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…
Of all the people I know who got hit by cars. Only one person got money. And it was only enough to replace 1 wheel.
Riders are usually in the red financially and physically when being hit.
I wasnt talking about a broken wheel or a knee scratch egg
In my experience: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/330529#comment-5091197
$0
a written off bike
and hundreds of dollars of damaged gear
I can't wait for the next chapter…. 'What Happens When a Cyclist and a Pedestrian Collide'.
How often are you really inconvenienced by cyclists and.. does it really matter? I bet you are inconvenienced by drivers making poor decisions far more often than you are cyclists. I would say 9 times out of 10, you can drive around a cyclist comfortably, but overtaking an ignorant driver can be quite challenging.
It seems a lot of the animosity towards cyclists comes from our culture's inherent "us and them" mentality.
I disagree, up near me at the weekends they cycle in packs 2-3 across on narrow bendy roads. It's locally known as the "Tour de Twat"
Motorcyclist here.
As predicted, this thread has more or less polarised into two camps, so let me try to come from the middle here.
Preface:
1. Motorcycles are no cagers, nor are they bicycles
2. Motorcyclists and bicyclists share some common risks, however bicyclists encounter more risk of injury in catastrophic incidents.
My philosophy when riding is that absolutely everything and everyone on the road is out to kill me. Acknowledging this, I do not get on the bike without the following protection:
• Reinforced full-cover gloves
• Wrist guard
• Elbow and elbow-shin armor
• Shoulder plates
• Chest armour
• Spine and lower-back armour
• Hip pad protection
• Knee pad protection
• Shin, ankle, and foot protection with steel-capped boots
• Abrasion-resistant pants and jacket
• Full-face helmet*
*Only item legally required to be worn.
Along with the above, I train riders in Defensive Riding techniques - as full road users we need to be prepared.
So, my question to cyclists reading this:
Q. What protective measures, other than those required by law, do you wear or adopt to minimise risk of injury in the event of coming off your bike?
And a question to my dear cagers (drivers):
Q. What can we do to help get your attention on the roads, if anything?
—
Ride Safe my fellow brothers and sisters.
Helmet
Gloves
Solid shoes
Spidey senses always engaged!
Are there any choices for cyclists nowadays regarding spine protection? I couldn't recommend it highly enough.
There is a great head / neck protection but is not legal in Australia … because, well it's Australia?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-say-this…
Well said. I too am a cyclist and motorcyclist. If someone asked me to ride down the road in Lycra and a foam stack hat at 30 to 40+km/h, I would politely decline. I wouldn't do it on my motorbike, let alone a bicycle with thin tyres.
I come from the full transport spectrum. Bicycle through to B double trucks, and what you said is absolutely spot on. The question I would ask cyclists and I have been trying too, but seem to be getting a lot of "but but, we are the victims" rhetoric, is, as a cyclist, what are you doing to minimise your exposure to the risks of riding as a soft shelled human in a sea of 2 tonne blunt hammers??
And spot on with the question for drivers. I drive trucks for a living and I see too much of it. 70 to 80% of the drivers I see in a day are totally distracted. They take driving for granted and don't give it the attention it actually requires. So I would want to ask the same question, what would it take to get your mind in gear and get your attention back on doing the job at hand.
As I cyclist i do as much as I can to protect myself, many do the same. I ride with lights, I use alternatives where available, I don't run red lights, I keep aware of what is around me. I rarely ride on roads for recreation, it is usually to get from a to b. When I choose recreational cycling it is in the bush, or on the paths. I can't do much more.
BUT nothing I do will protect me from an idiot driver who is distracted, one of the 70-80%. Our roads are in a mess becuase driving is taken for granted, drivers are too protected from the outside world and now even more distracted than ever. Fixing distracted, incompetent drivers will fix a lot of problems on our roads, for truckies and cyclists.
Or maybe the government should commit to providing bicycle lanes/paths in zones that are 50+ km/h ?
I would love to cycle - but I can't expect to be risk-free when a considerable populations are health-impared or provisional. Express your free if you will by riding on the road - but you should be well aware of the risk. It also doesn't help that some cyclists are just having a stroll or ride - but most drivers don't view the a drive on the main road as a leisure activity. I think the greater issue is cyclists are being catered for by the government - and if they provide the cycling lane - I definitely don't think rego should apply.
Why should they provide special lanes or paths in 50km/h areas? They are the least dangerous roads to ride on as the speed differential is lower, and the traffic generally lighter. Where separated lanes are really needed is very busy roads and high speed roads. They are providing more and more stuff for cyclists which is good, but in the mean time we have to ride on the road.
I say 50+ because not every cyclist can keep up with speeds above that - and I can definitely say it many don't even use a proper roadbike, it's just an el-cheepo mountain bike and they're puffed out giving every driver the finger because they're riding 20km/h+ less than the speed limit and only take half a minute to cross an intersection.
I don't mind that we have to share the road - but I do mind when you simply aren't fit enough for the road and your sense of ignorant entitlement is costing me time. It's almost as stupid as doing bicep curls in a squat rack.
I mind that YOUR sense of ignorant entitlement think that one cyclist is costing YOU time. How long does a cyclist hold you up? I'd guess no more than 30secs each time - , I've counted the seconds while waiting before and it isn't uncommon for it to be 10s or less. The road network is for everybody, not just you, other users WILL slow down progress from time to time, it's called traffic. If you are so held up by all these cyclists, try leaving a minute earlier. I'd also guess that in any one trip you are held up more by traffic lights and other cars.
Do you seriously expect that everyone else just has to get off the roads while you are on them?
Cyclists are here to stay, in fact they were here long before cars.
@Euphemistic:
It's 30 sec or so per light. The worst part is that delay causes you to miss other lights. Unfortunately it tends to take it's till at more than one traffic light and it just gets worse when they filter the lane. The road network as a whole isn't for everybody - grow up. There are road with restrictions for trucks , buses , on higheays and specific truck speed limits in some zoned. Hence again I will insist, the government needs to accomadate cyclists - it's not too big of a danger for them to be driving among cars. Saying we should leave earlier can go both ways - you could start your ride earlier so you can take fewer main roads.
@LeChocolateMan: Yes, it would be nice if the government would create separated infrastructure for cyclists, and they are creating more and more which is great. In the mean time though, while petrol, rego and insurance are being more of a burden people will choose to cycle and will need to share the roads with others.
Many cyclists do choose to start earlier and not ride main roads, but in a lot of instances it is not practical to take another route.
@LeChocolateMan: I don't see any irony. A bicycle is a very practical thing. Cheap, and one of the most efficient machines on the planet. Park it pretty much anywhere, don't get caught in traffic jams.
Cockroahes on wheels, I hate the pricks
I know. Car drivers need to be penalized much harder.
Even today there was a thread about a prick going 100 in a school zone:
a cyclist will always come out second best..
Cyclists just need to slow down just like any motor vehicles. Maybe reduce speed limit to 20-30km, those who go up to 50km are dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians.
Yes, we should make all roads 30 km/h. I think it would eliminate threads like these
Is it anything like what happens When Love and Hate Collide?
I'm a road cyclist. I also own a car.
I will admit to occasionally getting very angry with drivers.
I think that the thing drivers often fail to appreciate when dealing with anger from cyclists is that it's a very human reaction to a situation that, while it seems benign to the driver with the protection of a car, for the cyclist represents a circumstance where, usually as a result of impatient or inattention from the driver, a very real chance of death or serious injury occurred.
If somebody nearly killed you to save 5 seconds, you'd be pretty angry too.
My favorites are honking or yelling in my ear as you pass me while I'm doing 40 on the flat, which actually scares the shit out of me and has nearly resulted in a crash on a number of occasions and squeezing me out going through a traffic island. That's why I'm the (profanity) in the middle of the road, so you can't even try to get past where you can't.
As the article says, please appreciate that the physical consequence of an accidental will be insignificant to you, but catastrophic to me.
I never understand the them vs us attitude. Mon - Fri I am an inner city motorist and nothing bothers me more than seeing cyclists behaving badly. I hate it when cyclists ride on the footpath towards me when i go out to get lunch on St Kilda rd in Melbourne, i dont feel safe. BUT every night in the garage i am training on Zwift and every weekend out where I live in the suburbs I am in Lycra riding around country roads in big groups loving life, drinking coffee, getting exercise and loving the banter from my cycling mates. Which group do I belong to? Which side should I take? Quite often where we ride there are nothing but empty roads and maybe cows but we still get morons that give us close passes, people spitting or throwing things at us from car windows, screaming 'Rego' i think out of windows (hard to tell at speed). I've posted on other threads about some of the crazy things people do that literally endanger our lives. I am a 95% driver 5% cyclist if time on the road is taken into account but i still get labelled when i get on a bike.
I rationalise this by realising that in society there are @rseh0les and there are regular people. The moron tradie that pulled alongside me on an empty deserted road in Upper Beaconsfield (45km Sth east of Melbourne) literally within 25cm of me so that he could squirt me with his wiper fluid and showoff to his apprentice in the passenger seat at 7:30 am on a Saturday morning was one of those idiots. I thought i was dead and imagined the cops getting my wife out of bed back at home to get her to identify my body as I looked down at the narrowing distance between my front wheel and the gutter (I was doing about 50km/hr at the time).
Anybody worried about Beaconsfield Parade and Beach Rd stay at home or find another route for your journey on 8 Oct as the annual 'Around the Bay in a Day' is on and thousands of us will have the road clogged. No point harassing us as there will be cyclists as far as the eye can see, easoiest thing to do will be to find another route. We are all raising money for homeless kids before the 'entitled' label gets rolled out!
:(
I found reading your comment disheartening.
I wonder when or if the status quo will change in this country.
it all comes down to driver education i think.
although it should be common sense to look out and give way to anything coming towards you people just look out for cars.
Learner drivers can go driving and never come across a cyclist. then once they are on their P plates there are some drivers that lack confidence and are so worried about hitting a car they are just focussed on checking if there are any incoming cars that they totally forget to check for cyclist.
Take a look at parts of Europe and Japan, where cyclists dont even need to wear helmets. the study required to get your car licence is the what we need here.
Re: insurance.
Presumed fault is the only system that works for cyclists and pedestrians assuming that insurance is setup right. Remember, if there is an accident presumed fault isn't personal, it's about providing the means to rebuild lives in a situation where fault is sometimes very hard to prove and where there is no practical way to legislate who needs insurance as who does not. It also protects both parties from aggressive over-litigation which is in nobodies interests (except the lawyers).
No politician is ever going to make people pay CTP for their kids bikes for example, and it would be very hard to prove culpability for a minor anyway.
It is more about protecting the driver who is at fault than the victim.
The idea that insurance is to protect victims is laughable.
Eggmaster, you need to stop gulping down that cyclist cool aide. The laws are not written to victimise cyclists. Car drivers are not getting a free pass if they are injuring let alone killing cyclists. To make that claim that car drivers get let off lightly for killing cyclists is at best laughable.
You and euphemistic keep playing the "cyclists are the default victim in all accidents" rhetoric. They are not. Are cyclists worse off in collisions with motor vehicles? Undoubtedly, yes. Are cyclists absolved of all blame in any accident simply based on the fact that they are a cyclist? Usually yes based simply on them being a "squishy cyclist".
The whole notion that car drivers get a small fine or are protected from any legal proceedings, simply for being a car driver, for killing/injuring a cyclist is absurd. Your over exaggerated claims of extreme leniency towards car drivers simply because they drive cars and your head in the sand vision that all bike riders are innocent in the event of an accident are at loggerheads with each other.
Your side of the debate would hold substantially more merit if you didn't get overly emotionally involved in the debate process by making up spurious claims to suit your own agenda.
eggmaster i think your lycra pants are on to tight
I am saying, in general; insurance is geared towards protecting the driver.
It does not matter what you hit, be it a car, bicycle, pedestrian, motorbike etc.
You cannot deny the fact that if you were to run a red tomorrow and hit a car side on, you would most likely be driving the same day, with the majority of the pain, time, financially and physically to the victim. (imagine you hit a car, no ambulance called, no red light cameras etc…. you just got a free hit of a car… how fun is that?).
This is pretty common actually. The cars just had to make that green, maybe run the red a little (to get home to their shit lives or something) and clean up cyclists around the cbd area. I rarely see the police at the scene. The car driver end up just driving murderously home.
The insurance. Is to cover your own failings; "you" hit something "you" cant afford to fix etc.
Insurance isn't geared to protect anything other than the insurance company and its share holders, regardless of who holds the policy. They are out to minimise payouts and maximise profits. That's all. There is no tinfoil hat car driver cartel conspiracy.
I can categorically deny your statement. If I ran a red light, and caused serious injury, I would be up for multiple charges, neg driving, running a red just to name a few. If I was to run a red and injure and/or kill someone, I could be up for negligence occasioning bodily hard or even vehicular manslaughter if I managed to kill someone in my negligence.
Would I be driving the same day, no. Apart from spending the next few hours being interviewed by police, making statements, organising lawyers, possible hospital trip for shock/drug and alcohol tests, my car being impounded/written off, where do I get time to do all this driving after I just killed someone?
Most people would be so shaken up over an accident of this severity that it may take them weeks or months to get back in a car. If the accident was serious enough, I would lose my license and possibly do jail time over it. Chances of me driving a car the same day as being involved in an accident that serious… ZERO!
An accident causing the death of anyone wouldn't involve "no ambulance" and certainly would get the attention of the police. No one gets a free hit and gets to just drive off. That it called a "hit and run". I'm not sure if you are serious or just trolling, but I am leaning towards the latter. Your perception of what car drivers "commonly" get away with is way out of touch with reality and you are living in a made up fantasy world where you think this type of thing is commonplace and it simply isn't.
Cyclists regularly get cleaned up in the CBD and police rarely attend. Get your hand off it, troll.
you also seem to be getting overly emotional, without acknowledging the fact that in cycling related fatalities that over 87% were caused by a motorist. The vast majority. a studied and recognised statistic.
Sure, car driver do not get a free pass, but in a lot of cases they certainly get off pretty lightly, and I'm not just talking about cyclist crashes, but all crashes. Do something stupid in a car that causes a crash, and unless it is deliberate, or you are under the influence, typically the driver at fault will only get a fine, a few hundred dollars, and maybe a suspension of licence. That leniency is a contributing factor to drivers not being as cautious as they could be.
It would seem that you are also emotionally involved and make spurious claims to suit your own agenda.
For a start, your above mentioned sources are rubbish. The ABC and a tabloid newspaper that quoted a study from Monash Uni that only involved a set of 54 "incidents" that seem to be so biased and skewed to be a joke. And of that study, there were only 2 "hits". The rest seem to be subjective biased statistics padding "opinions" of what they felt was good to pad out car hatred with in the study. Most likely horn tooting was at an all time high of 85% of the "incidents".
And what you guys have been saying is that in the event of a serious accident or death, that drivers are getting virtually a free pass and suffer no consequences for their actions. That just isn't true. Your stats are bogus. What you are also claiming is that every accident that involves serious injury and/or the death of a cyclist, is that the driver of the car is solely responsible for the entire accident. While this may be true in some cases, it isn't indicative of every single accident, which is what you're suggesting. There comes a point where cyclists must stop playing the victim card, pull their head out of their arses and accept some responsibility for their own safety.
And to this point, I have not made any claims like "87% of accidents with cyclists are the car drivers fault" that I fact checked over with a cyclist fluff piece in a tabloid newspaper. I have not stated any statistics and have tried to remain objective. I don't wear car or cyclists coloured glasses. I rag on car drivers as much as I do cyclists. If anything, I am passionate about road safety for all road users. I drive for a living and see a lot more about what road users do than most average people.
So, that being said, my only agenda is to get cyclists to pull their collective heads out of their arses, stop them drinking the cyclist cool aide and get them to see that playing the victim card doesn't help car drivers be better drivers. Most people I witness in a day driving should not be driving, period. But of the bike riders I see in a day, the observation is exactly the same. Stop being the victim, "get woke" and accept that car drivers are not responsible for your cycling safety. Your safety starts and ends with YOU. Threats of mega fines, loss of license and jail time won't change anything for the majority of car drivers.
Your safety starts and ends with YOU
But it cannot when you so eloquently put it that:
Most people I witness in a day driving should not be driving, period.
Raod safety need to start with getting rid of the 'licence is a right' mentality and get it back to being a privilege. I cannot affect my safety any more than I do.
As for pulling my head out of my ass as a cyclist, think you need to do the same.
I've come to the conclusion that you and eggmaster are just trolls and therefore I will not respond any further to either of you based on your warped ideals, flawed logic and disregard for your own safety.
Once you take your blinders off and actually make a logical and sound point that would progress road safety and not just get on the "I hate car drivers" band wagon, then I may re-engage with your sensible conversation, but at the moment, it seems you are both taking the extreme views from the pro-cyclist agenda for the sole purpose of being trolls.
I'm not pro car, I'm not pro cyclist. I just want people to use the road safely so we can all get home to our "shit lives" as one of you so eloquently put it in one of your previous posts. So when you are "open" to other views, let me know. Be civil and polite and for gods sake, if you are serious in your views, put down the bong and sober up before you post any more.
Actually witnessed one this week and called 000. In the hour I spent on site noone thought about who gets blamed for what and how it plays out. The driver was beside himself and fully cooperated with police and we were all just concerned for the cyclist. I've been hit twice myself and never worried about pressing charges (both times driver fault). Just focussed on getting well and each time the driver was kind enough to get me a new helmet and some kit :) certainly the public system covers on road accidents very well.
I used to hate cyclists and then I started riding casually. I'm a careful guy, follow road rules and tried to be a good example.
After riding for 3 years (I no longer do), I can say with 100% conviction that the great majority of accidents between cyclists and cars are caused by (profanity) car drivers.
Not to say there aren't effwits on cycles- when I cross one I yell at them and tell them 'I'm a cyclist and you give us a bad name' (even though I don't ride any more lol), but the stupidity of people on the road in cars around bikes in general just blew me away.
Why yell at them? It just adds to the rage, and most of the time when someone yells at me and I'm on a bike all I hear is 'dfgsdfg ufh as tfu y dfa tg y ty'.
Funny because I hear GHGFUYTRtyreRESDres KUoiuyOYUG followed by a thrown beer can or stubbiie
At least dont ride bikes side by side and talk each other on any road. Doing it makes you in danger and also drivers especially large vehicle driver. I do beg you cyclists.
As a cyclist, it also means that there is less chance of a car trying to squeeze past when there isn't really enough room. Just because a car can fit, doesn't mean it is safe to pass. You need to allow at least 1m to pass a cyclist which on most roads means you need to cross into the next lane, changing lanes fully is even better.
Side by side (From Transport NSW website. Other states may vary.)
You are allowed to ride two abreast, but not more than 1.5 metres apart.
See that 1.5m part? That's the part that is never adhered to in my observations.
Point 1, correct.
Point 2, correct, but flawed in that now the car has to cross further into oncoming traffic lanes to pass putting both the driver AND the cyclist at risk.
Point 3, makes sense. Visibility is import to safety.
So, what you want is to stop cars squeezing past? This creates massive risk on your behalf. Firstly the car is behind you, so you can't see what it is doing. Secondly, you are traveling way below the limit and causing congestion. Congestion causes stress/frustration and this in turn causes unpredictability and irrational actions.
As a bike rider myself, motor and push bikes, I want the cars in front of me where I can see them. That way I get to make decisions about what they are doing and not relying on them to make those decisions for me.
All through this thread, your views on what is legal and what is safe is just polar opposites. Being right doesn't make you any less dead. Keep riding 2 abreast and continue to piss off car drivers with your holy cycling crusade. Pissing off car drivers, that will make them safer to be around. For me, no thanks. When I'm on the road, I just want to be away from cars, so if that means letting them past me and be on their way, then so be it.
I'm not on a holy cycling crusade, just trying to point out the law, for those that don't know it and also point out what the other side thinks of it. You appear to know it, but many don't given our 'licence out of the cornflakes' system.
Yes, I want to stop cars squeezing past. Yes, I will claim the lane, as is my legal right, but only choose to when there is not room to pass me safely. It is the only way to stop the idiots from trying to pass me when there is no room. I'd rather delay someone for a few seconds, than get mowed down because they are to dumb to give me enough space. I'm all for letting cars past too, but only when there is space. If the road is too long and narrow I'll find a spot to move left and let cars past, like you I'd rather not piss off motorists behind me.
There is a bridge I often cross on the way to work. There is no shoulder on it and it's busy so there is often traffic coming the other way. I head check, assess the traffic, pick a suitable gap, indicate I'm moving out of the shoulder then ride as fast as practical across that bridge in the middle of the lane, indicate left and move back to the shoulder when I'm past. That is the safe way.
As for pissing off car drivers we (yes, everyone) needs more acceptance that sometimes on the roads we don't get our own way and a short delay from cyclist is pretty minor in the scheme of things like not being able to afford a house or cancer isn't it?
So, what you want is to stop cars squeezing past?
When cars conveniently forget about their "right of way" laws.
@eggmaster: 'right of way' is a misnomer. There is no such thing as right of way in the road rules, but there is a responsibility to give way. Subtle, but important difference.
Yes I agree. I dislike the term; though find it entertaining how people, esp drivers we have here, use the term as if its an axiom of truth in their lives.
Even on zwift I fell off my bike.
I understand where OP is coming from though. I'm a cyclist and I know that, very simply, if it is a competition out of my piece of plastic with rubber wheels (a la Scultura 907-E) and a 2 tonne car, I know who will win.
When I ride, the mentality that I maintain is precisely that. No matter how much I have spent on a race bike, no matter how much I love my bike, love the sport, love riding a bike (and I absolutely adore riding, it helps me feel happier), I will always be on a piece of plastic with rubber wheels. This means that when I'm in a situation where I feel uncertain I hit the brakes and get off the bike. I stand in awkward pieces of the road out of the way if I have to.
This mentality has saved my life more times than I can count. On the road, love it or hate it, I am the lowest, most riskiest form of transport. That's right, lower than joggers. One time I pulled up to a crossing at a intersection, and I hit the button to cross and I waited. The light went green to cross, but I noticed there was a truck coming with a trailer on it. I realised he wouldn't stop in time, so I didn't go. About 10 metres out from the crossing, he realised, and locked up his wheels. The truck sailed past me, smoke pouring off his tyres, straight into the middle of the intersection. I just waited for him to come to a complete stop and then I just rode around him (Okay, I was shaking my head).
The fact is, if he had hit me, and I had died, and that driver was written up for manslaughter, or even got the death penalty, would that have bought me back? No. I could have fearlessly asserted myself, knowing I had ride of way, and got every bone broken in my body.
Too right.
The unfortunate thing is that many of the things motorists get angry at cyclists over, is behaviour that is designed to keep cyclists safer.
Taking the lane, riding two abreast, etc.
Then they come past within a metre, leaning on the horn, which just honestly scares the heebie jeebies out of me.
Not sure what can feasibly done to be honest. Building segregated bike lanes everywhere is impossible, educating motorists seems impossible? Australia is at an impasse.
Long story short.
The Cyclist gets rich in most of the occassions