Motorists vs Cyclists.... again

[DieselnDust]

3 hours ago, cadenceblur said:

wow, the comments are astounding! 

Not terribly surprising 

3 hours ago, Pure Savage said:

Yeah, not many bright people on twitter.

X, only one chromosome so to be expected

2 hours ago, Hairy said:

120kph on the highway and you're still in 3rd gear. Big, powerful machines that only come alive at 180kph to drive on roads with a max speed limit two thirds of that.

A person can ride a high powered sports bike on the road and not break the law. That same bike could be taken to the track on the weekends for sports racing. 

Why should we dictate what another person decides to purchase and enjoy, as long as they are safe on the roads.

Roads are a serviceway for people to get to and from work and for goods and services to be provided. They should be regulated as such. 

Roads are a way for people to travel and explore. Humans and animals have been creating their own paths since they have roamed earth. The only regulations that should be in place are those that keep people safe.

Having vehicles on the road that can easily violate traffic laws and giving them to idiots who only learn when the fan has already been soiled?

Then ban shoes too, as may a pedestrian has illegally j-walked and caused an accident, or walked on the roads while intoxicated and caused accidents.

The motor industry and government need to figure out what it is they want. These superbikes belong on the track, not the roads.

As per above, they can travel anywhere. You can take this same mindset and say that cyclists may only ride heavy steel framed single speed bicycles with commuter geometry as those on light weight bicycles are riding too fast and pushing the boundaries on the roads. Not much of an argument here, both versions are not really thought through

Keep your Harleys and other big loud vehicles as well. A V8 roadster and a Harley pulling up in residential areas is deafening, amazingly inconsiderate and pointless.

My Harley is not noisy. 

 

Hairy , hairy Hairy (did you see what I did there with the comma?!)

The freedom to travel comes with great responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. When my 22yr old daughter wanted to know why she can’t drive my 169kw hatch back I said she’ll just arrive at the accident faster. We have made it too easy to travel fast but have not trained people sufficiently at those speeds. Panic sets in , poor decision making under pressure etc etc. Simply because a freedom is available to us does not give us the right to jump out of a plane with a bag of silk worms and hope for the best. There is a responsibility to make sure you know how to land isn’t there?

2 hours ago, Graham S said:

Being on both sides, cyclist and motorcyclist I have an opinion on each side. 

When I am on my bicycle, on the road (Which is very rare as it find it extremely unsafe) I observe cyclists 90% of the time riding 2, or 3 abrest! without fail or often passing a cyclist ahead and not looking before moving over and going into the road. No shoulder checks...

Guys CYCLING ON THE N1 into town! Yes yes I know that section isnt safe, I've cycled there many times as well. You are taking the risk by riding on the highway to avoid being mugged on the cycle path, I get it. 

Cyclists cycling on roads with a very narrow yellow line, sub 500mm is just asking for trouble. Guys cycling UP and DOWN Franschoek pass which basically has no yellow line is just asking for trouble. YOU are inviting risk into your ride by riding on roads that are unsafe for bicycles. 

Removing the motorcycles racing up and down the pass. There are MASSIVE grain carriers, bakkies towing boats to the dams, car clubs and general traffic. Now add a cyclist to a blind corner with no yellow line and not enough space to pass safely and you are asking for trouble. 

AGAIN: YOU CHOSE TO CYCLE ON AN UNSAFE ROAD.

This applies to Chappies. Its a MASSIVE tourist destination with busses, cars and motorbikes (Yes I acknowledge speeding and over taking blah blah), there is NO SPACE TO CYCLE THERE SAFELY, even if all traffic is obeying the rules of the road, riding a bicycle there is not safe with the amount of traffic that goes through there. 

You accepted the risks when you went on that route, do not expect a cycling utopia just becuse its a popular route. 

On the Motorcycle side.

I've been riding motorbikes on the road and track for a long time. 

Cars dont see you, trucks dont see you, cyclists dont see you. Those roads I mentioned above are just as unsafe for motorcycles as they are for cyclists. 

We accept these risks when using the road. 

Everyone gets sad when a motorcyclist, who is riding normally, gets killed by a car turning or running a red light. But this is part of being on two wheels, bicycle or motorcycle.


Any way, sad day indeed but people only care about their side of the story and want to regulate te opposite.

The cure lies in education and correct training, but we can only dream..

I get your point about acceptable risk. However it is not cyclists that create those risks. Your point is poor as it creates an excuse for criminals to ply their trade as criminals and blame the victims for being there to be victimised. 

I get that we face risk everyday but I can t buy into victim blaming 

Edited February 19, 2024 by DieselnDust

[Hairy]

no matter what "we" believe to be allowable vehicles on the road, one of the two, or maybe even both parties in this collision would be at fault for his/their actions.

note I do not say an accident, as this would not be an accident unless there was a mechanical fault to either the bicycle of the motorbike.

 

[Hairy]

2 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

 

Hairy , hairy Hairy (did you see what I did there with the comma?!)

The freedom to travel comes with great responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. When my 22yr old daughter wanted to know why she can’t drive my 169kw hatch back I said she’ll just arrive at the accident faster. We have made it too easy to travel fast but have not trained people sufficiently at those speeds. Panic sets in , poor decision making under pressure etc etc. Simply because a freedom is available to us does not give us the right to jump out of a plane with a bag of silk worms and hope for the best. There is a responsibility to make sure you know how to land isn’t there?

100%, that is why I am saying if you are able to control yourself and not become another collision statistic by behaving yourself on the road, no matter what the choice of vehicle then all would be good. 

Yes, personal responsibility, consideration and tolerance for other people is something that is clearly lacking in our society.

[BigDL]

11 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

Not terribly surprising 

X, only one chromosome so to be expected

Hairy , hairy Hairy (did you see what I did there with the comma?!)

The freedom to travel comes with great responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. When my 22yr old daughter wanted to know why she can’t drive my 169kw hatch back I said she’ll just arrive at the accident faster. We have made it too easy to travel fast but have not trained people sufficiently at those speeds. Panic sets in , poor decision making under pressure etc etc. Simply because a freedom is available to us does not give us the right to jump out of a plane with a bag of silk worms and hope for the best. There is a responsibility to make sure you know how to land isn’t there?

I get your point about acceptable risk. However it is not cyclists that create those risks. Your point is poor as it creates an excuse for criminals to ply their trade as criminals and blame the victims for being there to be victimised. 

I get that we face risk everyday but I can t buy into victim blaming 

You’re so right that we don’t train people to drive fast, or even drive properly at all. Driving lessons focus on teaching you to pass the test, not to drive properly. My son just did his advanced driver training a year after he got his licence and is a different quality of driver altogether now. I’m learning from some of the stuff he does now, even though I’ve been driving for 35 years. 

[BigDL]

11 minutes ago, Hairy said:

100%, that is why I am saying if you are able to control yourself and not become another collision statistic by behaving yourself on the road, no matter what the choice of vehicle then all would be good. 

Yes, personal responsibility, consideration and tolerance for other people is something that is clearly lacking in our society.

There is a hierarchy though. The bigger or faster your vehicle (car or motorbike), the more the responsibility lies with you not to behave in a way that puts others lives at risk. 

[Skubarra]

2 hours ago, Graham S said:

Being on both sides, cyclist and motorcyclist I have an opinion on each side. 

When I am on my bicycle, on the road (Which is very rare as it find it extremely unsafe) I observe cyclists 90% of the time riding 2, or 3 abrest! without fail or often passing a cyclist ahead and not looking before moving over and going into the road. No shoulder checks...

Guys CYCLING ON THE N1 into town! Yes yes I know that section isnt safe, I've cycled there many times as well. You are taking the risk by riding on the highway to avoid being mugged on the cycle path, I get it. 

Cyclists cycling on roads with a very narrow yellow line, sub 500mm is just asking for trouble. Guys cycling UP and DOWN Franschoek pass which basically has no yellow line is just asking for trouble. YOU are inviting risk into your ride by riding on roads that are unsafe for bicycles. 

Removing the motorcycles racing up and down the pass. There are MASSIVE grain carriers, bakkies towing boats to the dams, car clubs and general traffic. Now add a cyclist to a blind corner with no yellow line and not enough space to pass safely and you are asking for trouble. 

AGAIN: YOU CHOSE TO CYCLE ON AN UNSAFE ROAD.

This applies to Chappies. Its a MASSIVE tourist destination with busses, cars and motorbikes (Yes I acknowledge speeding and over taking blah blah), there is NO SPACE TO CYCLE THERE SAFELY, even if all traffic is obeying the rules of the road, riding a bicycle there is not safe with the amount of traffic that goes through there. 

You accepted the risks when you went on that route, do not expect a cycling utopia just becuse its a popular route. 

 

With re to cycling on passes like Franschoek & Chappies I am with @DieselnDust  I get uncomfortable when we reinforce the idea amongst ourselves that we are lesser road users that should avoid certain roads purely because by being there is asking for trouble. To a large extent you can apply that "rule" to any public road

[Graham S]

3 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

With re to cycling on passes like Franschoek & Chappies I am with @DieselnDust  I get uncomfortable when we reinforce the idea amongst ourselves that we are lesser road users that should avoid certain roads purely because by being there is asking for trouble. To a large extent you can apply that "rule" to any public road

My point was not that cyclists are lesser road users.

My point is that "almost all" road users know those roads are narrow and not ideal for cycling.

So by cycling there, you are accepting the risks.

Im not saying cyclists have less rights to use the roads than any other road user, they are just exposed to more risk, which they accept when riding on those roads.

You are more than welcome to go and use the roads, but people cant be surprised when dangerous roads produce dangeorus results and then act all shocked...

Edited February 19, 2024 by Graham S

[Andymann]

3 minutes ago, Graham S said:

My point was not that cyclists are lesser road users.

My point is that "almost all" road users know those roads are narrow and not ideal for cycling.

So by cycling there, you are accepting the risks.

Im not saying cyclists have less rights to use the roads than any other road user, they are just exposed to more risk, which they accept when riding on those roads.

A couple of years back I hit a car on my Motorbike on the way to work - the cars were stopped at a red light and I was filtering slowly down the right when the guy decided to do a U-turn.  I hit him and broke my ankle.  I claimed from the RAF and eventually it went to court where I was awarded only a percentage of what my lawyer claimed - the Judge was quite firm and said to me that some of the blame was on me because even though what the car had done was wrong, and filtering is legal in SA, I had put myself at risk by doing it.

It was quite an eye-opener for me because in my mind I was doing nothing wrong - but in the eyes of the law I was putting myself at risk by riding a motorbike in that position.

So yup - I agree.  My gut feeling would be that if this went to court and assuming no-one was drunk, the blame would be apportioned to both parties for putting themselves at risk for doing what they were doing.  Sometimes the law is like a Doberman's left leg - it's neither fair, or right.

[Skubarra]

4 minutes ago, Andymann said:

A couple of years back I hit a car on my Motorbike on the way to work - the cars were stopped at a red light and I was filtering slowly down the right when the guy decided to do a U-turn.  I hit him and broke my ankle.  I claimed from the RAF and eventually it went to court where I was awarded only a percentage of what my lawyer claimed - the Judge was quite firm and said to me that some of the blame was on me because even though what the car had done was wrong, and filtering is legal in SA, I had put myself at risk by doing it.

It was quite an eye-opener for me because in my mind I was doing nothing wrong - but in the eyes of the law I was putting myself at risk by riding a motorbike in that position.

So yup - I agree.  My gut feeling would be that if this went to court and assuming no-one was drunk, the blame would be apportioned to both parties for putting themselves at risk for doing what they were doing.  Sometimes the law is like a Doberman's left leg - it's neither fair, or right.

I think if this goes to court then the person in the wrong lane and/or speeding will be the guilty party

[Newbie321]

9 minutes ago, Andymann said:

A couple of years back I hit a car on my Motorbike on the way to work - the cars were stopped at a red light and I was filtering slowly down the right when the guy decided to do a U-turn.  I hit him and broke my ankle.  I claimed from the RAF and eventually it went to court where I was awarded only a percentage of what my lawyer claimed - the Judge was quite firm and said to me that some of the blame was on me because even though what the car had done was wrong, and filtering is legal in SA, I had put myself at risk by doing it.

It was quite an eye-opener for me because in my mind I was doing nothing wrong - but in the eyes of the law I was putting myself at risk by riding a motorbike in that position.

So yup - I agree.  My gut feeling would be that if this went to court and assuming no-one was drunk, the blame would be apportioned to both parties for putting themselves at risk for doing what they were doing.  Sometimes the law is like a Doberman's left leg - it's neither fair, or right.

Should have appealed 

[DieselnDust]

23 minutes ago, Graham S said:

My point was not that cyclists are lesser road users.

My point is that "almost all" road users know those roads are narrow and not ideal for cycling.

So by cycling there, you are accepting the risks.

Im not saying cyclists have less rights to use the roads than any other road user, they are just exposed to more risk, which they accept when riding on those roads.

You are more than welcome to go and use the roads, but people cant be surprised when dangerous roads produce dangeorus results and then act all shocked...

Those roads are dangerous because of irresponsible users, usually those coming from behind , not regulating speed appropriately or passing when safe to do so. That is what creates the risk. The road itself is not an inherently dangerous asset, certainly far less so than a gun yet it gets blamed for peoples poor choices. The flippant attitude of you accepted the risk (I created) and I hurt you therefore don’t be surprised is exactly the same as the girl getting raped because she wore a tight skirt. It’s the same *** excuse used to justify one persons choice as more valid than another’s ie entitlement.

duty of care lies with the passing vehicle. That is the law. Spinning it round and round till dronk doesn’t change that. 

[Mamil]

24 minutes ago, Graham S said:

My point was not that cyclists are lesser road users.

My point is that "almost all" road users know those roads are narrow and not ideal for cycling.

So by cycling there, you are accepting the risks.

Im not saying cyclists have less rights to use the roads than any other road user, they are just exposed to more risk, which they accept when riding on those roads.

You are more than welcome to go and use the roads, but people cant be surprised when dangerous roads produce dangeorus results and then act all shocked...

There's a subtle victim blaming there - or at least a tacit acceptance of the status quo. 

[Mamil]

Just now, DieselnDust said:

Those roads are dangerous because of irresponsible users, usually those coming from behind , not regulating speed appropriately or passing when safe to do so. That is what creates the risk. The road itself is not an inherently dangerous asset, certainly far less so than a gun yet it gets blamed for peoples poor choices. The flippant attitude of you accepted the risk (I created) and I hurt you therefore don’t be surprised is exactly the same as the girl getting raped because she wore a tight skirt. It’s the same *** excuse used to justify one persons choice as more valid than another’s ie entitlement.

duty of care lies with the passing vehicle. That is the law. Spinning it round and round till dronk doesn’t change that. 

Exactly

[Skubarra]

26 minutes ago, Graham S said:

My point was not that cyclists are lesser road users.

My point is that "almost all" road users know those roads are narrow and not ideal for cycling.

So by cycling there, you are accepting the risks.

Im not saying cyclists have less rights to use the roads than any other road user, they are just exposed to more risk, which they accept when riding on those roads.

You are more than welcome to go and use the roads, but people cant be surprised when dangerous roads produce dangeorus results and then act all shocked...

Yes some roads are more risky, but I also see enough accidents (and had close calls) on "safe" roads with wide yellow lanes to not be under the illusion that us as cyclists are the cause of the problem by being on roads that "produce dangerous results". Again for me being critical of cyclists being on supposedly dangerous roads is victim blaming and framing of us as lesser road users, a slippery slope imo.

[dave303e]

27 minutes ago, Graham S said:

My point was not that cyclists are lesser road users.

My point is that "almost all" road users know those roads are narrow and not ideal for cycling.

So by cycling there, you are accepting the risks.

Im not saying cyclists have less rights to use the roads than any other road user, they are just exposed to more risk, which they accept when riding on those roads.

You are more than welcome to go and use the roads, but people cant be surprised when dangerous roads produce dangerous results and then act all shocked...

I must say I saw that picture and thought to myself- rock wall on the left, no yellow lines and a lovely steep drop down to the ocean on the right. I wouldn't be riding there regularly if I didn't need to. Same reason I wouldn't want to ride a motorbike or drive a car there regularly either, just a high risk that really doesn't need to be taken. 

Yes accidents happen on safe roads all the time, but if you look at controlling the controllable, you give yourself that element of a chance by sticking to 'safer roads.' The same way we pick and choose roads to avoid potential bike jackings, work the odds in your favor.

I saw a youtuber the other day let slip that he doesn't ride his garden features daily, he hits those when he needs to film content only, it is just too risky for a daily ride. I was so glad to see it and think we all need that taste of reality.

[Andymann]

3 hours ago, Hairy said:

120kph on the highway and you're still in 3rd gear. Big, powerful machines that only come alive at 180kph to drive on roads with a max speed limit two thirds of that.

A person can ride a high powered sports bike on the road and not break the law. That same bike could be taken to the track on the weekends for sports racing. 

Why should we dictate what another person decides to purchase and enjoy, as long as they are safe on the roads.

Roads are a serviceway for people to get to and from work and for goods and services to be provided. They should be regulated as such. 

Roads are a way for people to travel and explore. Humans and animals have been creating their own paths since they have roamed earth. The only regulations that should be in place are those that keep people safe.

Having vehicles on the road that can easily violate traffic laws and giving them to idiots who only learn when the fan has already been soiled?

Then ban shoes too, as may a pedestrian has illegally j-walked and caused an accident, or walked on the roads while intoxicated and caused accidents.

The motor industry and government need to figure out what it is they want. These superbikes belong on the track, not the roads.

As per above, they can travel anywhere. You can take this same mindset and say that cyclists may only ride heavy steel framed single speed bicycles with commuter geometry as those on light weight bicycles are riding too fast and pushing the boundaries on the roads. Not much of an argument here, both versions are not really thought through

Keep your Harleys and other big loud vehicles as well. A V8 roadster and a Harley pulling up in residential areas is deafening, amazingly inconsiderate and pointless.

My Harley is not noisy. 

 

And to be fair - those that know their bikes, a Hyosung GT650R is at best a spirited commuter bike. It's hardly a bike that only comes alive at 180kph.