Hell Ride Bike Bullies - what is the answer? - Page 3

Bleve wrote:
> 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.

If you look back up the thread it was in direct response to warrwych's
statement ``I reckon the greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves.''
That's the _only_ reason I pointed to that paper.

I'm not saying it's not a big deal, on the contrary it _is_ a big deal.
What I was trying to draw attention to is that the media is up in arms
over a death to a pedestrian caused by a cyclist yet deaths to
pedestrians caused by motorists, which are far more frequent, barely
rate a mention.

It's the same problem, people dying because other people don't take
sufficient care and / or blatantly break the rules out of selfishness.

What I really wanted people to take away from this is:

>>>> Most importantly though, the sole recommendation's:
>>>>
>>>> *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.

As _most_ roadies drive that level of education would hopefully cross
pollinate in to their riding.

>> 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.

Keeping focus on the immediate issue has its place, however the risk
there is tunnel vision which could result in a less than holistic
remedy. The big picture needs to be borne in mind too.

> 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


Well written. Minor niggle, not sure systematic is the right word,
implies conscious choice which on one level it is but as you've pointed
out there's ``enormous pressure in the bunch'' so perhaps `systemic' is
more accurate.

Or I could be talking out of my **** :-)

I hope I've managed to state my position clearly this time.
--
Cheers
Euan

EuanB wrote:
> # Seventy-four percent of pedestrian crashes are the fault of the
> pedestrian.

That was in the days before they had little white brain electrodes to
make them wander like drunks.

Donga

TimC wrote:
> 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.
>

I like the idea of a self-regulating Hell Ride with bibs. If you want to
ride with the group on the "training ride" you register and get a bib.
$5 gives you a permanent bib so you don't need to register each week,
and some spares for occasional riders at $2 per ride. Ok so it is not a
ride with organisers, but I bet there is a core group of regulars that
could drive that if they wanted, and would "discourage" non-bib riders
from being in the group. Doesn't stop hoon riders riding along beach Rd
but would demonstrate that the Hell Ride is regulating itself.

DaveB

\

Good piece...mirrors many views too, good to put it out C.!

The regular training groups I ride with, have recently adopted all riders in the group wear the same jersey.

This provides a cohesive unit projection to other riders wishing to jump in..., and to motorists, who see the group is behaving and doing the right thing and generally dont try and threaten the group by close passing etc...( all riders in one jersey can be a bit intimidating to outsiders, actually, which can be a good thing)...

Getting bthe same jersey can be achieved in many ways, using LBS jerseys, club jerseys, pro tour jerseys etc... or the group dropping down to a place like UNO and getting a batch purchase ....or a web purchase, whatever.

I am not a fan of other riders not known to the group joining in....if some one comes along not known/acceptable to us and tries, we clearly give this pitch to them:

"not today, not this ride, sorry buddy...if you want to join meet us at ( place), we ride on (days/times) and have rules of conduct and a level of skill we expect for safety of the group and others, but we welcome new riders , and the forming of new groups as we grow, and we will help you learn the protocols and skills... ( now (politely) p. off and leave us alone for this ride!!)...

or time/conditions permitting, words to like effect...

So if anyone who doesnt ride bunches feels the urge, go to your LBS and ask about group rides and how they run them, and where & when you can get experience and training to join in...and remembering what Bleve has said and what we do for our group, look for a group you are sure has safety and commonsense as priorities.

On 2006-08-31, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Bleve wrote:
>> Euan wrote:
>>> Bleve wrote:
>>>> EuanB wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>
> If you look back up the thread it was in direct response to warrwych's
> statement ``I reckon the greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves.''
> That's the _only_ reason I pointed to that paper.
>
> I'm not saying it's not a big deal, on the contrary it _is_ a big deal.
> What I was trying to draw attention to is that the media is up in arms
> over a death to a pedestrian caused by a cyclist yet deaths to
> pedestrians caused by motorists, which are far more frequent, barely
> rate a mention.

And not only that, I don't think I've ever seen a newspaper advocate
the following of motorists: "under the right circumstances,
(motorists) could be charged with manslaughter, which carries a
maximum 20-year jail term.

Conduct endangering life could carry a 10-year jail term."

Anyone got handy stats on charges given for a driver who runs a red
light, kills a man, and stops to wait for police/ambulance? I don't
think even hit and runs currently get you 10 years.

--
TimC
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the
world." - Grant Peterson

You can clearly see and thus identify the cyclist, you cannot so easily see the driver so the car needs to be identifiable.

"warrwych" <warrwych.2de0cz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:warrwych.2de0cz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Bleve Wrote:
>> Donga wrote:
>> > >From a distance, I expect it will blow over and go back to the
>> usual
>> > high tension status quo, with the same behaviour, on which lots of
>> > people have an opinion, but with no one having a real answer. Some
>> > riders will choose to change their habits for the better. Why should
>> > this incident be the trigger for a watershed, if it's been waiting
>> to
>> > happen?
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree. The fuss will blow over in a few days, but it
>> hasn't helped "us" as road cyclists one bit that the inevitable
>> finally
>> happened.
>
>
> I remember some of the sh!t experienced by cyclists on Beach Rd not
> long after the Aust girls were hit in Germany last year. Rather than
> raising awareness of road safety btn drivers and cyclists, it seemed to
> inflame the rage of drivers (and one pedestrian in particular, who
> pushed a woman off her bike). I won't be surprised if similar happens
> this weekend.
>

I've already had a few incidents of tooting and get-off-the-bloody-road
shouting and pointing and in the normal course of things I never get that.
I'm certainly NOT getting off the bloody road though. They can stew in their
cars, watching me romp through peak hour traffic (stopping at each and every
red light along the way).

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnefd33o.82l.zebeej@gmail.com...
> 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

There is a difference between identifying the vehicle and the driver of said
vehicle. Motorists are effectively anonymous. Having said that I'd happily
have an easily identifiable rego tag on my bike provided it could happen
without interfering with the function of the vehicle. rearward facing
readable plates predent a problem in that regard, but practical issues
aside, I'd have no problem with it. I'm not sure why, but something in me
objects to the identifying number being placed on *me*. I don't have a
rational reason for that though.

Hit and run penalty changed last year. Maximum is now 10 years, but only in circumstances where a person is killed or suffers serious injury, the driver knows the accident has occurs and that someone is seriously injured, and where they fail to render assistance. Road Safety Act 1986 with 2005 ammendments, Section 61 "Duty of driver etc. if accident occurs". This section only applies to the driver of a *motor* vehicle.

I've been wondering a bit about why the police are reported to have said that he will be charged with running a red light, but nothing about further charges except that they are being considered. What charges could they lay? Manslaughter would be the most serious. But as Tim asks, do drivers ever get manslaughter charges? There seem to be a bunch of motor vehicle specific offenses which are of lesser severity than manslaughter. "Culpable driving causing death" is in the Crimes Act. In any case it seems that motorists get concessional treatment by being charged with a lesser offence (at least in the eyes of the public). But these lesser offences aren't applicable to cyclists. So perhaps the police/DPP are in the situation where to charge the cyclist would involve a charge more serious (manslaughter) than that used for the driver of a motor vehicle. Is that fair? I think not, it should be the same charge.

public indifference, media- supported xenophobia, Legal indifference (legal with a capital L , meaning the institution of law and lawmakers, enforcers etc), lack of unity and cohesion with cycling ranks, and the usual suspects.

Euan wrote:

> > Because what you've written seems to be suggesting that because it's so
> > rare, it's not a big deal.
>
> If you look back up the thread it was in direct response to warrwych's
> statement ``I reckon the greatest danger to pedestrians is themselves.''
> That's the _only_ reason I pointed to that paper.

Understood, and that's fair enough.

> I'm not saying it's not a big deal, on the contrary it _is_ a big deal.
> What I was trying to draw attention to is that the media is up in arms
> over a death to a pedestrian caused by a cyclist yet deaths to
> pedestrians caused by motorists, which are far more frequent, barely
> rate a mention.

It's the 'man bites dog' thing, of course, at least in terms of the
media storm, but that isn't my concern. The short term frenzy will
(has already? We wait and see after tomorrow's hellride, eh? I for
one, am not riding anywhere near Beach Rd tomorrow morning ... call me
chicken if you like ... ) die down, but the underlying problem remains.

>
> It's the same problem, people dying because other people don't take
> sufficient care and / or blatantly break the rules out of selfishness.

Agreed.

> What I really wanted people to take away from this is:
>
> >>>> Most importantly though, the sole recommendation's:
> >>>>
> >>>> *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.
>
> As _most_ roadies drive that level of education would hopefully cross
> pollinate in to their riding.

*nod*

> >> 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.
>
> Keeping focus on the immediate issue has its place, however the risk
> there is tunnel vision which could result in a less than holistic
> remedy. The big picture needs to be borne in mind too.

Sure, but from *my* position, I don't work with gumby commuters riding
on pavements and jumping red lights in the CBD, I work with roadies,
and the tunnel is my view

> > 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
>
>
> Well written. Minor niggle, not sure systematic is the right word,
> implies conscious choice which on one level it is but as you've pointed
> out there's ``enormous pressure in the bunch'' so perhaps `systemic' is
> more accurate.
>
> Or I could be talking out of my **** :-)

Heh. I think systematic is correct, at least in my experience, but
thanks for the input


>
> I hope I've managed to state my position clearly this time.

Yes, thankyou

ghostgum wrote:

> I've been wondering a bit about why the police are reported to have
> said that he will be charged with running a red light, but nothing
> about further charges except that they are being considered. What
> charges could they lay? Manslaughter would be the most serious. But
> as Tim asks, do drivers ever get manslaughter charges? There seem to
> be a bunch of motor vehicle specific offenses which are of lesser
> severity than manslaughter. "Culpable driving causing death" is in
> the Crimes Act.

The USA has an automatic charge of 'vehicular homicide' in cases where
someone dies. No idea what it really means or what penalties are attached to
this charge.

Theo

TimC wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote

>> 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.

That's an interesting, and IMHO, invalid argument.

> 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.

You want to tell that to the relatives of the peds killed, or injured?

We spend tens of millions on pool fences to save a very small number of
children (in WA, 1 or 2 per annum) who drown in swimming pools that do not
belong to their parents or grandparents. Yet the biggest thing in the news
in WA this week is that 150, yes 150, children have died (actually murdered)
in the last five years due to abuse and neglect, whilst suposedly under the
care and supervision of the Child Welfare Dept. And most people , including
me, were not even aware.

Theo
Still trying to figure out why the river doesn't need to have a 'pool
fence'.

aeek wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>> 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?

> You can clearly see and thus identify the cyclist, you cannot so
> easily see the driver so the car needs to be identifiable.

So if I see a cyclist runing a red light, the police will have no trouble
tracking him/her down and fining them?

Theo

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> What is the greatest danger to cyclists?

Other cyclists, and peds who want to cross the road at crosswalks and
traffic lights. :-)

Theo