Doesn't matter what the car did, really, because the cyclists must have been too inattentive to road conditions and surrounds to have rear-ended a car that suddenly braked or stopped in front of them.
Can't obviate responsibility from the riders involved, I'm afraid. I've already explained my reasoning here, in a different topic about this:
Methinks the halos some people are trying to hang above the cyclists heads might well be a tad tarnished ;)
That is total garbage. In a normal situation, you keep a safe distance between you and the vehicle in front of you so you can stop. Cars have much greater stopping power than bicycles - if one swerves in front of you and stops suddenly, there's not much you can do, especially if you're hemmed in on all sides by other riders.
This applies for car on car accidents, too. The car that rear-ends another is almost always the legally responsible party - unless the car in front pulls in front of you and stops before you have a chance to avoid it.
It would have been nice if they could have used their magic bike-fu to avoid the man who was assaulting them with a deadly weapon, but to blame this on the cyclists is loathsome.
In many situations like this, we can analyze and learn things to help keep ourselves safe. But you lack empathy (and perhaps a soul) and display poor logic if you can turn that around and tell the injured people it was their fault.
And since you're a racing expert, how is it impossible to "come up behind a group of riders, sling that vehicle around the pack of them and then sling it back there right in front, stopping dead so close in front of them that they have no hope whatsoever of stopping"? The car can easily accelerate past a group of riders going 25 mph - how is it hard to pull in front of them and stop? Seems pretty easy to me.
The car driver is "a bit of a dropkick" because he attempted to injure or kill several people for slowing him down a bit? Sounds more like a sadistic criminal to me. A "bit of a dropkick" person might crowd you a little as he passes. Wrecking you on purpose?
And your 'Contributing responsibility' statement falls flat, too. Contributory negligence goes out the window when one party was not negligent, but malignant. His intent was to harm or kill. If someone comes in my house and beats and robs me, they police don't say "Contributing responsibility!! you left your door unlocked!!"
Maybe next you could troll the rape support forums and tell all those victims that they are responsible because they didn't see their victimizer coming for them. They should have fought harder! See how much support you get there.
((deep breaths))
Please keep your victim blaming to yourself.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Doesn't matter what the car did, really, because the cyclists must have been too inattentive to road conditions and surrounds to have rear-ended a car that suddenly braked or stopped in front of them.
Can't obviate responsibility from the riders involved, I'm afraid. I've already explained my reasoning here, in a different topic about this:
Methinks the halos some people are trying to hang above the cyclists heads might well be a tad tarnished ;)
I agree.
There's a reason that following too close in a car is illegal in all 50 states. I imagine also in Sydney. This incident shows why those laws came to pass. Since the same law does not apply to bikes, anybody that decides to ride in a paceline makes a personal decision to take their chances. The idiot was responsible for the first one, two, maybe three cyclists that crashed. All after that at some point decided that following too closely was worth the risk.
"Oh, but they world-class athletes on a training ride."
Yeah? And? I don't believe I've ever seen NASCAR or Formula 1 drivers training on public roads.
noisebeam
There's a reason that following too close in a car is illegal in all 50 states. I imagine also in Sydney. This incident shows why those laws came to pass. Since the same law does not apply to bikes, anybody that decides to ride in a paceline makes a personal decision to take their chances. The idiot was responsible for the first one, two, maybe three cyclists that crashed. All after that at some point decided that following too closely was worth the risk.
With expected variations due to experience and knowledge, I think most cyclist in pacelines appreciate the risks of following closely. They like solo cyclists also appreciate and have learned to identify the potential hazards. These include the normal and frequent however irresponsible and often illegal behavior of other drivers. Cutting others off, blowing lights, speeding, weaving, passing closely, honking unnecessarily. The list goes on with drivers of all types of vehicles doing this. There are also known hazards such as dogs, pedestrians, kids playing ball, etc. All drivers (motorist, cyclists, cyclist in paceline) learn to accommodate these types of day to day hazards. Drivers also know which hazards are a priority to watch for based on environment.
However all drivers (including cyclists in pacelines) are not well prepared or able to respond effectively for actions which are either intentionally harmful or [out of control, severely intoxicated, suddenly removed driver]. It is very difficult to anticipate and to gain experience in responding to due to fully unpredictable actions and relative rarity of occurrence.
In setting speed and following distance it is reasonable to not expect intentional acts such as this and if there were no other compelling reasons at the moment to set a slower speed or longer following distance then they were following at a distance reasonable for the current conditions with likely good knowledge and appreciation of those risks for the current conditions.
For example: If a hypothetical road was 3 lane, low traffic, the occasional car passing, no intersections ahead, clean pavement, relatively level grade, no curves. The primary risk on this road is that there is a within peloton crash. Every rider knows this risk and knowing the group can make an informed decision if the risk is reasonable. However it is unreasonable to expect that a passing vehicle will merge in front of the line with the intention to stop suddenly with intent to disrupt cyclist. If this was the expectation that should be reasonably applied for every passing driver then the risk would be too high to drive.
Al
Cyclaholic
You rock bicycle tough guy !
I try to be tough once in a while too =)
I don't want to be tough, I just want to be left alone by the nutjobs.
CommuterRun
In setting speed and following distance it is reasonable to not expect intentional acts such as this and if there were no other compelling reasons at the moment to set a slower speed or longer following distance then they were following at a distance reasonable for the current conditions with likely good knowledge and appreciation of those risks for the current conditions.
Al
Good. I see your point. A deliberate act may be unpredictable and unforeseen.
There was a paceline down in South Florida awhile back that got taken out by a driver pulling out in front of the paceline. Do you remember that incident? The paceline went into the side of the vehicle. Would you say that, that paceline was traveling too fast and at too close an interval for the circumstances, where there were side street and parking lot entrances present?
Catweazle
Please keep your victim blaming to yourself.
Nice rant, dwight, but you completely missed the point. I wasn't 'victim blaming'. I didn't suggest that the cyclists were at fault and the vehicle driver wasn't. If you can't comprehend "a bit of a dropkick" to be condemnation that it is then that' your problem. I'd have used even better words if it wasn't for the fact that the retarded moral guardian word filtering on this site makes them all appear as asterisks! :D
I wouldn't be distressed to see that dropkick with a deadly weapon tied up and flogged. I'm the kinda bloke who thinks that the line should be drawn at the throwing of the punch, not just at the connecting with it.
My post only aid that the 'victims' weren't being saintly and that they must have their own share of 'blame'.
noisebeam
There was a paceline down in South Florida awhile back that got taken out by a driver pulling out in front of the paceline. Do you remember that incident? The paceline went into the side of the vehicle. Would you say that, that paceline was traveling too fast and at too close an interval for the circumstances, where there were side street and parking lot entrances present?
On a street with poor sightliness (due to temporary on street parking) traveling at that speed and/or following distance is not necessarily reasonable. My guess is the cyclists were habitual about the speed and lane position they go/use on that street when there is normally no on street parking and did not make the change for the change in environment.
The motorist pulling out was also habitual about the ease of getting good sightlines and didn't think much at the moment about how pulling out far enough to see resulted in already being in the lane.
Al
gpsblake
Doesn't matter what the car did, really, because the cyclists must have been too inattentive to road conditions and surrounds to have rear-ended a car that suddenly braked or stopped in front of them.
+1 - They were probably all looking at their cyclometers instead.... I bet if a car was behind the gang of cyclists, and the cyclists suddenly stopped and got rear-ended by the car, they would be crying about the car being too inattentive.
Bikepacker67
This was a purposeful act by the driver.
All of you blaming the cyclists should reread the original post, as if you're going to be tested for reading comprehension.
genec
This was a purposeful act by the driver.
All of you blaming the cyclists should reread the original post, as if you're going to be tested for reading comprehension.
+100.
This was a deliberate act. While predictability and safe following distances and safe bike handling are issues that we are all aware of and should practice, a deliberate act can foul up even the most cautious and best trained cyclist or motorist. With that in mind, appropriate action toward this particular motorist is what should follow.
While no one died... careers may have been jeopardized.
gpsblake
This was a purposeful act by the driver.
The driver says otherwise.
This was a deliberate act.
The driver says otherwise. It is you who is only looking at one side of the story.
What we do know is the driver stopped for whatever reason in front of the cyclists and they rear-ended the car.
If we want to be treated like traffic, we need to act like traffic.
JusticeZero
Yeah, but his story was ridiculous. "I passed, then turned into their lane, then the car engine had a hiccough so I did an emergency stop.."
bac
The driver says otherwise.
Ah, just what did you THINK he was going to say? Did you think he was going to tell the truth, and face justice and jail time? I get the feeling this PUNK isn't that kind of a stand-up guy.
... Brad
Cyclaholic
The driver says otherwise.
It is you who is only looking at one side of the story.
What we do know is the driver stopped for whatever reason in front of the cyclists and they rear-ended the car.
If we want to be treated like traffic, we need to act like traffic.
...you mean the driver who took off after the 'accident' and made no effort whatsoever to contact police?, the driver whose version of events contradicts that of the 50 victims and at least one independent witness who happens to be an off-duty police officer?, the driver who, after an investigation by police, is going to be charged but is now on the run? is that the same driver whose 'story' you give equal credibility to?
StrangeWill
The driver says otherwise. It is you who is only looking at one side of the story.
Too bad vehicular mechanics say the complete opposite of what his car would actually do.
J A Holman
I agree.
There's a reason that following too close in a car is illegal in all 50 states. I imagine also in Sydney. This incident shows why those laws came to pass. Since the same law does not apply to bikes, anybody that decides to ride in a paceline makes a personal decision to take their chances. The idiot was responsible for the first one, two, maybe three cyclists that crashed. All after that at some point decided that following too closely was worth the risk.
"Oh, but they world-class athletes on a training ride."
Yeah? And? I don't believe I've ever seen NASCAR or Formula 1 drivers training on public roads.
What the hell, you usually aren't such an ass, did someone slap teh reasoning out of you today? The guy came to a stop directly in front of the group, clearly in a manner deemed dangerous no matter the vehicle following.
It wasn't a paceline it was a peloton, the first 3-4 riders probably hit simultaneously, and not all 50 riders crashed.
This incident does not show why those laws came to pass, backwards boy, this is clearly an incident that shows why dangerous driving laws were passed, stupid. He passed the group and re-entered the lane at an unsafe distance then braked in a dangerous manner while aware of the proximity of the vehicles behind.
You don't have to see it that way, it's okay to blame the victims in our society, just remember when you look in the mirror and look into your own eyes that some people justify molesting children based on the clothes the children wear.
Okay, maybe the first few children didn't deserve it, that was unlawful, but when they all wear cute clothes and smile, I guess they deserved it.
Oh and Judge, judge, yer honour I'd like to submit that I only hate Irishman. When I put the bomb on board the plane it was only to kill Irishmen, the other people on the plane were not my responsibility, kinda like collateral damage, 'kay Judge, lighten my sentence, k' Cool!
J A Holman
Durrrrrr, iffin we duh wanted tuh be duh traffix we gots toh be behaven liken tuh traffic.
So let em get this straight, you don't think that cyclists should be on the road, riding above the minimum speed limit? Like traffic?
J A Holman
The driver says otherwise.
The driver says otherwise. It is you who is only looking at one side of the story.
What we do know is the driver stopped for whatever reason in front of the cyclists and they rear-ended the car.
If we want to be treated like traffic, we need to act like traffic.
effin apologist, and again implying that only a negligent vehicle can rear-end another vehicle no matter what the forward vehicle actions.
Way, way safer to assume the guy who knowingly committed a felony did so because he was afraid of the consequences of his unlawful actions while driving.
Real people stay at the scene of an accident, only the guilty and the stupid flee, and stupid people are always guilty. Of being stupid. Which is very much punishable by law.
dwightonabike
Nice rant, dwight
Thanks! It pisses me off when people play the victim-blaming game.
How cay you say
I wasn't 'victim blaming'.
Then end your post with
the 'victims' weren't being saintly and ... they must have their own share of 'blame'.?
What standard do I have to ride by so that I can expect people to stand up for me if I'm attacked? It appears these cyclists were within their rights, riding legally on the road. Every time someone says, "yeah, that guy shouldn't have tried to kill them, but they were on the road - what do you expect?" you encourage people to consider acts like this to be contentions acts of rebellion against PC cyclists. Why are bikes allowed on the road anyway? When you can get members of the cycling community divided over placing blame for deliberate acts of violence against them, it's near impossible to change anyone's mind outside of the community.
I comprehend "A bit of a dropkick" just fine, and that is my problem. A "bit of a dropkick" will honk or squeeze you when they pass. People who intentionally tries to maim or kill people that annoy them are Violent Criminals. But I accept that you were restrained from using more colorful language by the filter. But we should condemn this behavior in the strongest possible terms.
CommuterRun
What the hell, you usually aren't such an ass, did someone slap teh reasoning out of you today? The guy came to a stop directly in front of the group, clearly in a manner deemed dangerous no matter the vehicle following.
It wasn't a paceline it was a peloton, the first 3-4 riders probably hit simultaneously, and not all 50 riders crashed.
This incident does not show why those laws came to pass, backwards boy, this is clearly an incident that shows why dangerous driving laws were passed, stupid. He passed the group and re-entered the lane at an unsafe distance then braked in a dangerous manner while aware of the proximity of the vehicles behind.
You don't have to see it that way, it's okay to blame the victims in our society, just remember when you look in the mirror and look into your own eyes that some people justify molesting children based on the clothes the children wear.
Okay, maybe the first few children didn't deserve it, that was unlawful, but when they all wear cute clothes and smile, I guess they deserved it.
Oh and Judge, judge, yer honour I'd like to submit that I only hate Irishman. When I put the bomb on board the plane it was only to kill Irishmen, the other people on the plane were not my responsibility, kinda like collateral damage, 'kay Judge, lighten my sentence, k' Cool!
Wow, what a disjointed post. Look, I don't really care to hear what sexual perversion you are into. The fact of the matter is that, yes, given the actions of the driver, the first few riders most likely could not have avoided the crash, and that was the driver's fault. The rest should have been able to, unless they were following too closely to allow themselves time to react. They chose to ride in this manner knowing the possible consequences. As such, there is no "blame the victim". Someone who deliberately chooses to jeopardize their own safety is not a victim in a case like this. It's like getting hit by a car while running a red light and trying to blame the driver. Ridiculous.
Paceline, peloton, doesn't matter, it was unsafe cycling on a public road. Want to race train? Get a track or a closed course and have at it, the way car racers do.
littlewaywelt
I agree with CommuterRun and I made the same argument when that vehicle pulled out in front of the paceline in FL resulting in a big pile up of injured riders.
Bikes, are vehicles and it's their responsibility to leave a safe distance in front of them for stopping. I can't speak to Australia, but the laws in the US are very clear and consistent in this regard. While the act of the driver was extremely likely to be intentional, the cyclists beyond those in front bear responsibility for their own injuries for riding in a manner where they couldn't brake. It's no different than car's rear ending each other even if the cause of the initial wreck is a 3rd party.
CommuterRun
Exactly.
One bike=one vehicle. Not a gaggle of bikes=one vehicle.
st0ut
The resulting smash forced a semitrailer to lock up, jackknife and screech to a halt behind the cyclists while cars had to swerve to avoid them.
The truck ALOS was following to close to the car. So far EVERYONE is guilty except for the poor driver in his failing vehicle.
Witnesses to the crash have told smh.com.au the group of about up to 60 professional cyclists were riding south on Southern Cross Drive, just south of Dacey Avenue, Mascot about 6.30am when a driver, agitated with being held up, accelerated in front of the pack and then slammed on his brakes.
Yes Slamming on your breakes without downshifting or going to neutral in a std shift car will make the engine stall just like the driver said.
One of the group said the motorists was "worrying" the rear of the pack, then overtook, pulled in front and slammed on his brakes, giving the riders no time to stop.
He was was attempting to bump assist the cycelist to help them alon appently. and yes, the bicycles AND the truck should have followed the letter of traffic law to the letter and insted should have broken the laws of physics.
Police - including an off-duty officer who witnessed the crash - quickly closed the lane down while they investigated the incident.
I am sure he scolded the cycelist for going to fast. If the cycelist where at fault dont you think he would have said so?
There was no doubt the driver of the dark blue Ford Falcon - described by other witnesses as in his 30s with a female passenger - had done it deliberately, she said.
.
For anyone to lay any fault on these cyclist is borderline immoral and definatly amorle.
This guy used his car as a weapon of deadly force.
He would have gotten the EXACT same result had he pulled along side the peloton and fired shots into the air.
littlewaywelt
For anyone to lay any fault on these cyclist is borderline immoral and definatly amorle.
This guy used his car as a weapon of deadly force.
He would have gotten the EXACT same result had he pulled along side the peloton and fired shots into the air.
What the driver did is reprehensible, but vehicular law and responsibility is very clear here. Cyclists, don't get a free pass despite the fact that root cause was the driver's act. The proximal cause is that they were riding without sufficient space so they could brake. ...and everyone that's ridden in a large group or paceline has kept a watchful eye on the rear tire directly in front, a hand pointing for hazards or the brake calipers of the bike in front because they are constantly aware of the possibilities of riding so closely.
I hope the driver gets hit in their civil system as well as the criminal and that he gets severely punished. He used his car as a weapon, but I doubt he thought it would be deadly. He may have assumed he'd teach the riders a lesson by scaring them or causing them to wreck by braking, but he underestimated their speed and/or he braked to hard and the results were more severe than he thought. ...then again maybe he intended to have them ram into the back of his car just like it happened. We can't know. To compare what he did to shooting isn't reasonable. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone that would rather get shot than get hit by a car on a bike. What he did is not the exact same thing as shooting someone. He certainly put their lives in jeopardy, though.
noisebeam
...and everyone that's ridden in a large group or paceline has kept a watchful eye on the rear tire directly in front, a hand pointing for hazards or the brake calipers of the bike in front because they are constantly aware of the possibilities of riding so closely.
When in a group/paceline one also keeps an eye on the road ahead. When riding the key things to look for are not just real hazards, but also more pro actively potential hazards: an intersection, pedestrians on sidewalk, a car passing, etc - those are clues to slow down and/or increase space ahead or move out of line because the potential hazard may become a real one. With clean pavement ahead, no signals from riders ahead and no intersections ahead and a driver passing in adjacent lane there would be no reason to increase following distance or slow down as there would be no potential non-intentional hazards beyond the riders ahead of you.
Al
st0ut
What the driver did is reprehensible, but vehicular law and responsibility is very clear here. Cyclists, don't get a free pass despite the fact that root cause was the driver's act. The proximal cause is that they were riding without sufficient space so they could brake. ...and everyone that's ridden in a large group or paceline has kept a watchful eye on the rear tire directly in front, a hand pointing for hazards or the brake calipers of the bike in front because they are constantly aware of the possibilities of riding so closely.
I hope the driver gets hit in their civil system as well as the criminal and that he gets severely punished. He used his car as a weapon, but I doubt he thought it would be deadly. He may have assumed he'd teach the riders a lesson by scaring them or causing them to wreck by braking, but he underestimated their speed and/or he braked to hard and the results were more severe than he thought. ...then again maybe he intended to have them ram into the back of his car just like it happened. We can't know. To compare what he did to shooting isn't reasonable. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone that would rather get shot than get hit by a car on a bike. What he did is not the exact same thing as shooting someone. He certainly put their lives in jeopardy, though.
READ what i said "firing into the air."
And i would say it would be harder to hit a fast moving cyclist with a gun than it is a car.
Additionally the TRUCK behind the cycelist JACK knifed to avoid the cycelist. you assume that alll moving vehical stop for 40kph to 0 at the same distance. you also assume that ALL the weckake was due to a pile up and that the rider never took any evacive action which if you RTFA closely you will find is not the case.
again no cycelisit was charged for anything improper even though there was an off duty officer as a witness. stop implying that since they went down they did something wrong.
what about the all the other car that had to take evasive action.
CommuterRun
For anyone to lay any fault on these cyclist is borderline immoral and definatly amorle.
I haven't exactly seen any more cyclists than motorists glowing with ethereal light.
J A Holman
The proximal cause is that they were riding without sufficient space so they could brake.
False. The proximal cause was an intentionally dangerous act by the driver. You and commuterflee should start a club
I-Like-To-Bike
what about the all the other car that had to take evasive action.
Apparently the other vehicle driver(s) were driving responsibly and did not tailgate, therefore their "evasive action" was successful unlike the foolish tailgating cyclists who left no room for any evasive actions.
murphstahoe
Apparently the other vehicle driver(s) were driving responsibly and did not tailgate, therefore their "evasive action" was successful unlike the foolish tailgating cyclists who left no room for any evasive actions.
I guess you missed the "jackknifed semi truck" part...
CommuterRun
I guess you missed the "jackknifed semi truck" part...
The part I must have missed is where the driver of the truck plowed into anybody because he couldn't control his vehicle.
CB HI
The part I must have missed is where the driver of the truck plowed into anybody because he couldn't control his vehicle.Interesting that you would consider jacknifing a semi-truck to be a nice controlled stop.
Cyclaholic
Apparently the other vehicle driver(s) were driving responsibly and did not tailgate, therefore their "evasive action" was successful unlike the foolish tailgating cyclists who left no room for any evasive actions.
A semi jacknifing is 'driving responsibly'? or the result of the actions of the driver that attacked the cyclists?:rolleyes:
Cyclaholic
The part I must have missed is where the driver of the truck plowed into anybody because he couldn't control his vehicle.
You also missed the part where jacknifeing a semi is not part of the normal operation of a semi but an emergency maneuver in response to a situation created by the road raging cager that used his vehicle as a weapon against the cyclists.
CommuterRun
Interesting that you would consider jacknifing a semi-truck to be a nice controlled stop.
Never said it was. The point is the truck driver was able to avoid hitting anybody.
You also missed the part where jacknifeing a semi is not part of the normal operation of a semi but an emergency maneuver in response to a situation created by the road raging cager that used his vehicle as a weapon against the cyclists.
When did you become CB's parrot?
No, that part I got. Did the cager use his vehicle as a weapon against the cyclists?
Yes, never said different.
Did this cause the truck driver to take emergency action?
Of course, and without hitting anyone, or at least it's not mentioned in the news article.
Which tells me two things. One, the truck was following uncomfortably close, but not so close as to make a collision unavoidable.
And two, while the first few cyclists could not have avoided the car because of the maneuver that was undertaken, the rest were not as competent with their vehicles as the truck driver was with his.
That trucker is one happy camper right about now.
Bekologist
such controversy over a cut and dried case of vehicular assault.
CB HI
The point is the truck driver was able to avoid hitting anybody.
By shear luck rather than by properly controlling his truck.:rolleyes:
And when did you become ILTB's parrot?:p
st0ut
Never said it was. The point is the truck driver was able to avoid hitting anybody.
When did you become CB's parrot?
No, that part I got. Did the cager use his vehicle as a weapon against the cyclists?
Yes, never said different.
Did this cause the truck driver to take emergency action?
Of course, and without hitting anyone, or at least it's not mentioned in the news article.
Which tells me two things. One, the truck was following uncomfortably close, but not so close as to make a collision unavoidable.
And two, while the first few cyclists could not have avoided the car because of the maneuver that was undertaken, the rest were not as competent with their vehicles as the truck driver was with his.
That trucker is one happy camper right about now.
A jack knifing truck is NOT an emergency controled stop it is when the trailer velocity overtake the veloscty of the tracter vehicle. which way the trailer swings is random. the trailer is out of control.
Who should pay for the damage of the trucks cargo? If he was an indepedant trucker he is on the hook for new tires as that side skid of the trailer chewed up his tires.
at what point to you realize that your entire arugmentment is based on a paceline that may or may not have existed and that legality of a minor trafific violation "following too close" equals that of vehicular assualt and attempted manslauter.
CommuterRun
And when did you become ILTB's parrot?:p
And now you're parroting me?
A jack knifing truck is NOT an emergency controled stop it is when the trailer velocity overtake the veloscty of the tracter vehicle. which way the trailer swings is random. the trailer is out of control.
Who said it was? All I said was that the driver took emergency measures and got his truck stopped before plowing into someone, which is more than can be said for the cyclists. I never said it was a controlled stop. Maybe it was, maybe not. A skilled trucker can swing the trailer to whichever side he wants.
Who should pay for the damage of the trucks cargo? If he was an indepedant trucker he is on the hook for new tires as that side skid of the trailer chewed up his tires.
Not up to me. But I would like to see the cager that started the whole mess held liable.
at what point to you realize that your entire arugmentment is based on a paceline that may or may not have existed and that legality of a minor trafific violation "following too close" equals that of vehicular assualt and attempted manslauter.
I never said following to close was equivalent to vehicular assault, but thank you for admitting that the cyclists that collided with the cyclists in front of them were also in the wrong.
I-Like-To-Bike
A jack knifing truck is NOT an emergency controled stop it is when the trailer velocity overtake the veloscty of the tracter vehicle. which way the trailer swings is random. the trailer is out of control.
Who should pay for the damage of the trucks cargo? If he was an indepedant trucker he is on the hook for new tires as that side skid of the trailer chewed up his tires.
at what point to you realize that your entire arugmentment is based on a paceline that may or may not have existed and that legality of a minor trafific violation "following too close" equals that of vehicular assualt and attempted manslauter.
Paceline may have existed? You don't think the "serious, A-grade riders and pros'' riding in a "pack" were riding a paceline when they crashing into each other after the front rider suddenly stopped?
Damage to the truck's cargo? Chewed up tires? Why should there be any damage? There was no collision or rollover. The load shifted? Oh Puhleeze! You really are stretching in your speculations to avoid the obvious and make excuses. Pacelining in traffic can be a dangerous cycling technique, (speed, efficiency and training points be damned) and this event is evidence of that.
Cyclaholic
Paceline may have existed? You don't think the "serious, A-grade riders and pros'' riding in a "pack" were riding a paceline when they crashing into each other after the front rider suddenly stopped?
Damage to the truck's cargo? Chewed up tires? Why should there be any damage? There was no collision or rollover. The load shifted? Oh Puhleeze! You really are stretching in your speculations to avoid the obvious and make excuses.
I only know about trucks through our family business (my father & brother run it) I can assure you that jacknifing a semi can lead to a long list of expensive damage to the truck and the load. But that's nothing compared to the lethality to everyone in the vicinity of an out of control semi, and that situation was caused not by the cyclists but by the raging cager.
Even if it had only been the one or two cyclists than were out on the road that morning and the cager caused them to crash, the semi still had cyclists on the road and had to stop suddenly to avoid killing them. The fact that there were 10 or 20 or 50 cyclists instead of just 2 is immaterial, they were still on the road where the raging cager left them for dead. That's why your incessant bleating about pacelines and the such is completely irrelevant.
Pacelining in traffic can be a dangerous cycling technique, (speed, efficiency and training points be damned) and this event is evidence of that.
Yes, pacelining in traffic can be dangerous, just being in traffic is dangerous, but for the umpteenth time that's not what caused the crash in this case, it was a homicidal driver with no social conscience and anger management issues that performed a hit and run. Even if it was just one cyclist, it doesn't change in the slightest the fact that a road rager used his vehichle as a weapon to knock them down and then took off.
You and your fellow road rager apologists are trivialising the seriousness of the cager's actions and trying to shift the blame onto the cyclists, and I as a cyclist find that just unbeleiveable coming from supposed fellow transport cyclists. I'm trying hard to figure you people out but It's difficult to not equate you with the subhumans that jeered and abused the cyclists as they drove past after the accident.
I-Like-To-Bike
The fact that there were 10 or 20 or 50 cyclists instead of just 2 is immaterial, they were still on the road where the raging cager left them for dead. That's why your incessant bleating about pacelines and the such is completely irrelevant.
Yes, pacelining in traffic can be dangerous, just being in traffic is dangerous, but for the umpteenth time that's not what caused the crash in this case, it was a homicidal driver with no social conscience and anger management issues that performed a hit and run.
Irrelevant ONLY for the cyclist in front of the paceline. The injuries to the rest of the group are a direct result of their own paceline actions; no paceline, no subsequent injuries to the rest of the group.
I don't believe anybody wrote excuses for the actions of the angry motorist nor that his action was not the cause of the injuries to the lead cyclist, nor has anyone indicated that the driver's action was not the catalyst for the rest of the event. Still doesn't change the fact that the cyclists paceline actions significantly and predictably contributed to the seriousness of an incident.
stevegor
CommuterRun and other likeminded posters,
So I suppose, when I was riding in a large paceline here in Oz awhile ago, that the idiot driver who was coming from the opposite direction who then swerved across double unbroken lines, (illegal), and aimed at us, (again, illegal), missing by mere centimetres, (and again, illegal), if he had hit only one rider but caused others to crash and be injured or killed, it would have been their own fault?
The law really is an ass, then..... :notamused:
CommuterRun
Different scenario. That driver was moving and approaching from ahead, so could have potentially wiped out the whole group regardless of their interval. The same could be said for the driver in the OP only if he had put the car in reverse and backed up.
Sledbikes
Damage to the truck's cargo? Chewed up tires? Why should there be any damage? There was no collision or rollover. The load shifted? Oh Puhleeze! You really are stretching in your speculations to avoid the obvious and make excuses. Pacelining in traffic can be a dangerous cycling technique, (speed, efficiency and training points be damned) and this event is evidence of that.
wether he hit anyone or not damage was done. im in the business when a jackknife occurs its very uncontrollable and its in no way a emergency stop maneuver so who ever said that has a misconstrued view on truck driving and should stick to bicycles. im sure if he killed 12 cyclists you'd all be on his case, but he wouldnt be held responsible by the government or cops, truckers are protected to a degree when accidents are caused by other people.
I-Like-To-Bike
im sure if he killed 12 cyclists you'd all be on his case, but he wouldnt be held responsible by the government or cops, truckers are protected to a degree when accidents are caused by other people.
But the trucker didn't hit any cyclists or anyone else, so :wtf: are you whining about? It was the tailgating cyclists who smacked into each other and flopped all over the road due to their inability to maintain a safe stopping distance from the bicycle in front of them.
How 'bout if some NASCAR wannabes start learning/training their drafting techniques on the public highways at NASCAR speeds or even at the legal speed limit? You OK wid dat?
JusticeZero
You do realize, o 'they should have been able to avoid him' people, that it is likely that the people further back were not colliding with the CAR, but rather, with the scattered wreckage of bikes in front of them? The dynamics are exactly like a car pile-up, which generally is not a situation where the cars are blamed for having the car in front of them suddenly stop and fly in random directions as they hit the car in front of them, defeating their attempts at evasive maneuvers.
JusticeZero
But the trucker didn't hit any cyclists or anyone else, so :wtf: are you whining about?
Because jackknifing a truck is, by definition, a wreck; it is equivalent to "stopping your bike" by turning hard enough that it flips and slides on it's side, gaining the braking power of dragging the handlebars into the pavement. It means that the truck stopped hard enough that it lost control of it's cargo, which essentially collided with the back of the truck in a miniature two-vehicle pile-up. Some of the cyclists did evade the car ahead of them, and many others no doubt would have had they not had to contend with flying bicycles and bike riders flying through the space ahead of them, or other riders behind them who may or may not be able to react and brake as fast as them, and consequently creating more randomly flying bicycles.
This was effectively a multiple vehicle pile-up caused by a driver maliciously braking in traffic to cause a rear-end collision. It's a miracle that cars weren't hit by the trailer wrecking.
I-Like-To-Bike
You do realize, o 'they should have been able to avoid him' people, that it is likely that the people further back were not colliding with the CAR, but rather, with the scattered wreckage of bikes in front of them? The dynamics are exactly like a car pile-up, which generally is not a situation where the cars are blamed for having the car in front of them suddenly stop and fly in random directions as they hit the car in front of them, defeating their attempts at evasive maneuvers.
I believe the drivers will rightfully be blamed for crashing into the wreckage if it is shown that immediately prior to the event they were deliberately tailgating the same vehicles at an extremely close interval in order to "train" for a competitive racing event. What evasive stopping maneuvers does a pacelining cyclist plan on using if something unexpected requires a sudden stop, other than minimizing injuries during the fall after the inevitable collision?
I-Like-To-Bike
Because jackknifing a truck is, by definition, a wreck; it is equivalent to "stopping your bike" by turning hard enough that it flips and slides on it's side, gaining the braking power of dragging the handlebars into the pavement.
Roadie Zealots are a real piece of work when defending race day type activities in traffic on public roads, no matter what the results.