Report: Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes ATSB Jul'06

[Aeek]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:20:20 +1000, "Peter Signorini"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Fractal" wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how many of those "hit from rear" accidents are actually left
>> hooks or side swipes rather than true straightline collisions. Also how
>> many were due to mobile phone use or driver fiddling with radio etc. Could
>> do with some more detail.
>
>Unfortunately this is the sort of detail we are never going to get. When the
>cyclist is lying dead on the road there's noone to contradict the driver's
>story "Oh, he just veered out infront of me! There was nothing I could do."

the last Canberra cycling death ?Jan 2005? was eventually reported as
the cyclist running the red light, but I still wonder. Its a lightning
fast green with 5 lanes and a median strip to cross. Easy to start on
the green and be still crossing on the red. Timed so a car can JUST
make it . Combined with a coasting driver watching the light for the
green ready to floor it.

Its possible they both entered the intersection with the green but
only the driver was alive to say.

Oh, and there's no pedestrian crossing so no middle button to press.

 

[Plodder]

--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Terryc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:44d83556$0$17543$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au
....
> dewatf wrote:
>
> >>cached version.) "DERRICK v. CHEUNG " "the right to drive normally"
> >
> >>Sucks, doesn't it?
> >
> > Not at all. It is common sense and the foundation of negligence law.
> > Anything else simply assigns negligence to the car driver for the
cyclist
> > or pedestrian's commiting of an action that violates the road rules,
which
> > would be nonsensical and completely unworkable.
>
> What a load of fscking ********. It has nothing to do with negligence.
>
> What you are saying is that a motorists may run over a cyclists because
> that cyclist is impinging on what they see as their right to drive
> normally. This concept contradicts so many other principles in law that
> it is obviously wrong.

How about transferring the principle? I'm "cycling normally" along a shared
path and a pedestrian walks, without warning, directly in front of me. I
have insufficient time to react and brake or swerve. I've seen and noted a
person standing by the side of the path and proceed with some caution. At a
point where it seems she will not move into my path I resume pedalling. I
hit the person and she falls, hitting her head on the ground and dying from
her injuries. Am I at fault for not cycling in such a way as to avoid a
reasonably foreseeable collision?

Similarly, I can be stopped on my bike wating to turn on to a side road. I
have a brain fart and dart out in front of a Pajero which is being driven
normally. The Pajero hits me. Is the driver at fault for not anticipating my
brain fart?

It seems to me that this ruling applies some practical sense to what is an
inherently risky situation - speed differentials coupled with human
imperfection. People make judgement mistakes. I think that's part of normal
driving/cycling/walking/anything. I'm not sure I agree that penalties should
be applied if someone is travelling normally (whatever their legal mode) but
I do think that in cases involving injuries, death, substantial property
damage or high potential cases should go to trial to establish fault (not
ALWAYS blame).

We can do a lot to reduce risk but unless we all become perfect judgement
machines and/or paralyse ourselves for fear of the risks involved, sh1t will
still happen. Sad but true.

me

 

[Plodder]

--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"rooman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Terryc Wrote:
> > dewatf wrote:
> >
> > >>cached version.) "DERRICK v. CHEUNG " "the right to drive normally"
> > >
> > >>Sucks, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Not at all. It is common sense and the foundation of negligence law.
> > > Anything else simply assigns negligence to the car driver for the
> > cyclist
> > > or pedestrian's commiting of an action that violates the road rules,
> > which
> > > would be nonsensical and completely unworkable.
> >
> > What a load of fscking ********. It has nothing to do with negligence.
> >
> > What you are saying is that a motorists may run over a cyclists because
> > that cyclist is impinging on what they see as their right to drive
> > normally. This concept contradicts so many other principles in law that
> > it is obviously wrong.It has everything to do with the Law of Tort (
negligence) and
> regrettably not a lot to do with emotion or as some would consider just
> from unjust.
>
> The cyclist or pedestrian struck would assert -res ipsa loquitur- ( the
> fact speaks for itself, q.e.d: he was struck from behind), which raises
> the burden of proof on the driver. The driver defends on the assertion
> that to discharge his/ her duty of care to the cyclist/pedestrian in
> the circumstances, he states, he was driving in a flow of traffic,
> within the prescribed limits of the traffic regulations and keeping a
> proper lookout.
>
> The cyclists then has to raise other aspects of breach by the driver,
> momentary lapse of keeping a proper lookout, defective vehicle, not
> taking any attempt to avoid a collision when it was available ( slowing
> down, steering to avoid).
>
> What is clear from this is that generalising isnt helpful, but it
> establishes principles which can be applied and interpreted in the
> light of facts as they occur. That is why we have courts, to apply the
> law to facts determined on the evidence presented. (and regrettably for
> lawyers to exploit the legal process and suck money out of us all by
> protracting litigation on a fee for time basis.....which is the
> greatest lurk of them all and thus another story)
>
> *-be visible, be predictable and obey the law-*
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Which reduces but does not eliminate risk...

me

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Euan wrote:
>
> AndrewJ wrote:
> > Very sobering reading. 60% of deaths were primarily the responsibility
> > of the cyclist. A high proportion on roads at 60km speed limit.
>
> Interesting that 55% of fatalities occurred on 60km/h roads but only 18%
> of fatalities on 80km/h roads. Three theories I can think of:
>
> 1) Most 80km/h roads are multi-lane and / or have a wide left shoulder.
>
> 2) Not as many cyclists use 80km/h roads
>
> 3) 60km/h is the speed limit around a lot of residential areas
> considered ``quiet and safe.''
<snip>

Maybe...
(4) 60km/h gets ignored in residential and inner city areas.

Tam

 

[SteveA]

It has everything to do with the Law of Tort ( negligence) and regrettably not a lot to do with emotion or as some would consider just from unjust.

The cyclist or pedestrian struck would assert res ipsa loquitur ( the fact speaks for itself, q.e.d: he was struck from behind), which raises the burden of proof on the driver. The driver defends on the assertion that to discharge his/ her duty of care to the cyclist/pedestrian in the circumstances, he states, he was driving in a flow of traffic, within the prescribed limits of the traffic regulations and keeping a proper lookout.

The cyclists then has to raise other aspects of breach by the driver, momentary lapse of keeping a proper lookout, defective vehicle, not taking any attempt to avoid a collision when it was available ( slowing down, steering to avoid).

What is clear from this is that generalising isnt helpful, but it establishes principles which can be applied and interpreted in the light of facts as they occur. That is why we have courts, to apply the law to facts determined on the evidence presented. (and regrettably for lawyers to exploit the legal process and suck money out of us all by protracting litigation on a fee for time basis.....which is the greatest lurk of them all and thus another story)

be visible, be predictable and obey the law

Cheung deals with the difference between something being 'forseeable' in the sense that you can imagine it possibly happening and the risk of an event being a real possibility.


The last para of the Law Journal article sums it up - "Drivers of motor vehicles are entitled to proceed down the road with the flow of traffic. Even where unfortunate events, such as a pedestrian darting onto the road or a bicyclist slipping over, are foreseeable (in the sense of not being far-fetched or fanciful), motorists are not required to act unless or until the risk of the event occurring becomes a real possibility."

Putting it into our context, if the risk of a cyclist being blown sideways is "a real possibility" and a driver does not take that into account in driving near the cyclist, Cheung will give the driver no protection if there is a collision due to the cyclist being blown sideways.

SteveA

 

[Terryc]

rooman wrote:

> The cyclist or pedestrian struck would assert -res ipsa loquitur- ( the
> fact speaks for itself, q.e.d: he was struck from behind), which raises
> the burden of proof on the driver. The driver defends on the assertion
> that to discharge his/ her duty of care to the cyclist/pedestrian in
> the circumstances, he states, he was driving in a flow of traffic,
> within the prescribed limits of the traffic regulations and keeping a
> proper lookout.

Oh, tunnel vision is not acceptable. Personally, I think that slowing
down when other "road users" are around is normal driving. Obviously
other people who don't are arseholes whio care little for other people.

Reminds me of the CM slogan "We are the traffic", so ride in the bloody
lane, not in the gutter.

> That is why we have courts, to apply the law to facts
> determined on the evidence presented.

Wait till you've done jury service and see if you can still say that
with a straight face.

> *-be visible, be predictable and obey the law-*

Nope, sit smack in the middle of the lane.

 

[Terryc]

Plodder wrote:


> People make judgement mistakes.

The problerm for you lemmings is that until it is you who are murdered,
you just keep coming up with all sorts of reason to blame your fellow
bicyclists. Bascially, so many people might put their **** on a bicycle
seat occassionally, but their heart is really in the motor vehicle.

Lets look at a simple example; child hit by a motor vehicle in a
suburban side street. The car driver should be charged. Suburban streets
should be recognised as SHARED facilities for everyone. Not as the
domain of motor vehicles. It would be simple to say that <=50kms
suburban street, motorist is automatically at fault.

Wake up, smell the roses and look at the statistics. Bicyclist are being
murdered way out of proportion to other road users and the perpetrators
are not even being charged.

> I think that's part of normal
> driving/cycling/walking/anything. I'm not sure I agree that penalties should
> be applied if someone is travelling normally (whatever their legal mode) but
> I do think that in cases involving injuries, death, substantial property
> damage or high potential cases should go to trial to establish fault (not
> ALWAYS blame).

Money counts? Yep, guess that is what it means that we live in a
capitalist society.


> We can do a lot to reduce risk but unless we all become perfect judgement
> machines and/or paralyse ourselves for fear of the risks involved, sh1t will
> still happen. Sad but true.

**** can be reduced by realising you are part of a community and really
do owe people some care and need to SHARE.

I see it all the time in my side street. Arseholes who just drive
through the kids cricket game with the horn blazing, whereas we wait
until the bowl is made and the kids wave us through.

 

[Euan]

Plodder wrote:
> "rooman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> *-be visible, be predictable and obey the law-*
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Which reduces but does not eliminate risk...

Your point? Show me a mode of transport that's totally risk free. I'll
help you, there isn't one.

All we can hope to do is reduce risk, eliminating it is impossible.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[beerwolf]

Plodder wrote:
>
> How about transferring the principle? I'm "cycling normally" along a
> shared
> path and a pedestrian walks, without warning, directly in front of me. I
> have insufficient time to react and brake or swerve. I've seen and noted a
> person standing by the side of the path and proceed with some caution. At
> a
> point where it seems she will not move into my path I resume pedalling. I
> hit the person and she falls, hitting her head on the ground and dying
> from
> her injuries. Am I at fault for not cycling in such a way as to avoid a
> reasonably foreseeable collision?

My wife *almost* had such an event a couple of months back. We were
cycling down Glebe Point Road (towards Rozelle Bay, for those who know
the area), travelling just outside the door zone from the line of parked
vehicles. I'd estimate we were doing about 25kmh, just at the point where
the gradient starts to steepen a little, when some woman stepped out from
behind a parked van, carefully looked **left**, then walked straight into
Kathy's path (I saw all this from a few meters behind).
I still don't know how Kathy avoided her, but if she had not, I'm sure
I would have piled into one or both of the bodies on the road.

I don't think 25kmh is an excessive speed to pass a line of parked cars.
Sometimes, sh!t just happens. We did not stop, though I looked behind
me and saw her crossing the road, apparently ok.

I now think it very likely that the pedestrian was a visitor from a left
hand drive place (like most of the world). It happened pretty much
outside the backpacker hostels down that end of GPR. And I do
recall, from my own visits to various places in Europe and Canada,
how super vigilant it was necessary to be as a pedestrian used to
righthand drive traffic.

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

 

[dewatf]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:10:36 +1000, Terryc wrote:

> Lets look at a simple example; child hit by a motor vehicle in a
> suburban side street. The car driver should be charged. Suburban streets
> should be recognised as SHARED facilities for everyone. Not as the
> domain of motor vehicles. It would be simple to say that <=50kms
> suburban street, motorist is automatically at fault.

Which is your political postion, and you are quite entitled to lobby for it
to be made law. There is form of traffic management using such rules,
mostly around shopping districts where there are lots of different sorts of
traffic all going in different directions.

It is, however, not the law. And you can't let drivers drive on the road
according to the law, at the legal speed limit, and then apply non-laws to
them making them loose all their assests and livelyhood due to an action
caused by the intentional action of someone else.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:32:50 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> I don't agree. Taking precautions when one can ``reasonalby forsee that
> a risk may occur'' is the very definition of defensive driving. The
> fact that not having to employ defensive driving is ensrhined in case
> precedent in Australia doesn't really surprise me but that doesn't make
> it right.

And defensive driving is a good thing. It, however, not a sound basis for
law.

"reasonable forsee that a risk may occur" is a highly subjective judgement.
And it is reasonable to forsee that anything could occur at whatever low
probability and that isn't taken into account.

The negligence system is supposed to assign the costs to person, or body,
whose deliberate actions caused the situation. Instead it has been
corrupted to victim has rights just for being a victim and and as defacto
compensation system for victims. The courts will look for any excuse for a
payout, finding that even blinking can make you partially negligent.

For example a court has ruled that a council was liable for injuries when a
swimmer climbed over a fence designed to stop them, over a sign that said
no jumping off bridge - Shallow Water. It was held to be reasonably
forseeable that people would break the law therefore the small rural
council should have employed a ranger to stop people and fine them, to show
it was really important.

There is also the case in WA where a driver swerved to avoid one drunk, and
ran over another lying in the middle of road at night. He was held to be
partically negligent because he looked at the drunk he was swerving to
avoid! That one is on appeal and will hopefully be turned over.

Under such rules you risk losing all your assests and your livelyhood when
you have done nothing wrong. It raise the cost of insurance to the point
where businesses can't exist and government can't deliver services. This
has already been happening which is why negligence law is being tightened
to stop such abuses by the NSW government. All all the lawyers are
complaining loudly.

> By the way, I tried to draw this article to your attention when I first
> came across it, but seeing as you munge your email address I was unable
> to.

Interesting article.

Sorry but the spam was too high, it's probably a moot point now anyway
because I have given up even checking the email account due to the spam.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On 7 Aug 2006 03:32:50 -0700, Donga wrote:

> Nineteen pages, in case you are worried about bandwidth.
> Abstract
> The report gives an overview of the circumstances of road crashes in
> which cyclists died in the
> period 1991 to 2005 and provides more detail for 1996 to 2004, the
> latest period for which
> detailed data were available. It examines the incidence of helmet
> wearing among cyclist deaths,
> the major factors in fatal crashes involving cyclists and the main
> crash types. Age and gender
> distributions, day of week, time of day and speed limit at the crash
> site are also examined.
>
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/pdf/death_cyclists_road.pdf

It was interesting reading.

And good to finally see some proof that helmets are useful. In a cyclist
fatality they make it more likely that you will die from other trama
instead of head injuries

I don't see why people are suprised that cyclists caused 60% of accidents.
I mean all things being equal chance would give 50% drivers and cyclists
and many cyclists are kids and teenagers with no special training and not
used to driving on roads or the road rules. The human brain, especially
male, doesn't reach its full ability to make responsible decisions till
around 22 or 23, and in many cases much later than that or even never at
all.

dewatf.

 

[Shane Stanley]

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

> I don't see why people are suprised that cyclists caused 60% of accidents.

Sixty per cent of *fatal* accidents. I'm not sure it's surprise so much
as scepticism at whatever figure is quoted, given that one side's
version of events is never going to be heard. It's a built-in bias.

> I mean all things being equal

But they aren't, are they.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Euan]

dewatf wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:32:50 +1000, EuanB wrote:
>
>> I don't agree. Taking precautions when one can ``reasonalby forsee that
>> a risk may occur'' is the very definition of defensive driving. The
>> fact that not having to employ defensive driving is ensrhined in case
>> precedent in Australia doesn't really surprise me but that doesn't make
>> it right.
>
> And defensive driving is a good thing. It, however, not a sound basis for
> law.

I don't agree, the Germans and the Dutch seem to be able to make it work
quite well.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Terryc]

dewatf wrote:
> It raise the cost of insurance to the point
> where businesses can't exist and government can't deliver services.

Will!. It already has. A few years ago I started asking around about
Adventure Travel activities within Australia.figures of $30-50K p.a.
were bandied around.Decided I had better things to do.

 

[Terryc]

dewatf wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2006 03:32:50 -0700, Donga wrote:
>
>
>>Nineteen pages, in case you are worried about bandwidth.
>>Abstract
>>The report gives an overview of the circumstances of road crashes in
>>which cyclists died in the
>>period 1991 to 2005 and provides more detail for 1996 to 2004, the
>>latest period for which
>>detailed data were available. It examines the incidence of helmet
>>wearing among cyclist deaths,
>>the major factors in fatal crashes involving cyclists and the main
>>crash types. Age and gender
>>distributions, day of week, time of day and speed limit at the crash
>>site are also examined.
>>
>>http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/pdf/death_cyclists_road.pdf
>
>
> It was interesting reading.
>
> And good to finally see some proof that helmets are useful.

No, it didn't say this. It just quoted a collected data item. If you
replace the word helment with t-shirts or underpants, it makes as much
sense.

> In a cyclist fatality they make it more likely that you will
> die from other trama instead of head injuries

>
> I don't see why people are suprised that cyclists caused 60% of accidents.

The report did not explain how this figure was arrived at and how it was
valid. It has the same validity as that pope that decreed that the sun
revolved around the earth. the report is really a spin-doctor report
written for political masters. It tells me that ATSB members are just
loyal ammoral public servants.



> I mean all things

Bing! there is your problem. It is not worth discussing things of
infinitesimal chance.
> being equal chance would give 50% drivers and cyclists
> and many cyclists are kids and teenagers with no special training and not
> used to driving on roads or the road rules. The human brain, especially
> male, doesn't reach its full ability to make responsible decisions till
> around 22 or 23, and in many cases much later than that or even never at
> all.

Lol, another psychologist/psychiatrist in desperate search of
justification. Remember Frued said that all people who dream of bicycles
were childish and immature anyway.

 

[dewatf]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:36:22 +1000, Shane Stanley wrote:

> Sixty per cent of *fatal* accidents. I'm not sure it's surprise so much
> as scepticism at whatever figure is quoted, given that one side's
> version of events is never going to be heard. It's a built-in bias.

Yes fatal accidents, since that is all we are talking about.

It is not a built in bias it is based on accident and coronial
investigations, witness statementes etc.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:37:09 GMT, Euan wrote:

> I don't agree, the Germans and the Dutch seem to be able to make it work
> quite well.

Though it is part of their motor vehicle insurance, not negligence law
isn't it?

And NZ has univseral nofault compensation personal injury system that
replaced their negligence payouts. It cost them an absolute fortune to fund
and administer though. It has not yielded any benefits in safety though is
of course easier for victims.

The UK government rejected the idea as unworkable under their legal system.
It would not alter driver behaviour, would encourage cyclists to take more
risks and would just raise motor vehicle insurance serving as a tax on all
drivers. Think that is still the situation.

dewatf.

 

[Bleve]

Terryc wrote:
> Peter Signorini wrote:
>
> >>I wonder what the cost/benefit is on providing totally dedicated
> >>cycling roads with nothing on them except bicycles? Cost per km of
> >>cycling road?
> >
> >
> > Huge! A totaly duplicated road system, what's the cost of that? It would
> > have to lie in the tens of billions at the minimum.
>
> which makes you wonder how much is invested (sunk and lost really) in
> the existing road network which has been designed to carry massive loads
> on B-doubles at 100km/hr.
>
>
> >>Benefits?
> >
> > Negligable
>
> Massive. Particularly in future health.
>
> Achievable, largely. Most urban areas can be treated as no through areas
> where motor vehicles have only a couple of entry and exit points. Once
> you get outside this idea that motorists should be able to travel on any
> number of parrallel roads/routes to the same destination, then it is
> easy to implement parts of it.

Hiow about this : inevitable (at least to a certain degree). when
Petrol is $10/l ....

 

[Bleve]

Terryc wrote:

> Yawn, the olde "blame the victim" in another guise. WTF is it with idiot
> cyclist who want to automatically blame their fellow cyclists rather
> than open their eyes and see what is going on. baah, baah, baah....

Terry, I am not your fellow cyclist. I accept responsibility for
myself when I ride my bicycle on the road, or on trails, or shared
paths (or my rollers!). Likewise when I ride my motorcycle, or drive
someone else's car, or walk down the street. One must ride to the
conditions as they exist, not for a nonexistant utopia, if one is to
survive. It *is* a jungle out there. Deal with it.