Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
Not sure if any of you have noticed, but there's a strong tendency on forums to maintain silence over discussions on the cause of a major biking accident. Whilst it is tragic and sad for the involved and often considered insensitive. At the same time, by knowing what the involved reasons were, it would help fellow riders in avoiding similar situations. 100 RIPs may demonstrate our bonding to our fellow cyclists, but they are not going to avoid future events.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
Maybe because nobody knows exactly what's happened straight after a fatal accident. sometimes it is better to shut up until the facts are known.
I am always happy to offer my opinion, but only once I have some idea of the facts. If you are refering to the tragic death today as an example, while we know where it happened & when it happened, there is no information as to how it happened, hence nothing to discuss.
We are only ever going to be able to speculate. Often such speculation is completely flawed and may constitute libel of an involved party. The facts of the case will come out in the inquest, in several months time.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
That has not stopped the posters on the NSW Police Facebook page.
How can cycling insurance and registration be brought into this accident?
If he had a massive rego plate and was insured for $1,000,000,000,000 it would have saved him?
I sincerely hope that the NSW Police investigators, coroners, judges and potentially jurors are not so bias/twisted in their views.
Makes me sick.
I think it's better to be respectful until we know all the circumstances. But there are some things we can say already about different things that would have prevented this from occurring.
I agree with Sydguy on his comments about the sick/twisted comments about this. Some people are just cruel.
Only a couple of weeks ago another Sydney cyclist was found fatally injured by the roadside, and there was an immediate response condemning the hit and run driver responsible.
As it turned out, no other vehicle was involved. Some should have been a little more circumspect with their comments until the facts were known.
And a bit earlier there were many ill-advised comments about an apparent road rage incident where a motorist ran down and then assaulted a cyclist, who it turned was bonking his girlfriend.
Last edited by RonK on Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
What RonK said plus the media have a way of reporting facts such that they stuff the story up.
It was reported, then changed, that a truck was involved - from the same company already under investigation by Police for a similar accident.
Turns out the truckie had only stopped to help and it was a Jeep 4WD who hit the bunch.
Very true in many cases. Not referring to the tragic incident from yesterday in Western Sydney but generally I have encountered many cases where a major accident with fellow cyclists present and the case get closed deliberately. It may be an organization thing, liability issues, avoidance of talking down the sport or other reasons. To me, it's such a shuttered approach to the risks we all face on the road.
I agree those cases were poorly discussed and I too dislike the irresponsible blame game that commonly happens. What's more important in my mind is staying objective and seeking safer riding practices eg. Certain roads, certain conditions, certain circumstances. I think with each accident major and minor, there's something worthwhile to be learnt by noob and experienced riders. In the long run, these case histories are instructive in accident avoidance.
SO maybe see what the coroner says?
Coroners report tend not to have value in dealing with the present. The issue is, what we, as riders, can do now to mitigate those risks on our daily rides.
Coroners also make recomendations in their reports for the future, it is then up to the relevant authorities to act..or not, on those reccomendations.
Yes, that's exactly my point. Effecting the recommendations of coroner's reports tend to be a long way in the future, if it ever happens. We as daily cyclists need to know the circumstances (not just SUV/truckie bashing) and learn to adapt for the present.
will the coroner say anything?
As far as I can tell there was no coronial inquest into David Williams death on the M4 in 2010, however the driver Stephen Day pleaded guilty to manslaughter in February 2012.
Edit and in February 2013 is reported to have been sentenced to 9 years jail & is intending to appeal the sentence
Last edited by find_bruce on Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No way we can do anything about fatigued dopers except hope
I'm not a fan of freeway riding (where legal) but that's more down to the 'orrible amount of tyre shredding crap that inhabits shoulders in this state.
London Boy 29/12/2011
However the facts of a fatal collision tend to come forth in the coronial inquest (or a trial). Without those facts any 'mitigation of risks' is fanciful.
True, to the nth degree if it was a good report. Otherwise there are still a lot of safety practices that could be learnt without waiting for that final report. At the end of the day, the coroner may not even be a cyclist.
Its a good point. I'm not sure how accessible some of this stuff is, but it could be educational to read analysis of cases (maybe anonymised?) so we can learn something. I've read some overall analysis type stuff of cyclist accidents that required hospitilisation but most of the cases were the cyclists fault and didn't even involve another vehicle, and the couple that weren't were very very brief, to the point I was able to half guess that one was a right hook and that was about it.
You don't need a coronial to see the dangers of bicycles being on the same stretch of road as vehicles doing 110km/h or more. The speed differential is too great. A motorway is not a good place for bicycles to be on. The breakdown lane as a cycle way is just a shortcut - rather than doing a proper cycle way that is separated from the traffic lanes of the motorway.
This happens on almost every non-urban main road across the nation. All of them have less shoulder room than a freeway emergency lane. You are knocking an awful lot of the country out as unsuitable for cycling
I do agree that freeway emergency lanes make a very poor cycle-way, however there is much more to consider. What is really at issue is driving habits, the nature of on-ramp merging, and the respect for & awareness of other road-users.
I knew I should have been more specific about naming motorways... Nit picking.
So you basically knew what I was getting at, but couldn't resist the urge to nit pick.
And you demanded the other day that you weren't to be quoted in such a manner as above, so why should you now do the same to me? Isn't that a bit rich...
Not nit-picking at all. Sorry about the selective quoting but I didn't think I really altered your statement or context. Point taken.
Yes, I do dislike riding on freeways. I have done it, and generally it is fairly safe, but it is far from a pleasant riding environment. I also do not like, nor recommend riding on major highways however I have done a lot of riding on these roads. These and all of our rural secondary and minor roads are all 100kmh limit (often drivers are doing a good bit over the odds as well). I don't think we can write roads off for cycling use because of the speed limit, or even the general speed of traffic. There is a lot more at stake and a lot more to consider.
Key point, getting back to the thread, is to wait for any police statements and coroner's report. For all we know this collision may have had nothing to do with the fact that it occurred on a freeway (eg, drugs, texting distraction, brake failure etc.).
a) Avoiding speculation
b) The touch wood factor
c) Sensitivity to families
It's an interesting question.... but just human nature to draw back when the proverbial hits....the......
While I agree there should be something like the Aviation Safety Board comprising of a group of veteran riders of that dicipline, backed up by a support group / legal assistance for non-at-fault riders. Forum discussion immediately after major incidents is usually lacking detail or laced with personal bias.
I would disagree. It is human nature to discuss the causes, the blame and the solutions when somebody dies in an activity that you associate yourself with. However in the case of cycling it seems that many times there is an information void. Furthermore the cause and blame is often obvious.
Amongst the rockclimbers discussions are enthusiastic whenever incidents occur. Because of a tight knit community information normally comes out. Also there is often MORE to discuss as almost always it is user error. While discussion such things can be a little sensitive for those closely involved, the discussion is essential to ensure risks are known and participants learn and are aware of mistakes that can occur.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users