws such as:
Equality for gays.
Abortions being illegal
Having legal imprisonment of children in a detention camp.
Then another user brought up that bikes have right of way on roads. How fun is that?
Bet you love it bro. You aren't going to leave it lol
@eggmaster: I'm not from Australia… Bye troll. just add in that part you went and removed here…"Bet you love it bro. You aren't going to leave it. Just tell everyone but your male privileged aussie self that they are sh!t?"
Just trying to follow the law bro. Its the law… its ok.
Bound by the law. Obey it bro. It is your (whatever you are) privilege to do it.
his insurance access might more then your claim of bike that's why he might avoiding you lol. now he will pay a lot after court. And injury normaly vicroad pays.
Have you ever taken someone to court? Do you know how much effort that is?
Not everyone has time to just "go to court". You need to follow a correct protocol, spend money, time, work hours on chasing down some useless piece of shit who may not even have the money to pay you…. Yet… they will definitely be able to drive their car still.. because carz!
You only get injury pay if you are quite seriously injured/disabled.
@eggmaster:
that's why you hire lawyer and they will estimate for you how much cost of your time and court fees, lawyer fees etc which will he pay too.if you represent yourself you should represent cost of time stress. mostly lawyer are good with that, to bring out maximum from defender.
Have you ever hired a lawyer?
Or is this one of those Western Sydney things? (I am told they have lots of lawyer advertisements on motorways these days).
It still cost an enormous amount of time to organize.
Then you run into the situation where they have insufficient funds to pay you back; imagine garnishing the (profanity) dole to pay even $2000 worth of damage.
Why would they look for cyclist when these are likely the same people who merge without looking/indicating. I imagine most of these drivers are just bad in general and if they aren't concerned enough about hitting other vehicles I doubt they will care about bikes.
I would say on average I have to take evasive action (slam on brakes / swerve) 4-5 times per week due to drivers either opening their car doors on me or pulling out of / into side streets / car park spaces.
And you still think it is a good idea to commute by cycling? How little do you value your own safety and health if you continue to expose yourself to such extreme dangers?
You are right in saying that people should make the effort to look for cyclists but by your own admission that doesn't happen.
values health
Suggests against cycling, one of the greatest forms of cardio to sit like a vegetating blob in a car.
Pick one…
Why can't car drivers make an effort not to be wreckless? (Of I forgot…. little/no consequence).
In that case, why don't we strictly enforce road rules with zero tolerance. Speeding, running reds etc should invoke instant license disqualification.
You can get exercise and not expose yourself to the dangers the other poster described. He/She is saying they have to take evasive action several times a week to avoid disaster yet still decides to participate in the activity which is exposing them to said danger. Not really bright that, is it?
And I did say that drivers should take more care so I am not sure why you are up on your high horse.
I agree the cyclists are in danger.
Because, as I keep saying; there is 0 danger to a car driver if they break the rules or hit something. Maybe a fine? Maybe a few demerit points? Maybe nothing if no-one saw it.
Now imagine if we made the roads a fair place and enforced a strict zero tolerance policy. Stripping the license of car drivers who dangerously break the law instantly; make dangerous driving dangerous.
I don't know why this would be such an issue. The road rules are very simple to follow. People don't need a second chance at being a danger to society, there are literally millions of people in Sydney ;)
And I don't disagree. I think it is absurd how much some bad drivers get away with. Although, I think it is absurd how much shit a lot of people get away with.
But your zero tolerance policy isn't the system we live in. The poster above said they are taking evasive actions 4-5 times a week so they know how dangerous this form of commute is but still do it. I am confused as to why anyone would gamble so frequently with the safety. Just to be defiant? OK. Seems silly to me but it isn't my neck (literally) at stake.
Perhaps we should adopt a zero tolerance policy. Many Scandinavian countries have automatic jail sentences for negligence on the road.
Sweden - if you are over the 0.02 limit you will be automatically jailed. (Along with colliding with anything other than another car).
With a growing population of Australia, we really don't need to treat everyone like a special sunflower; because in truth people are a commodity.
I am not sure what the resistance to a zero tolerance policy is; do people think "Oh… if i drink drive, speed, run red lights, or hit other cars…. I am still just a good cobba in society, who is in the wrong place at the wrong time" - ( stepping back from that, I know many drivers who know exactly how many license points they can loose and drive accordingly…. )
I own 3 cars / pay 3 sets of regos and insurances - BUT choose to cycle sometimes. I love that argument that cyclists should have to pay rego and insurance, it just goes to show how ignorant people are. In our company there are at least 3 other examples like me, that choose to cycle some days. I gave up though because it's just not worth it. You drive on the side of the road and people try to hit you, you ride on the foot path and it's illegal, it's just a shitty situation to be in. Also, my commute went through an area filled predominantly with the type of immigrants renowned for their lack of situational awareness/vision - after 3 extremely close calls at speed, I gave up.
I own 3 cars / pay 3 sets of regos and insurances - BUT choose to cycle sometimes
Im not suggesting that registering a bicycle is the right path to go down, but your argument against the idea doesn't make sense because the each vehicle is registered separately regardless of how many you may have.
A lot of households have more than one vehicle and they're not all used at the same time. You can't exactly tell the RMS or Vicroads (or the equivalent) that you shouldn't have to pay for the second car just because you only drive one vehicle at a time.
Good point.
Also the maintained speed of a runner and a cyclists isn't that far off, yet, the law says a runner should be on the footpath and the bicycle on the road… its just nonsensical.
Here's some points of data:
Speed of most walkers: 5 km/h
Speed of fast walkers: 8 km/h
Speed of most joggers: 12 km/h
Speed of most runners: 19 km/h
Usain Bolt: 45 km/h
Speed of most bicycles: 15 km/h
Speed of fast bicycles: 25 km/h
Speed of sprinting bicycles: 40 km/h
Difference in speed between bicycles and people on footpath: Usually roughly ++15 km/h
Reaction time and stopping distance: 0.6 seconds (D5Vt18), 8 metres (D5Vt18+DV1000.210R97)
Speed of most cars: 50 km/h
Speed of cars/faster routes: 70 km/h
Speed of cars on Hway: 99 km/h
Difference in speed between bicycles and cars: Usually roughly —35 km/h
Reaction time and stopping distance: 0.9 seconds (D5Vt18), 21 metres (D5Vt18+DV1000.210R97)
….so just based on these data points, its much safer for cyclists to stay on the footpath than the road.
In fact, the danger to a pedestrian from a cyclists is much much smaller than the danger of a cyclist from a vehicle.
Its about the difference between "hurt badly" and "dead".
I agree. Though we arent allowed on the footpath because all the fat (profanity) get out of thier cars and lack room to manuever thier hambeast bodies around oncommig bicycles.
(Maybe not; but our streets are really narrow unlike many other world cities. We have sacrificed footpath for the almighty car. Maybe we could cut some car lanes and make more footpath; bikes can ride safety on the paving then).
Speed of AngryChicken: 3km/h.
I have a family member who says "roads are made for cars" while tail-gating cyclists.
Should have been aborted at birth.
I see Sydney buses giving them no room at all.
Should be clubbed to death.
The reality is the core problem is with a minority of drivers with entitlement delusions.
I couldn't care less if the cyclist is "breaking the law" - they often do so to be safer.
This tirade approved by AngryChicken.
I wish that this were true, but unfortunately it's incorrect. I've seen at least three deaths of pedestrians struck by cyclists on footpaths, all from catastrophic head injury. Ask any nurse or doctor who works in an Emergency Department or Trauma Centre and they will have seen them too. Without going into detail, one was a young mother out jogging who was struck from behind by a cyclist on a jogging track. The cyslist was almost uninjured and was totally unrepentant.
This conversation needs to be framed in terms of considerate and inconsiderate road use, not in terms of an attempt to classify users of one particular transport modality as victims of all the others.
All road users, INCLUDING cyclists, require significant education on how to SAFELY SHARE whatever areas they use with others, irrespective of their chosen transport modality.
No one class of road user has a monopoly on suffering and victimhood,and those who pretend otherwise are part of the problem, not the solution.
@Gadaph: You must be unlucky, seeing three pedestrian fatalities as a result of a cyclist crash. Between 2001 and 2006 there were 4 recorded.
I haven't been able to find any more record stats, but there are a few reports in the media and would assume similar rates of fatality.. By contrast there were hundreds of other traffic related cycling and pedestrian deaths in the same period. In the same period 57 pedestrians died without any cyclist or vehicle impact - they just tripped over.
Ask any Dr or nurse in an ER and you will get skewed data, they don't see how many people are carryingout th activity, just how many are hurt.
Source: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we…
@Gadaph: > Ask any nurse or doctor who works in an Emergency Department or Trauma Centre and they will have seen them too.
Undoubtedly they will have seen some awful injuries, but that's the nature of their job - they're not going to see the people who got a slight graze from falling off. Medical professionals are incredibly disproportionally exposed to the worst outcome of any activity but many seem unaware of the concept of confirmation bias. They'll also have seen more people that have died when pulling on their socks in the morning (a ridiculous sounding but not uncommon occurrence) but they don't advocate for the regulation of socks.
@Gadaph: you've seen 3 deaths? You must get around. From this reference document http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Grzebieta-McIntosh-Cho…
"Whilst there are a large number of traffic related cycling deaths and pedestrian deaths
(numbering in the many hundreds over the five year period), only four fatalities were
identified in NCIS that have resulted specifically from a cyclist – pedestrian collision
for the period 2001 to 2006. In all four fatalities the pedestrian died as a result of the
Australasian College of Road Safety Conference
“A Safe System: Making it Happen!” Melbourne 1-2 September 2011
Paper presented at the Australasian College of Road Safety National Conference - Pedestrian-Cyclist Collisions:
Issues and Risk, Melbourne, 1-2 September, 2011.
7
impact. No cyclist fatality has been recorded resulting from a cyclist crashing into a
pedestrian. However, when a pedestrian is killed in such an event it is usually elevated
in the media profile. Such was the case in the death of a 77 year old male when he was
struck down in Victoria by a bicycle rider in 2006. The rider was competing in the
“Hell Ride” bicycle race along Beach Road, Mentone, when he collided with the
pedestrian.
Of the four bicyclist-pedestrian collision related fatalities found in NCIS, two were
aged above 70 years and two were in their thirties. Two were female and two were
male. One occurred in NSW, one in Tasmania, one in Victoria and one in Queensland.
Three of the cases directly related to a bicyclist not being capable of stopping in time
and striking the pedestrian down. In one of the cases the pedestrian crossed and
intersection against a “don’t walk” red light and walked into the path of the cyclist,
who was proceeding on a green light. In the fourth case, the impact was perpetrated for
criminal gain, i.e. the pedestrian was struck down and then robbed.
As a fit, fast cyclist, I'd say this:
I belong on the road, obeying the rules of the road. I would never ride on a footpath and even avoid shared use paths. Pedestrians are soft, oblivious and even less predictable than cars.
But, when my 10 year old daughter cycles to school at her 'normal' speed, I would never allow her on the road, not in a million years. She's only allowed on the footpath.
That's why legislation would be impossible, and why I'm glad that the police exercise judgement.
Yes, I have seen three deaths resulting from people being struck by cyclists, and yes I have nursed in trauma centres in Australia, Europe and the US, if that is what you are asking?
The problem with the document that you link to is common to all registry based research, ie reporting bias. The registry is only as good as the data that it captures, and that data in the healthcare system is based on value judgement based decisions by medical staff and the coroner, and so different cases elicit different responses based on a whole host of factors: the individuals involved, the time since the incident, the age and comorbidities of the patient etc.
At one extreme, a young, fit person, for example, who is struck and killed will undoubtedly be accepted by the coroner. At the other extreme, an elderly person with multiple comorbidities and on multiple medications who is knocked over by a cyclist and fractures their neck of femur or sustains a head injury may subsequently pass away and fail to be captured by that system. The elderly person on clopidogrel for their stents or rivaroxiban for their AF who hits their head is just as likely to be captured as a medication related death as they are to be recorded as road trauma, to give you a practical example. Such things are rarely in reality as black and white as they appear on paper.
I'm not suggesting that there is an epidemic of cyclists mowing down pedestrians, far from it, but you do need to be wary of that paper, as there is commonly significant under reporting of specific events in such registries, and I say that as an individual once responsible for verifying and auditing a trauma registry.
It's actually quite strange that they don't seem to have interrogated all the Australian trauma registries and that their data seems so old, given that it was presented in 2011, but I'm sure there will be a reason.
Did they follow up with, for example, a postal survey of Trauma Centres and Emergency Departments? That would probably also produce useful data.
Anyway, I'm starting a run of three nights tonight, and really should get to work……
Hopefully this discussion will remain completely academic for all of us!
I completely agree, Dan. I wouldn't let my daughter on the road at that age either.
Personally, I think that we should put more effort into separating all three traffic streams: motorised, pedal and foot, but I guess that would be too expensive (Although not as expensive as new submarines!).
In the meantime all we can do, I guess, is to try to educate all road users to be considerate of others and to think before they do things. I suspect that there is a significant degree of overlap between the cohort of the population who make lousy drivers and the cohort who make lousy cyclists and pedestrians.
Anyway, happy cycling, and I hope that you stay safe!
Off to work….
Finally voice of common sense. In several European countries, cycling on the footpath is perfectly allowed and usually safe - never seen any serious accidents and if they happen, the chances of injuries bicycle vs pedestrian are much lower than "car vs bicycle".
It's sad to see literally empty footpaths in several suburbs yet cyclists not allowed to use it and risking lives sharing the streets with cars/trucks…
Why do people need more than one vehicle?
Sometimes you might need a work vehicle and a family vehicle. Eg 2 seat ute for work, but it doesn't have enough seats for family duties, or carries too much gear to unload regularly. Buy a cheap hatchback to commute a long distance, have a 4wd for weekend Camping/towing trips. Lots of people just WANT more than one.
Yet these are the same people probably complaining about the "lack of space" Sydney has. Dude… if you have 5 cars, you are the problem.
Cars, unless you need a ute for work etc; are hardly a necessity of life. While generating greenhouse emissions and fueling demand for conflict resource (oil), and… mowing down pedestrians and cyclists.
It still seems excessive. Think of all the space taken, emissions used by, finance loans needed for those 5 cars.
SO you realise that if you bought a fourth vehicle you would in addition have to pay another set of rego insurance. Why do you feel entitled not to pay this amount on your push bike?
People don't try and hit you. If they did, you wouldn't be here.
