Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Did you see the Northbourne cyclist smash yesterday?

By johnboy 4 September 2012 38

screenshot map

ACT Policing is seeking witnesses to a collision in Dickson this morning (Monday, September 3).

Around 8.40am, a cyclist and a blue Mazda 2 sedan collided at the intersection of Morphett Street and Northbourne Avenue.

The male cyclist was taken to The Canberra Hospital for treatment of minor injuries sustained during the collision.

Any witnesses to the collision who have not yet spoken to police are urged to contact ACT Policing Operations on 131-444, or alternatively Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000, or via the website www.act.crimestoppers.com.au. Information can be provided confidentially.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


View Larger Map

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
38 Responses to
Did you see the Northbourne cyclist smash yesterday?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
NellyBean 9:03 am 20 Feb 13

There was another one in the exact same place this morning, from where the sun was sitting I’d gather the driver didn’t see the cyclist at all.

Brandi 1:05 pm 04 Nov 12

Martlark said :

The design of the intersection encourages/allows drivers heading north to cross across the south lane at 60km/h without the need to slow down. There would be less hazard if the slip lane style intersection was made tighter and harder to take at speed.

Agreed – this sort of crossing dates from the Palaeolithic era of ACT roadworks. Northbourne is now an arterial route for cycling traffic and should be redesigned accordingly.

Genie 12:47 am 04 Nov 12

Not sure about this weeks cyclist but the rider in the OP is all healed and only had minor injuries.

Pretty sure he’s still waiting for the police to hand down who was at fault so he can get his bike and gear replaced that was damaged through the drivers insurance.

Deref 11:47 am 03 Nov 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Ummm it’s actually quite simple to be perfectly responsible with no mistakes.

This reminds of the Monty Python sketch “How to cure the world of all known diseases”.

First, become a famous doctor, then tell everyone how to get it right so that no-one will ever get it wrong again.

KB1971 10:50 am 03 Nov 12

nhand42 said :

KB1971 said :

\
Cool, so I can tell my mate who drives a B-Double that he does not have to share the road?

You’re being flippant, but a strong case can be made that B-doubles should NOT be on the same roads as cars and light trucks.

1) B-doubles cause far more damage to roads than light-vehicles, which is a huge maintenance expense for local government.

2) Collisions between B-doubles and light-vehicles are more likely to result in a fatality, even at relatively low speeds.

3) Many residential roads were not designed for B-doubles (some of them weren’t even designed for cars). This means traffic disruption, congestion, etc.

It would make sense to have separate roads for B-doubles. Or at the very least, prohibit B-doubles from residential streets and from other streets during peak hours. The only thing stopping that from happening is the perceived cost.

Long-distance trucking is abnormally high in Australia because of under-investment in safer, more efficient alternatives. But as a result our taxes are higher to subsidise the roads, police, regulations, and the families affected by heavy-trucking. So we’re still paying for it. It just appears somewhere else in the national budget.

There’s nothing silly about suggesting that vehicles of completely different sizes use completely different roads. And where they must intersect (e.g. where a bike path intersects with a car’s road) that the *smaller* vehicle is responsible for stopping, looking both ways, and crossing safely.

But in our current scenario we have B-doubles, cars, and bicycles all sharing a single road, and in various situations the lightest vehicle (the bicycle) has the right of way. That’s crazy!

And it’s mostly because of money. And the perceived savings of using a single road for everything.

My flippant response was in response to you telling CoGN that his was a silly comment.

I mainly see near misses on the roads due to peoples arrogance/ignorance. They see a cyclist & think “bugger them, they need to get out of my way”. I get it all the time on the bike (out of the 30km commute I only use local roads, Alexandrina Parade & Commonwealth Ave), I get tooted, abused & cut of just for being there. If people just took a chill pill then the occurrences would be less.

I agree with you on the bulk freight thing, it should be handled by rail on the major links between the big cities but that is another argument for another day.

The reason the law is scewed towards more vulnerable road users because they are just that, more vulnerable. The laws are there to get people share the roads but for some reason a number of drivers don’t get it (& I am not exonerating cyclists who do the wrong thing either).

nhand42 10:06 am 03 Nov 12

KB1971 said :

\
Cool, so I can tell my mate who drives a B-Double that he does not have to share the road?

You’re being flippant, but a strong case can be made that B-doubles should NOT be on the same roads as cars and light trucks.

1) B-doubles cause far more damage to roads than light-vehicles, which is a huge maintenance expense for local government.

2) Collisions between B-doubles and light-vehicles are more likely to result in a fatality, even at relatively low speeds.

3) Many residential roads were not designed for B-doubles (some of them weren’t even designed for cars). This means traffic disruption, congestion, etc.

It would make sense to have separate roads for B-doubles. Or at the very least, prohibit B-doubles from residential streets and from other streets during peak hours. The only thing stopping that from happening is the perceived cost.

Long-distance trucking is abnormally high in Australia because of under-investment in safer, more efficient alternatives. But as a result our taxes are higher to subsidise the roads, police, regulations, and the families affected by heavy-trucking. So we’re still paying for it. It just appears somewhere else in the national budget.

There’s nothing silly about suggesting that vehicles of completely different sizes use completely different roads. And where they must intersect (e.g. where a bike path intersects with a car’s road) that the *smaller* vehicle is responsible for stopping, looking both ways, and crossing safely.

But in our current scenario we have B-doubles, cars, and bicycles all sharing a single road, and in various situations the lightest vehicle (the bicycle) has the right of way. That’s crazy!

And it’s mostly because of money. And the perceived savings of using a single road for everything.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 8:19 am 03 Nov 12

I find t disturbing that some people seem to think its ok not to give 100% concentration on roads.
Bicycles, motor cycles and pedestrians are all on or near or cross roads at some point. If you hit one of them because of *a lapse in concentration* how would you feel?
Everyone on the road needs to be constantly aware of there surroundings, including: cars, bikes, motor cycles and pedestrians.

It really is that simple.

Chello 12:23 am 03 Nov 12

Chello said :

Jethro said :

caf said :

rhino said :

Aeek said :

rhino said :

I guess this is why cars and bikes should be kept separate.

This is a great of example of how it wouldn’t help. That car would still be turning across across a cycle path in the centre strip, made worse by now having cyclists coming from both directions.

So don’t put a cycle path along the road?

What shall we do then? Raise it in the air on a giant system of cyclepath flyovers?

That’d be nice, but it sure would cost a bomb.

Well, they could spend a fortune doing that or cyclists could take an extra few minutes on their journey and ride along the bike paths running through the inner north suburbs instead of along Northbourne itself (I’m fairly sure there’s a cycle path passing under Northbourne right near Morphett St)… as someone else mentioned, collisions on the road occur; if it happens to be a collision between a car and bike, the cyclist has a pretty good chance of being seriously injured or killed.

I cycle to work every day and choose to add a few minutes to my commute time because I’d rather come home to my wife and kids at the end of the day than get to work 5 minutes earlier.

Plus the bike paths are smooth bitumen, whereas most roads in Canberra these days are that awful chip-seal, which is an absolute bastard to ride on.

Good to see a cyclist with sense.

That is because he see’s the danger for bike riders and acknowledges the fact that we we have great cycle paths!

Chello 12:21 am 03 Nov 12

Jethro said :

caf said :

rhino said :

Aeek said :

rhino said :

I guess this is why cars and bikes should be kept separate.

This is a great of example of how it wouldn’t help. That car would still be turning across across a cycle path in the centre strip, made worse by now having cyclists coming from both directions.

So don’t put a cycle path along the road?

What shall we do then? Raise it in the air on a giant system of cyclepath flyovers?

That’d be nice, but it sure would cost a bomb.

Well, they could spend a fortune doing that or cyclists could take an extra few minutes on their journey and ride along the bike paths running through the inner north suburbs instead of along Northbourne itself (I’m fairly sure there’s a cycle path passing under Northbourne right near Morphett St)… as someone else mentioned, collisions on the road occur; if it happens to be a collision between a car and bike, the cyclist has a pretty good chance of being seriously injured or killed.

I cycle to work every day and choose to add a few minutes to my commute time because I’d rather come home to my wife and kids at the end of the day than get to work 5 minutes earlier.

Plus the bike paths are smooth bitumen, whereas most roads in Canberra these days are that awful chip-seal, which is an absolute bastard to ride on.

Good to see a cyclist with sense.

KB1971 10:51 pm 02 Nov 12

nhand42 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yep. How hard is it to just share the roads and everyone open there eyes?

That’s a silly comment. It’s easy to share the roads. But it’s also easy to make a mistake, or have a lapse in concentration, or simply be overwhelmed by lots of things going on at once.

In engineering we aim for “fail safe” designs. In other words even if the intention is that it never fails, when it inevitably does the failure doesn’t result in death or injury.

The current sharing of roads between cyclists and cars is the *opposite* of fail-safe. It requires every person to act perfectly responsible with no mistakes at all times, with very serious consequences for cyclists when the inevitable failure occurs. No amount of lycra and polystyrene hat-wear will save the poor cyclist from a 2-tonne car.

Notice that car-vs-car accidents are less serious simply because modern cars are designed for fail-safe operation (e.g. seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc).

But in the absence of clever engineering, I reckon natural selection will eventually weed the suicidal cyclists off the road.

Cool, so I can tell my mate who drives a B-Double that he does not have to share the road?

Aeek 10:35 pm 02 Nov 12

Innovation said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

nhand42 said :

But in the absence of clever engineering, I reckon natural selection will eventually weed the suicidal cyclists off the road.

Ummm it’s actually quite simple to be perfectly responsible with no mistakes.

If you are not a troll I think your friends have now got an option for your epitaph……. whenever or however you depart……

Maybe just reacting to the Selection quip, something I am getting heartily sick of. The rest was quite reasonable, but poisoned by the finish.

Yes, cyclists are more vulnerable but so are pedestrians, which most drivers turn into in shared spaces like car parks, and crossing the road to/from their car.

Selection has worked so well for CRK hasn’t it ?

Jethro 9:02 pm 02 Nov 12

caf said :

rhino said :

Aeek said :

rhino said :

I guess this is why cars and bikes should be kept separate.

This is a great of example of how it wouldn’t help. That car would still be turning across across a cycle path in the centre strip, made worse by now having cyclists coming from both directions.

So don’t put a cycle path along the road?

What shall we do then? Raise it in the air on a giant system of cyclepath flyovers?

That’d be nice, but it sure would cost a bomb.

Well, they could spend a fortune doing that or cyclists could take an extra few minutes on their journey and ride along the bike paths running through the inner north suburbs instead of along Northbourne itself (I’m fairly sure there’s a cycle path passing under Northbourne right near Morphett St)… as someone else mentioned, collisions on the road occur; if it happens to be a collision between a car and bike, the cyclist has a pretty good chance of being seriously injured or killed.

I cycle to work every day and choose to add a few minutes to my commute time because I’d rather come home to my wife and kids at the end of the day than get to work 5 minutes earlier.

Plus the bike paths are smooth bitumen, whereas most roads in Canberra these days are that awful chip-seal, which is an absolute bastard to ride on.

Innovation 7:33 pm 02 Nov 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

nhand42 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yep. How hard is it to just share the roads and everyone open there eyes?

That’s a silly comment. It’s easy to share the roads. But it’s also easy to make a mistake, or have a lapse in concentration, or simply be overwhelmed by lots of things going on at once.

In engineering we aim for “fail safe” designs. In other words even if the intention is that it never fails, when it inevitably does the failure doesn’t result in death or injury.

The current sharing of roads between cyclists and cars is the *opposite* of fail-safe. It requires every person to act perfectly responsible with no mistakes at all times, with very serious consequences for cyclists when the inevitable failure occurs. No amount of lycra and polystyrene hat-wear will save the poor cyclist from a 2-tonne car.

Notice that car-vs-car accidents are less serious simply because modern cars are designed for fail-safe operation (e.g. seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc).

But in the absence of clever engineering, I reckon natural selection will eventually weed the suicidal cyclists off the road.

Ummm it’s actually quite simple to be perfectly responsible with no mistakes.

If you are not a troll I think your friends have now got an option for your epitaph……. whenever or however you depart……

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:53 pm 02 Nov 12

nhand42 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yep. How hard is it to just share the roads and everyone open there eyes?

That’s a silly comment. It’s easy to share the roads. But it’s also easy to make a mistake, or have a lapse in concentration, or simply be overwhelmed by lots of things going on at once.

In engineering we aim for “fail safe” designs. In other words even if the intention is that it never fails, when it inevitably does the failure doesn’t result in death or injury.

The current sharing of roads between cyclists and cars is the *opposite* of fail-safe. It requires every person to act perfectly responsible with no mistakes at all times, with very serious consequences for cyclists when the inevitable failure occurs. No amount of lycra and polystyrene hat-wear will save the poor cyclist from a 2-tonne car.

Notice that car-vs-car accidents are less serious simply because modern cars are designed for fail-safe operation (e.g. seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc).

But in the absence of clever engineering, I reckon natural selection will eventually weed the suicidal cyclists off the road.

Ummm it’s actually quite simple to be perfectly responsible with no mistakes.

mezza76 5:01 pm 02 Nov 12

nhand42 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yep. How hard is it to just share the roads and everyone open there eyes?

That’s a silly comment. It’s easy to share the roads. But it’s also easy to make a mistake, or have a lapse in concentration, or simply be overwhelmed by lots of things going on at once.

In engineering we aim for “fail safe” designs. In other words even if the intention is that it never fails, when it inevitably does the failure doesn’t result in death or injury.

The current sharing of roads between cyclists and cars is the *opposite* of fail-safe. It requires every person to act perfectly responsible with no mistakes at all times, with very serious consequences for cyclists when the inevitable failure occurs. No amount of lycra and polystyrene hat-wear will save the poor cyclist from a 2-tonne car.

Notice that car-vs-car accidents are less serious simply because modern cars are designed for fail-safe operation (e.g. seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc).

But in the absence of clever engineering, I reckon natural selection will eventually weed the suicidal cyclists off the road.

I think the issue here is that the design of the slip road across Northbourne makes it pretty difficult to spot oncoming cyclists (which in peak hour is plenty). Im not sure there is much fault per se – getting cyclists off the road wont help this situation as they have to cross the road and the traffic cutting across Northbourne is wiping them out. Pedestrians are in a similar boat.

Until something gets done about it, it would be a good idea that everyone around that area took more care and attention. People are getting crunched everyday on this road.

PrinceOfAles 4:52 pm 02 Nov 12

caf said :

rhino said :

Aeek said :

rhino said :

I guess this is why cars and bikes should be kept separate.

This is a great of example of how it wouldn’t help. That car would still be turning across across a cycle path in the centre strip, made worse by now having cyclists coming from both directions.

So don’t put a cycle path along the road?

What shall we do then? Raise it in the air on a giant system of cyclepath flyovers?

That’d be nice, but it sure would cost a bomb.

That`s actually a great idea. I wouldn`t even care if my rates were tripled to help pay for it.

caf 4:42 pm 02 Nov 12

rhino said :

Aeek said :

rhino said :

I guess this is why cars and bikes should be kept separate.

This is a great of example of how it wouldn’t help. That car would still be turning across across a cycle path in the centre strip, made worse by now having cyclists coming from both directions.

So don’t put a cycle path along the road?

What shall we do then? Raise it in the air on a giant system of cyclepath flyovers?

That’d be nice, but it sure would cost a bomb.

nhand42 4:33 pm 02 Nov 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yep. How hard is it to just share the roads and everyone open there eyes?

That’s a silly comment. It’s easy to share the roads. But it’s also easy to make a mistake, or have a lapse in concentration, or simply be overwhelmed by lots of things going on at once.

In engineering we aim for “fail safe” designs. In other words even if the intention is that it never fails, when it inevitably does the failure doesn’t result in death or injury.

The current sharing of roads between cyclists and cars is the *opposite* of fail-safe. It requires every person to act perfectly responsible with no mistakes at all times, with very serious consequences for cyclists when the inevitable failure occurs. No amount of lycra and polystyrene hat-wear will save the poor cyclist from a 2-tonne car.

Notice that car-vs-car accidents are less serious simply because modern cars are designed for fail-safe operation (e.g. seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc).

But in the absence of clever engineering, I reckon natural selection will eventually weed the suicidal cyclists off the road.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site