SA - Road safety program launched with a focus on cyclists

On Aug 21, 2:52 pm, EuanB EuanB.2vn...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

PiledHigher wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:16 am, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

Did you know that most cyclist accidents do not involve another
vehicle?

Bit most fatal ones do involve another vehicle.

I don't know. Do you have some stats on that?

Theo

Don't know about Australia but in the UK 87% of cycling fatalities
involve another vehicle. I don't have a cite handy.

--
EuanB

"ATSB ROAD SAFETY REPORT
July 2006
Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes

In the fifteen years from 1991 to 2005, 665 cyclists were killed in
road crashes. In
this period there were 661 road crashes in which a cyclist was killed,
i.e. very few
of these crashes involved the death of more than one cyclist. Based on
unpublished
ABS 'cause of death' data for the period 1997 to 2004 (the latest
period for which
such data are available) it is observed that about 86 per cent of
cyclist deaths
resulted from a collision between their bicycle and a motor vehicle
(Table 2)."

EuanB Wrote:
Do remember that pedestrians have priority over you at all times. You
have no rights on a shared path.



Not quite. Yes, a cyclist must give way to pedestrians on a shared
path. However the pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the
cyclist (i.e. that pedestrian wasn't allowed to keep moving in front of
me until I was forced to stop).


236. Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving
into the path of a driver.
(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of
any driver or another pedestrian.
(3) For subrule (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct
the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly
than other pedestrians.


--
ghostgum

Theo Bekkers Wrote:

You have your perceptions which you trot out regularly, ignoring all
facts.
So you won't object if I trot out mine. My perception is that my
granddad
lived to 96, my dad is currently 93 and in good health. Ergo,
everybody
lives longer than Oppie.

Ever seen photos of Oppy when he was a slim & trim competitive cyclist,
compared to when he became a Liberal pollie? Ergo, staying active is a
good thing to keep doing!


--
cfsmtb

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:02:41 +1000
EuanB wrote:


The fact is that if I don't ride for a few days my knee starts to
stiffen up. One 30km ride and it's much better.

AOL

The knee I broke is much happier when I'm riding than it is when I
have to stop for a week.

As am I

Cycling is a great activity for people with dodgy joints. Adult
tircycles lend mobility to the old and infirm who would otherwise be
dependent on cars. Electric bicycles augment this.

As long as the bike fits them properly and they know how to ride so as
not to aggravate the problem.

I found that the short cranks helped me for example, and of course the
seat/pedal distance on a bent is way more important than on an
upright.

On the other hand, people with bad backs or wrists or shoulders and
many with bad hips find bents easier than uprights.

Either way, cycling better than no cycling!

Zebee

Theo Bekkers Wrote:

The exact opposite is true. The increase in life expectancy through
improved
health far outweighs the risks of riding.

Linky http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/c.../view/204/147/


--
cfsmtb

"EuanB" wrote in message
...

Shane Stanley Wrote:
In article ,
EuanB wrote:

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different,
no?

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car,
or
indeed quicker.

But are the majority of cycling miles utility trips? I would have
thought there'd be at least a ratio of something 2:3 between time and
distance figures.

I would say so. Most roadies get their miles in commuting to work and
there are a lot of commuters who don't ride socially.

Read the report.



in the UK where you're ten times more likely to
die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to
here?

Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
got around and warranted no special consideration.

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic
travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.

Does this suggest that attitude matters less than road conditions, or
is
the attitude to cyclists similar in England?

When I was riding in the UK I didn't notice any particular hostility
towards cyclists, but then Iwas a child or in my teens. Lurking on
uk.rec.bicycle and uk.transport(?) suggests that there is some
animosity out there, and then of course there's the ridiculous pieces
by Jeremey Clarkson.


--
EuanB


Dang

Theo Bekkers wrote:

No thanks, it has already been done for me. Hence the figures I quoted. Your
figures are your perception, nothing to do with reality. I would be amazed
if Canberra cyclists only accounted for 0.5% of the traffic.

Theo


Pedal Power do a "Cordon Count" every year. I'll see if I can dig up any
figures.
--
Bean


Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Patrick Turner wrote:

Quite a few cyclist have died on roads in the ACT,
but I doubt a single one on the cycle paths in 30 +years.
My eyes tell me more ride the paths than ride the roads.

I believe there was an unfortunate fatality either 2006 or 2005 when a
cyclist was crossing a major road in Tuggeranong from one cycle path to
another... perhaps the cycle paths need to go either over or under the
roads!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Patrick Turner wrote:

Never have I run into a dog.
I have a bell, and 99.99% of people have their precious animals on
leashes which
they tug tightly when they hear a bell.

You must live in a different Canberra to the one I live in! :-)

--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Tomasso wrote:

One place I used to work took:

7 minutes by bike
12 minutes running
30 minutes walking
30 minutes by car (assuming peak hour).

Car had 12 traffic lights to destination and a couple of sneaky one way
streets (probably could have been quicker if I did it more than a few
times and found the quicker alleyways).

All other trips crossed Pyrmont Bridge.

These numbers are interesting and are data that non-cyclists can't seem
to get their brains around. I don't have any data for driving to work
cos I've only done it a handfull of times since I came to my current
place of work. Also, I don't walk cos I want to actually get some work
done during the day and not spend my whole day hiking. Nonetheless,
here's my breakdown:

30 min by bike (best time 28 min)
45 min by bus - express route
60 min by bus - via interchange
distance 18 km.

My next door neighbour did a double take the other morning when he asked
where I was riding to. When I told him it only took me 30 min, he just
didn't believe me! He has 3 cars and a fat gut!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying