Motorists vs Cyclists.... again (still there)

[Shebeen]

this thread got shut down because we couldn't all play nice.

 

Admin is probably on a beach somewhere currently, so maybe this will fly.

This remains an important and polarising issue

We can all do better.

 

Every time there is an incident, the outrage against cyclists surfaces, and of course we are not blameless. Instead of flooding  a particular thread on an incident, a neutral one seems to be a better place (and can get locked)

now I'm pretty sure this anon post is wrong, but there is fuel to the fire and boy does it get stoked. There will be countless others

 

 

 

 

 

[Mamil]

1 hour ago, Shebeen said:

this thread got shut down because we couldn't all play nice.

 

Admin is probably on a beach somewhere currently, so maybe this will fly.

This remains an important and polarising issue

We can all do better.

 

Every time there is an incident, the outrage against cyclists surfaces, and of course we are not blameless. Instead of flooding  a particular thread on an incident, a neutral one seems to be a better place (and can get locked)

now I'm pretty sure this anon post is wrong, but there is fuel to the fire and boy does it get stoked. There will be countless others

 

 

 

 

 

This person believes that the system is neutral and fair

[Dappere]

I think it’s fair to acknowledge that some cyclists do disregard the rules of the road, and I can understand the frustration the writer is expressing.

From what has been reported, driving under the influence and reckless or negligent driving are allegations at this stage.

What is non-negotiable, though: if it is proven that a driver was under the influence, they are unequivocally in the wrong - regardless of whether the victim was a cyclist, runner, or pedestrian, and regardless of minor contributory errors, short of deliberate or reckless intent to cause harm.

[Shebeen]

17 hours ago, Dappere said:

I think it’s fair to acknowledge that some cyclists do disregard the rules of the road, and I can understand the frustration the writer is expressing.

From what has been reported, driving under the influence and reckless or negligent driving are allegations at this stage.

What is non-negotiable, though: if it is proven that a driver was under the influence, they are unequivocally in the wrong - regardless of whether the victim was a cyclist, runner, or pedestrian, and regardless of minor contributory errors, short of deliberate or reckless intent to cause harm.

The Camps Bay incident there are multiple reports which are pretty clear there was heavy drinking. I know there is the innocent till proven guilty, but even if this ends up with the state not being able to prove it - it doesn't take a massive leap of faith to see a GP numberplated Wabenzi in Dezemba having a 6am joyride in CampsBay involving (plenty of) booze.

[Headshot]

Yes indeed and what the silly person you quoted above forgets is that while cyclists may break the rules of the road, their conduct is almost never a factor when they get mowed down by a car or motorcycle (Chappies earlier this year). 

[Dappere]

35 minutes ago, Shebeen said:

The Camps Bay incident there are multiple reports which are pretty clear there was heavy drinking. I know there is the innocent till proven guilty, but even if this ends up with the state not being able to prove it - it doesn't take a massive leap of faith to see a GP numberplated Wabenzi in Dezemba having a 6am joyride in CampsBay involving (plenty of) booze.

 

22 minutes ago, Headshot said:

Yes indeed and what the silly person you quoted above forgets is that while cyclists may break the rules of the road, their conduct is almost never a factor when they get mowed down by a car or motorcycle (Chappies earlier this year). 

I never said the driver wasn’t in the wrong - in fact, I stated quite clearly that if someone is proven to have been driving under the influence, they are in the wrong.

Most of us were not at the scene. We rely on media reporting, which at this stage refers to allegations.

Questioning or quoting that distinction in what should be a safe space for discussion shouldn’t trigger knee-jerk personal attacks. Responding to questions with labels rather than engagement doesn’t move the conversation forward - it creates division, and division has never solved problems. 

[Headshot]

2 minutes ago, Dappere said:

 

I never said the driver wasn’t in the wrong - in fact, I stated quite clearly that if someone is proven to have been driving under the influence, they are in the wrong.

Most of us were not at the scene. We rely on media reporting, which at this stage refers to allegations.

Questioning or quoting that distinction in what should be a safe space for discussion shouldn’t trigger knee-jerk personal attacks. Responding to questions with labels rather than engagement doesn’t move the conversation forward - it creates division, and division has never solved problems. 

 I was referring to the anonymous  post quoted by Shebeen above not yours. Knee jerk reactions don't help either. 

[Prince Albert Cycles]

32 minutes ago, Headshot said:

Yes indeed and what the silly person you quoted above forgets is that while cyclists may break the rules of the road, their conduct is almost never a factor when they get mowed down by a car or motorcycle (Chappies earlier this year). 

And cyclists breaking the laws don’t kill other road users

[Shebeen]

15 minutes ago, Prince Albert Cycles said:

And cyclists breaking the laws don’t kill other road users

Totally - but "we" don't do ourselves any favours.

As a fish hoek resident, DC season overlaps into Argus season and as a community we are like chopped liver. The chops who really cycle all over the place and through silly reds really do ruin any chance of symnpathy.

Massive leap, but I can imagine magistrates being part of the general public who are so irritated by cyclists

 

but it's a world wide thing, you'll get the same viitriol in australia, the US and the UK

 

 

22 minutes ago, Headshot said:

 I was referring to the anonymous  post quoted by Shebeen above not yours. Knee jerk reactions don't help either. 

I only posted that one, because the (anonymous) guy identifies as a cyclist. He got the message wrong on this one (IMHO)

[DieselnDust]

This discussion isn’t relevant. 
the issues at play are;

a) no accountability is applied to motorists in these incidents. They are viewed by society as the victim rather than thE perpetrators. In nearly every case they are at fault . Duty of care rests with the passing vehicle but this is seldom observed.

b) no protection to vulnerable road users under the law. 
 

c) cyclists who observe the law are still at very high risk because the lawlessness that incurs the maximum damage rests with the mororised community.

nothing else is relevant, not even a cyclist running a red light because motorists do the the same and more

Edited December 20, 2025 by DieselnDust

[nonky]

Background story, for those who missed it, below.

I used to cycle that stretch of coast regularly, until it became too hazardous (my concern was suicidal PEDESTRIANS in Sea Point and Camps Bay).   Too many close calls led to me losing my nerve, taking a break, and then putting my road bike into storage.

 

https://www.capetownetc.com/news/tragic-accident-claims-life-of-cyclist-on-victoria-road-near-glen-beach/

 

[Shebeen]

1 hour ago, DieselnDust said:

This discussion isn’t relevant. 
the issues at play are;

a) no accountability is applied to motorists in these incidents. They are viewed by society as the victim rather than thE perpetrators. In nearly every case they are at fault . Duty of care rests with the passing vehicle but this is seldom observed.

b) no protection to vulnerable road users under the law. 
 

c) cyclists who observe the law are still at very high risk because the lawlessness that incurs the maximum damage rests with the mororised community.

nothing else is relevant, not even a cyclist running a red light because motorists dim the the same and more

We are all allowed our opinions - why do you think a) is the case?

[DieselnDust]

1 hour ago, Shebeen said:

We are all allowed our opinions - why do you think a) is the case?

There are very very few convictions and when there are the sentence is very light. 
any box can get a drivers license, even one or many without RSA residents permits. 
i present to You the mini bus taxi industry and hail-a-drive activities. 
60/60 and other motorbike delivery services. 
yet a cyclist assessing the risk and then proceeding to cycle through a red light attracts more vitriol than a soccer mum driving her fortuna with one hand , coffee between her legs and make up In the other hand while running a red light is just another suburban hero. 
show me an accident involving a bicycle and motor vehicle where the driver accepted responsibility…. 

[Mamil]

4 hours ago, DieselnDust said:

This discussion isn’t relevant. 
the issues at play are;

a) no accountability is applied to motorists in these incidents. They are viewed by society as the victim rather than thE perpetrators. In nearly every case they are at fault . Duty of care rests with the passing vehicle but this is seldom observed.

b) no protection to vulnerable road users under the law. 
 

c) cyclists who observe the law are still at very high risk because the lawlessness that incurs the maximum damage rests with the mororised community.

nothing else is relevant, not even a cyclist running a red light because motorists dim the the same and more

Exactly this

[Mook]

22 hours ago, Mamil said:

Exactly this

1) I am yet to meet a lawyer who would advise any driver to admit guilt, even if guilty. They argue that you poke your chances of a good defence full of holes by "making life easy for the court" to prove your guilt.

2) Corporates with many drivers further instruct their drivers to never admit guilt on an accident scene. The company I work for is but one of these.

To conclude, in SA law, he who charges must prove guilt. Our constitution appears to favour the accused - never the deceased or injured.

[Eugene]

I don't know why I do this to myself.

I wasn't going to read this thread because I knew it would be full of people claiming how inoccent cyclists are and how bad motorists are (I bet 90% of the people here are motorists too). 

I'm not saying that it is always the cyclist fault and I am also not saying it is always the motorist fault. Each road user has an obligation to obey the rules of the road. Saying it is OK for a cyclist to run a red robot because taxis also do it, is plain stupid.