Sydney crash

TimC

Is Brian Reid's letter in
http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/...l?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.


--
TimC
The triangle wheel was an improvement upon the square wheel:
It eliminates one bump. -- unknown

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT
TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> Is Brian Reid's letter in
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/...l?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
<gilbert.grace@bigpond.com>. 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.

fractal

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrng2hvis.a08.zebeej@gmail.com...
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT
> TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>> Is Brian Reid's letter in
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/...l?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
> <gilbert.grace@bigpond.com>. 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

Tomasso

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message news:12106429031658-twc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> Is Brian Reid's letter in
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/...l?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.

terryc

On Tue, 13 May 2008 04:48:35 +0000, fractal wrote:

> 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?

Peter Cremasco

terryc wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 04:48:35 +0000, fractal wrote:
>
>> 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??

terryc

On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:11:42 +1000, Peter Cremasco wrote:


>> 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.

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 08:52:29 +1000
terryc <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:11:42 +1000, Peter Cremasco wrote:
>
>
>>> 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

David Springthrope

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT, TimC
<tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,2359...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.

percrime

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 08:52:29 +1000
> terryc <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:11:42 +1000, Peter Cremasco wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 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

Dinsdale Pirana

On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:37:47 +1000, David Springthrope
<david.springthrope@idxx.com.au> wrote in aus.bicycle:


>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

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000
Dinsdale Pirana <Dinsdale@memento.mori.com> wrote:
> 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

OzCableguy

Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrng2kir0.gmm.zebeej@gmail.com...
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000

> 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

Jack Russell

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 wrote:
>
>
> Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrng2kir0.gmm.zebeej@gmail.com...
>
>> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:46 +1000
>
>
>> 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