by frog
The Herald describes a brutal cycle accident, ‘apparently caused when competitors in the Coromandel Peninsula K2 race were squeezed between an “impatient” ute and a milk tanker.’
Here’s one competitor’s account:
Kenny Chia, a competitor, saw the accident and described the ute driver as impatient. “We could hear an angry horn coming from behind us as we were riding – then the white ute came flying past.”
Chia said the cyclists, who were crossing Kuaotunu Hill north of Whitianga, then realised a milk tanker was coming in the opposite direction.
“The ute was going faster to pass the bikes before the tanker got too close. Near the front, a couple of guys touched wheels and then there was a 10-bike pile-up.
“The injured guy got pushed into the tanker’s moving wheels and then bounced high into the air and did a 180-degree flip. He then hit the ground. He was probably about 2m in front of me, it wasn’t a good sight.
and another:
Competitor Eddie Rosser, 31, of Auckland, was also present and called an ambulance. “The ute carried on and cut in front of the bunch, which had a concertina effect on the riders. The ute… should not have been overtaking us on a blind corner.”
But here’s how the police described the ute’s actions that appeared to lead to a 10 cycle pile up by passing on a blind corner:
Inspector Earle McIntosh said police had found and spoken to the driver of the white ute. Although there were issues concerning the ute, it had passed the cyclists by the time the crash happened.
“The cyclist made an evasive action to avoid other cyclists, not the ute,” McIntosh said. “The cyclists were using the road as if they owned it and came round a blind corner and met a milk tanker.”
I thought they did own the road? At least they owned it as much as milk tankers and impatient white utes? As Bike NZ argues in the article we now need new road rules that protect cyclists by making the dominant vehicle liable for accidents. Such laws are commonplace in Europe and have played an important roll making our roads safer for cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers alike.
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Justice & Democracy by frog on Sun, November 2nd, 2008
Tags: Cyclists, dominant vehicle, driving, frogblog, green party, new zealand, road safety
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I cant comment on the situation in the coromandel however there was a cycle race organised from Pukekohe around to Waiuku and back.
The behaviour of the cyclist was appalling. The peleton of about 100 riders was 5 wide across the road and with the shenighans occurring in the peleton, many times the riders were six to eight abreast across the wrong side of the road.
All this under police supervision!
While the rest of the road users were stacked up about 50 cars, trucks, deep.
Even on the one passing lane to Waiuku the peleton manged to take up both lanes as the various teams tried to get to the front on a hill climb.
So for about 45 minutes from the Pukekohe turnoff to Waiuku to traffic was slowed to 20 mph.
If cycle organisers are going to have a road race they should do so on closed roads (like car rally’s), not the open highway.
Cycle racing and open roads do not mix.
Because the nature of cycle racing means a total block of the road.
No doubt someone will point out the cycle rules on the road, where keep left and single file (?) are the law.
My understanding is that this will be first and only time that race will be held.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well Toady, as far as I am confirmed, the truck & ute have paid for the road via tax, the cyclists have not (directly it is). Remember the cyclists have to have some awareness & self preservation as they are not the only users. There is only 1 winner in truck vs cycle and it ain’t the cyclist.
Can I see another restricitive law being attempted, the road hog cyclist law that it is never the cyclists fault, just the main CO2 belcher.
Anyway, this time next week you will be in depression mode when National get an on the night majority to rule.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah yeah GWD… death penalty for cycling. Good taste mate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with you Gerrit : cycle races and NZ traffic don’t mix, because of the large number of impatient w*nkers who don’t know how to drive safely. Is this a reason for banning cycle races?
Cycle races never cause problems in France. Traffic is filtered, drivers take care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit me ol chum – check your fact before repeating urban legends.
If one looks at the funding of roads and the amounts people pay cyclists actually subsidise motorists.
FACT ONE: All roading other than state highways is 50% funded from local body rates.
FACT TWO: Cyclists contribute to the rating base directly or indirectly
Given that the road wear and tear from cycling is negligible, cyclists on average subsidise motorists.
In general, the strict liability rule makes sense as it says those who create the biggest hazard need to take responsibility for their actions.
More generally, roads are public spaces. The idea that paying for the damage you do to this public – that is what petrol tax and Road User Charges do – confers exclusive use rights is downright strange.
I look forward to someone from the political right arguing motorists should pay full costs and the right of the state to compulsorily acquire property for roads should be removed. To be fair to the Libertarianz they probably do say this, and the next closest are the Greens.
ACT, the corporate socialists, are really a glove-puppet for the roading lobby, and advocates massive corporate welfare for them
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can;t comment on the specifics of this either, but here’s the thing:
roads are NOT for racing.
Last week I was merging with a bike race from the right, and bunches of them were undertaking me on the left. There was no acknowledgment of road rules, only racing each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roads not being for racing is funny, because most of the vehicle traffic seems to disagree with you, BP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jggm (not my old chum)
I think you are confusing me with gw denier.
I said nothing about road funding.
Alistair,
Last time I looked the Tour De France was on closed roads.
What I’m trying to point out is that cycle racing on open roads is dangerous.
I dont have a problem with protecting cyclists on the open road provided they take responsibility to obey the traffic rules.
While cycle racing the traffic rules are broken all the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mind you having Tour De France compwetitors dodging traffic on french roads would be an interesting spectator blood sport.
Especially that roundabout at the Arc D’ Triump (sp?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Guys
There is a road rule that isn’t written anywhere I know of, I learned it in New York and from reading somewhat of Stirling-Moss, but it basically points out that any time your actions force some other guy to apply the brakes or take evasive action to avoid you, you have made a mistake.
The reasoning is that the other guy may not be paying enough attention or have sufficient control to do what has to be done.
Now I know New Zealand drivers aren’t in the same class as New Yorkers or Angelenos but they aren’t bad generally. The problem with honking and not waiting and then forcing the issue is that the ute driver made a very bad choice as an individual. No cr@p about the law, people were hurt as a result of his actions. He had a choice about those actions. He caused the cyclists to be braking and attempting to evade his actions and while the consequences may not fall on HIM, a ton of bricks ought to.
When I come on a cyclist and he/she is on a road on which it would be unsafe to pass I do not pass. It may take me minutes longer to to reach a place where safe passing is possible. It may lengthen my trip by half an hour… it is STILL wrong for me to put people’s lives at risk. I can complain to the police about their breaking the laws, but I CANNOT use my vehicle size and power to force the issue.
There is a point about the roads not being for racing. They do have to be, or something like cycle racing cannot exist. Nor is there much point in closing the road entirely as a rule, but my recollection is that there are escorts involved in most long-distance cycle races overseas, and arrangements made for the traffic where necessary.
There’s right and wrong here, and then there’s taking the law into your own hands.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, me ol unchum
Apologies for mis-attributing GW deniers bad ideas to you.
mea culpa
JGG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
I dont have any concern regarding using roads for racing. Just that those roads should be closed to the general public whilst the cycle race is in progress.
How you do that by either closing to road completely or by partial blocks through marshall (they do that now at intersection by stopping traffic and allowing ROW to the racers) I dont mind.
I’m sure the racers would enjoy the free use of the WHOLE road to race on very much.
Someone can organise the Dunlop Targa car rally to run the length of the North Island on closed roads, so am sure the cyclist organisers can do the same for cycle tours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari,
Roads are not for racing, in/on any vehicle, unless those roads are closed.
Those who do race on public roads are engaging in dangerous behavior, and it isn’t surprising that more accidents would occur as a result.
Be consistent. If you replace ever instance of “bike” with “car” in this report, would you feel the same way? Boy racer dies because he was involved in a collision with a truck when racing with his mates?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m both a cyclist and a motorist and this whole problem is caused by a lack of courtesy and consideration shown by all road users, two wheels or four. This can’t be fixed by legislation, only by an attitude change.
Legally, the problem is already covered. Drivers, if it isn’t safe to pass, you don’t. Period. Cyclists, like any slow moving vehicle, you may not unnecessarily impede traffic and can get a ticket for doing so. Pull over wherever possible and allow traffic to pass. This is all basic road-code stuff.
Bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour in return. Motorists who get stuck behind cyclists riding three and four abreast end up hating cyclists and acting aggressively towards them. Cyclists who are repeatedly squeezed off the road by motorists passing too close where there isn’t room, get militant and start riding three and four abreast to force motorists to go around in the other lane.
This isn’t going to change until everyone takes a chill-pill and starts showing courtesy and patience in the hope of getting some of the same back.
Chill dudes, peace, love and mung beans…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have come across non racing cyclists riding two abreast in well inside the vehicle lane and they couldn’t give a stuff whether they are holding up traffic or not, they refuse to budge.
I can get a ticket for driving too slow, holding up traffic and refusing to pull over, so why should it be different for cyclists.
Promoting an arogant attitude of “rights” for cyclists is going to get people killed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hippie64 – you are totally right, I think laws rarely work in solving the overall problem, they just result in a few individuals getting pinged.
However, I think it is harder in practice to get that improvement in attitudes than you suggest. How exactly do you imagine this occuring? You can put as many ads on TV and pamphlets in people’s letterboxes, but if they just choose to ignore them what have you really achieved?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>we now need new road rules that protect cyclists by making the dominant vehicle liable for accidents.
That would be guilty until proven innocent. Cyclist rounds blind corner, in wrong lane, and gets hit by a bus. It’s the bus drivers fault?
I think not.
We need to stop cyclists using roads as a racetrack. If they’re going to insist on doing so, then accept the consequences, or close the road.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cynical1, it starts with you and me acting the way we wish others would, in the possibly vain hope that it rubs off. Not easy, not when everyone else is pushing and shoving and only thinking of themselves, but it has to start with someone. You’re right though, it’s something most people find easy to ignore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hippie64, good on you. You’ve said it as it is. Put a Kiwi in charge of some wheels, it doesn’t matter what, a cycle, a car, a truck, a roller blade, whatever, and their character changes from an open, friendly, personable and helpful individual to something more akin to road warrior – aggressive, impatient and dangerously competitive for the same space on the road.
Attitudes have to change, there is a bothersome and dangerously childish them and us attitude that really concerns me, both from cyclist to car drivers, and vice versa, and I write as a regular cyclist and occasional car driver. The only problem for us cyclists is that in any confrontation the result is pretty predictable, when did you last read the headline “Hit and run cyclist kills two in Ford Transit van”?
I would like all New Zealanders who use the roads to grow up – it’s long past time we did so. And practical measures to help would be an education campaign, restrictions or a levy on car advertising on TV so that educational adverts could be run (when did you last see an advert on TV for a bicycle?), lower road speed limits for open road to 90 kph and in towns to 40 kph on main roads and 30 kph on side and suburban streets and cycle friendly cities and lanes along country roads, etc. etc.
Having said that, having a cycle race on open roads with ordinary uncontrolled traffic is a big NO-NO, very stupid and almost designed to cause tragedy.
As to the rule that the dominant vehicle is presumed at fault, I think that’s an excellent idea. No car driver was ever killed by a careless pedestrian or cyclist, there is a duty of care by all drivers to all people using the road, because the driver is the one that will do the damage if there is a collision. However I think the likelihood of getting such a law passed in this car driven country is pretty near zero.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think anyone can justify recklessness on the road, whether directed against bikers or otherwise, and whether deliberate or inadvertent.
But what I find amusing is that bikers rant on about the right to use the roads like anyone else, but happily flout roadrules.
I’d say 80% of cyclists I have witnessed run the red light.
I asked a mate of mine in the Greens, a biking enthusiast, how it is possible to justify going through red lights. His response shocked me:
“Well, bikes can get away with it, unlike cars, which are bulkier – so why not?”
So let me get this straight:
1) Bikies wish to use the roads, but they do not wish to abide by the road rules that apply to all road users. So you want your cake and eat it too.
2) It’s ok to do something, as long as you can get away with it. Such upright citizens we have in this country. No wonder the Greens are soft on crime; they commit it all the time.
For the record, Rights come with responsibilities – something bikers and lefties obviously don’t seem to be able to grasp.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog asks – “I thought they did own the road? At least they owned it as much as milk tankers and impatient white utes?”
Not if it’s a State Highway. State Highways are 100% “owned” by road users who pay petrol taxes, RUCs and rego fees. Cyclists don’t pay any of those user charges so they can’t claim to “own” any part of a State Highway.
However we do live in an egalitarian society so motorists are willing to share “their” roads with other road users provided those other road users show some basic courtesy and common sense.
At the very least obey the law that hippie_64 mentioned. The road code isn’t something that was made necessary by the advent of the motorcar. The basic road rules became law in 1876, in s99 of ” The Public Works Act, 1876.”
99. If any person does any of the following things upon a road :-
(13.) does not keep any vehicle driven by him on the left or
near-side of the road when meeting, and on the right or
off-side when passing, another vehicle, or does not leave a
reasonable portion of the road for any vehicle passing him :
every person so offending shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding
five pounds.
Maybe if the fine was still equal to the minimum weekly wage it might be worth enforcing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jgg argued that “Given that the road wear and tear from cycling is negligible, cyclists on average subsidise motorists.” Is jgg unaware that wear and tear from light vehicles costs less than 50cents per thousand km travelled? In fact wear and tear from light vehicles accounts for less than 10% of road maintenance costs. Heavy vehicles account for a mere one-third. The environment causes most of the damage but does the environment front up with the moolah? Not on your nellie! The long sufferring motor user subsidises the environment
More generally, roads are public spaces. The idea that paying for all-weather dustless surfaces and the damage you don’t do to this public space – that is what petrol tax and Road User Charges do – confers exclusive use rights is downright straightforward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
““The ute was going faster to pass the bikes before the tanker got too close. Near the front, a couple of guys touched wheels and then there was a 10-bike pile-up.
“The injured guy got pushed into the tanker’s moving wheels and then bounced high into the air and did a 180-degree flip. He then hit the ground. He was probably about 2m in front of me, it wasn’t a good sight.”"
PARDON?
A Couple of guys touched wheels? Seems like the accident was caused by poor road code adherence by the cyclist!
.
.
.
.
.
““The cyclists were using the road as if they owned it and came round a blind corner and met a milk tanker.”
I thought they did own the road? At least they owned it as much as milk tankers and impatient white utes?”"
Round a blind corner – Could they have been on the wrong side of the road – a common problem with racing cyclists?
NO ‘ONE’ “OWNS” the road, it is a state or local government asset on which the public has right of passage. If there is any ‘higher than your’ claim it would be on the part of the motor vehicles, as they at least pay a fee towards upkeep and maintenance of roads, as well as towards the ACC cost of accident compensation. Perhaps all bikes over 12′ frames should have to be registered and appropriate fees paid towards ‘common’ costs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jockmoron,
Meaning all trucks are responsible in a truck versus anything else accident.
And if a 40 tonne truck hits a 39 tonne truck that means the 40 tonne truck was ALWAYS in the wrong.
Dont like your sense of innocent before proven guilty sense at all.
Last time a car driver was killed by a pedestrian was when a boofhead threw a lump of concete from a motorway off bridge in Otahuhu.
And not long ago a suicide jumper from the Grafton Road overbridge nearly landed on a car. So yes pedestrians do and can kill car drivers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>As to the rule that the dominant vehicle is presumed at fault, I think that’s an excellent idea. No car driver was ever killed by a careless pedestrian or cyclist
No way.
I’m not taking the blame for some reckless cyclist running a red light, as they often do, or their dangerous road racing antics.
Cyclists should operate under the exact same laws as other road users. And fault, and fines, should be determined in the same way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BLAME?!
In the wrong?!
Responsible?!
When two ‘things’ collide and cause damage in New Zealand it is called a NO FAULT Accident and all costs not covered by vehicle insurance are compensated by ACC. Since when did we need to establish Fault? Do the Green Party want to abolish ACC and no fault accident compensation and revert to a litigation based approach to ‘accident’ compensation? If so, we better get a lot of students through Law School quick!
In sailing there is a clear guide to situations like this, it’s the concept of ‘give way to tonnage’. In other words, if it’s bigger than you stay out of the way. You’ll find that sailors also always observe the simple things in the boatie’s handbook. Interestingly, sailors who race have a vast number of rules that govern their behaviour while racing (anyone ever watch an Americas Cup regatta? – Thought so!); perhaps cyclists need the same diligent approach to their sport!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the good book it says:
Cyclists are pure of spirit, and the chosen ones.
Those that ride with motors are evil, and be the devils spawn.
This is the word of the Greens.
Amen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s strange I can’t seem to find that in my good book. Are you sure you are reading from the correct one?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Unbeliever!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Denialist!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As usual the right is taking a turn for the worse here. Several posts that have identifiable “Green” signatures on them have pointed out both the “General Prudential Rule” and have agreed that there is a responsibility that must be shared with the cyclists taking on some of it.
More to the point, a rather EXCELLENT observation was made, again by someone more Green than Red or Blue, that there is a hardening of attitudes of both the motorheads and the hard-core-cyclists, about ownership of the roads and both are annoyingly and distressingly aggravating the situation.
Which does not prevent you from going on, and on, and on, and on as though we don’t understand the problem. It’d be a good idea to listen once in a while. Talking over people doesn’t make it any easier to find ways to agree with them when that is actually reasonable.
About “Give way to tonnage” – the official rule is the “General Prudential Rule” which basically says, no matter what the rules say about who has the right-of-way, do whatever you need to do to avoid a collision.
If you are in a smaller more agile vessel, that translates to “give-way-to-tonnage” but it has application to bulk crude carriers and aircraft carriers no less,
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps it’s time to amend the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Act to remove the word motor so that it will apply equally to cyclists and motorists. In fact, it’s high time the same was done with the parent Act. If cyclists want equality with motorists then that is the place to start. Although cyclists would have to take a step backward if they want financial equality with motorists in so far as getting what they paid for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)