Pedestrian Run Down By Cyclist

[MAD]

It should also hammer home the fact of the disparity of safety between the two modes of transport.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

I just hope the ban doesn't prevent tempted reading that post by bat, he surely needs that very real lesson in life. I think it really hits home to what we've all been saying. The anger is not worth the consequences no matter who was in the right or wrong.

Well according to Russel's post, Tempted won't have access to this part of the forum any further after his ban is lifted. Needless to say, it wouldn't matter as I feel Tempted would not want to look at it from a logical and rational viewpoint of human compassion. That would take humility.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by vztrt

What is buzzing??

Driving really really close....inches....often at great speed and yelling, beeping horn, slapping you on the @rse etc to scare the ***** out of you.

[damo76]

It's one incident, big deal move on no need for all this law reform crap etc because one person got knocked down.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by Batmobile

As I continue to read the many posts , its clear , both sides ( extremists views) will never agree on who has their rightful place on the road. What saddens me most , is although on this , and many other forums , those sad views against cyclists are openly posted - and I am happy that they 've an opportunity to air their spleen , but I hope for the sake of us cyclists , that those whom express those disappointing views against cyclist , have the intelligence to act responsibility on the road , regardless of their views , as, failing to do so, will result in possible irreversible damage to the cyclist with family and love ones .
Don't let your views, be the reason a person , won't see their love ones again. Grow up, and absorb those 5 seconds that a cyclist may slow you down, as in turn , a buzzing or worst , may take a life .
I ve been hit by a driver , pushed on the traffic following , and then run over by a oncoming car and it's trailer .. I died on the road , was treated (CPR) on the road by another cyclist until the ambulance arrived , pronounced dead on thei arrival .
After leaving the hospital and spend some many months at home crying , I asked my wife to drive me to find the driver of the car that run over me with his car and trailer .. I found him and it's was the best rehab for both of us .
It gave us both an opportunity to catch up and discuss how it all happened .
I later found out , the driver that clipped me , was on his mobile , angry about the call, lost it and moved across his lane and hit me form behind. When pronounced dead by the ambulance , his was charged by the police , and then spend several months in hospital himself for depression . I never did meet the driver . I did meet the driver of the oncoming car , as I had been told by the nurses he had come to visit me in hospital whilst I was in intensive care in a coma.
We may have a view or opinion , that's fine in the main , but if your views or opinion may cause harm to another sole , then I ask you to stop and think about not just the damage you may cause on the forum but the harm it may cause to another in the real world .

Must be getting bit more sentimental in my old age cause I think this has hit a raw nerve with me and I don't know why.

Not worth the anger, just watch what you're bloody doing on the roads.

[XBROO]

No matter which side you are on, we are all human and bleed red.

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by XBROO

No matter which side you are on, we are all human and bleed red.

Actually a lot of us on this forum bleed blue!

[aussiblue]

The WA Premier has an interesting view:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-2...352?section=wa

Cyclists riding in groups cause problems, rule changes needed: WA Premier Colin Barnett
By Jessica Strutt

Updated about 2 hours agoThu 29 Jan 2015, 9:34am




Cyclists travelling in large groups of up to four abreast are causing problems for other road users, WA Premier Colin Barnett says.

Mr Barnett has ruled out supporting a proposed law to force drivers to leave a minimum one-metre gap when passing a cyclist, but has flagged changes to road rules and protocols.

Asked which rules he planned to change, Mr Barnett said he would take advice on that.

"But even just this morning, going down for an early morning swim, I saw one group of cyclists in a line behaving perfectly, I saw another group three abreast... and that was causing conflict, so that is happening right across the city," he said.

"Over this summer, having a holiday and watching, you get large groups of cyclists, maybe 50 or 60 in a group, sometimes two, three, four wide on the road, now that's not working.

"There's been a lot of aggression both from motorists and from cyclists.

"We need to, if not change the laws, we certainly need to have well-established protocols for the use of cycling athletes using our road system.

"I don't want to discourage that, I want to encourage people to be out there exercise, keep fit, enjoy their sport but at the moment there's conflict between that and traditional road users."

Infrastructure needs updating: Premier

He said it was not just a matter of changing rules but also the infrastructure provided for cyclists and other road users, particularly where new roads or developments were built.

"If you look at our cycle paths, they've been put in place since the early 90s - good concept but you don't find people who are cycling for fitness and for their sport using these paths because they are travelling at 30 to 40, up to 50kph so that is inherently dangerous.

"That's incompatible you can't ride a bike down a dual use path at 30 or 40kph that is as dangerous as behaviour on the roads.

"The usage of our roads has changed and therefore our road and transport system needs to change to accommodate that."

Earlier this week Transport Minister Dean Nalder said it was legal for cyclists to ride two abreast, but there was an issue between legality and courtesy.

"There is a safely issue around bikes being more visible so they can ride on the left hand side of the road two abreast and do that legally, however if they're holding up traffic I think out of courtesy it's nice for them to move to single file to let traffic through," he said.

"So I think that we need to encourage more courteous behaviour on our roads but raise that awareness both for drivers and cyclists."

[Guzz226]

'
All for cracking down on the bike groups riding more than 2 abreast. Even more so when they are spilling outside of a single lane of traffics into the next lane.

Sadly he misses the point that many, many (most?) cyclists are solo or in smaller groups - and that is where a 1m buffer is most important and seldom provided. Most drivers try and do the right thing and honestly think they are giving enough space, yet seldom are.

Thats why rules are changing to a term - 1m - that most people get rather than vague terms like "reasonable".

[jpblue1000]

The other point I feel is being missed is that Cycling is not just for exercise by elite or wannabe elite people. It is also a mode of commuting gaining popularity. That is getting too and from work to help keep the economy going by earning money and paying taxes!.
Or are the rest of you cyclists finding loopholes in the tax system excusing you from paying tax?

JP

[blueoval]

I think the WA Premier is spot on. I have never condoned a 3-4 abreast peleton. It's not only illegal but discourteous and dangerous. It adds fuel to the anti cyclist agenda, and doesn't help those cyclists trying to do the right thing.

The whole dual purpose path has never been safe for cyclists and pedestrians as been said.

I also agree with the courtesy application. It isn't hard to form a single line especially if the roads cramp up more.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The other point I feel is being missed is that Cycling is not just for exercise by elite or wannabe elite people. It is also a mode of commuting gaining popularity. That is getting too and from work to help keep the economy going by earning money and paying taxes!.
Or are the rest of you cyclists finding loopholes in the tax system excusing you from paying tax?

JP

Not sure if you are jesting or not, but:

Can you please explain what tax I am finding a loophole in as a cyclist? As far as I was aware, cyclist or not, we ALL pay our taxes like everybody else. Just that some choose to ride to work to avoid the congestion as well as get some exercise in.

[DBourne]

It was tongue in cheek Shav, it's ok

[GasoLane]

An idea from London

From Gizmag.......Cycling in Central London set to get safer with new superhighways

http://www.gizmag.com/london-cycle-s...35814/pictures

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Not sure if you are jesting or not, but:

Can you please explain what tax I am finding a loophole in as a cyclist? As far as I was aware, cyclist or not, we ALL pay our taxes like everybody else. Just that some choose to ride to work to avoid the congestion as well as get some exercise in.

Joke mate.
Pointing out anti cyclists opinion that cyclists don't pay tax unless they have found a loop hole which of course they haven't so they do pay tax. Hmmm

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

An idea from London

From Gizmag.......Cycling in Central London set to get safer with new superhighways

http://www.gizmag.com/london-cycle-s...35814/pictures

Problem with that sort of great idea is a critical mass of cyclists is needed. London is a city of nearly 8 million people in a smaller area than Adelaide.
Imagine the uproar by the Australian masses is a government was to commit existing lanes and cash resources to safe cycling...Oh hang on look at the crap around the Frome street Adelaide!

JP

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Joke mate.
Pointing out anti cyclists opinion that cyclists don't pay tax unless they have found a loop hole which of course they haven't so they do pay tax. Hmmm

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

It was tongue in cheek Shav, it's ok

Cheers guys, I didnt see a smilie so I had to ask the question. Forget what I wrote then.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Problem with that sort of great idea is a critical mass of cyclists is needed. London is a city of nearly 8 million people in a smaller area than Adelaide.
Imagine the uproar by the Australian masses is a government was to commit existing lanes and cash resources to safe cycling...Oh hang on look at the crap around the Frome street Adelaide!

JP

London are quiet progressive at times - didnt they also relocate their docks area out of the city so as to reduce traffic from trucks etc?

stuff like this has been tried a little in Melbourne such as St Kilda Rd and the dedicated lanes between footpaths and parked cars. Like most things it solves some problems but creates others (such as pedestrians walking between their parked car and the footpath now having to cross over a cycling 'road' with no awareness they are walking blindly into traffic - made worse by the fact they pop out from between parked cars. Such roads as Melbourne have done may solve 'dooring' to a degree and seperate cars from bikes but they aren't foolproof either)

[GasoLane]

Does anyone here ride in Sydney City?

Over time I've read about Clover Moore's bike lanes in newspapers, which are usually accompanied by remarks such as 'no one uses them' or 'they take up too much space' etc etc

Are they worthwhile, or is it just political grandstanding ?

(Please keep in mind AFF's political policy if replying )

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

London are quiet progressive at times - didnt they also relocate their docks area out of the city so as to reduce traffic from trucks etc?

Big cities have to be progressive to accommodate huge numbers of people and changing societies. Especially the big old cities that were developed around the horse and cart not the car.

JP

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Does anyone here ride in Sydney City?

Over time I've read about Clover Moore's bike lanes in newspapers, which are usually accompanied by remarks such as 'no one uses them' or 'they take up too much space' etc etc

Are they worthwhile, or is it just political grandstanding ?

(Please keep in mind AFF's political policy if replying )

Never ridden in the CBD, and don't want to.

RE: bike lanes.. they are ridiculous. Randomly ending, absolutely tiny and also separated by chunky concrete (that just screams safe).

All in all, they were a silly addition that didn't really help cyclists, and just annoy drivers even more.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

Never ridden in the CBD, and don't want to.

You've just got no sense of Adventure Dave

[aussiblue]

The RAC of WA just sent me a survey with the following covering email:

Hi XXXXX,

RAC is investigating the current issues facing cyclists and the barriers that prevent people from getting on their bike.

More people are choosing to ride for a variety of reasons including increasing congestion on the roads, better health, the cost of parking and the environment.

Despite the increasing popularity and some investment in cycling infrastructure to improve safety and convenience, cyclists remain highly vulnerable road users.

In 2011, 91 per cent of respondents to the first RAC cycling survey told us that they feared sharing the road with motorists.

Sadly, in 2014, 8 cyclists were fatally injured on WA roads.

The other main concerns facing riders in WA included a lack of cycle routes and a lack of end trip facilities such as bicycle lockers, secure parking areas and changing rooms.

Accelerated investment in infrastructure and behavioural programs that help to make cycling a safer and more viable option for more people in WA is vital.

Complete our cycling survey
Help us uncover the issues facing cyclists - pin point the areas where you feel action is needed to address safety issues and other barriers that deter more Western Australians from getting on their bikes.

Share with your friends and help keep WA cyclists safe.

The Royal Automobile Club of WA (Inc) 832 Wellington Street, West Perth, GPO BOX C140, Perth, WA 6839.

One of the few questions in the survey is along the lines of what the WA Government should do to encourage more cycling. I'm a little annoyed at that loaded question; they should have asked first if members believed that Government needed to encourage more cycling. And I understood, despite the sweeping motherhood statements in their Corporate Plan as below their objective was to look after motorist's interests not cyclist's interest.

Our vision

By 2020, Western Australians rate the RAC as their most valued organisation.


Our purpose

The RAC exists to protect and enhance the lifestyle of its members.

I can't find their constitution, articles or memorandum of association on their web site though.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

And I understood, despite the sweeping motherhood statements in their Corporate Plan as below their objective was to look after motorist's interests not cyclist's interest.
.

Surely your highlighted claimed RAC aim

'The RAC exists to protect and enhance the lifestyle of its members'

suggests that many of their members also cycle and have concerns about cycling that the RAC can address to enhance their lifestyle!
or
A motorist that doesn't kill a cyclist on their daily commute to work is a happy motorist.

JP

[prydey]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

One of the few questions in the survey is along the lines of what the WA Government should do to encourage more cycling. I'm a little annoyed at that loaded question; they should have asked first if members believed that Government needed to encourage more cycling.

it wasn't that long ago that every kid from a very young age had a bike, normally starting from about 4 years old. kids would ride to school, ride after school, ride on weekends etc etc. have a look at the local school bike racks now. they are nearly empty. where is all the kids riding around the neighbourhood?? too busy inside with their face glued to a screen!!

the sad thing is, many of those who oppose cycling probably had the above childhood. often the most vocal against, have the shortest memories.

[aussiblue]

I not opposed; I just don't see what it's do with the RAC.

'The RAC exists to protect and enhance the lifestyle of its members'

As I said that's part of a motherhood corporate planning document, not a legal objective in articles of association etc From it's annual report I know its incorporated under the WA Associations Incorporation Act so it must also have a formal constitution with objects.

[aussiblue]

PS: As a RAC member, I have emailed the RAC requesting a copy of said document (Section 28 of the WA Associations Incorporation Act 1987)

28. Rules to be available to members
An incorporated association shall keep and maintain in an up to date condition the rules of the association and, upon the request of a member of the association, shall make available those rules for the inspection of the member and the member may make a copy of or take an extract from the rules but shall have no right to remove the rules for that purpose.

I will be interested what the objects say noting club was originally founded by motoring enthusiasts.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I will be interested what the objects say noting club was originally founded by motoring enthusiasts.

I think you may have missed my point, some motoring enthusiasts are also avid cyclists, as members of said RAC have a 'vehicle' for lobbying for and ensuring safer roads for all.

JP

[prydey]

I'm also a member of the NRMA (RAA in adelaide). i think these groups are more about road users rather than car drivers.

[aussiblue]

I think you may have missed my point, some motoring enthusiasts are also avid cyclists, as members of said RAC have a 'vehicle' for lobbying for and ensuring safer roads for all.

No; I understood that; my concern is if it is ultra vires the objects of their constitution....i.e. its objects may say they have to act in the interest of their motorist members. If so arguably promoting policy that diverts Government funds from improving conditions for motorists to providing special facilities for cyclists may not be acting for the benefits of its members. The RAC can't go off and do whatever it likes whatever the merits; it has to conform to the objects of its constitution. It would have to show a beneficial outcome for the motorist members. But who knows; the objects may be very broad or vague.