|
|
5 Ronald Ave Freshwater NSW 2096 (02) 9114.6689 0434 715.861 5 January 2010 Mr Margison Director, Road Safety and Traffic Management Division Roads and Traffic Authority PO Box 973 Parramatta NSW 2124 Dear Mr Margison The RTA should not be encouraging members of the public to break a vital NSW road rule which is contributing to an epidemic in bicycle accidents I refer to your letter dated 10 Dec ‘09 which ‘inter alia’ – (i) enclosed approx 100 brochures titled ‘Riding in Groups’; and (ii) requested a brochure be distributed to each member of Muggaccinos.com Background of the writer I have administered a bicycle group called Muggaccinos.com since 1996. Over 300 different cyclists have ridden on Muggaccinos Sunday rides (ave 12 participants per Sunday) which generally exceed 100km on roads around the perimeter of Sydney. Muggaccinos cyclists ride on a lot of low traffic roads on Sunday mornings. Complying with my obligations pursuant to Clause 5M(1) of the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92, as an inviter to warn invitee participants of all risks, so that they may best avoid them, is paramount to me because I care about the health and safety of members of the public whom accept my invitation to cycle with Muggaccinos.com. I invite you to click on: I will not be distributing any of your brochures because – (A) RTA has compromised its charter of “improving road safety” by not explaining (in the brochure) risk management protocols that ride organisers of ‘group rides’ must observe, pursuant to Clause 5M(1) of the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 - explained in Annexure A;
(B)
RTA is encouraging a form of cycling (ie.
bunch riding) which is more dangerous due,
inter alia, to the
increased bravado, hubris and mass hysteria emanating from a critical mass
of juxtaposed cyclists
creating a
juggernaut which
fuels
“higher risk taking”;
2 (C) RTA is encouraging cyclists to break Regulation 126 “Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles” of NSW Road Rules and Section 4 “Crash Avoidance Space” of the RTA Road User Handbook which stipulates a “three-second rule” in order to pull up a vehicle - to minimise trauma accidents - the photo in the ‘Riding in Groups’ brochure encourages cyclists to take unnecessary and unintelligent risks – explained in Annexure C – whereupon RTA may be embroiled in future litigation between an injured bunch rider who litigates another bunch rider for negligence when RTA encourages cyclists to ignore the above rules/tips - explained in Annexure B; (D) ‘Riding in Groups’ makes no reference of the need to remain at least two bike lengths behind the rear wheel ahead during steep descents; and (E) RTA is presenting to cyclists, including inexperienced cyclists, that if they observe all the tips in its brochure, they will be doing everything required to minimise trauma accidents, when, in fact, RTA is promoting a dangerous recreational activity, as defined in Clause 5k of the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92, namely encouraging bunch riding. The RTA brochure uses the word ‘group’ to describe cyclists riding in tight formation depicted in the large photo in its brochure. More popular colloquial words include ‘Peloton’ or ‘bunch’. Why some larger bike shops offer bunch rides Group rides do not just happen. It takes a lot of organising, administration, guidance, communication, discipline and on-going monitoring to attract a group of similarly skilled cyclists to ride as safely as possible in a tight formation. Some bike shops have attracted more and more “newcomers” to their bunch rides, a good thing so long as these “rookies” understand each party’s duty of care and the risks of harm. Seemingly some of the larger bike shops that provide regular bunch rides are targeting customers who will trade-off obtaining the lowest purchase price for image/aura/profile (i.e. opportunity to wear a cycle jersey worn by lots of “serious” cyclists). Hence, some larger bike shops are motivated to invest the above resources to attract cyclists to join their regular bunch rides because of potential sales of more expensive bikes and bike parts to members of the public that are attracted to bunch riding, often all wearing the same uniform. Ipso facto, larger bike shops which provide regular bunch rides are conflicted because their driver is procuring sales from the participants they draw. Their driver is not road safety. RTA has compromised “improving road safety” by supporting the bicycle industry
I am disappointed in the RTA
prostituting its “improving
road safety”
charter to appease bicycle
organisations with a vested interest in increasing the number of cyclists, no
matter what the accident toll. Annexure D provides third party evidence that
cycling accidents on Australian roads are at epidemic proportions, and according
to
Dr. James Taylor, Sandringham Hospital Victoria,
which is the closest emergency ward to Beach Rd in Melbourne, bunch riding is a
primary contributor.
3 Professor Drew Richardson rightly contends that “When human beings share the same space they do tend to bump into each other, whether it's in supermarket aisles or lifts. And it's certainly true on the roads.” I am pleased to see that the brochure encourages ‘ride groups’ to not exceed 20. A limit of 20 cyclists, or even less, should be regulated in NSW Road Rules, and enforced by NSW Police. Alas the photo on the inside above ‘Riding in groups – code of conduct’ shows approx. 14 cyclists riding in a tight bunch with the distance between the rear wheel of the bike ahead and the tip of the front wheel of the bike immediately behind seemingly around 300mm for some bunch cyclists in breach of Regulation 126 and Section 4 “Crash Avoidance Space” of the RTA Road User Handbook. Drivers in V8 Supercars and Formula 1 car races take extraordinary risks sitting on tails seeking to pass. Cyclists in sprint finishes take similar risks. RTA would not produce a brochure which encouraged motor cars on public roads sitting 300mm behind the car ahead. Hence, why would it compromise ‘improving road safety’ by encouraging cyclists to break a NSW Road Rule? Seemingly, RTA has been influenced by groups who make their living from promoting cycling to the detriment of “improving road safety”. A new website BunchRideFinder seeks to list hundreds of bunch rides across Australia. Why do some cyclists like riding in a bunch? Why do others shun cycling in a bunch? Why is bunch riding in Melbourne more popular than in Sydney? Why (in Annexure D) is the closest Emergency Department to Beach Road Melbourne evidencing an endemic in cycling accidents? Several websites for bunch ride groups list risk warning signals that bunch riders need to observe to warn bunch riders behind them of imminent risks ahead. An injured bunch rider could litigate a negligent bunch rider ahead, if the bunch rider ahead failed his or her duty of care to warn of an imminent risk, and a bunch rider behind suffered a serious injury due to not being warned. Conversely, an injured bunch rider ahead could litigate a bunch rider behind by alleging that the bunch rider behind had been negligent in riding too close, in breach of Regulation 126. Under tort law, bunch riding in NSW is a ‘dangerous recreational activity’ as defined in Division 5 Recreational Activities of the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 because compared with other recreational activities, there is a significant risk of physical harm. Bunch riding is clearly more dangerous than each cyclist “breaking their own wind”, enjoying clear vision ahead and riding in single file which the majority of cyclists do. Several triathlons, including the IronMan Series, will not allow competitors to draft.
The majority of road cyclists,
at least in Sydney, will not ride in a bunch. These are often older cyclists
whose bones are more brittle and know that the road surface and cars always win.
Others will ride in a
‘loose’ bunch of, say up to five if they know the others well, and more
importantly know they will give requisite risk warning signals.
4 Greater participation in bunch rides as a result of promotion by new website BunchRideFinder, may evidence more riders cycling with others whose skill level is not well known and who may not always provide risk warning signals “down the Peloton”. Regulating to materially increase the distance between the rear wheel of the bike ahead and the front wheel of the bike behind to two bike lengths would – i) increase the peripheral vision of bunch riders behind; ii) provide more time to react to risk warning signals given by riders ahead of imminent risks ahead; and iii) enable more time to avoid a collision. Such regulation would no doubt be supported by the Emergency Wards of Australian hospitals. It would remove only reason (d) in Annexure B. My sole motive in writing this letter is to reduce trauma accidents amongst the burgeoning bicycle fraternity. I welcome discussing my letter with you or your subordinate. Yours sincerely
Philip Johnston Annexure A The Civil Liability & Personal Responsibility Act (NSW) 2002 No 92, in particular Division 5, obligates an person who invites members of the public to join a bunch ride to warn participants of risks, in particular Blackspots (dangerous intersections, drainage grids, poor cambers where it is difficult to hold the road, more so when wet, etc.) which have evidenced a high incidence of cyclists’ trauma accidents, and the need to hold public liability insurance in case another bunch ride participant litigates another participant or the bunch ride organisers for negligence. The RTA brochure that you have invited me to distribute makes no reference for bunch ride organisers to be aware of their obligations under Division 5, which extends to bunch ride organisers vigilantly monitoring any dangerous habits and mentoring offender participants under their duty of care as an inviter. |
|
|
|