Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist". I'm Ruby's daddy, on a bike
300 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Angus, I'm sure it was not your intent, but can you see how your assertion that "people need to park their cars" comes across as a little callous in a context in which other people are actually getting killed because of where cars are parked?
-
Honestly, the world would be a better place if everyone would just listen to me and the Book of Rules.
I've already implemented that rule. So your theory will only work if your book of rules is copied from my book of rules.
In which case, there's this old thread here that I need you to read before progressing.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
See, I'm pretty sure this is why we write one Book of Rules for everybody.
-
And it’s the latter I see from other cyclists every day. Grown men riding on the footpath.
Wasn't me. While I've just got in from a fairly lengthy trip, much of it on the footpath, I'm not a cyclist. I just happen to ride a bike.
-
I'm not a fucking cyclist. I'm Joe, knocking over your shopping bag :-)
-
Isaac, its a discussion about safety and road fatalities. Any preventable death is a tragedy, but this death is no more important than any other preventable future death. It is a callous debate.
Allowing legal car parking on Tamaki Dr increases traffic constriction with potentially hazardous mingling of cyclists and motor vehicles.
Preventing car parking on Tamaki Dr may do several things:
- increase the distances to walk to the beach, which increases the risk to pedestrians as they have to cross more roads.
- encourage illegal parking, which may occur in even worse spots.
- encourage double parking where the family unloads in traffic, parks car elsewhere, repeats the process at the end of the day.
- stop people coming to the beach. -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Last night, while innocently wheeling my bike along the footpath in fully legal pedestrian mode, a slack-jawed yokel in a passing car called out "Heard of a car?"
Still not sure that I understood that one. -
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
I tend to assume that anything shouted from a car can be directly translated as “I’M IN A CAR!!!!!!!”
-
Best thing I've had shouted at me from a car: "DYKE!"
I mean, I've got a beard, FFS.
Best thing I've had thrown at me from a car: a fork. I've still got it.
Then again, I've had quite a few things shouted at me from passing cars over the years, mostly when I've been on foot. I must have one of those faces.
-
Preventing car parking on Tamaki Dr may do several things:
- increase the distances to walk to the beach, which increases the risk to pedestrians as they have to cross more roads.
- encourage illegal parking, which may occur in even worse spots.
- encourage double parking where the family unloads in traffic, parks car elsewhere, repeats the process at the end of the day.
- stop people coming to the beach.It's four car parks, some distance from either beach, at a point where a median barrier had been added to try and curb accidents (ironically, creating the situation that led to the fatal cycle accident).
I'm not sure your doughty hypotheticals trump that. And I don't think the local burghers should have been allowed to make that call.
I've only ridden that road a couple of times, in the course of the 50km Auckland ithsmus circuit -- and both times citybound. I'd seriously hesitate to ride in the other direction at rush hour, although it's clearly somewhat safer now.
-
your doughty hypotheticals
And so I've found a name for my band. Zoink!
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
The thing is that you have on the one hand actual deaths that have actually happened, and on the other some hypotheticals about what might increase risks. Your hypotheticals all assume that people parking on Tamaki Drive have no other options for how they travel, which is not an assumption that is likely to be shared by people who choose other options every day.
Frankly, I think a proportional response would be to weld shut every driver-side door in the country. This would inconvenience drivers a little, but hardly enough that people should die over it. I would be willing to consider compromise positions like lifetime disqualification and vehicle confiscation for anybody who opens a car door into traffic without first turning on their hazard lights. Instead we are talking about removing a few parking spots from places where people who have no business being in a driver's seat in the first place are known to have actually killed. I'm going to need more than speculation about how people might illegally park in some undefined place that might turn out to be even more dangerous than the place where people are actually killed to be convinced that we should abandon even this pathetic cop-out.
-
Zoink and the Doughty Hypotheticals - zither rockabilly for the new millenium
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Actually - maybe I have just been lucky, but in the past few days I have sensed a bit of a sea change in motorists' attitudes while I've been out pedalling around Wellington. Passing manouevres have been cautious and respectful, and the things yelled out of car windows have been friendly. A couple of friends, also putting in the miles pre-Taupo, have said the same thing.
Whatever it is - I'm enjoying it while it lasts.
-
Coming to this a bit late, but a couple of thoughts... raised medium strips, pedestrian refuges or pedestrian curb extensions may well have a purpose but they do not consider ALL road users and they are bloody dangerous for cyclists. I was hit by a boat on Tamaki Drive... yes a boat! The SUV pulled in onto me to avoid the pedestrian refuge... swinging the large boat even further in... forgetting it was wider than his car... if that is he thought at all.
But it is the behaviour of us as a people once we get into cars... I can sort of understand someone not seeing a large person dressed in flouro colours on a bike... perhaps they should not be driving if that is their sight ability... but I guess that they are the same people unable to see a train at a railway crossing!
A couple of years ago I had a few weeks cycling in France... It was a joy! Narrow, steep mountain roads with no shoulder mixed with large trucks and camper vans and I never felt threatened once.
-
Any driver who opens a car door on a busy street, without checking for all traffic, be it motorised or pedal-powered, is an idiot.
Not only is it dangerous for the driver, it could mean the end of a door, if a car passes too closely.
Perhaps appealing to people's pride of ownership in their vehicles might prove more effective than the idea of injuring or even killing a cyclist has.
I've been having harrowing flashes of my brother, heading for the Andes on his bike. Hope the car and truck drivers in Argentina and Chile are more mindful of the vulnerability of people on bikes!
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
My very anecdotal impression is that people in Auckland open their driver doors without looking more often than people in Christchurch do. Since the streets are narrow in Auckland and there are more cyclists in Christchurch, I have tentatively concluded that drivers are more motivated by concern for the lives of cyclists than by concern for their doors being hit by another car. It is possible I am biased by just not wanting any more reasons to despair at the human condition.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
I wouldn't say the streets are that narrow in Auckland. Having trouble following your logic, but can't help but feel sympathy over the "h.c." which at times borders on the totally callous and ghastly. But I have a certain optimism.
Perhaps we've reached a critical mass kind of level, where there has been such carnage on the roads that everyone with a brain and a heart is being more careful of others? After 9/11, New Yorkers were more kind to one another. Maybe this is happening here?
-
Rachaelking, in reply to
Not sure what it's like in Auckland or wherever, but here in Christchurch, cars park on the cycle lane. It infuriates me the way some drivers down here think that a single lane + a cycle lane = two lanes when approaching intersections and I frequently have to get off my bike and go up on the footpath to get around the cars waiting at the lights (during rush hour this is often 50 metres from the lights).
-
Deborah, in reply to
I'm always a little unsure about what to do in that situation, as a car driver wanting to turn left, and indicating (of course!). If a cyclist comes up in the cycle lane, between the car lane and the footpath, and she wants to go straight ahead while I want to turn left, who has right of way on the green?
The solution of course is to have proper bike lanes, with both a straight ahead bike lane, and a turn left bike lane, but given the difficulty with having bike lanes at all, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen...
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
I've never been sure of that one as a cyclist, either. So if I intend to go straight ahead, I make a point of pulling out of the cycle lane and slightly in front of the car, so they can tell I'm not just some left-turning cyclist who's neglected to indicate.
That's my solution.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Total dyke -- embrace it. :)
-
the past few days I have sensed a bit of a sea change in motorists’ attitudes while I’ve been out pedalling around Wellington.
I think this is something that we should probably highlight: most people - drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, that idiot on the kick scooter - are actually pretty considerate and nice. The number of actually malicious people is very, very low; the number of inattentive, distracted, or just dozy people is somewhat higher, but still the vast majority of people do watch out for you and aren't tools. Worth bearing in mind the next time someone does something dumb and annoying; it's standing out because most people aren't like that.
My very anecdotal impression is that people in Auckland open their driver doors without looking more often than people in Christchurch do. Since the streets are narrow in Auckland and there are more cyclists in Christchurch,
I think the problem is that a lot of our actions are based on unconscious assumptions, hammered home over multiple repititions. Which is a wanky way of saying that if you're used to there being a lot of cyclists around, you look out for them more. When you're moving fast, you're scanning the environment around you for things you need to pay attention to - and for many car drivers, this is basically "large, approximately rectangular lump of metal". Hence the whole "looking right at you but not mentally registering your presence" thing. In places where there are a lot of cyclists, drivers' minds are used to looking for them, so the subconscious scan includes you. So the more cyclists there are, the safer it is to cycle - see the points made in David Haywood's post passim on the systemic effects of cycle helmet legislation. Certainly, I've felt much, much safer riding in places where there were lots of cyclists. In this sense, I think that shouted abuse from a car is in some sense a win: it shows they've seen you. I'm much more concerned about the inattentive than the malicious, because the world contains a lot more Distracted than Evil.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
most people – drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, that idiot on the kick scooter – are actually pretty considerate and nice
I thought I'd said that, but I see I neglected to do so. Thanks, Jack.
-
Australian study verifies that driver attention is a major problem
(h/t Lance Wiggs).Drivers were at fault in 87 per cent of incidents with cyclists and most did not realise they had behaved in a reckless or unsafe manner, according to the Monash University Accident Research Centre and The Amy Gillett Foundation.
The three-year study into cyclist safety on the roads used mounted video camera footage, as well as helmet-mounted cameras worn by cyclists, to determine the main causes of road accidents between cyclists and motorists.
Fifty-four events were recorded; including two collisions, six near-collisions and 46 other incidents.
The helmet camera study found that of the 54 incidents recorded, more than 88 per cent of cyclists travelled in a safe and legal way.
Conversely, drivers changing lanes and turning left without indicating or looking were the cause of more than 70 per cent of the incidents, Amy Gillett Foundation chief executive officer Tracey Gaudry said.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.