Log in:  

Register

Driving into cyclists the Emma way

Discuss your experiences road riding, share knowledge or other general road cycling topics. A doping discussion free forum.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky


22 Dec 2017 11:55

Former U23 Australian champ Jason Lowndes killed while training near Bendigo this morning:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/male-cyclist-dies-after-being-hit-by-a-car-near-bendigo/news-story/8ee89fb93ea317046c2b3d6b38bd1aa6

He turned 23 last week :sad: :mad:
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,910
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Driving into cyclists the Emma way

27 Dec 2017 16:57

The Tennessee (former) headmaster (I posted details of previously) who was filmed on GoPro sideswiping a bicyclist with his Volvo shooting brake and speeding away is scheduled to go to trial on 29 May of next year.

...If convicted of the federal charges, Neely faces 2-12 years in prison on the reckless aggravated assault charge; up to 5 years in prison for lying to a federal agent; and up to 20 years in prison for obstructing justice....


In interviews after the fact (presumedly once he'd sobered up), he continued to refer to his victim as the 'unfortunate young man who struck his car.'
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 920
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re: Driving into cyclists the Emma way

28 Dec 2017 00:01

StyrbjornSterki wrote:The Tennessee (former) headmaster (I posted details of previously) who was filmed on GoPro sideswiping a bicyclist with his Volvo shooting brake and speeding away is scheduled to go to trial on 29 May of next year.

...If convicted of the federal charges, Neely faces 2-12 years in prison on the reckless aggravated assault charge; up to 5 years in prison for lying to a federal agent; and up to 20 years in prison for obstructing justice....


In interviews after the fact (presumedly once he'd sobered up), he continued to refer to his victim as the 'unfortunate young man who struck his car.'


The delusions of alcohol and characters that are bad enough before they start drinking.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,477
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

11 Jan 2018 09:54

User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,910
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus



16 Jan 2018 03:34

FFS

https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/38612559/drug-driver-who-hit-vic-cyclist-appeals/?cmp=st

“I didn’t mean to hit him head on your honour, I was high on ice. He didn’t even die or nothin!”
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,910
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

16 Jan 2018 15:52

I'm sorry... what? Being high is an excuse for hitting someone? What the **** is wrong with people? "Unfortunately breaking one law caused me to accidentally break another."

Hitting people is illegal in Australia, right? From some of the cases being posted around here, I'm kinda not sure...
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,767
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

16 Jan 2018 20:24

It’s supposedly illegal, but you’re never certain what the consequences for the driver will be. The driver will always have excuses offered up for them by certain demographics.

Read the whole article, it’s a prime example of where this selfish, ridiculous country is at ATM.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,910
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re:

16 Jan 2018 23:18

42x16ss wrote:It’s supposedly illegal, but you’re never certain what the consequences for the driver will be. The driver will always have excuses offered up for them by certain demographics.

Read the whole article, it’s a prime example of where this selfish, ridiculous country is at ATM.


The judge would have to be on ice to give her a sentence reduction. I don't think it's going to happen, well you can only hope. I'm sure victims advocate groups would be up in arms about it if the sentence was reduced. Either way, there is no cure for stupidity and immoral behavior and jail often doesn't change people anyway, sometimes it just makes people worse. These are the cases that the courts and legal practitioners have to get right with their sentencing and also aligning with community expectations.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,477
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re:

17 Jan 2018 21:04


Hitting people is illegal in Australia, right? From some of the cases being posted around here, I'm kinda not sure...


Not if they're riding a bike it is not.
winkybiker
Member
 
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 14:59
Location: Vancouver, BC.

Re: Driving into cyclists the Emma way

24 Jan 2018 07:39

User avatar Stingray34
Member
 
Posts: 1,127
Joined: 16 Feb 2011 23:16

Re: Driving into cyclists the Emma way

24 Jan 2018 08:44



"Bike riders are putting their own lives at risk and don't know it."

I don't think a truck driver needs to tell a cyclist that...........
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,477
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Driving into cyclists the Emma way

02 Mar 2018 13:38

Ireland takes a stand against driving too close to cyclists:

The new regulations will need to be approved by the Irish Attorney General before they can be implemented, and will see a minimum passing distance (MPD) of one metre on roads with a speed limit of 50kmh (31mph) or less and a MPD of 1.5 metres on roads with a speed limit of more than 50kmh.


http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/irish-government-to-introduce-new-law-making-close-passes-illegal-371166

Always nice to see the law eventually catch up with common sense. Of course drivers at least here in the U.S. don't take mph too seriously and might not take mpd, either.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

02 Mar 2018 20:20

The topic of Presumed Liability has been raised here in Australia with a great deal of misinformation and outright childish whining:

https://www.facebook.com/tennewsqueensland/videos/1784478954905470/

At least they moderate the comments (unlike 7 and 9)
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,910
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

02 Mar 2018 20:21

Meanwhile:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/motoring/on-the-road/sickening-traps-planted-to-snare-cyclists/news-story/d32a08a37993b011410169bdfc7822fb

Don’t even bother looking at the comments here, it’s a Murdoch paper, so they’re unmoderated.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,910
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

13 Apr 2018 20:42

Last summer, a woman cyclist in Austin, Texas was gathered up in a drink driver's accident and seriously injured (the 'alleged' drink driver, ironically, was named 'Bykowski'). Earlier this month, the same woman was struck by a motorist in a hit-and-run and injured again, sustaining broken hand & finger bones. The motorist was located, arrested and charged with failure to stop and render aid. I don't know if the hit-and-run is an implied or included charge in the failure to stop but there is no mention in the linked story of the 'alleged' motorist being charged with the act of running into a bicyclist.

The story also mentions that the woman's boyfriend also has twice been struck by a motorist and seriously injured while cycling.

Cyclist recovering from crash with drunk driver injured again in hit-and-run

According to my research (might be out of date) the state of Texas does not have a 3-foot law but the city of Austin does. According to this 2013 story in the Washington Post, Austin had been actively enforcing the law. The linked story mentions that Austin police had issued 104 tickets for $167 each but doesn't mention how long a period of time that covered.

According to this story on a cycling activism website, Austin's method requires an officer on a bicycle and a pursuit vehicle, which highlights two of the glaring flaws in the 'minimum separation' laws. First, they aren't making any effort to enforce the law when violators fail to give minimum separation to a "real" cyclist, only to their police decoy. Second, unless the bicycle copper is the Manx Missile, the operation will always require (at minimum) a second officer in an automobile to chase down and apprehend the offender. And I have to question how many jurisdictions are sufficiently concerned with the safety of such a small segment of the population to remove two coppers from "real" police work -- which is how I am certain many (if not most) 'cagers' will view it -- and put them to protecting a bunch of scofflaws in spandex.

The latter linked story also mentions that the Austin model doesn't use electronic measurement but involves training the bicycle officers to use visual cues to recognise when their three foot halo is being violated. But it gives them the discretion to have a warning ticket issued if they aren't convinced a violation has occurred. Which sounds to me to be a better plan than electronic enforcement because it somewhat reduces the gross cost of the enforcement program by avoiding the expense of the ultrasonic distance measuring device. And it allows the officer to enforce what is basically a "stop-and-go penalty" (to borrow a motor racing term) if there is any doubt that the letter of the law was violated.

The only two places I have heard tell of that could be bothered to spend for the bike-mounted "sonar" were Chattanooga, Tennessee and Ottawa, Canada. Chattanooga is home to Litespeed and Merlin, so they obviously have a vested interest in protecting cyclists, but I don't know why Ottawa would be so kindly disposed toward us.

What I like least about the minimum separation laws is that none of them (AFAIK) obligates the motorists (when practicable) to cede the entire lane to the cyclist. That failing creates three further problems, the first being one of enforcement. It is much 'fiddlier' to determine (to a reasonable certainty) whether the motorist has left one metre/three feet separation to the cyclist than to determine whether the motor vehicle has vacated the entire lane (at least in cases when a centreline is present).

The second problem is it effectively codifies the motorist's unilateral right to share the cyclist's lane. Which also necessarily is a codification that the cyclist has no right to the greater lane.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that sheer common sense dictates that mandatory separation distance should increase with motor vehicle speed. So chapeau to the Irish for getting that bit right (the first place I have seen that incorporated).

Ideally, I would prefer the statutes read something like,

Whenever practicable, the motorist must vacate the entire lane and overtake the bicyclist(s) while entirely within the oncoming lane (as determined by the position of the vehicle's near-side tyres relative to the centreline stripe). When no centreline stripe is present, or when the entire roadway is less than two full lanes in width [which will be the case in many country lanes in the UK and parts of the continent], the motorist shall drive as far to the opposite side of the roadway as is practicable, but in no case violating the minimum separation distance and overtaking speed as set forth in the following clause.

Only when opposing traffic or roadway conditions makes using the oncoming lane impractical may the motorist share the cyclist's/cyclists' lane, and then only after slowing to an overtaking speed relative to the cyclist(s) of no faster than a brisk walk (approximately 8 kph/5 mph), always maintaining a safe distance between the motor vehicle and bicycle(s) of not less than one metre/three feet, and shall maintain such clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle(s).


It's wordy to enunciate but the concept is simple. Give the cyclist ALL THE ROOM you are able. If circumstances compel you to share THE CYCLIST'S LANE, slow the FLIP down.

This would give police a much more workable tool for enforcement, it only requires half as many police be involved, all motor vehicle-mounted police can participate in enforcement, and enforcement extends to ALL cyclists, not just the police's decoy. Furthermore, it codifies the cyclist's 'right' to the entire lane, and it requires motorists to slow down if they're sharing the cyclist's lane. I would sooner a car only leave me half a metre but slow appreciably than give me the full metre, even a metre and half and still going 80 kph.

I also think fines for violating the minimum separation law needs to be comparable to drink driving costs. Which in much of the developed world is well into four figures pounds/Euros/dollars. First of all, drink driving law is about punishing a driver for acts that potentially could but did not necessarily threaten human safety. The threat to safety posed by minimum separation violators is at least as material (I would argue more) than a driver cited for drink driving who didn't cause an accident or wasn't observed driving erratically (e.g., caught at a police checkpoint). I see no logical reason why the penalty applied should not be as great.

EDIT:
It obviously is going to require a rather sharp jolt to make motorists wake up and respect cyclists' presence on the road, and I reckon a fine of 2500 € just might be the ticket.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 920
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

15 Apr 2018 07:19

There's an online article at the Sydney Morning Herald about cagers and cyclists that echoes the same generally bleak prospect for Aussie cyclists as too many of the posts in this thread.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 920
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re:

16 Apr 2018 18:04

StyrbjornSterki wrote:Last summer, a woman cyclist in Austin, Texas was gathered up in a drink driver's accident and seriously injured (the 'alleged' drink driver, ironically, was named 'Bykowski'). Earlier this month, the same woman was struck by a motorist in a hit-and-run and injured again, sustaining broken hand & finger bones. The motorist was located, arrested and charged with failure to stop and render aid. I don't know if the hit-and-run is an implied or included charge in the failure to stop but there is no mention in the linked story of the 'alleged' motorist being charged with the act of running into a bicyclist.

The story also mentions that the woman's boyfriend also has twice been struck by a motorist and seriously injured while cycling.

Cyclist recovering from crash with drunk driver injured again in hit-and-run

According to my research (might be out of date) the state of Texas does not have a 3-foot law but the city of Austin does. According to this 2013 story in the Washington Post, Austin had been actively enforcing the law. The linked story mentions that Austin police had issued 104 tickets for $167 each but doesn't mention how long a period of time that covered.

According to this story on a cycling activism website, Austin's method requires an officer on a bicycle and a pursuit vehicle, which highlights two of the glaring flaws in the 'minimum separation' laws. First, they aren't making any effort to enforce the law when violators fail to give minimum separation to a "real" cyclist, only to their police decoy. Second, unless the bicycle copper is the Manx Missile, the operation will always require (at minimum) a second officer in an automobile to chase down and apprehend the offender. And I have to question how many jurisdictions are sufficiently concerned with the safety of such a small segment of the population to remove two coppers from "real" police work -- which is how I am certain many (if not most) 'cagers' will view it -- and put them to protecting a bunch of scofflaws in spandex.

The latter linked story also mentions that the Austin model doesn't use electronic measurement but involves training the bicycle officers to use visual cues to recognise when their three foot halo is being violated. But it gives them the discretion to have a warning ticket issued if they aren't convinced a violation has occurred. Which sounds to me to be a better plan than electronic enforcement because it somewhat reduces the gross cost of the enforcement program by avoiding the expense of the ultrasonic distance measuring device. And it allows the officer to enforce what is basically a "stop-and-go penalty" (to borrow a motor racing term) if there is any doubt that the letter of the law was violated.

The only two places I have heard tell of that could be bothered to spend for the bike-mounted "sonar" were Chattanooga, Tennessee and Ottawa, Canada. Chattanooga is home to Litespeed and Merlin, so they obviously have a vested interest in protecting cyclists, but I don't know why Ottawa would be so kindly disposed toward us.

What I like least about the minimum separation laws is that none of them (AFAIK) obligates the motorists (when practicable) to cede the entire lane to the cyclist. That failing creates three further problems, the first being one of enforcement. It is much 'fiddlier' to determine (to a reasonable certainty) whether the motorist has left one metre/three feet separation to the cyclist than to determine whether the motor vehicle has vacated the entire lane (at least in cases when a centreline is present).

The second problem is it effectively codifies the motorist's unilateral right to share the cyclist's lane. Which also necessarily is a codification that the cyclist has no right to the greater lane.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that sheer common sense dictates that mandatory separation distance should increase with motor vehicle speed. So chapeau to the Irish for getting that bit right (the first place I have seen that incorporated).

Ideally, I would prefer the statutes read something like,

Whenever practicable, the motorist must vacate the entire lane and overtake the bicyclist(s) while entirely within the oncoming lane (as determined by the position of the vehicle's near-side tyres relative to the centreline stripe). When no centreline stripe is present, or when the entire roadway is less than two full lanes in width [which will be the case in many country lanes in the UK and parts of the continent], the motorist shall drive as far to the opposite side of the roadway as is practicable, but in no case violating the minimum separation distance and overtaking speed as set forth in the following clause.

Only when opposing traffic or roadway conditions makes using the oncoming lane impractical may the motorist share the cyclist's/cyclists' lane, and then only after slowing to an overtaking speed relative to the cyclist(s) of no faster than a brisk walk (approximately 8 kph/5 mph), always maintaining a safe distance between the motor vehicle and bicycle(s) of not less than one metre/three feet, and shall maintain such clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle(s).


It's wordy to enunciate but the concept is simple. Give the cyclist ALL THE ROOM you are able. If circumstances compel you to share THE CYCLIST'S LANE, slow the FLIP down.

This would give police a much more workable tool for enforcement, it only requires half as many police be involved, all motor vehicle-mounted police can participate in enforcement, and enforcement extends to ALL cyclists, not just the police's decoy. Furthermore, it codifies the cyclist's 'right' to the entire lane, and it requires motorists to slow down if they're sharing the cyclist's lane. I would sooner a car only leave me half a metre but slow appreciably than give me the full metre, even a metre and half and still going 80 kph.

I also think fines for violating the minimum separation law needs to be comparable to drink driving costs. Which in much of the developed world is well into four figures pounds/Euros/dollars. First of all, drink driving law is about punishing a driver for acts that potentially could but did not necessarily threaten human safety. The threat to safety posed by minimum separation violators is at least as material (I would argue more) than a driver cited for drink driving who didn't cause an accident or wasn't observed driving erratically (e.g., caught at a police checkpoint). I see no logical reason why the penalty applied should not be as great.

EDIT:
It obviously is going to require a rather sharp jolt to make motorists wake up and respect cyclists' presence on the road, and I reckon a fine of 2500 € just might be the ticket.


This weekend a driver honked as he came up behind me on a winding street that was about to open onto a major intersection as if I needed to cede the space and get pressed against parked cars. When I motioned with my hand for him to calm down (it wasn’t a profane gesture) he became more distressed. I told him “don’t honk at me; just don’t hit me.” To which he replied “it’s my horn; next time I’ll hit you.”

The notion of car as extension of self is getting greater rather than less with many people and this would have to be combatted as well. The laws you describe above exist in some places but they’re minimally enforced; it’s nnot just the fines there would need to be a greater culture of criminalization to make a real difference with some sectors of the population.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,678
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Back to top