Moron Motorists #3

[elantra]

…..,,

My daughter lives in London and told me that it is illegal to ride anything (bicycle, scooter, escooter etc) on the footpath (or pavement as they call them there - unless the path is specifically designed for use by cyclists. They have to ride in the road (if no designated bike path), so presumably the likelihood of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is lower ?

She also said that, in general, the cyclists and particularly escooter riders are fairly well behaved
…………..

That’s good to know.
Poms (and other foreigners) might get an unpleasant surprise if they come to Australia (such as for the 2032 Olympics) and see that all sorts of nonsense is permitted on the footpaths and roads here

[Andy01]

It does sound like it really boils down to not having that front brake. The math's doesn't include the reaction time, how long is reaction time and what distance is travelled during that reaction time at 18mph (28.96kph)?

Sounds like it only had rear pedal brakes ? I seem to remember bikes that we had as kids were like that - but they didn't look like that bike .

And 29km/h is 8m/s, so assuming a ±1.5 second reaction time, that could be 10-15m before braking started, plus another 12m for braking - that is a fair distance.

It also sounds like the collision happened on a road, and not a path, so perhaps the pedestrian stepped out into the road in front of the bike with 6.53m of distance between them, which at 29km/h is less than 1 second to react AND brake, which seems like a fairly big ask.

I get that the cyclist seems not to have done himself any favours by riding an illegal bike on the road, having a history of doing "dodgy" things, and comments made post-accident, but if a ped steps out in front of a "vehicle" at very close distance (about 3 bike lengths) - presumably without looking, I think it would have been a pretty skilled rider to avoid a collision. The severity of the impact could certainly have been reduced though.

[familyguy]

My daughter lives in London and told me that it is illegal to ride anything (bicycle, scooter, escooter etc) on the footpath (or pavement as they call them there - unless the path is specifically designed for use by cyclists. They have to ride in the road (if no designated bike path), so presumably the likelihood of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is lower ?

But it's fine and dandy to park on them. The UK, not just London, seems to be a bit of a basket case when it comes to footpath parking. There are a couple of accounts on the ex-blue bird website that post regular examples. It's a real hot topic that has been going on for years.

Recently there was a big uptick in posts about the issue among others due to Matthew Briggs (husband of Kim, who died in the Charlie Allston incident) getting some of the shock jocks and associated government ministers to stir up the anti-cycling rhetoric. This eventually lead to a Good Morning Britain (or similar sh*t morning TV) and radio hosting 'debates', during which the claim "all cyclists should be jailed, just for wearing lycra" was made, with no pushback from any host. An MP recently put forward a motion that would 'see cyclists jailed if they kill someone'. The same MP who promised to end pavement parking in 2016. There's been no report and no action as yet. Meanwhile, the thread that posts examples of drivers killing pedestrians and cyclists with warnings, fines, community service or years-long driving bans is getting longer and longer. The UK loses 5 people a day to drivers hitting pedestrians.

[g-boaf]

during which the claim "all cyclists should be jailed, just for wearing lycra" was made

So bye-bye British Cycling, no Olympics, no professional cycling from UK, no Commonwealth Games.

They could go after rowing as well, a popular thing with the big-$$$ elite private schools.

It's just gutter trash TV and the sooner everyone switches off TVs and stops watching the better - the presenters will lose their TV shows and we will be better for it.

I don't watch any TV now, not 7 9 or 10, not SBS or even ABC.

[am50em]

Bus driver training
https://www.facebook.com/reel/950599130404771

[redsonic]

Bus driver training
https://www.facebook.com/reel/950599130404771

Excellent idea!

[mikesbytes]

It does sound like it really boils down to not having that front brake. The math's doesn't include the reaction time, how long is reaction time and what distance is travelled during that reaction time at 18mph (28.96kph)?

Sounds like it only had rear pedal brakes ? I seem to remember bikes that we had as kids were like that - but they didn't look like that bike .

And 29km/h is 8m/s, so assuming a ±1.5 second reaction time, that could be 10-15m before braking started, plus another 12m for braking - that is a fair distance.

It also sounds like the collision happened on a road, and not a path, so perhaps the pedestrian stepped out into the road in front of the bike with 6.53m of distance between them, which at 29km/h is less than 1 second to react AND brake, which seems like a fairly big ask.

I get that the cyclist seems not to have done himself any favours by riding an illegal bike on the road, having a history of doing "dodgy" things, and comments made post-accident, but if a ped steps out in front of a "vehicle" at very close distance (about 3 bike lengths) - presumably without looking, I think it would have been a pretty skilled rider to avoid a collision. The severity of the impact could certainly have been reduced though.

In the description the rider swerved to go behind the pedestrian while at the same time the pedestrian stepped backwards to avoid the cyclist

Based on your math's Andy it would appear that the space between the pedestrian and cyclist was consumed by reaction time and therefor what braking systems the bicycle had would of made no difference to the outcome of the collision

[antigee]

I presume that overpowered e-devices are going to become more prevalent and more intrusive in UK cities as they are here.
And then there is likely to be a lot more casualties resulting from these things being used in pedestrian environments.
Unfortunately, considerate cyclists are going to be caught up in the bad press from this.

My daughter lives in London and told me that it is illegal to ride anything (bicycle, scooter, escooter etc) on the footpath (or pavement as they call them there - unless the path is specifically designed for use by cyclists. They have to ride in the road (if no designated bike path), so presumably the likelihood of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is lower ?

She also said that, in general, the cyclists and particularly escooter riders are fairly well behaved. She rode a pushbike for a while there, and then bought a small (300cc) motorbike - although she tries not to use it for commuting to work because there has already been one attempted theft.

I might guess that many (most ?) of the bicycle or escooter serious accidents (with peds involved) in Australia have occurred on paths, not on roads.

there is some dated but interesting research that predates ebikes/escooters etc's that covers pedestrian / cyclist collisions in Greater Melbourne pulling together 10years of hospital admission data and police collision reporting data:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30399525/

Across the VISU [hospital] data, there were 183 ED presentations and 273 admissions to hospital for pedestrian injuries as a result of being struck by a bicycle
This totals 456 ED presentations or admissions over 10 years. Less than 50 per year or around 1 per week across the whole of Greater Melbourne
Compares to 20 per week for vehicle / ped' collisions ...you can do your own modal share (without correction for kms travelled) and work out that although the number for cyclist / pedestrian collisions involving ED or hospital admission is low then adding in escooters/ebikes etc's into the mix without reallocating road space or other changes in road design is going to increase the number of collisions (somewhere I have piece...again pre electric age that looks at the impact of a sudden increase in bike lanes and then cycle trips in New York and yep the pedestrian collision rate increase follows)

The research did not investigate causality

The research did look at how the Police data could be used to establish the characteristics of cyclist – pedestrian collisions:
“When considering crash types each pedestrian crash was classified according to VicRoads’ codes for classifying accidents (DCA codes). Near-side (30.3%) and far-side (15.5%) collisions were prevalent amongst the police reported dataset, these collisions are associated with pedestrians crossing the road either from the left or right side of the cyclist. A further 6.4% of pedestrians were struck while boarding or alighting a vehicle. Notably, 15.5% of pedestrian injuries occurred while on a footpath, median or traffic island, locations where adult cyclists typically should not be riding a bicycle”

The problem with the crossing the road being a high cause of pedestrian / cyclist collisions is that it lacks detail on location... if the media and social media are to be believed these collisions would all be on signalized crossings

Going back to London I'll turn on pom mode and yes cycling on the footpath (pavement) is illegal and this generally well known what is in some ways odd is that going back to the police being given powers to issue on the spot fines around 20 years ago the Minister responsible for policing issued an instruction that this power is:
"not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so" believe this ended up being considered as an instruction to Chief Constables (Police Chiefs) that pavement cycling should in effect be ignored...no idea if just England or whole of UK

Back to Victoria and its similar with the research quoted above including in its conclusion "note this data was for Victoria where cycling (with exceptions) on paths is illegal so interactions are low and some cyclists may be more cautious than would be if it was legal"

Believe there has been suggestions Federal Government may hold some State Funding unless cooperate on building/sharing more workable and consistent road collision data

edit no idea why if type bike lane it converts to a link

[zebee]

Sounds like it only had rear pedal brakes ? I seem to remember bikes that we had as kids were like that - but they didn't look like that bike .

If this is the one I think it is, he was riding a fixie. So no brakes at all!

[Andy01]

Sounds like it only had rear pedal brakes ? I seem to remember bikes that we had as kids were like that - but they didn't look like that bike .

If this is the one I think it is, he was riding a fixie. So no brakes at all!

The article mentioned braking by applying back pressure on the pedals (or something like that), so basically pedal brakes (obviously rear only) was my understanding. They said it was a track bike that wasn't road legal, and apparently he wasn't wearing a helmet either.

[mikesbytes]

Sounds like it only had rear pedal brakes ? I seem to remember bikes that we had as kids were like that - but they didn't look like that bike .

If this is the one I think it is, he was riding a fixie. So no brakes at all!

The article mentioned braking by applying back pressure on the pedals (or something like that), so basically pedal brakes (obviously rear only) was my understanding. They said it was a track bike that wasn't road legal, and apparently he wasn't wearing a helmet either.

Track bikes don't have a rear brake such as like the pedal brakes we had when we were kids. There is no free wheel meaning the peals are always turning when the bike is moving. By applying reverse pressure to the pedals torque is applied to the rear wheel to slow the bike, note that the pedals are still turning forward until the bike is stationary

[Mr Purple]

A few months back I filmed a Brookfield Three Fingers for Fulgaz. I think I may have commented on it at the time - plenty of drivers almost hitting me, but I finally got to ride it virtually today which brought home just how bad it was.

Within the space of 40km:
- Two dual cab ute drivers passing within 50cm doing well over the posted 60km/hr speed limit.
- One SUV towing a trailer almost causing a head-on coming around a blind corner at max speed on an extremely narrow road while towing a trailer.
- One Polestar pulling out of a driveway to the left and crossing to the wrong side of a narrow road just as I drove past.
- One Mazda overtaking another cyclist over double white lines through a blind corner without giving way to me.
- A Corolla doing a u-turn without giving way or indicating to me.

I don't think I'll be doing too many more Brookfield rides IRL. For those that don't know, it's a very well to do, rural Brisbane suburb with a vicious anti-cycling fraternity. As in they'll literally run you down to prove a point.

This sign always gets me. 10km up a dead end road with four houses on long driveways. I'm close to 100% sure cyclists aren't their major problem, yet there's a pointedly anti-cyclist sign up there. How dare you chat in our quiet rural dead end street a million miles from nowhere!



At least my filming has brought the standard of Brookfield driving to a worldwide audience.

[Andy01]

Track bikes don't have a rear brake such as like the pedal brakes we had when we were kids. There is no free wheel meaning the peals are always turning when the bike is moving. By applying reverse pressure to the pedals torque is applied to the rear wheel to slow the bike, note that the pedals are still turning forward until the bike is stationary

Thanks for the explanation - I have never ridden a track bike. It doesn't seem like the ideal choice for riding public roads with.

[g-boaf]

Sounds like it only had rear pedal brakes ? I seem to remember bikes that we had as kids were like that - but they didn't look like that bike .

If this is the one I think it is, he was riding a fixie. So no brakes at all!

The article mentioned braking by applying back pressure on the pedals (or something like that), so basically pedal brakes (obviously rear only) was my understanding. They said it was a track bike that wasn't road legal, and apparently he wasn't wearing a helmet either.

How you do it is by trying to apply resistance to the turning pedals with your legs, but always when your knee is bent, never with a straightened leg otherwise you'll go over the bars. It's hard to explain - maybe see if you can join your local club and try out the track, you might enjoy it.

This one here has brakes: https://youtu.be/ThJbysa2TLY?si=5DdlTrn3SlCO6Vpd

Mine has no brakes at all and quite big gear so not suitable for use anywhere but the track.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MgS ... 44K-XL.jpg

Not much being missed, it's nicer having gears for normal riding.

[AdelaidePeter]

She also said that, in general, the cyclists and particularly escooter riders are fairly well behaved.

I visited London last year and I have to disagree with that assessment. The proportion of cyclists riding through red lights was a lot higher than in Australia. I even went and looked up the highway code because it got to the point that I wondered whether red lights were optional for cyclists. For reference, this was mostly near Hyde Park.

With many of these things though, bad behaviour can be a consequence of bad laws and bad infrastructure.

[uart]

This sign always gets me. 10km up a dead end road with four houses on long driveways. I'm close to 100% sure cyclists aren't their major problem, yet there's a pointedly anti-cyclist sign up there. How dare you chat in our quiet rural dead end street a million miles from nowhere!

LMAO at that sign. I wonder how many guys living up there have a mid-life crisis sports car that they take out on Sundays. It would be interesting to set up next to that sign with a camera and a dB meter and record a resident's sports car (or a large diesel 4wd) going by and compare with a small bunch of cyclists. Would be a fun thing to lampoon them with on social media anyway.

[g-boaf]

She also said that, in general, the cyclists and particularly escooter riders are fairly well behaved.

I visited London last year and I have to disagree with that assessment. The proportion of cyclists riding through red lights was a lot higher than in Australia. I even went and looked up the highway code because it got to the point that I wondered whether red lights were optional for cyclists. For reference, this was mostly near Hyde Park.

With many of these things though, bad behaviour can be a consequence of bad laws and bad infrastructure.

Obviously I agree that you as a temporary visitor would see much, much more than a local resident who is there for years.

[Mr Purple]

LMAO at that sign. I wonder how many guys living up there have a mid-life crisis sports car that they take out on Sundays. It would be interesting to set up next to that sign with a camera and a dB meter and record a resident's sports car (or a large diesel 4wd) going by and compare with a small bunch of cyclists. Would be a fun thing to lampoon them with on social media anyway.

It always makes me laugh.

I imagine a bunch of Karen's (both male and female, so it's not sexist) standing around going 'how dare those cyclists come up here at 2AM and leave our driveways full of empty beer bottles and vapes, who do they think they are?'

Pretty sure both bogans doing skids and teenagers drinking illegally are a much more pertinent problem than a bunch of us middle class university educated professionals on $10,000 pieces of carbon fibre who once dropped a gel packet by accident 20 years ago having a chat about real estate.

[vbplease]

I wonder if the Council garbage trucks have a reversing camera?

I had a close call this morning.. I was approaching a garbage truck from behind, as we both came up to a T-intersection.. very quiet street, just a block or two from my house. The truck indicated left, the same direction I wanted to go, so instead I went right to get away from the truck as I knew it was going to stop every 10m. As the truck turned the apex of the corner and I commenced turning right (I knew it was clear in both directions), the truck puts into reverse and comes back at a decent speed!!
I suppose it wasn’t that close to hitting me, but my heart skipped few beats as, had I decided to turn left and overtake the truck which was going very slow, I’m certain the truck would have cleaned me up as soon as it unexpectedly started reversing pretty sure getting driven over by a truck in reverse would have a high chance of death

[am50em]

Queensland has a range of roadside cameras to detect offences such as speeding, mobile phone use, and not wearing a seatbelt.
The government has significantly revised how much it expects to make from cameras with revenue in 2023-24 tipped to fall $94 million short.
What's next? The cameras are now projected to make $409 million in 2023-24, followed by $465.8 million in 2024-25.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-24/ ... c_news_web

[Mr Purple]

Queensland has a range of roadside cameras to detect offences such as speeding, mobile phone use, and not wearing a seatbelt.
The government has significantly revised how much it expects to make from cameras with revenue in 2023-24 tipped to fall $94 million short.
What's next? The cameras are now projected to make $409 million in 2023-24, followed by $465.8 million in 2024-25.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-24/ ... c_news_web

I've already quoted the photo including the mobile phone detecting cameras in here I think.



If you miss one of these, you deserve all the fines you get!

[am50em]

If you miss one of these, you deserve all the fines you get!

And it reduces the taxation load for the rest of us.

[bychosis]

I wonder if the Council garbage trucks have a reversing camera?

I had a close call this morning.. I was approaching a garbage truck from behind, as we both came up to a T-intersection.. very quiet street, just a block or two from my house. The truck indicated left, the same direction I wanted to go, so instead I went right to get away from the truck as I knew it was going to stop every 10m. As the truck turned the apex of the corner and I commenced turning right (I knew it was clear in both directions), the truck puts into reverse and comes back at a decent speed!!
I suppose it wasn’t that close to hitting me, but my heart skipped few beats as, had I decided to turn left and overtake the truck which was going very slow, I’m certain the truck would have cleaned me up as soon as it unexpectedly started reversing pretty sure getting driven over by a truck in reverse would have a high chance of death

Id be very surprised if garbo trucks don't have reverse cams and sensors and stuff. My experience with garbage truck driver leads me to think it was most likely the drivers usual rush to get to the next stop and not looking properly becasue "noone is ever following me here"

I do not trust garbage trucks in the slightest.

[redsonic]

Perth man charged with murder after dragging a cyclist 30m under his car:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-25/ ... /103891524

Apparently there was a property dispute prior to the cyclist being run down.

[Mr Purple]

I think I have a new least favourite type of driver.

There's a couple of roads in Brisbane that have multiple lanes, and a left lane with absolutely no shoulder. Waterworks Road is a classic, but Logan Road is also that way.

I absolutely avoid them at most times because they're usually busy. However they're almost completely empty on weekends which brings me to the problem.

There's a certain type of driver that will come up behind you when you're doing a decent speed in the middle of the left hand lane on an otherwise empty road because there's no shoulder and no safe way of passing you in that narrow lane. This type of person is completely incapable of the fraction of a second of labour involved in briefly merging into the completely empty right hand lane and will instead honk and abuse you. Or even worse accelerate at the back of you and deliberately narrow pass.

I have no idea what they're thinking. Some idiot in a beaten up Mazda did this to me this morning on an otherwise empty Logan Road at 7AM while giving me the finger. The act of raising the finger involves more effort than simply going around, so I assume they're just out to intimidate someone. Even worse going the other way the road is three lanes wide with the far left hand lane partly blocked by parked cars. I've had people abuse me for riding in it, squeeze past, cut in and then almost drive into the line of parked cars.

Why are people this stupid?