Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
13 posts • Page 1 of 1
http://news.sky.com/story/1124343/lucky ... on-cyclist
Don't forget to read the comments below the video from the trolls that think it's somehow the cyclist's fault.
Motorcyclist to start with... But bloody lucky indeed. But if you come up behind a car in its blind spot which already has it's brake lights on, passenger door open and then pull out and skim it so close then you are asking for trouble!.
Going by that video I would be surprised if the driver was at fault.
Many cyclists do the same - come up behind a car in its blind spot, pull out and skim close. It is what they've been 'told' to do by sticking in the gutter and not claiming the lane.
It is not an excuse for the driver not to check and, contrary to you, I believe they are at fault. It isn't hard to use your mirrors and do a headcheck and open the door slowly, watching your mirrors and turning your body before stepping out.
Pretty terrible to watch.
Not saying the driver did check... but he / she could of checked a split second before and would of seen nothing... then a motorbike pulls out at a good speed and bang. I'll change my opinion to both at fault... but totally avoidable situation by the motorcyclist.
The rider is completely untrained in defensive riding, and appears to move several feet outwards in traffic without head checking it, with a truck plainly audible and visible alongside. IMO that truck was too large to ride through that gap under any circumstances. Given the gaps between the truck and the cam vehicle I would actually have stopped behind the car and merged when clear. Given an extra car length gap, I'd have merged over behind the truck. Typically in 20kms of riding in Sydney, I do the latter 10 to 15 times sometimes by accelerating to make the merge, and the former once or twice.
ie yes its responsibility of door user to prevent it impeding other traffic, but the sooner most people make a conscious and safe choice to make an observed safe merge into the next lane over, and the sooner motorists get used to the concept that parking in a kerb lane is an extraordinary privilege and therefore expect bicycles to need the middle lane if a road section supports it, the better.
Dunno what the CH regs are re power assist but that was of the pedelec breed.
100% agree with Summers prior post:
How many new (and not so new) riders believe that gutter hugging is the safest way because it lets the smokeblowers past easily? The answer can be found many times by a trawl through plenty of pages here.
How many of them have nearly had their right arm taken off (or worse) by Joe Moron who CBF changing lanes and doing it right because they "thought they had sufficient room."?
How many of them, after a few instances of being forced to sit in inadvertant brown puddles have given the game away?
Any answer above "ZERO" to any of the above questions is too many.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
The rider was in the middle of the road... not sitting in the gutter. He/she just made a very poor decision when over taking a parked car... but I for one have done the same in the past .
I agree regarding the need for defensive riding by all and think the poor lady in the footage should have moved out further to be completely in the through-lane to overtake the parked car. But for whatever reason she thought that she could trust that the door wouldn't be opened on her. Which it shouldn't have been.
I don't think she should be considered at fault for this situation (although she may want to take a defensive riding course). If the door had been opened on a car that was driving on the right-most edge of the through lane in this situation the parked car would be 100% at fault. No difference here, IMO. Door was opened into the path of moving traffic.
If we blame the victim then the focus shifts and the real issue here is failing to look before opening doors.
P.S. It also looks like it is the driver's rear passenger door that is opened, not the driver's door.
This sort of atttude was what was put forward to me in discussions with a colleague's husband - he is a police officer . It is quite amazing to see how he did not even know the Victorian Road Rules that he is suppose to administer..... disturbing. Opening a door in the face of traffic is an offence - period.
There are very good recommended practices for cyclists on many aspects of riding in traffic. Many of them are just that eg. claiming the lane, doing head-checks, riding with a rear-view mirror...... Few of them are road rules. And keeping out of the door zone is also one also that you will not find in the road rules.
The driver/passenger has been taken into custody by police, and should be fined. Not enough are.
I reckon (looking at this Video) that the offending door opener is a kid, in the back seat of the SUV.
This is probably one of those cases where everyone should have done something differently, and the resulting crash should have killed the rider, but it didn't (amazingly)
This just demonstrates that we, as cyclists, need to take steps to ensure our safety out there on the road. Even if it means, occasionally pissing some hot head off slightly, by holding them up for a second or two.
Better than being dead...
My Garage = Restored Paino - the "Fixie" - Giant Trance X2 - Azzurri Forza Pro Di2 - GT Avalanche 1 & 2
It's china, who knows how the law works... A good lawyer could probably fight that one.
Personally I would have waited or changed lanes and kept riding happily along.
The driver fled the scene but was apparently detained later by police for not controlling his passengers. Was tracked down by reviewing CCTV for rego details.
Police in China are very scary apparently. The offending driver in a crash will commonly throw cash at you until you say "enough" rather than have you call the cops.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen
a mate of mine was born in India. he reckons he hit and killed a pedestrian once. he took off. this sounds terrible, but the lower castes (i.e. poorer people who don't have the means of taking motorised transport) walk on the road over there (i've been there and seen it - although in my view that's just more reason for drivers to take care) and he said that if he'd stopped, he'd most likely have been beaten to a pulp. i'm not condoning that, but even our useless laws which can't protect cyclists look brilliant in comparison to how dysfunctional theirs are.
13 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users