Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists [Archive]

Waihou Thumper

16th January 2015, 13:33

They should have ridden in single file on the far left of the lane then there would be no issues at all about the necessity to pull in or not now would there. I do ride a push bike too and would never put the abilty of being able to chat to my mates above my safety which is what they are doing riding like that. I agree the driver was too focussed on the cyclists during the overtake and did risk a head on by doing that. Its perhaps no different to looking in the window of cars while passing which some motorcyclists appear to like doing.

Have you read my post at all? Geez....

:Oi:I have road ridden for years and I feel the cyclists were a tad ignorant.
They would have known cars were behind them? and common courtesy would have been to fall into single file..
Tail end charlie would have or should have stated 'car back' http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/smilies/facepalm.gif
That is what we used to do and back in the day there was a regular Tuesday bunch, and a huge Sunday bunch ride from Royal Oak south...

The driver worked himself up for nothing....They would have been going at a good clip 30-32 kph and it wouldn't have been prudent to overtake anywhere until the road was clear.
Even then he fucked it up and was so wound up he didn't think of oncoming traffic...

I did notice the nice Crucifix on the mirror though....
Perhaps he should have waved that at them and exorcised his right to be on the road...
Bit of a tosser and loved his own voice for sure!

bluninja

16th January 2015, 13:42

Its perhaps no different to looking in the window of cars while passing which some motorcyclists appear to like doing.

It's very different to looking at car windows as you pass...that's the only way to see your side view reflection out of town.:laugh:

TheDemonLord

16th January 2015, 13:53

Yeh, lets face it, this is one of those polarising instances where you just see who thinks cyclist should be allowed on the road, and who doesn't.

Any lane user who is slower than other traffic should rely on their own judgement to protect themselves and those who wish to pass. You move over when there is a safe place for others to pass, otherwise you own your lane properly to ensure those behind don't halfarse a passing job.

I do this when riding bikes, scoots, and pedlys, as well as when driving vans, tractors, and towing trailers. It is just good roadcraft.

I can't agree with this - not only is this not what is mandated in the legislation but it also forces the faster vehicles to be responsible for the safety of the slower vehicle (from the faster vehicle, a slow vehicle in the middle of the lane is a hazzard - not so bad when the slow vehicle is a tractor that wouldn't notice a rear end from mr stupid, but very bad news when its a cyclist)

Also there is anecdotal evidence that owning the lane tends to result in more aggressive and dangerous overtaking (mainly from people who similar to me think cyclists should keep left at all times and have no right to claim the lane) - of course it shouldn't, but it does appear to be par for the course.

I will state this though - I feel that the road rules do need a re-write to factor in the differences between cars, Motorbikes and Cyclists

Swoop

16th January 2015, 14:20

It's very different to looking at car windows as you pass...that's the only way to see your side view reflection out of town.:laugh:
Miss Cassina likes windows.
Especially those which she is licking.

nodrog

16th January 2015, 14:29

do you whingers rant like this fuckwit when you get stuck behind a car going around hills at less then 100km

I don't understand. How do you get stuck behind a car on a motorcycle?

cynna

16th January 2015, 14:33

I don't understand. How do you get stuck behind a car on a motorcycle?

exactly - just like its not that hard to pass cyclists in a car. you may get held up briefly but its not the end of the world

bet they guy in the video was so mad when he got home that he wouldnt drink the cup of tea his mum made him

5150

16th January 2015, 14:57

Die Motherfuckers !!!:devil2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdDxjge5hmY

Blackbird

16th January 2015, 15:18

I have road ridden for years and I feel the cyclists were a tad ignorant.
They would have known cars were behind them? and common courtesy would have been to fall into single file..
Tail end charlie would have or should have stated 'car back' :facepalm:
That is what we used to do and back in the day there was a regular Tuesday bunch, and a huge Sunday bunch ride from Royal Oak south...

The driver worked himself up for nothing....They would have been going at a good clip 30-32 kph and it wouldn't have been prudent to overtake anywhere until the road was clear.
Even then he fucked it up and was so wound up he didn't think of oncoming traffic...

I did notice the nice Crucifix on the mirror though....
Perhaps he should have waved that at them and exorcised his right to be on the road...
Bit of a tosser and loved his own voice for sure!

That's pretty much nailed it :niceone: I was in the car going from Coromandel to Thames on the day of the last K2 cycle event and very few bunches of riders showed any courtesy to other road users. Consequently, there were big tail backs of cars and trucks but most drivers just chilled and were philosophical about it. Only saw one example of a dumb overtake. Most cyclists are also car drivers and you'd think they'd understand but consideration to other road users often seems to fly out the window when they're in a bunch. I still ride a pushbike on the road as an attempt to stay vaguely fit so hope I'm not totally one-eyed :laugh:

Waihou Thumper

16th January 2015, 15:34

That's pretty much nailed it :niceone:

Thanks for that....I wonder if anyone actually really reads posts other than the previous comment?

oldrider

16th January 2015, 15:34

No wonder it is sooooo easy to start wars between humans! :facepalm:

carbonhed

16th January 2015, 15:40

Die Motherfuckers !!!:devil2:

Classic.

Cycling is good for your health... cough splutter choke.

Trade_nancy

16th January 2015, 15:47

If there had've been a farm tractor and trailer,or a milk tanker having driven back out onto the road, this idiot would have still been in the same frame of mind.

Correct-a-mundo....excellent point. The anger stems from the viewpoint he has that the cyclist has no right to priority over him...wheras a big truck or tractor would be viewed as an alien but superior being. He acted like an impatient wanker.

PrincessBandit

16th January 2015, 16:02

Die Motherfuckers !!!:devil2:

You must spread...
That was some pretty toxic crop spray! Looked like he did a good job of getting most of them, but I noticed a couple of crafty ones eluded the immediate gas trail. I can see it all in his mind now "a-ha another one...brmmmm... got ya, ya little [fill in choice of description]"

bogan

16th January 2015, 16:26

I can't agree with this - not only is this not what is mandated in the legislation but it also forces the faster vehicles to be responsible for the safety of the slower vehicle (from the faster vehicle, a slow vehicle in the middle of the lane is a hazzard - not so bad when the slow vehicle is a tractor that wouldn't notice a rear end from mr stupid, but very bad news when its a cyclist)

Also there is anecdotal evidence that owning the lane tends to result in more aggressive and dangerous overtaking (mainly from people who similar to me think cyclists should keep left at all times and have no right to claim the lane) - of course it shouldn't, but it does appear to be par for the course.

I will state this though - I feel that the road rules do need a re-write to factor in the differences between cars, Motorbikes and Cyclists

Just what is mandated in legislation though?

Faster vehicles are responsible for avoiding rear ending slower vehicles, or anything else that might be present within their lane. How often is a rear end the fault of the guy in front?

I find the opposite, give a car enough room to overtake in the same lane and they'll have a go, don't give em that room and they will use the oncoming lane to do a proper overtake (complete with checking for oncoming traffic). In that vid, would you think it would have been safe for him to pass within the lane if they had been keeping to the left? it looked like a fairly narrow rural road to me is all.

TheDemonLord

16th January 2015, 17:40

Just what is mandated in legislation though?

Faster vehicles are responsible for avoiding rear ending slower vehicles, or anything else that might be present within their lane. How often is a rear end the fault of the guy in front?

I find the opposite, give a car enough room to overtake in the same lane and they'll have a go, don't give em that room and they will use the oncoming lane to do a proper overtake (complete with checking for oncoming traffic). In that vid, would you think it would have been safe for him to pass within the lane if they had been keeping to the left? it looked like a fairly narrow rural road to me is all.

Glad you asked the first question:

it is this:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303041.html

I should have clarified my use of the term faster - I agree about the rear ending - but the above section of legislation does stipulate that if you are holding up traffic (cause you are a slow cunt) then its your responsibility to keep left and let non-slow cunts passed.

Admitedly I haven't watched the video - I was more responding to your claim about owning the lane (which I disagree with)

caseye

16th January 2015, 17:50

Bogan is right, even on a bike, you show the slightest hint of giving them more lane and they WILL overtake you in lane, and lately I've had them try it on the left while doing their level best to scare my wife off her bike. They soon learn not to do that shit if I see them.
In recent years and without fail, most bike riders in groups have become road hogging monsters and these days expect that cars will trundle along behind them while they continue to chat and ride with their mates wherever they are and for as long as it takes for the car driver to either get so pissed off they do something stupid or finally a safe passing opportunity occurs.
I don't mind waiting a bit, but when as I most often do, I see them bunch up, spread out and shout to each other about car movements in order to block possible overtakes I get annoyed and wonder why they should have unrestricted access to the roads which every other sort of users pays for, and they don't.
The BS that they also drive and pay ACC is just that. We motorists are allowed multiple vehicles but each and everyone must be registered and warranted.
Why are they exempt.
As motorcyclists we are fragile when it comes to other vehicles, they are incredibly vulnerable and these days they! seem to wear that on their sleeves with a contemptuous sneer on their dials and dare other road users to hit them.
But for cleaning up the blood and guts I could be tempted lately.

Madness

16th January 2015, 17:53

I was more responding to your claim about owning the lane (which I disagree with)

Your inexperience is showing.

Woodman

16th January 2015, 17:56

do you whingers rant like this fuckwit when you get stuck behind a car going around hills at less then 100km

No I don't . Just relax in the knowledge that the time is sweet fuck all on the end of your journey.

Kiwis generally have a problem with slower traffic and tend to get wound up when they are held up by traffic legitimately allowed on the road Beeping the horn to signal to those cyclists to go to single file would have been taken the wrong way and resulted in abuse from the cyclists. Did a few miles in Thailand a few years back and if you were a faster vehicle coming up behind slower traffic you just beeped the horn and they moved aside no problems at alll.

Everyone just needs to relax.

bogan

16th January 2015, 17:57

Glad you asked the first question:

it is this:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303041.html

I should have clarified my use of the term faster - I agree about the rear ending - but the above section of legislation does stipulate that if you are holding up traffic (cause you are a slow cunt) then its your responsibility to keep left and let non-slow cunts passed.

Admitedly I haven't watched the video - I was more responding to your claim about owning the lane (which I disagree with)

"as near as practicable"

To me this suggests as near as is safe. As does the following passage about cyclists riding abreast.

"11.10Riding abreast
(1)A person must not ride a cycle or moped on a roadway so that it remains abreast and to the right of—
(a)2 other vehicles that are cycles or mopeds; or
(b)1 other cycle or moped while that cycle or moped is overtaking and passing another vehicle, including a parked vehicle; or
(c)any other vehicle having 3 or more road wheels (including a motorcycle fitted with a sidecar).
(2)Subclause (1) does not apply if cyclists are participating in a race that is subject to a traffic management plan agreed by the road controlling authority."

Why do you disagree with it though? if the lane is not wide enough for two, why should the one in front still try to keep hard left?

R650R

16th January 2015, 18:09

Beeping the horn to signal to those cyclists to go to single file would have been taken the wrong way and resulted in abuse from the cyclists. Did a few miles in Thailand a few years back and if you were a faster vehicle coming up behind slower traffic you just beeped the horn and they moved aside no problems at alll.

Similar system in Italy, everyone is beeping to let the person alongside know they are there.... Where as in NZ a toot is seen as a disapproval of your driving....
And in the UK you can flash your headlights to wake up the person in front in the fast lane to pull over, same thing its mostly seen as a hello rather than aggression.

R650R

16th January 2015, 18:16

So if you get seen bad driving or riding and its videoed by a dashcam your are going to sue if it goes public?

Yes. NZ defamation law is quite simple really. Even if someone is a real arsehole its actually illegal to go around publishing that the person concerned is an areshole and doesn't pay their bills or do decent workmanship etc. A lot of people think they are protected if just publishing the 'truth' but this is not so.
Any typical near miss is just that, to publicise and identify the 'offender' in dashcam incident often out of context and not showing the entire account of events, whilst not allowing the 'offender' the chance to explain themselves amounts to slander of that individuals reputation. Its why the number plates are blurred when they use that shit for reality tv shows....

As an example before the days of dashcam me and another driver got setup by company driver assessor. Now an isolated video of that incident would tell one story but the true accounts of the events leading up to it were just about enough to nearly get him fired when passed onto management.

R650R

16th January 2015, 18:21

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis?

Most of these 'race' bikes have tyres fitted with not for highway use stamped on them. The manufacturer deems them unsuitable for use on public highway due to variety of reasons.
Then there are the missing legally required retro reflective items required by law.
Bit of an ace card for the victim who has been involved in an accident with cyclist when it gets to court...

R650R

16th January 2015, 18:31

[I]I have road ridden for years and I feel the cyclists were a tad ignorant.
They would have known cars were behind them? and common courtesy would have been to fall into single file..
Tail end charlie would have or should have stated 'car back' :facepalm:
That is what we used to do and back in the day there was a regular Tuesday bunch, and a huge Sunday bunch ride from Royal Oak south...

Yes some of the better clubs might practice that. However there are so many lance Armstrong wannabees and various social groups that there is no common standard of behaviour that motorists can expect from groups of cyclists.
Funnily enough it always seems to be male cyclists that are the problem, never had aggressive gestures or deliberate lane hogging from female riders....

The real problem is the lack of speed differential, often these cyclists are going quite fast for country roads. Its like a smaller scale version of the car doing 100 that wants to pass a truck doing 90, a lot of space is needed.
Before the days of gopro there were more chances to pass and do it safely, but now you cant cause some wanker might video you then put it on youtube and blow it out of proportion, so drivers wait for bigger gaps and eventually get frustrated.

More female cyclists, less problems :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hl1WAGKjMc

MisterD

16th January 2015, 18:36

Most of these 'race' bikes have tyres fitted with not for highway use stamped on them. The manufacturer deems them unsuitable for use on public highway due to variety of reasons.
Then there are the missing legally required retro reflective items required by law.
Bit of an ace card for the victim who has been involved in an accident with cyclist when it gets to court...

I've never seen that on a tyre in the 28 years since I built my first road bike although I suppose as anti-suing device in the US it may exist (caution this coffee may be hot!).

The law says a rear red reflector and amber on your pedals if you want. Most of us bunch riders have a couple of flashing red lights (I run one on the bike and one on my helmet) and speaking as someone who hits the road on pushies, motorbikes and cars - that list also goes in increasing proportion on fuckwits.

R650R

16th January 2015, 18:43

I've never seen that on a tyre in the 28 years since I built my first road bike although I suppose as anti-suing device in the US it may exist (caution this coffee may be hot!).

The law says a rear red reflector and amber on your pedals if you want. Most of us bunch riders have a couple of flashing red lights (I run one on the bike and one on my helmet) and speaking as someone who hits the road on pushies, motorbikes and cars - that list also goes in increasing proportion on fuckwits.

It doesn't matter what extra devices you add. From a legal perspective your vehicle is deficient in the required standard....
"So your honor the deceased removed high visibility reflective devices from his bike to make it lighter and go faster...."

Some trucks have all sorts of extra LED lights on the front grills etc.... but if they have their headlights off or not working when required they are breaking the law.
The jury will gasp when they hear the main headlights were not switched on....

HenryDorsetCase

16th January 2015, 19:19

unstuck

16th January 2015, 19:28

No wonder it is sooooo easy to start wars between humans! :facepalm:

This^^^^ Where the fuck is everyone going that they get so worked up about getting there a minute or 2 later. Sucks to be you fuckers.:laugh::laugh:

HenryDorsetCase

16th January 2015, 19:30

Y deliberate lane hogging

Therein, Your Honur, I submit, lies the problem. What Mr R650R sees as (and I quote) as "deliberate lane hogging" could, in the better view, and the one which the prosecution urges your Honour to adopt, better be seen as pointless, aggressive, in fact in this instance actually dangerous driving, by someone with a very small penis indeed. Why, your Honour, as part of discovery in this case, the prosecution has had both the flaccid, and the erect state of the defendant's penis measured, with scientifically calibrated meauring devices, and the defendant's measurement is in the bottom four percent of the nationally recognised penis size average. Your Honour, many Asian men have a larger penis than the defendant. Your Honour, we submit that while no punishment that could be rendered by this Court could be more harsh than the punishment entered by the Almighty against the defendant, clearly for sins committed in a past life, we submit that it behooves the Court to render a harsh punishment to the defendant, because notwithstanding the Karmically issued and enforced punishment, the defendant's tiny endowment has meant that he has caused the death of this cyclist, and the only excuse he could muster was "Deliberate lane hogging". Your Honour, this Court must signal in the strongest possible terms that men (and I use the term in it's loosest defintition, as your Honour will appreciate) that men with tiny penises should not take their frustrations out upon legitemate road users, legitemately exercising their right to use the Queens highway for their lawful business, notwithstanding a gnats breadth of inconvenience caused to the defendant.

The prosecution rests your Honour.

mossy1200

16th January 2015, 19:36

mstriumph

16th January 2015, 19:40

if you wear underwear under cycling shorts you get horrible pressure points which very quickly become saddle sores and which take a fucking age to heal.

If you are criticising cyclists for wearing cycling shorts you may as well criticise motorcyclists for wearing leathers. What the hell do those fuckwits want to wear that kit for? Its awful and has no pockets and do they think they're Rossi with all that armour and sliders. Or soldiers for wearing camo: Ooooh look at that guy: bet he thinks he is Rambo and look now you see him now you don't. You are a nitwit taking a cheap shot. Fuck you.

perhaps it's time you went back on your meds? :confused:

bogan

16th January 2015, 19:41

perhaps it's time you went back on your meds? :confused:

Perhaps it's time you got back on a cycle, fatty.

mstriumph

16th January 2015, 19:43

PMS-ing apparently. Excellent trollage. I will leave my response up so you can see how successful you were. :blush:

tsk - if I'm a troll, you are a bore ... and, apparently, a bore with pms and a pechant for white lycra and no undies :weep:

- your choice - so be it - let it all hang out .... back on your bike ;)

mstriumph

16th January 2015, 19:47

Perhaps it's time you got back on a cycle, fatty.

i ride a bike - i'm far from fat (don't you think that calling women that upset you 'fat' is a bit .... erm ... sexist? does it work on your wife? let me talk to her :shifty:)

I still wouldn't wear white lycra with no undies ... have more respect both for myself and for other road users (think of the CHILDREN lol)

bogan

16th January 2015, 19:56

i ride a bike - i'm far from fat (don't you think that calling women that upset you 'fat' is a bit .... erm ... sexist? does it work on your wife? let me talk to her :shifty:)

I still wouldn't wear white lycra with no undies ... have more respect both for myself and for other road users (think of the CHILDREN lol)

You're a woman? you've never mentioned that before :rolleyes: So I should probably have clarified, when I said get on a cycle, I didn't mean a menstrual one.

You made a piss poor reply to HDC's valid point, so I took the piss out of it. You don't have to try and play the gender card every time someone takes the piss you know.

mossy1200

16th January 2015, 20:12

Holy smoke.

Did someone say these spandos have no underwear on?

Next one rubs up against me in a café gets the bash.

Berries

16th January 2015, 20:27

The BS that they also drive and pay ACC is just that. We motorists are allowed multiple vehicles but each and everyone must be registered and warranted.
Why are they exempt.
A typical response from cyclists and one I have always grudgingly accepted, but I had never looked at it the way you do. And you are right.

PrincessBandit

16th January 2015, 20:33

Why do motorbikes require rear view mirrors when they don't often have anyone driving behind yet pushbikes don't require them and it would serve them well to know if cars are waiting to pass.

When I got back on a pushbike after, ahem, decades (hadn't ridden one since school basically) it gave me the shits not having a mirror. Everyone laughed at me when I got an aftermarket one, similar to a ginny, attached to the right handlebar for my own peace of mind. I sold that bicycle and the one I have now has no mirror; it's not really needed as my security blanket any more, but I would be quite happy if bikes came already equipped with them :yes:

FJRider

16th January 2015, 20:41

A typical response from cyclists and one I have always grudgingly accepted, but I had never looked at it the way you do. And you are right.

Cyclists are no different to motorcyclists ... they pick and choose which part of legislation they will adhere to ... where and when it suits them (at the time)

Below is a few of my personal favorites ...

Always ride as near as you can to the left side of the road. If you are holding back traffic you must move as far as possible to the left side of the road to allow traffic to pass, as soon as you can.

However, you do need to cycle in a sensible position on the road to keep safe. See Cyclist responsibilities for more information.

Two cyclists can ride next to each other but should take into account the keep left rule and not hold back traffic.

Three or more people cycling next to each other is illegal, except in the case of a road race that has been given traffic management approval from a road controlling authority.

Ride in single file when passing vehicles.

Use hand signals to show other road users what you are doing.

When cycling behind other cyclists and vehicles you must be able to stop, keeping clear of the vehicle in front, if it stops suddenly. It is recommended you keep at least two seconds behind.

You are only allowed to cycle on the footpath if you are: delivering newspapers or mail, or you are riding a small wheeled recreational device that has a wheel diameter of less than 355 millimetres (typically tricycles or small children's bicycles).

You must obey all signs and signals.

You must obey the give way rules and give way at pedestrian crossings.

You must obey local bylaws (these often cover cycles and parks).

Give way to emergency vehicles when their sirens are on or when lights are flashing. It is a good idea to pull over to the kerb and stop.

unstuck

16th January 2015, 20:42

Cyclists are no different to motorcyclists ... they pick and choose which part of legislation they will adhere to ... where and when it suits them (at the time)

Yep, guilty.:devil2:

TheDemonLord

16th January 2015, 21:29

"as near as practicable"

To me this suggests as near as is safe. As does the following passage about cyclists riding abreast.

"11.10Riding abreast
(1)A person must not ride a cycle or moped on a roadway so that it remains abreast and to the right of—
(a)2 other vehicles that are cycles or mopeds; or
(b)1 other cycle or moped while that cycle or moped is overtaking and passing another vehicle, including a parked vehicle; or
(c)any other vehicle having 3 or more road wheels (including a motorcycle fitted with a sidecar).
(2)Subclause (1) does not apply if cyclists are participating in a race that is subject to a traffic management plan agreed by the road controlling authority."

Why do you disagree with it though? if the lane is not wide enough for two, why should the one in front still try to keep hard left?

This is my issue - most of the time (unless you are driving a yank tank on a really narrow road) there is plenty of room to safely pass, if the Cyclist is keeping left.

Secondly - as near as safe - if you are in the middle of the road and car has to swerve to avoid hitting you (for whatever reason) they have that much more to swerve than if you were keeping left and finally - if you are in the middle and get hit, you are more likely to either go over (serious injury) or go under (death) as opposed to being side swiped (unless you are unlucky and get dragged under) So the safety aspect of not keeping left is indispute - I did try and find something to back this up, but interestingly there doesn't appear to be any studies on it.

TheDemonLord

16th January 2015, 21:31

Cyclists are no different to motorcyclists ... they pick and choose which part of legislation they will adhere to ... where and when it suits them (at the time)

Below is a few of my personal favorites ...
^^^^ This - and I am just as guilty as those I rail against

bogan

16th January 2015, 21:38

This is my issue - most of the time (unless you are driving a yank tank on a really narrow road) there is plenty of room to safely pass, if the Cyclist is keeping left.

Secondly - as near as safe - if you are in the middle of the road and car has to swerve to avoid hitting you (for whatever reason) they have that much more to swerve than if you were keeping left and finally - if you are in the middle and get hit, you are more likely to either go over (serious injury) or go under (death) as opposed to being side swiped (unless you are unlucky and get dragged under) So the safety aspect of not keeping left is indispute - I did try and find something to back this up, but interestingly there doesn't appear to be any studies on it.

And if there is plenty of room to safely pass the cyclist should be keeping left, it is when there is not (as in the video) that a cyclist is better off being a bit further in.

I'm not saying ride bang in the middle, just that riding to ensure the driver behind knows it is unsafe to pass unless they can use the oncoming lane. In the unlikely event that a driver hit the cyclist at speed I would still expect it to be a sidewswipe.

neels

16th January 2015, 22:09

I only saw 2 unsafe things in that video, the filming fuckwit filming while he's driving, and the filming fuckwit overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic while he's too busy filming to see what's coming up the road towards him. Please excuse in the previous sentence the colloquial term filming, as there is almost no film in use anywhere in the world any more.

It's not the cyclists fault that he's driving some gutless piece of crap that can't overtake a bunch of cyclists at 30kph with 500m of clear road in front of him, I'm surprised it made it up the slight uphill that caused him such angst at his lack of power to overtake.

BMWST?

16th January 2015, 22:12

Why do motorbikes require rear view mirrors when they don't often have anyone driving behind yet pushbikes don't require them and it would serve them well to know if cars are waiting to pass.
If you honk to let them know your there or flash lights it would go down like a road rage attempt on their lives.:Oi:
ya dont need mirrors you can hear cars coming for minutes before they actually catch up

Berries

16th January 2015, 22:17

neels

16th January 2015, 22:34

You wear lycra don't you?
I find this sort of comment interesting.

People love hating on cyclists wearing lycra, which is actually appropriate cycling clothing designed for the use of people engaged in the activity of cycling, and yet for some reason it has become some generic derisive term for cyclists appropriately attired for the activity they are currently engaged in.

Why not go hating on the the people shopping for chips and coke at the warehouse wearing their Melbourne storm shorts or Warriors jersey, who have absolutely no intention of playing a game of rugby league, or the dickhead who gets out of his 1998 3.8 Commodore and puts on his HSV jacket, these are the people who are not appropriately attired for their given activity, and are an offense on society in general.

And yes I do, while riding my bike(s), much as I wear my motorcycle pants and jacket while riding my motorcycle, and an appropriate hat when driving a tractor and holding up traffic.

Berries

16th January 2015, 22:38

Why not go hating on the the people shopping for chips and coke at the warehouse wearing their Melbourne storm shorts or Warriors jersey, who have absolutely no intention of playing a game of rugby league, or the dickhead who gets out of his 1998 3.8 Commodore and puts on his HSV jacket, these are the people who are not appropriately attired for their given activity, and are an offense on society in general.
Yes, but the thread was about cyclists.

And you answered my question, thank you. No hating involved.

caseye

16th January 2015, 22:40

OK Einsteins, here's another one for you.
What is the recommended distance a motorist ( car, truck, motorcycle) is now expected to give a cyclist when overtaking them?

Sorry, it's 1.5 meters.

Now then, if your outside of country road white line is 300 mm off the grass verge and the lane is a pretty standard ( in NZ) 3-3.6m wide from that white line to the centre line.
If you allow that the cyclist is a total of 900 mm wide and is riding at about 3-600 mm from the outside white line and therefore already taking up 1.2-1.5 m of road width.
How much actual road on your side of the road is left for you to safely overtake said cyclist.
On average what is left is anything from 2 m down to 1.5 meters.
How wide is your standard motorcar/truck?
OK. average would be 1.8 m up to 2.4 m ( trucks) allowed on a standard roadway.
So best case scenario, if you are driving a car that is 1.5 m wide and you allow the "suggested" 1.5 meter's between you and the cycle are you completing a safe overtaking maneuver?
I say, NO.
In the best case scenario your motor vehicle is at least 800 mm ( That's 2.5 fucking feet!) over the centre line.
Did anyone do the math when they decreed that we should all have to do this?
This is suicide one O one.
So from the day this was suggested, politicians who approved the road safety campaign with all the signs all over our road ways and the cycling lobby groups who pushed for this, all, expect that if overtaking a cycle you must either cross the centre line to avoid coming into the cyclists safety zone or slow down behind them and wait until it's safe to overtake them.
BULL FUCKING SHIT!
I rode pushbikes from the day I could work the pedals, on country roads with trucks and all manner of other vehicles on them, I never came close to being hit by any of them.
I stayed to the left of the roadway and they drove past me sensibly and with as much room as they could give me.
It worked.
Oh, and no one contemplated riding 2 abreast because that was Suicide!
Short story, you rode a bike, you were responsible for your own safety,followed the very clear road rules as they pertained to pushbikes, didn't need nanny state making rules for you that favoured you over ALL other road users.
We did not and would never consider riding for miles with motor vehicles behind us waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake.
Either make the fucking roads wider so the issue goes away, or and I personally favour this one.
Make cyclists wear proper protective gear, make them use proper lights and indicators etc and make the fuckers PAY for using the roads, just like the rest of us.
That must be my first Friday night Rant.

neels

16th January 2015, 22:43

And you answered my question, thank you. No hating involved.
Well not really, because when I ride I ride by myself, so the ignorant bunch cyclist sentiment in the video doesn't really apply. It's the generalisations that hurt, really. :(

neels

16th January 2015, 22:49

make the fuckers PAY for using the roads, just like the rest of us.
Local roads are maintained by local councils, with income received from rates.

How many properties are you paying rates on?

The amount of money I pay to my local council every year entitles me to ride my bike wherever and whenever I fucking like.

mstriumph

17th January 2015, 00:28

You're a woman? you've never mentioned that before :rolleyes: So I should probably have clarified, when I said get on a cycle, I didn't mean a menstrual one. didn't think you did ...

You made a piss poor reply to HDC's valid point, so I took the piss out of it. your call but i'm used to just jousting with the person i'm addressing without having his mates take a hand ... or are you his dad? (if so, it's reasonable you wade in to protect him :msn-wink:)
You don't have to try and play the gender card every time someone takes the piss you know. would'a been a fair comment if you hadn't already said you didn't know I'm female :rolleyes: ... which makes your 'every time' invalid (as, obviously, I don't or you'd have realised my gender earlier ... i've been posting here for 10 years FFS lol)

nzspokes

17th January 2015, 06:23

TheDemonLord

17th January 2015, 06:47

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHTCs_h-mjc

Cyclist is not always in the wrong here. Sometimes he is in the wrong place but some drivers are out to get them.

In saying that I get the same things tried around Auckland when on my motorcycle. Things may have changed a bit since you last rode a pushbike.

Hahaha - That Video (where I called the cyclist out on some of his cycling and he got butthurt cause he couldn't defend his position with logic and then started calling me names :laugh::laugh:)

I think this is part of the problem - Caseye touched on it, and FJRider hit the nail on the head - Cyclists want to ignore the rules that don't benefit them or that they think they can ignore because of what it says in the Lycra Bible (as opposed to what the law actually says) - but they want the law enforced with fire and damnation on the rules that are there to keep them safe. Also it seems to be a thing that I have observed (so this is purely subjective) but I don't see a lot of defensive riding from Cyclists - I think this stems from the attitude of 'I have just as much right to be here as you do' as opposed to the attitude of 'I am small and squishy'

I still think that claiming the lane is a bad idea - even if you think its unsafe for someone else to pass it is arrogant, illegal and really gets on the tits of other drivers. You may not think it is safe for me to overtake, but I might think it is safe to overtake, and it is likely I know my car/bike better than you know it - so please don't be deciding for me when it is or isn't safe for me to do something.

As for Lycra and why it is despised - there are a number of reasons:

1: People who look good in lycra can wear lycra - the people who don't REALLY shouldn't
2: you aren't on the Tour-de-france so the few extra sections that you are able to gain by having decreased your wind resistence don't matter, sure where lycra underneath, but you can put a shorts and a tshirt over the top
3: Typically the Lycra clad rider is Male, in their 30s and rides in the manner I indicated above - ie being belligerant instead of riding defensively
4: This one is more from me - but there are options for armoured gloves, breathable knee and elbow pads that would go some way in reducing the injury a rider suffers in the event of a crash - but apparently Lycra is better (except for the fact it is useless in a crash) - I should also note, I hold the same disdain when I see people not riding with proper safety gear on bikes
5: Did I mention the fat overweight balding man with his flab spilling out and being grotesquely compressed by the Lycra suit he has shoe-horned himself into?

nzspokes

17th January 2015, 06:57

I think this stems from the attitude of 'I have just as much right to be here as you do' as opposed to the attitude of 'I am small and squishy'

Can the same not be said about motorcyclists?

And on the question of clothing, can the same not be said about motorcyclists?

I mean really, one piece leathers may look good in your head but not on your body.

Berries

17th January 2015, 07:10

I think this is part of the problem - Caseye touched on it, and FJRider hit the nail on the head - Cyclists want to ignore the rules that don't benefit them or that they think they can ignore because of what it says in the Lycra Bible (as opposed to what the law actually says) - but they want the law enforced with fire and damnation on the rules that are there to keep them safe.
No different to motorcyclists whatsoever IMO.

skippa1

17th January 2015, 07:43

You're a woman? you've never mentioned that before :rolleyes: So I should probably have clarified, when I said get on a cycle, I didn't mean a menstrual one.

You made a piss poor reply to HDC's valid point, so I took the piss out of it. You don't have to try and play the gender card every time someone takes the piss you know.
That little circle with the cross dangling underneath indicates female.

when the cross is on top, they are christlike vigins of infinite beauty and when the cross dangles below.......they are the anti christ.

just fyi

TheDemonLord

17th January 2015, 07:51

Can the same not be said about motorcyclists?

And on the question of clothing, can the same not be said about motorcyclists?

I mean really, one piece leathers may look good in your head but not on your body.

I agree - I think above I even said that I am just as guilty as those I rail against - the only real difference is that motorcyclists don't hold other drivers up

bogan

17th January 2015, 08:29

didn't think you did ...

your call but i'm used to just jousting with the person i'm addressing without having his mates take a hand ... or are you his dad? (if so, it's reasonable you wade in to protect him :msn-wink:) would'a been a fair comment if you hadn't already said you didn't know I'm female :rolleyes: ... which makes your 'every time' invalid (as, obviously, I don't or you'd have realised my gender earlier ... i've been posting here for 10 years FFS lol)

That's what sarcasm is petal, of course I know you're a woman as you play the gender card every opportunity you get; that's why it was followed by a roll of the eyes indicate it was sarcasm. Hence the first and last bits stand together quite nicely.

Here's a tip, the PM function is for one on one discussion; the forum however, is a discussion forum. You don't like that, feel free to go bitch about me on more people's visitor walls :laugh:

nzspokes

17th January 2015, 08:30

the only real difference is that motorcyclists don't hold other drivers up

Trust me some do.

Tazz

17th January 2015, 08:30

I agree - I think above I even said that I am just as guilty as those I rail against - the only real difference is that motorcyclists don't hold other drivers up

That's the thing though, there will always be something to hold you up. After those cyclists there's a slow van, then a camper, then a truck, then some road works and so on and so fourth.
Some people just have a complex where they think they are too good to have to wait behind someone else for a min or two.

As annoying as some other users can be, those that get so frustrated really need to harden the fuck up and then pass where they can because it is just a part of using the bloody road.

mossy1200

17th January 2015, 10:50

This guy and his 40+ rage against motorists is fun to wind up.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/F6JTuSXfaWc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TheDemonLord

17th January 2015, 11:02

This guy and his 40+ rage against motorists is fun to wind up.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/F6JTuSXfaWc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is what I am talking about - he was smack bang in the middle of the road, making no attempt to keep left and then wonders when a driver gets annoyed and does a dangerous pass....

mossy1200

17th January 2015, 11:07

This is what I am talking about - he was smack bang in the middle of the road, making no attempt to keep left and then wonders when a driver gets annoyed and does a dangerous pass....

I tried watching his others and its just endless near miss for this guy. Im thinking he needs find a new hobby if he cant ride very well.

bluninja

17th January 2015, 11:15

This is what I am talking about - he was smack bang in the middle of the road, making no attempt to keep left and then wonders when a driver gets annoyed and does a dangerous pass....

Nah! he's smack bang in the lane at traffic lights on red queuing behind other cars (rather than squeezing to the front and sitting in the middle) ...If he was over to the left he would be impeding the traffic going into the left lane and then you'd be bitching that he's taking up 2 lanes. As he sets off he moves over to the left in a smooth straight line taking account of the filter lane for cars turning into his lane. FFS he is already on the left .5 m from the curb when the car "squeezes" him, less than 30m from his starting point in traffic at the lights.

Funnily enough when you set off on a bicycle there is a little movement side to side until the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels steadies things. If he was to the left he would not be able to start safely due to some car squeezing him whilst stationary.

bogan

17th January 2015, 11:24

This is what I am talking about - he was smack bang in the middle of the road, making no attempt to keep left and then wonders when a driver gets annoyed and does a dangerous pass....

As he should be when queuing for lights with a left turn lane.

He could have let one pass when crossing the lights, but the lane narrows again quite abruptly after that, and being left for part of it would have ensured any pass that was started without sufficient room would have ended as dangerously as the one that was done anyway.

BMWST?

17th January 2015, 11:36

I still think that claiming the lane is a bad idea - even if you think its unsafe for someone else to pass it is arrogant, illegal and really gets on the tits of other drivers. You may not think it is safe for me to overtake, but I might think it is safe to overtake, and it is likely I know my car/bike better than you know it - so please don't be deciding for me when it is or isn't safe for me to do something
can you see the irony here?

mossy1200

17th January 2015, 11:42

Don't forget he shows you what he wants to show you.
Watch his other longer clips and you will see a pattern develop. Guys obsessed.

BMWST?

17th January 2015, 11:57

I agree - I think above I even said that I am just as guilty as those I rail against - the only real difference is that motorcyclists don't hold other drivers up
bullshit,not all motorcyclists are fast and not all car drivers are slow.

R650R

17th January 2015, 17:57

Therein, Your Honur, I submit, lies my problem...a very small penis

Its bad enough you've given us a mental picture of you riding with no underwear and having problems with hemmaroids from too much cycling that now you have revealed you suffer from penis envy.
I'm quite happy to lay mine out on the table if you want to have a measure up, man to man lol.....

R650R

17th January 2015, 18:08

I find this sort of comment interesting.

People love hating on cyclists wearing lycra, which is actually appropriate cycling clothing designed for the use of people engaged in the activity of cycling, and yet for some reason it has become some generic derisive term for cyclists appropriately attired for the activity they are currently engaged in.

Not all of them, its the wannabees that clearly cant go fast enough to justify the streamlined clothing and shaved legs. Its become a catch all phrase as much as biker or trucker has...
Its pretty much reserved for the posers holding up traffic cause their too cheap to go to the gym or buy a membership at the local velodrome. As opposed to normal people or schoolkids commuting to work on bicycles wearing normal real clothes.

I think with our aging society we will reach a tipping point soon. The critical mass will be the elderly in mobility scooters and they will demand their own lanes on footpaths and roads and that scarey cyclists must slow and give them 1.5m when passing least they trigger a stroke. There will be a new breed of more powerful long range mobility scooters and the elderly will go for rides in the country in packs and then cyclists will know what its like to be held up 'just for a few minutes'..... :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/10054897/Police-criticised-for-using-convoy-to-escort-PCSO-on-mobility-scooter.html

http://www.seniorsherveybay.com/seniors/images/page_images/convoy_portrait.jpg

Swoop

17th January 2015, 18:18

People love hating on cyclists wearing lycra, which is actually appropriate cycling clothing designed for the use of people engaged in the activity of cycling, and yet for some reason it has become some generic derisive term for cyclists appropriately attired for the activity they are currently engaged in.
The appropriate underwear for psyclists is G-string.

Do you wear appropriate underwear when psycling?

R650R

17th January 2015, 18:25

BTW I wear normal underwear when cycling or mtb riding and no issues. Used to wear the black lycra pants from t7 as they were cheap but now progressed to mtb shorts with lycra liners.
Find without underwear my boys just move about too much, its a hazard.
Bit like wearing boxer underwear too much movement and stimulation happening.... sorry TMI lol

mstriumph

17th January 2015, 22:02

That's what sarcasm is petal, of course I know you're a woman as you play the gender card every opportunity you get; that's why it was followed by a roll of the eyes indicate it was sarcasm. Hence the first and last bits stand together quite nicely.

Here's a tip, the PM function is for one on one discussion; the forum however, is a discussion forum. You don't like that, feel free to go bitch about me on more people's visitor walls :laugh:

yep - you're his dad :devil2:

bogan

17th January 2015, 22:29

yep - you're his dad :devil2:

Once gain you ignore the point in favor of piss weak ad-hominems; saying I've fathered a man of such distinguished tastes as HDC is certainly not an insult.

Still, I guess you've at least been spared the intellect to know you're a moron so it doesn't seem to be getting you down :sunny:

BuzzardNZ

17th January 2015, 22:34

yep - you're his dad :devil2:

Are you Ed's wife ?

TheDemonLord

18th January 2015, 07:59

Okay, lots to reply to

Trust me some do.

True, True - I forgot about Harley riders :bleh::bleh:

But in all seriousness - if your motorbike can't do 50 kph on a residential road, then there is something seriously wrong with it

Nah! he's smack bang in the lane at traffic lights on red queuing behind other cars (rather than squeezing to the front and sitting in the middle) ...If he was over to the left he would be impeding the traffic going into the left lane and then you'd be bitching that he's taking up 2 lanes. As he sets off he moves over to the left in a smooth straight line taking account of the filter lane for cars turning into his lane. FFS he is already on the left .5 m from the curb when the car "squeezes" him, less than 30m from his starting point in traffic at the lights.

Funnily enough when you set off on a bicycle there is a little movement side to side until the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels steadies things. If he was to the left he would not be able to start safely due to some car squeezing him whilst stationary.

In his video - I got no problem with him starting in the middle, but once he is well and trully passed the left turn lane, and up to speed, he makes no attempt to keep left - and that is when the car squeezes him - The car driver is being a knob, but the cyclists is also being a knob and as we know - two knobs make a gay porn film.

He could have let one pass when crossing the lights, but the lane narrows again quite abruptly after that, and being left for part of it would have ensured any pass that was started without sufficient room would have ended as dangerously as the one that was done anyway.

and with that, the prosecution rests its case - he didn't keep left when he had the opportunity to, and then wonders why people get upset at him.

can you see the irony here?

it isn't lost on me - the difference is that when I break the law for a reason that I claim is to increase my safety, I don't hold other people up. But you get awarded 10 internets for pointing it out (cause it made me Laff)

bullshit,not all motorcyclists are fast and not all car drivers are slow.

See above for my Harley joke - I know not all car drivers are slow - but let me put it this way, if I take off normally on my bike from the lights - I am usually a good 50-100 meters in front of the traffic (depending on what the speed limit is) by the time I am up to the speed limit. Sure cars can keep up with me if they want to thrash their car, but in general, most cars simply slower cornering, slower changing speeds than motorbikes (except for Harleys :bleh:)

(I'm sorry Harley riders, but I couldn't resist another dig)

pritch

18th January 2015, 08:38

Why do motorbikes require rear view mirrors when they don't often have anyone driving behind yet pushbikes don't require them and it would serve them well to know if cars are waiting to pass.

They can hear you perfectly well, it has apparently escaped your notice but they are not wearing a helmet that affects their hearing, nor do they have engine noise to contend with.

People who jog or ride bikes while wearing earphones are lemmings and are not a justification for half-witted ideas like mirrors on bicycles. :weird:

bogan

18th January 2015, 09:23

and with that, the prosecution rests its case - he didn't keep left when he had the opportunity to, and then wonders why people get upset at him.

And considering you had to go to a completely different video to find an example of that; it also proves my point that sometimes it is safer to own the lane than try to stop others from getting a little upset :bleh:

TheDemonLord

18th January 2015, 09:37

And considering you had to go to a completely different video to find an example of that; it also proves my point that sometimes it is safer to own the lane than try to stop others from getting a little upset :bleh:

I didn't go to a completely different video - someone else brought it up....

I did however use it to back up my point (I probably should watch the original video though)

Considering cyclists have no legal right to own the lane and IMO the inherent risks (both the ones stemming from NZ driving culture and the generic ones) to me make it a dangerous practice and one that considerably aggravates other motorists.

As I said before however, a re-write of the road rules from a 'one size fits all, if your size is a car' policy to something more sensible (having sub sections for motorcyclists and cyclists alike stating things when they can claim the lane etc.) is IMHO well overdue.

Until then, Claiming the lane continues to be an illegal IMO, as although I see your point about stopping an overtake when it may not be safe, I think that may be stretching the definition of practicable a little bit far.

I would also add that considering that all the footage on that Cyclists Youtube Channel has been submitted to the police and in most cases they haven't pursued the matter, it would appear that it is also the opinion of the Police/legal system as well.

Edit - feel free to add a snarky comment about the police and not wanting to do their jobs/do work as the reason for not pursuing it - I won't argue with you on that point :D

bogan

18th January 2015, 09:41

I didn't go to a completely different video - someone else brought it up....

I did however use it to back up my point (I probably should watch the original video though)

Considering cyclists have no legal right to own the lane and IMO the inherent risks (both the ones stemming from NZ driving culture and the generic ones) to me make it a dangerous practice and one that considerably aggravates other motorists.

As I said before however, a re-write of the road rules from a 'one size fits all, if your size is a car' policy to something more sensible (having sub sections for motorcyclists and cyclists alike stating things when they can claim the lane etc.) is IMHO well overdue.

Until then, Claiming the lane continues to be an illegal IMO, as although I see your point about stopping an overtake when it may not be safe, I think that may be stretching the definition of practicable a little bit far.

I would also add that considering that all the footage on that Cyclists Youtube Channel has been submitted to the police and in most cases they haven't pursued the matter, it would appear that it is also the opinion of the Police/legal system as well.

Whomever brought it up, that was the example you went to instead of the original one which prompted the discussion.

They do have a legal right to own a lane, see riding two abreast. A motorist cannot safely pass a bicycle within the lane on many of our roads, therefor it is by default that a cycle owns the lane and certainly not illegal. Moving further to the center of that lane simply ensures other motorists know it is not a lane within which the cyclist can be passed safely.

nzspokes

18th January 2015, 10:53

Okay, lots to reply to

True, True - I forgot about Harley riders :bleh::bleh:

But in all seriousness - if your motorbike can't do 50 kph on a residential road, then there is something seriously wrong with it

In his video - I got no problem with him starting in the middle, but once he is well and trully passed the left turn lane, and up to speed, he makes no attempt to keep left - and that is when the car squeezes him - The car driver is being a knob, but the cyclists is also being a knob and as we know - two knobs make a gay porn film.

and with that, the prosecution rests its case - he didn't keep left when he had the opportunity to, and then wonders why people get upset at him.

it isn't lost on me - the difference is that when I break the law for a reason that I claim is to increase my safety, I don't hold other people up. But you get awarded 10 internets for pointing it out (cause it made me Laff)

See above for my Harley joke - I know not all car drivers are slow - but let me put it this way, if I take off normally on my bike from the lights - I am usually a good 50-100 meters in front of the traffic (depending on what the speed limit is) by the time I am up to the speed limit. Sure cars can keep up with me if they want to thrash their car, but in general, most cars simply slower cornering, slower changing speeds than motorbikes (except for Harleys :bleh:)

(I'm sorry Harley riders, but I couldn't resist another dig)

Careful with the Harley jokes when you ride a Bandit with a tiny motor.:bleh:

mossy1200

18th January 2015, 11:25

I added the cyclist post. Its one of 38 negative posts. Hes reporting everyone he thinks he can to the police and also claiming police arnt doing their job.
Half his complaints contain non events that I wouldn't consider dangerous at all.
Idd suggest the cyclists is obsessed and idd say even likely hes causing some issues to gain footage.
Following drivers and confronting them.
Laughing online about a lady whose overweight.
These are the same people they want to take care around them. Hes the kind of guy that chases down the wrong driver and gets a bash in the head plus his 3 cameras taken from him. Just saying.

During what idd say is one of the better road awareness campaigns" See the person, share the road" this doesn't help drivers see someone they want to like a lot.

Its like every group. Theres a select few that think they are doing good for the cause but are blind to the fact they are causing a negative effect.

mossy1200

18th January 2015, 11:57

Check this out. its a police response to one of his complaints.

Published on Mar 7, 2012

Re; Your various allegations of unsafe driving
Please refer to the following three matters;
(1) Online Community Roadwatch Reports x 13 received by the Community Roadwatch Programme on 18 July 2011. (Reference made to video clips on 'Youtube')
(2) Online Community Roadwatch Reports x 18 received by the Community Roadwatch Programme on 13 August 2011. (Reference made to video clips on 'Youtube')
(3) A complaint you made at Henderson Police Station Public Counter on 14 September 2011 regarding alleged unsafe passing by motor vehicle CMC356. (DVD included)
In regard to the 31 'Roadwatch' reports, (1 and 2 above), these were forwarded by Community Roadwatch to the Police.
Once again, I am aware that these matters are very similar to a number of other complaints that you have made in the past, which have resulted in no action being taken by Police.
As the Officer in charge of the Waitakere Police CIU, I have again reviewed these latest three matters accordingly.
I can advise you that Police again will not be taking any action against the drivers you have stated "overtook me [on your bicycle] giving a dangerous amount of clearance".
Legal advice from both the Police Legal Section and the Police Prosecution Section is that there are no applicable charges that can be laid against the respective drivers.
It should be noted by you that the passage you quote in each of your complaints from the "Offical New Zealand Road Code", in relation to safe driving around cyclists is a guide only to vehicle drivers. In other words, it is not legislation, and is not enforceable by Police.
These matters will now be filed accordingly
I can also advise you that any further complaints of a similar nature which you make will be returned to you with no action taken by the police.
Whilst I was reviewing the various video clips you provided or you have placed on Youtube, it was noted that on several occasions you have taken upon yourself to confront drivers (banging on their window, yelling at them words to the effect that they must allow 1.5 meters around cyclists, and to look for themselves on Youtube).
This is high risk behaviour on your part, and could lead to an incident of 'road rage'. If something like this occurs, Police will investigate...... If you are found to have provoked or caused such a matter, you could well face appropriate criminal charges.
Yours sincerely
A D King
Acting Detective Senior Sergeant AKG380
O/C Combined Investigation Unit,
Waitakere Police

NOTE the recommendations that he doesn't bang windows.

bluninja

18th January 2015, 12:43

This is high risk behaviour on your part, and could lead to an incident of 'road rage'. If something like this occurs, Police will investigate...... If you are found to have provoked or caused such a matter, you could well face appropriate criminal charges.
Yours sincerely
A D King
Acting Detective Senior Sergeant AKG380
O/C Combined Investigation Unit,
Waitakere Police

NOTE the recommendations that he doesn't bang windows.

Well that's him spanked....

Just my perverse view of things, but did he really get A D King (A dicking) from the police? :lol:

mossy1200

18th January 2015, 12:48

Well that's him spanked....

Just my perverse view of things, but did he really get A D King (A dicking) from the police? :lol:

That's sharp. I didn't even notice that.:killingme

TheDemonLord

18th January 2015, 15:37

Whomever brought it up, that was the example you went to instead of the original one which prompted the discussion.

They do have a legal right to own a lane, see riding two abreast. A motorist cannot safely pass a bicycle within the lane on many of our roads, therefor it is by default that a cycle owns the lane and certainly not illegal. Moving further to the center of that lane simply ensures other motorists know it is not a lane within which the cyclist can be passed safely.

It seems then that you have an opinion, I have a differing one - the only difference is that mine appears to be the same one shared by the Police (although that is a dangerous arguement to make - as I might have to start agreeing with zero speed tolerance :laugh::laugh:)

bogan

18th January 2015, 16:40

It seems then that you have an opinion, I have a differing one - the only difference is that mine appears to be the same one shared by the Police (although that is a dangerous arguement to make - as I might have to start agreeing with zero speed tolerance :laugh::laugh:)

Is it though? Do the police prosecute or give fines to pedlies riding 2 abreast for not keeping as far left as possible?

Passing legislation still includes 100m vis in front if oncoming lane is used, and that it is done with due consideration for other users of the road. This means that on a narrow laned road, the cyclist owns that lane; whether you like it or not, this is still the case.

R650R

18th January 2015, 17:31

That's sharp. I didn't even notice that.:killingme

Yes good spotting. I saw in the comments from one of his latest videos that he has gone back home to Doncaster in England, home of Open all Hours. Maybe he will get a job there like Granville delivering groceries on pushbike on quiet city streets.
The police don't like it when you try and do their job for them, there's been plenty of other examples where people have been disregarded in similar cases, eg long running neighbour disputes etc.
If you go looking to document trouble you will find it, but also create it.

bluninja

18th January 2015, 17:54

Yes good spotting. I saw in the comments from one of his latest videos that he has gone back home to Doncaster in England, home of Open all Hours. Maybe he will get a job there like Granville delivering groceries on pushbike on quiet city streets.

Doncaster, also home to Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear foot in mouth gaffes fame.

mossy1200

18th January 2015, 19:03

Now I have a motorcyclist upset also. Im the reason people hate motorcycles now.

Sorry guys.

pritch

18th January 2015, 21:43

Doncaster, also home to Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear foot in mouth gaffes fame.

Not home to, but where he came from. He's a member of the Chipping Norton Set with Rebecca Brook and David Cameron among others.

TheDemonLord

19th January 2015, 06:19

Is it though? Do the police prosecute or give fines to pedlies riding 2 abreast for not keeping as far left as possible?

Passing legislation still includes 100m vis in front if oncoming lane is used, and that it is done with due consideration for other users of the road. This means that on a narrow laned road, the cyclist owns that lane; whether you like it or not, this is still the case.

Well the police response does seem to indicate that there is position is such. But as for the lack of Fines - I think last time they tried to fine a cyclist, there was a hubbub because bikes don't have a registration (which makes the enforcement of a ticket difficult)

Also as a secondary - since cycling is encouraged at a Govt level (as a clean way to commute) I suspect that the police are letting it slide to encourage people.

As for Passing lane - I agree, but in the real world, when say overtaking a tractor, have you always done so with 100m visibility? I know that there have been occasions where I have not (ie being waved passed by the driver of said ag vehicle)

Final point - consideration of other road users is precisely why a cyclist has no legal right to own the lane - I still would like to see something in Legislation that gives them this right (other than differing opinions of the application of the word 'practicable')

bluninja

19th January 2015, 06:30

Not home to, but where he came from. He's a member of the Chipping Norton Set with Rebecca Brook and David Cameron among others.

Where he escaped from would be more accurate still :cool: I'm not from Doncaster, but I was forced to exist there till I left school and escaped.

Berg

19th January 2015, 08:03

Swoop

19th January 2015, 08:09

Plenty of skin off and blood flowing. When it was suggested to them that (a) they should wear better protective clothing, (b) they should be obeying all road rules including single file and maintaining a safe following distance and (c) they should have to cover their own medical expenses as they haven't paid sufficient ACC levies as motorcycle riders have to they got quite pissy.
:clap:

308093

mossy1200

19th January 2015, 08:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JTuSXfaWc&google_comment_id=z12pv5vzqy34wbyjb04cibdgduzzflrh lk00k

Think im getting murdered in comments.
My lack of keyboard warrior skills is evident.
Need help.

bogan

19th January 2015, 09:38

Well the police response does seem to indicate that there is position is such. But as for the lack of Fines - I think last time they tried to fine a cyclist, there was a hubbub because bikes don't have a registration (which makes the enforcement of a ticket difficult)

Also as a secondary - since cycling is encouraged at a Govt level (as a clean way to commute) I suspect that the police are letting it slide to encourage people.

As for Passing lane - I agree, but in the real world, when say overtaking a tractor, have you always done so with 100m visibility? I know that there have been occasions where I have not (ie being waved passed by the driver of said ag vehicle)

Final point - consideration of other road users is precisely why a cyclist has no legal right to own the lane - I still would like to see something in Legislation that gives them this right (other than differing opinions of the application of the word 'practicable')

What police response? You mean the lack of prosecution of the driver? this is not the same as prosecution of the cyclist. That is just wrong, they fine them for no helmets easy enough.

Also wrong, they are 'letting it slide' because it is not against the law. (see riding abreast)

I do in the van. But again, you have to search far for an example that suits your needs, thus proving my point.

You still don't understand, if a motorist has to use another lane to pass, then the cyclist does own the lane; on many NZ roads the only way to avoid this would be to stay home.

Another point, do you ride your motorcycle in the lines you say cyclists should ride? Because the legislation you posted does not differentiate between cycles and motorcycles "A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides." I'll bet you don't because it is not safe, but you seem to think cyclists don't have the same leeway in terms of their safety.

TheDemonLord

19th January 2015, 09:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JTuSXfaWc&google_comment_id=z12pv5vzqy34wbyjb04cibdgduzzflrh lk00k

Think im getting murdered in comments.
My lack of keyboard warrior skills is evident.
Need help.

Really?

That guy was pretty easy to School to the point where all he could come back with was petty insults:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHTCs_h-mjc

Just refer to my comments and enjoy!

Virago

19th January 2015, 10:24

Really?

That guy was pretty easy to School to the point where all he could come back with was petty insults:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHTCs_h-mjc

Just refer to my comments and enjoy!

To be fair, that compilation clip showed a few instances where he was keeping hard left, there was plenty of room for overtakers to give a wide safety berth, but they still failed to do so.

Other than that, the guy is a cock.

mossy1200

19th January 2015, 10:32

To be fair, that compilation clip showed a few instances where he was keeping hard left, there was plenty of room for overtakers to give a wide safety berth, but they still failed to do so.

Other than that, the guy is a cock.

Agree there is some very poor driving in there but his approach wont do anything for cyclists and he has been looking for issues to report rather than enjoyment from riding. I just cant see this guy ever having a friend to ride with or a work mate who wasn't sick of his whining.

Ocean1

19th January 2015, 10:51

Another point, do you ride your motorcycle in the lines you say cyclists should ride? Because the legislation you posted does not differentiate between cycles and motorcycles "A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides." I'll bet you don't because it is not safe, but you seem to think cyclists don't have the same leeway in terms of their safety.

Disclaimer: I obey every road rule up to but not including the point where I believe I have reason not to.

Now. The difference between a motorbike riding in the middle of his lane and a bicyclist riding in the middle of his lane is.... The motorbike is doing the same speed or better than the general traffic flow. The pushbike, in riding in the middle of the lane is simply holding up traffic. In the instance of the video in question he's doing so for no reason other than provoking exactly the response he wanted, there's certainly no safety rationale behind it.

Nice as the idea is that we should all get along and pushbikes have as much right to be there as the rest of us it's simply nonsense, roads are for motorised traffic, if you want to ride a pushbike on 'em then pull your head in and stay out of the fucking way.

bogan

19th January 2015, 10:59

Disclaimer: I obey every road rule up to but not including the point where I believe I have reason not to.

Now. The difference between a motorbike riding in the middle of his lane and a bicyclist riding in the middle of his lane is.... The motorbike is doing the same speed or better than the general traffic flow. The pushbike, in riding in the middle of the lane is simply holding up traffic. In the instance of the video in question he's doing so for no reason other than provoking exactly the response he wanted, there's certainly no safety rationale behind it.

Nice as the idea is that we should all get along and pushbikes have as much right to be there as the rest of us it's simply nonsense, roads are for motorised traffic, if you want to ride a pushbike on 'em then pull your head in and stay out of the fucking way.

And when the road is so narrow that the pushbike just being there forces a passing car to use the other lane, what is the practical difference between the cycle being on the hard left, and being 1m in?

Ocean1

19th January 2015, 11:09

And when the road is so narrow that the pushbike just being there forces a passing car to use the other lane, what is the practical difference between the cycle being on the hard left, and being 1m in?

None. In which case one waits patiently for the opportunity to pass.

But that's not what was happening in most of those instances, was it? He was deliberately denying cars the opportunity to pass, and he got what such behaviour richly deserves.

Until a few months ago I lived on a single lane country road, a favourite for local recreational cyclists. Most of them were cautious and sensible, but the number of fuckwits that genuinely figured they had the right to obstruct traffic, usually by riding 2-3 abreast was amazing. Uppity cunts, too, several times I had words, and I once found it necessary to chuck a bike into the adjoining paddock with the local bull.

bogan

19th January 2015, 11:21

None. In which case one waits patiently for the opportunity to pass.

But that's not what was happening in most of those instances, was it? He was deliberately denying cars the opportunity to pass, and he got what such behaviour richly deserves.

Until a few months ago I lived on a single lane country road, a favourite for local recreational cyclists. Most of them were cautious and sensible, but the number of fuckwits that genuinely figured they had the right to obstruct traffic, usually by riding 2-3 abreast was amazing. Uppity cunts, too, several times I had words, and I once found it necessary to chuck a bike into the adjoining paddock with the local bull.

Exactly, and being 1m in serves to ensure the car behind knows they must cross the center line to make the pass safely.

I'm not defending the guy's actions that mossy posted (he does seem like a bit of cunt), just pointing out that owning the road is an applicable safety measure where cyclists are concerned in some circumstances.

Bikemad

19th January 2015, 11:32

below is lycracops response to my comment on one of his Vids.............
has some strange thoughts on NZ labour relations too it would seem

ME>>>>so you don't like our drivers,don't like our cops,don't like our history.........what would you risk your life to see?.......why don't you stop ya whinning and go back to poverty rock and peddle those roads?

NZ Cyclist TVL

1 hour ago

You mean like the 25% of New Zealand's working population that have had enough and left New Zealand?
Why do you think I have recorded no new videos in New Zealand?
If you are the last one their please remember to turn out the light as you leave :-)

mossy1200

19th January 2015, 11:47

Exactly, and being 1m in serves to ensure the car behind knows they must cross the center line to make the pass safely.

I'm not defending the guy's actions that mossy posted (he does seem like a bit of cunt), just pointing out that owning the road is an applicable safety measure where cyclists are concerned in some circumstances.

Yeah don't get me wrong im all for safety and sharing and higher standards.
If the guy had several positive clips and reported the one incident I linked that would be ok.
My issue is hes out on a mission to aggravate people and be abusive.
Someone chases me down bashes on my window, swears, threatens to call police and post clips on you tube would get warned that im feeling threatened by his actions. Failure to move on and ill be getting angry very quickly.
Im a nice guy so idd say his risk of injury increases as the quality of the person he abuses decreases or the level of fear they might have increases.

If I had a serious safety concern that I thought needed immediate police attention You tube wouldn't be my method of delivering it.

mossy1200

19th January 2015, 13:14

Now im a raciest also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JTuSXfaWc

bogan

19th January 2015, 13:28

Mate, don't we have enough idiots here without importing content from the youtubes?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/X7kz4uMXFlE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ocean1

19th January 2015, 13:47

TheDemonLord

19th January 2015, 14:16

Now im a raciest also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JTuSXfaWc

Lol - both posters seem to think that the minimum 1.5 meters of clearance is law, simply because it is in the road code. It isn't in legislation.

Should it be in legislation - probably a minimum should be specified (I would go with 0.5 meters as a minimum) but I digress - I could jump in and have fun, but I have debated him to the point where he can't respond with a rational and logical argument and reverted to calling names (thus showing the calibre of both his position and personality) so further debate would be shooting fish in the proverbial

bogan

19th January 2015, 14:26

Yes, it's applicable where you don't want to be passed.

Which is fine, if you're doing near the posted limit.

If not then you need to fuck off out of the way.

Doing near speed limit, or if it is not safe to pass. When I'm doing 80 in my van into a heavy headwind or uphill, I won't fuck off out of the way unless there is space for others to pass safely. Me moving aside is actually the less safe option in those circumstances as it would encourage unsafe passing.

so further debate would be shooting fish in the proverbial

Try #131 then...

neels

19th January 2015, 14:53

Is it though? Do the police prosecute or give fines to pedlies riding 2 abreast for not keeping as far left as possible?

Yep, read the other day about a cyclist getting a $150 fine for failing to keep left, so it does happen

Which is fine, if you're doing near the posted limit.

If not then you need to fuck off out of the way.

I agree, where it's possible, and there are certainly groups of cyclists that are completely ignorant of other road users.

Unfortunately cyclists are somewhat of an anomaly, in being the only 'vehicle' which is not capable of travelling at the posted speed limit, which is legally allowed on the road.

Add to that the fact that there are plenty of roads where there is nowhere for a cyclist to go even if they wanted to get out of the way (for example, the old waimak bridge which is the only legal way for a cyclist to cross the river), and you get motorists who get incredibly frustrated at taking 30 seconds longer to get where they are going because there's a cyclist in the way.

It isn't going to be solved this week......

buggerit

19th January 2015, 15:14

I propose the instalation of rollers on the LH end of bumpers as an aid to help cyclists stay with the traffic flow and rest their weary
legs, and cars can then maintain posted speed limits:2thumbsup

TheDemonLord

19th January 2015, 15:43

Must have missed this post - but seeing as you challenged me - Oh go on then

What police response? You mean the lack of prosecution of the driver? this is not the same as prosecution of the cyclist. That is just wrong, they fine them for no helmets easy enough.

Well - not necessarily, the police could choose to push a charge of dangerous driving, but probably decided against it as the cyclist was partially at fault for creating the situation where the incident occurred by not following the road rules.

As for Fines - I know they fine for no helmets - I was remembering this case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10315375/Cops-botch-speeding-cyclists-ticket

Also wrong, they are 'letting it slide' because it is not against the law. (see riding abreast)

Or as above, they could be exercising digression

I do in the van. But again, you have to search far for an example that suits your needs, thus proving my point.

You still don't understand, if a motorist has to use another lane to pass, then the cyclist does own the lane; on many NZ roads the only way to avoid this would be to stay home.

Another point, do you ride your motorcycle in the lines you say cyclists should ride? Because the legislation you posted does not differentiate between cycles and motorcycles "A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides." I'll bet you don't because it is not safe, but you seem to think cyclists don't have the same leeway in terms of their safety.

The rule really only applies to those that are obstructing the reasonable flow of traffic (as Ocean1 pointed out, although maybe not as eloquently as I would have done, but I think the point was made)

carbonhed

19th January 2015, 15:56

And when the road is so narrow that the pushbike just being there forces a passing car to use the other lane, what is the practical difference between the cycle being on the hard left, and being 1m in?

On the one hand you're making it as easy as possible for the car to overtake and on the other you're making their job more difficult... in lycra... on a pushbike. Do you really think that's a good idea in NZ?

Own the lane :laugh:

bogan

19th January 2015, 16:33

Must have missed this post - but seeing as you challenged me - Oh go on then

Well - not necessarily, the police could choose to push a charge of dangerous driving, but probably decided against it as the cyclist was partially at fault for creating the situation where the incident occurred by not following the road rules.

As for Fines - I know they fine for no helmets - I was remembering this case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10315375/Cops-botch-speeding-cyclists-ticket

Or as above, they could be exercising digression

The rule really only applies to those that are obstructing the reasonable flow of traffic (as Ocean1 pointed out, although maybe not as eloquently as I would have done, but I think the point was made)

Confirmation bias.

More confirmation bias as plenty of cyclists get fines.

Or as above, it's just more confirmation bias. They are allowed to ride abreast, by law. Riding abreast is not riding so as to keep as far left as possible. Therefor they are not ticketed simply for failing to keep as far left as possible.

Does it? where is that written into the legislation then?

On the one hand you're making it as easy as possible for the car to overtake and on the other you're making their job more difficult... in lycra... on a pushbike. Do you really think that's a good idea in NZ?

Own the lane :laugh:

Is it though? in either case they need to use the oncoming lane.

So on the one hand, you're making it easier for the car to know when it is safe to overtake, and on the other hand you are leaving the decision up to them. Do you really think that is a good idea in NZ?

TheDemonLord

19th January 2015, 16:49

Confirmation bias.

More confirmation bias as plenty of cyclists get fines.

Or as above, it's just more confirmation bias. They are allowed to ride abreast, by law. Riding abreast is not riding so as to keep as far left as possible. Therefor they are not ticketed simply for failing to keep as far left as possible.

Does it? where is that written into the legislation then?

Plenty of Cyclists get fines for no helmet, Fuck all cyclists get fines for anything else - so I would say its not confirmation bias if you remove the one outlier result (ie no helmets)

as for the rest

And Lo - I quoteth yon Land Transport (Road User) Act dated 2004:

"Keeping left

(1) A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.

(2) If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass."

That is where is is written into law - Again, we can argue about what constitutes practicable and what doesn't - but confirmation bias or not, If Me, the Police and the legislation all agree on a point, then I would put forward that is fairly strong evidence in favor of our collective viewpoint

As for riding 2 abreast I would say that it is a violation of the above - unless of course they are maintaining a constant 50 kph - but how many cyclists can do that up a hill, or in a wind?

carbonhed

19th January 2015, 16:54

Is it though? in either case they need to use the oncoming lane.

So on the one hand, you're making it easier for the car to know when it is safe to overtake, and on the other hand you are leaving the decision up to them. Do you really think that is a good idea in NZ?

It's their call and their responsibility.

R650R

19th January 2015, 17:29

I attended a crash involving multiple cyclists and a car at Xmas (fortunately nobody seriously hurt) where the cyclists were to blame. What interested me was the way they normally scream blue murder when a car is involved unless, like in this case, one of their own caused the crash and then do they shut up like a book.
Seems, they were being dicks and riding in their "close quarters" bunch (over a narrow bridge on a busy road no less) when one tried to dodge something small on the road taking out a few of the others and flicking one of the bikes under the front of a car.
Trying to interview them about who did the dodging, who was following to close etc was met with complete ignorance (but they did insist the car coming the other way that hit the bike should have been able to stop) and none of them would man up about riding too close.
As for Lycra, it does dick to stop road rash! Plenty of skin off and blood flowing. When it was suggested to them that (a) they should wear better protective clothing, (b) they should be obeying all road rules including single file and maintaining a safe following distance and (c) they should have to cover their own medical expenses as they haven't paid sufficient ACC levies as motorcycle riders have to they got quite pissy.
Hopefully the road rash for Xmas has taught them to ride safer but unfortunately I doubt it.

Well done, I'll shout you a dozen for that.... :)

It's high time the LTSA addressed the pack riding factor especially when it has contributed to unnecessary multiple fatalities or serious injurys. Eg recently in the bay a car hit one bike at roundabout in Hav'Nth, that bike then took out the other bike. So while the car was in the wrong, there was no need for two cyclists to be injured. I think pack riding should be banned except for sanctioned official sports events of a national championship level. (not just any race as clubs hold those every weekend). Pack riding should still be ok for kids as they smaller and need the visibility.
Police and LTSA should start keeping separate records of normal cyclist crashers versus racer type cycles. As lets be honest here its not your ride to work john doe who cant afford petrol for the car this week that is in these crashes all the time.
Lately I've added helmetless tourist cyclists to the major hazard list but they are generally going so slow it doesn't matter when they do dumb stuff.
Where I'm operating now though pedestrians have become my new number one annoyance. Despite 99% of site drivers often waiting for them and waving them to cross they often make up their own plan and walk behind qued trucks instead of in front.... which sets them up for being hit by someone else.... Time to fill in some OSH hazard forms, its nice to be with a reputable employer that cares about this stuff. :)

bogan

19th January 2015, 17:29

Plenty of Cyclists get fines for no helmet, Fuck all cyclists get fines for anything else - so I would say its not confirmation bias if you remove the one outlier result (ie no helmets)

as for the rest

And Lo - I quoteth yon Land Transport (Road User) Act dated 2004:

"Keeping left

(1) A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.

(2) If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass."

That is where is is written into law - Again, we can argue about what constitutes practicable and what doesn't - but confirmation bias or not, If Me, the Police and the legislation all agree on a point, then I would put forward that is fairly strong evidence in favor of our collective viewpoint

As for riding 2 abreast I would say that it is a violation of the above - unless of course they are maintaining a constant 50 kph - but how many cyclists can do that up a hill, or in a wind?

No, that is exactly what confirmation bias is, seeing the result and attributing it to your preconceived cause.

So 1, applies to all road users at any circumstance and says that "must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides"
and 2, applies to road users going slower than the traffic behind them and says that "that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass"

So tell me, why does the definition of 'practicable' change between the two? or is some other definition changing between the two? (note; i'm not asking why your interpretation changes, but the definition itself).

You are agreeing on a different point than that which police and legislation does though, and it is confirmation bias that makes your view is shared by the police and legislation.

Exactly, and the following demonstrates why your interpretation of the above is wrong.

11.10Riding abreast
(1)A person must not ride a cycle or moped on a roadway so that it remains abreast and to the right of—
(a)2 other vehicles that are cycles or mopeds; or
(b)1 other cycle or moped while that cycle or moped is overtaking and passing another vehicle, including a parked vehicle; or
(c)any other vehicle having 3 or more road wheels (including a motorcycle fitted with a sidecar).

It is specifically written into legislation that you cannot ride abreast of 2 cycles, not one. Thus you can legally ride 2 abreast. Because your interpretation of practicable does not allow for 2 cycles abreast, I have just demonstrated it is wrong.

It's their call and their responsibility.

But not their arse on the line.

carbonhed

19th January 2015, 17:58

But not their arse on the line.

Cruel but true.

AllanB

19th January 2015, 19:02

Why did he not toot his horn so they would shift over and make way for him instead of talking to himself in an angry way inside the car. His comment about them not being registered is nonsense as I am sure they would ride the same way if they were or would he just be happier to follow behind if they were.

Seriously? - do you not leave your house in Christchurch? Try the Old TaiTapu Road - both sides of the road. Tooting at the CHCH riders just gets you a finger and some fuck-wad will move out three abreast.

Ocean1

19th January 2015, 19:19

as Ocean1 pointed out, although maybe not as eloquently as I would have done

Oi!

fuck off out of the way

Lacks very little in the way of eloquence. Cunt.

cynna

19th January 2015, 19:35

BlackSheepLogic

19th January 2015, 19:49

what had become of NZ - i would hardly call him an agressive driver. And the 60 year old in akaroa that got attacked by a group of motorcyclists didnt require medical attention.

It really puzzles me why a 60 year old attacked by a group of motorcyclists didn't require medical attention. Something's not quite right about the story unless they were actually scooterists. At best some words probably exchanged blown out of all proportion.

mossy1200

19th January 2015, 22:18

what had become of NZ - i would hardly call him an agressive driver. And the 60 year old in akaroa that got attacked by a group of motorcyclists didnt require medical attention

the internet has brought out a new bunch of internet tough guys that hide behind a camera and then speed home to post video from the safety of their computer screen

Wrong thread.

It really puzzles me why a 60 year old attacked by a group of motorcyclists didn't require medical attention. Something's not quite right about the story unless they were actually scooterists. At best some words probably exchanged blown out of all proportion.

Wrong thread.

This is the hate some cyclist thread. Akaroa brawler can be found elsewhere.:bash:

cynna

19th January 2015, 22:23

i meant how this driver was called agressive then got side tracked....

mossy1200

19th January 2015, 22:31

i meant how this driver was called agressive then got side tracked....

Minister Mossy says you can say- 3 "cyclist rages" and 2 "own your lanes" and we will forgive you Son of KB as thou art in keyboard warrior land.

Berries

19th January 2015, 22:44

Minister Mossy says you can say- 3 "cyclist rages" and 2 "own your lanes"
And a cyclist in a pear tree?

BlackSheepLogic

20th January 2015, 07:11

Wrong thread.
This is the hate some cyclist thread. Akaroa brawler can be found elsewhere.:bash:

Is this some new KB Netiquette rule the rest of us don't know about?

pritch

20th January 2015, 07:26

I was remembering this case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10315375/Cops-botch-speeding-cyclists-ticket

Interesting, the dude says he can stop faster than a car. He must be related to Skidmark?

TheDemonLord

20th January 2015, 07:57

No, that is exactly what confirmation bias is, seeing the result and attributing it to your preconceived cause.

You say confirmation bias, I say a likely explanation of the results based on the info we have. To truly be confirmation bias I would need to ignore or discount evidence that didn't agree with my position

So 1, applies to all road users at any circumstance and says that "must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides"
and 2, applies to road users going slower than the traffic behind them and says that "that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass"

So tell me, why does the definition of 'practicable' change between the two? or is some other definition changing between the two? (note; i'm not asking why your interpretation changes, but the definition itself).

A worthy question and challenge- It changes as speed changes. What is practicable for a Motorcyclist traveling at 50-60 kph is not what is practicable for a cyclist traveling at 20-30 kph. At 50 kph practicable would be sat in the middle of the lane - giving one the maximum amount of safe distance between hazards from the oncoming lane and hazards coming from the pavement and by maximum amount of safe distance I mean time to react (either brake or swerve). Contrast now to doing 20-30 kph, what it practicable has now changed as there is less danger from hazards from the pavement but an increased danger from faster traffic, by less danger I mean that a cyclist travelling at 20-30 kph can safely brake to avoid a hazard from the pavement in the space that they have to react to the hazard that a motorcycle travelling at 50 kph can't.

So to sum up - the definition of Practicable changes as the speed at which the road user is traveling (relative to the rest of the traffic, speed limit etc,) changes

You are agreeing on a different point than that which police and legislation does though, and it is confirmation bias that makes your view is shared by the police and legislation.

As above - looking at the result and putting forward a likely explanation is not confirmation bias.

Exactly, and the following demonstrates why your interpretation of the above is wrong.

11.10Riding abreast
(1)A person must not ride a cycle or moped on a roadway so that it remains abreast and to the right of—
(a)2 other vehicles that are cycles or mopeds; or
(b)1 other cycle or moped while that cycle or moped is overtaking and passing another vehicle, including a parked vehicle; or
(c)any other vehicle having 3 or more road wheels (including a motorcycle fitted with a sidecar).

It is specifically written into legislation that you cannot ride abreast of 2 cycles, not one. Thus you can legally ride 2 abreast. Because your interpretation of practicable does not allow for 2 cycles abreast, I have just demonstrated it is wrong.

Here is where we are going to get into a Lawyers argument - My interpretation of the above and the keep left rule would be this:

You can ride 2 abreast (but not 3) unless you are holding up the traffic flow, in which case, you are to keep left.

The reason I interpret in this way is that in that section of legislation it does not grant a dispensation of the keep left rule - so from that perspective the keep left rule always applies, even when riding 2 abreast. Thus if you are not doing the speed limit and are holding the traffic flow up, the Cyclist is responsible to stop riding 2 abreast, keep left and allow the traffic to pass.

There is still nothing that I have found thus far that supersedes or dispenses a cyclists legal obligation to keep left and not inhibit the traffic flow and so nothing that allows for them to claim the lane, except for a loose definition of Practicable which I don't believe applies, but technical definitions of legal English is unfortunately beyond my experiance - I will however make one final arguement which is the man on the clapham omnibus argument as to what is the commonly accepted definition or behavior: I put forward as shown by the average NZ driver and also members of this forum that the commonly accepted definitions is that Cyclists are to keep left.

Or as Ocean1 put it (paraphrasing here):

Slow Cunts get the fuck out of my way

pritch

20th January 2015, 07:57

Which is fine, if you're doing near the posted limit.

If not then you need to fuck off out of the way.

Sometimes. There was a clip on the 'Net - on the Whaleoil blog IIRC? There was a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane. The "lane" was in an area of roadworks and was of minimum width, marked by road cones. There was absolutely no room to overtake even if the cyclist was proceeding relatively slowly on the unsealed surface The guy in a car following the cyclist, and filming this, was having a rant. The public comments were about "road lice" and ignorant cyclists. All of which tended to convince me that none of the pricks commenting should have a drivers licence.

My experience riding a moped convinced me that there should be a psychometric component to the drivers licence testing. There are too many drivers who lack the mental stability to be in charge of a deadly weapon - ie a motor vehicle. Having diagnosable nut jobs behind the wheel can't help the road toll.

TheDemonLord

20th January 2015, 10:20

My experience riding a moped convinced me that there should be a psychometric component to the drivers licence testing. There are too many drivers who lack the mental stability to be in charge of a deadly weapon - ie a motor vehicle. Having diagnosable nut jobs behind the wheel can't help the road toll.

I would be all for it - for me though it comes down to in this country, Driving is percieved as a right, not a privledge

Compare this to say the US - I draw parrallels with our road toll to the Gun crime in the US, over there it is also a right, not a privledge. then compare our Firearms record where it is a privledge and not a right - somehow we are great with firearms (where it is a privledge that can be revoked) but crap with cars (where it is percieved as a right and not a privledge)

DamianW

20th January 2015, 13:22

...for me though it comes down to in this country, Driving is percieved as a right, not a privledge...)

Agreed. Also throw in an unhealthy dose of ambivalence among drivers on the consequences of their shit driving. For example earlier today I drove past a two car RTA just before Surfdale on Waiheke. Ambulance and cops were already on the scene clearing up the carnage. A few hundred metres further on down the road a complete twat in a people carrier comes hurtling around a 35km/h bend at around 60. He veers with both front wheels over the centre line in to my lane and I swerved to get out of his way to avoid a head on. Did he stop? Did he bollocks!

Add to that we are told on the news last night that a recent poll shows that 60% of drivers fess up to texting while driving. Words fail me.

mossy1200

20th January 2015, 14:02

Is this some new KB Netiquette rule the rest of us don't know about?

No I just went all vigilante while sitting here in my lycra hero suit.

bogan

20th January 2015, 16:55

You say confirmation bias, I say a likely explanation of the results based on the info we have. To truly be confirmation bias I would need to ignore or discount evidence that didn't agree with my position

A worthy question and challenge- It changes as speed changes. What is practicable for a Motorcyclist traveling at 50-60 kph is not what is practicable for a cyclist traveling at 20-30 kph. At 50 kph practicable would be sat in the middle of the lane - giving one the maximum amount of safe distance between hazards from the oncoming lane and hazards coming from the pavement and by maximum amount of safe distance I mean time to react (either brake or swerve). Contrast now to doing 20-30 kph, what it practicable has now changed as there is less danger from hazards from the pavement but an increased danger from faster traffic, by less danger I mean that a cyclist travelling at 20-30 kph can safely brake to avoid a hazard from the pavement in the space that they have to react to the hazard that a motorcycle travelling at 50 kph can't.

So to sum up - the definition of Practicable changes as the speed at which the road user is traveling (relative to the rest of the traffic, speed limit etc,) changes

As above - looking at the result and putting forward a likely explanation is not confirmation bias.

Here is where we are going to get into a Lawyers argument - My interpretation of the above and the keep left rule would be this:

You can ride 2 abreast (but not 3) unless you are holding up the traffic flow, in which case, you are to keep left.

The reason I interpret in this way is that in that section of legislation it does not grant a dispensation of the keep left rule - so from that perspective the keep left rule always applies, even when riding 2 abreast. Thus if you are not doing the speed limit and are holding the traffic flow up, the Cyclist is responsible to stop riding 2 abreast, keep left and allow the traffic to pass.

There is still nothing that I have found thus far that supersedes or dispenses a cyclists legal obligation to keep left and not inhibit the traffic flow and so nothing that allows for them to claim the lane, except for a loose definition of Practicable which I don't believe applies, but technical definitions of legal English is unfortunately beyond my experiance - I will however make one final arguement which is the man on the clapham omnibus argument as to what is the commonly accepted definition or behavior: I put forward as shown by the average NZ driver and also members of this forum that the commonly accepted definitions is that Cyclists are to keep left.

Or as Ocean1 put it (paraphrasing here):

Slow Cunts get the fuck out of my way

The evidence you are ignoring and discounting is the law. The law does not say that it is a ticket-able offense; ergo, no tickets. No tickets cannot therefore be a product of cops going easy on cyclists for whatever reason. So you ignoring the legality of the maneuver and substituting your own theory is confirmation bias.

Exactly, practicable depends on what is safe. My whole point is that it is safer to own the lane. Your point that it is a bad idea because that is illegal is therefor null and void given that the legality has now been distilled down to what is safe.

Similar story though, the 'keep more left' to let others pass only applies when it is practicable (safe, as established above) to do so.

Your earlier point that owning the lane is not a good idea because it is contrary to the legislation comes down to the point of safety. Therefore it remains a safety issue (the reason why you would own a lane in the first place) and not one that cannot be done because it in itself is illegal.
It is illegal if you are riding on a road which is wide enough for the cycle, a safe passing gap, and the whole width of the passing vehicle; but on roads where there is not that much room, it is completely legal to ride further into the center of the lane as a safety measure to ensure the vehicle behind knows they must use the oncoming lane to complete a safe pass; and thus plans accordingly.

Ocean1

20th January 2015, 18:28

Sometimes. There was a clip on the 'Net - on the Whaleoil blog IIRC? There was a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane. The "lane" was in an area of roadworks and was of minimum width, marked by road cones. There was absolutely no room to overtake even if the cyclist was proceeding relatively slowly on the unsealed surface The guy in a car following the cyclist, and filming this, was having a rant. The public comments were about "road lice" and ignorant cyclists. All of which tended to convince me that none of the pricks commenting should have a drivers licence.

My experience riding a moped convinced me that there should be a psychometric component to the drivers licence testing. There are too many drivers who lack the mental stability to be in charge of a deadly weapon - ie a motor vehicle. Having diagnosable nut jobs behind the wheel can't help the road toll.

Most of the time.

Ohyeah, there's arseholes of every flavour out there, and obnoxious, aggressive drivers ain't difficult to find.

But indignant, outraged bicyclists insisting that every other road user needs to put themselves considerably out of their way to cater for their very slow speed, their weird lines and their tendency to invent lanes nobody else can see and swap between them for no apparent reason always seem to appear on the horizon when your morning has already failed to meet perfectly reasonable expectations, you've missed one appointment, the next meeting is looking shaky and cancelling lunch with the other half has irrevocably changed the mood of the whole day for the worse.

Few arseholes quite match the undesirability of your righteously indignant cyclist in the process of disrupting hundreds of perfectly innocent motorists progress through their well planned day.

mossy1200

20th January 2015, 18:35

Ocean1

20th January 2015, 18:42

I like to get past as quick as possible because their lycra clad cycle shorts make their arse look like its going to gobble their seat. A gobbled seat is something I don't want the image of haunting me for the rest of my life.

Aye. That. And the fact that the very tasty arse you've been imagining for the last 5 minutes turns out to be a bloke with shaved legs.

mossy1200

20th January 2015, 19:00

Aye. That. And the fact that the very tasty arse you've been imagining for the last 5 minutes turns out to be a bloke with shaved legs.

Ever since I heard of "Chicks with Dicks" I have treated everyone mail until proven female.

TheDemonLord

21st January 2015, 06:20

The evidence you are ignoring and discounting is the law. The law does not say that it is a ticket-able offense; ergo, no tickets. No tickets cannot therefore be a product of cops going easy on cyclists for whatever reason. So you ignoring the legality of the maneuver and substituting your own theory is confirmation bias.

Exactly, practicable depends on what is safe. My whole point is that it is safer to own the lane. Your point that it is a bad idea because that is illegal is therefor null and void given that the legality has now been distilled down to what is safe.

Similar story though, the 'keep more left' to let others pass only applies when it is practicable (safe, as established above) to do so.

Your earlier point that owning the lane is not a good idea because it is contrary to the legislation comes down to the point of safety. Therefore it remains a safety issue (the reason why you would own a lane in the first place) and not one that cannot be done because it in itself is illegal.
It is illegal if you are riding on a road which is wide enough for the cycle, a safe passing gap, and the whole width of the passing vehicle; but on roads where there is not that much room, it is completely legal to ride further into the center of the lane as a safety measure to ensure the vehicle behind knows they must use the oncoming lane to complete a safe pass; and thus plans accordingly.

So I decided to look up whether or not it was a ticketable offence....

And may I offer you a slice of Apple and Humble pie with a side of Whipped Demon Cream (everyone's favourite, the Saltyness contrasts to the sweetness of the pie)

Fail to drive as near as practicable to the left of the roadway 20 Demerits
Fail to allow impeded traffic to pass 20 Demerits

Source: http://nzta.govt.nz/licence/offences-penalties/demerit.html#road (Slight edit made to the above quote for ease of understanding)

We can conclude if it is an offence which carries demerits - its a ticketable offence - Therefore Demon 1, Bogan 0 and the referree has ruled the Confirmation Bias non-existant

As for safety, Owning the lane IMO (and this is pure opinion) does not constitute the safer option as you are exposing yourself to a potential rear-end and other issues owing to the considerable difference in speed between you and other law abiding road users who are expecting you to keep left.

I will add that I don't believe there has been a case in NZ where this has been challenged and a precedent set (I would be interested however if there is, and may have to enjoy my own serving of Pie)

But anyway back to the original point - on the video we are debating - the Cyclist failed to keep left when it was safe to do so, to let traffic passed.

Instead continuing to 'own the lane' and then he got his knickers in a twist when a driver went 'Well fuck this' and squeezed passed. The driver was being a knob, but the cyclist was also being a knob - Both are in the wrong in a legal sense.

bogan

21st January 2015, 07:01

So I decided to look up whether or not it was a ticketable offence....

And may I offer you a slice of Apple and Humble pie with a side of Whipped Demon Cream (everyone's favourite, the Saltyness contrasts to the sweetness of the pie)

Source: http://nzta.govt.nz/licence/offences-penalties/demerit.html#road (Slight edit made to the above quote for ease of understanding)

We can conclude if it is an offence which carries demerits - its a ticketable offence - Therefore Demon 1, Bogan 0 and the referree has ruled the Confirmation Bias non-existant

As for safety, Owning the lane IMO (and this is pure opinion) does not constitute the safer option as you are exposing yourself to a potential rear-end and other issues owing to the considerable difference in speed between you and other law abiding road users who are expecting you to keep left.

I will add that I don't believe there has been a case in NZ where this has been challenged and a precedent set (I would be interested however if there is, and may have to enjoy my own serving of Pie)

But anyway back to the original point - on the video we are debating - the Cyclist failed to keep left when it was safe to do so, to let traffic passed.

Instead continuing to 'own the lane' and then he got his knickers in a twist when a driver went 'Well fuck this' and squeezed passed. The driver was being a knob, but the cyclist was also being a knob - Both are in the wrong in a legal sense.

Of course violations of that legislation is a ticketable offense. But, by your own definition, that legislation refers to safe maneuvers, and is not applied to the same effect at all times (as it covers all vehicle types, not just cyclists). It still boils down to; is this safe, or not.

Exactly, whether it is safe or not is pure opinion, not legislation. They is why it is not illegal. That is why cyclists can ride two abreast. If you insist on pie being eaten, I hope you're hungry...

The original point was on the original video, I've already said the cyclist from the other could have pulled to the left and allowed one to pass. Have you watched the original one yet?

And confirmation bias is existent. The point of discussion is whether or not it is illegal; any argument which operates on the presupposition that it is, is therefor null/circular/confirmation bias. You don't even have to be wrong for it to be confirmation bias either; it is just a flaw in the way you reason to that outcome.

TheDemonLord

21st January 2015, 07:45

Exactly, whether it is safe or not is pure opinion, not legislation. They is why it is not illegal. That is why cyclists can ride two abreast. If you insist on pie being eaten, I hope you're hungry...

Am enjoying a Subway ATM, so not so hungry - but here is the thing - My opinion is X, yours is Y, it would appear that the legal sectors also have opinion X although their reasoning may be different and add to that the Clapham omnibus defence - if the average person believes it to be unsafe/dangerous/illegal/not practicable then it is.

I will re-state my challenge that if there is a precedent that has been set in NZ case law, I would love to read it.

The original point was on the original video, I've already said the cyclist from the other could have pulled to the left and allowed one to pass. Have you watched the original one yet?

I have not - I have not made any comments or observations about the original video as I have not watched it - I only commented on the second video - all my points relate to this and only this.

And confirmation bias is existent. The point of discussion is whether or not it is illegal; any argument which operates on the presupposition that it is, is therefor null/circular/confirmation bias. You don't even have to be wrong for it to be confirmation bias either; it is just a flaw in the way you reason to that outcome.

I disagree with your claim that it is circular reasoning/confirmation bias:

The act is legal/illegal depending on what definition of Practicable you apply - how can we determine which definition is the correct one to use? so far, the shared opinion of the Police and the populace at large (clapham omnibus) would support my definition. If you can provide anything to further your claim that my definition is incorrect, then we can continue but if it is my definition that applies (and everything else points to this being the case) then the second video showed a cyclist riding illegally. No circular logic need apply

bogan

21st January 2015, 08:24

Am enjoying a Subway ATM, so not so hungry - but here is the thing - My opinion is X, yours is Y, it would appear that the legal sectors also have opinion X although their reasoning may be different and add to that the Clapham omnibus defence - if the average person believes it to be unsafe/dangerous/illegal/not practicable then it is.

I will re-state my challenge that if there is a precedent that has been set in NZ case law, I would love to read it.

I have not - I have not made any comments or observations about the original video as I have not watched it - I only commented on the second video - all my points relate to this and only this.

I disagree with your claim that it is circular reasoning/confirmation bias:

The act is legal/illegal depending on what definition of Practicable you apply - how can we determine which definition is the correct one to use? so far, the shared opinion of the Police and the populace at large (clapham omnibus) would support my definition. If you can provide anything to further your claim that my definition is incorrect, then we can continue but if it is my definition that applies (and everything else points to this being the case) then the second video showed a cyclist riding illegally. No circular logic need apply

The legal opinion could be either X or Y, the riding abreast section leads me to believe it is Y; you've only offered up a confirmation bias theory for X.

That challenge goes both ways, and surely if it is always illegal there would be more precedent?

Wrong, you first responded to me many posts before the second video was posted; so how could all points relate to it?

How could it be otherwise, it relys on the supposition that you are right in it being illegal to begin with. That is by basic definition, circular logic and confirmation bias if the end result is to show it to be illegal; both X and Y result in no tickets remember.

Your application of the clapham omnibus is also confirmation bias. How do you know that does not support my opinion?
If the second video showed him to be riding illegally, and he sent it to the police (along with a lot more timewastey stuff), the obvious question becomes...
So in lieu of that prosecution or soggy bus ticket slapping; I submit that you are wrong to say he was also categorically riding illegally.

TheDemonLord

21st January 2015, 09:29

The legal opinion could be either X or Y, the riding abreast section leads me to believe it is Y; you've only offered up a confirmation bias theory for X.

No - The riding abreast rule does NOT dispense or invalidate the keep left rule. The keep left rule always applies - so yes, you can ride 2 abreast, so long as you aren't holding anyone up, otherwise you need to keep left

That challenge goes both ways, and surely if it is always illegal there would be more precedent?

There is no need for precedent - the Law already says its illegal, the precedent would be set that the definition of Practicable is expanded such that it would allow a Cyclist to claim the lane.

Wrong, you first responded to me many posts before the second video was posted; so how could all points relate to it?

But not in relation to the first video, only in relation to whether it is legal or not to claim the lane - you will note that I made no mention to any riding or actions in the first video - only about the Idea of claiming the lane

How could it be otherwise, it relys on the supposition that you are right in it being illegal to begin with. That is by basic definition, circular logic and confirmation bias if the end result is to show it to be illegal; both X and Y result in no tickets remember.

Not so - If the cyclist was in the right, then the charge of dangerous driving against the Car driver would be valid, and so we would expect action to be taken against the driver. No action was taken, so it would confirm my position that the Cyclist is equally in the wrong and so the police weighing the actions of both parties decided not to proceed. No supposition needed,

Your application of the clapham omnibus is also confirmation bias. How do you know that does not support my opinion?

Nope, Clapham omnibus is a perfectly legal concept, given the behaviour of NZ motorists, the Behaviour of KB users, the Behaviour of the comments in the youtube videos (which are all representative samples of the NZ population) I can provide proof for my position, which you cannot for yours - the only representative group that supports your position is cyclists - if the opinion is only held by a specific or minority group, it does NOT conform to the Clapham omnibus defence. Which is that what would a reasonable, educated but non-distinct person deem to be correct, if the only people that deem it to be correct are distinct (ie Cyclists), then it isn't what the average person deems reasonable therefore no confirmation bias, merely a well established legal concept.

If the second video showed him to be riding illegally, and he sent it to the police (along with a lot more timewastey stuff), the obvious question becomes...
So in lieu of that prosecution or soggy bus ticket slapping; I submit that you are wrong to say he was also categorically riding illegally.

The police also mentioned other illegal activities that they didn't prosecute - does this mean that Road Rage is now legal? (which is the argument you are making, no police action means that it must be legal).

bogan

21st January 2015, 15:17

No - The riding abreast rule does NOT dispense or invalidate the keep left rule. The keep left rule always applies - so yes, you can ride 2 abreast, so long as you aren't holding anyone up, otherwise you need to keep left

There is no need for precedent - the Law already says its illegal, the precedent would be set that the definition of Practicable is expanded such that it would allow a Cyclist to claim the lane.

But not in relation to the first video, only in relation to whether it is legal or not to claim the lane - you will note that I made no mention to any riding or actions in the first video - only about the Idea of claiming the lane

Not so - If the cyclist was in the right, then the charge of dangerous driving against the Car driver would be valid, and so we would expect action to be taken against the driver. No action was taken, so it would confirm my position that the Cyclist is equally in the wrong and so the police weighing the actions of both parties decided not to proceed. No supposition needed,

Nope, Clapham omnibus is a perfectly legal concept, given the behaviour of NZ motorists, the Behaviour of KB users, the Behaviour of the comments in the youtube videos (which are all representative samples of the NZ population) I can provide proof for my position, which you cannot for yours - the only representative group that supports your position is cyclists - if the opinion is only held by a specific or minority group, it does NOT conform to the Clapham omnibus defence. Which is that what would a reasonable, educated but non-distinct person deem to be correct, if the only people that deem it to be correct are distinct (ie Cyclists), then it isn't what the average person deems reasonable therefore no confirmation bias, merely a well established legal concept.

The police also mentioned other illegal activities that they didn't prosecute - does this mean that Road Rage is now legal? (which is the argument you are making, no police action means that it must be legal).

So by your interpretation, cyclists who ride abreast while people are looking to pass are doing so illegally? (the original vid) Is this supported anywhere else?

Clearly the law is ambiguous in what constitutes practicable, thus precedent is helpful.

Indeed, and the idea of claiming the lane does not apply to the cyclists actions in the second video as there was space for a safe pass within the lane if he had moved to the left. Why do you even focus on the second vid to prove a point about actions which it does not contain? Is it a deliberate strawman?

Another logical fallacy, just because the driver who almost hit the cyclist was not ticketed, doesn't mean the cyclist should have been. After all, you could apply that same logic in reverse and say the cyclist wasn't ticketed so the driver should have been...

I mean how do you know the consensus supports yours instead of mine? how do you know the consensus of NZ motorists under the scope in which a cyclist owning the lane applies? Do you even know the scope in which a cyclist owning the lane as a safety measure applies?

Wrong, my point was "that you are wrong to say he was also categorically riding illegally."

All your points circle back to how safe a cyclists actions are; and you are projecting your opinion of safe driving practice onto them to come up with 'illegal'.

R650R

21st January 2015, 15:44

Most of the time.

Ohyeah, there's arseholes of every flavour out there, and obnoxious, aggressive drivers ain't difficult to find.

But indignant, outraged bicyclists insisting that every other road user needs to put themselves considerably out of their way to cater for their very slow speed, their weird lines and their tendency to invent lanes nobody else can see and swap between them for no apparent reason always seem to appear on the horizon when your morning has already failed to meet perfectly reasonable expectations, you've missed one appointment, the next meeting is looking shaky and cancelling lunch with the other half has irrevocably changed the mood of the whole day for the worse.

Few arseholes quite match the undesirability of your righteously indignant cyclist in the process of disrupting hundreds of perfectly innocent motorists progress through their well planned day.

Very well said and yes each other subset of roadusers has theirs too at a lesser percentage.

As for inventing lanes.... looking left and looking right before proceeding to leave a major industrial site that has cycleway/pedestrian path crossing it. All clear. End up waiting for awhile before safe to proceed across due to various car driver muppet antics. Just as I go to pull out I notice a cyclist that had been approaching on the left on proper pathway had decided to position themselves in my blindspot and pullout with me as I pulled out. Quite a bizarre and unnecessary risk and lucky for her (super odd it was actually female cyclist, they usually the safer ones) I'm very proactive on my blindspot checks and recheck multiple times as I move away. Could have been different story with another lesser or slacker driver...

TheDemonLord

21st January 2015, 16:40

So by your interpretation, cyclists who ride abreast while people are looking to pass are doing so illegally? (the original vid) Is this supported anywhere else?

That would be my interpretation of the law - I would have to watch the original video to confirm if that was the scenario - but I can't find anything that supersedes the keep left rule, so yes, if you are holding up traffic, you need to stop riding 2 abreast, and keep left.

Clearly the law is ambiguous in what constitutes practicable, thus precedent is helpful.

The law is a little ambiguous - and I think in my first post I even conceded that a re-write is needed - I will further concede that I am not sure what the laws default position would be, I would feel that the onus would be on the person making the claim that practicable in their scenario meant not keeping left as opposed to the opposite (as the law states you must keep left as far as practicable, so any change to not keeping left must be confirmed in debate, not the other way around)

Indeed, and the idea of claiming the lane does not apply to the cyclists actions in the second video as there was space for a safe pass within the lane if he had moved to the left. Why do you even focus on the second vid to prove a point about actions which it does not contain? Is it a deliberate strawman?

Well, the cyclist in the second video justified his actions under the guise of claiming the Lane, so I don't think it can be considered a true strawman. In that video however, he used the same justification you are attempting to use for his actions.

Another logical fallacy, just because the driver who almost hit the cyclist was not ticketed, doesn't mean the cyclist should have been. After all, you could apply that same logic in reverse and say the cyclist wasn't ticketed so the driver should have been...

but neither of them were ticketed, which indicates both were at fault:

We know from the video that the Car driver clearly engaged in a dangerous move. If the cyclist was not at fault, we would expect further action to be taken. No further action was taken. Since no further action was taken, we can conclude that there most be a mitigating reason for no further action being taken. The most likely mitigating factor is that the cyclist was also at fault. (there is no logical fallacy in that reasoning, unless you believe the car driver didn't do a dangerous move)

Typically in incidents were one party is solely at fault, there are consequences, however when both parties equally contributed to the near miss (ie nothing major happened) then the default response is to not push forward with charges (since each sides lawyers will proceed to blame the other party)

I mean how do you know the consensus supports yours instead of mine? how do you know the consensus of NZ motorists under the scope in which a cyclist owning the lane applies? Do you even know the scope in which a cyclist owning the lane as a safety measure applies?

Anecdotally - the only people who I have heard infer they have a right to claim the lane is road cyclists
From the KB forum - those that have participated in this debate actively are 3, Myself, yourself and Ocean1, 2 of us think you don't have a right to claim the lane, 1 of us does. Thats a 66.6% majority (666 \m/)
From observations of how the average Kiwi road user interacts with cyclists - overwhelming majority
Finally the reverse - Cyclists make up a small percentage of the population I don't have figures to hand, and TBH I can't be arsed since we know that those who commute via car far outweigh (both figuratively and literally :laugh:) the number of cyclists. Since Cyclists are the generally the only ones who hold the position that claiming the lane is okay, we know that only a minority holds this position - thus the Clapham Omnibus defence stands

Do I kow the scope in which it applies - well from my perspective, it never applies (this is my interpretation of practicable) from your interpretation it is when the lane/road conditions are such that in order to complete an overtaking move the car behind most cross the centreline into the oncoming lane (Have I got your interpretation of Practicable correct?)

Wrong, my point was "that you are wrong to say he was also categorically riding illegally."

And my point is that if he wasn't riding illegally, there is a reasonable expectation that there would be further action against the car driver from the police. There wasn't, so we can conclude that the rider was riding illegally.

All your points circle back to how safe a cyclists actions are; and you are projecting your opinion of safe driving practice onto them to come up with 'illegal'.

Are you not doing the same? I hold to one definition of Practicable, you hold to another - we are both projecting (more or less) our definition of this rule and applying it to what we have watched.

My full logic is this:

The law says keep as far left as practicable if you are impeding the flow of traffic. My interpretation of Practicable is that for something going as slow as a cyclist that this means if there is traffic behind them, they need to keep as far left as possible - the hazard of being rear-ended by a vehicle traveling much faster than them outweighing the hazard of being sideswiped or forced off the road. Using this definition - Claiming the lane is always illegal

You believe contrary to this (that is fine) but what can you offer in proof to back up your claim? The closest you have offered is the riding abreast rule, but as per previous comments - this does not dispense or supersede the keep left rule.

Of course my position would be rendered null and void if Cyclists were riding on a road where they were able to keep to the speed limit consistently (such as Orewa where it has a flat and level 30 kph section)

I would genuinely be interested to see what would happen if a matter such as this went to court (hopefully by a means other than how it usually ends in court, with a dead or seriously injured cyclist)

Berries

21st January 2015, 16:44

My head hurts.

R650R

21st January 2015, 17:02

'Claiming the lane' is a valid technical road positioning move although not taught properly or at all to motorists in NZ.
Its essential in the UK where there are many Coronation street style roads on major thoroughfares that are reduced to one effective lane by parked vehicles.
In this instance when two vehicles are approaching each other, be they truck, car or bike one must take the initiative and position themselves promionantly to show they are coming through first, the other vehicle then slows/stops and moves left.
In NZ we rarely have this scenario but its good practice to do similar if you are passing parked car where someone has just got out the drivers side etc or in the case of a cyclist moving out early in a predictable manner when approaching a line of parked cars instead of swerving out at last minute. However it does not extend to deliberatetly blocking lane space just because you think its a bit tight to be overtaken on a certain spot, that is just obstruction. Although of done this myself in certain highway spots where the road edge/shoulder is severly decayed enough to rock the trailers about and with no oncoming traffic I've 'claimed the lane' to rock on instead of slowing down. This only inconveniances certain faster drivers who might want to overtake on that spot even though there is a passing lane a short distance ahead. I would rightly expect to be ticketed by a cop if seen doing it but it just one of those general practices us kiwi drivers/bikers/riders invent to suit our own circumstances :)

bogan

21st January 2015, 17:37

That would be my interpretation of the law - I would have to watch the original video to confirm if that was the scenario - but I can't find anything that supersedes the keep left rule, so yes, if you are holding up traffic, you need to stop riding 2 abreast, and keep left.

The law is a little ambiguous - and I think in my first post I even conceded that a re-write is needed - I will further concede that I am not sure what the laws default position would be, I would feel that the onus would be on the person making the claim that practicable in their scenario meant not keeping left as opposed to the opposite (as the law states you must keep left as far as practicable, so any change to not keeping left must be confirmed in debate, not the other way around)

Well, the cyclist in the second video justified his actions under the guise of claiming the Lane, so I don't think it can be considered a true strawman. In that video however, he used the same justification you are attempting to use for his actions.

but neither of them were ticketed, which indicates both were at fault:

We know from the video that the Car driver clearly engaged in a dangerous move. If the cyclist was not at fault, we would expect further action to be taken. No further action was taken. Since no further action was taken, we can conclude that there most be a mitigating reason for no further action being taken. The most likely mitigating factor is that the cyclist was also at fault. (there is no logical fallacy in that reasoning, unless you believe the car driver didn't do a dangerous move)

Typically in incidents were one party is solely at fault, there are consequences, however when both parties equally contributed to the near miss (ie nothing major happened) then the default response is to not push forward with charges (since each sides lawyers will proceed to blame the other party)

Anecdotally - the only people who I have heard infer they have a right to claim the lane is road cyclists
From the KB forum - those that have participated in this debate actively are 3, Myself, yourself and Ocean1, 2 of us think you don't have a right to claim the lane, 1 of us does. Thats a 66.6% majority (666 \m/)
From observations of how the average Kiwi road user interacts with cyclists - overwhelming majority
Finally the reverse - Cyclists make up a small percentage of the population I don't have figures to hand, and TBH I can't be arsed since we know that those who commute via car far outweigh (both figuratively and literally :laugh:) the number of cyclists. Since Cyclists are the generally the only ones who hold the position that claiming the lane is okay, we know that only a minority holds this position - thus the Clapham Omnibus defence stands

Do I kow the scope in which it applies - well from my perspective, it never applies (this is my interpretation of practicable) from your interpretation it is when the lane/road conditions are such that in order to complete an overtaking move the car behind most cross the centreline into the oncoming lane (Have I got your interpretation of Practicable correct?)

And my point is that if he wasn't riding illegally, there is a reasonable expectation that there would be further action against the car driver from the police. There wasn't, so we can conclude that the rider was riding illegally.

Are you not doing the same? I hold to one definition of Practicable, you hold to another - we are both projecting (more or less) our definition of this rule and applying it to what we have watched.

Anything besides your interpretation is what I meant. Ie, it could be interpreted that if riding abreast it is not practicable to go single file every time a car comes up.

Indeed, like claiming a lane to avert unsafe passes being a valid debatable option.

Tailor built straw man then, because his way of claiming the lane is at the very edge of what I term it to be.

At fault or illegal, why has the terminology changed?

Anecdotaly.
How do we know cyclists are the only ones that think claiming the lane is ok?

Yes those are the conditions; and was that the case in the second vid?

What if he was just riding shit but contributory? (imo exactly what happened).

Indeed, except you keep saying it is definitely illegal, while I prefer to think of it more as a happy grey area to be bent to increase ones safety.

My full logic is this:

The law says keep as far left as practicable if you are impeding the flow of traffic. My interpretation of Practicable is that for something going as slow as a cyclist that this means if there is traffic behind them, they need to keep as far left as possible - the hazard of being rear-ended by a vehicle traveling much faster than them outweighing the hazard of being sideswiped or forced off the road. Using this definition - Claiming the lane is always illegal

You believe contrary to this (that is fine) but what can you offer in proof to back up your claim? The closest you have offered is the riding abreast rule, but as per previous comments - this does not dispense or supersede the keep left rule.

Of course my position would be rendered null and void if Cyclists were riding on a road where they were able to keep to the speed limit consistently (such as Orewa where it has a flat and level 30 kph section)

I would genuinely be interested to see what would happen if a matter such as this went to court (hopefully by a means other than how it usually ends in court, with a dead or seriously injured cyclist)

If you are impeding the flow of traffic, there is no speed differential to get rear ended by though. Rear ending logically cannot be part of the holding up traffic argument/legislation for this reason.

I offer the riding abreast rule, and my interpretation; to say it is a grey area that can be argued as legal. You offer only your interpretation (and your interpretation of other's interpretations) and say it is illegal. Do you honestly think your case is stronger?

TheDemonLord

21st January 2015, 19:37

Anything besides your interpretation is what I meant. Ie, it could be interpreted that if riding abreast it is not practicable to go single file every time a car comes up.

Simple - don't ride two abreast if its too hard

Indeed, like claiming a lane to avert unsafe passes being a valid debatable option.

but the rebuttal to that would be since the driver should only overtake when safe to do so, there is no need to claim the lane.

Tailor built straw man then, because his way of claiming the lane is at the very edge of what I term it to be.

Not a strawman, but certainly reducto ad absurdium (using the very edge of what you term it to be to highlight the bad arguement)

At fault or illegal, why has the terminology changed?

At fault is synonymous with illegal - its hard to be legal and at fault

Anecdotaly.
How do we know cyclists are the only ones that think claiming the lane is ok?

A quick survey of NZ driving attitudes would confirm that - but since all I have is this thread, its now 75% in my favour, 25% to yours (thanks to R650 pointing out its okay in the UK, but not in NZ)

Yes those are the conditions; and was that the case in the second vid?

What if he was just riding shit but contributory? (imo exactly what happened).

Certainly the rider in the video would claim that as the case as would every other rider who claimed the lane would claim as well - to deny this would be to commit the no true scotsman fallacy

Indeed, except you keep saying it is definitely illegal, while I prefer to think of it more as a happy grey area to be bent to increase ones safety.

Not keeping left is definitely illegal unless you can prove that to not do so would be not practicable - I agree it is grey, but the wording in this case IMO supports an arguement of 'forbidden unless expressly allowed' as opposed to 'allowed unless expressly forbidden'

If you are impeding the flow of traffic, there is no speed differential to get rear ended by though. Rear ending logically cannot be part of the holding up traffic argument/legislation for this reason.

Hmmmm - I beg to differ, one can get rear ended whilst one is holding up traffic. It has unfortunately occurred far too often on NZ roads

I offer the riding abreast rule, and my interpretation; to say it is a grey area that can be argued as legal. You offer only your interpretation (and your interpretation of other's interpretations) and say it is illegal. Do you honestly think your case is stronger?

I honestly do. The riding abreast rule does not negate the need to keep left if you are holding up traffic - fine if there is no traffic, not fine if there is. The grey area IMO is worded in a way where the default is to deny as opposed to the default is to allow. I have also presented the Omnibus argument as to what a reasonable person would think - and as per the responses in this thread - in NZ reasonable people think that slow vehicles need to keep left in order to let others pass. And I offer the actions of the police as an implicit reinforcement of all of the above.

But as always - I concede that a review is needed and were I presented with legal precedent - I would be very interested to read

bogan

21st January 2015, 19:51

Simple - don't ride two abreast if its too hard

but the rebuttal to that would be since the driver should only overtake when safe to do so, there is no need to claim the lane.

Not a strawman, but certainly reducto ad absurdium (using the very edge of what you term it to be to highlight the bad arguement)

At fault is synonymous with illegal - its hard to be legal and at fault

A quick survey of NZ driving attitudes would confirm that - but since all I have is this thread, its now 75% in my favour, 25% to yours (thanks to R650 pointing out its okay in the UK, but not in NZ)

Certainly the rider in the video would claim that as the case as would every other rider who claimed the lane would claim as well - to deny this would be to commit the no true scotsman fallacy

Not keeping left is definitely illegal unless you can prove that to not do so would be not practicable - I agree it is grey, but the wording in this case IMO supports an arguement of 'forbidden unless expressly allowed' as opposed to 'allowed unless expressly forbidden'

Hmmmm - I beg to differ, one can get rear ended whilst one is holding up traffic. It has unfortunately occurred far too often on NZ roads

I honestly do. The riding abreast rule does not negate the need to keep left if you are holding up traffic - fine if there is no traffic, not fine if there is. The grey area IMO is worded in a way where the default is to deny as opposed to the default is to allow. I have also presented the Omnibus argument as to what a reasonable person would think - and as per the responses in this thread - in NZ reasonable people think that slow vehicles need to keep left in order to let others pass. And I offer the actions of the police as an implicit reinforcement of all of the above.

But as always - I concede that a review is needed and were I presented with legal precedent - I would be very interested to read

Is that in legislation too? :laugh:

Defensive riding rebuts the shit out of that though.

Agreed.

Not really, lots of times it is driver fault for not being defensive enough, but that is not illegal.

So you don't, at all, biased sample size of 4 is simply inadmissible. I hope you're taking the piss.

But the one in the vid would be demonstrably wrong to claim it. He was just riding shit, not necessarily illegally.

There we go, one slice served.

Not at much speed though, in fact wouldn't you be less likely to be rear ended if you were directly in the drivers vision under those circumstances?

Hang on, you admit it is a grey area above, and still say that your case for it being illegal is stronger than my case for it being a grey area? :scratch: The omnibus argument was shit, consisting of your own opinion interspersed with a handful of others you agree with. I could easily counter that with my own omnibus interspersion, but of course I realise that would defeat the point of trying to make it.

edit:
Actually, how about I make the point that the road code is a good indicator for omnibus.

If the road is too narrow to safely allow vehicles to pass, you are in danger of being run off the road or hit by a passing car. In this situation it is acceptable to ‘take the lane’ and move further out into the path of traffic to prevent other users from passing you. If you do have to move further out, remember to find a gap, signal your intentions, do a quick shoulder check and move across when it is safe. Once you have moved out try to ride as quickly as you can and allow the following traffic to pass when the road widens.

Have another slice :P

TheDemonLord

22nd January 2015, 10:59

Is that in legislation too? :laugh:

Well, yes - if you can't conform to the relevant legislation while doing something, stop doing it.

Defensive riding rebuts the shit out of that though.

Only if you consider claiming the lane as defensive riding, certainly as others have pointed out, in other parts of the world is is considered good road craft, I am not convinced however that in NZ the general consensus would consider it defensive riding except in extreme cases, like on a narrow one lane bridge (and not the manner in which most NZ cyclists seem to claim the lane)

Agreed.

Why, Thank you

Not really, lots of times it is driver fault for not being defensive enough, but that is not illegal.

Can you provide a scenario where a driver has followed all laws, yet still been in an accident? I can't - if a driver could see the accident happening, but chose not to avoid it (i.e to not give way when the didn't have to) I would deem that not driving with due care, or dangerous driving.

So you don't, at all, biased sample size of 4 is simply inadmissible. I hope you're taking the piss.

Certainly inadmissably for a full peer reviewed study, but as a representation of NZ driving attitudes, its reasonable enough - especially since with the exception of being motorcyclists, we are a good cross section of NZ society

But the one in the vid would be demonstrably wrong to claim it. He was just riding shit, not necessarily illegally.

Where then, do you draw the line between riding shit and riding well - at the moment it is solely at the cyclists discretion which isn't a good way to make laws.

Not at much speed though, in fact wouldn't you be less likely to be rear ended if you were directly in the drivers vision under those circumstances?

Doesn't need to be much speed for the cyclist to end up in hospital or worse, and I disagree - you would be less likely to be rear ended if the driver only has to swerve a small amount as opposed to an entire car width to avoid hitting you

Hang on, you admit it is a grey area above, and still say that your case for it being illegal is stronger than my case for it being a grey area? :scratch: The omnibus argument was shit, consisting of your own opinion interspersed with a handful of others you agree with. I could easily counter that with my own omnibus interspersion, but of course I realise that would defeat the point of trying to make it.

Yes I do - There is a grey area - we both admit and agree on that. My interpretation is that the Grey area is a Default Deny situation (strict) as opposed to a default allow situation (permissive) which is where there is doubt, one should keep left, not where there is doubt, one does not need to keep left.

edit:
Actually, how about I make the point that the road code is a good indicator for omnibus.
Have another slice :P

I would counter with the Police comments - thats a guide and doesn't mean dick - and The police comments would be a good indicator for my Omnibus comment.

I'm feeling full, Fancy a second slice?

bogan

22nd January 2015, 11:16

Well, yes - if you can't conform to the relevant legislation while doing something, stop doing it.

Only if you consider claiming the lane as defensive riding, certainly as others have pointed out, in other parts of the world is is considered good road craft, I am not convinced however that in NZ the general consensus would consider it defensive riding except in extreme cases, like on a narrow one lane bridge (and not the manner in which most NZ cyclists seem to claim the lane)

Why, Thank you

Can you provide a scenario where a driver has followed all laws, yet still been in an accident? I can't - if a driver could see the accident happening, but chose not to avoid it (i.e to not give way when the didn't have to) I would deem that not driving with due care, or dangerous driving.

Certainly inadmissably for a full peer reviewed study, but as a representation of NZ driving attitudes, its reasonable enough - especially since with the exception of being motorcyclists, we are a good cross section of NZ society

Where then, do you draw the line between riding shit and riding well - at the moment it is solely at the cyclists discretion which isn't a good way to make laws.

Doesn't need to be much speed for the cyclist to end up in hospital or worse, and I disagree - you would be less likely to be rear ended if the driver only has to swerve a small amount as opposed to an entire car width to avoid hitting you

Yes I do - There is a grey area - we both admit and agree on that. My interpretation is that the Grey area is a Default Deny situation (strict) as opposed to a default allow situation (permissive) which is where there is doubt, one should keep left, not where there is doubt, one does not need to keep left.

I would counter with the Police comments - thats a guide and doesn't mean dick - and The police comments would be a good indicator for my Omnibus comment.

I'm feeling full, Fancy a second slice?

Ah, confirmation bias again. It is only conforming to the relevant legislation if you discount Y and assume X is the way it is for the outcome of Z; but if Y is still an option, so is their actions conforming to legislation; and Z would still be the outcome. Thus only when confirmation bias is present can X => Z be the only solution.

I do.

In an accident? Even your edge case second video didn't show an accident. Whose fault was the near miss is what we were discussing I thought.

Ok, admissible, but overturned by examining the road code; that is what people learn from, so it is fairly well reflective of their expectations.

Riding shit (nadverb) riding in such a manner to unnecessarily increase chances of having an accident; not necessarily by doing anything illegal though.

But now you are back to a speed differential, if you are holding people up, they have identified you, and slowed to match your speed. To then get rear ended they must accelerate (or you brake) and them not notice this change; it is more likely for them to notice it if you are prominent in their visual area.

Grey area means simply it is unknown, and likely treated on a case by case basis (often in favor of wiggle room for the defendant) not that it is strictly controlled. There is no such thing as a strictly controller or defined grey area.

That's a learning tool. A learning tool used to teach the population. The population therefor is likely to parrot back what is taught; thus my case for the Omnibus argument of a national teaching resource agreeing with me is immensely stronger than your 75% of 4 bikers who agree with you. It is important to note I'm not saying it being in the road code makes it definitively legal; but it is a massive nail in the coffin of your Omnibus argument; and does point to leeway in the interpretation. Or put it this way, how often are people ticketed for something the road code suggests you do?

It does look good, can I have even a little taste? You're hogging the whole thing.

Flip

22nd January 2015, 11:49

I used to run into groups of Lycra wankers all the time.

This was one group one Saturday morning.

The first pic I was following them down a hill, I was waiting for a space to pass.

The second pic was them riding on the wrong side of the road going around a blind right hander.

The 3rd pic was the cunts still doing a mobile road block after several miles riding up hill at about 10 kph. I was getting pissed off by this stage.

There is never a cop around when you want one.

awayatc

22nd January 2015, 12:24

Feel for you flip.....
must have a lot of self discipline..

Was towing rather large car transporter from port hills ( before quakes) to the city...
lycra clad bunch of tossers insisted on riding sedately in my lane, eventhough there was a marked cycle lane inboard...
Gentle wee toot had no results, neither a slightly more prolonged honk on loud horn...
traffic was building up behind me, lots of oncoming traffic,..what do you do...?
I slowly but steadily sped up and came alongside, almost brushing closest muppets arm....
I could see him trying not to make eye contact...but keeping an eye on the ever widening shape of large trailer....
at very last second he gave up playing chicken, and rather unceremoniously launched himself into his riding partners.....
I bet the lycra bulged a bit around his cheeks....
He would only have had a few mm to spare at best...
arsewipes...

TheDemonLord

22nd January 2015, 14:18

Ah, confirmation bias again. It is only conforming to the relevant legislation if you discount Y and assume X is the way it is for the outcome of Z; but if Y is still an option, so is their actions conforming to legislation; and Z would still be the outcome. Thus only when confirmation bias is present can X => Z be the only solution.

Nope - X always applies - Y does not grant a dispensation of X. Y and X can exist together so long as situation Z is not in effect. When Z is in effect, since Y does not Dispense X, X takes priority - therefore when situation Z occurs, X is in effect

I do.

Well I figured that....

In an accident? Even your edge case second video didn't show an accident. Whose fault was the near miss is what we were discussing I thought.

Both were at fault in the near miss

Ok, admissible, but overturned by examining the road code; that is what people learn from, so it is fairly well reflective of their expectations.

Disagree - Cyclists are not required to study the road code in order to cycle on the road (clearly shown by Flip's pictures) and furthermore, you yourself had to go find that section in the roadcode (meaning prior, you didn't know of its inclusion)

Riding shit (nadverb) riding in such a manner to unnecessarily increase chances of having an accident; not necessarily by doing anything illegal though.

I agree with Riding shit, but disagree that it is by not doing anything illegal

But now you are back to a speed differential, if you are holding people up, they have identified you, and slowed to match your speed. To then get rear ended they must accelerate (or you brake) and them not notice this change; it is more likely for them to notice it if you are prominent in their visual area.

Road conditions change, people accelerate and brake, hell, Cyclists speed up and slow down - so it is possible to be held up and then rear-end a cyclist resulting in serious injury and or death, and being in front IMO increases the danger as opposed to being on the side.

Grey area means simply it is unknown, and likely treated on a case by case basis (often in favor of wiggle room for the defendant) not that it is strictly controlled. There is no such thing as a strictly controller or defined grey area.

Well - the reference I made there was to a computing concept - where a lack of explicitly defined permissions on an object - there can either be Permissive or Strict - with permissive, if you aren't explicitly denied, you can access the file whereas strict means unless you are explicitly given access to a file, you don't get access.

In this - you can have a grey area (no explicit allow or deny permission set) and so then it is up to how the OS/application interprets permissions - transfer this over to the legal arguement - there is a grey area (its not explicitly defined as allowed or denied) but the writing of the rules is keep as far left as practicable - which to me means that the default position is to keep left and in the event of a grey area, one should er on the side of keeping left, not the other way.

That's a learning tool. A learning tool used to teach the population. The population therefor is likely to parrot back what is taught; thus my case for the Omnibus argument of a national teaching resource agreeing with me is immensely stronger than your 75% of 4 bikers who agree with you. It is important to note I'm not saying it being in the road code makes it definitively legal; but it is a massive nail in the coffin of your Omnibus argument; and does point to leeway in the interpretation. Or put it this way, how often are people ticketed for something the road code suggests you do?

It is a nail, but now we are up to 5 for, 1 against - that's now 83.3% in my favour and as above - you had to look for it, which negates the Omnibus defence (ie if it is something you have to specifically find out to know, then it isn't what a reasonable person would do)

as for how often people are ticketed - if it isn't in the legislation, then never - and the Legislation says keep as far left as practicable so for this, it would truly reside on what the Police/judge deemed the definition to be.

However I think we can agree that a Lot of the instances where Cyclists claim the lane - they have no right to, and a lot of Cyclists ignore the rules that they are meant to conform to (which effect them negatively) - as a case in point, the second video and Flip's still shots showing the behaviour of the steriotypical LycraLout, riding 3 abreast (which is illegal by your own admission) and not keeping left when they should be (by my interpretation)

It does look good, can I have even a little taste? You're hogging the whole thing.

I think you have snaffled a fair few slices between retorts

bogan

22nd January 2015, 14:40

Nope - X always applies - Y does not grant a dispensation of X. Y and X can exist together so long as situation Z is not in effect. When Z is in effect, since Y does not Dispense X, X takes priority - therefore when situation Z occurs, X is in effect

Well I figured that....

Both were at fault in the near miss

Disagree - Cyclists are not required to study the road code in order to cycle on the road (clearly shown by Flip's pictures) and furthermore, you yourself had to go find that section in the roadcode (meaning prior, you didn't know of its inclusion)

I agree with Riding shit, but disagree that it is by not doing anything illegal

Road conditions change, people accelerate and brake, hell, Cyclists speed up and slow down - so it is possible to be held up and then rear-end a cyclist resulting in serious injury and or death, and being in front IMO increases the danger as opposed to being on the side.

Well - the reference I made there was to a computing concept - where a lack of explicitly defined permissions on an object - there can either be Permissive or Strict - with permissive, if you aren't explicitly denied, you can access the file whereas strict means unless you are explicitly given access to a file, you don't get access.

In this - you can have a grey area (no explicit allow or deny permission set) and so then it is up to how the OS/application interprets permissions - transfer this over to the legal arguement - there is a grey area (its not explicitly defined as allowed or denied) but the writing of the rules is keep as far left as practicable - which to me means that the default position is to keep left and in the event of a grey area, one should er on the side of keeping left, not the other way.

It is a nail, but now we are up to 5 for, 1 against - that's now 83.3% in my favour and as above - you had to look for it, which negates the Omnibus defence (ie if it is something you have to specifically find out to know, then it isn't what a reasonable person would do)

as for how often people are ticketed - if it isn't in the legislation, then never - and the Legislation says keep as far left as practicable so for this, it would truly reside on what the Police/judge deemed the definition to be.

However I think we can agree that a Lot of the instances where Cyclists claim the lane - they have no right to, and a lot of Cyclists ignore the rules that they are meant to conform to (which effect them negatively) - as a case in point, the second video and Flip's still shots showing the behaviour of the steriotypical LycraLout, riding 3 abreast (which is illegal by your own admission) and not keeping left when they should be (by my interpretation)

I think you have snaffled a fair few slices between retorts

I think you need to put labels on X Y and Z. cos Abreast riding (Z) can equate to illegal or not illegal depnding on if Y (riding abreast is not illegal even when being followed) is a possible solution or if X (riding abreast is illegal) is active. And if you assert X is active instead of Y to proclaim that Z must be illegal, it is ciruclar logic, and confirmation bias.

Indeed, they were at both fault for the near miss; not necessarily illegal though.

How about riding so as you cannot stop within your visual distance; shit? illegal?

But there is no option to be on the side, otherwise they could safely pass anyway and you should be on the side. Be in the front, and they have more chance to correct for speed up/slow downs.

Well we don't drive computers, so it is a grey area in the general sense of the term.

That is a very wrong application of the omnibus defense. To apply it correctly you have to actually find out what a typical person would do. The way you are trying to apply it is considering yourself as a typical person and just inflating your own opinion as it suits; I had expected better of you tbh.

Nicely dodged.

I do agree with that; but my original point still stands, and has indeed now been bolstered. That it is acceptable to own the lane in situations when those looking to pass cannot do so safely within the lane.

Haven't seen any of it tbh. I'm still sticking to my original point, but now I've also learned that is exactly what cyclists are taught to do under the official NZ road code. I've also learnt the keep left legislation for cyclists is the same as that for any other vehicle. I've also learnt that what is practicable can be distilled down to what is safe. I've also learnt that 4 bikers don't agree with me, but given the other points this is not even a little bit concerning. Have you learnt anything other than that a few biker agree with you?
To put it another way, you write in and get them to change the road code for this point and I'll eat all the humble pie you can serve. If not, I think my pie fork will stay nice and shiningly clean.

TheDemonLord

22nd January 2015, 15:32

I think you need to put labels on X Y and Z. cos Abreast riding (Z) can equate to illegal or not illegal depnding on if Y (riding abreast is not illegal even when being followed) is a possible solution or if X (riding abreast is illegal) is active. And if you assert X is active instead of Y to proclaim that Z must be illegal, it is ciruclar logic, and confirmation bias.

In my Example - X is keeping left if holding others up, Y is riding 2 abreast, Z is the situation where one is riding abreast and holding someone up (and its safe to overtake, staying in a single lane)

Indeed, they were at both fault for the near miss; not necessarily illegal though.

If they are at fault, then they must have been doing something illegal

How about riding so as you cannot stop within your visual distance; shit? illegal?

Both

But there is no option to be on the side, otherwise they could safely pass anyway and you should be on the side. Be in the front, and they have more chance to correct for speed up/slow downs.

Side being keeping left, maybe not enough for a safe overtake, but unless the road width is narrorer than the width of the vehicle + 75 cm (for the rider) then on the side would be correct

Well we don't drive computers, so it is a grey area in the general sense of the term.

Well, you said yourself that grey areas tend to favor the defendant which means the system (in this case the Legal system) has a default position that it tends towards in grey areas - so similar to computing (except Lawyers don't output error codes)

That is a very wrong application of the omnibus defense. To apply it correctly you have to actually find out what a typical person would do. The way you are trying to apply it is considering yourself as a typical person and just inflating your own opinion as it suits; I had expected better of you tbh.

Okay, exclude me - we still have 4 typical New Zealanders, from different areas, occupations etc that all favour my definition over yours - yes it is not a full peer reviewed survey, but as an indication of what the typical person would do - its a pretty good indication

Nicely dodged.

You're welcome ;)

I do agree with that; but my original point still stands, and has indeed now been bolstered. That it is acceptable to own the lane in situations when those looking to pass cannot do so safely within the lane.

Haven't seen any of it tbh. I'm still sticking to my original point, but now I've also learned that is exactly what cyclists are taught to do under the official NZ road code. I've also learnt the keep left legislation for cyclists is the same as that for any other vehicle. I've also learnt that what is practicable can be distilled down to what is safe. I've also learnt that 4 bikers don't agree with me, but given the other points this is not even a little bit concerning. Have you learnt anything other than that a few biker agree with you?
To put it another way, you write in and get them to change the road code for this point and I'll eat all the humble pie you can serve. If not, I think my pie fork will stay nice and shiningly clean.

I have seen good cyclists, I have seen bad cyclists, I have seen self righteous cyclists and I have seen defensive cyclists - just like all other road users, and like other road users, there is a contingent that operate in an anti-social manner (Boy Racers for cars, Mid-life Crisis Superbike riders, LycraLouts for cyclists) and while the stereotypes may exaggerate and even be a touch unfair - they exist as observations of repeated behavior among a specific group

Except Cyclists aren't taught, are they?

You don't have to pass a theory test to cycle on the road (which I offer as a reason as to why the LycraLout exists)

What have I learnt?

That contrary to what Cassina and MsTriumph say - you are great fun to Argue with and made a couple of points that made me have to search for corroborating reasons/evidence/logic to back up my original claim.

As for writing in to get the Road Code updated - I am too lazy (yes, I can see how someone reading my novel length posts might think thats a little bit hypocritical) and I will simply sit back and wait for the normal way these kind of debates are resolved (someone dies, and then lawyers do exactly what we have just done, except to the tune of $1000/hr)

And finally - my Pie fork remains clean regardless - if the Pie is delicious, I eat all the pie, I don't leave it on the fork

bogan

22nd January 2015, 16:00

In my Example - X is keeping left if holding others up, Y is riding 2 abreast, Z is the situation where one is riding abreast and holding someone up (and its safe to overtake, staying in a single lane)

If they are at fault, then they must have been doing something illegal

Both

Side being keeping left, maybe not enough for a safe overtake, but unless the road width is narrorer than the width of the vehicle + 75 cm (for the rider) then on the side would be correct

Well, you said yourself that grey areas tend to favor the defendant which means the system (in this case the Legal system) has a default position that it tends towards in grey areas - so similar to computing (except Lawyers don't output error codes)

Okay, exclude me - we still have 4 typical New Zealanders, from different areas, occupations etc that all favour my definition over yours - yes it is not a full peer reviewed survey, but as an indication of what the typical person would do - its a pretty good indication

You're welcome ;)

I have seen good cyclists, I have seen bad cyclists, I have seen self righteous cyclists and I have seen defensive cyclists - just like all other road users, and like other road users, there is a contingent that operate in an anti-social manner (Boy Racers for cars, Mid-life Crisis Superbike riders, LycraLouts for cyclists) and while the stereotypes may exaggerate and even be a touch unfair - they exist as observations of repeated behavior among a specific group

Except Cyclists aren't taught, are they?

You don't have to pass a theory test to cycle on the road (which I offer as a reason as to why the LycraLout exists)

What have I learnt?

That contrary to what Cassina and MsTriumph say - you are great fun to Argue with and made a couple of points that made me have to search for corroborating reasons/evidence/logic to back up my original claim.

As for writing in to get the Road Code updated - I am too lazy (yes, I can see how someone reading my novel length posts might think thats a little bit hypocritical) and I will simply sit back and wait for the normal way these kind of debates are resolved (someone dies, and then lawyers do exactly what we have just done, except to the tune of $1000/hr)

And finally - my Pie fork remains clean regardless - if the Pie is delicious, I eat all the pie, I don't leave it on the fork

Makes sense then. Y => Z X!=Z Z = cunty but not specifically illegal.

Not really, grey area.

Ok, now what happens when despite being able to stop in your visual distance, you don't. Shit riding, or illegal?

Assuming the following guy puts his wing mirror right on the center line; at which point we are back to square one because he is likely to try and pass, but cannot do so safely.

The defendant is the cyclist, they are favored in this grey area.

Still not applying it right. Omnibus should be a hypothetical dude, whose response is obvious to and therefor agreed upon by all parties. It is not just a little sample. I posted the road code excerpt to demonstrate why sample-derived omnibusman was not agreed upon by all parties.

Depends on the cyclist, some would read up on the road code, some would be taught in primary school, others would adapt their driving skills to the task.

It would be nice if they got a test too though.

Yeh well, it doesn't take long to learn those two are full of shit...

See, if I was prone to confimation bias, I would see the lack of listed learning on this subject, and lack of writing to road code as a tacit admission that my position is likely correct :Pokey: But it is luck for you I explore other option like you are just bored, fat, and lazy :bleh:

Virago

22nd January 2015, 16:50

Also, E=MC2

TheDemonLord

22nd January 2015, 17:18

Not really, grey area.

Can you elaborate on a situation where one is riding legally but still at fault?

Ok, now what happens when despite being able to stop in your visual distance, you don't. Shit riding, or illegal?

Both - Driving without due care, Dangerous driving or Attempted vehicular murder

Assuming the following guy puts his wing mirror right on the center line; at which point we are back to square one because he is likely to try and pass, but cannot do so safely.

Wing mirrors being included in the width of the vehicle

The defendant is the cyclist, they are favored in this grey area.

In this instance, I am not so sure - again I read it as the onus is to prove that the circumstances were such that keeping left wasn't practicable - so the grey area favours the motorist.

Still not applying it right. Omnibus should be a hypothetical dude, whose response is obvious to and therefor agreed upon by all parties. It is not just a little sample. I posted the road code excerpt to demonstrate why sample-derived omnibusman was not agreed upon by all parties.

The Hypothetical average Zew Zealander would expect a cyclist to keep left (in keeping with our national Psyche of 'Slow cunts get out of my way')

Depends on the cyclist, some would read up on the road code, some would be taught in primary school, others would adapt their driving skills to the task.

I am quoting this seperately because there is an observation I would like to make - when I was younger (and lived in the UK) and taught to ride on the road - we were told we should be 30 cm from the Kerb - which was enough to avoid most drains, but not be in the gutters. Reading other Cyclists comments - they have expanded it to 1-1.5 metres - I would also raise that this is where I get my strict adherence to keeping left from and in before you ask - yes I used to cycle to school in the UK and so rode in that manner.

It would be nice if they got a test too though.

This is where I truly am conflicted - I think that encouraging cycling as an alternative is a good thing, and so we shouldn't put road blocks in place, but at the same time, I see bad cycling that goes unchecked, I see cyclists with no protective gear, I see cyclists thumbing their noses at rules they don't like or taking overly liberal definitions and then complaining when other people get annoyed with them for doing so.

Yeh well, it doesn't take long to learn those two are full of shit...

I never said that :innocent:

See, if I was prone to confimation bias, I would see the lack of listed learning on this subject, and lack of writing to road code as a tacit admission that my position is likely correct :Pokey: But it is luck for you I explore other option like you are just bored, fat, and lazy :bleh:

The only reason there is a lack of learning on my part was cause I did all my reading prior when I was busy telling the 2nd Youtube video person that he was riding like a twat in most of his videos - so on this debate, I didn't find out much cause it was already fresh in my mind.

As for the lack of writing - I could, but unlike on here where I get to engage in stimulating (Oh Eeerrr vicar) debate, I would get a polite letter from some nobody pleb 'thank you for your concern, blah, policy changes, blah, politicians blah' which isn't worth my time.

I would point out you got the last option slightly wrong:

I'm bored, Fat, Lazy and able to type a coherent and reasonably well worded arguement in a short space of time :yes:

nzspokes

22nd January 2015, 17:46

BuzzardNZ

22nd January 2015, 17:54

How were these photos taken?

I would think with a camera :facepalm:

bogan

22nd January 2015, 18:01

Can you elaborate on a situation where one is riding legally but still at fault?

Both - Driving without due care, Dangerous driving or Attempted vehicular murder

Wing mirrors being included in the width of the vehicle

In this instance, I am not so sure - again I read it as the onus is to prove that the circumstances were such that keeping left wasn't practicable - so the grey area favours the motorist.

The Hypothetical average Zew Zealander would expect a cyclist to keep left (in keeping with our national Psyche of 'Slow cunts get out of my way')

I am quoting this seperately because there is an observation I would like to make - when I was younger (and lived in the UK) and taught to ride on the road - we were told we should be 30 cm from the Kerb - which was enough to avoid most drains, but not be in the gutters. Reading other Cyclists comments - they have expanded it to 1-1.5 metres - I would also raise that this is where I get my strict adherence to keeping left from and in before you ask - yes I used to cycle to school in the UK and so rode in that manner.

This is where I truly am conflicted - I think that encouraging cycling as an alternative is a good thing, and so we shouldn't put road blocks in place, but at the same time, I see bad cycling that goes unchecked, I see cyclists with no protective gear, I see cyclists thumbing their noses at rules they don't like or taking overly liberal definitions and then complaining when other people get annoyed with them for doing so.

I never said that :innocent:

The only reason there is a lack of learning on my part was cause I did all my reading prior when I was busy telling the 2nd Youtube video person that he was riding like a twat in most of his videos - so on this debate, I didn't find out much cause it was already fresh in my mind.

As for the lack of writing - I could, but unlike on here where I get to engage in stimulating (Oh Eeerrr vicar) debate, I would get a polite letter from some nobody pleb 'thank you for your concern, blah, policy changes, blah, politicians blah' which isn't worth my time.

I would point out you got the last option slightly wrong:

I'm bored, Fat, Lazy and able to type a coherent and reasonably well worded arguement in a short space of time :yes:

The ones that spring to mind are poor hazard identification/reaction/classification. Be they moving hazard like childeren running out onto the road, or stationary but obscured ones like tar bleed or gravel patches.

That sounds like a catch-all interpretation, similar circualar logic. If having an incident or near miss is illegal cos it is classed as dangerous driving, then obviously any near miss or incident is because somebody did something illegal. But I'm betting the legislation you can point to for that one is just as much a grey area as the previous stuff.

Which doesn't change my point at all.

It is not really open to interpretation, if a cyclist is ticketed or convicted they are the defendant; as such the grey area favors them. Or can you give me an example when this applies in a way in which the cyclist is not the defendant?

So you say, but as I disagree with good reason, the omnibus argument does not apply.

Indeed, perhaps another reason why your views on the hypothetical new zealander do not make a good omnibus argument.

They want to use the roads, they should be proficient and aware of safe practice; sure it is good to encourage for environmental reasons, but safety first imo, especially considering how easy driving tests are (just a scratchy one would do).

You didn't have too :innocent:

You knew about the road code bit then? Or does that not count as learning since you want to ignore it? I would hope you've also learnt those other things I listed as you didn't seem to be applying them to begin with.

Swoop

22nd January 2015, 18:14

Was towing rather large car transporter from port hills ( before quakes) to the city...
lycra clad bunch of tossers insisted on riding sedately in my lane, eventhough there was a marked cycle lane inboard...
Gentle wee toot had no results, neither a slightly more prolonged honk on loud horn...
Don't fuck about with horns as the lycra brigade are blind to it.

Drop 2 gears and FLOOR IT!

The cunts know immediately what that means!

I like a sea of faggotry parting before me. (Sunday morning and the bastards are wobbling across BOTH sides of the entire road. Fuck em!)

TheDemonLord

23rd January 2015, 09:44

The ones that spring to mind are poor hazard identification/reaction/classification. Be they moving hazard like childeren running out onto the road, or stationary but obscured ones like tar bleed or gravel patches.

I would deem that driving without due care and attention

That sounds like a catch-all interpretation, similar circualar logic. If having an incident or near miss is illegal cos it is classed as dangerous driving, then obviously any near miss or incident is because somebody did something illegal. But I'm betting the legislation you can point to for that one is just as much a grey area as the previous stuff.

Admittedly I haven't actually looked at the specific legislation for that - but the rational argument is that if you are driving completely legally, you should not cause an accident, you maybe involved in an accident, but not at fault

Which doesn't change my point at all.

well, it should as there is now room for the car and cyclist to exist side by side (although maybe a little too cozy for each others preference)

It is not really open to interpretation, if a cyclist is ticketed or convicted they are the defendant; as such the grey area favors them. Or can you give me an example when this applies in a way in which the cyclist is not the defendant?

Unless the judge rules that the burden of proof is on the cyclist to proove why they weren't keeping left (like in a speeding ticket case)

So you say, but as I disagree with good reason, the omnibus argument does not apply.

Well, as per previous post - the only real way to settle this would be through precedent and an actual case.

Indeed, perhaps another reason why your views on the hypothetical new zealander do not make a good omnibus argument.

They make a great omnibus argument in NZ - a crappy one in countries with a higher standard of driving....

They want to use the roads, they should be proficient and aware of safe practice; sure it is good to encourage for environmental reasons, but safety first imo, especially considering how easy driving tests are (just a scratchy one would do).

What about kids riding their bikes on the streets? I am agreeing with the principle here, but the practical application would be a nightmare (plus I don't think it would actually change any of the LycraLout behaviour - that will only be changed by an attitude shift and more enforcement targeted at cyclists)

You knew about the road code bit then? Or does that not count as learning since you want to ignore it? I would hope you've also learnt those other things I listed as you didn't seem to be applying them to begin with.

I did, but since it wasn't backed up by specific legislation (like other things in the road code, like leaving 1.5 meters) it can be dismissed - although if one use a very loose definition of practicable (which as above, I don't think applies) then you can stretch to it being 'legal'

scumdog

23rd January 2015, 09:55

[QUOTE=Berries;1130820674]My head hurts.[/QUOTE

Me too.

And them multiquotes are torturing my eyes..:wacko:

TheDemonLord

23rd January 2015, 09:57

[QUOTE=Berries;1130820674]My head hurts.[/QUOTE

Me too.

And them multiquotes are torturing my eyes..:wacko:

I prefer multiquotes myself - it helps when responding to a specific statement IMO

Tazz

23rd January 2015, 11:18

TL: DR update as follows:

http://gifs.gifbin.com/112012/1352138299_cow_sprinkler.gif

bogan

23rd January 2015, 15:23

I would deem that driving without due care and attention

Admittedly I haven't actually looked at the specific legislation for that - but the rational argument is that if you are driving completely legally, you should not cause an accident, you maybe involved in an accident, but not at fault

well, it should as there is now room for the car and cyclist to exist side by side (although maybe a little too cozy for each others preference)

Unless the judge rules that the burden of proof is on the cyclist to proove why they weren't keeping left (like in a speeding ticket case)

Well, as per previous post - the only real way to settle this would be through precedent and an actual case.

They make a great omnibus argument in NZ - a crappy one in countries with a higher standard of driving....

What about kids riding their bikes on the streets? I am agreeing with the principle here, but the practical application would be a nightmare (plus I don't think it would actually change any of the LycraLout behaviour - that will only be changed by an attitude shift and more enforcement targeted at cyclists)

I did, but since it wasn't backed up by specific legislation (like other things in the road code, like leaving 1.5 meters) it can be dismissed - although if one use a very loose definition of practicable (which as above, I don't think applies) then you can stretch to it being 'legal'

Sounds like a bit of a catch all as well.

Maybe you should find and read it then.

If they can safely exist side by side there is no need to claim the lane; and thus it is a straw man argument.

Another strawman as speeding is not a grey area, so the side of the defender is not erred upon.

Case precedent is not an omnibusman argument either though.

No they don't, because they are your views, not the views of a typical person that we can agree on.

Yeh, just tatoo it next to their ident barcode...

It can be dismissed because it is just an interpretation (albeit official) of the legislation you mean? just like your own interpretation (not official); and those other 4 blokes.

BuzzardNZ

23rd January 2015, 17:54

someone put some life back into the Shorai thread, PLEASE :yawn:

bogan

23rd January 2015, 17:57

someone put some life back into the Shorai thread, PLEASE :yawn:

Pffft, are you implying those things are not long lived?

BuzzardNZ

23rd January 2015, 18:20

Pffft, are you implying those things are not long lived?

Not at all, just miss the shits and giggles that thread gave me!

mstriumph

23rd January 2015, 19:05

Once gain you ignore the point in favor of piss weak ad-hominems; saying I've fathered a man of such distinguished tastes as HDC is certainly not an insult.

Still, I guess you've at least been spared the intellect to know you're a moron so it doesn't seem to be getting you down :sunny:

tsk tsk subtle as a sledgehammer, your attempt at - well, whatever it was you were attempting.

glad to see you picked up on the 'moron-speak' ... my grandmother always taught me that it's polite to at least try and communicate with the natives in their own tongue and at their own level :msn-wink:

mstriumph

23rd January 2015, 19:07

Are you Ed's wife ? I'm pretty certain I'm not? However, the seventies WERE a bit hazy for me ...................

bogan

23rd January 2015, 19:09

Not at all, just miss the shits and giggles that thread gave me!

Here ya go Buzzy, she heard your calls and came to lower the tone.

tsk tsk subtle as a sledgehammer, your attempt at - well, whatever it was you were attempting.

glad to see you picked up on the 'moron-speak' ... my grandmother always taught me that it's polite to at least try and communicate with the natives in their own tongue and at their own level :msn-wink:

Also, if you were impervious to my sledgehammer subtlety, does that make you as thick as a brick shithouse? Or are you only as wide as one?

mstriumph

23rd January 2015, 19:17

Here ya go Buzzy, she heard your calls and came to lower the tone.

Also, if you were impervious to my sledgehammer subtlety, does that make you as thick as a brick shithouse? Or are you only as wide as one?

one doesn't need to be either thick or wide to recognise an irate hippopotamus blundering along through - well, a brick shithouse if that's where you currently are ...

I really DO seem to have upset you, don't I? It's probably a bad mark on my report that I'm enjoying it so hugely ... :cool: you really are such a soft target.

BuzzardNZ

23rd January 2015, 19:20

I'm pretty certain I'm not? However, the seventies WERE a bit hazy for me ...................

you should be and then the two of you could adopt Bogan ;)

bogan

23rd January 2015, 19:24

one doesn't need to be either thick or wide to recognise an irate hippopotamus blundering along through - well, a brick shithouse if that's where you currently are ...

I really DO seem to have upset you, don't I? It's probably a bad mark on my report that I'm enjoying it so hugely ... :cool: you really are such a soft target.

So how thick do you need to be not to recognise the way my sledgehammer blunders?

Hey, I'm not upset enough to go blabbing on about it on the walls of some random pleb :killingme: Nor am I upset enough to moronically place the value of 'telling' higher than that of 'showing'. But as long as you're happy, you keep showing what you show sunshine :sunny:

R650R

24th January 2015, 07:01

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/65336704/cyclist-fined-after-serious-crash

I wonder if the cops also got OSH involved with the organisors of this event as well, you know like how they have when there have been incidents at motorsports events on closed public roads....????
Its high time these events went to proper closed road status. The competitor here clearly made a bad decision influenced by fatigue and the red mist of race conditions, why is the general public still allowed to be exposed to this risk.

nzspokes

24th January 2015, 07:14

nzspokes

24th January 2015, 07:17

I rode my Bicycle to work this week. Only 45ks there and back but I enjoyed it. Will be making it a regular thing.

Great thing is with cycleways most of my time is a way from traffic. Its even a little scenic. :niceone:

R650R

24th January 2015, 10:19

So the rider thought he had the right to use the whole road and the driver was impatient. Both thought they were in the right. Odd.

Did you read the article???

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for a vehicle of any kind to overtake on the right a vehicle ahead that is indicating a right turn???
The cops would not have charged the cyclist if there was any hint of fault on the car driver.

nzspokes

24th January 2015, 12:14

Did you read the article???

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for a vehicle of any kind to overtake on the right a vehicle ahead that is indicating a right turn???
The cops would not have charged the cyclist if there was any hint of fault on the car driver.

Yes I read it. How do you know the driver was indicating? I doubt the Police will know this as a fact. Easy enough to turn it on after the crash.

The Police dont always get it right. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I had a truck driver enter a roundabout that I was already on so he had entered illegally. At least he was nice enough to give me and the other cars a big finger out the window while laughing.

neels

24th January 2015, 18:27

I had a truck driver enter a roundabout that I was already on so he had entered illegally. At least he was nice enough to give me and the other cars a big finger out the window while laughing.
Drive down memorial ave to the airport any day of the week, you'll see it pretty much every time you drive through the russley road roundabout. Not usually a finger, just looking straight ahead and not making eye contact.

nzspokes

24th January 2015, 18:39

Drive down memorial ave to the airport any day of the week, you'll see it pretty much every time you drive through the russley road roundabout. Not usually a finger, just looking straight ahead and not making eye contact.

I work out by Auckland Airport and its shocking for Taxi's and truck's.

RDJ

24th January 2015, 19:17

If there had've been a farm tractor and trailer,or a milk tanker having driven back out onto the road, this idiot would have still been in the same frame of mind.

that's a pretty much awesome psychic ability you have there.

R650R

24th January 2015, 19:33

I had a truck driver enter a roundabout that I was already on so he had entered illegally. At least he was nice enough to give me and the other cars a big finger out the window while laughing.

Not much of a near miss if he's actually seen you and had time to give you the finger. Sounds like a classic case of dithering motorist who has stopped or near stopped entering the roundabout when they didn't need to, meanwhile truckie has established he has safe gap and committed to transiting the roundabout. Then in righteous indignation at someone having faster thought processes you've proceeded to accelerate as fast as your vehicle allows before fake emergency braking and tooting.

So someone cut you off at one of Aucklands most busiest junctions, get over it. Hardley enough data there to judge an entire industry, is it ok for us to judge cyclists based on similar encounters with the inner city cycle couriers???

It's quite funny looking in the rear view mirror at a certain busy junction I negotiate daily. You can see the shitty annoyed glare of people thinking I'm taking too long to pull out, but you can bet the same people would be the first to scream blue murder if I pulled out in front of them in a hurry to try and keep traffic flowing... Its a busy world out there and humans will make mistakes no matter what they are operating/riding. Hardley worth the high blood pressure to be remembering it any longer than five mins after it happened....

nzspokes

24th January 2015, 19:54

Not much of a near miss if he's actually seen you and had time to give you the finger. Sounds like a classic case of dithering motorist who has stopped or near stopped entering the roundabout when they didn't need to, meanwhile truckie has established he has safe gap and committed to transiting the roundabout. Then in righteous indignation at someone having faster thought processes you've proceeded to accelerate as fast as your vehicle allows before fake emergency braking and tooting.

So someone cut you off at one of Aucklands most busiest junctions, get over it. Hardley enough data there to judge an entire industry, is it ok for us to judge cyclists based on similar encounters with the inner city cycle couriers???

It's quite funny looking in the rear view mirror at a certain busy junction I negotiate daily. You can see the shitty annoyed glare of people thinking I'm taking too long to pull out, but you can bet the same people would be the first to scream blue murder if I pulled out in front of them in a hurry to try and keep traffic flowing... Its a busy world out there and humans will make mistakes no matter what they are operating/riding. Hardley worth the high blood pressure to be remembering it any longer than five mins after it happened....

I didnt stop as I had clear entrance to the roundabout. No safe gap as I had to stop smartly as did the silver SUV behind me.

bogan

24th January 2015, 21:47

So someone cut you off at one of Aucklands most busiest junctions, get over it. Hardley enough data there to judge an entire industry, is it ok for us to judge cyclists based on similar encounters with the inner city cycle couriers???

Jeezus tinkerbell, so much for the tough guy truckie image; I can't see anywhere in his post where he implies judgment on an entire industry. Are you having a bit of a tanty cos there is fuck all prostitutes left to murder?

R650R

25th January 2015, 15:13

Jeezus tinkerbell, so much for the tough guy truckie image; I can't see anywhere in his post where he implies judgment on an entire industry. Are you having a bit of a tanty cos there is fuck all prostitutes left to murder?

Sweet Jesus aunty Doris, layoff the stereotypes aye... tough guy image lol... where do you get that from, another example of how people outside the industry have no idea of the diversity of its members.
Hardly a tantrum... you've got the wrong country btw that's not a problem in NZ. I do love how people reveal their own insecurities in insults. So why do you have these fantasies and thoughts in your head about murdering prostitutes? Did you have a bad experience? ;p

bogan

25th January 2015, 15:37

Sweet Jesus aunty Doris, layoff the stereotypes aye... tough guy image lol... where do you get that from, another example of how people outside the industry have no idea of the diversity of its members.
Hardly a tantrum... you've got the wrong country btw that's not a problem in NZ. I do love how people reveal their own insecurities in insults. So why do you have these fantasies and thoughts in your head about murdering prostitutes? Did you have a bad experience? ;p

Golly you do get antsy about your truckie image doncha.

Were it a fantasy, I'd hope to be more articulate about it, that is for sure. And any country where even one prosti is murdered by a trucky is a problem, or do you value them so little there is a threshold?

R650R

25th January 2015, 17:48

Golly you do get antsy about your truckie image doncha.

Were it a fantasy, I'd hope to be more articulate about it, that is for sure. And any country where even one prosti is murdered by a trucky is a problem, or do you value them so little there is a threshold?

LOL not even close to antsy.... I don't care what people think about truckies, I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about that there is a danger when such shite is repeated often enough the masses start believeing it.

I've never stopped to think/value the social status or contribution to society of prostitutes but obviously its an issue close to your heart. When was this murder, haven't been following the news too closely lately.
Any stats on murders of prostitutes by cyclists? Everyone is a cyclist at some stage in their life so as a group their prob over represented in crime stats just like Maoris are...

bogan

25th January 2015, 18:03

LOL not even close to antsy.... I don't care what people think about truckies, I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about that there is a danger when such shite is repeated often enough the masses start believeing it.

I've never stopped to think/value the social status or contribution to society of prostitutes but obviously its an issue close to your heart. When was this murder, haven't been following the news too closely lately.
Any stats on murders of prostitutes by cyclists? Everyone is a cyclist at some stage in their life so as a group their prob over represented in crime stats just like Maoris are...

Seems to me like there is an especially sore point around those who talk 'utter shite' about truckies though; do you know one? :rolleyes:

Course it is, I'm all for equality no matter what ones job or social status is. I somehow think such calls about over-representation comes under the heading of 'talking utter shite', but that's all right, you're better entertainment this way.

Virago

25th January 2015, 18:03

It's a sad day when children cop the vitriol for simply being on the road...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/330930/show-respect-mother

R650R

25th January 2015, 18:20

It's a sad day when children cop the vitriol for simply being on the road...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/330930/show-respect-mother

Yep that is pretty sad, seems a lot of abusive nutters in the south island chch region post quake so always regard stories from down there as localised rare problems rather than nationwide.

nzspokes

25th January 2015, 19:15

It's a sad day when children cop the vitriol for simply being on the road...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/330930/show-respect-mother

Agreed. It should be encouraged as the kids spend far to much time inside with Xboxes and the like.

That Facebook page has found the dregs of life and has given them an outlet to abuse others without fear of retaliation.

Madness

25th January 2015, 19:53

That Facebook page has found the dregs of life...

Is that why you liked the page yourself?

:facepalm:

TheDemonLord

27th January 2015, 08:22

First up - Apologies Bogan in my Tardiness in replying - long weekend of doing nothing

Sounds like a bit of a catch all as well.

Maybe you should find and read it then.

Okay this is going to make me break 2 of my debating rules - firstly a cross thread quote (I really don't like these as generally I feel they are bad form, but in this case it is relephant) and secondly I am going to make an argumentum ab auctoritate (normally considered a fallacy to make such an arguement but in this case - also relephant)

(source: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/172306-Police-erode-public-faith-article?p=1130821111#post1130821111)

Describe such a crash please. I'd be willing to bet Careless Driving covers every crash.

Since Rastus is a police officer, and the Police are the ones who determine whether there is sufficient evidence/breach of law to take a crash to court - I can assert my original position - one cannot be at fault in an accident and driving legally

If they can safely exist side by side there is no need to claim the lane; and thus it is a straw man argument.

But that isn't the case, is it - Cyclists claim the lane when there is not room for the Car, the cyclist AND whatever safety margin the cyclist deems acceptable (which could be anywhere from 50 cm to 2 meters) so its not a strawman - its the practical application of your position.

As an aside - most NZ residential roads are wide enough that a car can cross the centreline slightly (enough to pass a cyclist who is keeping left whilst giving them room) and not be a hazard, whereas if the cyclist claims the lane, this is not possible.

Another strawman as speeding is not a grey area, so the side of the defender is not erred upon.

Mechanical innacuracies of Speedos is the grey area where it is NOT on the side of the defendant

Case precedent is not an omnibusman argument either though.

Yes and no - they aren't the same, but I believe case precedent can be set using the omnibus arguement)

No they don't, because they are your views, not the views of a typical person that we can agree on.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree, pending further evidence

Yeh, just tatoo it next to their ident barcode...

Funny....

It can be dismissed because it is just an interpretation (albeit official) of the legislation you mean? just like your own interpretation (not official); and those other 4 blokes.

It can be dismissed in the same way that 1.5 meters passing room can be dismissed

carbonhed

27th January 2015, 09:08

I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about that there is a danger when such shite is repeated often enough the masses start believeing it.

Man I larfed and larfed :facepalm:

Tazz

27th January 2015, 14:54

I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about

seems a lot of abusive nutters in the south island chch region post quake

Do you live there or just commute to install your 25k security camera systems? :laugh:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.goodjoe.com/images/images-product-image/product/27492-wet-irony-large.jpg

HenryDorsetCase

27th January 2015, 16:10

So why do you have these fantasies and thoughts in your head about murdering prostitutes? Did you have a bad experience? ;p

well, if getting caught is a bad experience, then yeah....

HenryDorsetCase

27th January 2015, 16:13

Any stats on murders of prostitutes by cyclists? Everyone is a cyclist at some stage in their life s..

incorrect: one of my friends has never learned to ride a pushbike. (which amazes me but there you go) and one of my extended family physically could not

so, not everybody.

bogan

27th January 2015, 16:44

First up - Apologies Bogan in my Tardiness in replying - long weekend of doing nothing

Okay this is going to make me break 2 of my debating rules - firstly a cross thread quote (I really don't like these as generally I feel they are bad form, but in this case it is relephant) and secondly I am going to make an argumentum ab auctoritate (normally considered a fallacy to make such an arguement but in this case - also relephant)

(source: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/172306-Police-erode-public-faith-article?p=1130821111#post1130821111)

Since Rastus is a police officer, and the Police are the ones who determine whether there is sufficient evidence/breach of law to take a crash to court - I can assert my original position - one cannot be at fault in an accident and driving legally

But that isn't the case, is it - Cyclists claim the lane when there is not room for the Car, the cyclist AND whatever safety margin the cyclist deems acceptable (which could be anywhere from 50 cm to 2 meters) so its not a strawman - its the practical application of your position.

As an aside - most NZ residential roads are wide enough that a car can cross the centreline slightly (enough to pass a cyclist who is keeping left whilst giving them room) and not be a hazard, whereas if the cyclist claims the lane, this is not possible.

Mechanical innacuracies of Speedos is the grey area where it is NOT on the side of the defendant

Yes and no - they aren't the same, but I believe case precedent can be set using the omnibus arguement)

Then we shall have to agree to disagree, pending further evidence

Funny....

It can be dismissed in the same way that 1.5 meters passing room can be dismissed

It's ok, I've decided I like your tenacity.

Firstly, remember it is near miss or accident we are talking about. I might have to break one of my own here too though, and go to an edge case. If you are riding down the road near some shurbbery, what is the legal stopping distance? is doing 100 ok cos you can see the road for ages? if so, then what legislation is broken when an animal jumps out and crashes into you?

It's that 'and the safety margin' that becomes the issue in such circumstance then; in the absense of one set by law, who is better equipped to judge what safety margin is required? The one at risk or the one doing the risking? And considering that, you're now implicitly excluding a large number of cases where the cyclist is right to claim the lane because his estimate of the safety margin is adequate (unless you determine the only acceptable safety margin to be 0?).

'Most', and 'cross slightly' are grey area terms.

There is no grey area in measurement and standards though, speedo innacuracy is soley the vehicle drivers responsibility and is not subject to any legal grey area.

Of course it can, but the omnibusman argument must be applied correctly.

Exactly, and because we disagree, and omnibusman argument is inapplicable.

Indeed, so all things are dismissed, and we are back have differing interpretations on legal status; thus constituting a defendant (cyclist) favorable grey area :yes:

FJRider

27th January 2015, 18:08

... I can assert my original position - one cannot be at fault in an accident and driving legally

Only if (that) one has taken ALL practicable steps to AVOID an accident.

But that isn't the case, is it - Cyclists claim the lane when there is not room for the Car, the cyclist AND whatever safety margin the cyclist deems acceptable (which could be anywhere from 50 cm to 2 meters) so its not a strawman - its the practical application of your position.

Ever heard of SHARE the road .. ??? Letting OTHERS decide YOUR safety margin can only end badly for YOU ...

As an aside - most NZ residential roads are wide enough that a car can cross the centreline slightly (enough to pass a cyclist who is keeping left whilst giving them room) and not be a hazard, whereas if the cyclist claims the lane, this is not possible.

Most but NOT all ... but "Safety margins" should be made/allowed for by those most at risk. Many have died having the right of way. NO legal action can change that.

Mechanical innacuracies of Speedos is the grey area where it is NOT on the side of the defendant

But ... is the speed you pass a cyclist more important than the safety margin you leave .. ???

It can be dismissed in the same way that 1.5 meters passing room can be dismissed

Dismissed by whom ... the cyclist or the motorist .. ??

TheDemonLord

28th January 2015, 16:49

It's ok, I've decided I like your tenacity.

Likewise (with appropriate Hat tiping and stroking of Moustaches)

Firstly, remember it is near miss or accident we are talking about. I might have to break one of my own here too though, and go to an edge case. If you are riding down the road near some shurbbery, what is the legal stopping distance? is doing 100 ok cos you can see the road for ages? if so, then what legislation is broken when an animal jumps out and crashes into you?

I would lean towards no one is at fault - if something happens (like a rockslide) where it is so quick that it one cannot react/avoid it, then I don't believe anyone is at fault. Unless of course it was a livestock animal and it jumped out through a farmers broken fence - in which case it would be the owner of the animal/owner of the fence

It's that 'and the safety margin' that becomes the issue in such circumstance then; in the absense of one set by law, who is better equipped to judge what safety margin is required? The one at risk or the one doing the risking? And considering that, you're now implicitly excluding a large number of cases where the cyclist is right to claim the lane because his estimate of the safety margin is adequate (unless you determine the only acceptable safety margin to be 0?).

Okay - lets indulge some reducto ad absurdium: if I present a cyclist who can only keep a constant 20 kph, but for what ever reason deemed that no margin was too great and so always claimed the lane - in your position, this is okay, because they are the one at risk, so they have the power to judge.

Yet I think we can both agree that in the above, claiming the lane at all times is lunacy and illegal riding. I concede that as there isn't a clear cut definition of what is a good safety margin, we should tend to err on the side of the cyclist, but this still doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to try and keep left at all times, except in a very small set of circumstances, much smaller than the circumstances in which they have been observed to claim the lane, and even then, I still maintain that the risk of being rear ended and the disruption to traffic flow doesn't constiture practicable (but you know that part)

'Most', and 'cross slightly' are grey area terms.

They are indeed, but think of all the instances where you have overtaken a car (in a car) turning left on a residential road, crossing the centre line slightly with oncoming traffic without issue - I agree they are grey, but they are rooted in reality

There is no grey area in measurement and standards though, speedo innacuracy is soley the vehicle drivers responsibility and is not subject to any legal grey area.

There is an accepted industry tolerance of +/- 5 kph (I think) which isn't factored in when a ticket is processed - unlike other countries where a ticket is only issued if the lowest possible speed according to the tolerance is higher than the threshold in which an infringement is applied.

Of course it can, but the omnibusman argument must be applied correctly.

Exactly, and because we disagree, and omnibusman argument is inapplicable.

I would wager that taking a poll of the wider NZ public, that more would be in favor of my interpretation than yours - but alas, I have not the resources nor oppertunity to test this.

Indeed, so all things are dismissed, and we are back have differing interpretations on legal status; thus constituting a defendant (cyclist) favorable grey area :yes:

favourable at a stretch, to a point - but as above, even if I concede that there may be some situations where I could stretch to your interpretation, they are much less than the situations where it is currently applied by cyclists (and I still hold that the potential hazards of being rear ended are higher than the other potential hazards)

bogan

28th January 2015, 17:08

Likewise (with appropriate Hat tiping and stroking of Moustaches)

I would lean towards no one is at fault - if something happens (like a rockslide) where it is so quick that it one cannot react/avoid it, then I don't believe anyone is at fault. Unless of course it was a livestock animal and it jumped out through a farmers broken fence - in which case it would be the owner of the animal/owner of the fence

Okay - lets indulge some reducto ad absurdium: if I present a cyclist who can only keep a constant 20 kph, but for what ever reason deemed that no margin was too great and so always claimed the lane - in your position, this is okay, because they are the one at risk, so they have the power to judge.

Yet I think we can both agree that in the above, claiming the lane at all times is lunacy and illegal riding. I concede that as there isn't a clear cut definition of what is a good safety margin, we should tend to err on the side of the cyclist, but this still doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to try and keep left at all times, except in a very small set of circumstances, much smaller than the circumstances in which they have been observed to claim the lane, and even then, I still maintain that the risk of being rear ended and the disruption to traffic flow doesn't constiture practicable (but you know that part)

They are indeed, but think of all the instances where you have overtaken a car (in a car) turning left on a residential road, crossing the centre line slightly with oncoming traffic without issue - I agree they are grey, but they are rooted in reality

There is an accepted industry tolerance of +/- 5 kph (I think) which isn't factored in when a ticket is processed - unlike other countries where a ticket is only issued if the lowest possible speed according to the tolerance is higher than the threshold in which an infringement is applied.

I would wager that taking a poll of the wider NZ public, that more would be in favor of my interpretation than yours - but alas, I have not the resources nor oppertunity to test this.

favourable at a stretch, to a point - but as above, even if I concede that there may be some situations where I could stretch to your interpretation, they are much less than the situations where it is currently applied by cyclists (and I still hold that the potential hazards of being rear ended are higher than the other potential hazards)

So it is possible to have accidents/incidents where nobody is at fault.

Excellent, those passages indicate you've finally seen the light and agree claiming the lane is a grey area legally, and a logical(for some) option!

Tolerance imposed is not imposed due to any grey area in the legislation though.

A poll is not an omnibusman argument either though.

You know that is just going to encourage my neckbearded pedantry in future right?

TheDemonLord

28th January 2015, 17:29

Suddenly! A wild Challenger appears!

Only if (that) one has taken ALL practicable steps to AVOID an accident.

Agreed.

Ever heard of SHARE the road .. ??? Letting OTHERS decide YOUR safety margin can only end badly for YOU ...

Is your Shift key broken? I have heard of share the road, I have also read the law says that if you are slow you are to keep left, I agree on the principle that letting others decide your safety margin can be a one way ticket to the hospital - but there must be reasonable expectations - everyday we let other people decide our safety margins so long as they are within acceptable tolerances/what is legislated - the question here is at what point (if any) does the cyclists right to self determine the safety margin they are happy for people to overtake them with override the motorists right to drive unimpeded (as far as legally allowed)

Most but NOT all ... but "Safety margins" should be made/allowed for by those most at risk. Many have died having the right of way. NO legal action can change that.

Again, I agree with your principle - but what of the practical application of this in the real world? There are reasonable safety margins and there are unreasonable safety margins, my contention is that often an unreasonable safety margin is demanded

But ... is the speed you pass a cyclist more important than the safety margin you leave .. ???

Both are relevant - passing a cyclist with a 5 kph difference giving half a meter of room is fine, doing the same with a 105 kph difference, not so fine.

Dismissed by whom ... the cyclist or the motorist .. ??

The Police (and by extension, the motorist)

TheDemonLord

28th January 2015, 17:37

So it is possible to have accidents/incidents where nobody is at fault.

it is possible to have an accident involving a single driver and an unavoidable scenario (and possible 2 drivers if they were both affected by the same scenario at the same time) everything else however, will be caused by someone driving illegally and at fault

Excellent, those passages indicate you've finally seen the light and agree claiming the lane is a grey area legally, and a logical(for some) option!

Not quite - I did say IF I stretched to your position and I still maintain that the hazards introduced by claiming the lane IMO don't outweight the hazards of not. I did also say that even if I stretched - the number of situations where I could concede that claiming the lane was acceptable is far smaller than the number of situations where it is claimed.

Tolerance imposed is not imposed due to any grey area in the legislation though.

I'm gonna half ass this retort (and not do my fact checking) - I understand that cars must comply with various regulations (which are set in law, or power is given by law that they must comply with industry regulations - I am not sure if this is 100% correct) and part of those regulations is the acceptable limits of mechanical speedo innacuracy. and so by that extention (if it truly does exist) then grey area of mechanical tolerance is not in the favour of the defendant

A poll is not an omnibusman argument either though.

it isn't, but it could be used to add weight to what the average NZer would consider - and since the Man on the Omnibus is meant to be an everyman - a poll showing what most people think (and so the highest percentage of the everyman) could be used to grant validity to an Omnibus arguement.

You know that is just going to encourage my neckbearded pedantry in future right?

I would expect nothing less ;)

bogan

28th January 2015, 17:50

it is possible to have an accident involving a single driver and an unavoidable scenario (and possible 2 drivers if they were both affected by the same scenario at the same time) everything else however, will be caused by someone driving illegally and at fault

Not quite - I did say IF I stretched to your position and I still maintain that the hazards introduced by claiming the lane IMO don't outweight the hazards of not. I did also say that even if I stretched - the number of situations where I could concede that claiming the lane was acceptable is far smaller than the number of situations where it is claimed.

I'm gonna half ass this retort (and not do my fact checking) - I understand that cars must comply with various regulations (which are set in law, or power is given by law that they must comply with industry regulations - I am not sure if this is 100% correct) and part of those regulations is the acceptable limits of mechanical speedo innacuracy. and so by that extention (if it truly does exist) then grey area of mechanical tolerance is not in the favour of the defendant

it isn't, but it could be used to add weight to what the average NZer would consider - and since the Man on the Omnibus is meant to be an everyman - a poll showing what most people think (and so the highest percentage of the everyman) could be used to grant validity to an Omnibus arguement.

I would expect nothing less ;)

What if they cause half of it each though?

That's the concession though, it comes to 'if' and a narrow scope instead of the it illegal cos legislation you we saying before.

It is in favor because the regs say they can over-read but not under-read the speed. And it doesn't need to be anyway, because ignorance is not an excuse; unlike for this case where not knowing the exact clearance distance changes nothing about adherance to the legislation as the grey area is that there is no safe clearance distance stated.

It is mean to be an everyman in the sense that both sides can agree on what they would do. This is shown as a hypothetical; case precedent as you brought up before is another way to make a similar point, as is popular opinion. But popular opinion is not what the omnibusman's argument is about; remember saying earlier if you had to search for backup for the answer it was not applicable?

Tipping intensifies.

FJRider

28th January 2015, 20:53

Suddenly! A wild Challenger appears!

I can be wild ... :bleh:

I have also read the law says that if you are slow you are to keep left, I agree on the principle that letting others decide your safety margin can be a one way ticket to the hospital - but there must be reasonable expectations - everyday we let other people decide our safety margins so long as they are within acceptable tolerances/what is legislated - the question here is at what point (if any) does the cyclists right to self determine the safety margin they are happy for people to overtake them with override the motorists right to drive unimpeded (as far as legally allowed)

I'm glad you can read. I might not have to explain everything then ... <_<

But ... what right do YOU have you (as a motorist) to determine the safety margin of a cyclist you are overtaking .. ???

Contrary to public opinion ... motorists do not have the "Right" to drive unimpeded on public roads. Nowhere in written legislation does it state that they (or ANY road user) have that right .... :msn-wink:

Again, I agree with your principle - but what of the practical application of this in the real world? There are reasonable safety margins and there are unreasonable safety margins, my contention is that often an unreasonable safety margin is demanded

Motorists/Cyclists have their own ideas of what is reasonable ... :laugh:

are relevant - passing a cyclist with a 5 kph difference giving half a meter of room is fine, doing the same with a 105 kph difference, not so fine.

Motorists that also are at times ... cyclists ... tend to be more generous with safety margins. As do Car/Motorcycle pilots ... :doh:

The Police (and by extension, the motorist)

The Road Code suggests 1.5 meters of clearance should be allowed as a safety margin. Not legislation as many (cyclists) believe.

TheDemonLord

30th January 2015, 16:29

What if they cause half of it each though?

This is something that I understand other parts of the world have a concept of a multi fault accident - ie, both were doing something illegal at the time that contributed to the crash

That's the concession though, it comes to 'if' and a narrow scope instead of the it illegal cos legislation you we saying before.

You misunderstand - I still hold that it is illegal cos legislation - but IF I were to concede to you on that point - then many of the situations where it is currently practiced would be explicitly illegal

It is in favor because the regs say they can over-read but not under-read the speed. And it doesn't need to be anyway, because ignorance is not an excuse; unlike for this case where not knowing the exact clearance distance changes nothing about adherance to the legislation as the grey area is that there is no safe clearance distance stated.

So I actually had a look - there are 2 standards that NZ can be used - one is the Aussie standard which states +/- 10%, with no requirement to not under-read. The other is the European ECE-39 which does say that a speedometer cannot under read

It is mean to be an everyman in the sense that both sides can agree on what they would do. This is shown as a hypothetical; case precedent as you brought up before is another way to make a similar point, as is popular opinion. But popular opinion is not what the omnibusman's argument is about; remember saying earlier if you had to search for backup for the answer it was not applicable?

I am not so sure - I believe that if this were a court case and there was a jury and you and I were lawyers and we both presented our arguments as to what the man on the Omnibus would do - I believe that it would be up to the Jury to decide (by way or convicting or not) which interpretation they believed was the accurate one.

So from that perspective, popular opinion can be considered when making such an arguement

Tipping intensifies.

Indeed, excuse me while I pull out my Monocle

TheDemonLord

30th January 2015, 16:37

I can be wild ... :bleh:

Oh Baby :msn-wink:

I'm glad you can read. I might not have to explain everything then ... <_<

But ... what right do YOU have you (as a motorist) to determine the safety margin of a cyclist you are overtaking .. ???

Contrary to public opinion ... motorists do not have the "Right" to drive unimpeded on public roads. Nowhere in written legislation does it state that they (or ANY road user) have that right .... :msn-wink:

As for the rights of the motorist vs rights of the cyclist - this is liable to end up like a pissing contest of who is offended more - the middle ground is what is a reasonable distance - at higher closing speeds, a bigger margin is reasonable when compared to slower closing speeds, and Cyclists have a reasonable right to have a margin whilst being overtaken. It doesn't not grant them the dispensation to arbitrarily pick a number and stick with it, or to use it in an anti-social manner

Well, Impeding the reasonable flow of traffic is an offense - and so by that logic, there is a right of sorts, for a driver to drive unimpeded (whilst obeying all other relevant laws, driving to the conditions etc.)

Motorists/Cyclists have their own ideas of what is reasonable ... :laugh:

Completely agree, and various factors can influence what is reasonable.

Motorists that also are at times ... cyclists ... tend to be more generous with safety margins. As do Car/Motorcycle pilots ... :doh:

Agreed, that with experiancing something tends to give one a new perspective.

The Road Code suggests 1.5 meters of clearance should be allowed as a safety margin. Not legislation as many (cyclists) believe.

That was my point

bogan

30th January 2015, 16:45

This is something that I understand other parts of the world have a concept of a multi fault accident - ie, both were doing something illegal at the time that contributed to the crash

You misunderstand - I still hold that it is illegal cos legislation - but IF I were to concede to you on that point - then many of the situations where it is currently practiced would be explicitly illegal

So I actually had a look - there are 2 standards that NZ can be used - one is the Aussie standard which states +/- 10%, with no requirement to not under-read. The other is the European ECE-39 which does say that a speedometer cannot under read

I am not so sure - I believe that if this were a court case and there was a jury and you and I were lawyers and we both presented our arguments as to what the man on the Omnibus would do - I believe that it would be up to the Jury to decide (by way or convicting or not) which interpretation they believed was the accurate one.

So from that perspective, popular opinion can be considered when making such an arguement

Indeed, excuse me while I pull out my Monocle

Nah, I mean not only half at fault, so doing nothing illegal.

So, 'if' you stretched to my position you would agree with me. Thanks captain obvious; but perhaps go back and address the point without the if for a more substantial discussion.

Exactly, in favor, and ignorance is not an excuse anyway.

But by that logic cos you could reduce demonstrable facts to just popular opinion as well (while you could argue that in essence it is, but it is a different evidence level, so the distinction should be maintained). The omnibus man argument is clearly defined, and not applicable in cases where the answer is ambiguous (like this one).

FJRider

30th January 2015, 17:20

As for the rights of the motorist vs rights of the cyclist - this is liable to end up like a pissing contest of who is offended more.

Bullshit ... Both cyclists and motorists are required by Legislation to adhere to all VEHICLE Traffic regulations (a bicycle is a vehicle in law).... and BOTH can be issued infringement notices for all their respective infringements ... if they do not.

At higher closing speeds, a bigger margin is reasonable when compared to slower closing speeds, and Cyclists have a reasonable right to have a margin whilst being overtaken. It doesn't not grant them the dispensation to arbitrarily pick a number and stick with it, or to use it in an anti-social manner

A closing speed is for vehicles approaching (from opposite directions) each other. Overtaking speeds is for vehicles traveling in the same direction.

Well, Impeding the reasonable flow of traffic is an offense - and so by that logic, there is a right of sorts, for a driver to drive unimpeded (whilst obeying all other relevant laws, driving to the conditions etc.)

Any traffic infringements/offenses by any vehicle operator are liable for fines/demerit points. Any offense taken by another motorist is their issue. NOWHERE in legislation is it written ... you have a right to NOT be offended (or impeded in your travels).