Bad press

fallboy

Likes Bikes and Dirt
This story was in todays Brisbane courier mail.

It will give the do-gooders a further excuse to push bicycles from shared areas.

The rider must have been pinning it.


Pedestrian dies after bicycle hit


July 12, 2006

This article from : AAP


A PEDESTRIAN struck by a bicycle in Brisbane's CBD has died from head injuries in hospital.

The 37-year-old man from Jindalee in Brisbane's west was struck trying to cross George Street at about 3pm (AEST) on Monday. He died at the Royal Brisbane Hospital last night.
Police are investigating.
 

Rik

logged out
I bet it was a case of unfortunate circumstances. The only thing I'd think would be an issue is if the cyclist ran a red light or not.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
...or they have to provide better off-road recreational areas for cyclists, around the Brisbane area.

Sound convincing?
 

Robb

Likes Dirt
Never read from that news article that the guy on the bike was on a Mountain bike?

And besides, he was trying to cross the road. So the cyclist could have been riding along the road and someone steps out infront of him. Possibly just a case of unfortunate circumstances like Rik said.
 

timmyDH

Senior Member
Saw this on the news last night. The pedestrian was crossing on the red signal and a roadie hit him. They said that on impact both men were thrown forward about 3 metres. I've run straight into a walker going about 15 -20kph and just came to a sudden stop with neither of us falling over. He must have been flying.
 

Chopper

Likes Bikes
A little of the topic here but saw a pedestrian take out a courier a couple of weeks ago in Sydney. The ped just stepped straight out in front of the courier who had nowhere to go. The courier had a green light and the ped tried to cross against a red.

Also I quite like Sydney. Lovely place.

Chopper
 

custard

Banned
fallboy said:
A PEDESTRIAN struck by a bicycle in Brisbane's CBD has died from head injuries in hospital.

just another good reason to OPEN SOME legal tracks, around Brisbane, erosion this erosion that, its ok if a pedestrian dies because the bushland is saved:confused:

grrrrr


or on the arguing side, a good reason to ban bikes from teh city 24/7
 

Robb

Likes Dirt
custard said:
just another good reason to OPEN SOME legal tracks, around Brisbane, erosion this erosion that, its ok if a pedestrian dies because the bushland is saved:confused:

grrrrr


or on the arguing side, a good reason to ban bikes from teh city 24/7

The guy was on a roadie according to Timmy. And even then, not all cycling is done in bushland, some people commute to work. The guy was on the road (pedestrian crossing the street), so provided he wasn't doing anything illegal (eg. riding through a pedestrian crossing at full speed) then its the same as a pedestrian walking out in front of a car - an unfortunate event.
 

darth rider

Likes Bikes
As with vehicles, pedestrians always have the right of way (I thought) but plenty of people still die when hit crossing the road (usually when they shouldn't) when vehicles simply can't stop in time. But yeah, no doubt the nay - sayers will manipulate this story.:mad:
 

tu plang

knob
darth rider said:
As with vehicles, pedestrians always have the right of way (I thought)
i dont think thats correct at all. if they are crossing at an appropriate crossing at the appropriate time, then yes they have right of way but im 99% sure they dont ALWAYS have right of way.
 

Stu the kid

Likes Dirt
Really sad, it could of been just a simple bump and the pedestrian could of just unluckily knocked his head on the gutter. But there should of been some witnessess who could describe it better, could of been an accident or just careless rider error. I know to keep both my eyes on cars and pedestrians, because sadly ive hit a little girl and i was in the wrong very much so and it was very shocking and unpredictable, luckily she was fine not a scratch on her. Good example for all of us riders to be carefull and keep eyes on our enviroment.
 

TonyG

Likes Dirt
What a sh!ty way to go. That could happen to you 100 times and you could end up with nothing more than a broken bone. He must have fallen very awkwardly and hit his head.
Condolences to his family, these weird accidents would make coming to terms with the death so much harder.
 

Dumbellina

Likes Dirt
A few years ago there was some research about pedestrian-bike collisions in Europe. It was found that reported bike-ped collisions are rare and that fatal collisions are the most rare (only 3 recorded in data used). The researchers guessed that many collisions go unreported because there was no serious injuries caused.

Fatal collisions were always caused by the pedestrian receiving fatal head injuries by hitting the road hard. In three cases examined two of the pedestrians killed were elderly, and so more suspetible to fatal falls. The other fatality involved a younger person but the rider was travelling very fast. In all three cases the cyclist was at fault. In this case the victim was young so speed is an obvious factor.

If the pedestrian walked in front of the cyclist without looking and on a red light, while still having right of way their own negligence may have contributed to their injuries (even up to 100% contribution). So the cyclist might not be found liable.

Riding in cities and suburbs it amazes me the things pedestrians do:
* walk out onto a one-way street looking the wrong direction
* walk out onto a busy road talking on the mobile or listening to the ipod and not looking at the traffic
* walk out onto a cyclelane before checking for on-coming bikes.

Often we have nowhere to go and have to consciously hit them. We can try and brake but there is no other course of avoiding the collision. Where I have had to hit pedestrians, I have braked as best I can, screamed at them to get out of the way and then deliberately lowered my shoulder to knock them over (it's probably the least amount of injury I can inflict because most of the energy is dissipated in bowling them over). I have stopped and then told why I hit them. Some have seen the fault in their way and actually apologised to me (ok it only happened once). Others want to make something of it (this only happened once too).
 

arpit

Banned
tu plang said:
i dont think thats correct at all. if they are crossing at an appropriate crossing at the appropriate time, then yes they have right of way but im 99% sure they dont ALWAYS have right of way.

What is 'right of way'?
I suggest that there's no such thing, and that it's a a concept used to inappropriately attempt to simplify what may be a complex issue.

Dumbellina, how bout we call for compulsory helmets for pedestrians?
 

tu plang

knob
arpit said:
What is 'right of way'?
I suggest that there's no such thing, and that it's a a concept used to inappropriately attempt to simplify what may be a complex issue.
now this is only meant to be semi-harsh, so dont take it too seriously. can you, just once in a while, make a post that isnt a wank-off on the fact you study law. i think right of way is pretty simple in this case, i think your post is the complication of a simple issue.

the pedestrian crosses against the lights without looking, it is ILLEGAL for him to cross the road at that point. I think its worth noting that he was crazily unlucky to get hit by the likes of a bike, infact his chances of copping a j-walking fine were probably greater... a fine for breaking the law!

the cyclist riding at a green light (which gives him right of way at that time) should be as aware as any person in charge of a vehicle, i think you'd probably find he saw the pedestrian as soon as he stepped out but as has been said you cant always do much.
 

arpit

Banned
tu plang said:
now this is only meant to be semi-harsh, so dont take it too seriously. can you, just once in a while, make a post that is a wank-off on the fact you study law. i think right of way is pretty simple in this case, i think your post is the complication of a simple issue.


Ok, firstly, studying law has very little to do with knowing the road rules.
Secondly, referring to the law isn't a wank-off, since it applies to everyone.

I posted because someone suggested that pedestrians always have a 'right of way'. I posted to highlight the fact that its misleading to suppose that anyone ever has a 'right of way'. My post has tangential relevance ot the specific scenario we are discussing. I am posting to comment on the concept of 'right of way' rather than this scenario specifically.

tu plang said:
the pedestrian crosses against the lights without looking, it is ILLEGAL for him to cross the road at that point. I think its worth noting that he was crazily unlucky to get hit by the likes of a bike, infact his chances of copping a j-walking fine were probably greater... a fine for breaking the law!
Agreed.

tu plang said:
the cyclist riding at a green light (which gives him right of way at that time)
I disagree. A green light means that ideally, other road users should give way to him. The concept of the cyclist having 'right of way' would suggest that if other road users failed to give way to him, he could continue on regardless, even if he was capable of stopping, and he would not be considered responsible, criminally or civilly, for any ensueing collision.
This is not the case. If the cyclist did this he might be found to have been riding negligently. The Australian road rules talks about the fiction of 'right of way' too.

Aussie road rules said:
Obligation to give way
There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way to another
driver or a pedestrian. However, under the Rules the other driver or
pedestrian does not have a ‘right’ of way. Indeed, in some situations, a
number of drivers may be required to give way to each other, eg at an
intersection with a stop sign or give way sign on more than 1 of the
intersecting roads. Similarly, although a driver may be required to give
way to a pedestrian, the pedestrian is required under rule 236 (1) not to
cause a traffic hazard by moving into the driver’s path

tu plang said:
should be as aware as any person in charge of a vehicle, i think you'd probably find he saw the pedestrian as soon as he stepped out but as has been said you cant always do much.
<start wankoff>
I agree. In this situation it sounds very unlikely that the cyclist would the criminal law used against him. However, the problem is that he still may be found civilly negligent, even though he complied with all relevant road rules.

However, in this case it is unlikely that he would be found civilly negligent. See Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301.
You can find a nice article about the application of that case at
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache...v.+CHEUNG&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Heydon JA said:
“It is not the law that a driver complying with the minimum requirements of the law of negligence must drive in such a way as to anticipate everything that a pedestrian might do at all stages of every journey, or to be in a position to reduce speeds to levels which will avoid any risk of a collision at all stages of any journey. Yet in the circumstances of the present case the trial judge’s test would entail that duty”.
Meagher JA said:
Certainly, in general terms, it is true to say a driver must always attempt to foresee dangers well ahead of the immediate driving situation. For example, a driver must anticipate that pedestrians may behave stupidly, but this does not mean there will be cases where pedestrians who behave almost suicidally cannot successfully sue the motorist who knocks them down. A motorist is probably under a duty to realise that other vehicles on the road may do silly things or suffer untoward accidents but he is not obliged to conduct himself as if there were an imminent risk of such silliness or such accidents to every vehicle on the road. A driver would be totally immobilised if he were in constant fear that the worst was about to happen to the vehicle in front of him. Common sense would suggest that a driver, behaving reasonably, can act on the assumption that other vehicles on the road who seem to be operating safely will continue to operate safely. That is what Mr Laguzza did here. A motorist, in Mr Laguzza’s position, does not have to treat every cyclist as if he were a mischievous child or a runaway animal
<end wankoff>

So whats the conclusion?
1. there is no such thing as a right of way
2. You can comply with all relevant road rules and still be found to be negligent.
3. In this case, he probably was not negligent.
 
Last edited:

hughy_g

Likes Dirt
arpit said:
Ok, firstly, studying law has very little to do with knowing the road rules.
Secondly, referring to the law isn't a wank-off, since it applies to everyone.

I posted because someone suggested that pedestrians always have a 'right of way'. I posted to highlight the fact that its misleading to suppose that anyone ever has a 'right of way'. My post has tangential relevance ot the specific scenario we are discussing. I am posting to comment on the concept of 'right of way' rather than this scenario specifically.


Agreed.



I disagree. A green light means that ideally, other road users should give way to him. The concept of the cyclist having 'right of way' would suggest that if other road users failed to give way to him, he could continue on regardless, even if he was capable of stopping, and he would not be considered responsible, criminally or civilly, for any ensueing collision.
This is not the case. If the cyclist did this he might be found to have been riding negligently. The Australian road rules talks about the fiction of 'right of way' too.






<start wankoff>
I agree. In this situation it sounds very unlikely that the cyclist would the criminal law used against him. However, the problem is that he still may be found civilly negligent, even though he complied with all relevant road rules.

However, in this case it is unlikely that he would be found civilly negligent. See Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301.
You can find a nice article about the application of that case at
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache...v.+CHEUNG&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a




<end wankoff>

So whats the conclusion?
1. there is no such thing as a right of way
2. You can comply with all relevant road rules and still be found to be negligent.
3. In this case, he probably was not negligent.

holy jism you have alot of time

and how was church?
 

Dumbellina

Likes Dirt
arpit said:
So whats the conclusion?
1. there is no such thing as a right of way
2. You can comply with all relevant road rules and still be found to be negligent.
3. In this case, he probably was not negligent.
I love how we who understand the law reach the same conclusions. Although I was a bit scant on authority.

dumbellina said:
If the pedestrian walked in front of the cyclist without looking and on a red light, while still having right of way their own negligence may have contributed to their injuries (even up to 100% contribution). So the cyclist might not be found liable
 

TonyG

Likes Dirt
I'm an accountant and even I'm starting to find you two a bit nerdy.
I can almost see Ogre off Revenge of Nerds sniffing the air and screaming out NERDS!!
Instead of trying to flex your legal muscles how about a bit of compassion for the poor bugger that died. What are they going to do, sue him for dieing??
 

Dumbellina

Likes Dirt
TonyG said:
I'm an accountant and even I'm starting to find you two a bit nerdy.
I can almost see Ogre off Revenge of Nerds sniffing the air and screaming out NERDS!!
Instead of trying to flex your legal muscles how about a bit of compassion for the poor bugger that died. What are they going to do, sue him for dieing??

The legal mind is always thinking about what is best for their client.

I could be the hapless cyclist who kills a pedestrian, as I said in my original post I have had a couple of collisions to know this is not out of the realm of possibilities. The research says that bike collisions are rarely fatal unless the cyclist was travelling fast or the pedestrian was especially vulnerable (eg elderly).

Given the description of his conduct he could have been struck by a bus, truck, taxi, horse and cart and that impact lead to his death. It just happened to be a bike rider.

BTW its always the nerds who get the best "bush".

An accountant calling a lawyer a nerd, now there a pot calling a kettle black.
 
Top