Accident in the cradle.

[Patchelicious]

Sweetie, you've missed a very valuable point. You are disregarding the fact that there was a bunch of cyclists approaching the truck. They, by legal classification and definition, are the "oncoming traffic" referred to.

So technically speaking, the truck driver performed an illegal passing maneuver by doing so in the face of oncomming traffic.

Finish and klaar.

Were the cyclists in the bicycle lane or in the middle of the road? If they were in the cycle lanes, he was ok to over take?

 

Ps; Maybe drop the condescension if you are actually trying to engage, his post did not deserve that.

[Patchelicious]

This thread is about a fellow cyclist who got physically hurt. It’s NOT about us being “right” or our little egos getting hurt.

 

Out of respect for Victor, let’s try and keep this one civilized.

[King_Crispy]

Were the cyclists in the bicycle lane or in the middle of the road? If they were in the cycle lanes, he was ok to over take?

 

Ps; Maybe drop the condescension if you are actually trying to engage, his post did not deserve that.

Oncoming traffic, whether in the cycle lane on outside thereof, is still oncoming traffic.

 

But I imagine with all the cycle 100 club shirts present, not many of them would have been inside of the yellow line. I ride the cradle often. I know how it's supposed to be, but I understand that's not what actually happens.

 

This is the hub, where everybody is a warrior and nothing is meaningful

[Patchelicious]

Oncoming traffic, whether in the cycle lane on outside thereof, is still oncoming traffic.

 

But I imagine with all the cycle 100 club shirts present, not many of them would have been inside of the yellow line. I ride the cradle often. I know how it's supposed to be, but I understand that's not what actually happens.

 

This is the hub, where everybody is a warrior and nothing is meaningful

I ask, to understand as I don’t know this law.... This thing about “oncoming traffic”

 

If I am traveling in one direction, in my car lane, passing a cyclists traveling in the same direction as I am in their cycling lane. Are you saying that if a cyclist is coming in the opposite direction, in their cycling lane, that I cannot pass between the two even if I remain my lane, and they remain in their lanes, because I am then by definition passing into oncoming traffic?

 

I don’t know, that doesn’t seem logical?

 

Edit: No need to imagine, we can ask the people who were there.

[shaper]

The truck was NOT where it was meant to be.

 

You are constantlty pointing out the law, so consider it in full.

 

A driver may not overtake unless it is safe to do so. The mere fact that there was oncoming traffic that believed it necessary to take evasive action shows that it was not safe.

Were you there? Can you state this statement with the authority and the right that you seem to give?

 

I believe you were not, so you assumption and corresponding statement is rather mute.

 

I was there and have stated the facts as observed, being very up close and personal and lucky to not to have been part of the accident myself.

 

Quite frankly unless you were there and can categorically say with fact, your comment is nothing but hearsay and conjecture!!

[AdamA]

Sweetie, you've missed a very valuable point. You are disregarding the fact that there was a bunch of cyclists approaching the truck. They, by legal classification and definition, are the "oncoming traffic" referred to.

So technically speaking, the truck driver performed an illegal passing maneuver by doing so in the face of oncomming traffic.

Finish and klaar.

 

Sweetie, you're missed many valuable points... 

1. Had the Club ride got the necessary permission as stated in regulation 317 of the National Traffic act then there would ( or should) have been an officer on the route that would have either diverted the truck on another road or cautioned the truck in advance.
2. Had the group/bunch been maintaining a safe following distance (2 second gap) the probably would have not been the panic, swerving and skidding.
3. had the group been ridding in single file the group leader would not have had to call them to single file, causing the panic, swerving and skidding

Not finished, Not Klaar, 'cause the topic of 'My rights supersede your rights' will go on forever.

 

 

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that maybe the Cradle should be a 'No Drive zone' on Saturday mornings 6-9am this would be great, but then how would we get to Bidon, Valverde, Rhino park etc, 

 

Maybe the clubs should get together and approach the MEC or local authority to have a standing sporting event every Saturday morning from 6-9am, 

 

Maybe the clubs should respectfully approach the Quarries and/or Truck companies to not schedule routes on Saturday mornings 

 

Maybe the local Authority should marshal all access points to the Cradle and charge all runners and cyclists R200 to cover the cost of the marshals, maintaining the Bike lanes, etc.

 

Maybe i should stop reading this thread and do some work today

[shaper]

Sweetie, you've missed a very valuable point. You are disregarding the fact that there was a bunch of cyclists approaching the truck. They, by legal classification and definition, are the "oncoming traffic" referred to.

So technically speaking, the truck driver performed an illegal passing maneuver by doing so in the face of oncomming traffic.

Finish and klaar.

Also someone who was not there and has no idea of the situation.... Finish and Klaar !!

[Jewbacca]

Every time I see this thread heading in the topic box I think 'how is this STILL going on if eye witnesses have already told the story?!' and then sing '... and the silver spoon...' and move on.

 

It seems Hubland has become nasty again with a bitter tinge similar to the time when Wyatt and his deputies used to roam the land....

[Paul Ruinaard]

Hell this is still going on.....

 

More importantly: Hows the dud that was knocked off the bike? Viktor i think it was 

 

FWIW: I was there immediately after it happened and have not been able to stop thinking about the site of a heavily laden truck parked in the middle of the road with lots of cyclists milling around. I must admit its made me re-assess my strategy when riding in the cradle....

[Kranswurm]

Hell this is still going on.....

 

More importantly: Hows the dud that was knocked off the bike? Viktor i think it was 

 

FWIW: I was there immediately after it happened and have not been able to stop thinking about the site of a heavily laden truck parked in the middle of the road with lots of cyclists milling around. I must admit its made me re-assess my strategy when riding in the cradle....

Used to ride there often in the 80s and 90s but not anymore unless its an event.

In addition I would not drive through there in peak cycling and biking times.Go around.Much safer with less stress.

[V12man]

Hell this is still going on.....

 

More importantly: Hows the dud that was knocked off the bike? Viktor i think it was 

 

Still in Trauma ICU in an induced coma as of last night - last I heard they will be bringing him out soon - before the weekend unless he has a setback.

[shaper]

Still in Trauma ICU in an induced coma as of last night - last I heard they will be bringing him out soon - before the weekend unless he has a setback.

Thanks for the update

[eddy]

Were you there? Can you state this statement with the authority and the right that you seem to give?

 

I believe you were not, so you assumption and corresponding statement is rather mute.

 

I was there and have stated the facts as observed, being very up close and personal and lucky to not to have been part of the accident myself.

 

Quite frankly unless you were there and can categorically say with fact, your comment is nothing but hearsay and conjecture!!

 

 

No I was not, but also know that eye witness evidence is very unreliable, in this case it is also unnecessary.

 

I do not have to have been there to know that a) the law requires that an overtaking manoeuvre only be undertaken when it is safe to do so; and b) that it is common cause that an accident took place during the manoeuvre.

 

By definition, it was therefore not safe to have done so.

 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CYCLISTS WERE NOT ALSO NEGLIGENT and contributed to the accident. 

[Mr Winter]

Still in Trauma ICU in an induced coma as of last night - last I heard they will be bringing him out soon - before the weekend unless he has a setback.

 

Thanks for the update, lets how there are no further setbacks and he is on his way to a speedy recovery. 

[CASSIE1975]

Still in Trauma ICU in an induced coma as of last night - last I heard they will be bringing him out soon - before the weekend unless he has a setback.

 

Hope and pray for a speedy Recovery!!!

[shaper]

No I was not, but also know that eye witness evidence is very unreliable, in this case it is also unnecessary.

 

I do not have to have been there to know that a) the law requires that an overtaking manoeuvre only be undertaken when it is safe to do so; and b) that it is common cause that an accident took place during the manoeuvre.

 

By definition, it was therefore not safe to have done so.

 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CYCLISTS WERE NOT ALSO NEGLIGENT and contributed to the accident. 

Go read one of my earlier posts, I stated there was plenty of room for everyone, I was close (2-3m), but not right on the back of Victor's wheel, so I had no need to keep an eye on the bike in front, I was looking up at the road ahead as I was about to latch onto the back of the group and become part of the group, so needed to be aware of circumstances.  I saw the truck overtaking the group on the opposite side and thought nothing of it being an issue or a threat as I was fast approaching the group, intending to join.

 

My view was unobstructed and clear before, during and after the accident.  I witnessed in slow motion (as time seems to slow down during these things), Victor loosing control and swerving into the path of the truck.  If needs be I can clearly indicate at the exact point on the truck he impacted.  I have previously said that it is a sight and sound I will not forget quickly.

 

Of course you are welcome to your opinion that my evidence on what I saw as was involved in is unreliable, I will dispute that as you were not there and have no idea of circumstance or events.

 

And you must be joking that eye witness evidence is not necessary??... did you forget comic sans at this point!!.... The more you talk the less credible you become quite frankly!!