Melb: Cyclist killed on Kingsway



T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
EuanB wrote:
>
> cfsmtb Wrote:
> > From the Warrnambool Standard.
> >
> > ******
> >
> > Former district man hit by truck
> > http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2006/09/14/1157827056649.html
> > September 14, 2006
> >
> > A 23-YEAR-OLD former Allansford man died after he was hit by a truck in
> > Melbourne on Tuesday. Calum Ellerton was cycling along Kings Way, in
> > South Melbourne, when he was struck by a truck turning onto Albert
> > Road.
> >
> > He was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after 3pm.
> >
> > Police have called for witnesses to the collision and will prepare a
> > report for the coroner. The death has prompted the Amy Gillett
> > Foundation to remind cyclists to be extra vigilant on the roads.
> >
> > "Cyclists are vulnerable road users who must ride responsibly and
> > exercise caution to avoid serious injury or death,'' general manager
> > Melinda Jacobsen said.
> >
> > The foundation was set up this year to promote a safe and harmonious
> > relationship between cyclists and motorists. Olympian Gillett died when
> > she and five teammates were struck by a car in Germany.

>
> Has the Amy Gillett Foundation been mis-quoted? I would have thought a
> more appropriate statement would be something along the lines of
> ``cyclists are vulnerable road users, all road users must act
> responsibly and exercise caution to avoid serious injury or death.''
>
> The quoted statement puts the onus on cyclists, it could quite easily
> be read that drivers need do nothing and it's up to cyclists to fend
> for themselves. Maybe there's a purpose behind the statement but I
> can't see it.


Sounds like one of those convenient "leave out half of it"
quotes...

I agree with your comment on the effect.

T
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0

eddiec

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
423
0
0
We all (mostly) seem to be quite outraged by the fact that the media hasn't paid more attention to this... But then should we be so surprised? It's about 'news', and someone getting killed on the road by a car, unfortunately, isn't particularly new or different - even if it's a bike involved. Same if a pedestrain got killed... The James Gould incident was vastly different and hence did create news for a while - but even that's history now. Sure, I agree with the feeling that a human life was lost and the media doesn't care - but it's not their job to care I suppose...

And would we really want them going on and on about cyclists dying on the roads? (not that that many do die on the roads) I have no doubt that it would turn off more new cyclists from riding, and as we know, the more ppl that ride, the safer it is for all of us... I know for darn sure that if there were big news items everytime a cyclist got hurt or killed on the road, my missus sure as hell wouldn't be letting me out on the roads. It's a bit like the whole child safety thing - Child safety statistically may be no worse today, but because of the media hype parents are more scared than ever... (bad analogy perhaps...)

I however am thankful that there's been a fair bit of good media lately about cycling and public transport due to fuel prices, etc... that's good stuff.
 

eddiec

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
423
0
0
eddiec said:
The James Gould incident was vastly different and hence did create news for a while - but even that's history now.

oops... no sooner do i say that that I see cfsmtb's post about the news items still on that issue - I guess it remains interesting for media...

Ironic how the things which happen nearly never (ie. bike killing ped) get massive news coverage while the everyday deaths of motorists get none... i guess news was never meant to be logical or representative.
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
eddiec said:
oops... no sooner do i say that that I see cfsmtb's post about the news items still on that issue - I guess it remains interesting for media...

Ironic how the things which happen nearly never (ie. bike killing ped) get massive news coverage while the everyday deaths of motorists get none... i guess news was never meant to be logical or representative.

As I mentioned, never allow due process get in the way of a witchhunt.

BTW changing topics back to silly media antics, just WTF did Naomi and co. think they were up to with that ridiculous cannibal story? pppfffffffffff...
 

flyingdutch

New Member
Feb 8, 2004
5,700
0
0
rooman said:
car hits car from behind, bends boot,breaks tail light-negligent driving, police throw book-
truck hits cyclist from behind, rider dies-police are still investigating WTF

"thought he had already got across the intersection", just won't look for him, just wont try and make some effort to see if he is in sight, no!.... cant see him anywhere, OBVIOUSLY, he's in the next suburb by now and not under my bumper"........sheesh

Thanks FD, hope the coroner gets a good chance to take a stance on this ... Am trying to get a panel of legal heads avail for coronial intervention... there are lots of lawyers who ride these days... any out there who can contribute some professional time pro bono for WoJ to sit in on a session or two?

happy to hear from you
[email protected]

do you know any of the 'Wigs on Wheels' peoplez?
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
flyingdutch said:
do you know any of the 'Wigs on Wheels' peoplez?

You imply the Wigs on Wheels Bicycle User Group? David Levin is the convenor and also a Bicycle Victoria Board member.

BTW - the BV Board elections are coming up again, there's four positions vacant this year.
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:25:06 GMT
Ben Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't see how more cyclists makes each of you more safe. Selfish car
> drivers are just going to be even more frustrated because they _seem_ to
> be delayed by cyclists more often.


How many bicycle/car crashes are from drivers actively doing something because
they feel they are delayed, compared to how many are caused by driver
inattention to bicycles or not being able to understand their speed or
road placement or movements?

more bikes means fewer of the latter crashes as drivers learn to look
for and understand bikes as road user.

A Scottish study clearly showed that drivers who were motorcyclists or
had motorcyclists as close relatives had significantly fewer
car/motorcycle crashes with driver at fault than the control group.

Zebee
 

flyingdutch

New Member
Feb 8, 2004
5,700
0
0
cfsmtb said:
You imply the Wigs on Wheels Bicycle User Group? David Levin is the convenor and also a Bicycle Victoria Board member.

BTW - the BV Board elections are coming up again, there's four positions vacant this year.

yeah 'random' (that's the new 'Der Freddy' according to my 12 yr old :rolleyes: ) :D

i was more asking does Rob know any of them personally, given his background

PS looks there is a cycling 'toff from toorak, err prahran' r_nning...
 
P

Peter Signorini

Guest
"Ben Thomas" wrote:

> I don't see how more cyclists makes each of you more safe. Selfish car
> drivers are just going to be even more frustrated because they _seem_ to
> be delayed by cyclists more often.


Do some research into cyclist accident rates vs bicycle use. Worldwide
you'll find that countries where bicycle use is high the cyclist death and
accident rates are lowest. This inverse realtionship works both ways - low
bicycle use is linked to high cyclist death/accident rates. Where the road
system has a greater volume of cyclists (and pedestrians) this makes driving
a more unpredictable experience, so drivers are forced to take more notice
of cyclists.
See http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/Traffic/intrigue.htm

It's also far more likely that drivers are cyclists themselves, or have
friends, family or colleagues who ride bikes. Suddenly cyclist welfare
starts to matter to drivers.

>
> It sounds like your wife is more sensible than you. IMHO of course. Please
> read on for an explanation.
>
> Personally I'd love to ride a motorbike. I don't need to take up any more
> space on the road as I don't have any gear to carry with me to work. I'd
> also love the power, maintenance, and running costs of a motorbike, for a
> fraction of the cost of my car. But I won't because humans make mistakes
> and it does happen that car drivers are human and on a motorbike you can't
> always guarantee your own safety. It's simply not worth the risk. I don't
> see the freedom and cost savings of a bike outweigh the potential for
> years of pain or years of my kids and wife having no father and husband.
>
> The same applies to human powered bikes.


You are joking surely!! The accident/death risks associated with
motorcycling are FAR higher than the risks involved with riding a bicycle on
the streets, especially if you simply manage to ride your bike in line with
the basic road rules.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ [email protected]
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
T

TimC

Guest
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 at 01:40 GMT, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>> Big problem with trucks is that they have bugger all vision close up.
>>
>> That big bonnet hides a hell of a lot.
>>
>> So a truckie gets distracted they can lose sight of bikes, or not see
>> them come up.

> Yep, I used to drive trucks and they've got so many blind spots it's
> not funny.


I've been driving mum's forrester the last couple of days (fscking
automatics. Fscking bullbars. Fscking impractical SUVs with very low
ground clearance such that if I don't enter my driveway at an angle, I
bottom out on something at the front). It's got a stupid blindspot at
the front that points directly down a crossroads whenever I am
turning to the left.


I want my bikes dammit! The truck was meant to arrive yesterday, but
it's only just arrived in fscking Sydney! Cnuts!

--
TimC
All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical
chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman
 

rooman

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
1,167
0
0
=flyingdutch]



i was more asking does Rob know any of them personally, given his background
yeah...we need more though, most of them arent "geared" for coronial work, but I have a few "criminal" specialists on hand...(take that anyway you like :) )

the WoW group is a plus because they exist firstly, but also because they do have some handy learned characters in their midst, and there is also the "Blue wHeelers" , a group of riding boys and girls in blue who can contribute in some ways from time to time, and the "HypocraticOafs"... medicos who pedal'ncrank and can offer some medical science contributions too...the network is building...there's a lot to be said for the "new golf"
 

flyingdutch

New Member
Feb 8, 2004
5,700
0
0
rooman said:
yeah...we need more though, most of them arent "geared" for coronial work, but I have a few "criminal" specialists on hand...(take that anyway you like :) )

the WoW group is a plus because they exist firstly, but also because they do have some handy learned characters in their midst, and there is also the "Blue wHeelers" , a group of riding boys and girls in blue who can contribute in some ways from time to time, and the "HypocraticOafs"... medicos who pedal'ncrank and can offer some medical science contributions too...the network is building...there's a lot to be said for the "new golf"

BlueWheelers! HypocraticOafs!! oh, very punny. or something... :D:D:D
 

Similar threads