Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road? [Archive]

R650R

17th April 2014, 12:22

This was originally published in a British motoring magazine. It is posted here because there is information therein that could enhance the safety of us as motorcyclists.
[/url]

Not really relevant to NZ our roads are mostly wider. In the UK due to their style of housing, parked cars often block one side of many main streets and side lanes.
Even in a truck or car you have to take the commanding central position in centre of road approaching tight gap so other traffic knows whose going first etc. The rest of the time most cyclists/ cars and trucks keep a very tidy line to the far left other wise its goodbye wing mirror.
In NZ some cyclists ride in the middle of the road as they run high pressure race tyres unsuitable for road use that puncture easily. Their logic is that six months in intensive care ward at hospital is better than six mins changing a tube.
Most normal commuter cyclists and schoolkids etc keep left fairly well.

Was about to say that too. Do truck drivers have the same feeling about cars I wonder?

No, trucks are not as safe as car drivers think. It doesn't take much to lose your steer axle and maybe your brake system in head on crash. After that your in the front seat of a 44ton roller coaster that is taking random ride into roadside scenery like trees and cliffs etc. You never hear a news headling of car crosses centre line and kills truck driver as its too many words to explain properly to joe public but it happens.

Voltaire

17th April 2014, 12:46

R650R

17th April 2014, 12:59

Pedestrians ...whats all that about....:mad:

Might have to fish my election form out of the bin so I can vote Labour to keep friggin trucks in the left lane where they belong and have no rego on my trailer. Finally some policies :lol:

Good luck trying to enter the motorway at Takinini, drury, gillies, Newmarket etc... People don't realise how often courteous trucks move over approaching onramps to make space and conserve the momentum of everyone.
Then there's our screwed up spaghetti junction where you need to be in fast lane to exit hobson st, to go south from the north western etc...
There just about at capacity already and theres always a slow car in fast lane anyway, just more unworkable populist politics.

James Deuce

17th April 2014, 13:40

There just about at capacity already and theres always a slow car in fast lane anyway, just more unworkable populist politics.

Exactly and then you get the three lane motorways where lanes 1 and 2 are choked because some prostitute murdering Bulgarian truck driver decides that his speed governer gives him a 1km/h advantage over the truck in front and takes three days to overtake.

SMOKEU

17th April 2014, 13:58

In NZ some cyclists ride in the middle of the road as they run high pressure race tyres unsuitable for road use that puncture easily. Their logic is that six months in intensive care ward at hospital is better than six mins changing a tube.
Most normal commuter cyclists and schoolkids etc keep left fairly well.

Modern race tyres have a very good puncture belt inside them, so they're really light and have excellent puncture resistance. I know because I ride a modern road racing bike. The real issue is all the bumps on the side of the roads and stupid cagers opening their doors without looking.

But I'm no lycrafag so I don't hold up traffic any more than absolutely necessary.

swbarnett

17th April 2014, 14:01

Not really relevant to NZ
Bollocks. This describes exactly how I rode when I used to cycle commute. It's absolutely necessary for self preservation.

our roads are mostly wider.
While this may be true there are still plenty of roads that necessitate taking the 'primary position' on more than a few occasions.

Gremlin

17th April 2014, 14:06

Trucks coming from Aucklands NW motorway to southern becomes the fast lane. Some trucks stay in that lane past Greenlane etc. Sure, sometimes there is no room as all the cars are trying to pass it, but sometimes they're taking the piss.

Winner for me was yesterday. Passing through Wanganui from Paraparas to SH1, some winner in the feedthrough leaving Wanganui decides to STOP because there might be cars from the other way. If they'd maintained their speed, they would have come out in front.

Trucks overtaking each other is always a laugh... if you're in that mood... :oi-grr:

Mushu

17th April 2014, 14:57

That article is a load of bullshit, I rode a pushbike for years and very rarely had to hold up traffic in any way. I recognized that holding up traffic in any way is dangerous to me and would be inconsiderate to force traffic to move at my speed when can't get anywhere near the limit.

Why is it that kids almost never cause these traffic issues while adults are happy to put themselves and other road users in danger despite the fact that the adults should be expected to be smarter and kids often have no alternative for transport.

I find it interesting that the article states that the laws on the subject have been in place since before 1900 (ie. before cars were mass produced and long before they were capable of the speeds that today's cars travel at) perhaps it's time to update the rules, my suggestion for rule #1 would be that a bicycle must give way to any vehicle that can attain the posted speed for a given road.

imdying

17th April 2014, 15:12

I'm sure I've seen a very, very similar posting from a car driver when discussing motorcyclists...What of it? They are, of course, correct.

swbarnett

17th April 2014, 15:25

That article is a load of bullshit, I rode a pushbike for years and very rarely had to hold up traffic in any way.
What city did you ride in? I rode in Auckland in the '90s and found myself "holding up traffic" on numerous occasions. In particular while passing parked cars. I would ride out of the range of the doors after I saw a cyclist come off with a punctured lung from one. Also, there were a number of pinch points where the road was only just wide enough for the number of lanes provided. If I stayed to the left I would get passed within an inch. Slightest wobble on my part or misjudgement on theirs and I would've been history. "Holding up traffic" for a short time while you get past these pinch points doesn't even rate on the danger scale in comparison.

I recognized that holding up traffic in any way is dangerous to me
Parked car on the left, truck on the right and no room to avoid a car door swung in your face is not what I'd call safe.

and would be inconsiderate to force traffic to move at my speed when can't get anywhere near the limit.
I regularly hit 40kph on the flat so I don't think it's too much to ask the traffic to slow a bit for a short time. Afterall, it stops for lights, ped crossings etc.

Why is it that kids almost never cause these traffic issues while adults are happy to put themselves and other road users in danger despite the fact that the adults should be expected to be smarter and kids often have no alternative for transport.
Because kids have yet to be dragged out of the ignorance of their own mortality.

I find it interesting that the article states that the laws on the subject have been in place since before 1900 (ie. before cars were mass produced and long before they were capable of the speeds that today's cars travel at) perhaps it's time to update the rules, my suggestion for rule #1 would be that a bicycle must give way to any vehicle that can attain the posted speed for a given road.
And yet, as has already been pointed out, in all other modes of transportation the powered vehicle gives way to the unpowered one*.

The only exception I know of is that large ships have right of way over everything else in tight channels.

swbarnett

17th April 2014, 15:28

Gremlin

17th April 2014, 15:38

I think this thread highlights the root of all the problems we have on the road. There is a great unwillingness to just share the road. Remember, it wasn't put there for the exclusive use of any one individual or group of individuals.
Exactly why Kiwis as a group are such shit drivers. Everyone wants to be first, no-one wants to work together. When they finally wake up and realise, traffic will actually flow much better.

Interestingly, there has been a "Drive Social" campaign been going, TV ads and such. Sort of along the lines of working together.

James Deuce

17th April 2014, 15:53

Exactly why Kiwis as a group are such shit drivers. Everyone wants to be first, no-one wants to work together. When they finally wake up and realise, traffic will actually flow much better.

Interestingly, there has been a "Drive Social" campaign been going, TV ads and such. Sort of along the lines of working together.

Except motorcycles. They're anti-social. Run them over.

Mushu

17th April 2014, 16:04

What city did you ride in? I rode in Auckland in the '90s and found myself "holding up traffic" on numerous occasions. In particular while passing parked cars. I would ride out of the range of the doors after I saw a cyclist come off with a punctured lung from one. Also, there were a number of pinch points where the road was only just wide enough for the number of lanes provided. If I stayed to the left I would get passed within an inch. Slightest wobble on my part or misjudgement on theirs and I would've been history. "Holding up traffic" for a short time while you get past these pinch points doesn't even rate on the danger scale in comparison.

Christchurch and Sydney mostly. The trick is to avoid major thoroughfares when possible.

Parked car on the left, truck on the right and no room to avoid a car door swung in your face is not what I'd call safe.

Use the footpath if there is no safe alternative, don't care if it's illegal. Just make sure you slow to a speed that won't make you a danger to pedestrians

I regularly hit 40kph on the flat so I don't think it's too much to ask the traffic to slow a bit for a short time. Afterall, it stops for lights, ped crossings etc.

40km/h is fasterthan most cyclists travel at, when I used to use a bike for transport I would travel at about 30 on the flat and even that was faster than the average, there didn't seem to be as many lycra fags around those days though.
Lights, ped crossings etc are all placed where necessary and each one is a defined stop and continue but a bicycle (or bicycles) Can hold up a lot of traffic over quite a distance.

Because kids have yet to be dragged out of the ignorance of their own mortality.

The fact that kids are ignorant of their mortality would cause them to be more of a danger on the roads, I suspect it has more to do with the adults confidence that they know the road rules so they are willing to do things that are dangerous because they are ''in the right''

And yet, as has already been pointed out, in all other modes of transportation the powered vehicle gives way to the unpowered one*.

The only exception I know of is that large ships have right of way over everything else in tight channels.

Please define ''all other modes'' and why I should give a shit. My point is why should I take longer to get anywhere because you choose an inefficient mode of transport, more often than not those that cause problems are the lycra fags who ride bikes that cost more than my car and motorbike combined, so riding is not a necessity, it's a choice.

swbarnett

17th April 2014, 19:23

Interestingly, there has been a "Drive Social" campaign been going, TV ads and such. Sort of along the lines of working together.
The trouble is, like all campaigns of this nature, those that listen already know and those that need to be told won't listen.

Voltaire

17th April 2014, 19:51

This will happen when the roads are gridlocked. I lived in London for 5 years in the late 80's early 90's and road users there were much more courteous. I blame ACC and the " no fault", not having to have at least 3rd party insurance and Rugby.
Give it 10 years until you can hardly move on the city roads and it will be much better.

That 'Drive Social" makes me laugh, filmed on Highbrook drive, a 70kmph dual carriageway that the sheeple treat as a motorway.

swbarnett

17th April 2014, 20:08

Christchurch and Sydney mostly. The trick is to avoid major thoroughfares when possible.
I agree this is the best move but the problems I had were not just on major thoroughfares.

Use the footpath if there is no safe alternative, don't care if it's illegal. Just make sure you slow to a speed that won't make you a danger to pedestrians
Often there was no footpath on my commute. Not sure there is now on some of those roads.

I see what you're saying though. If the cyclist is slow enough to start with this can work. For those with bit of speed on it can be more dangerous transferring from road to footpath and vice versa.

40km/h is faster than most cyclists travel at, when I used to use a bike for transport I would travel at about 30 on the flat and even that was faster than the average, there didn't seem to be as many lycra fags around those days though.
Yeah, I was one of the early ones. I used to average 30kph from Mt. Albert to the Mangere bridge on my way home. No way I'd do that now.

Lights, ped crossings etc are all placed where necessary and each one is a defined stop and continue but a bicycle (or bicycles) Can hold up a lot of traffic over quite a distance.
Yes, I agree, if it's too long then it certainly gets into the territory of the inconsiderate. I have no problem with slowing for a cyclist for a short time.

The fact that kids are ignorant of their mortality would cause them to be more of a danger on the roads,
My theory is based on my belief that they're often in more danger on the side of the road than in traffic.

I suspect it has more to do with the adults confidence that they know the road rules so they are willing to do things that are dangerous because they are ''in the right''
You could well be right for most. For me it was definitely a case of self preservation.

Please define ''all other modes''
All sea travel except ships in channels. Also air travel IIRC.

and why I should give a shit.
By virtue of being slower they are less capable of avoiding a collision. Therefore the onus is on the faster vehicle to avoid the collision. Or at least that's how it works at sea.

Also, the differences between individuals is what stops life from getting suicidally boring. Respect for other road users right to use the road is all that's called for. I also object to cyclist that impede the flow of traffic more than is necessary. It's just a matter of understanding between operators of different modes of transportation.

My point is why should I take longer to get anywhere because you choose an inefficient mode of transport,
That would exclude all trucks from the roads then.

more often than not those that cause problems are the lycra fags who ride bikes that cost more than my car and motorbike combined, so riding is not a necessity, it's a choice.
So car drivers should be excluded as well. One person in all that space is pretty inefficient and if they rode a motorcycle they wouldn't hold you up.

Mushu

17th April 2014, 21:03

I agree this is the best move but the problems I had were not just on major thoroughfares.

Often there was no footpath on my commute. Not sure there is now on some of those roads.

I see what you're saying though. If the cyclist is slow enough to start with this can work. For those with bit of speed on it can be more dangerous transferring from road to footpath and vice versa.

So we need to slow down for them but they shouldn't need to slow down for their own self preservation? Seems a bit one sided to me. They impede the flow of traffic often, I've yet to see a lycra fag do anything to show some consideration for others on the road but it is not uncommon for kids to do things to get out of the way.

Yeah, I was one of the early ones. I used to average 30kph from Mt. Albert to the Mangere bridge on my way home. No way I'd do that now.

Yes, I agree, if it's too long then it certainly gets into the territory of the inconsiderate. I have no problem with slowing for a cyclist for a short time.

I don't have a problem waiting for somebody who has taken any steps avaliable to them to mitigate the danger they are to themselves and how much they affect traffic but there are plenty out there that decided they have the right to use the road so don't need to make allowances for anyone else.

My theory is based on my belief that they're often in more danger on the side of the road than in traffic.

You could well be right for most. For me it was definitely a case of self preservation.

I don't believe they are in more danger on the side of the road. Hitting a car door at even 40kmh would be painful but not likely to be life threatening, being hit from behind by an SUV doing 80 in a fifty zone while checking their radio is just as likely to happen and very likely a death sentence.

All sea travel except ships in channels. Also air travel IIRC.

By virtue of being slower they are less capable of avoiding a collision. Therefore the onus is on the faster vehicle to avoid the collision. Or at least that's how it works at sea.

I think you'll find just about anywhere that a smaller boat would be expected to avoid a larger one given the difficulty in stopping or changing direction for a large vessel. In air travel there is no consideration given to the size of an aircraft in who avoids who, direction dictates specific heights they can fly at and around airports they are all expected to travel the same direction and instructions are given by a third party (Air Traffic Control) to keep things safe. Stopping to give way has drastic consequences for airplanes.

Also, the differences between individuals is what stops life from getting suicidally boring. Respect for other road users right to use the road is all that's called for. I also object to cyclist that impede the flow of traffic more than is necessary. It's just a matter of understanding between operators of different modes of transportation.

That would exclude all trucks from the roads then.

So car drivers should be excluded as well. One person in all that space is pretty inefficient and if they rode a motorcycle they wouldn't hold you up.

By all means, get exercise, buy the $10000 bicycle or whatever you're in to but don't put me in a position where I have to take evasive action to save your life just because you think you're entitled.

Trucks have purpose (we literally could not have an economy without them) and so we must make allowances for them but they are still far more capable of doing speed limits than bicycles, using a bike to commute when you don't need to isn't too dissimilar to if I chose to drive a forklift or a tractor to and from work, technically legal, but I'd have to be a real prick to do it (And I'd at least have COF and Rego)

Mike.Gayner

17th April 2014, 21:46

That article is a load of bullshit, I rode a pushbike for years and very rarely had to hold up traffic in any way.

Things have changed since when you rode then, whenever that was.

edit: BTW on the flat I'm somewhere between 30kph and 40kph. If I'm holding up cars for a 300m section, you do the maths on how much time is actually being lost. If you're literally running 45 seconds late for work, then sorry mate, my bad.

swbarnett

17th April 2014, 22:09

Hitting a car door at even 40kmh would be painful but not likely to be life threatening,
I've seen this result in a very life-threatening injury.

drive a forklift or a tractor to and from work,
You obviously don't cycle in rural areas then. I pass quite a few tractors over time on my daily commute.

I'm not going to go further into this because we're both starting to split hairs.

It's becoming clear to me, as I've said before, that a lot of people on the road, no matter what they ride or drive, have a sense of entitlement about their chosen mode of transport. Why the hell can't we just respect each other's choices and stop nit picking about a few seconds here and there*. Time is precious, why waste it worrying about it?

*This is all I'm really talking about.

Ender EnZed

17th April 2014, 22:25

I don't believe they are in more danger on the side of the road. Hitting a car door at even 40kmh would be painful but not likely to be life threatening, being hit from behind by an SUV doing 80 in a fifty zone while checking their radio is just as likely to happen and very likely a death sentence.

It all comes down to stakes and odds.

The stakes are pretty high regardless of anything else when you're a soft, squishy thing out amongst a bunch of big, solid things. While not all bad outcomes are equal, no outcome that involves being hit by of the big, solid things is acceptable.

The odds of being hit are commonly perceived (correctly IMHO) to be acceptable when owning the lane. Sure, someone could run you over, but if you've been seen then very very few drivers are going to decide to deliberately do so.

The odds of being hit while being overtaken vary depending on a number of factors, mainly the space available. When they reach a level that an individual cyclist deems to be unacceptable then it's only rational to own the lane in preference.

Very few cyclists are killed while owning the lane. I don't have any numbers but I'd happily wager that it is a tiny fraction of those that die while a bigger vehicle fucks up their overtake.

Note: I haven't ridden a bicycle since ever and don't intend to anytime soon.

pritch

17th April 2014, 22:52

I find myself wondering about these kids you guys are mentioning. Out here on the rural rump the kids all go to school with mum in a Remuera tractor. Much safer of course, 'cause she can multi task, she can text and drive at the same time... Well, the kids might be safer but the rest of us aren't.

R650R

17th April 2014, 23:06

Things have changed since when you rode then, whenever that was.

edit: BTW on the flat I'm somewhere between 30kph and 40kph. If I'm holding up cars for a 300m section, you do the maths on how much time is actually being lost. If you're literally running 45 seconds late for work, then sorry mate, my bad.

That is exactly how cyclists hold cars and trucks up as it makes it harder to overtake. That's why we've got a politician trying to blank off the fast lane for trucks so cars can go a whole 5-10k faster.
It turns the urban speed limit into a defacto 30-40 zone. The problem is its not just one bike, its five to ten say over a journey to work. The time lost however small is exponentially increased by causing you to miss next traffic light phase etc.
Same as how the cops say a few km/h doesn't cost much time on a car/truck journey. People who travel often for work know the multiplier effect this has on your average speed.
Its why the bus driver is moving away as soon as he gives you your change. He should stay stopped until your seated, maybe even engage in 20-30secs of chit chat but no he doesn't as it all adds up to wreck the timetable.

Voltaire

18th April 2014, 07:20

That is exactly how cyclists hold cars and trucks up as it makes it harder to overtake. That's why we've got a politician trying to blank off the fast lane for trucks so cars can go a whole 5-10k faster.
It turns the urban speed limit into a defacto 30-40 zone. The problem is its not just one bike, its five to ten say over a journey to work. The time lost however small is exponentially increased by causing you to miss next traffic light phase etc.
Same as how the cops say a few km/h doesn't cost much time on a car/truck journey. People who travel often for work know the multiplier effect this has on your average speed.
Its why the bus driver is moving away as soon as he gives you your change. He should stay stopped until your seated, maybe even engage in 20-30secs of chit chat but no he doesn't as it all adds up to wreck the timetable.

I pass a few bikes on my commute to work, I slow down, give them a wide berth, not a problem, its not my personal road.
If slowing down a bit makes one late for work, leave a few minutes earlier.
As for trucks on motorways the Germans have the right idea.

haydes55

18th April 2014, 08:16

What city did you ride in? I rode in Auckland in the '90s and found myself "holding up traffic" on numerous occasions. In particular while passing parked cars. I would ride out of the range of the doors after I saw a cyclist come off with a punctured lung from one. Also, there were a number of pinch points where the road was only just wide enough for the number of lanes provided. If I stayed to the left I would get passed within an inch. Slightest wobble on my part or misjudgement on theirs and I would've been history. "Holding up traffic" for a short time while you get past these pinch points doesn't even rate on the danger scale in comparison.

Parked car on the left, truck on the right and no room to avoid a car door swung in your face is not what I'd call safe.

I regularly hit 40kph on the flat so I don't think it's too much to ask the traffic to slow a bit for a short time. Afterall, it stops for lights, ped crossings etc.

Because kids have yet to be dragged out of the ignorance of their own mortality.

And yet, as has already been pointed out, in all other modes of transportation the powered vehicle gives way to the unpowered one*.

The only exception I know of is that large ships have right of way over everything else in tight channels.
So, I have a question. When passing parked cars, whose doors may open into your path, why is a driver expected to give way for a cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane?

Yes the car driver is only held up a few seconds, but as said earlier, you aren't the only cyclist on the journey, and cumulatively slow the entire traffic flow.

Is it not possible that a cyclist should give way to vehicles going the speed limit, then overtake the parked car when the path is clear?

If the traffic is too thick that you wouldn't be able to ever find a gap, the traffic wouldn't be going fast enough for you to be holding up traffic.

If the cyclist gave way, it would only take a few seconds out of their journey (that's your saying right)

Mike.Gayner

18th April 2014, 08:30

That is exactly how cyclists hold cars and trucks up as it makes it harder to overtake. That's why we've got a politician trying to blank off the fast lane for trucks so cars can go a whole 5-10k faster.
It turns the urban speed limit into a defacto 30-40 zone. The problem is its not just one bike, its five to ten say over a journey to work. The time lost however small is exponentially increased by causing you to miss next traffic light phase etc.
Same as how the cops say a few km/h doesn't cost much time on a car/truck journey. People who travel often for work know the multiplier effect this has on your average speed.
Its why the bus driver is moving away as soon as he gives you your change. He should stay stopped until your seated, maybe even engage in 20-30secs of chit chat but no he doesn't as it all adds up to wreck the timetable.

The road isn't yours, you dont own it. You don't have a right to arrive at work in the time you feel is suitable.

Just share the road. Try to be a generous motorist. It's really not asking too much.

Mike.Gayner

18th April 2014, 08:31

So, I have a question. When passing parked cars, whose doors may open into your path, why is a driver expected to give way for a cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane?

The driver isn't expected to "give way" to a cyclist any more than they're expected to "give way" to another motorist in their lane. The cyclist has as much right to use the lane as anyone else.

TheDemonLord

18th April 2014, 09:01

I see a lot of reference about riding on the flat at 30-40 kph - but consider this:

Open road, uphill, 35 KPH corner - you are on your pedal bike, I am in a cage.

I am travelling at the posted speed limit round the corner - it is entirely possible that I will not see you until it is time to take evasive action in my car. - now if you are in the primary position - I have to move my cage about +- 1 Meter (assuming we are both in the middle of the lane, my car is 1.8 meters wide, plus 10 cm for some breathing room for you).

My options are go into the guard rail/hard shoulder/embankment or go into the other lane - which I may not have enough visibility to see if its clear.

Same scenario, but you are keeping left. I now only have to move my car about 10-20 cms to the which should allow me to stay (just) in my lane whilst avoiding you.

Sorry but I think the primary position is dangerous, I understand the reasoning that it only be taken to mitigate another danger, but the reality is - you are putting yourself entirely at the drivers mercy and if the driver makes an error, you have single handedly eliminated most of their options for avoiding an accident whilst also ensuring that if there is an accident - its probably going to be fatal.

And on a side but related not - if you can travel at 40 kph on the straight - why aren't you wearing protective clothing like motorcyclists?

Big Dog

18th April 2014, 09:04

You only need 20kmph contact with your head to be of significant risk to life or quality of life.
Sans helmet you would be lucky to have only a headache.

Even with a helmet your spine may not hold up to a contact to your head at 40.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike.Gayner

18th April 2014, 09:21

And on a side but related not - if you can travel at 40 kph on the straight - why aren't you wearing protective clothing like motorcyclists?

Because I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions about my own safety.

Kickaha

18th April 2014, 09:26

I am travelling at the posted speed limit round the corner - it is entirely possible that I will not see you until it is time to take evasive action in my car. - now if you are in the primary position - I have to move my cage about +- 1 Meter (assuming we are both in the middle of the lane, my car is 1.8 meters wide, plus 10 cm for some breathing room for you).

My options are go into the guard rail/hard shoulder/embankment or go into the other lane - which I may not have enough visibility to see if its clear.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/whole.html#DLM303083

5.9 Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

TheDemonLord

18th April 2014, 09:30

Because I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions about my own safety.

Physics doesn't care if you are an adult or not.

Neither do the hospital staff who are trying to patch you up.

Twentypercent

18th April 2014, 09:33

I don't believe they are in more danger on the side of the road. Hitting a car door at even 40kmh would be painful but not likely to be life threatening,

Are you serious? Painful?
I've tried it at less than 40...smashed 3 front teeth, fractured collar bone, destroyed bike.
But I should ride inside door range, so I don't inconvenience you?

If I'm travelling the same speed as the traffic, I'm going to dominate my lane, same as if I'm riding my motorbike. If I'm slower, I'll stay out of the way.

Live and let live. It's not that hard, eh?

TheDemonLord

18th April 2014, 09:34

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/whole.html#DLM303083

5.9 Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

If I slam on the anchors in a tight corner - I am liable to understeer directly into the side of the corner or the oncoming lane - neither of which is appealing to me. Plus there are many instances in NZ roads where following that rule is impossible (without driving dangerously slowly) due to the unique geography of NZ (and thus the unique geography of NZ roading)

TheDemonLord

18th April 2014, 09:39

Are you serious? Painful?
I've tried it at less than 40...smashed 3 front teeth, fractured collar bone, destroyed bike.
But I should ride inside door range, so I don't inconvenience you?

If I'm travelling the same speed as the traffic, I'm going to dominate my lane, same as if I'm riding my motorbike. If I'm slower, I'll stay out of the way.

Live and let live. It's not that hard, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_helmet#Full_face

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_personal_protective_equipment

Problem solved - again I put it to you - I wear my full protective equipment on my bike when I am just popping down to the shops at 50 kph just in case some other idiot does something idiotic...

Why don't Cyclists?

and before you start the arguement that there isn't appropriate safety gear for cyclists let us think on the following statements:

There hasn't been any invented, because there isn't any demand for it.

There isn't any demand for it, Because Cyclists don't think they need it.

haydes55

18th April 2014, 09:47

The driver isn't expected to "give way" to a cyclist any more than they're expected to "give way" to another motorist in their lane. The cyclist has as much right to use the lane as anyone else.

Yes that's true, but my point is, why can't a cyclist give way? I ride and drive in a manner that I don't want a single vehicle to be held up behind me, I travel at or above the speed limit 98% of the time. Regardless of what speed I'm doing, I always pull over to let the vehicle behind me past (if they caught up, they are faster than me).

It's common courtesy. Like shopping, you are in a line with a bottle of milk and a choc bar, the guy in front has a trolley full of shit. The courteous thing would be to let the guy with the milk and choc bar through first.

Deliberately slowing down other people when you don't have to is the dick move. Whether walking down a foot path, shopping or driving

Mike.Gayner

18th April 2014, 09:55

If I slam on the anchors in a tight corner - I am liable to understeer directly into the side of the corner or the oncoming lane - neither of which is appealing to me. Plus there are many instances in NZ roads where following that rule is impossible (without driving dangerously slowly) due to the unique geography of NZ (and thus the unique geography of NZ roading)

If you cant handle your car you should think about not driving on our roads.

TheDemonLord

18th April 2014, 10:24

If you cant handle your car you should think about not driving on our roads.

I am perfectly capable of handling a car, the reality of what you are suggesting however is creating an artificial hazard for any law abiding car driver.

And that assumes that the car driver is driving legally and as we know from experiance - Kiwi's are shit drivers with little more than a passing regard for road rules.

That combined with no safety protection makes riding a pedal bike in a manner where you have reduced other road users options and ability to avoid hitting you a dumb fuck idea. Also combine that fact that unlike a motorbike which has the option of accelerating away from a hazard, your safety is fully reliant on the car driver being both skillfull, vigilant and driving in a law abiding manner, this makes it a doubley dumb fuck idea.....

because remember, whether the cyclist hits the car, or the car hits the cyclist- it ain't gonna hurt the car....

R650R

18th April 2014, 11:00

The road isn't yours, you dont own it.

Just share the road. Try to be a generous. It's really not asking too much.

Funny but that's what car drivers ask of cyclists riding two abreast using public infrastructure for social chit chat.
I'm all for giving normal commuter cycles some room and patience but the issue people are pissed about is these boy racer ones with their chin on the tarmac who can't/wont look behind them to assist with letting traffic flow.
There has been a big shift in the number of cyclists using our roads, but they are still a very small percentage of road users even in the city. Your days are numbered though, with the aging population soon the elderly with mobility scooters will become the dominant political road user group with big money, they will probably paint cycle lanes purple and make them for mobility scooters only :)

Why don't Cyclists?

and before you start the arguement that there isn't appropriate safety gear for cyclists let us think on the following statements:

There hasn't been any invented, because there isn't any demand for it.

There isn't any demand for it, Because Cyclists don't think they need it.

There has been gear invented, just look at what downhill and enduro mountain bikers wear, there's even neck protectors and lightweight (compared to mc) full face helmets.
Its expensive and yes you will get more hot tired and sweaty wearing it. But whats better, trying to look cool or being safe.
The truth is the boy racer cycle community cares more about looks than staying safe and mitigating injuries.
Soon ACC will see the mounting bills and make regular commuters wear this stuff.

Seriously there needs to be a govt survey of cyclist speeds, they are reaching speeds obtainable by 50cc scooters who have to wear proper helmets.
Why should a car driver face a manslaughter charge because boy racer cyclists want to look cool instead of protecting themselves properly?

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 11:11

I see a lot of reference about riding on the flat at 30-40 kph - but consider this:...

Sorry but I think the primary position is dangerous,
If done in the way you describe then I agree. However, you must also consider that there is a legal onus on the driver to be able to stop in their clear visibility. If you hit a cyclist blocking your lane it's not the cyclist that is legally at fault. Also, if you are courteous and sit behind the cyclist waiting patiently then it's up to the cyclist to pull over ASAP and let you pass. After all, on the type of corner you describe there aren't likely to be many parked cars.

I understand the reasoning that it only be taken to mitigate another danger, but the reality is - you are putting yourself entirely at the drivers mercy and if the driver makes an error, you have single handedly eliminated most of their options for avoiding an accident whilst also ensuring that if there is an accident - its probably going to be fatal.
Have you ever cycled in traffic? If you haven't done it then it's going to be nigh on impossible to explain it to you. Just like trying to explain to a an anti-motorcycle car nut why we ride.

Essentially a car door opening is something that can't be predicted and can leave you with no time to react. And more than likely you'll end up in front of fast moving traffic if you can. If you've got traffic behind you already travelling at your speed you are a LOT safer.

And on a side but related not - if you can travel at 40 kph on the straight - why aren't you wearing protective clothing like motorcyclists?
Becuse if you wore that sort of gear at that speed on the flat you'd overheat and seriously increase the chances of an accident. I have passed out once while riding in hot summer weather. Thankfully I had just stopped so not a bad fall. Rode the rest of the way to work sans helmet with no problems.

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 11:14

You only need 20kmph contact with your head to be of significant risk to life or quality of life.
Sans helmet you would be lucky to have only a headache.
I know of one rider that flew over a car and landed square on his head sans helmet. Got up and walked away with no ill affects. He even got an MRI that showed no damage. I, myself, have been hit over the head with a large hardback physics textbook and didn't even know they'd done it (I was wondering what the noise was).

Transalper

18th April 2014, 11:25

... Regardless of what speed I'm doing, I always pull over to let the vehicle behind me past (if they caught up, they are faster than me)....
Same here wether on motorbike, in Van or car and when cycling I never ride two abreast and keep out of the way as much as I can.

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 11:25

I am perfectly capable of handling a car, the reality of what you are suggesting however is creating an artificial hazard for any law abiding car driver.
OK, what are you going to do if you find a pig in the same position? Complain that the pig doesn't respect your ownership of the road?

And that assumes that the car driver is driving legally
Of you can't stop in your visibility you're not driving legally.

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 11:31

Why should a car driver face a manslaughter charge because boy racer cyclists want to look cool instead of protecting themselves properly?
Because "safety" gear on a cyclist can be seriously counter productive.

This is like saying why should a guy be charged with rape if the girl dressed provocatively.

Or perhaps more relevant to this forum - why should a car driver face a manslaughter charge because the victim chose to ride a motorcycle instead of hiding in a protective cage?

gjm

18th April 2014, 12:05

I tried to read through tthe thread, but most of the posts appear to be missing the point. Protective clothing can be worn when riding a bicycle. It is a legal and enforced requirement to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. (I disagree with this, but that's a completely different matter and discussion.)

On a motorbike, it is a legal requirement to wear a helmet while riding. As far as I know, there is no legal requirement to wear anything else (within the bounds of decency!) There are many motorcyclists riding around in t-shirts and so on.

Whatever.

Why should a motorbike or car give way to a cyclist? Becasue steam gives way to sale - if the cyclist stops to allow someone to pass, how long does it take for him to get going again? If you slow to accommodate a cyclist, how long does it take you to accelerate back to your previous speed?
Equally, it is sensible and correct for a cyclist to give way to other traffic.

C'mon. Quit whinging. Live and let live... Ride or drive according to the prevalent traffic conditions, ride or drive considerately, and arguments like the one that has started here won't be necessary.

And let's not start on the 'cyclists don't pay to use the road' discussion either. Most cyclists will have a car or motorbike at home, paid up and legal for road use. They're actually paying and not using.

Shadowjack

18th April 2014, 12:35

And let's not start on the 'cyclists don't pay to use the road' discussion either. Most cyclists will have a car or motorbike at home, paid up and legal for road use. They're actually paying and not using.

To (legally) use my car and bike on the road, I have to pay various charges to the gummint - I don't have to pay to use my bicycle.
With the current road user legalities being centred around the vehicle, not the user, every time I use my bicycle on the road, I am freeloading on all the other paying road users, including myself.
Oh, the guilt...

SMOKEU

18th April 2014, 12:42

Please define ''all other modes'' and why I should give a shit. My point is why should I take longer to get anywhere because you choose an inefficient mode of transport, more often than not those that cause problems are the lycra fags who ride bikes that cost more than my car and motorbike combined, so riding is not a necessity, it's a choice.

Cycling is the most efficient way of transport, not the least. What is very inefficient is people driving a car with no passengers, causing wear on the roads, burning fossil fuels, causing pollution etc when there's no need to do any of that. The majority of able bodied people could cycle to get back and forth for their daily transport if they don't live too far from work, but people are just so fucking lazy that they refuse to do so. It's no wonder NZ is one of the fattest countries in the world with all the associated health problems that cost taxpayers money.

If more people cycled the roads will also be much less congested, so those who really do need a cage to get around won't be held up as much in traffic. It's a win win for everyone. For many people, cycling is a necessity rather than a choice since not everyone can afford to buy a car, and pay the associated running costs. I've saved many thousands of $ over the years by cycling, rather than driving a car. NZ is a car obsessed country, where people are too small minded to consider other options such as the European cycle networks, where a much larger percentage of people cycle to work every day in many large cities overseas.

And on a side but related not - if you can travel at 40 kph on the straight - why aren't you wearing protective clothing like motorcyclists?

Why don't Cyclists?

and before you start the arguement that there isn't appropriate safety gear for cyclists let us think on the following statements:

There hasn't been any invented, because there isn't any demand for it.

There isn't any demand for it, Because Cyclists don't think they need it.

That 40kmh speed is only in favourable conditions. If there's any headwind, or a road that doesn't have a really smooth surface then that speed is not attainable at all, even on a modern road bike. Wearing motorcycle type safety gear on a push bike is far too hot and heavy for cycling.

Big Dog

18th April 2014, 12:47

I know of one rider that flew over a car and landed square on his head sans helmet. Got up and walked away with no ill affects. He even got an MRI that showed no damage. I, myself, have been hit over the head with a large hardback physics textbook and didn't even know they'd done it (I was wondering what the noise was).

There is a vast array of variables. Saxon descendants have thicker craniums at the front. Due to style of warfare. For same reason Vikings are thicker on top and at the back. The cranium and it's contents are designed for operation at speeds achievable on foot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike.Gayner

18th April 2014, 13:49

I am perfectly capable of handling a car, the reality of what you are suggesting however is creating an artificial hazard for any law abiding car driver.

It's not an artificial hazard it's an actual hazard, which you need to be prepared to deal with.

Again, if you're incapable of handling your car maybe you shouldn't drive.

PrincessBandit

18th April 2014, 15:37

And here was me thinking they rode like that to give blind drivers (who can't see motorcyclists, high-viz vests and flouro lycra) maximum chance to get as many points for road skittles as possible. Guess I was wrong! :eek5:

caspernz

18th April 2014, 15:41

Trucks overtaking each other is always a laugh... if you're in that mood... :oi-grr:

Yep, exactly! It's always puzzled me why some of my fellow truckers can't see the sense in just staying left in the passing lane...if it takes you all the passing lane to get past the other trucker you're only gonna piss off all the cars that have been waiting behind you...all for a few clicks of extra road speed, tossers!!

SMOKEU

18th April 2014, 15:43

Yep, exactly! It's always puzzled me why some of my fellow truckers can't see the sense in just staying left in the passing lane...if it takes you all the passing lane to get past the other trucker you're only gonna piss off all the cars that have been waiting behind you...all for a few clicks of extra road speed, tossers!!

That's one of the reasons why I don't like driving cages usually, too fucking big and slow for easy overtaking on our narrow roads.

R650R

18th April 2014, 16:07

Cycling is the most efficient way of transport, not the least. What is very inefficient is people driving a car with no passengers, causing wear on the roads, burning fossil fuels, causing pollution etc when there's no need to do any of that. The majority of able bodied people could cycle to get back and forth for their daily transport if they don't live too far from work, but people are just so fucking lazy that they refuse to do so. It's no wonder NZ is one of the fattest countries in the world with all the associated health problems that cost taxpayers money.

If more people cycled the roads will also be much less congested, so those who really do need a cage to get around won't be held up as much in traffic. It's a win win for everyone. For many people, cycling is a necessity rather than a choice since not everyone can afford to buy a car, and pay the associated running costs. I've saved many thousands of $ over the years by cycling, rather than driving a car. NZ is a car obsessed country, where people are too small minded to consider other options such as the European cycle networks, where a much larger percentage of people cycle to work every day in many large cities overseas.

That 40kmh speed is only in favourable conditions. If there's any headwind, or a road that doesn't have a really smooth surface then that speed is not attainable at all, even on a modern road bike. Wearing motorcycle type safety gear on a push bike is far too hot and heavy for cycling.

There's a lot of false assumptions in that classic argument:
Pollution, that bike is made of steel or alloy then built in a factory and shipped across the world. It didn't happen with zero emmisions.
Cycling requires lot of carbs to be burned which means extra food consumption which means extra emmisions by food/agri industry.
The small amount of fuel saved is soon offset by the ambos and rescue helicopter taking you to hospital.
Motorbike gear is hot and heavy too but most of us accept the need to wear it.
The amount of people that would need to shift to bikes to improve congestion is massive, will never happen. Then look at chine, you'll just have cycle congestion instead lol
How many workplaces have either showers or allow you to turn up dirty and sweaty?

I cycle sometimes and did the regular commute thing when I was in UK on main roads but don't agree with the argument that its a clean green activity as there is so much associated things to consider.
I think cyclists must increase their cancer risk too as they are breathing deep into their lungs fine particulate and benzene emmisions from cars.

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 16:09

To (legally) use my car and bike on the road, I have to pay various charges to the gummint - I don't have to pay to use my bicycle.
With the current road user legalities being centred around the vehicle, not the user, every time I use my bicycle on the road, I am freeloading on all the other paying road users, including myself.
Oh, the guilt...
No you're not. You pay taxes don't you?

SMOKEU

18th April 2014, 16:34

There's a lot of false assumptions in that classic argument:
Pollution, that bike is made of steel or alloy then built in a factory and shipped across the world. It didn't happen with zero emmisions.
Cycling requires lot of carbs to be burned which means extra food consumption which means extra emmisions by food/agri industry.
The small amount of fuel saved is soon offset by the ambos and rescue helicopter taking you to hospital.
Motorbike gear is hot and heavy too but most of us accept the need to wear it.
The amount of people that would need to shift to bikes to improve congestion is massive, will never happen. Then look at chine, you'll just have cycle congestion instead lol
How many workplaces have either showers or allow you to turn up dirty and sweaty?

I cycle sometimes and did the regular commute thing when I was in UK on main roads but don't agree with the argument that its a clean green activity as there is so much associated things to consider.
I think cyclists must increase their cancer risk too as they are breathing deep into their lungs fine particulate and benzene emmisions from cars.

Yes, manufacturing a push bike and maintaining it does indeed create carbon emissions, but to a far less extent than to build a car. The pollution that is created by these ancient cars that make up the majority of the vehicle fleet in NZ is terrible, and even modern cars still put out a fuckload more pollution than a pushbike. Eating extra food for the energy required to cycle is true, but New Zealanders in general tend to be so disgustingly fat to begin with that most people need all the exercise they can get, and more.

If it weren't for stupid cagers crashing into cyclists, then cycling would be far safer than driving some badly maintained old wreck with no modern safety features with the driver having no concern for other road users. Road cycling crashes that don't involve other vehicles rarely end up in serious injury, or death, unlike crashing a car into a pole at 100kmh.

I don't usually need to shower straight after my commute, as I generally don't ride at a pace which makes me really sweaty, unless it's quite a hot day. If more people drove modern vehicles or cycled instead of driving these shitty old wrecks then there would be less pollution, meaning fewer health risks. However, the benefits of good exercise outweighs the risk of pollution, for most people any way. Cars are not a sealed box, so air still enters the cockpit, even that polluting outside air.

Since I've given up being a cager and started cycling, I'm much healthier and fitter than ever, and the huge sums of money I save go toward buying weed and spending it on the motorbike. Win win.

Mike.Gayner

18th April 2014, 16:53

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 16:58

Motorbike gear is hot and heavy too but most of us accept the need to wear it.
You're hardly doing heavy physical exercise on your motorbike. In case you hadn't noticed that's what the motor's for.

Also, not all of us are so married to it that we don't take some of it off in hot weather.

Then look at chine, you'll just have cycle congestion instead lol
Imagine what that would be like if most of those bicycles are replaced with cars.

Shadowjack

18th April 2014, 17:51

No you're not. You pay taxes don't you?
I have heard the "you pay other taxes" argument before and see it as a rather "so what" consideration in regard to this situation. My point remains that to use my motorised vehicles on the road, I have to pay a specific set of gummint charges that are not charged against me when I use the bicycle.

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 18:07

I have heard the "you pay other taxes" argument before and see it as a rather "so what" consideration in regard to this situation. My point remains that to use my motorised vehicles on the road, I have to pay a specific set of gummint charges that are not charged against me when I use the bicycle.
My point is only that one cannot say that the working cyclist has not contributed financially to the construction and maintenance of the roads. You are correct that they pay less but that's only fair because they cause far less wear and tear on the road than the average car or truck.

Mushu

18th April 2014, 19:29

So much bullshit I can't be bothered replying to each individual.

Riding into an opening car door isn't likely to be fatal, just because a couple of times it has resulted in injuries doesn't make it highly dangerous. Given the choice of riding into a door or being bowled from behind I know which one would give a better chance of survival.

And, smokeu, efficiency depends on what variables you are looking at. Time and effort make cycling quite inefficient. And just because I don't (and wouldn't) ride a bicycle doesn't make me fat. We as people are genetically wired to eat, the reason every first world country claims to be the fattest is because food is more avaliable than ever before in human history. It has more to do with how much they eat than with how they choose to commute.

It's not hard for a cyclist to give way to a car and would take less time than the reverse. They are slow, they are hazardous to other road users (in situations where the road is not equipped for them) and they are completely unregulated and anonymous. But the bigger problem is the groups of them that ride around on the weekend generally disrupting traffic and putting themselves and other road users in danger, ride your bike around the port Hills on any Saturday when there is good weather and you will see what I mean.

swbarnett

18th April 2014, 19:43

So much bullshit I can't be bothered replying to each individual.
Have you ever cycled? You'd most likely think differently if you had. Like so many fights between different groups of road users a little time is each other's shoes is desperately needed.

Riding into an opening car door isn't likely to be fatal,
OK, so what level of injury would you deem acceptable?

Given the choice of riding into a door or being bowled from behind I know which one would give a better chance of survival.
Depending on the speed of impact I might agree with you. Except for one point. If a cyclist swerves to avoid a car door they're likely to end up in the path of traffic anyway (this has resulted in at least one death in recent times). Much better for all concerned to get out there in a controlled manner.

But the bigger problem is the groups of them that ride around on the weekend generally disrupting traffic and putting themselves and other road users in danger,
This I agree with. Let's be clear though that the daily cycle commuter or the open road solo rider cannot be tarred with the same brush.

Mushu

18th April 2014, 20:16

Have you ever cycled? You'd most likely think differently if you had. Like so many fights between different groups of road users a little time is each other's shoes is desperately needed.

Yes I've cycled, everyday of my time at school and later when I lost my license or didn't own a car. As recently as a few years ago I was using a bike to get around but I never thought my legal right as a road user was an appropriate reason to put myself or any other road user in danger, or the right to hold anyone up.

OK, so what level of injury would you deem acceptable?

Given that most cyclist who decide to ''own their lane'' don't bother to check what's behind them in the first place and that while traveling past parked cars you can see if there is someone inside, the likelihood of hitting a car door is lower on average than that if being hit from behind so I would keep left and be vigilant rather than hold up traffic due to my own self importance.

Depending on the speed of impact I might agree with you. Except for one point. If a cyclist swerves to avoid a car door they're likely to end up in the path of traffic anyway (this has resulted in at least one death in recent times). Much better for all concerned to get out there in a controlled manner.

Given that an opening car door occurs on a stationary vehicle, the cyclist is responsible for the speed in which it could happen, you want us to slow down when it suits you, why can't you slow down if you suspect this may happen to you.

This I agree with. Let's be clear though that the daily cycle commuter or the open road solo rider cannot be tarred with the same brush.

Note that I have stated a few times that kids commuting to school don't seem to be a problem, even the groups of lycra fags aren't the root of the problem (they just compound it) it's the cyclists sense of entitlement that is the real problem and it only serves to put them in danger. Perhaps anyone with a drivers license should be banned from riding a push bike.

pritch

18th April 2014, 23:06

Given that an opening car door occurs on a stationary vehicle, the cyclist is responsible for the speed in which it could happen, you want us to slow down when it suits you, why can't you slow down if you suspect this may happen to you.

Note that I have stated a few times that kids commuting to school don't seem to be a problem, even the groups of lycra fags aren't the root of the problem (they just compound it) it's the cyclists sense of entitlement that is the real problem and it only serves to put them in danger. Perhaps anyone with a drivers license should be banned from riding a push bike.

I'm not sure that you have a sufficient grip on reality to be in control of a motor vehicle?

A driver opened a car door in front of a cyclist who was injured in the resulting crash. The Judge ordered that the driver pay $10,000 to the cyclist. He didn't do that because it was the cyclist at fault.

More recently in Auckland a driver opened a car door without looking, the cyclist swerved to miss the door and she was hit and killed by a truck.

I still think you're hallucinating about all these kids you keep mentioning.

Twentypercent

18th April 2014, 23:33

it's the cyclists sense of entitlement that is the real problem and it only serves to put them in danger.
Sooooo, do you ever lane split? How fast?

Ever go right to the front of the queue at the traffic lights?

Or maybe get a knee down on a public road? Or blow the lid off the speed limit?

Just saying...

Mushu

18th April 2014, 23:56

I'm not sure that you have a sufficient grip on reality to be in control of a motor vehicle?

A driver opened a car door in front of a cyclist who was injured in the resulting crash. The Judge ordered that the driver pay $10,000 to the cyclist. He didn't do that because it was the cyclist at fault.

More recently in Auckland a driver opened a car door without looking, the cyclist swerved to miss the door and she was hit and killed by a truck.

I still think you're hallucinating about all these kids you keep mentioning.

If it's worth 10k I'd happily ride into a car door, I've crashed plenty of pushbikes over the years, never been paid for it and often into things harder than car doors.

I never said people don't throw open car doors without looking but in that situation the hazard is in front of you and likely not fatal, on the other hand a car that doesn't see you is behind giving you far less of a chance to escape.

So what's your point.

As far as the kids, thousands of them ride to and from school every day, yet it always seems to be adults that get killed on bikes on the road.

Top three results of a Google search on the subject
37 years old (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9587216/Cyclist-killed-in-collision-named)
22 years old (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/transport/9894672/Nurse-killed-cycling-on-Lincoln-Rd)
50 years old (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9910186/Cyclist-dies-in-Palmerston-North-collision)
Kids do get knocked off their bikes just not nearly as often as adults.

Mushu

19th April 2014, 00:03

Sooooo, do you ever lane split? How fast?

Ever go right to the front of the queue at the traffic lights?

Or maybe get a knee down on a public road? Or blow the lid off the speed limit?

Just saying...

Nope, don't lane split I don't think the danger is acceptable for the rewards, unless traffic is at a complete standstill.

I do filter to the front in traffic but I keep the bike as slow as practical, been doing it for a long time and have yet to do much as scratch a mirror and never hold anyone up doing it.

Won't say I've never had my knee down on the road, but I can say I have never put anyone else in danger doing it.

I've got nothing against doing something dangerous but I don't put others at risk doing it or put others in a position where they could be seen as at fault for my risk taking behavior and I don't bitch about it if it goes wrong.

swbarnett

19th April 2014, 09:51

it's the cyclists sense of entitlement that is the real problem
And therein lies the crux of the matter. Cyclists aren't unique in this. You posts prove that.

swbarnett

19th April 2014, 09:55

Nope, don't lane split I don't think the danger is acceptable for the rewards
Well that explains a lot.

Mike.Gayner

19th April 2014, 10:29

it's the cyclists sense of entitlement that is the real problem and it only serves to put them in danger.

The irony is delicious.

Mushu

19th April 2014, 11:47

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Cyclists aren't unique in this. You posts prove that.

Why do my posts prove anything. As I have said no matter what form of transport I choose, I do whatever is necessary to make my way without impeding or endangering any one else. there are cyclists out there that do the same but unfortunately they seem to be the minority.

Actually there are things I think I should expect on the road such as being able to make my way without unnecessary delay (if one cyclist holds you up for 1 minute and it happens 20 times on the way to work....)

What if one of these lycra fags doesn't look behind before crossing my path and I hit him I would also likely be injured, my bike would be damaged and I could face charges relating to it, all because these pricks don't give a fuck about other road users or their own safety

Mushu

19th April 2014, 11:50

Well that explains a lot.

Doesn't really explain anything, road rage is the main reason I don't bother with lane splitting, and the fact I live in Christchurch means there isn't traffic ques long enough to make it worth while.

Shadowjack

19th April 2014, 11:56

Doesn't really explain anything, road rage is the main reason I don't bother with lane splitting, and the fact I live in Christchurch means there isn't traffic ques long enough to make it worth while.
I dunno about that - one time there were at least half a dozen cars in the queue I was in...

Mushu

19th April 2014, 12:05

I dunno about that - one time there were at least half a dozen cars in the queue I was in...

I just wait for them to stop at a light and then filter past. That way you only have to worry about if the front guy is pissed off that you'll get home before him.

Big Dog

19th April 2014, 13:02

If it's worth 10k I'd happily ride into a car door, I've crashed plenty of pushbikes over the years, never been paid for it and often into things harder than car doors.

I never said people don't throw open car doors without looking but in that situation the hazard is in front of you and likely not fatal, on the other hand a car that doesn't see you is behind giving you far less of a chance to escape.

So what's your point.

As far as the kids, thousands of them ride to and from school every day, yet it always seems to be adults that get killed on bikes on the road.

Top three results of a Google search on the subject
37 years old (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9587216/Cyclist-killed-in-collision-named)
22 years old (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/transport/9894672/Nurse-killed-cycling-on-Lincoln-Rd)
50 years old (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9910186/Cyclist-dies-in-Palmerston-North-collision)
Kids do get knocked off their bikes just not nearly as often as adults.

Or it is so common it's not news?
When I was at primary, 30 years ago, only those kids who would have had to cross a major 4 lane road or were travelling further than 10 kms did not travel by push bike or foot. School of 3-400 kids had about 100 bikes in foul weather, double that in good weather.

Injuries / fatalities were rare and usually poor judgement crossing a curb.

In recent years I can't remember the last time I saw a primary age student riding to school on the road. A few on the foot path. A fair amount with an adult on the footpath and a couple in groups with an adult at the front and another adult at the back.
Certainly not the 1/2 the schools population, with most of them travelling without an adult.

Some of this I put down to parents taking a more involved approach to getting kids to school in the wake of some kidnapped school kids, some of it I put at the feet of higher traffic volumes. The largest contributing factor in my experience, as a rider, parent and road user is the lack of consideration shown by a typical road user these days.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cynna

19th April 2014, 13:39

if you guys cant ride around a bicycle then keep your slippers on and stay off the roads cos motorcycles arent for you

R650R

19th April 2014, 15:30

That is so far beyond ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

Good. I was taking the piss a bit their but the point is these bikes don't just appear out of thin air. Just like wind turbines there is associated infrastructure and transport along with petroleum industry sourced components

My point is only that one cannot say that the working cyclist has not contributed financially to the construction and maintenance of the roads. You are correct that they pay less but that's only fair because they cause far less wear and tear on the road than the average car or truck.

But what about all the other vehicles braking and accelerating/changing course due to a cyclists presence.
Then there's all that green paint ($180 per m) on cycle lanes not to mention the construction of them.
As stated above there is an entire niche industry associated with cycling with consequent emmisions during manufacture. If they were so concerned about wear and tear on roads they should do the good thing and take the bus.
Cycling can be an enjoyable way to get about but this false holier than thou based on assumptions about emmisions is annoying.

Twentypercent

19th April 2014, 15:38

R650R

19th April 2014, 15:39

As far as the kids, thousands of them ride to and from school every day, yet it always seems to be adults that get killed on bikes on the road.

Kids do get knocked off their bikes just not nearly as often as adults.

And therin lies the answer to the whole issue, just look at the difference in behaviour of the two groups.

Kids aware of risks, still strong natural instinct of anything bigger than me will squash me. So makes self aware of surroundings.

Adults aware of risks also, but believes car drivers fear of prison or fines means they can leave the whole collision avoidance activity to the car driver.
Natural instinct of fear of bigger things overshadowed by belief that their expensive lycra will signal the predators (car drivers) that they can afford an expensive lawyer.

R650R

19th April 2014, 15:44

For those on here having a cry about being held up by cyclists, think yourselves lucky you don't live near a big congested city.
There are subtypes of cyclists that we don't have here in NZ. Like proper cycle couriers, for example. Unbelievably fit and strong, hyper-aggressive and short-tempered. Tooting your horn at them is a BIG mistake.
And I'd love to see your response to a Critical Mass demo!

Be dealt with the same way any other drug taking road rage nutbar would be, and they wouldn't be the first either, been there done that and got the t-shirt.

Critical mass aka unlawful mass protest action. Just wait till kiwi truckers get like their france counterparts and blockade all the roads. Bet you be jumping in your car to get to supermarket before shelves run dry...
I see Volkswagon sales are booming despite this incident, hasn't damaged the brand name at all...

http://youtu.be/UJDLyNNl1ek

swbarnett

19th April 2014, 16:39

As stated above there is an entire niche industry associated with cycling with consequent emmisions during manufacture.
It's still a hell of a lot greener than driving a car.

If they were so concerned about wear and tear on roads they should do the good thing and take the bus.
I saw something once that showed buses up as one of the most inefficient forms of transport due to the fact that most of the time they're travelling empty. Even if more people used them to commute this is only at certain times of the day.

Cycling can be an enjoyable way to get about but this false holier than thou based on assumptions about emmisions is annoying.
Assume for a moment one person per vehicle (this is not really an assumption because most car commuters don't car pool). Compare the emissions from digging the raw material out of the ground to the end of the bicycle's life and you'll find the car is far and away the larger polluter. Not only is there one hell of a lot more matter to a car the emissions of an internal combustion engine certainly overshadow those of a cyclist's physiological engine.

swbarnett

19th April 2014, 16:43

I see Volkswagon sales are booming despite this incident, hasn't damaged the brand name at all...
I hope they ripped this wanker to pieces. They deserve no less.

Twentypercent

19th April 2014, 17:51

Be dealt with the same way any other drug taking road rage nutbar would be, and they wouldn't be the first either, been there done that and got the t-shirt
Your t-shirt might come out a bit the worse for wear.

R650R

19th April 2014, 19:14

I hope they...

Cant remember the outcome. Yes certainly not a very sporting move by the VW chap...

I saw something once that showed buses up as one of the most inefficient forms of transport due to the fact that most of the time they're travelling empty. Even if more people used them to commute this is only at certain times of the day.

Sounds a lot like cycle lanes...

Your t-shirt might come out a bit the worse for wear. But only the T-shirt. I'll wear that to see some arrogant nutbar go to jail (pretty much a dead cert on roadrage charges, workmate 4x2'd a car driver...) along with returning some reasonable force under the circumstances of being subject to unprovoked attack by someone frothing at the mouth like their on P....
Really though using violence or implied threat of just because you got cut off/near miss is the height of stupidity. You can never judge a book by its cover and don't know how the other person will respond... and then there's the payback. Gangs are so widespread through this country that mr sixpack shaved chest lycra wearer might get randomly hit and runned the next day after yelling at the wrong persons granddaughter etc... 7/6 or 2 maybe degrees of separation and all...
Actually the sooner the cycling community weeds out the go-pro vigilantes the sooner the public will treat them with respect. There was never even a sniff of anti-cycling until the go-pro whiners club started moaning about day to day rough and tumble on the roads.