Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
And the driver couldn't have waited 3 or 4 seconds???
That rider has some great skills. Glad they aren't hurt.
Hopefully something is done about the driver!!!
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever" Lance Armstrong
Its not a problem - the video clearly shows a hit and run event take place, and that is the community understood concept of a hit and run.
If I was to edit anything, I'd only change the Jims mowing to car with Jims Mowing trailer given that we know its a franchise business and we don't know whether even the franchisee was driving, let alone an actual Jims mowing employee/rep whatever.
Holy dogs balls! That was a very close call... if the cyclist steered out in front of another vehicle.
The police should arrest the guy, take him to the cells, bend him over... Ohh sorry this is a family forum.
The courts can do what they like but that driver will never share the road.
There is no cure for ignorance (tolerated in Australia).
NOW I've seen the video and words fail me
Crucifixion's too good for 'im
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
That is both a shocking display of driving and an excellent display of bike handling at the same tie.
Sadly, I see this type of driver behaviour on a frequent basis. Firstly, motorists that have no spatial awareness or ability to read traffic and think ahead, and secondly motorists that will do anything they can to pass a slower vehicle (cyclist, truck, L-Plater).
The display in that video was willful negligence. Overtaking in a roadworks zone and then cutting across their path should see the driver docked a substantial amount of demerit points alone, but hitting the cyclist and driving off shows that the driver is not fit to hold a licence at all.
Hope the cops actually do something!
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
I also sent a complaint to Jim's Mowing, and think it would be advantageous more people did so.
Businesses need to know this sort of behavior is totally unacceptable, and will damage their corporate image and hip pocket.
Imagine how the good guys with Jim's Mowing franchises feel when they see galahs like this bringing the whole corporate image down.
Unfortunately, given the title of the video (and this thread) the response may be a SLAPP.
A Strategic lawsuit against public participation almost always involves a suit for defamation. As Jim's Mowing is a corporation, in Australia it can't sue for defamation and can only sue for the tort of injurious falsehood which requires proof that the statement was made with malice & the corporation suffered economic loss.
Whilst they may consider writing nasty letters, the risk for a corporation is the Streisand effect, whereby their response generates far more negative publicity than the original incident. Because there is video, a draconian response runs the risk of attracting the attention of drawing TV news coverage.
. . . . . . .
excellent point. this is made for TV. jim's will just batten down the hatches and ride this out - hopefully with appropriate apologies made to the rider.
Let's not forget the guy behind who taped the whole thing. While i'm not a big fan of scrutinizing every tiny infraction that happens on the road. Incidents like this reaffirm affectiveness of video where serious mishaps occur. No doubt if no video of this existed, almost nothing would come of such an event unless the cyclist is maimed.
Let it also be a reminder to keep aware of left and right, especially at intersections like this. The guy takes no evasive action at all.
Last edited by gururug on Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An apology is nowhere near enough, if it was me that was on that bike i would'nt rest until i had that guy's head on a stick.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
Read on another forum that the cyclist in question has been in contact with the head of Jims Mowing franchise and they have cited the video and have also identified the offender. A police report had also been made.
Current Ride: Trek Madone 6.5 (2013)
Ox, I agree. It's the unexpected that totally wrong foots you.
I've been knocked off once and missed going under the rear wheel by mm's, and two very close incidents....and each time, my initial reaction was one of being frozen in disbelief that it is happening, hoping the motorist wakes up to what they are doing. Thousands of manhours of not being hit lowers your self preservation reactions.
All i can say is that cyclist has some mad skillz to not go down after that. No excuse from the driver would be valid for what they did, clearly left hooking the guy in the cycle lane who was wearing hi-vis and also had a rear blinkie going. Even if the car did not have a trailer, it would have been a close call. The "just got to be in front" attitude of some drivers absolutely sickens me.
If anyone is interested - read all the comments on the Riot Act website posted above.
Same cyclist - another issue today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_PP85ZtMI&feature=plcp
I hope this guy doesn't go for the trifecta tomorrow....
Bloody hell i need cameras NOW!!!
I had a run in with a Jims Mowing franchisee last year in Sydney. It was nothing like this video, more a verbal disagreement as to the right i had to ride on the road. The driver trawled out the usual rego argument etc etc which i easily batted away. Needless to say I will never use a Jims service for anything after the incident. Another +1000 to the skills of this guy to remain upright and lets hope this douche gets a call from Mr Plod. That sort of driving is totally unacceptable and the driver needs to be held to account.
When I got taken out mid-December 2009, my first thought was "####! He's too close! " and by the time I'd finished that thought he'd already swerved left into me faster than I could react. Friction between the rear passenger door's paint and my bar end pulled my bars 45deg left. Splat. Rear wheel missed my nose by inches.
From the video camera thread
2012 Oppy A4
The usual tactic is for the corporation to fund an individual to bring the action. This is what happened to me many years ago after I made a complaint to ASIC about a company. However, corporations may sue for a type of defamation - its just that the standards are different.
One of the problems with invoking the "Streisand Effect" effect is that Jims Mowing is not Barbara Streisand. There are many defamation cases filed in Australia every year, the vast majority of of which you never hear of. So, unless the defendant has a method of invoking the effect, it is not relevant.
Another problem with relying on Streisand Effect is that, IIRC, that case was tried - in the US - which means that the defendant was able to write a check of about $50,000 and have it presented. But, even if the case had not gone to trial, which is what happens in most SLAPPS, the defendant would still have been up for a significant upfront cost. And, of course, it is a lot harder for a plaintiff to run a defamation case in the US than it is in Australia which is why countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK are regarded as SLAPP central.
Anybody who done business in Australia will have become aware that a certain portion of business leaders are, IMO, psychopaths. That is they have, among other traits, a high sense of worth and lack of judgment. For the Streisand Effect to come into play the potential defendant may be relying on such a person to know about the effect and his or her judgment that the effect will harm them. The Australian defamation laws are made for such people.
Of course I do not know anything about Jims Mowing. They are probably a very reasonable company and I certainly hope so. And they will probably look at the video and take the appropriate action. What I am trying to say is that it is not a good idea to make claims which cannot be supported by the video. What is in the video is bad enough.
In Australia it is the plaintiff that gets to decide what the defendant's words mean. So for the defense of truth to prevail the defendant would need to prove that the plaintiff had been tried and convicted of "hit and run". Do you see such a trial and conviction in th video?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: human909