Safety on the roads ... and cyclists behaviour...

[Phatman]

Please provide the piece of legislation where "blame is aportioned"

 

https://www.aa.co.za/insights/motorists-obligations-towards-pedestrians-and-cyclists

Excerpt from link copied and pasted below.

If a driver does knock a pedestrian or cyclist, the normal duties of a driver in event of accident as provided by Section 61 of the Act apply:

 

The driver must immediately stop the vehicle and report the accident.

The driver must check if anyone has sustained an injury, as well as the seriousness of the injury, and render assistance to the injured person if he/she is capable of doing so.

The driver must provide his/her details to anyone having reasonable grounds for requesting his/her details.

If the driver has not already reported the accident to a police or traffic officer at the scene of the accident, he/she must report the accident as soon as reasonably practicable, unless he/ she is incapable of doing so due to injuries sustained in the accident. Where a person is killed or injured it must be reported within 24-hours after the occurrence of the accident or in any other case on the first working day after the occurrence of such accident

The driver must not, except on the instructions of a medical practitioner, take any intoxicating liquor or drug having a narcotic effect.

A vehicle involved in an accident where another person has been killed or injured shall not be removed from the position in which it came to rest until the removal has been authorised by a traffic officer. The only time a vehicle may be moved without authority is when the accident causes complete obstruction of the roadway of a public road, only then can it be moved sufficiently to allow the passage of traffic. And, this is only after its position has been clearly marked on the surface of the roadway by the person moving it.

Except for the purpose of sufficiently allowing the passage of traffic, no other person may remove a vehicle which has been involved in an accident without the permission of the lawful owner, driver or operator

 

 

In any prosecution for a contravention of any provision of Section 61 it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the accused was aware of the fact the accident occurred, and that he or she did not report the accident or furnish information as required.

 

In the event that a motorist knocks down a pedestrian or a cyclist, and the State decides to pursue a criminal case against him/her, the State will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver is in fact guilty in terms of criminal law. This, off course, entirely depends on evidence which is gathered during the investigation which will, for example, look into the speed, and manner, in which the car was driven.

 

Motorists may also face harsh consequences if the State proves they are guilty of reckless, or negligent driving, or inconsiderate driving.

 

It goes without saying, but the consequences of driving while drunk, or under the influence of drugs, also carries harsh penalties, especially if someone has been hurt, or worse, killed. These consequences may include imprisonment for culpable homicide where the death of a pedestrian or cyclist is the result of serious negligence or recklessness.

 

How does this prove your point?

 

I don't have a link to the requested legislation, sorry. One of my clients is however an attorney specialising in medical malpractice suits and RAF claims, who has educated me on various cases where RAF pays out much smaller amounts and covers much less of medical expenses incurred (as low as 30%) when blame has been apportioned to a cyclist/pedestrian due to violation of a road rule. And riding single file is one of the rules of the road pertaining to cyclists.

[Skubarra]

And then you woke up ? :-)

 

Maybe it is the December holiday vibes and people are already relaxed? Was pleasantly surprised 

[Duane_Bosch]

I don't have a link to the requested legislation, sorry. One of my clients is however an attorney specialising in medical malpractice suits and RAF

Aaaaah. So just as I thought. A made up law based on a conversation with a lawyer about insurance claims. There's an ocean of difference between an insurance claim and the law.

[Velouria]

Commuted this morning and was struck by how many drivers were friendly and courteous to me - things like letting me cross the intersection first even though they arrived ahead of me. Making space for me when stopping at a robot, only passing when it was safe etc.

 

Mornings like this I'm convinced the whole motorists vs cyclists divide is greatly exaggerated... (until I get on thehub at least)

 

But the one thing I noticed again was how many drivers in traffic are on their phones!! It is CLEARLY sociably acceptable for a large portion of drivers to do this and the peeps calling them out on this are considered the $%^holes. I have no idea how this is problem is going to get fixed but I'm certain a great number of motorists and cyclists are going to die before it is.

To be fair - most of my commutes are like this. 99.999% of drivers are courteous and friendly and accommodating.

 

Two things made me chuckle this morning - the Honda SUV thing with a learner's L on the back with all 4 occupants not wearing seat belts and the driver talking on the phone while trying to negotiate a left turn. And the guy with the "Stay wider of the rider" sticker that squeezed me as I was going through a round about.

 

The thing is, it just takes one of the 0.001% of the dodgy drivers to kill you which is why topics like this are so emotive. And no amount of obeying the rules is going to not get me killed. If it did, I would stop twice at every traffic light, heck, I'd even stop 3 times!

[Quagga]

Maybe it is the December holiday vibes and people are already relaxed? Was pleasantly surprised 

Was joking with you, just for the record

[Skubarra]

To be fair - most of my commutes are like this. 99.999% of drivers are courteous and friendly and accommodating.

 

True, only recently started commuting and I expected much worse given these type of threads and Savage's commute Twitter feed.... 

 

But yes, there are unfortunately always the exceptions     

[ChrisF]

Which brings up the question what can we as cyclist do

1) Wearing bright colours?

2) Lots of lights around the bike?

3) Warning systems ?

 

somehow I thought this was the aim of the thread - what can each one of us on two wheels do to improve our safety .... with full understanding there are so many other parts to this discussion .... (clearly you are on the page as to the original intent of this thread)

 

 

In true HUB style though .... the thread went pear shaped when :

 

1) some tried to justify blocking the road, despite ignoring the very obvious results of being in the road just after a blind rise .... 

 

2) some went off on a tangent about "legalities" .....

 

 

 

The fundamental truth will always remain unchanged - take ownership of your own safety.  Any experienced car driver should be familiar with the concept of "defensive driving" .... interesting how many cyclists have a total metal block towards taking reasonable steps to improve their own safety ...... (again, this thread is not about the car driver on his cellphone and the million other idiotic dangers out there)

 

 

 

All said and done .... as with the vast majority of social media threads .... the topic is long lost, and most posts says more of the posters than of the actual topic at hand ....

 

 

 

PS - at least I do my bit to stay safe on two wheels, AND when on 4 wheels I do "stay wider of the rider", even holding up traffic if it is marginal to get past ..... 

[ChrisF]

....

 

The thing is, it just takes one of the 0.001% of the dodgy drivers to kill you which is why topics like this are so emotive. And no amount of obeying the rules is going to not get me killed. If it did, I would stop twice at every traffic light, heck, I'd even stop 3 times!

 

SO true !!

 

Closest I came to being taken out on a commute was the very first morning I had TWO front lights on the bike.  One seriously bright light, and another flashing light ....

 

Mommy was arguing with the toddlers in the back and just drove straight over the stop sign .... I was litterally drifting the bike sideways on the tar to not connect the car !

 

50m further she had to stop at the red robot ... very apollogetic, and admitting that her attention was not on the road ....

 

 

sadly there is no single "recipe" for staying safe out there ....

[shaper]

You need to go read the road traffic act.  They had a legal right to be there!!

 

Start with correct facts and also don't ignore actual justification posted here to try and justify your OP.

 

The majority of cyclist or motor bike riders for that mater when on the road actually ride defensively as they know their lives are at risk every time they go out on the road

 

As you seem reluctant to be aware of the facts or accept them and still spout mis-truths then for once I can agree with you that most of your posts say more about the poster than that of the actual topic at hand !!

 

 

 

1) some tried to justify blocking the road, despite ignoring the very obvious results of being in the road just after a blind rise .... 

 

 

[Jase619]

You need to go read the road traffic act.  They had a legal right to be there!!

 

Start with correct facts and also don't ignore actual justification posted here to try and justify your OP.

 

The majority of cyclist or motor bike riders for that mater when on the road actually ride defensively as they know their lives are at risk every time they go out on the road

 

As you seem reluctant to be aware of the facts or accept them and still spout miss-truths then for once I can agree with you that most of your posts say more about the poster than that of the actual topic at hand !!

 

True, they had a legal right to be there, but if a car had come over that Blind rise at 80/100/120 or whatever the speed they decided to be doing there, and had taken them both out, would it have mattered? Would their widows have consoled themselves at night with the knowledge that legally they were in the right? You mention we all act defensively as we are all in mortal danger every time we get on the bike, but surely then they would not have been riding in the middle of the road on a blind rise? Legal or not?

[MTBeer]

You can do whatever you like within the law and other road users must deal with it. 

 

Flip how is it that hard to understand?

 

If someone is doing 65 in an 80 zone do you hoot honk your horn flash your lights till the person pulls over?

 

Does your car have four round circles on the front or a B M W?

while you may be technically correct, surely as a cyclist on the road, your first and only priority should be self preservation?

[Phatman]

Aaaaah. So just as I thought. A made up law based on a conversation with a lawyer about insurance claims. There's an ocean of difference between an insurance claim and the law.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2015/597.html

 

https://www.arrivealive.mobi/answering-the-question-who-is-to-blame-for-the-crash

 

Better?

[shaper]

True, they had a legal right to be there, but if a car had come over that Blind rise at 80/100/120 or whatever the speed they decided to be doing there, and had taken them both out, would it have mattered? Would their widows have consoled themselves at night with the knowledge that legally they were in the right? You mention we all act defensively as we are all in mortal danger every time we get on the bike, but surely then they would not have been riding in the middle of the road on a blind rise? Legal or not?

All hypothetical as well as the speeds you indicate.  All rises at some point as you drop over the other side could be blind.  Considering it was a blind rise, the car driver should have been slowing down as he does not know what is on the other side... a pedestrian crossing the road, a slow moving tractor or construction vehicle, even a broken down vehicle..... which he would have slammed into.... unless of course they are driving at the speed limit because it is a blind rise as such sections of the road have reduced speeds because it is a blind rise, in which case they would have plenty of time to come to a stop if needed.

 

So if a car had done this or that.... really????

 

Lets stick to facts rather than wild fantasy to justify.........

[Duane_Bosch]

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2015/597.html

 

https://www.arrivealive.mobi/answering-the-question-who-is-to-blame-for-the-crash

 

Better?

No. those are examples of collisions between vehicles. Do you not know the difference between a human being and a vehicle?

 

Please just stop now. You hit a pedestrian/cyclist with a car YOU are in the dwang. You don't sue the broken person for denting your car.

[Duane_Bosch]

 

2) some went off on a tangent about "legalities" .....

 

 

Guilty and Apologies. I'll stop now.

[Quagga]

True, they had a legal right to be there, but if a car had come over that Blind rise at 80/100/120 or whatever the speed they decided to be doing there, and had taken them both out, would it have mattered? Would their widows have consoled themselves at night with the knowledge that legally they were in the right? You mention we all act defensively as we are all in mortal danger every time we get on the bike, but surely then they would not have been riding in the middle of the road on a blind rise? Legal or not?

 

 

We are not discussing if the cyclist will survie or not, the point that was being made was if the cyclist were riding LEGAL or NOT.

 

Two different things, is legal for a cyclist ride about 20cm left of the middle of the road = YES

is it dangerous = "that is for another day" 

 

You seem to miss the point. Legal but unsafe (because SA drivers do not adhere to the road rules) is two different thing.

 

If SA drivers did adhere to road rules, cyclist and runners can do more legal things without being killed, for excample riding ON the road right next to the yellow line rather than 1 m LEFT of the yellow line