Thread: Cyclists.

Originally Posted by Saitch

So, if someone runs into your vehicle with an unregistered vehicle it's "just your bad luck" & you'll take it on the chin or are you paying exorbitant insurance premiums to cover such an event?

Correct. You can't rely on someone else having insurance, if you want decent cover you'd better be prepared to shell out for it yourself. Once you're insured it's the job of your insurance company to seek reimbursement from the guilty party. That's what you pay for, their lawyers. They can pursue the guilty party if they feel like it. For example, a tourist would be entirely mad travelling without a comprehensive travel insurance policy as they are unlikely to be covered for anything in a foreign country.

BTW I'm prepared to risk my rides by only being insured for 3rd party property damage (and CTP of course) as I've never owned a car of a value worth insuring. I've saved countless thousands in insurance that I could spend on more interesting things. Like a good bicycle, for example.. which is insured as an extension of my household policy... and I've had one single small claim in 37 years of driving and that cost me an excess, nothing more.

Originally Posted by sam_d

And you have to go back to 2007 to find an example of a cyclist accidentally killing a pedestrian.

That one in Melbourne was no accident. The cyclist knowingly ran the red light.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-0...-perth/5575242
Did they catch the perp?

Originally Posted by sam_d

maybe more should be done to remove drunk/drugged/tired /impatient/negligent drivers from the roads. Or are we really all okay with the death toll these people inflict just because they have a licence and rego?

Absolutely.
Contrary to poular belief, I am not anti cyclist. I am a rider myself. I have three bikes to register.
What I am pushing is equality and fairness fir all. If a cyclist can say they do not need a license to ride a bike because they have a car license, I think it should be possible to say I can ride a motor bike or drive a B-double for the same reason.
If a cyclist can say they do not need registration for their bike because their car is registered , I think it should be possible to say I only need to register one vehicle to use any of my other vehicles on the road for the same reason.

Sam this thread is about cyclists, not DUI, or unregoed vehicles or sleepy drivers.
Death spike: why cyclists are dying twice as fast on our roads

In the first article, how many of the drivers where charged? It didn't say.
The taxi driver stopping to go around a corner couldn't be charged as it was the cyclists fault for not leaving sufficient gap, nor could the other car he slid under to be crushed after falling off.
The rock one cyclist fell over couldn't be charged, just the cyclist who died for being to impatient and trying to overtake OTHER cyclists who where going slower. In this case is "what's good for the goose is not good for the gander?" One cyclist(actually it was a whole group overtaking another) put himself in the grave and others at risk because of impatient feelings, yet others driving cars etc are not allowed to have the same feelings?
Obviously the bus driver was at fault here, his psychic ability was not enabled.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...f13dd2664c96d9

Rego of bikes in the inner city , high traffic areas and for any road over 50-60kph would be the ideal outcome.
If you truly wanted to cut deaths of cyclists, ban them from 60kph+ areas this would reduce death rates by about 40%.
Another way to reduce deaths would be to learn how to ride as according to an OECD report ,in 60% of cyclists deaths in Australia , the cyclist is at fault.
Pg141 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset...955-en#page143


This ad truly applies.
top gear cyclist ad - Bing Videos

Originally Posted by bee utey

Correct. You can't rely on someone else having insurance, if you want decent cover you'd better be prepared to shell out for it yourself. Once you're insured it's the job of your insurance company to seek reimbursement from the guilty party. That's what you pay for, their lawyers. They can pursue the guilty party if they feel like it. For example, a tourist would be entirely mad travelling without a comprehensive travel insurance policy as they are unlikely to be covered for anything in a foreign country.

BTW I'm prepared to risk my rides by only being insured for 3rd party property damage (and CTP of course) as I've never owned a car of a value worth insuring. I've saved countless thousands in insurance that I could spend on more interesting things. Like a good bicycle, for example.. which is insured as an extension of my household policy... and I've had one single small claim in 37 years of driving and that cost me an excess, nothing more.

Aaah yes. Litigation, the lawyers manna!

Originally Posted by frantic

Sam this thread is about cyclists, not DUI, or unregoed vehicles or sleepy drivers.
Death spike: why cyclists are dying twice as fast on our roads

In the first article, how many of the drivers where charged? It didn't say.
The taxi driver stopping to go around a corner couldn't be charged as it was the cyclists fault for not leaving sufficient gap, nor could the other car he slid under to be crushed after falling off.
The rock one cyclist fell over couldn't be charged, just the cyclist who died for being to impatient and trying to overtake OTHER cyclists who where going slower. In this case is "what's good for the goose is not good for the gander?" One cyclist(actually it was a whole group overtaking another) put himself in the grave and others at risk because of impatient feelings, yet others driving cars etc are not allowed to have the same feelings?
Obviously the bus driver was at fault here, his psychic ability was not enabled.
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

Rego of bikes in the inner city , high traffic areas and for any road over 50-60kph would be the ideal outcome.
If you truly wanted to cut deaths of cyclists, ban them from 60kph+ areas this would reduce death rates by about 40%.


This ad truly applies.
top gear cyclist ad - Bing Videos

Great articles frantic.
A little snippet from one of them:

Mr Gay said helmet IDs was one method of tracking riders.
"One of the things you could look at is a licence number on the helmet. The purpose is to make people think twice before they break the rules, whether it's going too fast on footpaths or going through red lights," he said.
"We can hit the car drivers but we can't hit the cyclists. So to save more lives we need a little bit of tough love."
"I reckon it would be supported by the majority of the cyclists. I think it's a good idea. We are going to research it. If a recommendation comes back it will go to cabinet."
Mr Gay said police were powerless to enforce the road rules on cyclists.

Originally Posted by frantic

Sam this thread is about cyclists, not DUI, or unregoed vehicles or sleepy drivers.
Death spike: why cyclists are dying twice as fast on our roads

In the first article, how many of the drivers where charged? It didn't say.
The taxi driver stopping to go around a corner couldn't be charged as it was the cyclists fault for not leaving sufficient gap, nor could the other car he slid under to be crushed after falling off.
The rock one cyclist fell over couldn't be charged, just the cyclist who died for being to impatient and trying to overtake OTHER cyclists who where going slower. In this case is "what's good for the goose is not good for the gander?" One cyclist(actually it was a whole group overtaking another) put himself in the grave and others at risk because of impatient feelings, yet others driving cars etc are not allowed to have the same feelings?
Obviously the bus driver was at fault here, his psychic ability was not enabled.

Interesting article it brings to mind some of the audience studies I did at uni in the 90's. Where you sit affects your interpretation of events.

Clearly some members on here think that registering cyclists is the answer.

From this article as a cyclist I read that better cycling infrastructure, better driver training and attitudes, and harsher penalties for drivers who kill or maim cyclists and are found to be at fault would reduce cyclist injuries and deaths.

I also support the law that is in one of the European countries, possibly Denmark, (I can't be bothered looking it up) whereby if you are a motorist and you hit a cyclist you are automatically at fault. Similar to pedestrian laws you have to prove the pedestrian set out to obstruct you. That single law would do more to improve cyclist safety than any other measure IMHO.

Originally Posted by loneranger

I also support the law that is in one of the European countries, possibly Denmark, (I can't be bothered looking it up) whereby if you are a motorist and you hit a cyclist you are automatically at fault. Similar to pedestrian laws you have to prove the pedestrian set out to obstruct you. That single law would do more to improve cyclist safety than any other measure IMHO.

Interesting law. Would you also extend that to "In a B-double/car collision, the B-double is automatically at fault"?

Banning cyclists from certain roads would be a great way to reduce accidents but not until well designed, usable and linked up separated cycle ways are built.

A cheaper solution in the interim would be to reduce speed limits on roads popularly used by cyclists.

But neither of these things will happen.

(Oh, before anyone chimes in with the inevitable "Cyclists should pay for dedicated infrastructure, I pay for the roads with my Rego." or anything like that, please spend a few minutes educating yourself as to how the roads are actually funded so as not to appear ignorant or foolish.)