Cyclist killed on the Port River Expressway

[crawf]

This is why cyclists should be banned from using the Port River Expressway

Cyclist's death prompts call to share road
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5938388284

CYCLIST groups want more signs on major roads to lift motorists' awareness of cyclists and to encourage all of them to share the road.

Bike SA and Cycling SA repeated its call yesterday after the death of a cyclist on the Salisbury Highway as he rode to work on Ride to Work Day, a statewide campaign aimed at encouraging people to use bikes.

The man, 24, of New Port, died at the roadside after being hit by a truck. He was attempting to cross lanes to get to the left side of the highway while riding east towards Salisbury about 7.15am.

There is no designated cycling lane in the area but there is a wide bitumen shoulder which cyclists use.

Major Crash Investigators said the cause of the accident was still under investigation and a mechanical examination of the truck would take place this week.

Bike SA and Cycling SA yesterday called for more signs to warn motorists of the increasing presence of cyclists.

Senior Sergeant Paul Isherwood said without a dedicated bike lane, the road shoulder was the safest place ride.

"The cyclist appeared to have been trying to get to the far left-hand side of the road so he could ride in the fog line which isn't a designated bike lane," he said. "But I guess it's the safest place on the road that he could have been riding on."

Sen-Sgt Isherwood said cyclists should not ride on highways where the speed limit was

80km/h or more.

"I certainly wouldn't be encouraging cyclists to ride along this section of road because it

can be quite dangerous," he said.

Bike SA chief executive officer Christian Haag said the majority of cyclists "appropriately" used that section of the highway.

"We have many members who use that stretch of road and they feel confident," he said.

He said yesterday's crash was another reminder that motorists needed to be aware that "more and more" cyclists were using the state's roads. Installing more warning signs, particularly in higher speed areas, should be considered by the road traffic authorities in the wake of the fatality, Mr Haag said.

Cycling SA executive manager Max Stevens said the accident was a tragic reminder to all road users.

"We wouldn't recommend in peak hour for cyclists to be riding on Salisbury Highway," he said.

The death is the second road fatality in two days, taking the state's road toll to 91 compared with 97 at the same time last year.

[Isiskii]

Only in SA would we permit cyclists to share the road with cars going by at almost 100kph.

Lunacy really.

[Nathan]

So where are cyclists supposed to ride once you leave the metropolitan area then, if we were to ban bikes on 80kph+ roads?

What's lunacy is the blame-the-victim mentality whenever a cyclist is killed by a car/truck.

[metro]

Who would be stupid enough to ride their bicycle on a freeway I thought they were one of the things forbidden on those 'start freeway' signs

I know the South Eastern has a separated bicycle path, same with the southern and northern, not sure about the port river tho, maybe a cyclist path is needed

[rev]

Shouldn't this be in the pub?

So where are cyclists supposed to ride once you leave the metropolitan area then, if we were to ban bikes on 80kph+ roads?

What's lunacy is the blame-the-victim mentality whenever a cyclist is killed by a car/truck.

Whats lunacy, is the arrogance and recklessness of the lycra hoons.
Especially the ones who ride in groups. There is a MARKED lane for them on many roads now, yet the majority of the groups ride outside the marked lane and in the path of motor vehicles. They must think they are in the Tour Down Under.
They swing out, they don't use hand signals to indicate to drivers they want to turn in a certain direction, they cut across traffic, they stop in front of cars at traffic lights, cut across intersections, and so on.

What's the point of having marked bicycle lanes if most of them don't stay in them?
If I have to share the road with these lycra hoons, then they should be insured and licensed like I am.
If they break the law, like most of them do most of the time, they should face similar expensive fines and potential loss of license like I do.

They want to share the road? Well they can share in the pain too.

[Nathan]

Shouldn't this be in the pub?

So where are cyclists supposed to ride once you leave the metropolitan area then, if we were to ban bikes on 80kph+ roads?

What's lunacy is the blame-the-victim mentality whenever a cyclist is killed by a car/truck.

Whats lunacy, is the arrogance and recklessness of the lycra hoons.
Especially the ones who ride in groups. There is a MARKED lane for them on many roads now, yet the majority of the groups ride outside the marked lane and in the path of motor vehicles. They must think they are in the Tour Down Under.
They swing out, they don't use hand signals to indicate to drivers they want to turn in a certain direction, they cut across traffic, they stop in front of cars at traffic lights, cut across intersections, and so on.

What's the point of having marked bicycle lanes if most of them don't stay in them?
If I have to share the road with these lycra hoons, then they should be insured and licensed like I am.
If they break the law, like most of them do most of the time, they should face similar expensive fines and potential loss of license like I do.

They want to share the road? Well they can share in the pain too.

Massive generalisation. The majority of cyclists are not lycra clad roadies, and the majority of cyclists do ride within the law. You don't call all motorists 'hoons' because you come across a moron or two each week driving dangerously in suped up V8s.

Believe me, no cyclist prefers riding in the car lane when there's a marked bike lane. They occasionally do, because they can't ride in the bike lane. Even on my short ride home I have to move in to the car lane multiple times because of parked cars, gravel and glass in the bike lane, and general poor condition of the road surface.

And if a cyclist breaks the law, they are hit with fines, just like any other vehicle.

[crawf]

Who would be stupid enough to ride their bicycle on a freeway I thought they were one of the things forbidden on those 'start freeway' signs

I know the South Eastern has a separated bicycle path, same with the southern and northern, not sure about the port river tho, maybe a cyclist path is needed

I'm surprised a bikeway wasn't built alongside the PREXY, but then again it is more of an industrial road.

[rev]

Massive generalisation. The majority of cyclists are not lycra clad roadies, and the majority of cyclists do ride within the law. You don't call all motorists 'hoons' because you come across a moron or two each week driving dangerously in suped up V8s.

Believe me, no cyclist prefers riding in the car lane when there's a marked bike lane. They occasionally do, because they can't ride in the bike lane. Even on my short ride home I have to move in to the car lane multiple times because of parked cars, gravel and glass in the bike lane, and general poor condition of the road surface.

And if a cyclist breaks the law, they are hit with fines, just like any other vehicle.

It's a generalization based on what I've witnessed with my own two eyes.
Most cyclists that I see, are the lycra types.
They ride in groups of 2-3+, and there is always at least one of them out of the marked bike lane.
The bigger groups always have multiple riders outside of the bike lane, interfering with traffic. They can't ride in the bike lane? Yes they can, but they chose to ride in packs as if they are in a tour down under. I've never seen them riding in a line one behind the other, the way they should.
When they get run over it's never their fault.

[Nathan]

It's a generalization based on what I've witnessed with my own two eyes.
Most cyclists that I see, are the lycra types.
They ride in groups of 2-3+, and there is always at least one of them out of the marked bike lane.
The bigger groups always have multiple riders outside of the bike lane, interfering with traffic. They can't ride in the bike lane? Yes they can, but they chose to ride in packs as if they are in a tour down under. I've never seen them riding in a line one behind the other, the way they should.
When they get run over it's never their fault.

Maybe you just don't pay attention to other cyclists because they look normal, and the lycra is just more noticeable.

In the case of riding in groups, then it's completely legal to ride 2 abreast, with one cyclist in the car lane. They are not "interfering" with traffic, they are traffic - and have just as much right to be there as you do in your car. (And at the speed most roadies ride at, they're hardly slowing you down anyway). It's also a general rule of thumb that if you do have to ride in a car lane, that you move to the middle of the lane - that way cars have to pass you properly by changing lanes, instead of trying to squeeze past you. It's obvious which option is safer for all involved.

If they get run over doing as you described above, then no, it's not their fault. It the fault of the inattentive driver who thinks cars own the road.

[SRW]

Massive generalisation. The majority of cyclists are not lycra clad roadies, and the majority of cyclists do ride within the law. You don't call all motorists 'hoons' because you come across a moron or two each week driving dangerously in suped up V8s.

Believe me, no cyclist prefers riding in the car lane when there's a marked bike lane. They occasionally do, because they can't ride in the bike lane. Even on my short ride home I have to move in to the car lane multiple times because of parked cars, gravel and glass in the bike lane, and general poor condition of the road surface.

And if a cyclist breaks the law, they are hit with fines, just like any other vehicle.

It's a generalization based on what I've witnessed with my own two eyes.
Most cyclists that I see, are the lycra types.
They ride in groups of 2-3+, and there is always at least one of them out of the marked bike lane.
The bigger groups always have multiple riders outside of the bike lane, interfering with traffic. They can't ride in the bike lane? Yes they can, but they chose to ride in packs as if they are in a tour down under. I've never seen them riding in a line one behind the other, the way they should.
When they get run over it's never their fault.

You do recognise, though, that there's an imbalance here? Cyclists are obviously more vulnerable than motorists. And cycling is not well-accomodated by the road network (in terms of adequate lanes) or by other road users. For example, (and this is perhaps a generalisation you can accept) bike lanes are not respected by most motorists -- they drive in and out of them in a way that they wouldn't in another (normal) lane. If even this reserved and visible cycling presence isn't respected, how well do you suppose cyclists are accommodated overall? It's little wonder then that some ride in ways and in attire that makes them more visible/noticeable to other road users.

[AtD]

I do find it amusing reading drivers in their ton of steel and plastic armour complaining that cyclists are dangerous.

When they get run over it's never their fault.

Correct. Bikes are legally vehicles and you must give way as you would for any other vehicle. If there's a slow truck in the left lane you don't honk your horn and try to push it off the road - you wait for a safe place to overtake. It's the same for cyclists. It doesn't matter if he's wearing jeans, lycra or is butt naked.

[drsmith]

Butt naked could be too much of a distraction in itself.

[Prince George]

Well, what started as a sad story turned into an ugly thread a little too quickly. Let me throw in that I am a daily bike-commuter who owns no lycra cycling gear, and rides on flat pedals in street shoes rather than clipless. Personally, I don't like people getting the idea that cycling requires special clothes as I think that this is a deterrent to people fitting a bike into their lifestyle. I suspect that fewer people would drive if we all thought that it required a Nomex suit.

Back to the original story, this incident highlights one of the areas that sustainable development has not tackled as well as it should - the location of employment zones, and access to them. We've seen some traction (although not enough action) around how we develop housing areas; the TOD concept needs to really come into fruition, but at least we have some idea that where there is housing there should be pedestrian access, public transport, and space for cycling. The other critical stage is that we address the destinations too: it's great that we can walk, bike, or bus around from, but we need those same systems to reach the places that we need to go to. Without that, we still have no reasonable choice but to drive.

So in our regional plans, while it's great to see intentions for building infill housing developments around transit corridors, we need to provide that same level of consideration for the employment areas too. Plans to open new industrial areas at the fringes of the city may guarantee that the only reasonable way to reach them is by car.

[rev]

Maybe you just don't pay attention to other cyclists because they look normal, and the lycra is just more noticeable.

I'm not blind.

In the case of riding in groups, then it's completely legal to ride 2 abreast, with one cyclist in the car lane.

2 a breast? If they were 2 abreast, the second bike would barely be in the car lane and I wouldn't be making a point about it.

They are not "interfering" with traffic, they are traffic - and have just as much right to be there as you do in your car. (And at the speed most roadies ride at, they're hardly slowing you down anyway).

When cars have to swerve or change lanes, that is interference.
How about in traffic? Do you think it's safe? Because I don't. And I've seen and been involved in near misses with these lycra hoons.
Hardly slowing motorists down? They get passed all the time.

It's also a general rule of thumb that if you do have to ride in a car lane, that you move to the middle of the lane - that way cars have to pass you properly by changing lanes, instead of trying to squeeze past you. It's obvious which option is safer for all involved.

Yet to see that. General rule of thumb? Maybe for you personally, but the majority don't seem to give a damn about rules.

If they get run over doing as you described above, then no, it's not their fault. It the fault of the inattentive driver who thinks cars own the road.

The purpose of a road is for motor vehicles to move along. Not for tools in tight spandex who think they are the next Lance Armstrong to ride all over the road getting in the way of motor vehicles. They have bike lanes, why can't they STAY IN THEM?

It's ok you are obviously a cyclist and have a biased opinion. I used to ride a bike too, when I was younger. I had the sense to stay on the footpath though because the road was obviously built for cars and I had no intention of ending up in an emergency ward.
Your own arguments are mixed anyway. On the one hand you say they prefer to ride in the bike lane, but will move out of it if they have to avoid parked cars and so on.
Then you say it's fine to ride in a car lane.
It's this sort of arrogant attitude from cyclists which gets them run over. Thinking they can ride all over the road because they have a "right".
You might have a right to ride on the road, but you also have the right to OBEY road rules, which 99% of cyclists clad in lycra DO NOT.

[monotonehell]

Rev, I'm not a cyclist (my bike is rusting in my shed) and even I can see you're wrong on these points.

There may be some cyclists who flout the road rules, and more fool them if they cause accidents, but there are also more motorists who drive like idiots and cause accidents. You should probably revisit the road rules regarding cyclists as you have several misconceptions regarding the road rules.