Anthony reportedly escaped with only cuts and bruises and was up and back on the bike the next day.
Lucky guy! I presume it wasn't the same bike....
Anthony reportedly escaped with only cuts and bruises and was up and back on the bike the next day.
beardy wrote:Finally despite having lived in Australia for a few years, I dont know if cyclists are allowed/supposed to ride in or out of that shoulder.
Fellow Byron Bay Cycle Club member Adam Taylor was riding in front of Condon when the accident happened. He said the area's roads were often littered with debris.
"The roads are really bad around Byron Bay and there is debris on the road," Taylor said.
beardy wrote:Si wrote:beardy wrote:
Off hand only because I thought it totally obvious what the difference was. Obviously not so I shall explain. If there was more space between your friend and the car in front would it have given him more time to see and avoid the wheel? Answer: NO. If the rider had been further back from the vehicle in front (i.e. the camera cycle) would he have had more time to see and avoid the debris? Answer: YES. Therefore, if subjected to logical consideration, your example is irrelevant.
It is relevant because it shows that the debris moves and can even move far enough to cross a reservation and get you. Being close to the vehicle it comes off does not necessarily mean it will hit you, I have seen stuff bounce over the first cars and hit those further away. Also it shows that having a distance between the other vehicle, or even going in the other direction, will not guarantee your safety either.
I too believe this is totally obvious but I dont dismiss your arguments in an off hand way (out of politeness and a respect of the forum ethos).
Tonyf33 wrote:Looking at it again..they are even more stupid than i thought, the roads were so quiet, the so called cycle lane narrows to little more than a gutter lane..what the hell where they thinking, and still, how the hell did they not see large chunks of 'stuff' in the lane and shoulder check and move out..As I said..newbs, all the gear & no idea..
The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.
Vorpal wrote:Tonyf33 wrote:Looking at it again..they are even more stupid than i thought, the roads were so quiet, the so called cycle lane narrows to little more than a gutter lane..what the hell where they thinking, and still, how the hell did they not see large chunks of 'stuff' in the lane and shoulder check and move out..As I said..newbs, all the gear & no idea..
Except that if it is a bicycle lane (it's not obvious to me that it is), they are legally obligated to use it, according to Australian law...The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.
from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... /s247.html
Vorpal wrote:Tonyf33 wrote:Looking at it again..they are even more stupid than i thought, the roads were so quiet, the so called cycle lane narrows to little more than a gutter lane..what the hell where they thinking, and still, how the hell did they not see large chunks of 'stuff' in the lane and shoulder check and move out..As I said..newbs, all the gear & no idea..
Except that if it is a bicycle lane (it's not obvious to me that it is), they are legally obligated to use it, according to Australian law...The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.
from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... /s247.html
[XAP]Bob wrote:I'd suggest this footage can be used as evidence for any claim that it may be impractical...