To the young lady in the white Ford Figo...

[DieselnDust]

Agreed.

 

Fault and right are irrelevant - the ONLY thing that should matter is life.

 

It's quite strange watching SA debates whilst living in country which values life so highly. 

 

Over here debate is centered around solving the problem not apportioning blame - right/wrong, who's fault it was etc are rarely spoken about.

 

As has been said a million times - it's going to take action from BOTH stakeholders (motorists and cyclists) to solve the problem. Tearing strips off each other using theorised traffic situations, speeds, following distances, weather conditions etc doesn't help at all.

 

 

You live in a mature society where Life is valued under the law.

In SA life is not valued under the law, only who was right and who was wrong.

[Eldron]

You live in a mature society where Life is valued under the law.

In SA life is not valued under the law, only who was right and who was wrong.

It's not the laws that protect life here it's the social contract.

 

Traffic laws (and laws in general) here are no different to SA.

[MudLark]

So, let's get a little bit of clarity on what happened given some of the comments.

 

The intersection is a three-way intersection with a small circle in the centre. As with all circles, the usual rules of the road contemplate that you need to give way to the right.

 

I was coming up the hill of Tyrone Avenue (up one of the roads) and stopped at the circle, waiting for the traffic from the right to clear/stop. I intended to turn to my right, going around the circle as I did so. Two cars came from my left indicating that they were going to turn right (across my path of travel on the far side of the circle), with the effect that the oncoming Figo on my right had to stop to give way to the traffic coming from her right.

 

As the cars coming from my left entered the circle, I kicked away so that they would be passing on the far side of the circle while I entered the circle on this side. I anticipated that I would clear the circle at approximately the same time as they would but I was mistaken in this and they cleared the circle before I did. The result was that I was already in the circle (about 1/3 of the way across) when the young lady in the Figo decided to pull away on my right and come at me. Apparently she thought she had right of way, although I had already partially entered the circle. I would have cleared the circle in about two or three seconds. Yes, there was a misjudgment on my part as to the amount of time I had but that still doesn't excuse her pulling away from a dead stop and coming at me. 

[DieselnDust]

It's not the laws that protect life here it's the social contract.

 

Traffic laws (and laws in general) here are no different to SA.

 

 

Put another way in laymans terms, the Danes give a crap about the law and Saffas don't.

In Denmark, you don't have to even make eye contact with a motorist, they know you on the bicycle have right of way and do all they can to ensure their encounter with you is as safe for you as possible.

[Pure Savage]

So, let's get a little bit of clarity on what happened given some of the comments.

 

The intersection is a three-way intersection with a small circle in the centre. As with all circles, the usual rules of the road contemplate that you need to give way to the right.

 

I was coming up the hill of Tyrone Avenue (up one of the roads) and stopped at the circle, waiting for the traffic from the right to clear/stop. I intended to turn to my right, going around the circle as I did so. Two cars came from my left indicating that they were going to turn right (across my path of travel on the far side of the circle), with the effect that the oncoming Figo on my right had to stop to give way to the traffic coming from her right.

 

As the cars coming from my left entered the circle, I kicked away so that they would be passing on the far side of the circle while I entered the circle on this side. I anticipated that I would clear the circle at approximately the same time as they would but I was mistaken in this and they cleared the circle before I did. The result was that I was already in the circle (about 1/3 of the way across) when the young lady in the Figo decided to pull away on my right and come at me. Apparently she thought she had right of way, although I had already partially entered the circle. I would have cleared the circle in about two or three seconds. Yes, there was a misjudgment on my part as to the amount of time I had but that still doesn't excuse her pulling away from a dead stop and coming at me. 

 

Woah, pump the brakes, we dont need facts here!

 

We are still waiting to hear her side of events and instagram stalk her!!

 

Please let the Hub justice be allowed to run its course...

[Eldron]

Put another way in laymans terms, the Danes give a crap about the law and Saffas don't.

In Denmark, you don't have to even make eye contact with a motorist, they know you on the bicycle have right of way and do all they can to ensure their encounter with you is as safe for you as possible.

 

You're still missing the point completely.

 

It's got zero to do with the law here. 

 

Danes give a crap about each other. THAT is what makes society so pleasant here.

 

Cyclists AND motorists use the roads in a way that makes it better for BOTH parties.

 

Having lived here for a little over 2 years I find South African discussions around road safety really frustrating because nobody wants to be part of the solution - they seem to prefer other people to be the problem. 

 

Take you stance for example:

 

Sorry I  can't join the cyclist bashing culture that exists amongst cyclists but I would actually like to see change in behaviors on SA roads and cyclists are NOT THE PROBLEM. I understand that's not a popular point of view.

 

I would argue that is is rather difficult to convince drivers to be more tolerant when their (somewhat correct) view is that cyclists jump red lights and have no respect for the law. Why should drivers sign their part of the social contract when cyclists don't?

 

The onus will always be more on the part of the drivers because their vehicles go faster and will always win in a car/bicycle confrontation but to to state that cyclists are not the problem (in capitals letters no less!) makes asking drivers to sign a social contract almost impossible.

[Robbie Stewart]

Some context. 

South Africa, for the most part, is a law-less nation, where the rule of law is simply not given a F about. Period.

 

For instance, yesterday morning, in the space of roughly 500 meters, I had a taxi run a red light at which I had stopped, from behind me. Then, 2 cars passed me around a blind bend, crossing a solid white line in the process, before BOTH a-holes drove straight over the next red traffic light. The one car that passed me over the solid white actually hooted at me to get the F out the way...

 

Now, I was in my Isuzu, not riding my bicycle. This thing of people not giving a fart, is mostly not because of anything you are or are not doing, but mainly it has to do with the sense of entitlement that is so flippen pervasive in this country. 

 

There has been a poll recently (I think it was on Carte Blance also recently, I stand corrected), whereby people were asked if they were good drivers, to which the answer was a resounding yes. And when asked how other people drive, everyone said poorly. So, in the eyes of the masses, they are right, and everyone else is wrong. 

 

And therein the conundrum. Everyone cant be right, or else road deaths would be a thing of the past. But they aren't, so who is wrong?

 

The thing is though, getting mad and wanting to "get even" is not going to help either, as you may get hurt if you do pursue, or you end being the one "drinking the poison, in the hope that the other person dies". There are no winners.

Live and let live. For the rest, just smile and wave.
 

[LeoKnight]

You're still missing the point completely.

 

It's got zero to do with the law here. 

 

Danes give a crap about each other. THAT is what makes society so pleasant here.

 

 

Fully agree it is about the social contract, and not about the law.  

 

It is the difference between people doing the right thing because it is the right things to do VS people doing the right thing because they could be caught.  The first one will lead to a much better society.  

 

But given that in general large parts of society is moving to a place where the people representing "their" views should not be called out and that we should overlook any indiscretions because we may not give the opposition any ammunition to attack us back.  And rather focus the attention on the "other" side with venom pretending that it will make society better if THEY will just change their ways, because there is nothing wrong with US.   

 

Only potential solution is that be the change you want to see, reflect on your behaviour and if you are setting a better example for someone else to follow or increasing the intolerance.

[DieselnDust]

You're still missing the point completely.

 

It's got zero to do with the law here. 

 

Danes give a crap about each other. THAT is what makes society so pleasant here.

 

Cyclists AND motorists use the roads in a way that makes it better for BOTH parties.

 

Having lived here for a little over 2 years I find South African discussions around road safety really frustrating because nobody wants to be part of the solution - they seem to prefer other people to be the problem. 

 

Take you stance for example:

 

Sorry I  can't join the cyclist bashing culture that exists amongst cyclists but I would actually like to see change in behaviors on SA roads and cyclists are NOT THE PROBLEM. I understand that's not a popular point of view.

 

I would argue that is is rather difficult to convince drivers to be more tolerant when their (somewhat correct) view is that cyclists jump red lights and have no respect for the law. Why should drivers sign their part of the social contract when cyclists don't?

 

The onus will always be more on the part of the drivers because their vehicles go faster and will always win in a car/bicycle confrontation but to to state that cyclists are not the problem (in capitals letters no less!) makes asking drivers to sign a social contract almost impossible.

 

 

Your premise that the Danes give a hoot about each other is grounded in a bit of rose coloured glasses. In my experience Northern Europeans are as ambivalent wrt to each other as Saffas, the only difference being the way the laws are written, interpreted, and enforced.

 

Obeying the law is as much a social contract as it is a practical one. You think motorists in Denmark would give a rats arse if there as no consequence to their actions as in South Africa?

 

Their maturity comes as a result of having walked the path we're on in SA and placed legal and educational interventions along the way to drive behavior,

 

Most people in South Africa can drive a motor vehicle and a percentage of those have gone through the official system of obtaining a drivers license. Therefore at a point in time, all of those people knew the law relating to operating a vehicle on SA roads. At a different point most of uneducated themselves and replaced education and knowledge of the law with entitlement.

 

From what I observe, most cyclists on the road don't break the law, whereas again by observation most motorists do.

 

So yes sure, educating 15000 cyclists (approximate number of PPA members) or if you chose to use the CSA figure of roughly 150,000 vs 15,000,000 motorists, which population group do you target to effect the biggest change?

 

Let me use another example, 1% of the population doesn't have guns and 99% do. Many people are dying in country X due to gun's being used inappropriately. Do you teach the 1% of people to behave in a non threatening manner to avoid getting shot or do you teach the 99% to use the gun appropriately and introduce screening processes to ensure that people who cannot handle the responsibility don't get guns in the first place??

[LeoKnight]

Let me use another example, 1% of the population doesn't have guns and 99% do. Many people are dying in country X due to gun's being used inappropriately. Do you teach the 1% of people to behave in a non threatening manner to avoid getting shot or do you teach the 99% to use the gun appropriately and introduce screening processes to ensure that people who cannot handle the responsibility don't get guns in the first place??

 

Why not focus on both?  Those that are part of the 1% that acts like p03p•, and contribute to the agro-ness, as well as the part of the 99% that has the guys to be responsible with the use of it.  

 

And to be honest, the assertion that most cyclists obey the rules, don't think that is accurate, as I might be incorrect but is the rules / laws  not as follow:

• Keep left and keep at least one metre clear of pavements and parked cars
• Ride in single file and use clear hand signals when turning or changing lanes

Now some might say that the rules do not work and if you have to choose between your life and following the rules, you choose your life.  Which come back to the point, people only follow the rules as it suits them, and based on their own moral compass.

[DieselnDust]

Why not focus on both?  Those that are part of the 1% that acts like p03p•, and contribute to the agro-ness, as well as the part of the 99% that has the guys to be responsible with the use of it.  

 

And to be honest, the assertion that most cyclists obey the rules, don't think that is accurate, as I might be incorrect but is the rules / laws  not as follow:

• Keep left and keep at least one metre clear of pavements and parked cars
• Ride in single file and use clear hand signals when turning or changing lanes

Now some might say that the rules do not work and if you have to choose between your life and following the rules, you choose your life.  Which come back to the point, people only follow the rules as it suits them, and based on their own moral compass.

 

 

Yes most cyclist do actually keep left and 1m away from pavements and parked cars.

Only then you'll have some self righteous tjop on a Specialized S-Rowks tell you to keep left.

Or have some irate pensioner in a Honda Jazz moer the toeter cos you not evaporating our of their way.

 

Most cyclists I know ride with self preservation in mind and mindful of what road conditions re allowing.

Sure groups present a problem because there will always be the guy at the back who wants to drift into the middle of the road.

But technically this is allowed since the law makes provision for cyclists to pass each other and therefore ride two abreast.

But how many times have you had that Honda Jazz hold onto the hooter till Xmas comes again because a group  is two abreast inside the yellow. line.

 

So yes you're right, SA's only obey their own moral compass which is why altruistic ideas of sharing the road won't fly. Only thing that works with immature societies is law and law enforcement.

Or maybe legalize cannabis asthma inhalers

[Eldron]

Your premise that the Danes give a hoot about each other is grounded in a bit of rose coloured glasses. In my experience Northern Europeans are as ambivalent wrt to each other as Saffas, the only difference being the way the laws are written, interpreted, and enforced.

 

Obeying the law is as much a social contract as it is a practical one. You think motorists in Denmark would give a rats arse if there as no consequence to their actions as in South Africa?

 

Their maturity comes as a result of having walked the path we're on in SA and placed legal and educational interventions along the way to drive behavior,

 

Most people in South Africa can drive a motor vehicle and a percentage of those have gone through the official system of obtaining a drivers license. Therefore at a point in time, all of those people knew the law relating to operating a vehicle on SA roads. At a different point most of uneducated themselves and replaced education and knowledge of the law with entitlement.

 

From what I observe, most cyclists on the road don't break the law, whereas again by observation most motorists do.

 

So yes sure, educating 15000 cyclists (approximate number of PPA members) or if you chose to use the CSA figure of roughly 150,000 vs 15,000,000 motorists, which population group do you target to effect the biggest change?

 

Let me use another example, 1% of the population doesn't have guns and 99% do. Many people are dying in country X due to gun's being used inappropriately. Do you teach the 1% of people to behave in a non threatening manner to avoid getting shot or do you teach the 99% to use the gun appropriately and introduce screening processes to ensure that people who cannot handle the responsibility don't get guns in the first place??

 

Interesting - my experience of living with, talking to, riding with and generally hanging out with Danes is completely different to yours. When did you live here and for how long?

 

My experience with South African cyclists is also contradictory to yours. When I rode around the East Rand it was about 50/50 on red lights, ones and twos would stop but generally groups of 3 or more would shoot straight through, throw in following vehicles in the emergency lanes, cyclists out of the cycling lane in the cradle, two or three abreast and cyclists don't have a great track record at obeying the law.

 

Your analogy is silly considering the non gun owners in this debate also own guns but if you want an answer it's this: both.

[Pure Savage]

Guys, this thread... I am starting to feel sorry for the lady in the figo...

[Paddaman]

At one stage I was playing around with data to try and model a "value of life" index.  The idea was instigated by the work of Steve Pinker "Our better Angels".  The idea is that the perceived value of human life has increased since the middle ages, and as a result society has become less violent.  Also he extrapolated domestic or individual violence into national violence or interstate war, and showed that there has been a strong correlation between the decrease in violent death in society and the incidence of interstate war.

 

So the idea was to identify a number of indicators of violence in society and plot them against other indicators of meaningful life to see if there was a way to have a basket of indicators that would give a value of life perception per country.

 

Unfortunately the first two indicators showed such high correlation (Almost to an extent to assume causality or at least force investigation into this) that instead of having a dampening effect (or correcting effect) they actually amplified the data, which would then create rather large peaks in the comparisons.  The two indicators were murder per 1000 and infant mortality.

[Patchelicious]

Guys, this thread... I am starting to feel sorry for the lady in the figo...

Some of the self righteousness displayed in this thread is probably the reason why cyclists are so disliked in SA.

[Coolspin]

So the other day I'm driving my car down a busy road, approaching a robot, turns yellow, i apply brakes and come to a stop.

I look in my rearview mirror and there is some dude in a car behind me freaking out and waving his arms about because i stopped at the robot.

 

True story, SA has definitely got some issues when it comes to driving and road use in general.

 

People are way too agressive, cars and bicycles included i reckon.