Sydney crash

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT

TimC said:

Is Brian Reid's letter in
http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/studies-show-freer-laws-on-cannabis-do-not-equate-to-more-users/2008/05/11/1210444235055.html?page=fullpage
true, or just a load of bollocks?

I suspect it's a load of bollocks, or if indeed there is a sign, it's
probably about as legal as the signs outside of my town that say "no
cycling" on the public RTA controlled highway.

This came through on the Massbug list from Gilbert
<[email hidden]>. I make no representations as to its truth
or otherwise.

Zebee

Myth 7/ With all the publicity over 50-odd cyclists running into each
other and the rear of a car on Southern Cross Drive, nobody is
pointing out that it is illegal for the cyclists to be there.
This fact is clearly signposted with directions to the adjacent
cycleway and at times also spelt out on the overhead message boards.

*Busted/ The break down lane adjacent to the roadway is a designated
cycle lane. The result of rather poor planning on behalf of the RTA
and various governments who see shoulders and bus lanes as appropriate
for cycle paths thereby fulfilling their promise to increase cycle
paths and contributing yet another bureaucratic green wash. The RTA
Guidebook on Bicycle infrastructure states that where there is a cycle
path on the should of a main road where the traffic is moving at 70kmh
there should be a one metre buffer lane. This is evident on the
Sydney to Wollongong Expressway. No such buffer exists on Southern
Cross Drive. The cycle lane that is there - and it is 100% legal to
use it despite the wishy washy statement above, is often if not always
littered with construction rubbish nails, screws, oddments that fall
from uncovered loads from construction workers vehicles. And the
remains of an often thrown bottle.

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT

TimC said:

Is Brian Reid's letter in
http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/studies-show-freer-laws-on-cannabis-do-not-equate-to-more-users/2008/05/11/1210444235055.html?page=fullpage
true, or just a load of bollocks?

I suspect it's a load of bollocks, or if indeed there is a sign, it's
probably about as legal as the signs outside of my town that say "no
cycling" on the public RTA controlled highway.

This came through on the Massbug list from Gilbert
<[email hidden]>. I make no representations as to its truth
or otherwise.

Zebee

Myth 7/ With all the publicity over 50-odd cyclists running into each
other and the rear of a car on Southern Cross Drive, nobody is
pointing out that it is illegal for the cyclists to be there.
This fact is clearly signposted with directions to the adjacent
cycleway and at times also spelt out on the overhead message boards.

*Busted/ The break down lane adjacent to the roadway is a designated
cycle lane. The result of rather poor planning on behalf of the RTA
and various governments who see shoulders and bus lanes as appropriate
for cycle paths thereby fulfilling their promise to increase cycle
paths and contributing yet another bureaucratic green wash. The RTA
Guidebook on Bicycle infrastructure states that where there is a cycle
path on the should of a main road where the traffic is moving at 70kmh
there should be a one metre buffer lane. This is evident on the
Sydney to Wollongong Expressway. No such buffer exists on Southern
Cross Drive. The cycle lane that is there - and it is 100% legal to
use it despite the wishy washy statement above, is often if not always
littered with construction rubbish nails, screws, oddments that fall
from uncovered loads from construction workers vehicles. And the
remains of an often thrown bottle.

Sorry for doing the Road Rule bit but:
ARR 247 says : Cyclists are obliged to use a sign posted (of the correct
regulatory kind) bike lane UNLESS there is a reasonable excuse not to, like
debris or rough surfaces etc, or not wide enough. So I imagine they could
hardly ping the cyclists for not using the bike lane, if the shoulder is
actually a proper bike lane. Maybe what the Herald letter writer was on
about is a sign alerting cyclists to an access path to the residential
access road next to SC Drive at Todman Av. This goes along behind the sound
barrier for a few hundred metres then there is a path for cyclists to rejoin
SC Drive. It isnt obligatory to use this side road AFAIK, its just a
quieter alternative for a while, although maybe the shoulder does disappear
near Todman St due to the tunnel portals. Anyway its all by the by, a bunch
of fast cyclists is not going to disappear down a side street only to
reappear a short distance on. The shoulder definitely disappears further
along, after Wentworth St exit, on a flyover of the lakes, where I think
cyclists are banned- although ISTBC on that. Cars exiting left to Wentworth
can cut off continuing cyclists badly there. Odd that there is no shoulder
under the runway (not anymore anyway) but cyclists can use the lane there.

Attempting to understand some letter writers who say the bunch cyclists
should be charged for riding too close together to avoid a collision, I see
ARR 126 says " A Driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a
vehicle....to avoid a collision..", but rule 16 implies a rider is not a
driver, so 126 doesnt apply to cyclists. However rule 19 says "a reference
to a Driver includes a ref to a Rider" so Im confused.

FB in Sydknee

"TimC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is Brian Reid's letter in
http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/studies-show-freer-laws-on-cannabis-do-not-equate-to-more-users/2008/05/11/1210444235055.html?page=fullpage
true, or just a load of bollocks?

I suspect it's a load of bollocks, or if indeed there is a sign, it's
probably about as legal as the signs outside of my town that say "no
cycling" on the public RTA controlled highway.

My thought is that SMH should only publish letters talking about legal
opinion if they can verify the truthness of the statements made by the
letter writer. Tony Schramko's next comments *is* a load of bollocks,
because bicycle riders, last time I checked, do not have the law about
riding with sufficient room in front.

Pity they didn't publish my letter:

Subject: Eric Roozendaal is not helpful to peak hour traffic

It seems to me that, contrary to the roads minister, Eric Roozendaal's
suggestion that bikes are not helpful to peak hour traffic (despite bike
riders having as much purpose in getting somewhere as our car driving
compatriots), it is other traffic which is not helpful to peak hour
traffic. For example, from the NSW transport department's own statistics,
we find that commuters have a car occupancy rates of 1.1 people per car
(or at least 9 out of 10 cars having only the 1 driver occupant). The
taxi travellers where there is just a shade over 2 people per car, one of
them being the driver doing the ferrying. The people attending schools,
where the occupancy rate is 1.3 (where the average is boosted by mums in
4WDs driving their charges to school in peak hour traffic, instead of
letting them walk or ride the 1km to the school). People on work duty,
ferrying themselves and 0.16 other people on average. The shoppers
attending the local corner store 800 metres down the road, with 1.3 people
in the car. If you got rid of these populations, and put them on bikes
that take 1/6th of the room of a car, that would be a great way to save
people from road rage by easing congestion. Or if we only had a forward
thinking transport minister who actually cared about getting a reliable
and complete rail network. But I dream.

Letters need to be punchy and explicit. Conclusive rather than detailed...

Here's my edit.

--

Eric Roozendaal really doesn't get it. Peak hour is a cars problem. Bikes are a major
part of the solution. Official statistics dismally reveal more people per vehicle in a car
than on a bike, but only just. Although 1.1 commuters sit in the average car against 1.001
commuters for each bike, cars take up a lot more space. Cars also make you fat, sick
and angry. In some cases, very angry.

--

The things that will make it publishable are: "1.001" and "very angry"...

[Feel free to submit that one].

--

I had a letter published last Friday, which I thought was a hoot:

Will somebody please honour Peter Costello with Deputy Life Membership of the
Liberal Party of Australia? And then turn out the lights and shut the gate on the way
out. It's over.

Cheese, Tomasso.

fractal said:

Attempting to understand some letter writers who say the bunch cyclists
should be charged for riding too close together to avoid a collision, I see
ARR 126 says " A Driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a
vehicle....to avoid a collision..", but rule 16 implies a rider is not a
driver, so 126 doesnt apply to cyclists. However rule 19 says "a reference
to a Driver includes a ref to a Rider" so Im confused.

Didn't the nitwit admit to cutting in front of them, aka there is no onus
of travelling a safe stopping distance.

It is going to be interesting to see if "the air bag popped" story holds
up or is JAL?

terryc said:

fractal said:

Attempting to understand some letter writers who say the bunch cyclists
should be charged for riding too close together to avoid a collision, I see
ARR 126 says " A Driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a
vehicle....to avoid a collision..", but rule 16 implies a rider is not a
driver, so 126 doesnt apply to cyclists. However rule 19 says "a reference
to a Driver includes a ref to a Rider" so Im confused.

Didn't the nitwit admit to cutting in front of them, aka there is no onus
of travelling a safe stopping distance.

It is going to be interesting to see if "the air bag popped" story holds
up or is JAL?

Air Bag? I thought I'd read where he said that he pulled over because
his gas supply wasn't working and he had to switch to petrol??

Peter Cremasco said:

Quoted message said:

Didn't the nitwit admit to cutting in front of them, aka there is no onus
of travelling a safe stopping distance.

It is going to be interesting to see if "the air bag popped" story holds
up or is JAL?

Air Bag? I thought I'd read where he said that he pulled over because
his gas supply wasn't working and he had to switch to petrol??

You are getting the picture. The more this idiot keeps talking, the more
he is going to be hopping. One wonders if plod is following all this or
needs someone to co-allate all these "excuses" and bring them to his
attention.

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 08:52:29 +1000

terryc said:

Peter Cremasco said:

Quoted message said:

Didn't the nitwit admit to cutting in front of them, aka there is no onus
of travelling a safe stopping distance.

It is going to be interesting to see if "the air bag popped" story holds
up or is JAL?

Air Bag? I thought I'd read where he said that he pulled over because
his gas supply wasn't working and he had to switch to petrol??

You are getting the picture. The more this idiot keeps talking, the more
he is going to be hopping. One wonders if plod is following all this or
needs someone to co-allate all these "excuses" and bring them to his
attention.

The quote in today's Herald was "The airbox popped". Which could be
read as a mechanically clueless person describing the coughing of a
car running out of fuel.

Somehow I think the coppers read the papers during the tea break just
like everyone else.

Zebee

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT, TimC
<[email hidden]> wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23690157-421,00.html?from=public_rss

Driver charged over cyclist crash
May 13, 2008 07:29am

A DRIVER involved in a crash with a pack of 50 elite cyclists last week has been
charged.

The cyclists were on a training ride near Sydney airport early last Thursday
when a car stopped suddenly in front of them.

More than 20 riders, including professional cyclists Kate Nichols and Olympic
hopeful Ben Kersten, crashed into the back of the car, with some suffering minor
cuts and abrasions.

The driver allegedly drove away from the scene.

A 34-year-old Claymore man was yesterday ordered to appear in court charged with
not supplying particulars.

He is due in Waverley Local Court on June 26.

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 08:52:29 +1000

terryc said:

Peter Cremasco said:

> Didn't the nitwit admit to cutting in front of them, aka there is no onus
> of travelling a safe stopping distance.
>
> It is going to be interesting to see if "the air bag popped" story holds
> up or is JAL?
>
Air Bag? I thought I'd read where he said that he pulled over because
his gas supply wasn't working and he had to switch to petrol??

You are getting the picture. The more this idiot keeps talking, the more
he is going to be hopping. One wonders if plod is following all this or
needs someone to co-allate all these "excuses" and bring them to his
attention.

The quote in today's Herald was "The airbox popped". Which could be
read as a mechanically clueless person describing the coughing of a
car running out of fuel.

Somehow I think the coppers read the papers during the tea break just
like everyone else.

Zebee

Ummm. Well actually

The way lots of gas setups work is with a gas mixer into an airbox. A
backfire and the airbox comes apart. Its built with clips so that it
does cos otherwise it would burst. Follow me?

And when it happens the car does roll to a stop. So yah.. that bit
hangs together.

But ummmmm. it does not start again until you put the airbox back
together :P

On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:37:47 +1000, David Springthrope
<[email hidden]> wrote in aus.bicycle:

Quoted message said:

More than 20 riders, including professional cyclists Kate Nichols and Olympic
hopeful Ben Kersten, crashed into the back of the car, with some suffering minor
cuts and abrasions.

The driver allegedly drove away from the scene.

A 34-year-old Claymore man was yesterday ordered to appear in court charged with
not supplying particulars.

He is due in Waverley Local Court on June 26.

That seems a very minor charge compared with an attempt to harm
somebody.. The defence that he was scared by a mob of angry cyclists
might stand up - though he was a bouncer and did he report the
accident to the police before they found him?

Anyway pretty pathetic charge.

Regards
Dinsy

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - Lucretius

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000

Dinsdale Pirana said:

That seems a very minor charge compared with an attempt to harm
somebody.. The defence that he was scared by a mob of angry cyclists
might stand up - though he was a bouncer and did he report the
accident to the police before they found him?

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

Anything that requires intent, that's much much harder. It might be
that the prosecutor's office is useless (it has been said before) or
it might be that the witness statements are bitty enough or
contradictory enough that they don't think they can make anything more
stick.

Or maybe they want to hit him with this now to shut everyone up while
they work on other charges for later.

My money's on "he says one thing, they say another, given what we have
a good defence counsel will raise enough doubt that it's just not
worth it."

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000

Quoted message said:

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

The main problem is it happened on the road so they can only charge him with
offences under the traffic act. Dangerous driving, failing to stop etc.
Sadly we don't have a vehicular homicide charge or similar in Australia yet
so it's up to the individual victims to lay their own assault charges and/or
damages claims.

I doubt he'll get jail but, short of allowing the cyclists baseballs bats
and 30 mins alone with him, having to pay for the damage to all those
high-end bikes would be a most excellent outcome in this case I think.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

Has anyone else noticed a slight change in the behaviour of Sydney
motorists since this. In the past I have noticed that when Adolf Evans
of the NRMA has one of his anti cycling rants motorists act more
aggressively towards me. However this time they seem to be giving me
more room etc (not all but most)

OzCableguy said:

Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000

Quoted message said:

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

The main problem is it happened on the road so they can only charge him
with offences under the traffic act. Dangerous driving, failing to stop
etc. Sadly we don't have a vehicular homicide charge or similar in
Australia yet so it's up to the individual victims to lay their own
assault charges and/or damages claims.

I doubt he'll get jail but, short of allowing the cyclists baseballs
bats and 30 mins alone with him, having to pay for the damage to all
those high-end bikes would be a most excellent outcome in this case I
think.

--
Remove norubbish to reply

"OzCableguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000

Quoted message said:

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

The main problem is it happened on the road so they can only charge him
with offences under the traffic act. Dangerous driving, failing to stop
etc. Sadly we don't have a vehicular homicide charge or similar in
Australia yet so it's up to the individual victims to lay their own
assault charges and/or damages claims.

I doubt he'll get jail but, short of allowing the cyclists baseballs bats
and 30 mins alone with him, having to pay for the damage to all those
high-end bikes would be a most excellent outcome in this case I think.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

There is Predatory Driving, brought in to target tailgaters or other
threastening behaviour. But the definition of vehicle in this case doesnt
include bicycle for some reason - seems an oversight to me.

www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s51a.html

51 A of the Crimes aCT
<<
The driver of a vehicle who, while in pursuit of or travelling near another
vehicle:
(a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an impact
involving the other vehicle, and
(b) intends by that course of conduct to cause a person in the other
vehicle actual bodily harm,
is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fb

Fractal said:

"OzCableguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000

Quoted message said:

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

The main problem is it happened on the road so they can only charge him
with offences under the traffic act. Dangerous driving, failing to stop
etc. Sadly we don't have a vehicular homicide charge or similar in
Australia yet so it's up to the individual victims to lay their own
assault charges and/or damages claims.

I doubt he'll get jail but, short of allowing the cyclists baseballs bats
and 30 mins alone with him, having to pay for the damage to all those
high-end bikes would be a most excellent outcome in this case I think.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

There is Predatory Driving, brought in to target tailgaters or other
threastening behaviour. But the definition of vehicle in this case doesnt
include bicycle for some reason - seems an oversight to me.

www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s51a.html

51 A of the Crimes aCT
<<
The driver of a vehicle who, while in pursuit of or travelling near another
vehicle:
(a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an impact
involving the other vehicle, and
(b) intends by that course of conduct to cause a person in the other
vehicle actual bodily harm,
is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fb

If the outcome of the court hearing appears to be unacceptable to
cyclists
involved in the crash, and to cyclists in general, then you could do a
lot worse than
protest pubically about it.

I suggest Sydney riders would need a lot of solidarity, but let us
suppose
100 riders slowly rode from Hornsby to Waverley court so that the
busiest of roads is blocked entirely
by cyclists for say 2 hours at 1pm on a sunday.
I'd say police will deal with you after about 2km, but you'd make your
point.
I strongly suggest you have a friend in a car following along to video
all the procedings,
and with a newspaper/media reporter.
Just don't run any red lights.

I recall the anti Vietnam War marches of the late '60s and early '70s.

Sure, these marches interupted road life for awhile, but thankfully
gave a hearing to pent up rage against the War, and the tragic loss of
many lives at the whim of politicians.

If you don't fight for your rights, they get whittled away slowly by Big
Brother.

Having said that, I am thankful for cycle paths in Canberra, and the
uncluttered lifestyle I have here, and that I don't have to fight too
many for my rights.
And if women with prams insist they ain't going to move over to let me
pass, OK,
not much I will do about it, a woman with a pram wheels Australia's
Future so
madame, take all the time you wish.

Patrick Turner.

Fractal said:

There is Predatory Driving, brought in to target tailgaters or other
threastening behaviour. But the definition of vehicle in this case doesnt
include bicycle for some reason - seems an oversight to me.

www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s51a.html

51 A of the Crimes aCT
<<
The driver of a vehicle who, while in pursuit of or travelling near another
vehicle:
(a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an impact
involving the other vehicle, and
(b) intends by that course of conduct to cause a person in the other
vehicle actual bodily harm,
is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fb

As far as I'm aware vehicle includes bicycles.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:53:57 GMT, Patrick Turner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And if women with prams insist they ain't going to move over to let me
pass, OK,
not much I will do about it, a woman with a pram wheels Australia's
Future so
madame, take all the time you wish.

And who knows, you might be the kid's father !

On 14 May 2008 02:16:00 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email hidden]> wrote
in aus.bicycle:

Quoted message said:

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

Yes I agree with you. And the other problem is that the cyclists ran
into the back of him. I think it has always been accepted that if you
run into the back of another vehicle then you are at fault. Not with
standing that he cut in front of them, arguably as soon as he did so
they should have slowed.

Regards
Dinsy

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - Lucretius

On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:44:47 +1000, Dinsdale Pirana <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Yes I agree with you. And the other problem is that the cyclists ran
into the back of him. I think it has always been accepted that if you
run into the back of another vehicle then you are at fault. Not with
standing that he cut in front of them, arguably as soon as he did so
they should have slowed.

They would perhaps correctly argue that they had no time to slow.....