Cyclist killed - Port Melbourne

[dave]

Bob Mc Corkle wrote:
>>Obviously he was hooning and rearended the truck
>
>
> Three "serious" cyclist deaths in a month in Vic. It's beginning to freak me
> out.
>
>

A 'serious ' death. Sorry I,m not taking the mikey.. But that goes
nicely with the channel 7 news last night.. "Seven people were killed by
a xuicide bomber in Bagdad. The bomber was among those killed" Thats
as opposed to an attempted suicide bombing I guess where you survive.
Or a minor case of death.

Being realistic yeah 3 deaths is a worry. Not sure its more than a
statistical glitch tho. Amazingly their helmets didnt save em. Go figure.

Dave

 

[dave]

Bob Mc Corkle wrote:
> "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Bob Mc Corkle wrote:
>>
>>>>Obviously he was hooning and rearended the truck
>>>
>>>
>>>Three "serious" cyclist deaths in a month in Vic. It's beginning to freak
>>>me out.
>>
>>A 'serious ' death. Sorry I,m not taking the mikey.. But that goes
>>nicely with the channel 7 news last night.. "Seven people were killed by a
>>xuicide bomber in Bagdad. The bomber was among those killed" Thats as
>>opposed to an attempted suicide bombing I guess where you survive. Or a
>>minor case of death.
>>
>>Being realistic yeah 3 deaths is a worry. Not sure its more than a
>>statistical glitch tho. Amazingly their helmets didnt save em. Go
>>figure.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> yeah, woops
>
> apologies to family of the other one (the four year old hit by a truck).
> Just as serious and just as sad.
>
> should've said death of three serious cyclists - meaning people like many of
> us
>
>

Yeah Well none of its good. I disaprove of death on principle. THo
for some people I make an exeption.

Ahh well what can you do? THe new regime of lower speed limits.. safer
cars and dumber drivers is inevitably going to up the rates of
vulnerable road users killed. Can;t be helped I am afraid. And
possibly not a subject to start me on.

Dave

 

[dave]

cfsmtb wrote:
> dave Wrote:
>
>>Obviously he was hooning and rearended the truck
>
>
> Hey, Dave, ever cycled alongside a truck and experienced the
> slipstream?

I spose it is technically possible to draft a truck and clobber it hard
enough to get killed. OK in that instance it would be the cyclists fault.

And sure a slip-stream could make you lose control... especially those
of us with TCR;s and compacts. With a truck alongside would be a
bad place to lose control.


OK maybe it aint that clearcut. I will still put my fiver on it being
mostly the trucks fault.. but I could be wrong We will find out

Dave

 

[dave]

Marx SS wrote:
> 4 cyclists deaths since Jan 1 2005, and it's only Feb 2nd!
>
> I'm bracing myself for that knee-jerk reaction from the powers that be.
> Hopefully we'll see out the winter (less cyclists on the roads
> generally) before it flares up towards next spring/summer & those type
> of 'safety measures' that we all love so much (sic) are rolled out.
> Shudder to think might they might be: register all cyclists? compulsory
> health insurance or 'cyclist' insurance (through some sort of bike
> registration set-up)? bike lanes on roads to be separated from other
> traffic by raised concrete strips? Cyclists disallowed from major
> vehicular routes (i.e.: Ballarat Rd, Nepean Hway), reflective vests all
> round? An adult on foot to precede the cyclist while holding a red flag
> to alert other motorists of his approach?
> Maybe a media campain to alert motorists to cyclists, most likley
> showing a cyclist riding on a marked bike lane in full fluro gear &
> reflectors, lights going, signaling left right & centre, walking their
> bike through a pedstrian crossing to cross a road etc. Obviously any
> cyclist who does not match this model would be just asking for it ;
> “but officer that cyclists didn’t have any wheel reflectors, I can’t
> possibly be held responcible for not seeing him”.
>
> Nothing constructive here sorry, maybe on the individual level, if we
> try to place less faith in motorists when we sharing the road, so they
> would have a lesser chance to disappoint us. I’ve seen heaps of times
> acyclist run right out into the traffic flow (turning, merging,
> negotciating atheir route) on the expectation that motorists understand
> that when it comes to right of way: cyclist = motorist.
>
>
They would never do this but if every investigation was started on the
lines of the car driver was in the wrong. i wonder if that would make a
difference. Certainly "But office I didnt see " should be an admission
of guilt.

Dave

 

[dave]

suzyj wrote:
> Marx SS wrote:
>
>
>>I'm bracing myself for that knee-jerk reaction from the powers that
>
> be.
>
> I reckon lots of ads showing carnage to bike riders, designed
> specifically to scare people away from riding. I mean, if there are no
> cyclists, then there'll be no cycling fatalities!
>
> By the year 2020, every child in Australia will be driven to and from
> school in a 2 tonne four wheel drive!
>
> Regards,
>
> Suzy
>
>

Such cynicism in one so young

Mind you I think you are right

Dave

 

[hemyd]

"Richard Sherratt" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:37:52 +1100, aeek
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >dave Wrote:
> >>
> >> Obviously he was hooning and rearended the truck
> >
> >not funny.
>
> I don't think Dave was trying to be funny.
>
> >OTOH people do pull in front of trucks, if they are in a car
> >its often just expensive and embarrassing.
>
> Depends on the relative sizes. I knew someone who was driving a truck
> when a small car skidded under the back wheels of his trailer. He
> hardly felt it, but the car was squashed almost flat.
>
> It's not always the truck driver's fault. Most of them are very
> careful and responsible drivers and much more attentive than the
> average car driver.

Riding to work on St. Kilda Rd this morning, I approached the section
leading up to St Kilda Junction, where there is a green coloured bike track,
with traffic in the main left lane crossing over it to get to the left turn
lane going to Queens Rd. Normally traffic banks up across the green bike
track, making it difficult for the cuclists to get around it. There was a
large truck next to me on my right, about to go across to that lane.
Instead, he stopped well short, leaving a very decent space for me to keep
on going along the track. Wow! 'On ya, truckie. I waved my thanks to him.

Henry.

>
> >How about we wait to find out what happened ?
>
> Good advice.
>
> --
> Regards.
> Richard.

 

[[email protected]]

>>>>> "hemyd" == hemyd <[email protected]> writes:

hemyd> Riding to work on St. Kilda Rd this morning, I approached the
hemyd> section leading up to St Kilda Junction, where there is a
hemyd> green coloured bike track, with traffic in the main left lane
hemyd> crossing over it to get to the left turn lane going to Queens
hemyd> Rd.

I hate that lane, in the wet it's greasy as all get out.

hemyd> There was a large truck next to me on my right, about to go
hemyd> across to that lane. Instead, he stopped well short, leaving
hemyd> a very decent space for me to keep on going along the
hemyd> track. Wow! 'On ya, truckie. I waved my thanks to him.

Trucks get a bad rap, IME they're among the better road users out
there. Of course a fast way to tick off a truck is to cruise up in
front of it at the lights when it's just over taken you. I don't think
most people appreciate how much work it is to overtake when driving a
truck.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[hippy]

[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>"hemyd" == hemyd <[email protected]> writes:
> hemyd> There was a large truck next to me on my right, about to go
> hemyd> across to that lane. Instead, he stopped well short, leaving
> hemyd> a very decent space for me to keep on going along the
> hemyd> track. Wow! 'On ya, truckie. I waved my thanks to him.
>
> Trucks get a bad rap, IME they're among the better road users out
> there. Of course a fast way to tick off a truck is to cruise up in
> front of it at the lights when it's just over taken you. I don't think
> most people appreciate how much work it is to overtake when driving a
> truck.

I don't think most cyclists appreciate how much draft you can get
sitting behind a truck!!

hippy

 

[flyingdutch]

Trucks get a bad rap, IME they're among the better road users out
there. Of course a fast way to tick off a truck is to cruise up in
front of it at the lights when it's just over taken you. I don't think
most people appreciate how much work it is to overtake when driving a
truck.
--
Cheers
Euan

speaking of which, did anyone see the letter to the 'little' paper about a month back from a truckdriver who started saying he had no issue with changeing lanes to overtake cyclists but got really wound up by cyclists whom insist on going to the front of the queue and making him have to repeatedly pass them again. Then stated he woud take great delight in passing as close as possible to the cyclist the second time.
Bit of a **** but i see his point too. If they could just stop all that exhaust comin out the back, I'd hang back there too

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> I don't think
> most people appreciate how much work it is to overtake when driving a
> truck.

Apparently some of them are fitted with engines to help...

(I konw where you're coming from, but it never seems to work the other
way around.)

--
Shane Stanley

 

[hippy]

flyingdutch wrote:
> speaking of which, did anyone see the letter to the 'little' paper
> about a month back from a truckdriver who started saying he had no
> issue with changeing lanes to overtake cyclists but got really wound up
> by cyclists whom insist on going to the front of the queue and making
> him have to repeatedly pass them again. Then stated he woud take great
> delight in passing as close as possible to the cyclist the second
> time.
> Bit of a **** but i see his point too. If they could just stop all that
> exhaust comin out the back, I'd hang back there too

Diesel fumes are race fuel man! <snort>

hippy

 

[TimC]

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 at 02:27 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> flyingdutch wrote:
>> speaking of which, did anyone see the letter to the 'little' paper
>> about a month back from a truckdriver who started saying he had no
>> issue with changeing lanes to overtake cyclists but got really wound up
>> by cyclists whom insist on going to the front of the queue and making
>> him have to repeatedly pass them again. Then stated he woud take great
>> delight in passing as close as possible to the cyclist the second
>> time.
>> Bit of a **** but i see his point too. If they could just stop all that
>> exhaust comin out the back, I'd hang back there too
>
> Diesel fumes are race fuel man! <snort>
>
> hippy


--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
vi is [[13~^[[15~^[[15~^[[19~^[[18~^ a
muk[^[[29~^[[34~^[[26~^[[32~^ch better editor than this emacs. I know
I^[[14~'ll get flamed for this but the truth has to be
said. ^[[D^[[D^[[D^[[D ^[[D^[^[[D^[[D^[[B^
exit ^X^C quit :x :wq dang it :w:w:w :x ^C^C^Z^D
-- Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> from alt.religion.emacs

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
flyingdutch <[email protected]> wrote:

> speaking of which, did anyone see the letter to the 'little' paper
> about a month back from a truckdriver who started saying he had no
> issue with changeing lanes to overtake cyclists but got really wound up
> by cyclists whom insist on going to the front of the queue and making
> him have to repeatedly pass them again. Then stated he woud take great
> delight in passing as close as possible to the cyclist the second
> time.

The other dark side of some truck drivers -- if you upset them, they
have no qualms about using physical intimidation.

> Bit of a **** but i see his point too. If they could just stop all that
> exhaust comin out the back, I'd hang back there too

Look at those signs many trucks wear: "If you can't see my mirrors, I
can't see you." On a bike, being behind a truck, being visible to the
driver, and being where drivers behind can see you can be a tricky
balancing act.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[[email protected]]

>>>>> "Shane" == Shane Stanley <[email protected]> writes:

Shane> Look at those signs many trucks wear: "If you can't see my
Shane> mirrors, I can't see you." On a bike, being behind a truck,
Shane> being visible to the driver, and being where drivers behind
Shane> can see you can be a tricky balancing act.

And a truck needs to see you behind him when stationary at the lights
because?

Take it from me, when at the lights the only thing a truck's interested
in is regaining forward momentum as quickly as possible; much like a
cyclist. Getting in a truck's way has more potential for danger than
being unseen behind a truck.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Peter Signorini]

"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> flyingdutch wrote:

> > Bit of a **** but i see his point too. If they could just stop all that
> > exhaust comin out the back, I'd hang back there too
>
> Diesel fumes are race fuel man! <snort>

Diesel fumes ---> microscopic particulates = known carcinogen.

Are you sure you like the races?

Cheers
Peter

 

[Peter Signorini]

"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> flyingdutch wrote:

> > Bit of a **** but i see his point too. If they could just stop all that
> > exhaust comin out the back, I'd hang back there too
>
> Diesel fumes are race fuel man! <snort>

Diesel fumes ---> microscopic particulates = known carcinogen.

Are you sure you like the races?

Cheers
Peter

 

[hippy]

Peter Signorini wrote:
> "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Diesel fumes are race fuel man! <snort>
>
> Diesel fumes ---> microscopic particulates = known carcinogen.
>
> Are you sure you like the races?

Ya know.. I heard that sunlight can cause cancer too.. maybe we should
all stay indoors!? Oh wait, but then we might get cancer from the paint
or the microwave or the computer, maybe a nearby high voltage line.
Don't eat well-done bbq meat either, I'm pretty sure that's a carcinogen.

tired sarcastic hippy

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> And a truck needs to see you behind him when stationary at the lights
> because?

Because they don't stay staionary when the lights change.
>
> Take it from me, when at the lights the only thing a truck's interested
> in is regaining forward momentum as quickly as possible; much like a
> cyclist.

And that in itself doesn't give either any special privileges.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[hippy]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>And a truck needs to see you behind him when stationary at the lights
>>because?
>
> Because they don't stay staionary when the lights change.

Correct. They move forward. I don't see your point..

hippy

 

[Resound]

"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Shane Stanley wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>And a truck needs to see you behind him when stationary at the lights
> >>because?
> >
> > Because they don't stay staionary when the lights change.
>
> Correct. They move forward. I don't see your point..
>
> hippy

Not that it's VERY relevant with regards to whether the driver can see you
or not but if you're facing uphill with any reasonable gradient, I wouldn't
be getting too close behind ANY vehicle. Most truck drivers get going with
very little rollback, but everyone has "moments" from time to time.