Hell Ride Bike Bullies - what is the answer? - Page 2

Hrmmmm, this must be the second or third mention I've made about this either on a.b thread or on the WoJ email list.

WoJ has joined the Bicycle Federation of Australia.
http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/about/members.htm

The BFA AGM delegates (from each member organisation) have been requested for agenda items to assist BFA strategy in 2007, I did forward Jeff Ibbotson's welcome email onto our list, direct quote below.

" .. Welcome to the BFA, I trust we can all work together to advance cycling.

I'm pretty impressed at the awareness raising effectiveness of your website. We've put a link to it from the BFA members page on our website.

WoJ's objectives look very closely aligned with activities the BFA supports. Immediate past Pres Rod Katz is a strong supporter of behaviour change programs. Cyclist training is one of BFA's key projects at the moment. Drivers licence cycling questions fits well with an idea I'd like to see developed of having cycling awareness built into driver training courses. So plenty of common ground there. All we need is people to do it all.

I hope I can catch up with you at the BFA AGM that will be in Melbourne on 14 Oct. .."


*****************

So if you want a voice at a national level, with Australias peak advocacy cycling org, get onboard and give us a hand developing a appropriate policy framework.
http://www.woj.com.au/about/campaigns-initiatives/

warrwych wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/lapkv
>
> Almost a balanced argument. At least it's not inflammatory, coming from
> the Hun. Makes The Age look like the New Idea. Unfortunately it still
> bundles up all Beach Rd cyclists with the HR group. And how to you
> determine "threatening behaviour" by a cyclist to a pedestrian on a
> bike path?
>
>


The poll being conducted by the Age is stupid.
http://www.theage.com.au/polls/results.html

It asks:
Should cyclists come under the same laws and penalties as motorists?

I thought we did!

Don't the same laws apply to everybody?
If I get off my bike and get into a car am I then subjected to some
other system of laws? Do we have a different legal system or different
judges? Of course not. The Age is stupid and they should be told so.

Friday

This rather old Victorian Parliamentary Report suports that view: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc...0safely-02.htm

A couple of choice excerpts:

# Seventy-four percent of pedestrian crashes are the fault of the pedestrian.

Obviously suffers from the same accuracy problems as cyclist fatalities, i.e. no ouiga board.

# The 1989 VicRoads pedestrian study showed that of the one hundred and fourteen crashes involving adult pedestrians over twenty years, 40% had been drinking and 24% had a BAC reading over .15.44 The risk of an alcohol related pedestrian crash appeared to increase in inner suburban locations close to the pedestrian's home.

Most importantly though, the sole reccomeondation:

That driver training should place more emphasis on teaching young people the appropriate skills to drive safely, to be aware of the surrounding environment and other road users.

Which as has been discussed before is in conflict with established Australian case law, i.e. Derrick v. Cheung.

In article <cfsmtb.2de350@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com>,
cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2de350@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> It all comes back to Attitudes.

In the long run, perhaps. But Euan's point still bears emphasising: this
is a rare event, especially compared with the number of fatalities
involving cars. Ironically, it's the very rarity that is part of the
reason for all the media interest.

Even the most blatant bike-basher understands the concept of living in a
glass-house, and there's no harm done in emphaisising the statistical
reality.

--
Shane Stanley

Bingo. Only thought of WOJ, the Promotion Fund etc after I posted..

More than 99% are the same. However the road regulations have some bits that apply to bicycles, and some bits that only apply to motor vehicles. For example, a bicycle is not required to indicate when turning left. A bicycle may pass to the left of another vehicle in some circumstances.

In Victoria, the road regulations has a clause that applies to cyclists:

287. Duties of a driver involved in an accident
(1) If owing to the presence of a vehicle (other than a motor vehicle) an accident
occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any animal)
is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the vehicle—
(a) must immediately stop the vehicle; and
(b) must immediately render such assistance as he or she can; and
...
Penalty: 3 penalty units.

There is nothing in the road regulations about the requirement for drivers of motor vehicles to stop and render assistance. That is because it is in the Road Safety Act, and the penalty isn't a paltry 3 units. Instead the penalty is up to 1200 penalty units and 10 years in jail. Historically there haven't been many hit and run fatalities caused by cyclists, so nobody has jumped up and down to get the penalties against cyclists increased.

It's probably a discrepancy like this that is causing the police to be unsure about how to charge the cyclist.

EuanB wrote:
> warrwych Wrote:
> > Thanks Euan for the clarification - makes better sense now. I reckon the
> > greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves. In terms of raising the
> > bar, it's probably easier and more effective to start local, ie the sum
> > of the parts...This rather old Victorian Parliamentary Report suports that view:
> http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc...0safely-02.htm
>
> A couple of choice excerpts:
>
> # Seventy-four percent of pedestrian crashes are the fault of the
> pedestrian.
>
> Obviously suffers from the same accuracy problems as cyclist
> fatalities, i.e. no ouiga board.
>
> # The 1989 VicRoads pedestrian study showed that of the one hundred and
> fourteen crashes involving adult pedestrians over twenty years, 40% had
> been drinking and 24% had a BAC reading over .15.'44'
> (http://tinyurl.com/z8dv5) The risk of an alcohol related pedestrian
> crash appeared to increase in inner suburban locations close to the
> pedestrian's home.
>
> Most importantly though, the sole reccomeondation:
>
> *That driver training should place more emphasis on teaching young
> people the appropriate skills to drive safely, to be aware of the
> surrounding environment and other road users.*
>
> Which as has been discussed before is in conflict with established
> Australian case law, i.e. Derrick v. Cheung.

None that that addresses the case where a [driver|cyclist] *is* at
fault when they break road laws (eg: go through a red light). In this
instance, the stats are meaningless. Some arsehole shot a red light,
and now someone's died because of it. If the cyclist, gets off with a
paltry fine, then that is a travesty of justice of the first order. If
it was a car driver that did it to a cyclist, we all know the outrage
that would be all over this forum and elsewhere.

The question is, why did they shoot the light, what is an appropriate
deterrant, and what is an appropriate response from the rest of us who
ride on the roads either in small, manageable bunches, or idiot-fests?

I can hazard a good guess re why ... the culture of the big bunch rides
is "don't get dropped". The temptation is always there to shoot lights
to stay with the lead group. Ive ridden enough of those rides to 'get'
how they work, and the pressure inside the bunches to keep together. I
used to cop flak for stopping at lights when I used to do the North Rd
rides, and riders would go flying past me when I did it, until it got
to the point that I simply didn't want to be a part of it anymore, but
rest assured, anyone that hasn't been on one, that this is *very* much
the case.

hellride participants have whined here in the past about red lights
being triggered by police etc out to "get" them, I'm all for it *if*
it's also backed by the police making a genuine effort to crack down on
the illegal stuff - the red light shooting, the using the wrong side of
the road etc. If that drives a few people away from the big bunch
rides, then that's a *GOOD* thing, because they're the idiots that
cause the problem in the first place, and the culture of those
particular rides *does* need to be given a beating behind the bikeshed.
Once a bunch gets over a certain size (I guess about 20 riders or so,
but that's a guess) then the urge to shoot lights and break other rules
is very high indeed, in my experience simply because the aim is to stay
with the bunch, and it's not going to slow down or wait for you once it
gets to a certain size.

WoJ, through different threads on Cyling forums and on www.woj.com.au , tried to expound some suggestions and initiatives...to be positive and help stimulate outcomes and approaches.

Please join in and outline some thoughts...there is a wealth of cycling knowledge in a.b and contributors near network/s, so please talk around, think about the concepts, and contribute please...

We have asked this before on a few topics, that all suggestions be put up to build a list in a brainstorming fashion, without fear of criticism ( which is inevitable here but please try and see any suggestion you dont agree with as a catalyst for an alternative and if you have to comment then outline the fors and against and your alternative with +/- potential consequences ... ok?)

http://www.woj.com.au/about/campaigns-initiatives/

agree totally , the farm is not on the result...WTF why do they have to consider that being dropped is worth risking a life, maybe even their own...

Interesting to see what is going to be said by the six oclock ride on Friday morn at Naples Street crossing...

on attitude and behaviour........

On Sunday I raced at Cora Lynn. At the start line briefing there was some chatter and mumblings about the day, the weather, the course and the competition, and before we started there was also discussion about Mentone .

A comment came from one of the seasoned riders well in his 50's that "well people dont realise that a bunch is like an articulated vehicle and it cant stop at lights or for intersections after the front has gone through"...WRONG, was my comment back....plus I added "the bunch is made up of 10-15-20-sometimes 50 or more independantly functioning organisms with an obligation under the law and a responsibility to discharge a duty of care and an independant capability unhindered by anyone else to call a halt, signal to stop, and actually do so."...naturally I was howled down by said senior who said well "I wont be stopping for any bloody lights" .... WTF...naturally I wasnt well treated in the echelon as we snaked our way across the country side, so I elected to leave the bunch and ride alone, and enjoy the ride in the country...

cfsmtb has addressed this, on ingrained attitude and behavioural patterns that are high on the list...

a solution is not coming overnight, but it can happen over time, and with the right policy to address education, attitude, skill levels and competencies.

The prize is a huge one if only we get it right in the approach to the solution.

contribute please: http://www.woj.com.au/about/campaigns-initiatives/

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:49:34 +1000
EuanB <EuanB.2de45p@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with the idea though, it fails for the same reason that
> if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear fails.

Oh it certainly has its problems. It's a problem - should cars be
identifiable? And if so, what is the differnce between them and
bicycles?

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:53:20 +1000
warrwych <warrwych.2de45q@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Euan for the clarification - makes better sense now. I reckon
> the greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves. In terms of raising
> the bar, it's probably easier and more effective to start local, ie the
> sum of the parts...
>

What is the greatest danger to cyclists?

Zebee

On 2006-08-31, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:49:34 +1000
> EuanB <EuanB.2de45p@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with the idea though, it fails for the same reason that
>> if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear fails.
>
> Oh it certainly has its problems. It's a problem - should cars be
> identifiable? And if so, what is the differnce between them and
> bicycles?

The greatest difference is that cars cause death to what was it,
40-80, pedestrians per year and 11 cyclists. Cyclists, on the other
hand, cause 1-2 pedestrian deaths per year (in a bad year, ie, this
year), and no car drivers.

Spend the money on the areas where it is most needed. Cyclists are
not yet a *real* risk to community safety (ok, maybe neil mitchell's
blood pressure, but do we *really* care if he carks it and dies
tomorrow?). It is counterproductive to spend much effort at all
trying to make them any less of a *real* risk.

--
TimC
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

I thought BV's description of the Hell Riders was accurate: they are to
cycling as illegal street racers are to cars.

You simply can't have a race of this nature on a public road in a major
city. The participants are testimony to the triumph of testosterone
over common sense. Bull**** in the paper about "inexperienced riders"
being the problem is just that: bull****. I don't care how experienced
you are, you can't ride in a group of 40-50 riders flat out in the
middle of car traffic. It's an accident waiting to happen.

If you look at it, the most likely outcome to the HellRide was a 4WD
ploughing through them and killing 10-20 of them. I'm surprised that
this hasn't happened to date.

Either ban car traffic on Beach rd to Mordialloc and let them do laps
from the city, or book riding more than two abreast and running red
lights. There isn't any practical alternative to these two choices.




ghostgum wrote:
> Friday Wrote:
> >
> > The poll being conducted by the Age is stupid.
> > http://www.theage.com.au/polls/results.html
> >
> > It asks:
> > Should cyclists come under the same laws and penalties as motorists?
> >
> > I thought we did!
> >
> > Don't the same laws apply to everybody?
> > If I get off my bike and get into a car am I then subjected to some
> > other system of laws? Do we have a different legal system or different
> > judges? Of course not. The Age is stupid and they should be told so.
> >
> > Friday
>
> More than 99% are the same. However the road regulations have some
> bits that apply to bicycles, and some bits that only apply to motor
> vehicles. For example, a bicycle is not required to indicate when
> turning left. A bicycle may pass to the left of another vehicle in
> some circumstances.
>
> In Victoria, the road regulations has a clause that applies to
> cyclists:
>
> 287. Duties of a driver involved in an accident
> (1) If owing to the presence of a vehicle (other than a motor vehicle)
> an accident
> occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any
> animal)
> is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the vehicle-
> (a) must immediately stop the vehicle; and
> (b) must immediately render such assistance as he or she can; and
> ...
> Penalty: 3 penalty units.
>
> There is nothing in the road regulations about the requirement for
> drivers of motor vehicles to stop and render assistance. That is
> because it is in the Road Safety Act, and the penalty isn't a paltry 3
> units. Instead the penalty is up to 1200 penalty units and 10 years in
> jail. Historically there haven't been many hit and run fatalities
> caused by cyclists, so nobody has jumped up and down to get the
> penalties against cyclists increased.
>
> It's probably a discrepancy like this that is causing the police to be
> unsure about how to charge the cyclist.
>
>
> --
> ghostgum

Bleve wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>> warrwych Wrote:
>>> Thanks Euan for the clarification - makes better sense now. I reckon the
>>> greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves. In terms of raising the
>>> bar, it's probably easier and more effective to start local, ie the sum
>>> of the parts...This rather old Victorian Parliamentary Report suports that view:
>> http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc...0safely-02.htm
>>
>> A couple of choice excerpts:
>>
>> # Seventy-four percent of pedestrian crashes are the fault of the
>> pedestrian.
>>
>> Obviously suffers from the same accuracy problems as cyclist
>> fatalities, i.e. no ouiga board.
>>
>> # The 1989 VicRoads pedestrian study showed that of the one hundred and
>> fourteen crashes involving adult pedestrians over twenty years, 40% had
>> been drinking and 24% had a BAC reading over .15.'44'
>> (http://tinyurl.com/z8dv5) The risk of an alcohol related pedestrian
>> crash appeared to increase in inner suburban locations close to the
>> pedestrian's home.
>>
>> Most importantly though, the sole reccomeondation:
>>
>> *That driver training should place more emphasis on teaching young
>> people the appropriate skills to drive safely, to be aware of the
>> surrounding environment and other road users.*
>>
>> Which as has been discussed before is in conflict with established
>> Australian case law, i.e. Derrick v. Cheung.
>
> None that that addresses the case where a [driver|cyclist] *is* at
> fault when they break road laws (eg: go through a red light).

I didn't say it did so I'm at a loss as to why you thought I did.

Could you clarify please? I don't disagree at all with what you said,
in fact I 100% support it. I just seem to be having trouble with people
reading things in to what I type which aren't there recently and I'm
getting a little bit paranoid.
--
Cheers
Euan

Euan wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
> >> warrwych Wrote:
> >>> Thanks Euan for the clarification - makes better sense now. I reckon the
> >>> greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves. In terms of raising the
> >>> bar, it's probably easier and more effective to start local, ie the sum
> >>> of the parts...This rather old Victorian Parliamentary Report suports that view:
> >> http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc...0safely-02.htm
> >>
> >> A couple of choice excerpts:
> >>
> >> # Seventy-four percent of pedestrian crashes are the fault of the
> >> pedestrian.
> >>
> >> Obviously suffers from the same accuracy problems as cyclist
> >> fatalities, i.e. no ouiga board.
> >>
> >> # The 1989 VicRoads pedestrian study showed that of the one hundred and
> >> fourteen crashes involving adult pedestrians over twenty years, 40% had
> >> been drinking and 24% had a BAC reading over .15.'44'
> >> (http://tinyurl.com/z8dv5) The risk of an alcohol related pedestrian
> >> crash appeared to increase in inner suburban locations close to the
> >> pedestrian's home.
> >>
> >> Most importantly though, the sole reccomeondation:
> >>
> >> *That driver training should place more emphasis on teaching young
> >> people the appropriate skills to drive safely, to be aware of the
> >> surrounding environment and other road users.*
> >>
> >> Which as has been discussed before is in conflict with established
> >> Australian case law, i.e. Derrick v. Cheung.
> >
> > None that that addresses the case where a [driver|cyclist] *is* at
> > fault when they break road laws (eg: go through a red light).
>
> I didn't say it did so I'm at a loss as to why you thought I did.

Because what you've written seems to be suggesting that because it's so
rare, it's not a big deal. Maybe I have the wrong tack on it, but it
does look to me as though there's a lot of "bikes very rarely kill
people, so what's the problem?" going on both here and on oher
discussion lists. I very much doubt that that's your position, but
that is how I interpret the timing of your citing of the statistics you
did. It looks like a deflection, when at this time, I think that we, as
cyclists, should be facing the issue of badly behaved groups head-on.
It's awful, and we have a bitter pill to swallow and a lot of people
need a severe attitude readjustment, but I think it's important that we
do what we can to stay focussed on it.

> Could you clarify please? I don't disagree at all with what you said,
> in fact I 100% support it. I just seem to be having trouble with people
> reading things in to what I type which aren't there recently and I'm
> getting a little bit paranoid.

Understood. I guess I was/am trying to keep focus on the immediate
issue, not a statistical overview of road safety (which we've done to
death numerous times already!). We all know that car drivers kill way
more people than bicycle riders do.

FWIW, I just wrote this to publicly state my position with the riders I
work with (I hope Lawrence agrees with me! We're allowed dissent within
the ranks, of course, she has edit permission on the webserver after
all) with regards to large bunch rides and what I urge riders I work
with to consider before they go riding :

http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/bunch-ride-safety

This has been a policy of mine since I started coaching. With my
coaching hat on I feel I have a responsibility to encourage my riders
to ride responsibly and safely and to be good ambassadors for our sport
and recreation on bicycles. I take this very seriously indeed.