Pedestrian Run Down By Cyclist

[cs123]

Originally Posted by mcnews

I use to pull skids through Carousel Shopping Centre in Cannington early in the morning on my 50cc Motobecane moped :-)

Ha. Never tried it on a min bike.

I thought it was hilarious to see this yesterday after reading this thread. If the staff there didn't care why should I?

Learnt a new word in Adelaide yesterday. MAMIL.

Lots of expensive hardware being ridden around there too.

[Guzz226]

Great result for all road users everywhere.....

The Amy Gillett Foundation is excited to share with you another significant milestone achieved in our a metre matters campaignlast night.

Amy Gillett’s home state of South Australia declared itself a leader in bike rider safety, becoming the third jurisdiction to commit to legislating a minimum overtaking distance of one metre for drivers overtaking bike riders.

Premier Jay Weatherill announced his support of minimum overtaking distance, in response to the suite of recommendations handed down to by the South Australian Citizens’ Jury on the topic: Motorists and Cyclists will always be using our roads – What things could we trial to ensure they share the roads safely?

The Family

Amy’s mother Mary Safe thanked the South Australian Government for their pledge to improve bike rider safety during a significant year for her family and the Amy Gillett Foundation.
“My heart is filled with pure joy with the Government’s commitment to implement safe passing distance laws in Amy’s home state, it’s such a watershed moment ten years after her death,” Mary said.

“It is a win-win for both cyclists and motorists. It will reduce the incidence of death and injury for cyclists, and will result in less motorists living with the grief that they injured or, at the very worst, killed a cyclist. That kind of grief never goes away.”

“I ask South Australians to embrace this new law so we have a legacy of respect for all who share our roads.”
Mary was actively involved in the Citizens' Jury process (pictured above with CEO Tracey Gaudry at the Foundation's presentation to the Jury).

The Foundation

Amy Gillett Foundation CEO Tracey Gaudry (pictured above presenting to the Citizens' Jury) congratulated the South Australian Government on their leadership in implementing the legislative change targeted at improving safety for all road users.

“In 2014, 45 people lost their lives while riding a bike on Australian roads and research has confirmed the most common bike rider fatality crash type is being hit from behind by a motor vehicle travelling in the same direction,” Gaudry said.

“We applaud the South Australian Government for recognising that refining existing laws to provide a measurable benchmark for safe overtaking distance is the leading action needed to reduce these tragedies.”

The Amy Gillett Foundation’s a metre matters campaign has spearheaded the national effort for state and territory governments to improve road rules to specify minimum distances for overtaking bike riders.

Read the Foundation's response to the Citizens' Jury recommendations here.

[ratter]

GET OVER IT!

it's the law, if you can not accept that others are entitled to be where you think only you are entitled to be, maybe It's time you hand your licence in, you can't seem to accept things.

If I was to think that any vids posted on the net are a 100% accurate example of a group, then every car driver is a alcoholic, inconsiderate, hoon that does not know or care about road rules. Do you fit this description?
If I was to judge a group based on a few that I see when out driving then all motorists, speed, tailgate, talk/text on their phone, speed up to run amber lights, run red lights and drive vehicles not fit to be on the road. Do you fit this description?

[Guzz226]

Do you know the history or the law?

A cyclist was killed by a truck that passed too close. At the time the law said something to the effect of adequate distance - laws are being changed to provide a specific number to remove wriggle room as a result and to make it easier for everyone.

Given most deaths are caused by a car running up the back of a bike something has to be done - last I checked if a car runs up the back of another Carr, tha car running up the back is at fault. Why should his be different if they run up a bike?

Head ons? Give me a break. Drivers could also pause for a few seconds until it is safe to overtake - just like they have been doing for years to pass parked cars and slow moving cars. Better to wait for a few seconds than kill a person isn't it?

Cameras are hardly unique to cyclists - I have captured more nutters in my car dashcam than on my Fly6. The general term is Dash Cam - cars have a dash, bikes don't.

Clearly you are never going to be convinced and are not open to the ideas of others.

[jpblue1000]

Tempted is going to blow a fuse.
Calm down fella. Its really not that big a deal. There are much bigger first world problems you should vent at. Like un-universal health care and dum-education.
A cyclist cant hurt you in your car and they are more scared of you than you are of them.
here's some relaxation images!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=c...ed=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

JP

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by tempted

Just another example of governments pandering to minority groups.

you obviously have more hang ups than a dry cleaners

move a long with yo life

[Xauterus]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Yeah gave up on the Australian roads upon our return. too many psycho drivers with chips on their shoulders. Velodrome only for me now or London roads when i'm there...so much safer.

JP

London roads are obviously busier. What makes cycling better there? I am interested what changes should be made here.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Xauterus

London roads are obviously busier. What makes cycling better there? I am interested what changes should be made here.

I think there are two things that favour cycling in London over anywhere in Australia in my experience.
Most UK drivers are aware of cyclists. Cycling was the fastest growing alternate means of travel in the UK for a number of years. The roads in towns are used by a substantial bicycle fleet. As such Drivers are more aware of the presence of Riders.
Secondly the traffic is much slower in the UK than our cities due to congestion, probably contributing to the uptake of cycling. Driving from home to work was a 25 minute job (5 miles) riding took less than 10 walking took 40. Cyclists therefore cant really be blamed for the congestion and the drivers are more relaxed, expecting delays beyond their or the cyclists or pedestrians control. the congestion tax has had a positive effect.
Pedestrians are also better regarded over there as certainly in the bigger towns public transport is so much better most people use it to commute and are therefore pedestrians first, drivers last. London has a good and growing series of bicycle paths on shared roads too which makes the longer distance commute safer, faster and more reliable.
In my experience I was never abused, threatened or nearly killed in the UK while riding.
I was slapped on the *** by a passenger in a newish falcon of all cars on the first day while riding here. I was in a bike lane which they had to enter to get close enough, they had entered the same road at the last intersection behind me so could have no reason for revenge.
This does happen in the UK but to me and my riding group we never experienced it

JP

[Xauterus]

The laws for keeping a safe distance from cyclists was more of an awareness issue so drivers think about their interaction with them.
Because of the low number of cyclists on the road a lot of drivers don't know how to handle something different in front of them. The same applies for motor cyclists. I imagine London is better because of a higher percentage of cyclists and car drivers have adapted to having them on the road.

Moped riders also get a lot of grief on the road here and they pay rego. In Italy they are accepted transport and drivers move aside to let them filter to the front at lights.

I wonder if the hatred to cyclists is the same towards moped riders?

[Guzz226]

I don't think moped riders cop the same abuse in Vic - probably because they pay rego and can travel the same speed as drivers so the classic - so the payment and too slow arguments can't be applied.

[PepeLePew]

1M is just plain common sense. Does that go both ways though? Does a cyclist have to avoid a maneuver that would take them within 1M of a moving vehicle as in swerving out to avoid parked cars?

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

here's some relaxation images!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=c...ed=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

JP

My Granddaughter thanks you.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

1M is just plain common sense. Does that go both ways though? Does a cyclist have to avoid a maneuver that would take them within 1M of a moving vehicle as in swerving out to avoid parked cars?

The problem with common sense is that it ain't common - most of the laws we have are redundant if common sense was more common.

Good question you raise - if a bike moves out to overtake a parked car, any cars then overtaking the cyclist would still need to provide a 1m buffer. In some states it is 1.5m in 80kmh or faster zones.

Keep the n mind cyclists do and should leave a 1m buffer to parked cars to avoid being 'doored' (which is an driver offence with fines - in Vic $352 on the spot and up to $1408 in court) ie having a car door open immediately in front of them as the driver did not see them coming.

The FPV drive day I went on suggested you should always open the drivers door with your left hand as it forces you to twist and printed making sure the raid is safe for you to do so.

Is that the scenario you mean?

[jpblue1000]

The way I read the law the cyclist is legally (no moral Judgment here) allowed to use the lane they are in. Its a courtesy that most ride toward the gutter and as with a slower vehicle the other road users behind must stay within the law while passing them. No crossing double lines, cutting off on coming traffic off or abusing the person in front. The 1 meter+ rule as mentioned is an awareness and courtesy act to help maintain the buffers due to degrading road behaviour.
Weather its a cyclist, rubbish truck collecting bins, ambulance or nanna in her corolla the laws still apply. If a cyclist, or driver swerves to avoid something in their path its the responsibility of the drivers behind to be aware. Its also not like a cyclist takes up a huge patch of vision. The driver, already alert to a cyclist should be assessing the road ahead to a greater degree than maybe normal (a believe this standard should apply 100% of the time) so as to safely negotiate the legal slower vehicle legally and with minimal risk to all involved.
An aside the number of ****s who force oncoming cars in clear lanes to avoid them as they swing out around parked cars on their side is ****ing me off. Im soon to go vigilante on them!.

JP

[Guzz226]

It is intended to prevent scenarios like what has happened where the truck driver got off.

If a car hits a bike it clearly has breached the 1m rule - simply physics, no lasers required.

It is simply an amendment to add a measure that can't be arguing in court to an existing rule - not a new rule.

You can't hit a cyclist outside of 1m

If you hit a cyclist you have breached the 1m rule.

Simple rule to enforce common sense as well as be able to hold those to account that need to be.

[Guzz226]

FYI a motorist he been recently charged with speeding using video from a cyclist as evidence so the law makers don't always need losers and to be precise.

Perhaps yet another reason for some folk to hate cyclists

Nothing at all to worry about if you do the right thing of course

[prydey]

Originally Posted by cs123

Learnt a new word in Adelaide yesterday. MAMIL.

really? is that an adelaide term? i thought it was more widely used than that. for those who aren't aware, its 'Middle Aged Man In Lycra'

Originally Posted by cs123

Lots of expensive hardware being ridden around there too.

there is isn't there! did the bupa ride today and some of the bikes in that ride are probably just as expensive as the pro's. some crazy money spent on bikes around the place.

[Guzz226]

Depends how he estimated it.

If he was doing the same speed as me and I was in the wrong, why argue?

Realtime by sight if u are standing and watching is not the same as video evidence where they can view and review and calculate your speed by working out how long it took you to progress from one landmark to another

I will try and find the news story later if you are interested

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

It is intended to prevent scenarios like what has happened where the truck driver got off.

If a car hits a bike it clearly has breached the 1m rule - simply physics, no lasers required.

It is simply an amendment to add a measure that can't be arguing in court to an existing rule - not a new rule.

You can't hit a cyclist outside of 1m

If you hit a cyclist you have breached the 1m rule.

Simple rule to enforce common sense as well as be able to hold those to account that need to be.

Pity for the driver if it's a wobbly rider that closed the 1m gap.

[mik]

The one metre law has the best of intentions , but it has pitfalls imo, as has already been mentioned , parked cars, narrow roads with heavy fast moving traffic .......... think road rage is a problem now, my bet is this will up the ante.
picture this ...................narrow busy arterial with a kilometres of peak hour traffic full of tired short tempered motorists ......there is no possible room for a car to overtake legally without going onto the wrong side of the road .........in front cyclist doing 11 kms per hour...... behind cyclist , ma and pa kettle being upstanding citizens not overtaking the cyclist for fear of breaching one metre road rule ...........
behind ma and pa kettle very long que of motorists that can see mt road in front of ma and pa kettle , in these situations you have to guess there will be confrontations.

on good roads that are suitable for all traffic it probably wont be a problem, but the other .... i guess we will have to wait and see.

[Guzz226]

Taking your example a step further, imagine how long everyone would be waiting if the cyclist is struck and killed and said road is then blocked?

Sadly too many motorists take a perverted delight in buzzing cyclists and have no idea of the risks and consequences involved.

Agree not a fool proof rule but better than what was in place - it isn't a new rule just adding a number in place of where the old rule was found to be vague.

[mik]

Very true Guzz,
no doubt this will eventually filter down to other states,

sydney and melbourne probably have a lot more of these black spots and heavier traffic than SA.
i know from experience some parts of Melbourne are an absolute bastard, there's barely enough room for a car in a lane and having ridden on them i would not ride on them again even if they had the one metre rule.

[Guzz226]

mate - I agree.

No point being legally right and dead. There are just some roads that are too dangerous to ride - even with better rules, drivers can make mistakes without even getting into the scenarios of mobile phones, drink/drug driving, risk taking etc.

To your point I actively avoid all the major traffic roads if riding during peak - it takes me 30km instead of 20km but riding is fun, so much the better.

It never ceases the amaze me the guys/gals that ride along Sunshine Rd towards the city in peak when there is a nice quiet road 200m north of it (on other side of the raised train lines) running parallel. Much, much safer option. You can't see it and would only know it was there if you went looking for it which I guess is the point - you can derisk your ride as in all things in life if you think about it.

Have to admit the cycling community has its fair share of extremists and views such as the above have got me in more hot water with those guys than I have here with some pro-car/anti-bike views. The irony is both extreme views have a lot in common as they are all about entitlement, are self fish and expect everyone to cater and allow for their needs above thsoe of everyone else. So the 'war' continues......

Some of our weekend rides we won't do unless we are out real early as traffic picks up significantly during the morning as 'normal' folk get out and about.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

It is intended to prevent scenarios like what has happened where the truck driver got off.

If a car hits a bike it clearly has breached the 1m rule - simply physics, no lasers required.

It is simply an amendment to add a measure that can't be arguing in court to an existing rule - not a new rule.

You can't hit a cyclist outside of 1m

If you hit a cyclist you have breached the 1m rule.

Simple rule to enforce common sense as well as be able to hold those to account that need to be.

"If a car hits a bike it clearly has breached the 1m rule - simply physics, no lasers required."

You have got to be joking with this one haven't you?

You have undermined your own credibility with this one.

Most of your points have been reasonable to accept but this is showing such bias! More so than tempted has with some of his points.

What you are saying here is that if a car hits a bike there is no possible way that the rider could have been in the wrong!!!!

I would like to see a balancing of the new law to also put as much onus on the rider as the car driver to avoid an accident and this brings us back to accountability and identification. At the moment there is a one sided effect of the new laws where riders can and do at times cause situations and then ride away scott free of any responsibility. I think that it is an injustice that evokes anger in motorists because of the unfairness of the situation more so than any great anger amongst motorists against cyclists as a whole.

There are many things that I did when I was younger that were completely legal that are not now. Its illegal to fish in NSW without a licence now (as an example of the times we live in) so I see no reason why cyclists of adult age should not have accountability for their actions just like the vast majority of people do with their activities that cause them to interact with the general population.

In many instances you can be prosecuted for actions on your own property that may cause danger to others, so responsibility and accountability on the roads for all users should be paramount.

Cyclists may even find that a lot of motorists angst may evaporate when they start campaigning for a better outcome for every one rather than campaigning purely for their own interests which has the effect of setting up an "us" and "them" scenario.

[Guzz226]

Relax

To call my post worse than others, you are reading something into it that want intended. Go back a couple of dozen posts on the tempted summary quoted and maybe you will think that one.

My reponse was to Tempted who was arguing the rule was flawed cause u can't tell the difference between 99cm and 101

My reponse was attempting to call out that the rule isn't about that ie 99 vs 101 - it is intended to make it easy for drivers to know what is right by putting a number on it, not a vague term as was previously the case that was widely open to interpretation. It is trying to making it simpler for all as one persons of a safe distance may not be enough as in the truck case.

If a car hits a bike the 1m rule was breached cause there was no space right? Maintains a 1m buffer means no contact right?

If the car hits said cyclist from behind then they are at fault - no different to car running up the back of another car is it? With same exceptions.

Other scenarios could have the cyclist at fault as well - no doubt. Ie a cycling undertaking (which is legal) and breaching the 1m rule as a car legally turns left.

I was simply stating why the law is a good thing - an improvement- for all road users and debunking why tempted thought it was a bad idea.

The old nugget of getting everyone to do he right thing is effective on fellow extreme cyclists as it is on fellow drivers that are extreme - if everyone did as they should we would not need police and courts would we?

What next drop tail gating cause we can't accurately measure between cars?

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by noflac52

"
Cyclists may even find that a lot of motorists angst may evaporate when they start campaigning for a better outcome for every one rather than campaigning purely for their own interests which has the effect of setting up an "us" and "them" scenario.

Food for thought:

Motorists may even find that a lot of cyclists angst may evaporate when they start campaigning for a better outcome for every one rather than campaigning purely for their own interests which has the effect of setting up an "us" and "them" scenario

If each side seeks perfection and all the answers from the other camp no progress, no compromise will be made.

Both parties have a role to play in finding a better way forward that works for all - the SA rules were from a community forum not q cycling forum BTW

In the meantime people like me that actually both drive and ride a lot continue to just get potted by the extremes.

[noflac52]

I am very relaxed you might take note that it is only my second post in the thread

I responded to what you posted not what you say you intended. You posted it as I stated and it is reasonable that I reply to that not what you thought you meant!

It is clearly a biased statement nothing more and nothing less and tempted has been called names and severely castigated for his biased statements in the thread.

You were simply stating why the law is a good thing (in your opinion) and I am simply stating why its not a good thing for all road users in my opinion. Easy.

And now you are attempting to dismiss my input by calling it an old chestnut and making reference to not needing police and courts if everyone did the right thing. We wouldn't need any laws either in that case so it is irrelevant to the debate at hand and not anything that I alluded to.

As to the car running up the back of a cyclist being in the wrong automatically is a little biased too. You may not be aware that there is another thread running at the moment where some lawyers are legally challenging that assumption.

A lot of the statements you make as being correct are very black and white but the law, accidents and the factors that cause them are far from black and white so all involved need to have input and be accountable. Not just some.

[LG17]

Originally Posted by tempted

Just another example of governments pandering to minority groups.

The law does not force motorists to veer into oncoming traffic to pass bikes. Motorists have many choices, one of which is paying attention to the traffic ahead and not blaming a cyclist,a slow moving moped, a pedestrian, a truck or another car for their own poor decision making.

[noflac52]

I don't think that any reasonable people will be seeking perfection but us against them is not a good start and it seems that its the cycling fraternity creating the us and them scenario at the moment in legal matters instead of finding common ground.

In regard to my riding, driving etc you might reread my first post and to that I will add truck driving professionally also.

[Guzz226]

I car running up the back of a cyclist to a car running up the back of a car, complete with the same exceptions so agree and have already acknowledged it is not black and white (ref exemptions)

If they are different I am open to you explaining how. Ie car up car Vs car up bike

If my comments are wrong - don't just go me - contribute as to why by providing realistic examples and make a meaningful contribution to opening up minds.

And comparing me to tempted - seriously? I have made no veiled threats or hate to anyone.