Cyclists' Safety in the light of Burry and other's recent deaths - Merged Thread.

[Ryanpmb]

Taxi misjudged the speed at which Stander was traveling and turned or really didn't see him and turned.... Must've looked down at the monitor to check speed or heart rate or similar and didn't even see it happening to get an opportunity to try and avoid the taxi or cushion the impact, lift an arm to protect his head or so on.

... edited with a few other options... Edited January 6, 2013 by Ryanpmb

[Witkop]

Popcorn time.

 

But here are the first principles:

 

The first principle of road use is SAFETY. You cannot pass other vehicle, until it is SAFE to do so. You must drive at a SAFE speed. Even if you have right of way at a intersection, you may only proceed once you have determined that it is SAFE to do so.

 

Now safety means, safe for all road users. So if you are on a bicycle, motor cycle, motor car, truck G6 artillery piece ext, SAFETY comes first. If some one gets hurt on the road it is because this rule was violated.

 

Second principle, a vehicle has the right to the entire lane. Cyclists are instructed to stay left as far as it is SAFE to do so. This does not remove their right to the entire lane.

 

Third principle, when passing another vehicle (this includes bicycles and motor bicycles), you must leave the lane, when it is safe to do so and pass the vehicle in front of you and the then return to the lane. THIS IS IGNORED BY MOTOR VEHICLES.

 

Fouth principle, you may not pass a vehicle busy passing another vehicle. So if two cyclists are abreast, you must assume one is passing the other. If it is obvious this is not the case, then you should pass by leaving the lane, when it is sfae to do so, and then pass the two vehicles.

 

Another point, it is interesting that of the 1400 people killed this holiday so many (almost all) where in motor vehicles. Obvious proof that motorcar drivers cause more accidents than any other road users? ANd even more surprising is the majority where HEAD ON COLLISIONS. Which just proves that motorists have some real issues.

[Azonic]

I think if Burry was aware of what was going on he easily could have scrubbed half his speed off. 50 to 25 in a second or so. Which is why I think he was head down.

[Ryanpmb]

I have seen how they drive. Motorbikes and bicycles do not exist for taxis. I have seen a taxi driving up the wrong side of the road, a motorbike was coming from the other direction and had to swerve off the road to avoid a head-on with the taxi. They are extremely dangerous.

I've also seen how cyclists take to the road. Some of them just don't help themselves.

[Witkop]

I've been caught out by a car like this once - most likely very much slower than Burry was going. The driver (in my case) claimed he didn't see me ... in broad daylight with a luminous yellow jacket. By the time you realise the car's intentions, it's too late to do anything. My guess is that the driver totally misjudged the speed at which Burry was coming.

some thing happened to me about 10 years ago. A women at a stop street stopped and then jumped the intersection. She misjudged my speed. Still after ten years I do not even know her name or have received any apology. At least that stop street has been replaced with a circle. (After numerous accidents at that intersection)

[Tubehunter]

... edited with a few other options...

 

Possible, but doubt Burry would've continued at speed into an intersection with any vehicle showing it intends turning in front of him by having its indicator on and suggesting such and then taking his eye of that too. The way he was injured suggests he didn't see it happen. It would be a combination of these scenarios and more that would make this the tragic accident we are all trying to understand.

[Teslou]

Definately an awareness needs to be made with regards to cycling safely as my brother was killed 16 yrs ago while cycling along Hendrik Potgieter in Roodepoort another dangerous road and there others too who have died along this road as well.

[mrbaker]

There is a big difference between breaking the law and murdering someone. who the $&;&; do u think u are trying to justify this . Please lord if I meet u one day may he be with u!!!!!!!

 

I think the OP has a good point & you seem a bit out of line going off at the post!!

It did not come across as any sort of justification...

[Ryanpmb]

 

 

Possible, but doubt Burry would've continued at speed into an intersection with any vehicle showing it intends turning in front of him by having its indicator on and suggesting such and then taking his eye of that too. The way he was injured suggests he didn't see it happen. It would be a combination of these scenarios and more that would make this the tragic accident we are all trying to understand.

How was he injured?

 

A head on with a vehicle could be fatal at 10km/h...

 

As you said, combo of scenarios. Wish none of them took place in the first place.

[pastapouch]

I think if Burry was aware of what was going on he easily could have scrubbed half his speed off. 50 to 25 in a second or so. Which is why I think he was head down.

Sadly its too late now. I know that road from holidaying there. the queues are miles long, and taxi drivers DON'T HAVE PATIENCE/CONSIDERATION FOR HUMAN LIFE. K53 teaches you to look before you do in order to avoid making an accident. So basically claiming that he didn't see it means he isn't capable of having a licence and therefore should be up for murder. thats how it should work.

[Da Vinci]

Popcorn time.

 

But here are the first principles:

 

The first principle of road use is SAFETY. You cannot pass other vehicle, until it is SAFE to do so. You must drive at a SAFE speed. Even if you have right of way at a intersection, you may only proceed once you have determined that it is SAFE to do so.

 

Now safety means, safe for all road users. So if you are on a bicycle, motor cycle, motor car, truck G6 artillery piece ext, SAFETY comes first. If some one gets hurt on the road it is because this rule was violated.

 

Second principle, a vehicle has the right to the entire lane. Cyclists are instructed to stay left as far as it is SAFE to do so. This does not remove their right to the entire lane.

 

Third principle, when passing another vehicle (this includes bicycles and motor bicycles), you must leave the lane, when it is safe to do so and pass the vehicle in front of you and the then return to the lane. THIS IS IGNORED BY MOTOR VEHICLES.

 

Fouth principle, you may not pass a vehicle busy passing another vehicle. So if two cyclists are abreast, you must assume one is passing the other. If it is obvious this is not the case, then you should pass by leaving the lane, when it is sfae to do so, and then pass the two vehicles.

 

Another point, it is interesting that of the 1400 people killed this holiday so many (almost all) where in motor vehicles. Obvious proof that motorcar drivers cause more accidents than any other road users? ANd even more surprising is the majority where HEAD ON COLLISIONS. Which just proves that motorists have some real issues.

Nice one

- will confess to pinching it and posting it where my non cycling friends can see it as I believe education has to be given to motorists that cyclists are entitled to use the road

[Tubehunter]

 

 

 

TubeHunter, the motorists behind such a bunch will not care about your maths. They will get irritated. motorists will percieve this as zero consideration ...

 

Would it not be easier to search for and train on safer roads?

 

Oh, I saw what you did there. Guess you can paint things in all ways when it's just words on a screen, but when the rubber hits the road and you think no one is watching is when things get real. I'm more than comfortable with the amount of consideration I give and typically receive out on the road in real life, even when we ride as a group. The biggest irony is that most of the survival methods used by the groups of cyclists out there doing serious time in the saddle are learned responses to managing the risk on the road, not some effort at coffee time in the saddle as is often suggested. To add to this irony is the generalized rants that get posted here from people suggesting they are genuinely concerned with the safety of these groups who are never part of one!

 

Oh and attitude is everything!

[Witkop]

Nice one

- will confess to pinching it and posting it where my non cycling friends can see it as I believe education has to be given to motorists that cyclists are entitled to use the road

please edit the mistakes out.

[Tubehunter]

How was he injured?

 

A head on with a vehicle could be fatal at 10km/h...

 

As you said, combo of scenarios. Wish none of them took place in the first place.

 

We're ALL wishing this never happened...

 

He T-boned the taxi. Not a direct head on.

 

The other possibility is Burry was following somewhat closely behind another

vehicle going in the same direction and the taxi did a quick right turn behind this into his path.

 

All of these are guesses until someone who saw it happen describes the exact details. That should come out when the case gets heard. Until then we can hypothesize all we want, but our hero mains fallen....

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I think the OP has a good point & you seem a bit out of line going off at the post!!

It did not come across as any sort of justification...

 

No body was murdered mrbaker. That is simply fanning the fires of hysteria, as tragic as it was, it remains an accident until a judicial court says otherwise.

[kosmonooit]

How was he injured?

 

Severe head trauma, possible broken neck on impact. Read that today on a press site, can find the source if need be.