Why cyclists get killed....

[Mojoman]

Why would you not want to make yourself and your bike as visible as possible. I bought reflective strip for R10m and have put it on my bag, jacket and made some velcro ankle bands. I also spent a whopping R25m for some relective tape, that's all on my bike and helmet. Another R150 spent on some more lights. So for around R200 I am pretty visible. You would have to be a complete muppet not to make yourself well seen. I feel sorry for his family who will one of these days be a member short due to stupidity..

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Unbelievable.

 

Sometimes I really do wonder at the hostility of some people. The OP made a statement of opinion and I think quite a valid one, perhaps someone not understanding the issue of RIDING AT NIGHT might now buy a light and some reflective clothing and save himself getting run over, yet he is attacked for his vehicle speed which is quite irrelevant to the original jist of the post.

 

Why can people not just accept the post as instructional, not everyone has years of experience and understands the issues involved - as far as I am concerned the rider is pretty invisible until you are almost upon him - I think its a great way of conveying a message.

[flymango]

While you are throwing stones.... Ready to catch a few as well?

 

Your video, indicating speed and location (66km/h & :

 

From the video, and this aerial photo, the area seems pretty residential. Surely the speed limit is 40, or at a stretch 60km/h?

 

The driver will only get a fine for speeding assuming a 60 zone if caught at 70 or above. The cyclist should be visible and is way out of line compared to the OP.

[Stretch]

No really nitpicking... In the rest of the world, if the speed limit is 60, or 100km/h, that is the limit. People will generally drive slower than that to make sure they do not go over the limit. None of the 10% leniency nonsense we have here. So, 66 in a 60 zone is idiotic, to borrow from the video posted.

yes - but in those same first world countries the cyclist would also be stopped and fined for not have the requisite night time reflective gear

[Agteros]

yes - but in those same first world countries the cyclist would also be stopped and fined for not have the requisite night time reflective gear

I agree that two wrongs do not make a right, however if you stay in a glass house you better not throw stone

[TNT1]

The driver will only get a fine for speeding assuming a 60 zone if caught at 70 or above. The cyclist should be visible and is way out of line compared to the OP. My views on justifying breaking the law when I get in my car are well documented on this forum.

 

QED.

[TNT1]

Unbelievable.

 

Sometimes I really do wonder at the hostility of some people.

 

Yeah, I don't understand why the original post has to start with name calling either.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Yeah, I don't understand why the original post has to start with name calling either.

 

Perhaps, but still irrelevant, the video has merit for many, lets just accept it as that and move on, why is there a need to find fault with the OP's driving.?

[flymango]

The driver is doing 51km/h as he comes up behind the cyclist. The cyclist is completely in the wrong and we as a cycling community cannot condone the cyclist's behaviour.

[Agteros]

The driver is doing 51km/h as he comes up behind the cyclist. The cyclist is completely in the wrong and we as a cycling community cannot condone the cyclist's behaviour.

The OP elected to show the frame where he slowed down to 51km/h. Right at the start of the video, he is travelling at 66km/h. He saw the cyclist, and then slowed down to 51, and after passing started to speed up again. Watch the video carefully.

[flymango]

The OP elected to show the frame where he slowed down to 51km/h. Right at the start of the video, he is travelling at 66km/h. He saw the cyclist, and then slowed down to 51, and after passing started to speed up again. Watch the video carefully.

 

Agreed. But the OP was driving at a speed which wouldn't have got him a fine had there been law enforcement. The cyclist, on the other hand, did not have any lights or reflective material on and is more likely to get himself killed when a drunken driver (or sober driver for that matter) doing 80 comes up behind him. Not being visible is just crazy and surely we cannot condone that?

[Agteros]

Agreed. But the OP was driving at a speed which wouldn't have got him a fine had there been law enforcement. The cyclist, on the other hand, did not have any lights or reflective material on and is more likely to get himself killed when a drunken driver (or sober driver for that matter) doing 80 comes up behind him. Not being visible is just crazy and surely we cannot condone that?

 

Does not make going 66 in a 60 zone right. It is still faster than the maximum speed limit for a residential area. Note: MAXIMUM speed limit, not SUGGESTED speed.

 

Conditions will take away from the SAFE maximum, so needless to say that if the speed limit is 60 it is meant as a maximum during daylight, good road surface situation. It was night-time, so surely the SAFE maximum speed will be LESS?

 

The video showing the OP speeding up suggests that he did not stop to ask if the cyclist was OK (as indicated earlier, the possibility of a two puncture ride does exist). Much easier to climb onto a keyboard and kom-plane about people acting like (self judged) idiots, while actually doing the same by kom-planing on the internetz about it.

 

Going 80 in a 60 zone cannot be justified!

[Agteros]

Anyway, as I've stated earlier: Two wrongs do not make a right. Hopefully the cyclist made it to the other side in one piece. Pity the OP elected to speed up again and not use the opportunity to offer help or guidance to the cyclist.

[flymango]

Does not make going 66 in a 60 zone right. It is still faster than the maximum speed limit for a residential area. Note: MAXIMUM speed limit, not SUGGESTED speed.

 

Conditions will take away from the SAFE maximum, so needless to say that if the speed limit is 60 it is meant as a maximum during daylight, good road surface situation. It was night-time, so surely the SAFE maximum speed will be LESS?

 

The video showing the OP speeding up suggests that he did not stop to ask if the cyclist was OK (as indicated earlier, the possibility of a two puncture ride does exist). Much easier to climb onto a keyboard and kom-plane about people acting like (self judged) idiots, while actually doing the same by kom-planing on the internetz about it.

 

Going 80 in a 60 zone cannot be justified!

 

I did open my previous reply by agreeing with you regarding the OP. I still do. Let's assume the driver was doing 200 and had 12 beers in his blood so that his guilt is beyond doubt. Or 55 so that his innocence isn't in question. The question is do you think the cyclist was doing the wrong thing by not having any rear light and/or reflective clothing? If you can answer "yes" then we're on the same page. If your answer is "no" then I assume you think it's ok for cyclists not to be visible at night and that surely cannot be the type of message we want to convey on a cycling forum?

[flymango]

Anyway, as I've stated earlier: Two wrongs do not make a right. Hopefully the cyclist made it to the other side in one piece. Pity the OP elected to speed up again and not use the opportunity to offer help or guidance to the cyclist.

 

Thanks. Posts crossed. I'd rather emphasize the cyclist not being visible. We're good then.

[Bike Lore]

Man, Some times people go cycling and forget that the seasons is chaniging. I am betting this dude was happley cylcing at the same time last month and now it is dark. It happens.

 

Ok maybe more than a month