Coroner lashes cyclists

Brendo wrote:

Without seeing the incident, obviously we all rely on what other
people saw. But, if light was red, and Mr Gould was crossing within
the prescribed area, then the blame lies only with the gentleman who
struck him.

This tells me that thr bunch was broken anyway; obviously he had time to
walk onto and part way across the crossing and thus the cyclist who
deliberately struck him was in a group trying to catch up to the bunch

On Mar 29, 9:52 am, Terryc wrote:
Brendo wrote:
Without seeing the incident, obviously we all rely on what other
people saw. But, if light was red, and Mr Gould was crossing within
the prescribed area, then the blame lies only with the gentleman who
struck him.

This tells me that thr bunch was broken anyway; obviously he had time to
walk onto and part way across the crossing and thus the cyclist who
deliberately struck him was in a group trying to catch up to the bunch

Which, again, is concluded by what I have heard. Whether this is the
case or not,....

Unfortunately, there is more than one version of the truth in EVERY
situation. We could rant for days on this and never reach a suitable
conclusion.

Obey road rules. Safety for ALL users is the aim.

Brendo

On Mar 29, 11:35 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 18:01:06 -0700

Bleve wrote:

It's actually pretty easy, and is mentioned in one of the parts of the
article. It's the pressure in it to stay with the leaders. The
pressure in a big bunch to stay together is enormous, and if it's a
bunch that has a lot of history and prestige, even moreso.

I am not sure that's a problem that is solvable. It's a mindset,
changing those is notoriously difficult.

Two ways to deal that I can see - make it official requiring numbers
and entry and give escorts and block lights, or make it illegal to
ride in such bunches (defining them as something like more than 2
abreast, and no one to ride less than 2 bike lengths behind another
bike) and make it a requirement for riders to carry ID. Then use
video and cars blocking the road to continually catch and fine riders.

Think a little harder.

It will be very interesting to see what comes out of the round the bay
in a day fatality inquest as well and what impact that may have on the
rules concerning bunch rides on open roads.

I think that the public outrage associated with this incident is
justified. What I don't understand is the sheer LACK of public outrage
whenever a cyclist is hit by a car....

I've said it before - I refuse to ride in big bunches. Had too many
near misses years ago when I used to participate in such rides. I
value my life - not to mention my reputation as a cyclist - too much
these days.

Personally, I think bunches of up to 30 riders can be manageable,
providing all riders are experienced and of similar fitness levels.
Any more than that and I think it's going overboard.

Just my opinion - feel free to shut me down and/or disagree.


--
LotteBum

On Mar 29, 1:58 pm, LotteBum LotteBum.2o6...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
I think that the public outrage associated with this incident is
justified. What I don't understand is the sheer LACK of public outrage
whenever a cyclist is hit by a car....

I've said it before - I refuse to ride in big bunches. Had too many
near misses years ago when I used to participate in such rides. I
value my life - not to mention my reputation as a cyclist - too much
these days.

Personally, I think bunches of up to 30 riders can be manageable,
providing all riders are experienced and of similar fitness levels.
Any more than that and I think it's going overboard.

Just my opinion - feel free to shut me down and/or disagree.

Lotte, I'm 100% with you on this.

On 2007-03-29, LotteBum wrote:
Personally, I think bunches of up to 30 riders can be manageable,
providing all riders are experienced and of similar fitness levels.
Any more than that and I think it's going overboard.

I'm not convinced that 30 riders is sufficiently small, but otherwise,
I'm with you all the way. (Mind you, this is coming from somebody who is
not particularly experienced at bunch riding...)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Bean Long wrote:


He thanked members of the public who had taken time off work or study to
give evidence, but noted the absence of ride leaders.

"Those who run the pack don't give evidence. They're not game enough,"
he said.


Not condoning what actually happened, but maybe the reason the 'ride
leaders' weren't there is because, AFAIK, there are none.

phillip brown

Stuart Lamble Wrote:
I'm not convinced that 30 riders is sufficiently small, but otherwise,
I'm with you all the way. (Mind you, this is coming from somebody who
is not particularly experienced at bunch riding...)
I thought the same, but I usually find the 'problematic' bunches (the
ones with no respect for others) are the bunches where you'd swear
there are at least 50 riders...

Whilst it's not only a risk to society in general, I am of the opinion
that too many 'intra-bunch' accidents happen in larger, and therefore
less controlled bunches.

Whilst I'm not a car orientated person, I also think that too often
large bunches obstruct traffic for prolonged periods. Whilst it
wouldn't bother me, personally (duh), it's a sensitive, hot-head
inducing subject in Australia, so probably best not done.

When car and motorbike clubs do 'cruises', you don't see them running
red lights continuously, simply for the sake of keeping up - so why
should cyclists?

Lotte


--
LotteBum

DaveB Wrote:
TimC wrote:
They've already mentioned "estimated speed of 50 km/h". As far as I
am aware, that's 10km/h lower than the speed having been prior
judged
as being excessive for that road. If they feel 50km/h is excessive,
I'm fully expecting the speed limit for that road to be changed to
40km/h next week. FOR ALL ROAD USERS.


What a load of crap Tim. Talk about taking a pedantic view on the word
excessive. In the context they are saying excessive in comparison to
an
appropriate speed.

Are you saying a safe speed for a bike is the same speed that is safe
for a car? 90kmh cycling is a real buzz (and I know you've at least
come
close to that speed on occasion as I have) and the reason it is a buzz
is the fear factor. Hit a slight bump in the road and you are probably
cactus. It's a lot different to 90kmh in a car. Regardless of a speed
limit, is 90kmh an inappropriate speed on a bike? Bloody oath it is.

Now consider any bunch ride (Hell Ride or not). You are cycling within
centimetres of the other bikes. Don't tell me that the appropriate
speed
for that type of riding is the same as normal car traffic should be
doing. If I had a bunch drive with cars within 1 foot of me in either
direction, what would be appropriate speed would have nothing to do
with
the actual speed limit.

One last point, if one limit applies to all road users, why are there
truck specific speed limits? Because what is safe varies by the
vehicle.

DaveBLoad of crap

should we have different speed limits for

- motorbikes
-4wds
-compact cars
-sedans
-wagon
-front wheel drives
-utes

etc

they all handle differently and have their own adv / disadv.

I can imagine the signage now.

Or you can forget that crap and recognise that the law (even though it
is sometimes an ass) applies to all equally.

Scotty


--
scotty72

scotty72 wrote:
should we have different speed limits for

- motorbikes
-4wds
-compact cars
-sedans
-wagon
-front wheel drives
-utes

etc

they all handle differently and have their own adv / disadv.

I can imagine the signage now.

Or you can forget that crap and recognise that the law (even though it
is sometimes an ass) applies to all equally.

Scotty

So did you actually read the whole thread? My comment was about what is
an appropriate speed for two very different vehicles. Truck speeds were
an example of a precedent within road rules of that being applied.
Mtorobikes, 4WDs blah blah blah (sorry Blah) are all designed to operate
in a similar way and at similar speeds. Do you really think that
bicycles and motor vehicles are designed to be used in the same way at
the same speeds.

Should we have different speeds for wagons and sedans. No that would be
stupid (as you well know). Should we have different rules for vehicles
of vastly different design and use? Yes, and from memory tractors used
to be a good example of this (that may have changed, it's been a while).

DaveB