Driving into cyclists the Emma way

Page 31 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 16, 2011
1,133
0
0
movingtarget said:
Stingray34 said:
Sickening. Be the usual excuse I suppose. I didn't see him or the sun was in my eyes etc.........as for the reversing and leaving the scene, both imply a level of stupidity and lack of concern to add to the probable culpable driving.

Here's an update:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-charged-over-hit-and-run-crash-that-killed-cyclist-20190511-p51m9e.html

It's concerning she was bailed. Doubt that would happen if she ran over a stroller. Her 'oh so sorry' story is chillingly negligent at best and an outright lie (implying manslaughter) at worst. She's also a dual-national, making her a flight risk.

Her effing Lionel Hutz of a lawyer, "We say there's no failure to assist," because she didn't realise there was a human she was dragging under her car...oh, well that's alright then. Carry on.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
RedheadDane said:
The riders can be seen attempting to diffuse the situation, encouraging the driver to leave who accuses them of riding three-abreast.
Let me get this straight; they were in the cycling lane, right? So even if they had been three-abreast, it wouldn't matter coz… they were in the cycling lane.
Yep. What you need to realise is that in Australia we must have one of if not the worst attitudes by drivers towards cyclists in the world.

Every time there is some online news story that concerns cyclists, all these ignorant people climb in and write trash. For example I am quite sure the majority of Australian drivers think all cyclists should carry license plates for identification and be registered like a car.

There is also a lot of generalising. All cyclists get blamed for the few idiots who run red lights, don't wear helmets (according to our laws) or ride illegally on footpaths. There is also inadequate cycling infrastructure in Australia and even the cycle-ways are poorly designed for road cyclists who ride at speed with skinny tyres. There is also an irrational disconnect between the actual and perceived delays or inconvenience caused by cyclists using public roads.

Apparently these people would feel better if the occasional idiot who rides through a red light or illegally on a footpath can be identified so they can be rounded up and burned at the stake :mad:

The animosity is over the top but I think related directly to the matters discussed in this thread. In my opinion the causes are varied but relate to increasing congestion on roads making people more agitated and impatient behind the wheel. We are also accused of being "Lycra warriors". In other words they think we wear Lycra for looks rather than personal preservation on any ride over 30 minutes. Ignorance. Others I am sure are a bit jealous seeing people who are obviously fitter than them.

I am thankful I can ride on relatively quiet roads in early mornings (except for weekends) when little traffic and lower risk of idiots. But an idiot running you down is still always in the back of your mind.
And it gets better when they do things like complain you're not on the footpath when they're driving yet complain that you are when they're walking.
 
Stingray34 said:
movingtarget said:
Stingray34 said:
Sickening. Be the usual excuse I suppose. I didn't see him or the sun was in my eyes etc.........as for the reversing and leaving the scene, both imply a level of stupidity and lack of concern to add to the probable culpable driving.

Here's an update:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-charged-over-hit-and-run-crash-that-killed-cyclist-20190511-p51m9e.html

It's concerning she was bailed. Doubt that would happen if she ran over a stroller. Her 'oh so sorry' story is chillingly negligent at best and an outright lie (implying manslaughter) at worst. She's also a dual-national, making her a flight risk.

Her effing Lionel Hutz of a lawyer, "We say there's no failure to assist," because she didn't realise there was a human she was dragging under her car...oh, well that's alright then. Carry on.
The police are usually on top of the flight risk. Her passport will be flagged. She won't be going anywhere not internationally anyway. As for the bail, I'm not surprised by that, knowing how the legal system operates.
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
And let me guess; nobody even considers that making proper bike lanes would be a solution.
a couple of years back it was allocated to spend $5m on adding and upgrading bike lanes in Sydney - the outcry of how expensive it was and what a waste of money on cyclists, that followed was unreal... coupled to the fact that they'd just allocated $34bn (that's billion) to connect up 3 freeways and save motorists around 3 minutes of travel time, made the hypocrisy of govt spending and car priority pretty damned obvious...
 
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
RedheadDane said:
And let me guess; nobody even considers that making proper bike lanes would be a solution.
a couple of years back it was allocated to spend $5m on adding and upgrading bike lanes in Sydney - the outcry of how expensive it was and what a waste of money on cyclists, that followed was unreal... coupled to the fact that they'd just allocated $34bn (that's billion) to connect up 3 freeways and save motorists around 3 minutes of travel time, made the hypocrisy of govt spending and car priority pretty damned obvious...
There was a similar issue in Penrith recently with a "Green Bridge" built across the Nepean river. Western Suburbs bogans were all up in arms that they couldn't drive on it and possibly save around 15-20 seconds :rolleyes:
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,133
0
0
Archibald said:
Stingray34 said:
...and the Tool of the Month Award goes to...


https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cop-that-d-head-cyclists-in-viral-video-were-off-duty-policemen-20190131-p50upn.html


Oh boy, this is a good one. A feel-good story for put-upon cyclists.


EDIT: Actually, I take that back. This isn't a feel-good story at all. I apologise for my facetiousness. You see, when I posted this yesterday there were no comments on the article. Reading them this morning was sobering, as the majority of them were sympathetic to the driver. They were sympathetic to a man that drove a one-and-a-half metric ton steel machine - at speed - on a path for pedestrians and cyclists. Is it just me or is that as reckless as carrying a live grenade into a food court? One we call terrorism, the other making a point to entitled, noisy minorities that receive special treatment. Bear in mind that this newspaper isn't a trashy, ***-stirring tabloid read by angry, pick up-driving men in wifebeaters. It's regarded as the masthead of choice for the educated middle class of Sydney, Australia.

I don't understand this widespread animosity for our particular out-group in English speaking countries. Just what is it about Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Canada, the USA et al that festers this indignation? That we're frequent, flagrant rule breakers? Yeah, no. Not many people chase down motorists that run red lights. In fact, not many motorists chase down cyclists that do that, even if they'd like to, because most people's rage is impotent in the real world. But it's there alright, even if it's absent for those people who do things that can and often do kill innocent strangers.

What depresses me, though, is not the scale and tenacity of this strange sentiment against people who choose and enjoy a form of innocuous, self-propelled transport. It's the realisation that this will never change. Not in our lifetimes.

What strange creatures we are.
why the animosity?
that's easy - we're an easy target, a very easy target
you can't pick on gender, race, religion, 'preference', short, fat, ugly, etc, etc, which leaves effectively just us left as one of the few groups you can legally discriminate against...
Want to vent at some group? well, go for this one. Hell, you can even run one over and only cop a small fine instead of going to jail...

Follow up to this tool that drove a ute on a shared path, used mobile camera and swore at cyclists that happened to be off-duty cops:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/driver-guilty-over-confrontation-with-cyclists-who-were-off-duty-policemen-20190605-p51uor.html

Convicted on all three counts.

The comments are the usual barrel of laughs, keen insight and good cheer.
 
In the days after the video went viral, a GoFundMe page was set up - by a stranger - to raise cash to cover Harris' legal costs.
Mr Ward said Harris did not know the person behind the online fundraiser, which eventually raised just over $4000.
There's the problem! People apparently feel sympathy for the criminal!
Wonder if anyone had been injured, would people have been so willing to donate?

---
Unfortunately, while I'm fully aware that we have it pretty good here in Denmark, it's not perfect.
Young rider dies after being hit by a car - during a race - and a lot of people seem to have the reaction of "What was he doing off the bike lane?" "Cyclists just need to learn to follow traffic rules!" and so on. I repeat it was during a race!
 
Re:

movingtarget said:
Yes, it was a ridiculous outcome but it revolved around a finding that each of them was equally to blame. I don't agree with that myself, but I didn't hear all the evidence. If he did not take every chance to avoid her, despite her being at fault too, that could easily be the outcome. Basically the cyclist apparently failed to conduct his side of the litigation correctly. He made no counter-claim against the pedestrian. If he had, he would presumably recovered damages against her too (for the other 50% of the blame) and would not have had an order against him for all the costs. He said that the reason he made no claim himself was that he did not believe in the claims culture. That's not a good reason not to take all the opportunities there are to stick up for oneself. He should have taken and accepted proper legal advice sooner.
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
movingtarget said:
Yes, it was a ridiculous outcome but it revolved around a finding that each of them was equally to blame. I don't agree with that myself, but I didn't hear all the evidence. If he did not take every chance to avoid her, despite her being at fault too, that could easily be the outcome. Basically the cyclist apparently failed to conduct his side of the litigation correctly. He made no counter-claim against the pedestrian. If he had, he would presumably recovered damages against her too (for the other 50% of the blame) and would not have had an order against him for all the costs. He said that the reason he made no claim himself was that he did not believe in the claims culture. That's not a good reason not to take all the opportunities there are to stick up for oneself. He should have taken and accepted proper legal advice sooner.
Well I applaud him for staying out of the courts but it was at his own cost and you are right, some legal advice would not have gone astray. I guess if you are a pedestrian crossing a road and oblivious to the world around you you get the benefit of the doubt. Just as well the bike rider wasn't on the phone he might have got 10 years for attempted manslaughter or something.
 
It's interesting that it seems to be focused on missing infrastructure, when the bigger issue appears to be driver attitudes...
"The major causes of cyclist deaths are motor vehicle crashes, and hit-and-runs and driver inattentiveness are unfortunately the most common factors."
The large dooring stat should fall under the inattentiveness category, especially when the Europeans seem to have that sussed with regard to checking before opening their car door...

I'd be curious to know if any professional driving instructors actually teach/taught kids about other road users, or whether it's all about 'how to past your driver's test'...
(I'm not fussed on the parents teaching their kids, because you can pretty much guarantee they don't teach them to look out for cyclists, let alone acknowledge their existence - beyond being some sort of menace on their roads)
 
The issue of drivers flinging open car doors without looking is probably under reported. Fatalities and injuries often occur because riders are being hit by other vehicles trying to avoid the doors. Even experienced cyclists can't do much about that when it happens as you need the time to react. Stopping suddeny in front of cyclists is just as bad. Some drivers just can't seem to judge the speed of cyclists, and the not looking before exiting a vehicle is laziness and reckless.
 
It's interesting that it seems to be focused on missing infrastructure, when the bigger issue appears to be driver attitudes...
"The major causes of cyclist deaths are motor vehicle crashes, and hit-and-runs and driver inattentiveness are unfortunately the most common factors."
The large dooring stat should fall under the inattentiveness category, especially when the Europeans seem to have that sussed with regard to checking before opening their car door...

I'd be curious to know if any professional driving instructors actually teach/taught kids about other road users, or whether it's all about 'how to past your driver's test'...
(I'm not fussed on the parents teaching their kids, because you can pretty much guarantee they don't teach them to look out for cyclists, let alone acknowledge their existence - beyond being some sort of menace on their roads)

Opening doors is something I was taught in school. But that was another time in the US and the PacNoWest did have/has a stronger integrated cycling culture.

Your point is key though. There’s zero awareness on the part of many drivers. Similarly, so-called dedicated infrastructure is somewhat better than open road, but it just attracts pedestrians, wheelchairs, double parked laborers and police.

The coming solution on the part of NY’s useless and inept mayor is to license/register cyclists and require helmets. Not because this will save lives, but it will take the onus of the city in the case of non-compliant fatalities and open a space for prosecution in other instances.

Typical neoliberalism.
 
It's interesting that it seems to be focused on missing infrastructure, when the bigger issue appears to be driver attitudes...
"The major causes of cyclist deaths are motor vehicle crashes, and hit-and-runs and driver inattentiveness are unfortunately the most common factors."
The large dooring stat should fall under the inattentiveness category, especially when the Europeans seem to have that sussed with regard to checking before opening their car door...

I'd be curious to know if any professional driving instructors actually teach/taught kids about other road users, or whether it's all about 'how to past your driver's test'...
(I'm not fussed on the parents teaching their kids, because you can pretty much guarantee they don't teach them to look out for cyclists, let alone acknowledge their existence - beyond being some sort of menace on their roads)

Well the one thing experienced cyclists can do is hit the open door. Take the accident that one can relatively control rather than flinging myself into traffic without thinking or or looking.
 
Well the one thing experienced cyclists can do is hit the open door. Take the accident that one can relatively control rather than flinging myself into traffic without thinking or or looking.
Often there isn't enough time to make a choice, the door is hit anyway. You also hear of riders hitting the door and sliding into oncoming traffic or the cars beside them. Either way it's usually nasty especially if a rider is going relatively fast. Bones get broken at the minimum.
 
I guess I can’t envisage the conditions where I’d be going that fast in range of a door. Last time (years ago) I went up, over and landed on my back in the street with my bike on top of me. Things like that probably set a precedent for taking doors seriously. (Although that was a passenger exiting a cab driver side in the middle of the street.) Cyclists are largely operating at a higher level of exposure, there should be some awareness with that of things that are consistently avoidable.
 
I guess I can’t envisage the conditions where I’d be going that fast in range of a door. Last time (years ago) I went up, over and landed on my back in the street with my bike on top of me. Things like that probably set a precedent for taking doors seriously. (Although that was a passenger exiting a cab driver side in the middle of the street.) Cyclists are largely operating at a higher level of exposure, there should be some awareness with that of things that are consistently avoidable.
Even pedestrians have to be watched closely. I had a teenage girl run straight under my front wheel, didn't even have time to hit the brakes. She was standing on a traffic island and inexplicably ran straight out in front of me. Luckily I wasn't going really fast but I somersaulted over the bars and landed on my back. I think that was the start of some later back issues...............such is life ...
 
Well the one thing experienced cyclists can do is hit the open door. Take the accident that one can relatively control rather than flinging myself into traffic without thinking or or looking.
The luxury of time for such a decision choice in such cases is rare. An evasive response will be automatic/instinctive.

Experienced cyclists don't ride in the door zone to begin with.
 
Yeah, if you’d read through the thread rather than rushing to be obnoxious you’d have seen that I addressed door range and speed.

I don’t know what state of consciousness you inhabit, but I don’t put myself close to active cars at a speed that precludes reflex. What do you think? 30? 35? Sure, I’ve crashed at times where there’s no time to respond. But not due to urban cars.

You think that’s not controllable?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY