Pedestrian Run Down By Cyclist

[AuFairlaneV8]

Originally Posted by csv8

Cyclists have an attitude that they can dictate their road rules and ignore the majority. Look at the ridiculous situation in Queensland , where cars etc have to give 1m>1.5m clearance?? from Jan 1 can ride across zebra crossings and don't have to stay in cycleways!!! Its time cyclists took responsiblity for their actions and not inconveinience other road users..and paid rego, over the age of 18.....http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Que...oad-rules.aspx
Cyclists in bicycle lanes

From 1 January 2015, a cyclist will be able to choose whether or not they wish to ride in a bicycle lane where one is provided. The lane is there if they wish to use it but they will not be obliged to use it.

This change is consistent with the rules for other special purpose lanes (for example, buses do not have to use bus lanes and drivers do not have to use transit lanes). It will take away an unnecessary limitation on cyclists using the road as legitimate road users.

I think cyclists don't like cycle ways for the same reason motorists don't like cyclists on the road, hate getting held up by someone or something going slower than themselves. Me and the wife once hired one of those two person pedal power car type things in centtenial park in sydney, popular place for cyclists, in the 1 hour that we hired the thing about 2 cyclists had abused us and another cyclist overtaking us was abused by a faster cyclist.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by MAD

May have been covered already but the simple answer is free healthcare.
Yeah, yeah, it's not actually free, but this is somewhere I want my taxes going.

It doesn't cover the dental expenses. I think its NZ that have a good system that would have covered her for this situation.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

Free health care doesn’t offer enough if the victim has to spend the rest of their life in a chair.

That's something that could be seen to.

Originally Posted by vztrt

It doesn't cover the dental expenses. I think its NZ that have a good system that would have covered her for this situation.

That's something that could be changed.
I don't know why dental escapes the 'healthcare' banner.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by ratter

some of you must drive with your eyes shut most the time if you think only cyclist break road rules,, if you look a bit harder I'm sure you will see road rules being broken by a lot more motorist than cyclists

True, but a better way to look at it is through ratios.
How many cars would someone drive past on the way to work, 100's? Maybe 1000's?
How many bicycles would the same person pass in the same time. 10? 20?

No denying there are some useless car drivers, but there are many other discussions about that.

Originally Posted by LG17

Cyclist mentality?
Typical!
Perhaps if the truck driver had been looking ahead properly at the traffic in front, as he should, then the situation should not have happened. (and no I'm not having a go at truck drivers!)

If there was a slow car in front of you in traffic would you wait behind until it was safe to pass or would you just pass anyway?

I wouldn't wait behind a slow car that is in a different lane which I could pass safely without hitting. That truck wasn't overly close, I'm sure the truckie knew they were both in their own lanes and he could pass.

Originally Posted by ratter

correct about being vulnerable, but the funny thing is some of the things people here are complaining about are legal, how many times have we heard about cyclist riding 2 abreast? well that's legal, it may not be advisory in some case, but it is legal, infact in some cases 3 abreast is legal, 4 or 5? no not legal, many motorist have no idea about road rules

Yes 2 abreast is legal, but like many rules its very black and white and doesn't necessarily make the situation safe.
I have passed people riding 2 abreast before and it has not been the easiest task to pass them. I have also passed people riding about 5 or 6 abreast and it has been completely safe. Different road different situations.
It's not hard to be aware of your surroundings and change your riding/driving style to suit.

Originally Posted by b0son

Sounds familiar. I had one yell 'coming though' as I was crossing on a zebra crossing. When he rode in front of me and almost right over my feet, I shoved him off. The look of confusion on his face was priceless.

Have had that happen to me twice now. Once at a crossing and one at traffic lights.
3rd situation the cyclist rode onto the footpath to avoid the crossing.

I wouldn't push them off the bike, but it would be a good idea to say something to them.

Originally Posted by Guzz226

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.

Silly excuse really.
Cyclists tell car drivers they must "slow down and/or stop if a cyclist is in the way, wait until it's safe to pass then pass"
So how is it ok for a cyclist to swerve into a different lane to avoid debris/pothole or whatever is in the way.
Cyclist should be aware of the road in front of them, if there is something in the lane they are cycling in they should slow down or stop and check for traffic in the other lane then more around the obstacle when safe.

I have a workmate that says he can't cycle on the left part of the road because of the little rocks that build up there on some roads.
That's amazing because I have been riding as far left as possible on the road for 11 years now and have never got a puncture or tyre damage from a road obstacle.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by MAD

That's something that could be changed.
I don't know why dental escapes the 'healthcare' banner.

Because people are sooking about paying $6 to see a doctor, imagine getting them to pay another 2% medicare levi come tax time.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Because people are sooking about paying $6 to see a doctor, imagine getting them to pay another 2% medicare levi come tax time.

With a total revamp of the system, there could be many savings on many insurances and you could quite easily end up in a better position.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Ben73

So how is it ok for a cyclist to swerve into a different lane to avoid debris/pothole or whatever is in the way.

What a load of crap !

In 28 years of driving and cycling I have never seen a cyclist swerve across the lane they were in into another to avoid debris or a pothole.

A metre maybe but a whole lane plus more c'mon

I suppose no car driver has ever swerved to avoid a pothole and save their precious rims

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I have a workmate that says he can't cycle on the left part of the road because of the little rocks that build up there on some roads.
That's amazing because I have been riding as far left as possible on the road for 11 years now and have never got a puncture or tyre damage from a road obstacle.

If your bike has been selected with commuting in mind, it shouldn't be a major issue. But you get cyclists that think they're the next TDF winner, and they buy some carbon thing with pencil-thin tyres that are impractical on anything other than a billiard table.... though to be fair, how many clowns in cars that have been lowered way too far have to stop traffic just to negotiate a speed bump? The other issue is that the further left you go, it seems to encourage some drivers to lane-split, which is just stupid.

[SensationFG8]

Going slow over a speed hump isn't just for lowered cars, I go slow (10kph) over them to save my suspension unnecessary jolts.

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Now, its just a few kids on push bikes at the skate park, when did that whole inline skating and skateboarding scene wear off our young people?

This is why...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLze_CUK3Q

[b0son]

At least some people still blade ... I used to windsurf, then literally overnight, everyone stopped, like it was all some joke I wasn't in on.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by MAD

That's something that could be seen to.

Instead of being so simplistic could you explain how and more importantly why does the health system have to compensate for someone left in a wheel chair after being the victim of a negligent cyclist?

Free health care alone isn’t enough when you take into account all the changes to living arrangements, loss of day to day mobility, living with constant pain, loss of income and the additional financial constraints involved on top of the loss of one’s freedom and quality of life due to someone else’s neglect and if a child is involved the impact on that child’s family and parents that now have a lifelong sentence to care for them.

Why should the victim of a cyclist be treated different to a pedestrian who left in a similar position after being hit by a registered vehicle can make a claim against the CTP insurance?

I don’t know if forced insurance for cyclists over say the age of 18 is the answer or even workable but it’s a possibility that should be fully explored and reviewed before being rejected.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by tempted

But a pedestrian isn't a vehicle.

No, but your typical driver is held up just as much by pedestrians as drivers - I am in my inner Melbourne drives anyway.

Patience goes a long way - be it other drivers, pedestrians or even cyclists.

[blueoval]

This just in. 38yo woman is killed in SA while cycling this afternoon.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1227189625984

A CYCLIST has been killed in a collision with a truck at Cheltenham.

The cyclist and truck collided at the intersection of Port Rd and Cheltenham Pde just after 1pm.

A woman, 38, who was riding the bike, suffered critical abdominal injuries and was rushed to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, an SA Ambulance Service spokeswoman said.

She died from her injuries later this afternoon.

City bound traffic on Port Rd and southbound traffic on Cheltenham Pde is being diverted around the crash site while Major Crash officers investigate.

Motorists are asked to avoid the area if possible.

Western Adelaide Police Superintendent Howard Davies said the woman, from Ottoway, was riding with a friend and the two had been waiting at the footpath to cross the road.

He said it appeared that the woman had failed to see the truck turn the corner and went to cross the road and was hit.

The woman’s bike was left wedged under the truck after impact.

SA Police last week launched Operation Safe Cycling - a blitz targeting behaviour by both cyclists and motorists - to coincide with the Tour Down Under.

The blitz will continue until the end of March, aiming to reduce the higher than average number of cyclist crashes that occur over the warmer months.

The woman’s death takes the state’s road toll to six, compared with four at the same time last year.

No appeals for registration, identification or dedicated bike tracks will bring this life back. All she was doing is crossing the road and was run down by the truck because she did not see it!

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

What a load of crap !

In 28 years of driving and cycling I have never seen a cyclist swerve across the lane they were in into another to avoid debris or a pothole.

A metre maybe but a whole lane plus more c'mon

I suppose no car driver has ever swerved to avoid a pothole and save their precious rims

Exactly - that amongst other reasons is why a meter matters.

Even if all the drivers out there thought they had the positioning skills of a V8Supercar driver (whihc most don't) how do they know if the cyclists is going to move sideways at the time they pass within inches?

They don't - hence why a meter matters - to allow a safety margin for the benefit of everyone.

I struggle with the argument of having to slow to pass a cyclist if they need to ensure it is safe to go into the next lane - afterall isnt that what you do when you pass a slow car? a parked car? Wouldn't you waste more time waiting for a pedestrian to cross the road when turning?

Seriously I am wondering if some of you folk would bother to stop if a child ran out on the road chasing his soccer ball!

30 seconds (max) to guarantee the safety of another human is a ridiculously small price to pay. And if you get it wrong you will pay many more times than that as a result - at the accident, in the courts, in prison? etc If you you still aren't convinced, consider how you would like people to treat your loved ones if it was them on a bike.

[BENT_8]

RIP...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1227189625984

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

Instead of being so simplistic could you explain how and more importantly why does the health system have to compensate for someone left in a wheel chair after being the victim of a negligent cyclist?

Free health care alone isn’t enough when you take into account all the changes to living arrangements, loss of day to day mobility, living with constant pain, loss of income and the additional financial constraints involved on top of the loss of one’s freedom and quality of life due to someone else’s neglect and if a child is involved the impact on that child’s family and parents that now have a lifelong sentence to care for them.

Why should the victim of a cyclist be treated different to a pedestrian who left in a similar position after being hit by a registered vehicle can make a claim against the CTP insurance?

I don’t know if forced insurance for cyclists over say the age of 18 is the answer or even workable but it’s a possibility that should be fully explored and reviewed before being rejected.

Agreed - as a 3 bike cyclist and a 3 car driver I am happy and willing to pay rego akin that what I get on each on my cars if I was to also get CTP - would be awesome bang for buck I reckon (based on current formula anyway)

Where can I send my cheque to? I would be first in line.

Would also kill the number one argument of drivers about entitlement and who pays what. Once a legal rider is also a paying rider than what will they argue about?

And for the record I have been ostracized for some 'extreme' cycling groups on FaceBook for daring to express these views.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Then there is passive revenge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6FqvKVh4Ro

..and remember to put the handbrake on before you get out to respond to an aggro pedestrian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7J2j5Byh0Q

And don't upset old ladies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qz6TT1v_I0

so now I know where this ******** I was speaking to reckons he kicked a front bumper of an FG Falcon sitting at a pedestrian crossing while he walked a cross the crossing lol

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Yeah true. Give the truckies a break if anything. Imagine if they went on strike...go down to the local supermarket in a weeks time, and all you would see is 500 people fighting over the last can of Pal.

already seen that. after the 2011 floods in south east queensland

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

Exactly - that amongst other reasons is why a meter matters.

Even if all the drivers out there thought they had the positioning skills of a V8Supercar driver (whihc most don't) how do they know if the cyclists is going to move sideways at the time they pass within inches?

They don't - hence why a meter matters - to allow a safety margin for the benefit of everyone.

I struggle with the argument of having to slow to pass a cyclist if they need to ensure it is safe to go into the next lane - afterall isnt that what you do when you pass a slow car? a parked car? Wouldn't you waste more time waiting for a pedestrian to cross the road when turning?

Seriously I am wondering if some of you folk would bother to stop if a child ran out on the road chasing his soccer ball!

30 seconds (max) to guarantee the safety of another human is a ridiculously small price to pay. And if you get it wrong you will pay many more times than that as a result - at the accident, in the courts, in prison? etc If you you still aren't convinced, consider how you would like people to treat your loved ones if it was them on a bike.

Reason like this has no place on the Internerd! :-)

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by blueoval

This just in. 38yo woman is killed in SA while cycling this afternoon.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1227189625984



No appeals for registration, identification or dedicated bike tracks will bring this life back. All she was doing is crossing the road and was run down by the truck because she did not see it!

I feel sorry for the poor truck driver!! has to live with that for the rest of his life.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

Instead of being so simplistic could you explain how and more importantly why does the health system have to compensate for someone left in a wheel chair after being the victim of a negligent cyclist?

Free health care alone isn’t enough when you take into account all the changes to living arrangements, loss of day to day mobility, living with constant pain, loss of income and the additional financial constraints involved on top of the loss of one’s freedom and quality of life due to someone else’s neglect and if a child is involved the impact on that child’s family and parents that now have a lifelong sentence to care for them.

Why should the victim of a cyclist be treated different to a pedestrian who left in a similar position after being hit by a registered vehicle can make a claim against the CTP insurance?

I don’t know if forced insurance for cyclists over say the age of 18 is the answer or even workable but it’s a possibility that should be fully explored and reviewed before being rejected.

Relax. Yes, its an ideal that doesn't fit the current system, that's why I said it 'could' be seen to.

Why wouldn't it be a good thing to rid the world of these ridiculous claims and counterclaims, and especially the leech lawyers that follow. If you didn't have to lose out monetarily for an injury, you wouldn't need to claim an entitlement.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by tempted

I'm sorry, but you are just trying to pass the buck here. Pedestrians are nowhere even close to being in the same league as cyclists when it comes to being a nuisance and hazard on the road.
Pedestrians use footpaths 99% of the time and generally only set foot on the road when they need to cross it.
Have you ever seen pedestrians walking on the road and occupying entire traffic lanes on main roads in peak hour? I certainly havent.
Cyclists are universally loathed by the general public for their antics on the road and this has not come about for no reason. To suggest that pedestrians are in the same league is just ridiculous.

I got thru 23 intersections with traffic lights and numerous roundabouts on my way to work - today I was "held up" by pedestrians 7 times for maybe a maximum of 2 minutes perhaps (ie 7 times, approx 15 seconds each).

Also had two situations where I had to go around cyclists riding on a 2 lane 60kmh road - each time probably cost me 20-30 seconds? Say a total of a minute.

Is my math incorrect?

So on balance pedestrians added more time to my commute - this morning at least. But really who cares? Waiting in line due to other cars added way more time and inconvenience than pedestrians or cyclists - the 45min drive takes less than 30mins non peak.

I took notice of all this today in an attempt to quantify that stuff happens and we all need to just take a breath and get along.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by tempted

It is tragic that someone's loved one has been lost.

Agreed. It's a balance of risk. If a driver has a lapse in concentration and drifts into a car in the lane next to them, it can be a simple as a little ding. Aka, no biggie. But if that same mistake occurs with a cyclists, the odds are not good in favour of the cyclist.

I always live by the re, the bigger one has right of way.
Why be right and dead?

Train>truck>bus>car>motorcycle>bicycle>pedestrian.
It's good to know your place in the food chain.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by tempted

It is tragic that someone's loved one has been lost.

she was at the footpath with her bike. If she didn't have her bike, would you consider that any differently?

[penske61]

Didn't we all used to ride bikes to school?
Don't remember all this BS back then?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

today I was "held up" by pedestrians 7 times for maybe a maximum of 2 minutes perhaps (ie 7 times, approx 15 seconds each).

Ok, I'll bite.... How did you get held up by pedestrians

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by blueoval

she was at the footpath with her bike. If she didn't have her bike, would you consider that any differently?

Describes her as waiting and then crossing the road - not clear if she was riding across the road (ie like a vehicle), riding across a pedestrian crossing or even walking her bike across the road - tragic result either way though.

Troubling (but not surprising) how some here are automatically jumping to conclusions and using this to justify their own personal views and rants.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Ok, I'll bite.... How did you get held up by pedestrians

Most were when I was turning left or right into a road at a set of lights where they are crossing at the pedestrian crossing over the road I was turning into. Traffic lights went green and I could of gone but had to wait for those damn pesky pedestrians wanting to safely cross the road. So I had to wait a little longer. Big deal.

2 were pedestrian crossings - 1 was a zebra crossing, the other a set of lights job.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by penske61

Didn't we all used to ride bikes to school?
Don't remember all this BS back then?

Yes
No

Society as a whole was a lot more tolerant and not as big on entitlement as it is now.

The whole drivers Vs cyclist discussion mirrors other examples of less tolerance compared to years gone by - when was the last time you saw kids give up their seat (or the one they put their feet on) up for a senior citizen?

People as a whole are a lot more selfish and self centred these days - and that applys equally to both extreme driver behaviour (road rage anyone?) and extreme cyclist behaviour.

Fortunately the majority of both drivers and cyclists are more tolerant.