Bunchriding legal liabilities
flyingdutch
Just heard a talkback call on 774AM with their legal guy.
A man called in saying that he was on a regular Sat am training ride
with about 100 others (Hell ride?) and due to the actions of a driver,
10 of them had a fall. There was a Cop amongst the riders who duly saw
to the driver being charged.
The cller asked should the 10 riders be bandeding together to get their
case more oomph and streamlined. Answer was yes, as facts pertaining
were common.
The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for argument's sake) he
was representing the driver he would be pursuing a line as to what
degree/% of liability was the driver liable for as the riders could be
percieved to be contributing to a portion of the damage/accident bcos
they were riding too close together!!!
So will this lead to limitied number bunches?
Wearing ahoolahoop so other riders cant get too close??
--
flyingdutch
ritcho
Sadly, the legal guy has a point. The closeness of the bunch probably
did contribute to the extent of the accident insofar as crashes in
bunches tend to have a chain reaction effect. If the riders were spaced
apart a little more, then following riders would have more time to avoid
a collision. The UCI figured this idea out when they banned aero bars in
bunch races.
I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch
riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of
the damages are borne by the riders.
I hope the riders involved were not injured... shivers every time I
hear of a bike accident...
Ritch
--
ritcho
Roadie_scum
ritcho Wrote:
> I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch
> riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of
> the damages are borne by the riders.
It's not legislation that's the concern, it's the establishment of case
law.
--
Roadie_scum
mfhor
ritcho Wrote:
> Sadly, the legal guy has a point. The closeness of the bunch probably
> did contribute to the extent of the accident insofar as crashes in
> bunches tend to have a chain reaction effect. If the riders were spaced
> apart a little more, then following riders would have more time to avoid
> a collision. The UCI figured this idea out when they banned aero bars in
> bunch races.
>
> I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch
> riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of
> the damages are borne by the riders.
>
> I hope the riders involved were not injured... shivers every time I
> hear of a bike accident...
>
> Ritch
I actually repaired the bike yesterday at work of one of the guys who
came down in the Hell ride crash last Sat - not too hard, no
Ergolever/frame/fork/rim (expensive) replacement (although his
superlight alloy bars were bent, couldn't (wouldn't want to - crack,
ouch!) straighten . . . $170 later . . .)
He said, and I hope he (anonymously) doesn't mind me quoting him, that
he was just leaning down to take a drink, and at exactly the wrong
moment, the ripple went back up the bunch from the car pulling in, he
hadn't got both hands on the bars, panicked a little, so locked his
back wheel, collision, fall x approx. 10. Car drivers fault, pulling
into the middle of a moving bunch.
How can cyclists be at fault if they are just trying to use physics
(aerodynamics) to their advantage? Why aren't roads designed to let
this efficient form of cycling occur more readily/safely? I have
fantasies of big (solar/pedal powered) "draftmobiles" moving up and
down major roads at 40+ kmh , warning lights etc, with the ultimate
right of way, with bunches tucked in behind, peeling on and off as they
need, or with stronger riders falling back to tow riders up to the
peleton.
M "you may say that I'm a dreamer . . ." H
--
mfhor
euan...@yahoo.co.uk
flyingdutch> The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for
flyingdutch> argument's sake) he was representing the driver he
flyingdutch> would be pursuing a line as to what degree/% of
flyingdutch> liability was the driver liable for as the riders could
flyingdutch> be percieved to be contributing to a portion of the
flyingdutch> damage/accident bcos they were riding too close
flyingdutch> together!!!
I remembered reading something about the distance cyclists had to give
vehicles, it's covered here:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_15.pdf
Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
_motor_ vehicles.
With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to prevent
cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as bunch riding
seems to make much better use of the road.
Of course I've never ridden in a bunch, been overtaken by a few but that
hardly counts now does it?
--
Cheers
Euan
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
> _motor_ vehicles.
>
> With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to prevent
> cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as bunch riding
> seems to make much better use of the road.
It may not be illegal, but is it sensible to do it if it is not
necessarily safe?
In a car, you drive 3 seconds behind the next car, not only because
you have to, but it is sensible to do so - it gives you enough time to
stop in all but the most drastic of situations. We are lucky to not
have the same rule apply to cycling, but it's not necessarily a given.
Your reasoning that it makes better use of the road could equally
apply to cars, but the safety factor overrides it. Why doesn't the
safety factor override it in the case of cycling?
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
The other day I overheard that a friend of the family had called their
new kid "Noah". I thinks "Noah? I 'ardly -" and then I bursts out
laughing.. -- Screwtape in RHOD
Peter McCallum
> flyingdutch Wrote:
> > The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for argument's sake) he
> > was representing the driver he would be pursuing a line as to what
> > degree/% of liability was the driver liable for as the riders could be
> > percieved to be contributing to a portion of the damage/accident bcos
> > they were riding too close together!!!
>
> did contribute to the extent of the accident insofar as crashes in
> bunches tend to have a chain reaction effect. If the riders were spaced
> apart a little more, then following riders would have more time to avoid
> a collision. The UCI figured this idea out when they banned aero bars in
> bunch races.
>
> I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch
> riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of
> the damages are borne by the riders.
>
> I hope the riders involved were not injured... shivers every time I
> hear of a bike accident...
>
> Ritch
Interestingly, the law on two-abreast riding in Qld (and elsewhere I
assume, since we are _supposed_ to have uniform national road rules),
says that you must remain within 1.5 metres of the other rider. There's
no minimum distance specified. So the law is telling you to ride closer
together rather than further apart.
Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
Mark Lee
t...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au>, tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-
astro.swin.edu.au says...
> > SNIP
> > legally nothing to prevent
> > cyclists from bunch riding,
> SNIP
> It may not be illegal, but is it sensible to do it if it is not
> necessarily safe?
>
> In a car, you drive 3 seconds behind the next car, not only because
> you have to, but it is sensible to do so .
> SNIP
> <<that Drafting>> makes better use of the road could equally
> apply to cars, ... safety factor overrides it. Why doesn't the
> safety factor override it in the case of cycling?
>
>
"But is it safe??", said the middle-aged woman on the old "Inventors"
show.
I've just been working out some of my Wattages on
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
Bicycles make do with 1/10 of a horsepower (70-80W cruising at 20-30kph).
Your standard Aussie passenger car (Falcon) has 243HP (181kW). I can
output 350-400W for an hour (TT 4 yrs ago) or used to be able to output
420 Watts for about 10mins (20 yrs ago). And my sprint works out at about
1.6kW for a second or two (last week).
From http://www.cptips.com/energy.htm - drafting at 40kph requires 27%
less power than riding 40kph on your own.
Each year cars come out with more and more power. A 90's Suzuki Swift
can race Bathurst quicker than a 1958 F1 car... while it's being lapped
by all the taxis (Fords & Holdens)! However, we humans are stuck with
pretty much the same 80-400Watts. That's why bikes must be light, we
have to be very light ourselves to get up hills easily and headwinds
SUCK! (or do they blow?).
Bunch riding - you're more likely to fall (wheeltouch) but less likely to
be killed (head run over by a car)...herd safety. Drafting is an
enjoyable skill which has its risks. Leave some room, stay alert and the
benefits usually win the day.
--
Mark Lee
Marty Wallace
"flyingdutch" <flyingdut...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in
message news:flyingdut...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
They were obviously roadies because triathletes would NEVER be less than
two bike lengths apart. ;)
Marty
Marty Wallace
<euan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:sm698u...@yahoo.co.uk...
West Aussie rules. :)
219. Bicycle riders not to cause an obstruction
(1) The rider of a bicycle shall not unreasonably obstruct or prevent the
free passage of a vehicle or pedestrian by moving into the path of the
vehicle or a pedestrian.
(2) A person shall not leave a bicycle in or upon a road so as to become an
obstruction.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
euan...@yahoo.co.uk
TimC> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 at 02:57 GMT, euan...@yahoo.co.uk (aka
TimC> Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
>> _motor_ vehicles.
>>
>> With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to
>> prevent cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as
>> bunch riding seems to make much better use of the road.
TimC> It may not be illegal, but is it sensible to do it if it is
TimC> not necessarily safe?
That's the problem with words like safe, too open to interpretation.
One man's safe and reasonable thing to do is another man's insanity. In
bunch riding I would expect that the riders are (generally) informed
about the potential risks and potential benefits and make a judgment
accordingly. Being a slow coach commuter, I have no idea.
TimC> In a car, you drive 3 seconds behind the next car, not only
TimC> because you have to, but it is sensible to do so - it gives
TimC> you enough time to stop in all but the most drastic of
TimC> situations. We are lucky to not have the same rule apply to
TimC> cycling, but it's not necessarily a given.
Doing some rough maths, 30Km/h equates to a little over 8M/s. Three
second gap would require a 25M gap between two cyclists riding at
30Km/h.
I do leave a good gap between me and another cyclist because I have zero
experience and / or skills in drafting, I'm pretty sure I don't leave a
25M gap though, more like a ten meter gap. Thus far that's proved more
than adequate.
Traveling at 60 km/h a 50M gap is required for the 3 seconds thing.
TimC> Your reasoning that it makes better use of the road could
TimC> equally apply to cars, but the safety factor overrides it. Why
TimC> doesn't the safety factor override it in the case of cycling?
Apples and pears, I'm talking about how much of the road is used per
user. It is much easier for a car to overtake a bunch of ten cyclists
in one go than it is to overtake ten individual cyclists one after the
other. Overtaking maneuvers are inherently risky so reducing the number
of times a car has to overtake can only be a good thing.
I pointed this out to my wife the other day when we overtook a bunch of
fifty going down North Road. Her comment was that they should be in
single file, I explained that how they were riding was in fact a good
deal safer than riding in single file as it forces other road users to
overtake properly. I'd have had a harder time making that argument if
they were strung out over 625M rather than the 30M they were using. Or
in the case of single file, 1.25Km rather than 60M.
--
Cheers
Euan
euan...@yahoo.co.uk
euan> I pointed this out to my wife the other day when we overtook a
euan> bunch of fifty going down North Road. Her comment was that
euan> they should be in single file, I explained that how they were
euan> riding was in fact a good deal safer than riding in single
euan> file as it forces other road users to overtake properly. I'd
euan> have had a harder time making that argument if they were
euan> strung out over 625M rather than the 30M they were using. Or
euan> in the case of single file, 1.25Km rather than 60M. -- Cheers
euan> Euan
Oops, error in figures. Forgot to allow for length of bikes.
For ease, let's say 1M per bike.
For a bunch riding two abreast 1M apart, that's 25M plus 24M which is
49M
For a bunch riding two abreast 25M apart, that's 25M plus 600 which is
625M.
For a bunch riding single file, 1M apart that's 50M plus 49M which is
99M.
For a bunch riding single file, 25M apart that's 50M plus 1225M which is
1.275Km.
A motorist traveling at 60km/h to overtake a 50M or 100M obstacle
traveling at 30km is trivial. The same cannot be said for distances of
over half a km to 1.275 km.
Statistically speaking, anyone know what proportion of cyclist accidents
come from bunch riding as opposed to not riding in a bunch? Just about
all the ``Motorist kills cyclist'' stories I've read involve a lone
cyclist.
--
Cheers
Euan
hippy
> Statistically speaking, anyone know what proportion of cyclist accidents
> come from bunch riding as opposed to not riding in a bunch? Just about
> all the ``Motorist kills cyclist'' stories I've read involve a lone
> cyclist.
I have read articles about cars hitting bunches but my feeble
mind thinks that the figures would indicate the loners are at
most risk. Warning: I am not going to find the figures.. :-P
hippy
Roadie_scum
Marx SS Wrote:
> you can successfully argue anything in court in Australia, but does the
> judge ride?
No you can't and almost definitely not.
--
Roadie_scum
mfhor
Roadie_scum Wrote:
> No you can't and almost definitely not.
course.
M "sine qua non" H
--
mfhor
ritcho
Roadie_scum Wrote:
> No you can't and almost definitely not.
Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m
behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of
cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient
distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look
up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.
The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted
in more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists were
travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under this
argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but not
the chain reaction.
The plaintiff might argue that a bunch ride is safe, evidenced by the
fact that accidents are rare, riders in bunches tend to be more
experienced cyclists and often require someone outside the bunch to
cause an accident (driver fails right of way). In this case, the driver
is liable for the lot.
I wonder which way the insurer (and the courts, if it comes to that)
sees it?
Ritch
--
ritcho
SteveA
torts (negligence).
Under the area of statute, the question is whether the 'rules' were
broken. If the action of the driver was more serious, he will be
charged with breaches of more serious rules. The driver would be
penalised but there would not likely be any compensation for the riders
(leaving aside the criminal compensation legislation in most States).
Under the tort of negligence, for the driver to be liable there has to
be a duty of care owed by the driver to the riders, the driver's
actions have to cause the damage/injury and the driver must have been
able to take reasonable action to avoid the damage.
Person in car pulling into pack of riders most probably has a duty of
care, has caused the injuries sustained in the fall and could have
taken reasonable action to avoid pulling into the peleton. It would be
reasonably arguable that the driver who caused the first rider to
swerve/fall was the cause of the fall of each and every rider who fell.
(As mentioned above, the argument will be causality - did the car cause
rider number 3 to fall or did rider number 2 cause number 3 to fall?)
Damages awarded by the Court will take into account any contributory
negligence on the part of the riders who fell. Courts have been known
to consider pedestrians who were standing on the footpath and run over
to have some contributory negligence because they did not leap out of
the way of the car. So the bike riders in this example would almost
certainly have contributed, even if only because they did not avoid the
collision.
I am more interested in whether riders in a closely packed peleton have
a duty of care to each other, such that a rider who brings down another
could be sued for negligence, or whether in that situation all the
riders have voluntarily assumed the relevant risks of crashes in the
normal course of riding in a bunch.
SteveA
(just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and
sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes
.....Beer......Sex.....)
--
SteveA
Roadie_scum
ritcho Wrote:
> Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m
> behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of
> cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient
> distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look
> up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.
Vehicle would include cyclists travelling on a road, but the road rules
are not conclusive of negligence. For example, the fact that someone was
travelling at 102km/h and is then involved in a crash will not make them
negligence. The test is whether the defendant conducted themselves as a
'reasonable person' - this is referenced to case law and has a legal
meaning which doesn't always attach precisely to the commonsense one.
> The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted in
> more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists were
> travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under this
> argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but not
> the chain reaction.
The defendant's lawyer might be right too. I ride in bunches all the
time and it most definitely does entail more risk than riding by one's
self, especially the hell ride. You almost certainly couldn't make out
the defence voluntary assumption of risk on the part of the riders for
a number of reasons, so the defendant will be arguing contributory
negligence. This reduces damages rather than eliminates them. The
defendant is liable for all damage that is not remote or unforseeable
(eg all damage to bikes and bodies) but this figure is then reduced by
a percentage if contributory negligence is made out. My hope would be
that either the %age is small or contributory negligence is excluded.
That depends on the behaviour of the bunch in part - I stopped riding
the hell ride because they were so clearly negligent so often it was
ridiculous. You just can't take up all of a three lane road, run red
lights and call it safe. Riding in bunches that take one lane and obey
road rules is another thing entirely.
Under contributory negligence the driver is still liable for the chain
reaction minus a deduction of a $age to reflect the riders
contribution.
> The plaintiff might argue that a bunch ride is safe, evidenced by the
> fact that accidents are rare, riders in bunches tend to be more
> experienced cyclists and often require someone outside the bunch to
> cause an accident (driver fails right of way). In this case, the driver
> is liable for the lot.
I don't think you could characterise all bunches as either safe or
unsafe. I'd say hell ride is unsafe. North Rd slightly less so on
Thursdays and Tuesdays, much less so other days. Other bunches are
safer again. It will (I hope) come down to argument about the
individual circumstances rather than about bunches in general (although
it might be used as authority in later cases on bunch rides if there
were more).
> I wonder which way the insurer (and the courts, if it comes to that)
> sees it?
Hmmm. Me too.
--
Roadie_scum
flyingdutch
SteveA Wrote:
> (just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and
> sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes
> .....Beer......Sex.....)
perhaps if you consume enough of the second you could partake in the
last with the first :D :D :D
Flyin "Not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that" Dutch
--
flyingdutch
phamcam
If it was the Hell ride pile up of which there were 2 on Sat; the first
was caused by reckless driving (my opinion).
It was reported to me by a mate on the ride, I missed it this week,
that it was caused by a driver who was annoyed by bunch passed it move
in front of the bunch & braked hard & then drove off.
The police have been focusing on this ride for months now, & giving the
riders a hard time….I believe it is another example of road rage…
Its a pity the police were not there this time, it will be interesting
to see the outcome, if it true that the car purposely caused the
accident I can’t see how the driver can get off.
My 2cents for what it is worth.
--
phamcam
Marx SS
you can successfully argue anything in court in Australia, but does the
judge ride?
Seems that motorists along the St Kilda to Frankston (even beyond to
Dromana & Sorrento) are getting short tempered with cyclists more
frequently.
Motorists & bus drivers are complaining about having to merge into the
right lane to pass cyclists on that stretch, although I don't see any
complaints about parked cars along the road that result in the same
sort of thing.
--
Marx SS
SteveA
flyingdutch Wrote:
> perhaps if you consume enough of the second you could partake in the
> last with the first :D :D :D
>
> Flyin "Not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that" Dutch
I'm coming up to the 17th wedding anniversary next January. It is safe
to say that spending many $s on the first ;) leads to a distinct lack
of the third :mad: which may lead to seeking solace in the second.:p
Steve
"I-only-have-1-more-bike-than-my-wife-but-I-think-its-all-the-carbon-and-titanium-that-gets-me-into-trouble"
A
--
SteveA
SteveA
phamcam Wrote:
> If it was the Hell ride pile up of which there were 2 on Sat; the first
> was caused by reckless driving (my opinion).
>
> It was reported to me by a mate on the ride, I missed it this week,
> that it was caused by a driver who was annoyed by bunch passed it move
> in front of the bunch & braked hard & then drove off.
>
> The police have been focusing on this ride for months now, & giving the
> riders a hard time….I believe it is another example of road rage…
> Its a pity the police were not there this time, it will be interesting
> to see the outcome, if it true that the car purposely caused the
> accident I can’t see how the driver can get off.
>
> My 2cents for what it is worth.
If the car driver deliberately injured the cyclist(s) or acted with a
callous disregard for whether his actions would be likely to injure
someone, he has moved from merely negligent action to possible assault,
or even attempted murder.
SteveA
--
SteveA
TP
Also
7. Bell
A bicycle must have a bell or other effective warning device fixed in a
convenient position.
How many racers have these fitted or on the bike when purchased from
shop....constitues a unroadworthy vehicle...
TP
TP
OR
car drivers could probably turn around & sue the cyclist for
unroadworthyness
11. Reflector
(1) A bicycle must have affixed at all times a reflector that will
effectively reflect red light when illuminated by the headlight of a vehicle
approaching from the rear and that reflector must ž
(a) comply with the requirements specified in rule 102(1)(a) and (2) of the
Vehicle Standards and have a reflective area of not less than the area of a
circle of 38 mm diameter;
(b) be mounted on the rear part of the bicycle at a height that is not less
than 330 mm nor more than 1 m; and
(c) be mounted vertically and facing to the rear in such a manner that the
light reflected from the headlight of a vehicle approaching from the rear is
clearly visible to the driver of that vehicle.
(2) The reflector required by subregulation (1) may be in the form of a
reflecting lens fitted to the rear lamp.
(3) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side reflectors complying with the
requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998 (Pedal
Bicycles ž Safety Requirements) and Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
(Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
(4) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
affixed, to both sides of each pedal, yellow pedal reflectors complying with
the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
(Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
(5) A bicycle must not have affixed a reflector capable of reflecting red
light in the forward direction.
"
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> right lane to pass cyclists on that stretch, although I don't see any
> complaints about parked cars along the road that result in the same
> sort of thing.
If I want to turn right at an intersection, I will move into the
middle of the road when safe to do so, put my arm out, and then cross
when safe. I take up precisely the amount of time that a car doing
same would, in less space. In fact, a car could pass me within the
same lane. For some reason, this always seems to elicit a heated
comment from an ignorant motorist in a hotted up ute. But they don't
get upset at a car driver doing same, but blocking the entire
lane. Beats me.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical." -- Niels Bohr
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>> No you can't and almost definitely not.
>
> Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m
> behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of
> cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient
> distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look
> up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.
>
> The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted
> in more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists were
> travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under this
> argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but not
> the chain reaction.
And then I would hope the plaintiff would argue that if it wasn't a
bunch, then even the person at the position of the back of the bunch
would have crashed anyway, because there was still bloody well a car
there.
How long was the bunch of 10? About 10 metres? So a single rider, 10m
back, would still crash if he was doing 50km/h. If an idiot driver saw
fit to pull out in front of 10 riders, he is most certainly not going
to care about pulling out in front of that single rider 10m back. So
it is not really any less safe to be in a bunch in this particular
situation - that car driver only took out 10 because there happened to
be 10 there.
I guess it would be like if you pulled out in front of 10 cars in a
line. At least the (pulls number out of arse here) 5th one would still
hit you if they were doing 100. So you should be liable for at least 5
if they were all a safe distance from each other, and then only start
to perhaps ask question if the rest managed to collide with those in
front anyway.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
>> Imagine what a tipped over tractor-trailer formerly
>> full of potatoes looks like.
> Not half as messy as a truckload of oranges.
Or a hovercraft full of eels. -- Tanuki on ASR
Marty Wallace
"hippy" <sbi...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:lfwvd.72174$K7.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
From my experience, cars give you much more clearance if another person is
present.
That might be in the form of another rider or another car. My theory is that
people try to show what good citizens they are when people are watching, but
in the absence of witnesses they don't give a damn.
The best safety device I have is still the flashing blue tail light.
Marty
flyingdutch
TimC Wrote:
>
> And then I would hope the plaintiff would argue that if it wasn't a
> bunch, then even the person at the position of the back of the bunch
> would have crashed anyway, because there was still bloody well a car
> there.
>
> How long was the bunch of 10? About 10 metres? So a single rider, 10m
> back, would still crash if he was doing 50km/h. If an idiot driver saw
> fit to pull out in front of 10 riders, he is most certainly not going
> to care about pulling out in front of that single rider 10m back. So
> it is not really any less safe to be in a bunch in this particular
> situation - that car driver only took out 10 because there happened to
> be 10 there.
>
> I guess it would be like if you pulled out in front of 10 cars in a
> line. At least the (pulls number out of arse here) 5th one would still
> hit you if they were doing 100. So you should be liable for at least 5
> if they were all a safe distance from each other, and then only start
> to perhaps ask question if the rest managed to collide with those in
> front anyway.
>
nuh. 10 riders in a single file would be about 20-25 metres long.
Presumably riding 2 abreast about half that.
Altho the bunch in question was 100-strong and knowing the Hell ride
going flat-chat and probably at least 4-5 wide and about 50-60kph. So
you could assume abit further apart fore-aft.
Either way. taking on the hellride, no matter how big your tank would
be roadal(?) suicide.
--
flyingdutch
Roadie_scum
SteveA Wrote:
> We are looking at 2 areas of law - statute (ie the road rules) and torts
> (negligence).
Correct weight.
> Under the area of statute, the question is whether the 'rules' were
> broken. If the action of the driver was more serious, he will be
> charged with breaches of more serious rules. The driver would be
> penalised but there would not likely be any compensation for the riders
> (leaving aside the criminal compensation legislation in most States).
I don't think victims of crime compo would apply to breaches of road
rules. Anything with an injury that can actually be claimed for you'd
have to prove assualt.
> Under the tort of negligence, for the driver to be liable there has to
> be a duty of care owed by the driver to the riders, the driver's
> actions have to cause the damage/injury and the driver must have been
> able to take reasonable action to avoid the damage.
Oh the joys of first year law. And since I did it there are now a whole
lot of statutory provisions too so insurers can make bigger profits.
> Person in car pulling into pack of riders most probably has a duty of
> care,
Not probably. No need to cultivate perplexity. Definitely. Without a
doubt. Physical proximity. Causal proximity. As Maxwell Smart said, 2
out of 3 ain't bad.
> has caused the injuries sustained in the fall and could have taken
> reasonable action to avoid pulling into the peleton.
The key question is did the driver exercise reasonable care. Perhaps
the driver acted with reasonable care and the riders did something
unexpected. I'd expect the argument in this case to focus on breach and
damages (if breach is proven).
> It would be reasonably arguable that the driver who caused the first
> rider to swerve/fall was the cause of the fall of each and every rider
> who fell. (As mentioned above, the argument will be causality - did the
> car cause rider number 3 to fall or did rider number 2 cause number 3 to
> fall?)
Again I think there is no question whatsoever that causation will be
shown for all the riders. Was it March v Stramare??? Commonsense
approach... tick!
Old school 'but' for approach... tick!
> Damages awarded by the Court will take into account any contributory
> negligence on the part of the riders who fell. Courts have been known
> to consider pedestrians who were standing on the footpath and run over
> to have some contributory negligence because they did not leap out of
> the way of the car.
Yes.
> So the bike riders in this example would almost certainly have
> contributed, even if only because they did not avoid the collision.
This doesn't follow. It may be that the riders had no opportunity to
avoid the accident and were exercising reasonable care. There is also
no duty to mitigate under tort law (only in contract).
> I am more interested in whether riders in a closely packed peleton have
> a duty of care to each other, such that a rider who brings down another
> could be sued for negligence, or whether in that situation all the
> riders have voluntarily assumed the relevant risks of crashes in the
> normal course of riding in a bunch.
You definitely would have a duty of care to other riders in your bunch.
VAR might provide a defence to negligence on the part of a ride
organiser but is unlikely to cover negligent conduct by other riders.
Voluntary assumption of risk:
-knowledge of facts constituting a dangerous condition
-knowledge that the condition was dangerous
-appreciated the nature or extent of the danger
-voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger
If you define the condition as the ride itself (which an organiser
would be responsible for), VAR provides a defence if the elements are
made out. However if the alleged negligent conduct is misbehaviour on
the part of a rider you have never spoken to, who acts unreasonably or
irresponsibly, I don't see how you could possibly make a VAR argument.
(Happy to be proven wrong). This is because you can't have had
knowledge of the dangerous condition - this negligent individuals
proclivity to perform negligent acts!
Little correction - I think I said before VAR was only available as a
full defence, not to give partial reduction of damages. On second
thoughts, this might be wrong. I've now decided I can't remember
exactly how it works - torts was a little while ago! I think maybe VAR
might partially reduce where some risks have been voluntarily taken on
and others have not... does this sound right Steve A??
> SteveA
> (just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and
> sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes
> .....Beer......Sex.....)
Rock and roll! What year you doing/whaddaya ride and where??
I'm 5th year roadie and MTB.
--
Roadie_scum
Steve
ever went to court , maybe 'Our Lady Of Lourdes Saturday picnic ride ' or
maybe even better 'The Freemasons Loop'
Steve
hippy
> (just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and
> sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes
I wondered why we just turned into aus.bicycle.legal! ;-)
Bikes.. beer.. bikes.. beer.. (must think of sex only if getting some..)
frustrated hippy ;-)
SteveA
Roadie_scum Wrote:
>
>
> Rock and roll! What year you doing/whaddaya ride and where??
>
> I'm 5th year roadie and MTB.
didn't divorce the wife, just went really strange and enrolled in the
law degree. Now its completed. I had a lot of fun doing it - even
studied for a few weeks in China at the China University of Politics
and Law in Beijing. (now, there's a place for bicycles. And beer.)
I ride road (Cytek Massimo), MTB (Kenesis hard tail frame with XT
group) and I have an old steel tourer which I occasionally get out on
and which I am restoring.
I ride in Perth - commuting during week, road rides early Sat & Sun
mornings and leisurely rides on Sundays with the family to places that
have cake and coffee. MTB when we get away on weekends.
cheers
SteveA
--
SteveA
SteveA
Also generally good form to be thinking of sex *when* getting some
;-)
aus.bicycle.legal....hmmm....charge by the minute....or charge by the
word....or charge by the Mb?
SteveA
Anyone want 6 pages on the legal implications of riding with a
perfectly good helmet that has not been certified by Standards
Australia?
Only kidding !!!
--
SteveA
DRS
message news:ritcho...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
[...]
> I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on
> bunch riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any,
> portion of the damages are borne by the riders.
Don't need new legislation. The law says you have to keep far enough back
to stop in case of an emergency in front of you. If you run up someone
else's arse you are automatically at fault for being too close. Why should
cyclists be exempt from behaving responsibly on the roads?
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
DRS
message news:ritcho...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
>> No you can't and almost definitely not.
>
> Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m
> behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of
> cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient
> distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look
> up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.
Bicycles are defined as vehicles for the purposes of the Act, as they should
be. And like all vehicles they are required by law to be far enough behind
the vehicle in front to avoid a collision in the event the front vehicle
does anything silly or unexpected.
mfhor
flyingdutch Wrote:
> I can attest that one is DEFINETELY easier than the other.
> ltho both are very fashion conscious :D :D :D
> (albeit at far differing ends of the scale)
Yes, the chipped old Atom softshell with the saggy-underpants lycra
cover didn't go down all that well in front of Le Knicks that morning .
.
then I upgraded, and got sideways glances at the new Limar 909 in front
of the State Library that Friday evening . . .
then it all got a bit blurry, lost in a haze of toxic body byproducts,
and that was just the CM afterparty . . .
. . go figure (bit of a gap inbetween these two (slightly
apocryphal) instances, tho')
M "fashionista" H
--
mfhor
mfhor
premiums less of a rip-off than they might be. But, as per usual, the
law (and the largely middle-class, middle-aged, sedentary male cabal
that administers it) is an ass when it hits our little bit of real
world. Would you like to ride 200+k's on your own into a headwind (and
>30 k's, nearly every wind is a headwind)? No, neither would I. Where
is the best place to be in this circumstance? 150 mm behind the cyclist
in front of you, or (heaven forbid!) a metre or so behind that big,
square slowish truck, of course! And how do you get good at this? By
regularly riding in a bunch, to tune that body and mind into a smoothly
functioning whole. But, it's DANGEROUS! And driving a bull-barred 4WD in
city traffic isn't (to other people)? Why do we legislate/agitate
against one activity, and not the other? Could it be that we are
subconsciously programmed not to infringe upon large corporation's
'rights' to keep selling large, unwieldy cars, and to stigmatise
anything not understood/faintly-possibly hazardous as aberrant?
There's crashes within bunches - human error, very rarely malice, as
all are equally vulnerable. Rarely is anyone killed, mostly it is
gravel rash which results. There are crashes within bunches involving
cars, sometimes, increasingly, with malice.
Tailgating 4W vehicles on a bike is, at best, a guerilla activity. But
you can get good at it, but never completely safe, relying on the
driver's predictability and your own reflexes to avoid disaster. Riding
an echelon is something completely different - something that comes
almost naturally to experienced cyclists. You want to stop
it/regulate/legislate/guideline it? Give up with the legal liability
bullshit and adopt the "most vulnerable needs the most protection"
approach they use in the Netherlands.'Steam gives way to sail':
'naturally' generated energy-powered vehicles should always have right
of way, within reason. Because it costs effort and pain to
accelerate/maintain speed on a bike/sailing craft, but a quick push of
a throttle gets you up to speed in a car/powerboat.
We're all conditioned to give cars an easy break on the roads. When
many drivers feel their worldview threatened, they get aggressive.
"Another traffic jam!?!?! How can this be happening, in this best of
all possible automotive worlds, with $billions being spent every
year!?!?!? SHIT! " Then they look for the cat to kick, and it's us. And
our strange little riding habits, taking up a WHOLE lane, well, that's
just not on, is it? CM has a lot more in common with the "Hell" ride
(and other fast bunch rides) than either of their participants imagine.
Hands up who else here has done both?
M "Running on at the keyboard again" H
--
mfhor
flyingdutch
mfhor Wrote:
> CM has a lot more in common with the "Hell" ride (and other fast bunch
> rides) than either of their participants imagine. Hands up who else
> here has done both?
>
> M "Running on at the keyboard again" H
I can attest that one is DEFINETELY easier than the other.
ltho both are very fashion conscious :D :D :D
(albeit at far differing ends of the scale)
--
flyingdutch
Roadie_scum
DRS Wrote:
>
> Don't need new legislation. The law says you have to keep far enough
> back
> to stop in case of an emergency in front of you. If you run up
> someone
> else's arse you are automatically at fault for being too close. Why
> should
> cyclists be exempt from behaving responsibly on the roads?
>
> --
>
> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
The law says lots of things but it's not that absolute. If a car
negligently brings down a bunch and the driver argues the riders were
riding too close, it might be contributory negligence, but not a
complete defence. Commonsense dictates that blame should be
apportioned, and the law agrees. You are not 'automatically at fault'
either. It's a presumption against you which is difficult to disprove.
Sure, the law's an ass sometimes, but less often than people think.
--
Roadie_scum
flyingdutch
Roadie_scum Wrote:
> Sure, the law's an ass sometimes, but less often than people think.
nah. more fun to keep thinkun that :D :D :D
besides, thawt the law was 'pigs' :rolleyes:
--
flyingdutch
hippy
> (2) The reflector required by subregulation (1) may be in the form of a
> reflecting lens fitted to the rear lamp.
Done :-)
> (3) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
> affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side reflectors complying with the
> requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998 (Pedal
> Bicycles ¾ Safety Requirements) and Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
> (Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
<cough> sure.. <cough>
> (4) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
> affixed, to both sides of each pedal, yellow pedal reflectors complying
with
> the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
> (Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
My pedals don't have provision for a reflector.. they are too skinny.
Can I blame my LBS for selling me unroadworthy pedals? (relax
Mick, I'm working in the realm of theory..).
Are the reflective parts of my shoes likely to meet the above standards?
hippy
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Can I blame my LBS for selling me unroadworthy pedals? (relax
> Mick, I'm working in the realm of theory..).
What about toe clips? They get bolted onto one of the reflectors.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
ALU n. Arthritic Logic Unit, or (rare) Arithmetic Logic Unit. A random
number generator supplied as standard with all computer systems. --unk
Stuart Lamble
> "TP" <m...@work.right.now> wrote
>> (3) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
>> affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side reflectors complying with the
>> requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998 (Pedal
>> Bicycles ¾ Safety Requirements) and Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
>> (Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
>
><cough> sure.. <cough>
I know how this works -- basically, yellow reflectors stuck in between
the spokes. Frankly, I have no idea ... no, actually, that's not true;
my bike doesn't have them.
>> (4) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
>> affixed, to both sides of each pedal, yellow pedal reflectors complying
> with
>> the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
>> (Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
>
> My pedals don't have provision for a reflector.. they are too skinny.
> Can I blame my LBS for selling me unroadworthy pedals? (relax
> Mick, I'm working in the realm of theory..).
Ditto ... do _any_ SPD pedal sets have room for that sort of thing?
> Are the reflective parts of my shoes likely to meet the above standards?
Dubious at best.
Methinks I really shouldn't be riding my bike after sunset. Doesn't mean
that I _won't_ be, just that I shouldn't, if I want to fully comply with
the law. *cough*
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
MikeyOz
Stuart Lamble Wrote:
> On 2004-12-15, hippy <sbi...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
> > "TP" <m...@work.right.now> wrote
> >> (3) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must
> have
> >> affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side reflectors complying with the
> >> requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998
> (Pedal
there were probably nothing like the very bright highly visible
blinking lights you are able to purchase now. These laws were probably
written in dynamo days! And they obviosuly need to be reviewed.
I know for one, my bike was SOLD to me without all those things and by
law they are supposed to be sold to you like that.
--
MikeyOz
Live in Melbourne, soon to be married, 33, 6', 76 kgs, enjoy being
active, whenever possible in any form.
hippy
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 at 13:40 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > My pedals don't have provision for a reflector.. they are too skinny.
> > Can I blame my LBS for selling me unroadworthy pedals? (relax
> > Mick, I'm working in the realm of theory..).
>
> What about toe clips? They get bolted onto one of the reflectors.
I have SPD-SL pedals on the roadie and flat pedals
on the mtb and neither of them have a suitable location
for reflectors. Of course, if they did have reflectors, they
would've been my first "weight saving" removal item..
stealth hippy
Tamyka Bell
<snip>
> Statistically speaking, anyone know what proportion of cyclist accidents
> come from bunch riding as opposed to not riding in a bunch? Just about
> all the ``Motorist kills cyclist'' stories I've read involve a lone
> cyclist.
> Cheers
> Euan
I too, will not go looking for stats.
However, I've had a much greater incidence of nearly getting hit when
riding alone on the road. I've taken a very assertive approach of
making enough room for myself, riding in the middle of the lane if it's
multilane, etc, but occasionally people just lose it and try to kill me
anyway. I don't take it personally.
I've also had problems riding with a small group (3-4) of varying skill
level, because the group tends to split up occasionally, and I might
find myself in the middle of traffic on my own because someone pulled a
heartilage, etc.
The biggest problems I've had in a decent size bunch (6-20) have been
threats from the left and road rage. We've had people deliberately try
to run us off the road on several occasions. But it's things like car
doors and pedestrians jumping out from behind parked cars that are
scary.
T
patch70
phamcam Wrote:
> If it was the Hell ride pile up of which there were 2 on Sat; the first
> was caused by reckless driving (my opinion).
>
> It was reported to me by a mate on the ride, I missed it this week,
> that it was caused by a driver who was annoyed by bunch passed it move
> in front of the bunch & braked hard & then drove off.
>
> The police have been focusing on this ride for months now, & giving the
> rage…
> Its a pity the police were not there this time, it will be interesting
> to see the outcome, if it true that the car purposely caused the
>
> My 2cents for what it is worth.
driving. He drove around the group (in a big yellow Ford F100 IIRC) on
the wrong side of the road then pulled in front. He braked hard so that
the front riders had to try hard to avoid hitting him. About 6 people
came down. He then sped off at high speed, again starting on the wrong
side of the road. Nobody quite managed to catch him which was lucky as
there may have been a lynching. Hope somebody took down the number
plate.
The second crash was going up Oliver's Hill. I think it was a touch of
wheels. Only one person down.
I would have to say that it was a pretty disorganised bunch ride - more
so than normal for the hellride.
--
patch70
Roadie_scum
patch70 Wrote:
> I was there and the first crash was definitely more than 'reckless'
> driving. He drove around the group (in a big yellow Ford F100 IIRC) on
> the wrong side of the road then pulled in front. He braked hard so that
> the front riders had to try hard to avoid hitting him. About 6 people
> came down. He then sped off at high speed, again starting on the wrong
> side of the road. Nobody quite managed to catch him which was lucky as
> there may have been a lynching. Hope somebody took down the number
> plate.
>
> The second crash was going up Oliver's Hill. I think it was a touch of
> wheels. Only one person down.
>
> I would have to say that it was a pretty disorganised bunch ride - more
> so than normal for the hellride.
In that case (if it was intentional on the evidence of believable
witness statements) there would be no question he's liable. Even though
the cyclists hit him from behind (sorry DRS).
--
Roadie_scum
patch70
Marx SS Wrote:
> Seems that motorists along the St Kilda to Frankston (even beyond to
> Dromana & Sorrento) are getting short tempered with cyclists more
> frequently.
Any motorist with half a clue will keep well clear of Beach Rd on a
Saturday or Sunday morning. There will always be 1000's of bikes
there.
Getting impatient with the hell ride is ridiculous when the bunch is
going over 50km/hr anyway. If that pace is too slow for the motorists
who can't cope with reaching their destination 5 - 10 seconds later,
they should take an alternative route!
--
patch70
hippy
stu
> I have SPD-SL pedals on the roadie and flat pedals
> on the mtb and neither of them have a suitable location
> for reflectors. Of course, if they did have reflectors, they
> would've been my first "weight saving" removal item.
shimano make reflectors for most of there SPD pedals.
now be a good boy and go buy some ;)
Tim Jones
news:newscache$dydp8i$2ye$1...@talaxian.upnaway.com...
>> West Aussie rules. :)
> Also
>
>
> 7. Bell
> A bicycle must have a bell or other effective warning device fixed in a
> convenient position.
>
I had a single effective warning device on my bike for many a year: "Coming
through", "Passing", "Get the F&^k off the road you idiot".
I have a bell now which works OK but isn't as effective.
>
>
> How many racers have these fitted or on the bike when purchased from
> shop....constitues a unroadworthy vehicle...
>
Stuart Lamble
> "patch70" <patch70...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
>> Getting impatient with the hell ride is ridiculous when the bunch is
>> going over 50km/hr anyway. If that pace is too slow for the motorists
>> who can't cope with reaching their destination 5 - 10 seconds later,
>> they should take an alternative route!
>
> "But I pay registration!!!!!"
To which my standard reply is, "So do I -- I own a car."
I see no point in getting involved in a long, drawn out discussion about
how registration goes into general revenue, not the road funding.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> threats from the left and road rage. We've had people deliberately try
> to run us off the road on several occasions.
Do you ever get hold of their number plate? I really want these
people taken off the road.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
That's not a tau-neutrino in my pocket; I've got a hadron.
hippy
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 at 01:30 GMT, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > The biggest problems I've had in a decent size bunch (6-20) have been
> > threats from the left and road rage. We've had people deliberately try
> > to run us off the road on several occasions.
>
> Do you ever get hold of their number plate? I really want these
> people taken off the road.
I keep a list.. :-)
hippy
phamcam
I could'nt agree more!!!
--
phamcam
NickZX6R
Surely the top of the list would be "fitzroy cycles guy" ?
That would be ironic :)
--
Nick
hippy
> hippy wrote:
> > "TimC" <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au
> >>Do you ever get hold of their number plate? I really want these
> >>people taken off the road.
> >
> > I keep a list.. :-)
> >
>
> That would be ironic :)
hehe.. true :-)
Although that guy isn't generally endangering me, unlike
the fools in the cars who's plates I note down.
hippy
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> the fools in the cars who's plates I note down.
I can't quite fully remember the procedure, but write down the make,
model, colour of the offender. Write it down immediately. As in, take
pen and paper with you all times on a bike (see here, a pannier helps
;). Write down the time and location. This is called a
"contemporaneous note". Being written within minutes of the event
means it can be introduced in court as evidence.
Ring up the police any time thereafter (in a reasonably timely
fashion, anyway).
Tell them you wish to report an offence. Give them the details. They
will say "sorry, there is nothing we can do about it, unless there was
a police officer present". Say "I have contemporaneous notes, am
prepared to write a statement, and am prepared to go to court". They
will then be perfectly happy to take the issue up with the
offender. The offender, if possesing more than 2 brain cells and the
associated neuron, will concede without going to court (since going to
court will ensure ~ double the penalty (monetary and points wise) if
they lose).
See my friend's happy outcome on RHOD:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=4024cbd7.0403162018.42ec6c6a%40posting.google.com
Strangely on-topic for this newsfroup.
Please. Do it. For the sake of your fellow riders.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"The lights went out in his eyes for absolutely the very last time
ever." -- DNA (Mar 11, 1952 - May 11, 2001)
Marty Wallace
"TimC" <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-21592-3...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
I once memorised the number plate of a car used in a crime. (Four guys
beating another guy with baseball bats.) I was able to give the number in a
police statement. In court I did not have to give the number as the earlier
statement was used as evidence.
Marty
euan...@yahoo.co.uk
TimC> I can't quite fully remember the procedure, but write down the
TimC> make, model, colour of the offender. Write it down
TimC> immediately.
Thanks, that's very useful advice. New addition to saddle bag, one
times note pad with ``Make, Model, Colour, Reg'' written on the front so
I don't forget.
--
Cheers
Euan
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
2 more things: Time and location! And crime. No wait, 3 more things:
Time, location, crime! And description of driver[1]! No wait, I'll
come in again.
[1] If you can. Or you find out, like I did, that the guys who just
assaulted you, were driving a stolen vehicle. Fsck!
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki on ASR
hippy
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 at 05:40 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Although that guy isn't generally endangering me, unlike
> > the fools in the cars who's plates I note down.
>
> I can't quite fully remember the procedure, but write down the make,
> model, colour of the offender. Write it down immediately. As in, take
> pen and paper with you all times on a bike (see here, a pannier helps
> ;). Write down the time and location. This is called a
> "contemporaneous note". Being written within minutes of the event
> means it can be introduced in court as evidence.
I take out my phone (stored conveniently in a jersey
pocket or backpack.. no pannier in sight ;-) ) and do
the sms thing. Sometimes I send it to someone,
sometimes not. Would this count or does it have to
be paper?
> Tell them you wish to report an offence. Give them the details. They
> will say "sorry, there is nothing we can do about it, unless there was
> a police officer present". Say "I have contemporaneous notes, am
> prepared to write a statement, and am prepared to go to court". They
> will then be perfectly happy to take the issue up with the
> offender. The offender, if possesing more than 2 brain cells and the
> associated neuron, will concede without going to court (since going to
> court will ensure ~ double the penalty (monetary and points wise) if
> they lose).
Sounds like a cool plan.. with one fatal flaw.. do you really
think my poor, fraying brain will remember "contemporaneous notes"?
;-)
"Officer, I have some contemporary notes, no, wait, some conceited
notes, no, um, some concious notes, considered notes, contactable
notes, concierge notes, colloquial notes, cop notes, colon notes, crazy
notes, criminal notes.. ahh fuggit!"
> See my friend's happy outcome on RHOD:
>
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=4024cbd7.0403162018.42ec6c6a%40posting.google.com
> Strangely on-topic for this newsfroup.
> Please. Do it. For the sake of your fellow riders.
I'll check this out later and hopefully remember the process
should I need to use it.
hippy
Theo Bekkers
> Thanks, that's very useful advice. New addition to saddle bag, one
> times note pad with ``Make, Model, Colour, Reg'' written on the front
> so I don't forget.
A notebook can be a very handy thing to have on you. As a volunteer fireman,
I never go to a fire without a notebook and pen. Oh, and a box of matches.
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> I take out my phone (stored conveniently in a jersey
> pocket or backpack.. no pannier in sight ;-) ) and do
> the sms thing. Sometimes I send it to someone,
> sometimes not. Would this count or does it have to
> be paper?
The times our legal system is working in, I would think nothing less than a
clay tablet would be acceptable.
Theo
Stuart Lamble
Handed to the judge from a burning bush?
kim
> Stuart Lamble Wrote:
>>On 2004-12-15, hippy <sbi...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
>>>"TP" <m...@work.right.now> wrote:
>>>>(3) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
>>>>affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side reflectors complying with the
>>>>requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998 (Pedal
>>>>Bicycles ž Safety Requirements) and Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
>>>>(Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
>>><cough> sure.. <cough>
>>>>(4) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have
>>>>affixed, to both sides of each pedal, yellow pedal reflectors complying with
>>>>the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 2142-1978
>>>>(Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles).
>>>
>>>My pedals don't have provision for a reflector.. they are too skinny.
>>>Can I blame my LBS for selling me unroadworthy pedals? (relax
>>>Mick, I'm working in the realm of theory..).
>>
>>Ditto ... do _any_ SPD pedal sets have room for that sort of thing?
>>
>>>Are the reflective parts of my shoes likely to meet the above standards?
>>
>>Dubious at best.
given that most shoes have heels, reflectors on the pedals are pointless?
only my old sandshoes have no heels and they don't have stiff enough
soles to ride with for any distance.
i never really understood the point of reflectors on the pedals anyway,
while tavelling, i've never seen the bike first by pedal reflectors
anyway. just sounds like one of those will laws introduced to
punish^H^H^H^H^H^Hoffset 'foreign' manufacturers in the market...
cheers,
kim
RV
wrote:
>"TimC" <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 at 05:40 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> > Although that guy isn't generally endangering me, unlike
>> > the fools in the cars who's plates I note down.
>>
>> I can't quite fully remember the procedure, but write down the make,
>> model, colour of the offender. Write it down immediately. As in, take
>> pen and paper with you all times on a bike (see here, a pannier helps
>> ;). Write down the time and location. This is called a
>> "contemporaneous note". Being written within minutes of the event
>> means it can be introduced in court as evidence.
>
>I take out my phone (stored conveniently in a jersey
>pocket or backpack.. no pannier in sight ;-) ) and do
>the sms thing. Sometimes I send it to someone,
>sometimes not. Would this count
If you typed it on your phone and then wrote it down from that
yourself it could be used.
If it was sent to someone and they had to write it down and repeat it
back to you for recollection, it would not be accepted.
Roadie_scum
RV Wrote:
> If you typed it on your phone and then wrote it down from that
> yourself it could be used.
> If it was sent to someone and they had to write it down and repeat it
> back to you for recollection, it would not be accepted.
If you sent it by sms there would likely be a record at the phone
company that might fall into the 'business records' statutory exception
- at least in Victoria, not sure about other jurisdictions (but I think
most have that exception).
--
Roadie_scum
Marty Wallace
"Roadie_scum" <Roadie_sc...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in
message news:Roadie_sc...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
I witnessed an incident and the fact I was able to tell the police the
license number in a statement was evidence enough to be used in court.
Marty
Roadie_scum
Marty Wallace Wrote:
>
> I witnessed an incident and the fact I was able to tell the police the
> license number in a statement was evidence enough to be used in court.
>
> Marty
Did they admit the statement or did you go to court and relate what you
saw?
--
Roadie_scum
Marty Wallace
"Roadie_scum" <Roadie_sc...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in
message news:Roadie_sc...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
When I gave the statement I gave them the license plate number, (which I had
memorised,) which the police told me was correct, as they had already
checked with their own investigations. The statement was made a week or so
after the incident.
In court I did not have to recite the license number, it was just stated by
the prosecuting lawer that I had given the license number of the suspects
car in my statement to the police.
Marty