Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
A mate brought this hotheaded psychopath journalist to my attention this arvo.
Just as the idiots on the Adelaide FM station had to feel the power of social media, it's about time Daniel Meers and GoldCoast.com.au (News Limited) were slapped to their senses.
The next law abiding cyclist to be maimed or killed on the GOld Coast should be able to apportion some blame to these fools.
What a stroker. Haven't read such a rant for a while.
Just read this load of tripe... It would be great if we could somehow organise a formal response, pointing out that cyclists riding two abreast was well within the law in all states of Australia, and the reason police do nothing about it is because no ,laws are being broken. Furthermore, Garfield Tce, is a narrow two lane road with very little footpath and no safe place for cyclists other than in the traffic lane. Oh, its a 40km/h zone, so if he's held to 30km/h big f@#k'n deal!
Always looking for new rides & ride partners in SE QLD area
His budgie cage liner got his profile pic wrong. Here's the correct one of him being supported by a mate...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
http://www.bq.org.au/news/bq-response-t ... -bulletin/
Yes, these fools need to understand such articles normalize and eventually condone aggressive driving around cyclists.
It is hard to believe journalists don't understand this.
Glad to see BQ on it.
Wasted a fair few minutes of my life reading that troll-turd.
"motorists might get the roads back to themselves; after all, they were invented for cars." Really? He's got a great bent for re-inventing history
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
Good response by BQ
I can't remember the exact wording but the screen that comes up after posting feedback to that moron's "article" warns that comments must be factual, must not be offensive, inflammatory etc.
I don't understand (note the sarcasm here) why they did not post my comment about the journalist not having to live up to the same standards!
To be fair several other people have made the same point.
Motorists in Sydney and in Australia have 'manned-up' a lot, in fact the police have asked for calm on the roads twice in the last month due to a spike in road deaths.
This was obviously not heeded. Yesterday morning a 5 year old was run down, killed, trying to cross a road, in a school zone less than 300 metres from his kindy. It was also right at an intersection so you would think car doing 40km/h in school zone approaching an intersection might even reduce speed further??? No can do. Places to be, lives to take.
As the boys godfather pointed out, he did not want to walk to school he asked for a lift, but his mother walked with her two other kids. Another nail in the coffin of my son ever walking or riding to school, or anywhere else for that matter. Things just have to change.
Level of outrage over this incident? None. This is situation normal. The Queensland Police should also respond to this article.
I agree, things do need to change.
How about parents do NOT drive their kids everywhere? Then it will be incredibly safer not only for the children (won't SOMEONE think of the children ) but for all road and path users.
Isn't that what most cyclists want anyhow? Less cars on the road generally means safer roads (and road related areas)?
2010 BMC SLC01
It seems as though that child may have ran out onto the road into the path of the car. Looks like a tragic accident not a case of negligent driving.
http://m.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=926 ... yOPJO&_rdr
Daniel Meers would like an ambulance so he can speed whenever he wants. Posted on his FB page on 21-11-2012 (and still there).
if it's any consolation, he got the crap knocked out of him in the blogosphere. but that's really what trolls want.
@Shred931 - Yup chalk it up to an accident. Totally unavoidable. What driver would expect a kid to run out in front of their car in a school zone at 8:40am 300 metres from the gate? He was due to get an award for coming first in his kindy class - probably in a rush to get to school.
So sad Australia is cool with kids dying on the roads. My son will not be walking/rideing/skateing the 1.5km to school, we'll get an SUV so he is safe.
This is probably why the clown in the OP drives to his mates place, 1.7kms away, to go for a run. People drive to the gym to get onto a stationary bike, or drive to Centennial Park in Sydney to ride around in circles inside the park.
"It's believed the Audi, driven by a 42-year-old woman from the Kingsgrove area, was travelling at low speed as it attempted to negotiate a turn onto busy Kingsgrove Rd, which is a 50km/h thoroughfare"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bo ... 6534319198
Accidents happen, even though you want someone to blame.
this is the type of car involved, a Q5:
the child would have stood a much better chance of survival in a low speed collision with a sedan which met European pedestrian protection regs. (almost all new cars sold in Australia would). this vehicle would be exempt however, as it is an SUV. the high bumper is an absolute killer for kids in this type of collision - with a lower profile bonnet on a car, the kid will more likely roll over the bonnet.
Not all five year old kids are four foot or more.... most would be shorter.
I believe the entire reason that the speed limit is reduced to 40 in school zones is because that you can't rely on sensible behaviour from minors (under 18!!) near roads. If it is not negligent driving, why slow the cars down? I doubt this kid would have been hit at 40kmh given the intersection... the car was the problem, not the child.
You slow the cars down to 40 because they cannot respond quickly at 60. The car is a terrible vehicle to have around children of any age. A bike wouldn't have had the same issues as an SUV.
The driver can suffer the guilt - our driving rules place the onus of responsibility on the car because a pedestrian can't take measures to control the 2 tonnes of steel. Our school zone rules CLEARLY acknowledge the risk that a car presents to children. If the driver can't adapt to the riskier conditions in a school zone, then they should not be driving. It is not an accident when it is foreseeable.
the bonnet line on your average sedan is lower than 4 foot - it would be a pretty short kid who knocked their head on car bonnet leading edge.
That's right - but you said, "the kid will more likely roll over the bonnet".... in this context - you're waaay off the mark.
maybe. what i should have said was that the crucial issue is whether the pedestrian's head takes a direct hit, or not. it's clearly more likely with a high-bonneted vehicle, such as this one. the head is sacrosanct - you may still die from chest or other injuries, but your odds of survival are almost always higher if you protect the head. (where have we discussed that before?)
SMH online is saying NSW Police believe it was SMIDSY. The whole family was hit by the car, thats 4 people including a 1 year old in a pram.
So yes totally avoidable, people have walked out in front of me on both my bike and car - I am yet to hit anyone with any kind of force.
The way this story is played as opposed to say a prank call on the radio...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: high_tea