Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
From NSW Police Facebook:
"A young boy has suffered critical head injuries after being hit by a 4WD while crossing a road in Sydney’s west this evening.
Police have been told the child was riding his pushbike crossing Richmond Road at traffic lights at the intersection of Breakfast Road about 7.30pm (23 March 2013), when he was hit by a silver Subaru Escape.
The boy suffered life-threatening head injuries and has been taken to The Children’s Hospital at Westmead in a critical condition. It’s believed he is aged between 8 and 12 years and was with his brother at the time.
The driver, a woman in her 30s, stopped immediately and is assisting police. The driver of a blue Ford Escape 4WD also stopped to assist.
Crash Investigation Unit officers are en route to the scene."
15 years ago I used to spend the whole weekend on my BMX, I never considered cars for more than a brief moment, never had lights, rode until late, cycled across crossings and at times forgot to wear my helmet and never once encountered abuse or had a near miss. Was I lucky? Have things changed?
Obviously thoughts with the child and his family, you never fully recover from serious head trauma but lets hope! One day after Ride2School day
Traffic is faster, more, everyone's in a hurry but other than that, sorry to hear of this, its terrible news
Nothing's changed - and motorists still have an obligation to expect children to do unpredictable things, and
drive accordingly. You weren't lucky, rather this child has been tragically unlucky that the motorist has not been vigilant enough to avoid a devastating outcome.
For all that we know, this child could have been doing everything right - including wearing a helmet. But that won't
be a lot of comfort for a lifetime of disability.
Thoughts and prayers with the child family - hope they find the strength and courage to deal with this.
Heal well young feller.
Time to go give mine a cuddle...
And for all we know the kid did something outlandishly stupid and random - it happens - that even you could not avoid. And that the driver was a model of alertness, diligence and safety. It is quite possible for the very best, competent and alert drivers to still seriously hurt someone. They just greatly reduce their chances of doing so. If you believe otherwise then you should consider handing in your drivers license as you cannot meet this standard you seem to be setting. A standard that is - thou shalt not ever have a serious accident regardless of circumstance.
Get off your high horse wombat. If this is all that it takes for you to judge someone then I am compelled to judge you. And with considerably more to go on.
If you are not meaning to cast blame on the driver then my apologies and you may want to edit your post because it clearly reads that way.
My thoughts are with both the kids and family AND the driver until such time as I have cause to think otherwise. But not before.
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
On the balance of probability, this is the lesser chance. Recent study of Qld road collision data showed that in 70% of cyclist-motor vehicle collisions the driver of the motor vehicle was charged with a traffic offense.
I see no reason to make such offensive accusations towards wombatK either Nothing in what he posted reads in any way offensive nor blaming to me.
There is little scope to deny "the motorist was not vigilant enough to avoid a devastating outcome"; it's pretty-much a truism. It may have been that such vigilance was not enough in this case. This vigilance is always incumbent on motorists, and it's high time a lot more took the care to acknowledge this.
None of which I disagree with other than the extra yard that Wombat prematurely went to.
However when I see a fight in the street between a couple of aboriginal kids and a couple of white kids it would be wrong to make a judgement that it was the trouble-making aboriginal kids. Despite overwhelming statistics in the public realm. Not until I have something other than the fact of the fight.
The driver should have been afforded the same treatment and not faulted just because there are a lot of bad drivers out there who have been proven to be at fault more often than not. And it is particularly odious if the bloke behind the wheel is also often a victim as well.
While it is fair to make general conclusions on motorists and cyclists as a whole, we should avoid jumping to conclusions on specific cases without the specific circumstances. Wombat did just that.
We rightly and loudly complain when this line of (un)reasoning is shown by motorists comments in the popular press when a cyclist is injured or killed.
Sorry, I still don't see what wombatK's "extra yard" was. There was no direct accusation or blame.
I believe that this still stands:
A tragic event. While the driver was in the wrong and should be charged, the driver is assisting police. The child may have done something unpredicted AND the driver may not have been paying full attention. Either way both parties have to live with the outcomes.
I love threads line this where no one has a clue what actually happened aside from a loose police public affairs statement.
And yet it goes on and on. !
He should have been waking his bike across the crossing.
Pretty sure the outcome would have been different.
More time for both parties to see things.
Yeah, he was braking the law. That kid riding his bike is a criminal and a danger to society.........
Wonder just how many on here do exactly the same ????? I know I do often enough when riding bike paths that cross roads at pedestrian crossings.
Are you legally supposed to walk across traffic light crossings? I didn't know that, I thought it was only marked "zebra" pedestrian crossings.
Condolences to everyone involved in this incident and hope the child recovers fully.
In more civilized countries like the Netherlands, cyclists ride across crossings and motor vehicles must give way to them.... even where there are no crossing signals
Here in Australia the only crossings you may ride across legally are bike crossings, that have a bike light operating. Most do not have this.
If you stopped at that I could agree with you, but it's a moot point. You have then proceeded
to make rash and unsupported, and as others have commented, offensive accusations about
my comment and they are not in the least bit ameliorated by your faux apology.
In most things, I try to live by the motto "Judge not and thou shalt not be judged". But as you
obviously don't, I'll make an exception for you.
You have absolutely no more to go on than I did - and probably even less If you've
never driven or ridden along Richmond Rd.
I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing my comments or editing my post.
Your claim that it clearly reads as blaming the motorist is facile and self-serving.
As to being compelled to judge others, this proves you are the only one here who is
climbing a moral high horse. Then judging and trampling all over others.
You should take your own advice before offering it to others.
You guys are hilarious.
One of the three possible crossings at the Richmond Rd/Breakfast RdTraffic lights does not have a marked foot crossing and can be legally crossed by a rider.
I thought all children under 12 could ride on the footpath? Or is that just in VIC? How can crossing a ped crossing by a child be different to the rules for children and footpaths?
I hope the child pulls through and my condolences to his family. If it was a mistake on the child's part and no fault of the motorist then my condolences to the driver because their life is probably ruined. If the driver was at fault then their life is ruined and I hope the book is thrown at them.
I think it is all contained in Rule 81 in Victoria (note: this refers specifically to 'zebra crossings'):
Anything else is fair game. I have yet to find a specific rule for light-controlled crossings at intersections. Rule 232 'Crossing a road at traffic lights' only refers to pedestrians; does this mean cyclists can ignore the red man lights at will, as they do not apply to them ???
Used to wheelie across every set of lights as a kid, stuff just happens sometimes, its a numbers game....life that is !
"Police have been told the child was riding his pushbike crossing Richmond Road at traffic lights at the intersection of Breakfast Road about 7.30pm (23 March 2013), when he was hit by a silver Subaru Escape."
Update - note this is what NSW Police have been told (only). So he rode across at a set of lights, it was probably in low light condition, maybe dark. We don't know if it was red/green - almost red or almost green.
Never good to hear, and I wish they would keep cases like this in the public domain and update people on exactly what happened. We need to examine how people drive and what measures can be taken to change it. That also goes for car (4WD) design. We, everyone who drives, should take ownership of the road toll, lives, injuries the whole lot.
Kids do unpredictable things - but I can't think of a good excuse for running over a kid in your 4WD.
Good drivers makes allowance for the fact that there is a kid on a bike in the vicinity - more so when it's dark.
Yes, but the law regarding the children under 12 riding on the footpath is different to the usual and is an exemption to the rule. I think they would be classified as pedestrians. But that's nothing that could be answered here anyway and if you were a driver claiming you didn't have to give way to a child cycling and therefore went through the crossing and hit them, you'd be an absolute idiot, IMO.
Ah, here it is, all covered under Rule 248:
You are legally required to walk your bike. The only exception is for a bicycle crossing.
Rue 249 prohibiting riding on a footpath is pretty blunt:
The exemptions for riders under 12, and riders 12 and over to ride on a footpath are covered in Rule 250 (won't quote all of it as it goes on for bit about the exceptions and how to ride on a footpath):
Thee is no mention that I have seen where a cyclist under 12 is then "regarded as a pedestrian". Far from it - they are simply a bicycle rider, under 12 years of age, subject to the same rules, but with one exception.
He's a child. Children do unexpected things. It was a pedestrian crossing. The child was hit hard enough to do serious damage.
It is reasonable to conclude that the motorist was moving comparatively quickly. Subject to there being some unusual fact or some mitigating circumstance, the motorist was more likely than not moving too quickly.
As it happens, when I was much younger than now (around 10 years old) I was hit by a car as a pedestrian and, another time, as a cyclist. On both occasions the car hit me head on, after I'd run or ridden across the road. After the cycling incident I was ok, apart from being cut and bruised. After the other incident, I ended up in hospital for a number of weeks. I don't think that the motorists could have avoided hitting me, since both times (and I'm relying on what other people said at the time and have repeated since) the motorists were moving at normal suburban speeds, rather than at the kind of speed that is sensible around a school. Ride? Walk? In my experience walking is not the safer option.
And there is no point at all in quoting the road rules. An adult cannot claim ignorance of the law, but a child can and quite reasonably so. It is the adults who need to exercise care and the courts will recognise that.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: westab