OT more cyclists travelling too fast and killing themselves

in South Africa, so OT, but interesting nonetheless, a pack of cyclists
(TT?) clearly travelling too fast, too close and probably without good
brakes. or was he just head down, pedalling furiously and never even saw
what he hit?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...crash-1.681669

Mrcheerful wrote:
in South Africa, so OT, but interesting nonetheless, a pack of
cyclists (TT?) clearly travelling too fast, too close and probably
without good brakes. or was he just head down, pedalling furiously
and never even saw what he hit?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...crash-1.681669


"Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were
travelling in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled
over into the emergency lane."

Nothing like misrepresenting the situation in your campaign against
cyclists is there?

Tony

On 26/09/2010 12:38, Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
in South Africa, so OT, but interesting nonetheless, a pack of
cyclists (TT?) clearly travelling too fast, too close and probably
without good brakes. or was he just head down, pedalling furiously
and never even saw what he hit?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...crash-1.681669



"Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were travelling
in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled over into the
emergency lane."

Nothing like misrepresenting the situation in your campaign against cyclists
is there?

Tony

START FULL QUOTE:
A 57-year-old cyclist was killed when he crashed into the back of a minibus
taxi on the Hendrik Potgieter road near Roodepoort on Saturday, ER24
paramedics said.

Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were travelling
in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled over into the
emergency lane.

The group of cyclists was able to move out of the way except for one who was
at the back of the pack. He slammed into the back of the taxi with a force.

Banks said the cyclist sustained fatal injuries and was pronounced dead on
the scene. - Sapa
ENDQUOTE

That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency lanes
are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision of such
emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another vehicle is
never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a sufficient look out
nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop within the distance seen to be
clear.

Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic law,
that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that but can't, for
some reason, admit it.

JNugent wrote:

That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency
lanes are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision
of such emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another
vehicle is never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a
sufficient look out nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop
within the distance seen to be clear.

Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic
law, that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that
but can't, for some reason, admit it.

That's not at all the case. If a car pulls in front of you on a
motorway and slams on the brakes so you hit them its his fault not
yours. Its only your fault if you had the opportunity to keep
sufficient distance or brake, not if the other vehicle puts you in a
situation where you can't. And you know that too but I doubt you will
admit it.

In the US a driver has recently been jailed for five years for such an
action that sent a cyclist through his rear window.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan...sts9-2010jan09

There are a number of reasons why in a peleton one rider might not avoid
the collision when the rest did including having other cyclists
alongside you preventing you moving over to avoid the obstacle that has
appeared suddenly in front of you. Much as happened with Peterson in
the above case.

Tony

On 26/09/2010 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2010 12:38, Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
in South Africa, so OT, but interesting nonetheless, a pack of
cyclists (TT?) clearly travelling too fast, too close and probably
without good brakes. or was he just head down, pedalling furiously
and never even saw what he hit?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...crash-1.681669




"Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were
travelling
in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled over into the
emergency lane."

Nothing like misrepresenting the situation in your campaign against
cyclists
is there?

Tony

START FULL QUOTE:
A 57-year-old cyclist was killed when he crashed into the back of a
minibus taxi on the Hendrik Potgieter road near Roodepoort on Saturday,
ER24 paramedics said.

Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were
travelling in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled
over into the emergency lane.

The group of cyclists was able to move out of the way except for one who
was at the back of the pack. He slammed into the back of the taxi with a
force.

Banks said the cyclist sustained fatal injuries and was pronounced dead
on the scene. - Sapa
ENDQUOTE

That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency
lanes are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision of
such emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another
vehicle is never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a
sufficient look out nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop
within the distance seen to be clear.

Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic
law, that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that but
can't, for some reason, admit it.

Did the cyclist hit the taxi when it was in the normal lane, it would
seem that the rest managed to avoid the taxi, he did not & was further back.

Did the cyclist hit the taxi when it was in the emergency lane, and if
so should the cyclist have been there?

--
Tony Dragon

On 26/09/2010 13:16, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency
lanes are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision
of such emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another
vehicle is never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a
sufficient look out nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop within
the distance seen to be clear.

Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic
law, that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that
but can't, for some reason, admit it.

That's not at all the case. If a car pulls in front of you on a motorway and
slams on the brakes so you hit them its his fault not yours. Its only your
fault if you had the opportunity to keep sufficient distance or brake, not if
the other vehicle puts you in a situation where you can't. And you know that
too but I doubt you will admit it.

The correct comparison here is with a vehicle stopping on the hard shoulder
of a motorway. If I ran into the back of him, it'd be my fault.

And which bit of being a cyclist removes the need to watch where you are
going, watch what else is happening on the road, give way to traffic moving
from the offside to the nearside some way in front of you, avoid 'emergency
lanes', stop in time to avoid runing into slower or stationary vehicles, keep
your speed low enough to be able to stop within the distance seen (good word,
that - *seen*) to be clear and generally not act as though no-one else is on
the road?

In the US a driver has recently been jailed for five years for such an action
that sent a cyclist through his rear window.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan...sts9-2010jan09

That was NOT "such an action" at all. That person was held to have done what
he did deliberately, in order to cause the collision. Not the same
circumstances as the instant case. But of course, it's "similar" enough (ie,
there was a bike and a car involved) for you to prefer to think that the
cases are the same even when they're plainly not.

There are a number of reasons why in a peleton one rider might not avoid the
collision when the rest did including having other cyclists alongside you
preventing you moving over to avoid the obstacle that has appeared suddenly
in front of you. Much as happened with Peterson in the above case.

I accept that in respect of the SA case. There probably were reasons why the
deceased cyclist couldn't avoid the collision. The answer is to avoid the
circumstances that give rise to these "reasons". The easiest way to avoid
them is not to travel so fast that you cannot stop within the distance you
can *SEE* to be clear, and to keep an effective look out for changing traffic
conditions. Do that and you won't run into the back of anything. IOW, follow
the HC (or local equivalent) and be vigilant.

HTH.

On 26/09/2010 13:33, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 26/09/2010 12:48, JNugent wrote:

START FULL QUOTE:
A 57-year-old cyclist was killed when he crashed into the back of a
minibus taxi on the Hendrik Potgieter road near Roodepoort on Saturday,
ER24 paramedics said.
Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were
travelling in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled
over into the emergency lane.
The group of cyclists was able to move out of the way except for one who
was at the back of the pack. He slammed into the back of the taxi with a
force.
Banks said the cyclist sustained fatal injuries and was pronounced dead
on the scene. - Sapa
ENDQUOTE

That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency
lanes are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision of
such emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another
vehicle is never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a
sufficient look out nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop
within the distance seen to be clear.
Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic
law, that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that but
can't, for some reason, admit it.

Did the cyclist hit the taxi when it was in the normal lane, it would seem
that the rest managed to avoid the taxi, he did not & was further back.

Because (as ackowledged in the report), he was unable to see far enough ahead
and was travelling too fast to be able to stop. Being a cyclist doesn't mean
never having to be careful.

Did the cyclist hit the taxi when it was in the emergency lane, and if so
should the cyclist have been there?

I don't know whether that is even relevant. Presumably, the road isn't a
motorway.

In fact, http://tinyurl.com/276gmeu shows the South Africa "M47" to be a
four lane all-purpose road (part s/c, part d/c) with a hard-shoulder on one
side only (that may not be the case all the way long it).

On 26/09/2010 14:04, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2010 13:33, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 26/09/2010 12:48, JNugent wrote:

START FULL QUOTE:
A 57-year-old cyclist was killed when he crashed into the back of a
minibus taxi on the Hendrik Potgieter road near Roodepoort on Saturday,
ER24 paramedics said.
Spokesman Derrick Banks said a group of cyclists and a taxi were
travelling in the same direction, when all of a sudden the taxi pulled
over into the emergency lane.
The group of cyclists was able to move out of the way except for one who
was at the back of the pack. He slammed into the back of the taxi with a
force.
Banks said the cyclist sustained fatal injuries and was pronounced dead
on the scene. - Sapa
ENDQUOTE

That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency
lanes are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision of
such emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another
vehicle is never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a
sufficient look out nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop
within the distance seen to be clear.
Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic
law, that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that but
can't, for some reason, admit it.

Did the cyclist hit the taxi when it was in the normal lane, it would
seem
that the rest managed to avoid the taxi, he did not & was further back.

Because (as ackowledged in the report), he was unable to see far enough
ahead and was travelling too fast to be able to stop. Being a cyclist
doesn't mean never having to be careful.

Did the cyclist hit the taxi when it was in the emergency lane, and if so
should the cyclist have been there?

I don't know whether that is even relevant. Presumably, the road isn't a
motorway.

In fact, http://tinyurl.com/276gmeu shows the South Africa "M47" to be
a four lane all-purpose road (part s/c, part d/c) with a hard-shoulder
on one side only (that may not be the case all the way long it).

I just wondered if the emergency lane was signed for cyclists use, if it
was I would consider it dangerous.


--
Tony Dragon

On 26 Sep, 13:57, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2010 13:16, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:
That is a collision which simply should not have happened. Emergency
lanes are presumably for emergencies. Irrespective of the provision
of such emergency lanes, travelling straight into the rear of another
vehicle is never to be recommended, as neither is failing to keep a
sufficient look out nor travelling so fast as to be unable to stop within
the distance seen to be clear.
Assuming SA traffic law to be similar to UK, European and USA traffic
law, that was the cyclist's fault. And what's more, you know that
but can't, for some reason, admit it.
That's not at all the case. If a car pulls in front of you on a motorway and
slams on the brakes so you hit them its his fault not yours. Its only your
fault if you had the opportunity to keep sufficient distance or brake, not if
the other vehicle puts you in a situation where you can't. And you know that
too but I doubt you will admit it.

The correct comparison here is with a vehicle stopping on the hard shoulder
of a motorway. If I ran into the back of him, it'd be my fault.

And which bit of being a cyclist removes the need to watch where you are
going, watch what else is happening on the road, give way to traffic moving
from the offside to the nearside some way in front of you, avoid 'emergency
lanes', stop in time to avoid runing into slower or stationary vehicles, keep
your speed low enough to be able to stop within the distance seen (good word,
that - *seen*) to be clear and generally not act as though no-one else is on
the road?

In the US a driver has recently been jailed for five years for such an action
that sent a cyclist through his rear window.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan...sts9-2010jan09

That was NOT "such an action" at all. That person was held to have done what
he did deliberately, in order to cause the collision. Not the same
circumstances as the instant case. But of course, it's "similar" enough (ie,
there was a bike and a car involved) for you to prefer to think that the
cases are the same even when they're plainly not.

There are a number of reasons why in a peleton one rider might not avoid the
collision when the rest did including having other cyclists alongside you
preventing you moving over to avoid the obstacle that has appeared suddenly
in front of you. Much as happened with Peterson in the above case.

I accept that in respect of the SA case. There probably were reasons why the
deceased cyclist couldn't avoid the collision. The answer is to avoid the
circumstances that give rise to these "reasons". The easiest way to avoid
them is not to travel so fast that you cannot stop within the distance you
can *SEE* to be clear, and to keep an effective look out for changing traffic
conditions. Do that and you won't run into the back of anything. IOW, follow
the HC (or local equivalent) and be vigilant.

HTH.

I think that the solution would be to avoid South Africa. Here is a
relevant section from a recent article by a South African on these
taxis:-

"The minibus taxi is, for many of us in the middle classes, a source
of deep anxiety. It is the ultimate symbol of the chaos we believe
lurks outside our high walls and electrified gates, forever waiting
for a slight drop in our civilised guard to carry us all to hell in an
unlicensed kombi with no brakes and a screwdriver for a steering
wheel.

The taxi is also a sign of the disdain we think some drivers have for
driving etiquette (such as letting other drivers know you are about to
change lanes, stop in the middle of the road in a no-stopping zone or
cut in front of someone in fast-moving traffic) and their disregard
for the rules of the road (such as not driving in the emergency lane,
going through a red light or using a car that is not roadworthy to
transport hundreds every day)." (Jacob Dlamini)

Squashme wrote:

Oh hello. Has Matron allowed you back into the computer room?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.