Cyclists cause an accident :( [Archive]

beyond

26th August 2006, 18:23

What do you do? :angry:
My mate Jason owns a CBR600 and sometimes we ride together. Today we left Clevedon and headed out to do the Kaiuau loop and then back through Hunua.

We don't normally muck about, but just before Kawakawa bay as you are heading up the hill before you drop down to the bay, we are coming around a blind right hander, I'm out front and the next minute three racing cyclists are taking up the entire side of their side of the road heading towards us on the corner apex. That's not so bad until you consider the tosser, with his family in the car, who is overtaking them at around 90kmh on our side of the road, on the blind corner. :gob: :gob: :shit: :(

Never had the chance to get an adrenaline rush, or panic as it would have been an immediate head on. Instinct alone had me flicking the front brake to immediately stand the 1400 up. Knowing my cornering line was now buggered, I dropped her in hard right again, brushed the shoulder and managed to keep her on the road. Jason following, still doesn't know how I missed the prick. :shit:

He wasn't so lucky. He swung left to avoid a high speed head on, but didn't manage to get his bike back down into the corner and shot of the shoulder.
I was checking him in the rearview mirrors and he looked like he would pull it off (does Motocross) he was snaking and sliding for about 90 metres in the gravel, dirt then hit a patch of mud and his front washed out at around 40-50kmh.

He was covered in crap but wasn't hurt, thankfully. His bike has a smashed right front fairing, in about 12 small bits and plenty of scratches. The car and the cyclists never stopped and went on oblivious????? :angry: :angry:

In hindsite, I should have chased the prick in the car and got his details so at least someone would be paying for the damage.

While on the side of the road, the 250 riders club came past and many of them slowed or stopped to help out including Spankme. Thank's guys. :)
I got Jasons fairing remains in my back pack and we carried on, meeting the 250 riders club at the fisheries. Was good to catch up with them and have a yarn.

BUT, what can be done about these dodgy cyclists taking up the whole lane on blind corners and country roads?? Worse, the idiots that try and overtake them on blind corners need shooting. :angry:

marty

26th August 2006, 18:29

so cyclists at what, 70km/h cant user enough rd to stay safe?

i'd suggest that instead of blaming the cyclists, it was a combination of you 'not mucking about', the cyclists using the road, and the smacker in the car overtaking - and if that overtaking wasn't happening, then you would have ridden right by.

what of it was a tractor doing 40km/h using the whole road and on a blind corner?

it's the old 'it's not my fault' mentality. take some responsibility ffs

twinkle

26th August 2006, 18:35

It doesn't sound like the accident was anything to do with the cyclists, taking up the whole road or not there is no excuse for overtaking on a blind corner. Wouldn't mind seeing that driver lose his license and be charged :spanking:

jazbug5

26th August 2006, 18:37

Sorry Marty, but that's mince.

Whatever speed they were doing (and I doubt it was 70) I doubt they were ever going to be going fast enough not to interrupt the flow of traffic. Yes, fair enough, the guy who got frustrated enough to overtake on a blind corner was principally in the wrong (and is a cretin)... but the cyclists should have known it could happen if they selfishly hogged the road like that.

Well done Beyond for saving it- and what a pain for your mate, but thank It Oopstairs he's ok.

twinkle

26th August 2006, 18:43

Well they were going uphill, so the cyclists must have been coming down. I've got up to 94km on my bike downhill, with restricted gearing.

sAsLEX

26th August 2006, 18:46

no need for them to be three wide though is there marty! That just pushes cars further into the oppossing lane when they overtake causing accidents such as this one!

hXc

26th August 2006, 18:48

Those cyclists should immediately be charged for not obeying the road rules. 3 abreast is completely illegal! I'm not saying that they were completely in the wrong, but they should get hit hard.

Glad you and your mate are okay, but shame about his bike.

WINJA

26th August 2006, 18:49

I Hope The Cunt Drives His Car Under An Oncoming Truck Next Time , Hopefully With His Family In The Car , Thatll Learn The Cunt, Im Sick Of Wankers Like That

Drum

26th August 2006, 18:50

I blame the Labour government.

Steam

26th August 2006, 18:51

See it from the cyclist's point of view; it's safer for them to take up the whole lane, because then stupid cagers don't try to sqeeze past in their lane and accidentally push the cyclists off the road, or hit their handlebars on the way past. (It has happened to me.) The cagers have to wait a bit till it's safe to pass.
It's not selfish hogging of the road, it's a survival strategy. Frustrating for people behind them true, but I don't begrudge them their tactics. Lots of safe cycling organisations recommend it.

The only thing more hated by cagers than motorbikes are pushbikes.

Steam

26th August 2006, 18:56

Those cyclists should immediately be charged for not obeying the road rules. 3 abreast is completely illegal!

No, I don't think it's illegal. Certainly 2 abreast isn't. They are entitled to a whole lane, just like everybody else. Look it up. That's why when the Critical Mass cyclists block rush-hour traffic, the cops can't do much. They shouldn't unreasonably obstruct trafic tho, that's true.

[edit] Ok, I looked it up, 2 is ok but three abreast is illegal, but ok in a formal road-race situation.

GIXser

26th August 2006, 19:00

I Hope The Cunt Drives His Car Under An Oncoming Truck Next Time , Hopefully With His Family In The Car , Thatll Learn The Cunt, Im Sick Of Wankers Like That

better still "take out the cyclists at the same time,,, i dont mind the cunts,""!!!!but not three abreast" thats asking for trouble!!!

marty

26th August 2006, 19:03

smokeyging

26th August 2006, 19:07

It’s amazing in life when everyone is having a dream and all of a sudden it all turns pearshaped. I think you and your mate were very lucky.

Clivoris

26th August 2006, 19:11

Good escape bro

marty

26th August 2006, 19:14

Those cyclists should immediately be charged for not obeying the road rules. 3 abreast is completely illegal! .

illegal according to what? S40 of the Traffic Regs 1976 (riding abreast) as been revoked since about 1998.

WINJA

26th August 2006, 19:17

illegal according to what? S40 of the Traffic Regs 1976 (riding abreast) as been revoked since about 1998.

I DONT THINK THE CYCLISTS ARE TO BLAME ANYWAY , THEY DID NOT FORCE THE CAR TO OVERTAKE DANGEROUSLY

marty

26th August 2006, 19:23

exactly. what's the title of the thread though?

Leong

26th August 2006, 19:23

Good to catch up with you today!! I think we were all quite lucky today, even with the weather! Your mate Jason's good value... had some very wise words to say when we stopped just before Hunua.

Think he might have got some photos/video of us just before SH2... If so I'd be interested in having a look!! ( EDIT: Seen it in the other thread )

Cheers

Jantar

26th August 2006, 19:47

Like most accidents, this one has more than one cause.

First and primary cause is that the cyclists were riding illegally. This from the LTSA site: http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/01.html

Road rules for cyclists
What rules must I follow?....

If you're riding with other cyclists, don't ride more than two abreast. ...

Courtesy on the road Be considerate to other road users. If the road is narrow, check that you are not slowing the traffic flow, and let motor vehicles pass as soon as it's safe.

Second: The idiot in the car who was overtaking on a blind corner. Maybe he was going too fast and unable to stop within the clear visible distance ahead, but the second cause is still that the car was on the wrong side of the road.

All three cyclists and the driver of the car should be charged with failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

See it from the cyclist's point of view; it's safer for them to take up the whole lane, because then stupid cagers don't try to sqeeze past in their lane and accidentally push the cyclists off the road,

No, the stupid cagers are forced into a potential head on with other road users. I am a cyclist as well as a motorcyclist and a cage driver. Riding two abreast in traffic is simply dangerous and discourteous, three abreast is dangerous and illegal.

Steam

26th August 2006, 19:52

Jantar, you speak wisely, and i have decided I agree with you. Please ignore my previous posts.

Motu

26th August 2006, 19:52

Pushbikes have been racing on those roads for decades,and they seldom post a warning sign....although there is enough paraphenalia around to give you a few clues.So I'm sorta half expecting to see some out that way - but not a bloody car passing them mid corner!

marty

26th August 2006, 19:52

i'm not sure the road code would stand up as legislation in court

c4.

26th August 2006, 19:58

If deisil users pay road user charges/taxes, and petrol users pay levies for road funding, What right do cyclists have on the roads???
I know this is going to piss off some cyclists on our site, but treat it not as
a wind up, rather as some active discussion on why 1 or more non-contributors can cause a heavy transport road tax payer to wait/swerve/overtake dangerously, on a road that might be costing nearly 30- 50 cents per kilometre for the truck, and nothing for the cyclist.
Personally, I think that all cyclists on NZ roads are way more temporary than any other user. What is your ACC levy like if you cycle on the road???

jtzzr

26th August 2006, 20:03

Hey Beyond good to hear your mate is all good , I think despite the fact the cyclist were 3 abreast , the Fu@%kin cager should have had enough (err dumdum ) intelligence to overtake where there was enough vison to see that he had enough room to overtake(rant over) . at least you can fix a bent up bike it could`ve been worse.

twinkle

26th August 2006, 20:11

If diesel users pay road user charges/taxes, and petrol users pay levies for road funding, what right do cyclists have on the roads?

To be honest I can only think of three reasons why they don't get charged for road usage.
Because they do a negligible amount of damage to the road, because they are very environmentally friendly and therefore to be encouraged for those that can be bothered, and because a line has to be drawn somewhere on who gets charged for road usage eg. moving cattle skateboarding pedestrians any other conceivable use for the road

sAsLEX

26th August 2006, 20:13

exactly. what's the title of the thread though?

Had the cyclists not been there it would not of been an incident, but I think the blame does rest of the driver for passing in a fuckwit stupid place, but I am still against cyclists taking 3 abreast etc when if they rode single file often a car can get past without passing in to the oncoming lane.

twinkle

26th August 2006, 20:16

Does this count as law? I'm not sure if it is or isn't. If it is then it's two abreast.

from: http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/regs/regs/text/2004/2004427.txt

11.10 Riding 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.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 40

edit:
ltsa had it on their server too
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/rules/docs/road-user-rule-2004.pdf

McJim

26th August 2006, 20:18

I bet if the cyclists had been single file the motorist would still have strayed into the oncoming lane on a blind corner. If they are the kind of brain donor that will overtake on a blind corner anyway then there's no protection agaist them. I used to be a racing cyclist - I drive a cage - I ride a motorbike. I would never overtake on a blind corner on any of these vehicles....unless the vehicle I was passing was stationary and then I would do it slowly with caution - we can only hope that natural selection does it's bit....if you know what I mean, before the wanker kills someone.

twinkle

26th August 2006, 20:20

The fact that the cyclists were three abreast is irrelevant. If they had been two abreast through the corner the car still would have had to have been on the other side of the road to pass.
Bikes lean just like motorbikes do, they take up a lot of space.

doc

26th August 2006, 20:30

Sooner Transit gets rid of all those friggen corners we will be all safe our gps and cruise control will get us there, it will be real fun waiting for the alarm to indicate that we have arrived. As long as we go for a ride with a mate we are going to end up pushing the limits now and then and when we have a situation with whats comming from the other direction having a situation as well thats what its all about. Just don't let women get involved because then it will always be someones elses fault. They should have never gotten the vote, thats where it all started. Blame Blame its never my fault

Ixion

26th August 2006, 20:38

Jantar: Yes, a Road Rule is law. So three abreast is illegal (as it always was)

More to the point it is discourteous and arrogant. We used to call such people road hogs. Unfortunately such behaviour does seem to be regretably common amongst cyclists.

To Marty's question about L plate motorcyclists. I would hope than any learner bikers would not be guilty of such discourtesy. If I observed such, I would take it upon myself to point out to them that one of the hall marks of a true biker is that he or she is courteous and obliging to other road users.

I have ridden many many open road miles on very low powered machines , which would struggle to maintain 70kph. I hope (and believe) that I did not obstruct other road users for any more than the short time meeded to pull over and let them through. A little consideration goes a long way.

None of which excuses the dangerous driving of the prat in the cage. (Incidentally I wish one of the plod members could explain to me why driving can only be dangerous, as far as the law is concerned, if the speed limit is exceeded.)

andrea

26th August 2006, 20:47

the damn mutha farkers, :mad: see thats what i hate the most is those farken cyclists they think they own the farken road so i just drive as close as i can to them when im in my car or just zip past them when im on my bike and i curse the farkers and give em the finger.
but the dumbarse mutha farker shouldn't have over taken the farkwits on a blind corner. oh mannn doesn't that just fark you off when they don't stop,:angry2: farken biarchhhhhhhhhhs!!!! anyways hope ur friends ok hmmm

Swoop

26th August 2006, 20:52

Cyclists. They're a cunt to pick out of the tread in your tyres...

beyond

26th August 2006, 21:03

Thanks for the responses peoples. Some responses very good, some downright patronising. :( :dodge:

To elucidate. If I had been in a car, there would have been a head on. Period. The cyclists were doing around 40-50kmh and no more. The cage had seen them for the length of an entire straight and around the corner was another straight. He could have waited a few more seconds and it would have been clear. But no, he had to pass, with his family and at no less than 90kmh, risking his life, the lives of his family and whoever he encountered coming the other way.

Sure, the title appears misleading. BUT, if the bikes had been single file, then the car would probably and more likely, not have had to cross the white line.

In the end, the cage driver is a complete tosser and a danger to all motorists. If I had been in a car and came around the corner at even 50-60kmh, there was no way to have avoided a head on. The fact that we were on bikes and moving the speed we were, was the only reason no one bounced off the buggers bonnet.

What irks me even more, is that the prat probably didn't even know what he had done and probably thought everyone was ok. He would have been long gone around the corner while Jason was struggling to stay on two wheels, offroading on a street bike. :(

sAsLEX

26th August 2006, 21:17

What irks me even more, is that the prat probably didn't even know what he had done and probably thought everyone was ok. He would have been long gone around the corner while Jason was struggling to stay on two wheels, offroading on a street bike. :(

Glad to hear your alright , hindsights a bitch and it suggests that after checking that your mate was ok which he sounds like he was maybe chasing the guy getting his number plate, a name from the cyclists (as witnesses to the cars dangerous antics) , and reporting those to your insurance would of been worthwhile....... but adreniline annd having just narrowly avoided becoming a hood ornament sort of clouds ones judgement......

gijoe1313

26th August 2006, 21:23

Damn, hearing the facts like that - your asphalt angels must have been working overtime and in tandem to make sure you weren't hood ornaments! Quite a few factors combining together to almost make a tragedy :shit: Guess your natural skill and experience enabled you both to make the best of a bad scenario.

I understand the cyclist's position well (I road and mountain bike around also), but I can't believe the idiot in the cage - hope karma teaches him (I assume its testosterone idiocy!) a non-fatal lesson quickly. And yet, here I was after splitting off from the scenic riders 250 ride and encountering a cager and his passengers in dire straits (the car was overheating seriously) I pulled over to see if I could be of assistance - I think they were shocked to receive unsolicited help, or maybe they were afraid of me whipping out a length of chain and belting them with it!

On down the road, and in 2 minutes I encountered a cow running amok on the road! I pulled over and waved at the following traffic to slow down - farkin' idiots just keep booting it pass me and then they all slam on the anchors when the cow starts bullrushing them! :banana: :rofl: I've worked out a pattern here. Anytime I help a cager out, the fark'n idiots just get into more trouble (cops/mad cows/distressed images of biker from hell).

My oath, I should just watch out for my fellow riders on two wheels of freedom!

Ride safe and ride for fun everyone! :sunny: :yeah:

Sketchy_Racer

26th August 2006, 21:28

They are entitled to a whole lane, just like everybody else.

Sorry mate, but thats BS

Cyclists don't pay roaduser charges so don't deserve a piece of a lane let alone all of it!

If the road a cyclist is riding on does not have enough room on the shoulder for them to fit in, they shouldn't be on that raod. Its like the pricks up piecock hill on the pushbikes in a pack of ten. even on a bike its hard to pass safely let alone in a car!

Steam

26th August 2006, 21:35

Sorry mate, but thats BS

Cyclists don't pay roaduser charges so don't deserve a piece of a lane let alone all of it!

If the road a cyclist is riding on does not have enough room on the shoulder for them to fit in, they shouldn't be on that raod. Its like the pricks up piecock hill on the pushbikes in a pack of ten. even on a bike its hard to pass safely let alone in a car!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the law says a bicycle is a vehicle, and MUST ride on the road, not the shoulder.

Sketchy_Racer

26th August 2006, 21:42

Yeah fair enough, its my opinion.

But if the cyclists had just rode single file, this accident could have been avoided.

Although the person in the car is complete wanker with a carrot up his arse.

Steam

26th August 2006, 21:53

He swung left to avoid a high speed head on, but didn't manage to get his bike back down into the corner and shot of the shoulder.
I was checking him in the rearview mirrors and he looked like he would pull it off (does Motocross) he was snaking and sliding for about 90 metres in the gravel, dirt then hit a patch of mud and his front washed out at around 40-50kmh.

He was covered in crap but wasn't hurt, thankfully. :angry:

Glad to hear he was ok, it seems like both the cyclists and car were at fault, nothng you can really do eh? Rocking riding on your part, sounds like some good adrenalin action going down there.

As for that wild ride along the ground, man, after having a crash the other day, I learned crashing without injury is an excellent time, and something I would pay to do! I envy your friend, apart from the expensive smashed fairings; Everything whirling around, the imminent threat of death, like a rollercoaster except real. That's living!

Now for 60mg of Codeine, and off to bed for me...

Ixion

26th August 2006, 21:56

No, I don't think it's illegal. Certainly 2 abreast isn't. They are entitled to a whole lane, just like everybody else. Look it up. That's why when the Critical Mass cyclists block rush-hour traffic, the cops can't do much. They shouldn't unreasonably obstruct trafic tho, that's true.

[edit] Ok, I looked it up, 2 is ok but three abreast is illegal, but ok in a formal road-race situation.

They are. They are also under the same legal duty as other traffic, to keep left, and not impede other traffic.

LAND TRANSPORT (OFFENCES AND PENALTIES) REGULATIONS 1999 (http://www.legislation.co.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=634592111&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_regs.nfo&record=%7BBECB3E5E%7D&softpage=DOC)
SCHEDULE 1

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="557"><tbody><tr><td width="16%">11.10</td><td width="33%">Ride cycle or moped</td><td width="12%">1,000</td><td width="12%">-</td><td width="12%">55</td><td width="12%">
</td></tr></tbody></table> abreast
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="557"><tbody><tr><td width="16%">2.1(1)</td><td width="33%">Fail to drive as near as</td><td width="12%">1,000</td><td width="12%">-</td><td width="12%">150</td><td width="12%">-</td></tr></tbody></table> practicable to the left
of the roadway
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="557"><tbody><tr><td width="16%">2.1(2)</td><td width="33%">Fail to allow impeded</td><td width="12%">1,000</td><td width="12%">-</td><td width="12%">150</td><td width="12%">-</td></tr></tbody></table> traffic to pass

McJim

26th August 2006, 21:58

Sorry mate, but thats BS

Cyclists don't pay roaduser charges so don't deserve a piece of a lane let alone all of it!

I pay road user charges for 2 cages and a motorbike - I could use at least one of them 24/7 if I choose to use my racing bicycle on the road I think I've paid for that priviledge - how much road erosion am I causing that needs to be paid for by road user charges on a bicycle anyway?

FFS why do all raod users blame all other road users for all the ills of the world?

There are some great cyclists and there are some pricks on bicycles
There are some great motorcyclists and there are some pricks on bikes
There are some great cage drivers and there are some pricks in cars
There are some great truck drivers and there are some pricks driving trucks

The point is it's the fuckin' pricks we should be having a go at not the folk that know how to use the road. Their defining feature is not the mode of transportation but the fact that they are fuckwits.

rant over - thanks - needed that out of my system.

Really glad no one came to serious grief.

RT527

26th August 2006, 22:17

i'm not sure the road code would stand up as legislation in court

Actually Marty I dont give a flying Eff about Legislation, I drive heavy vehicles for a living And while I can be charged, Thats right i can actually be charged for pulling left and allowing people to pass me I still do it, i consider the driver behind me and where possible pull as far left as possible this does 2 things....stops the idiot from making a rash decision and trying to overtake on a blind corner , and also keeps my fellow volunteers from having to come out and deal with it.
But then this isnt a perfect world we live in and theres plenty of truckies that Ive seen act very similar to what those cyclists did, in being inconsiderate, hell that could go across the board, and include cars buses trucks Motorcyclists, pedestrians ,cyclists every one does it but that doesnt mean its right!.
The point is there tho , the car driver was directly at fault in making his manouvre. It doesnt count what the cyclists did wrong, the car driver superceded this by his Stupid Action.
Hmmmm i set out here to rip Marty to bits, but find myself agreeing with him.
I`d rather see a cyclist run off the road than go under my truck wheels, So you`d have to agree that maybe keeping as far left as safely possible would be a better line to take?.
Drive Safe everyone.....No actually Drive/Ride consideratly Everyone.

Posh Tourer :P

27th August 2006, 00:33

(edited) i consider the driver behind me and where possible pull as far left as possible this does 2 things....stops the idiot from making a rash decision and trying to overtake on a blind corner , and also keeps my fellow volunteers from having to come out and deal with it.

The point is there tho , the car driver was directly at fault in making his manouvre. It doesnt count what the cyclists did wrong, the car driver superceded this by his Stupid Action.

I`d rather see a cyclist run off the road than go under my truck wheels.

I have to say, the number of people in here blaming the cyclists for "forcing" the car driver to overtake on a blind corner is incredible. The car driver is completely at fault. The cyclists dont have any sort of psychic powers.....

I will pull over if on a bicycle if I'm really holding up traffic. On the other hand, I will also use a decent amount of road, because any car driver overtaking me (given that they follow the road code and allow sufficient room) will need to use the other lane in most cases anyway. I will keep left, but I wouldnt have many qualms about riding two abreast (closely). Three makes it harder to overtake as the car has to swerve further out to overtake, so fair call they weren't acting truly considerately. Yes, I'd also rather go off the road than under some wheels, but with people being a bit more considerate neither ought to be necessary....

ogr1

27th August 2006, 05:32

If they are entitled to use the whole road, then they should pay "road tax"
and be insured, like the rest of us, IMHO. (UK at least).

Loads of cyclists here and they all bitch about car drivers opening doors on them blah! blah! Well wake up people! happens to us bikers too, only we have a tad more to lose if it all goes tit's up, because of some other road users myopic stupidity.

Beemer

27th August 2006, 09:19

I hate cyclists anyway, so I'm with you on this one, but what annoys me the most are those tossers who use YOUR lane when there is an obstruction in THEIR lane. Hello, if there is a slow-moving tractor, or a piece of wood or a group of cyclists in YOUR lane and there is something coming towards you in the oncoming lane, then the correct procedure is to slow down until you pass the oncoming vehicle and THEN move into the other lane to pass. If I had money for every time I saw some total fuckwit move into my lane (whether I'm on the bike or in a car) just because there is something in his lane, I'd be bloody rich.

In the majority of cases, they have seen the obstruction well in advance and you would assume they had also seen you, but no, they make no effort to slow down or wait until you pass. Bet they wouldn't do it if you were driving a cop car!

And there is NO excuse for passing like this on a blind corner.

Jantar

27th August 2006, 09:24

I have to say, the number of people in here blaming the cyclists for "forcing" the car driver to overtake on a blind corner is incredible. The car driver is completely at fault. The cyclists dont have any sort of psychic powers........

It all comes down to determing the primary cause of the accident. ie which single event would have prevented the series that led up to it.

The accident occured because the motorcyclist lost control while riding off the road.

Why was he off the road? Because a car was coming towards him completely on the wrong side of the road forcing him off the road.

Why was the car on the wrong side of the road? Because he was overtaking on a blind corner, which is illegal. So here is a cause, but lets look further and see if there are any other causes.

Why did he choose this spot to overtake? Unknown, but possibly he was unable to stop in the clear distance ahead, in which case it would be another cause. OR

Why did he have to go so wide as to give the motorcyclist no room? Because the cyclists were riding three abreast, and hence taking up more of the lane than the motorist was expecting. Definitely another cause and in this case the primary cause.

Consider that the lane is 4.5 meters wide, each cyclist requires 1.5 meters of lane, and the car requiures 3 meters of lane. On overtaking the car also leaves a 1 meter gap between it and the cyclists. With 3 cyclists side by side they are using all of the left lane, and the car will use its 3 meters plus a 1 meter gap of the right lane, leaving 0.5 meters for the motorcyclist. An accident will occur.

If there are only 2 cyclists side by side they use up 3 meters of the lane, the car uses up the reamaider of that lane and in leaving the 1 meter gap also uses 2.5 meters of the opposing lane, leaving just 2 meters for the motorcyclist. Its close, but an accident may be avoidable.

If the cyclists are riding in single file, then they only take up 1.5 meters of the left lane. The car in overtaking uses up the remainder, and possibly up to 0.5 meters of the opposing lane, leaving the motorcyclist a full 4 meters. The motorcyclist may curse the driver for his unsafe overtaking, but the accident would have been avoided.

So the primary cause of the accident is still the actions of the cyclists.

Beemer

27th August 2006, 09:57

It all comes down to determing the primary cause of the accident. ie which single event would have prevented the series that led up to it.

Got it in one! It would have been no different if the obstruction had been a cow that had broken through a fence instead of cyclists riding three abreast - the PRIMARY cause of the accident is what caused the obstruction. Riding three abreast, particularly coming up to a blind corner, is careless and the cyclists should be blamed for this. I know a lot of us hate cyclists (I'll put my hand up to that) but with good reason. A lot of them ARE arrogant and think that they have the right to take up the WHOLE lane and travel at 20-40kph or less. They seem to either have no idea of the danger they pose to vehicles suddenly coming up behind them or they don't give a rat's arse. I'm pretty sure I know which one I'd vote for.

Can you imagine the outcry if there had been a large truck in the oncoming lane and the car driver had nowhere to go and had instead ploughed into the cyclists? (Not that I am condoning his swinging into the oncoming lane in this case.) It's a bloody miracle that there wasn't a fatal accident in this case, but I bet the cyclists would not have felt any guilt if there had been.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 10:00

So if a vehicle is driving around a blind corner, and another vehicle overtakes this one and has a head on collision, then the vehicle which is being OVERTAKEN is at fault? :gob: Yeah right :bs:

Beemer

27th August 2006, 10:09

So if a vehicle is driving around a blind corner, and another vehicle overtakes this one and has a head on collision, then the vehicle which is being OVERTAKEN is at fault? :gob: Yeah right :bs:

You're taking the comparison a little far here - there will always be idiots who overtake on blind corners and none of us is condoning the action of the overtaking driver in this instance. If the obstruction had been another vehicle, travelling at a reasonable speed, then of course the person overtaking would be totally responsible for causing any accident. What we are saying is that coming up behind a group of cyclists travelling at well below the speed limit, riding three abreast and taking up the whole lane, is the greatest contributing factor to this accident. As Jantar explained, if they had been riding in single file, it is likely that even if the car driver had overtaken - which would still be wrong - there would have been room for the bike without it having to leave the road.

If the vehicle in the instance you gave was traveling at 40kph, then yes, I would say the driver of that vehicle would be at fault. Same as if a driver pulled out of a road onto a 100kph road and was only doing 30kph and a car in the same lane swerved to avoid rear-ending it.

WINJA

27th August 2006, 10:14

Maybe Its Time To Put Number Plates On All Push Bikes And A Rego Charge For Acc So That Cyclists Can Start To Contribute , Maybe $50 A Year , The Number Plate Can Simply Be A A Normal Rego Sticker Printed At The Post Shop With The Biggest Lettering Possible.

Also Why Dont The Pigs Crack Down On Farmers With Unregistered Unwarrented Bikes Being Used On Public Roads And No Use Of Helmets Either, Pull Over The Average Cocky On The Roads And The Pigs Could Get $1000 Off Each Of Them , Tractors And Trailers With No Reg No Warrant Either Ticket Those, Running Livestock On The Road How Bout $100 Per Head Fine , So If Hes Running 10 Cows Up The Road Thats $1000 , Why Is It Just The Average Every Day Joe Public That Gets Harrased By The Pigs

McJim

27th August 2006, 10:15

McJim

27th August 2006, 10:18

Beemer

27th August 2006, 10:23

Absolutely - and every pedestrian that has the audacity to cross the road - we need to charge them for using the road too.

Yes, especially the dumb bitch who lives around the corner from our country road and walks in the middle of the lane on a 100kph road - and won't move over even when she can see there is a car coming in the other lane and one is heading towards her as well!

twinkle

27th August 2006, 10:24

Beemer

27th August 2006, 10:31

Yes, the driver CAUSED the accident by his actions, but the PRIMARY CAUSE of the accident was the obstruction in his lane - ie, the cyclists. Same in the fatal accident where the kids threw concrete off the motorway overbridge - the cause of the accident was the driver being fatally injured and losing control of his car, but the primary cause was some little tosser throwing a slab of concrete off the overbridge.

Jantar

27th August 2006, 10:32

It doesn't matter what the obstruction was and how fast it was moving, or even if it was a parked car/fallen tree. The primary cause of the accident was how the driver responded to the obstruction in his lane. If he couldn't slow down in time then he was travelling too fast for the conditions, if he chose to overtake then he is to blame.

The car overtaking on a blind bend was a cause, but it wasn't the primary cause. In the example you give of a fallen tree, then the tree across the road would be the primary cause. That doesn't excuse the car driver, and if you go right back to my very first post in this thread, I have maintained that the driver should be charged. But in the instance we are discussing here it is the action of the cyclists riding three abreast that started the chain of events. They are the primary cause.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 10:43

ok, sorry, I don't think I properly understand what primary cause is. :dodge:

pritch

27th August 2006, 10:44

I find some of the sentiments being exressed here somewhat surprising.

From the evidence of many threads on KB it would seem motorcyclists often seem to feel somewhat vulnerable and sometimes discriminated against, both officially and otherwise.

This would have led me to think that perhaps we would have some empathy for another group of vulnerable road users. As a sometime cyclist I can assure you I don't feel arrogant, I feel extremely vulnerable, particularly on the open road.

There is a bridge near where I live and there is just no way I would ride a cycle across there on the road. The footpath is the only way to travel.

Cyclists riding in a bunch can be frustrating if you have to slow down and wait for oncoming traffic. You could always point out the error of their ways in a few short words. Realistically though, how often does this situation actually arise?

Jantar

27th August 2006, 10:53

Cyclists are the single most vulnerable group of road users.
Bicycles pre-date cars and motorcycles - they were here first.

Aren't we all fuckin' brave for having a go at the vulnerable?

I disapprove of these cyclists in a 3 abreast formation but does that mean all cyclists are tossers? No.

I've seet motorcycles doing stupid things and causing accidents does that make all motorcyclists arseholes? No.

FFS people!:angry2: classing all Cyclists/bikers/cage drivers as all being the same is as bad as racism - completely unfounded in fact.

Calm down a bit Big McJim, We aren't saying ALL cyclists are tossers at all. We are discussing this one particular incident whereby the actions of 3 cyclists led to a motorcylist coming off.

Here in Central Otago we get a lot of cyclists on tour and almost without exception they are courteous and safe riders. We also get groups of riders either racing or practicing for racing. Again almost without exception, they are a hazard on the road. I do believe that some of the comments made in this thread show that many cyclists just aren't aware of their obligations to other road users, just as it is possible that the three who caused this particular incident may not have been aware. However they still should have stopped and offered assistance at the scene of an accident.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 10:59

ok I looked up 'primary cause' and found a couple of definitions.
It could either be the first action in a chain of events, or the single most important action in the chain of events.
I'm guessing it is the first one under NZ law?

UberSchnell

27th August 2006, 11:01

At the risk of perpetuating the argument over the symantics of 'cause', 'fault' and 'primary cause' you should realise that this really comes down to 'blame' and in this instance I don't agree that the cyclists are to blame for the accident.

The car driver should not have been in the oncoming lane - he should have slowed down to the pace of the cyclists and overtaken when safe.

It is never OK to overtake when it's unsafe!!

As for 'taxing cyclists' my understanding of road tax, is that it is based on the premise that roads need to be built and maintained. In NSW(I think), this is reflected in the different tax amounts that different vehicles pay - eg. $100 for a car, $50 motorcycle, $200 truck. ie the greater impact a vehicle has on the roads, the greater the amount of road tax they incur.

Cyclists don't chew ruts in roads, don't contribut to pot holes etc. so taxing them makes little sense.

inlinefour

27th August 2006, 11:03

I Hope The Cunt Drives His Car Under An Oncoming Truck Next Time , Hopefully With His Family In The Car , Thatll Learn The Cunt, Im Sick Of Wankers Like That

Stop the fuckers from contaminating the gene pool. Marty, your a retard, that simple. Having three cyclists abreast taking up the entire lane is simply careless use of a cycle as it impedes traffic flow. Also puts the retard cyclists in danger of being wiped out on blind courners. The cyclists where the ones responsible for setting up the scene for the accident and the cager just was retarded enough to add the final element. Marty you have allways been somewhat of a dickwad, I guess some things will never change... :whocares:

I find some of the sentiments being exressed here somewhat surprising.

From the evidence of many threads on KB it would seem motorcyclists often seem to feel somewhat vulnerable and sometimes discriminated against, both officially and otherwise.

This would have led me to think that perhaps we would have some empathy for another group of vulnerable road users. As a sometime cyclist I can assure you I don't feel arrogant, I feel extremely vulnerable, particularly on the open road.

There is a bridge near where I live and there is just no way I would ride a cycle across there on the road. The footpath is the only way to travel.

Cyclists riding in a bunch can be frustrating if you have to slow down and wait for oncoming traffic. You could always point out the error of their ways in a few short words. Realistically though, how often does this situation actually arise?

Agreed 100%, I simply never ride my push bike on the road anymore. Used to as a kid, but wuld not even consider it these days...

SwanTiger

27th August 2006, 11:14

Dangle one of these out the window when you come across a dickhead cyclist, justice on the spot.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 11:32

At the risk of perpetuating the argument over the symantics of 'cause', 'fault' and 'primary cause' you should realise that this really comes down to 'blame' and in this instance I don't agree that the cyclists are to blame for the accident.

yes, I agree. The cyclists share very little if any blame for the accident. I had always assumed primary cause was the majority of blame for an accident.

Jantar

27th August 2006, 11:53

yes, I agree. The cyclists share very little if any blame for the accident. I had always assumed primary cause was the majority of blame for an accident.
And here I disagree. If the cyclists had been in single file then the accident would not have happened. If they had been no more than two abreast (the maximum permitted by law) then the accident may not have happened. They are equally to blame with the car driver.

UberSchnell

27th August 2006, 12:06

I agree that they should not have been 3 abreast and by all means fine them for it... but the accident happend because the driver of the car reacted badly to the situation. All he had to do was hit the brakes, slow down and wait for a safe oportunity to overtake.

On another note why are drivers and in some cases riders, always reluctant to slow down? I for one love slowing down coz it means I get to hit the throttle again and experience the rush I get on my 2 wheeled rocket!!!

Lias

27th August 2006, 12:14

Cage = Wanker
Cyclists = Wankers

FWIW, I'm all for banning any vehicle that cant maintain the open road speed limit from travelling on public roads, and that includes all the prats on bicycles, and vespas.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 12:38

And here I disagree. If the cyclists had been in single file then the accident would not have happened. If they had been no more than two abreast (the maximum permitted by law) then the accident may not have happened. They are equally to blame with the car driver.

What if they had of been in single/double file and the accident still had of happenned? Would you still lay the blame equally between cyclists and driver? Why/Why not? They would have been riding legally therefore not at fault? Just being in the way is not a good reason to blame them for the accident.

marty

27th August 2006, 12:42

i see this has degenerated into a name-calling abusive thread. IL4/honda/johnny, whatever personality you're relying on today - you're showing your true colours.

thanks jantar for finding the road rule re cyclists - i'll take my pill on that.

i still stand by my insistance that riding cycles on the road is a matter of survival - more so that on my motorbike - and i will do whatever it takes to keep myself and my mates safe. to those of you that threaten to 'take us out', just remember you have a number plate, and i have some dodgy mates.

see ya'll.

inlinefour

27th August 2006, 12:50

i see this has degenerated into a name-calling abusive thread. IL4/honda/johnny, whatever personality you're relying on today - you're showing your true colours.

see ya'll.

I'm just saying it as it is, after reading your previous posts. You yet again show your personal calibre by getting upset over some constructive criticsm. But then again, just like I previously stated, some thing never change...

Jantar

27th August 2006, 13:01

What if they had of been in single/double file and the accident still had of happenned? Would you still lay the blame equally between cyclists and driver? Why/Why not? They would have been riding legally therefore not at fault? Just being in the way is not a good reason to blame them for the accident.

Some blame would still be attached to the cyclists, but not as much. The car driver should then have been able to leave sufficient room for the motorcyclist, but still should not have overtaken on a blind bend. However even though the cyclist may have been legal in riding two abreast, theu still have the obligation to not obstruct other road users.

Jantar

27th August 2006, 13:12

I have had some experience with an accident of this nature where I was in the position of the car driver although no cyclists were involved.

My first ever motorcycle accident occured when I had a head on crash into a car, and I was on the wrong side of the road. The circumstances were that I was turning left on a blind off-camber corner. As I rounded the corner I saw a truck driving straight at me on my side of the road. I swerved right onto the wrong side of the road, to avoid the truck and went head on into a car that was travelling legally in its own lane.

The police prosecuted both myself and the truck driver for failing to keep left. I hired a lawyer and defended the charge. The magistrate's decision was that I was not guilty as the primary cause of the accident was the truck on the wrong side of the road.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 13:37

I have had some experience with an accident of this nature
yes but in your case you weren't overtaking another vehicle, the truck was travelling in the opposite direction in your lane. The truck was somewhere it shouldn't have been and you had little choice as to what to do (left or right I guess...).
In this case the cyclists were where they should be (albeit 3 abreast) travelling in the right direction, and the car was on the wrong side of the road where the driver deliberately put it. He could have chosen to brake hard and wait but he didn't he chose to overtake.

still have the obligation to not obstruct other road users.

I'm pretty sure that is 'to not unreasonably obstruct other road users', otherwise people would have to put themselves in danger to remove themselves from the road, or worse, people would start getting the idea that they can overtake on blind corners believing that other road users should be getting out of their way.

McJim

27th August 2006, 13:45

The police prosecuted both myself and the truck driver for failing to keep left. I hired a lawyer and defended the charge. The magistrate's decision was that I was not guilty as the primary cause of the accident was the truck on the wrong side of the road.

You mean not the car for taking up an entire lane on their own side of the road?

That puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of the overtaking car in the current incident then and contradicts your previous posts.

You are aware aren't you that the cyclists in this instance did stay on their own side of the road (despite being 3 abreast) - personally when descending on a bicycle at speeds of 70kph or more I use the whole lane when I'm on my own to get the best line - I can do twisties on my Campag Chorus 531c downhill faster than I can on the motorbike cos the bicycle is more agile - I have had to overtake cars and motorbikes in Scotland while going downhill on a pushbike - has that made me want to ban cars and mtorbikes from twisty downhill roads? No. Probably because I'm reasonable and I appreciate that we all have to share the asphalt and learn to live with each other.

Glad to see we've persuaded you the the majority of blame lies with the car driver.:yes:

By the way - I've looked into the Primary cause - it was called the big bang and happened a long long time ago!

R6_kid

27th August 2006, 14:02

I had a cyclist ride out infront of me on a blind corner from the opposite direction, i was doing between 90-110kmh and wouldnt have been able to maneuver out of the way. Had i been a fraction of a second earlier it would have been goodbye pork pie for both of us.

Also had a couple of them weaving halfway across the lane as they were riding up hill... not very smart - it almost seemed like he was doing it on purpose to piss me off too.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 14:07

I'm surprised more cyclists don't get run over to be honest :bye:

Jantar

27th August 2006, 14:11

You mean not the car for taking up an entire lane on their own side of the road?

That puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of the overtaking car in the current incident then and contradicts your previous posts.

You are aware aren't you that the cyclists in this instance did stay on their own side of the road (despite being 3 abreast) -

Now you are just being rediculous.

In my accident it was the truck illegally causing an obstruction, in this case its the cyclists illegally causing an obstruction

In my accident I was unable to stop within the clear distance ahead as the truck was coming towards me. In this case the car may not have been able to stop within the clear distance ahead (an infringement in its own right) but you would rather have the car plow into the group of cyclists. It still comes back to the point that if the cyclists were riding leagally the accident probably would not have occurred.

twinkle

27th August 2006, 14:20

It's like the give way to the right rule. If I pull out in front of a car whether it's speeding illegaly or not and an accident results it's my fault. Same with overtaking, the onus is on the car overtaking to do it safely or not do it at all, irrespective of whether the vehicle in front is doing something illegal.

McJim

27th August 2006, 14:22

Now you are just being rediculous.

In my accident it was the truck illegally causing an obstruction, in this case its the cyclists illegally causing an obstruction

In my accident I was unable to stop within the clear distance ahead as the truck was coming towards me. In this case the car may not have been able to stop within the clear distance ahead (an infringement in its own right) but you would rather have the car plow into the group of cyclists. It still comes back to the point that if the cyclists were riding leagally the accident probably would not have occurred.

Sorry man - mis read your post - I thought you said the OVERTAKING vehicle was the primary cause in your accident not the vehicle being overtaken....or did you just decide who to blame in advance and then transpose the blame to suit your opinion?

I ask merely for informational purposes you understand..:laugh:

Jantar

27th August 2006, 14:43

Sorry man - mis read your post - I thought you said the OVERTAKING vehicle was the primary cause in your accident not the vehicle being overtaken....or did you just decide who to blame in advance and then transpose the blame to suit your opinion?

I ask merely for informational purposes you understand..:laugh:

In my accident overtaking wasn't to blame. The truck that was coming towards me on the wrong side of the road was a milk truck making its regular deliveries and driving at walking speed. However it was an obstruction that legally shouln't have occurred. I was travelling at around 25 - 30 kmh, and the car coming towards me was travelling at around 40 kmh.

McJim

27th August 2006, 15:04

Fair enough Jantar - thanks for clarifying - from your previous post I got the impression that the truck was overtaking the car (takes a huge leap of faith to come up with another reason for driving into the oncoming traffic!)

My opinion is that as a road user a bicycle be entitled to an entire lane - people overtaking should move to the other lane and not lane share on the open road. If they can't then they shouldn't overtake. The car is at fault here much more than the cyclists.

People who have always had the benefit of engines seem to feel they have some god given right to be the ascendant road users. Just coz they're too puny to reach 70kmh under the power of their own muscle, sinew, bone and training.

The law of the land states cyclists should not ride 3 abreast and in that respect they were riding illegally - but the law also states that you shouldn't exceed 100kmh on the open road....did everyone observe that law yesterday?

People in glass houses....etc.

Still hope the experience causes the cage driver to grow a brain before they kills someone coz he/she is a fucken moron.

UberSchnell

27th August 2006, 15:38

It's like the give way to the right rule.
That's one of the most misinforming rules ever uttered!!! There are more exceptions to it than there examples of it being correct...

personally when descending on a bicycle at speeds of 70kph or more I use the whole lane when I'm on my own to get the best line
Cornering lines aside, I'd do that for the exact reason that if a cager needs to get past me I've got room - 70Kmh, 6in or less, & a bump in the road and it's byebye for me while the guy in speeding cage would barely notice (injury wise)!

Sketchy_Racer

27th August 2006, 18:46

Cyclists riding in a bunch can be frustrating if you have to slow down and wait for oncoming traffic. You could always point out the error of their ways in a few short words. Realistically though, how often does this situation actually arise?

It happens any sunny day you want to go for a ride over Piecock hill. Its really annoying. i'll always give a nice little toot of my horn asking them to move, when they don't move (they never do) ill make sure i dont leave my lane, which means sometimes brushing them as i go past they dont need to ride in big packs. whats worng with single file?

HenryDorsetCase

27th August 2006, 19:25

We don't normally muck about, but just before Kawakawa bay as you are heading up the hill before you drop down to the bay, we are coming around a blind right hander, I'm out front and the next minute three racing cyclists are taking up the entire side of their side of the road heading towards us on the corner apex. That's not so bad until you consider the tosser, with his family in the car, who is overtaking them at around 90kmh on our side of the road, on the blind corner. :gob: :gob: :shit: :(

BUT, what can be done about these dodgy cyclists taking up the whole lane on blind corners and country roads?? Worse, the idiots that try and overtake them on blind corners need shooting. :angry:

what the FUCK are you on about?

Ok you nearly had an off, and your mate dropped his bike. But the bloody cyclists didnt cause that clusterfuck, it was joe lunchbox in the car.

And yet your start line is "cyclists cause accident?" .

why isnt it: "I was going too fast and couldnt deal with a road hazard"

or

"motorcyclist nearly kills self, and innocent sheep, during loss of control"

Christsakes, isnt it bad enough the mainstream media that get this shit wrong all the time without perpetuating it yourself?

Much as I dislike roadies (I am a mountainbiker) they have as much right to be on the road as any other road user, and those three roadies certainly arent the villains in that scenario..

Goblin

27th August 2006, 19:34

It happens any sunny day you want to go for a ride over Piecock hill. Its really annoying. i'll always give a nice little toot of my horn asking them to move, when they don't move (they never do) ill make sure i dont leave my lane, which means sometimes brushing them as i go past they dont need to ride in big packs. whats worng with single file?
What's wrong with single file is that these psyclists think they wont be seen in single file so they use the whole fucking lane for "saftey" reasons.

I have found the mountian bikers are usually fairly considerate on the country roads but the road psyclists are a different breed altogether. They oooze arrogance so dont really care for any other road user.
My 2c.:done:

Sketchy_Racer

27th August 2006, 19:38

What's wrong with single file is that these psyclists think they wont be seen in single file so they use the whole fucking lane for "saftey" reasons.

I have found the mountian bikers are usually fairly considerate on the country roads but the road psyclists are a different breed altogether. They oooze arrogance so dont really care for any other road user.
My 2c.

Yep pretty much. But if they are in single file they wont be in the way... so they don't need to be seen.

Its funny how mountain bikers and road bikers are heaps differnet in their riding positions on the road

SuperDave

27th August 2006, 19:41

I don't see why you place the majority of your blame on those cyclists. I mean had they not been there the meathead in the car wouldn't have been overtaking them, true but personally I think the blame is entirely on the car in this situation, he did not NEED to pass them, he CHOSE to pass them.

Unfortunately his choice was one made with very poor judgement.

McJim

27th August 2006, 19:43

Yep pretty much. But if they are in single file they wont be in the way... so they don't need to be seen.

Its funny how mountain bikers and road bikers are heaps differnet in their riding positions on the road

That's funny - I use the same road position on a Mountain bike as I do on a road bike....oh sorry that's right, this is New Zealand where we like to turn everything into a 'them and us' situation I can't possibly be a roadie....and a MTBer....and a motorcyclist....and a cage driver....oh help, my brain is melting down - I am my own enemy.

FFS grow up.

beyond

27th August 2006, 21:33

:( OK, if I told you that after the fifth post I tried to change the title to "Car Driver causes accident", would that make you happy? Trouble is, I can edit the post but not the title, so I am stuck with it and all the baggage that has gone with it.

I agree. The car driver should not have been overtaking on a blind corner, nor anywhere it was not safe to do so. I was angry when I wrote the post and stuffed the title by apportioning blame to the cyclists. Though they were to blame for their behaviour, the cager should not have tried to overtake them.

Hope that settles things down a bit. Going too fast?? Maybe, but the speed in the end was the only thing that actually saved us from a head on. Any slower and it would have been curtains. As I mentioned before, even if we had been going slow in a car so that we were able to stop in half the clear distance of roadway, that half clear distance does not count on a car in your lane coming at you at around at least 90kmh. In a car, driving slow, I wouldn't be typing this right now.

what the FUCK are you on about?

Ok you nearly had an off, and your mate dropped his bike. But the bloody cyclists didnt cause that clusterfuck, it was joe lunchbox in the car.

And yet your start line is "cyclists cause accident?" .

why isnt it: "I was going too fast and couldnt deal with a road hazard"

or

"motorcyclist nearly kills self, and innocent sheep, during loss of control"

Christsakes, isnt it bad enough the mainstream media that get this shit wrong all the time without perpetuating it yourself?

Much as I dislike roadies (I am a mountainbiker) they have as much right to be on the road as any other road user, and those three roadies certainly arent the villains in that scenario..

Squeak the Rat

28th August 2006, 09:13

Jantar

28th August 2006, 09:33

:( OK, if I told you that after the fifth post I tried to change the title to "Car Driver causes accident", would that make you happy? ......

I agree. The car driver should not have been overtaking on a blind corner, nor anywhere it was not safe to do so. ...... Though they were to blame for their behaviour, the cager should not have tried to overtake them......

Your original title was the correct one. We'll never know just why the cager chose that point to pass the cyclists. Maybe he was just ignorant, or maybe he misjudged his closing speed to the cyclists and realised that he would hit them if he stayed on his side of the road, but whatever the reason he was in the wrong.

But had the cyclists been riding legally he wouldn't have had to cross so far onto the wrong side of the road in the first place. As it was you got through, beyond, and Jason almost did. So if the car driver had been able to give you the extra room taken up by one cyclist you would have both got through safely. If the car driver had been able to give you room taken up by two cyclists then even a slow car may have got through safely.

The road rules concerning cyclists are there for this very reason. Its not just for the safety of the cyclists, its for the safety of other road users as well.

The_Dover

28th August 2006, 09:58

anyone who leaves the house clad in nothing but lycra is asking for trouble.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 09:59

Shit there are some wankers that have replied to this thread!!

Fact of the matter is that 3 cyclists shouldn't be riding 3 abreast (more so around a corner) and the stupid clown in the car shouldn't have passed the cyclists where he did.

To the muppets who have made out that Beyond and Jason where going to fast.....:finger: !, they should be able to ride at their normal pace without idiots in cars coming at them in their lane.

I agree with Winja's earlier post, hopefully next time the dick in the car decides to overtake in a place like that there is a truck coming the other way instead of a couple of mates on bikes enjoying a day out.

Beemer

28th August 2006, 10:01

I was driving over the Paekak Hill recently and got stuck behind a cyclist just south of the summit. On a bike I could have most likely got past him, but in the car it was impossible and the bastard rode right in the middle of the lane, preventing me from passing him for about 5kms or more. Every time there was a little bit of a straight where I may have got past him, there would be a car coming, and as for trying to pass him on blind corners, well, I value my life far too much for that. I tooted at him a couple of times in the vain hope it would make him move to the left so I could pass, but he ignored me.

A lot of people have jumped to the defence of cyclists on this thread but this kind of behaviour is why so many of us loathe them. If it had been an elderly man driving at 40-50kph on an 80kph road everyone would be calling for his licence, but it's okay for a cyclist? I don't think so.

Once again we've got the secondary school championships on the road around the corner from us next month - and once again we will be prevented from exiting our road during races. They don't get permission to close the roads, but they park on the corners to stop you getting in or out. During training days the little shits ride three and four abreast in BOTH lanes, even when it's obvious they aren't training, but just riding back to the start line. Last year three of them ended up in hospital after running into each other at high speed because they weren't looking where they were going.

So is it any wonder many of us have a hatred of cyclists? If they used some commonsense and showed a bit of courtesy to other road users, maybe we'd change our mind.

Squeak the Rat

28th August 2006, 10:03

So is it any wonder many of us have a hatred of cyclists?
Fuck, you need to chill.

ManDownUnder

28th August 2006, 10:08

Cyclists were at fault riding 3 abreast. What if it were scooters doing the same thing, same speed etc...? They need to be more considerate, and should expect to cop some abuse.

The car was also at fault. Presented with a frustrating situation the driver did something stupid.

Yeah - it's a shame no-one turned and chased the car down to get the rego. I'm willing to bet those cyclists want a piece of the idiot too.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 10:11

ManDownUnder

28th August 2006, 10:11

Beemer

28th August 2006, 10:18

Generalising isn't going to help. How many don't you have a problems with?

Based on what you just said I'd hate most forms of transport...

Re the unpermitted races. Talk to them, and if they don't/can't help ring the LTSA or someone and complain - sounds stupid to me... but then a little mutual consideration would go a long way. You might need to wait 5 mins while they race, and they might need to time their races in a manner to be least disruptive.

We have spoken to the race organisers and basically were told to get lost. Last year we resorted to calling the police because there were cars parked on the edge of the road - and as you can imagine, there is no wide shoulder on country roads - leaving pretty much one lane width free for vehicles travelling in both directions. If it was five minutes we could live with that -try being told you will have to wait 20 minutes because the race was about to start (it goes up and down the same stretch of road) and then when it finishes you have to wait for them to return to the start line!

As for you Squeak, this is an online forum for EVERYONE to express their opinion, not just you, so perhaps you could take your own advice and 'chill'.

ManDownUnder

28th August 2006, 10:24

We have spoken to the race organisers and basically were told to get lost. Last year we resorted to calling the police because there were cars parked on the edge of the road - and as you can imagine, there is no wide shoulder on country roads - leaving pretty much one lane width free for vehicles travelling in both directions. If it was five minutes we could live with that -try being told you will have to wait 20 minutes because the race was about to start (it goes up and down the same stretch of road) and then when it finishes you have to wait for them to return to the start line!

Then I understand. Sounds like they're breaking the law blocking access to public roads... might be fun to call a towtruck? (1/2 said in jest... 1/2 simply using the system as it stands... if they break the rules... you're allowed to move them)

As for you Squeak, this is an online forum for EVERYONE to express their opinion, not just you, so perhaps you could take your own advice and 'chill'.

Yup, but I can see where he's coming from, to generalise against all cyclists is a bit rich (and to be honest I don;t think it's like you to "hate 'em all" anyway... is it?!?)

aff-man

28th August 2006, 11:28

went riding yesterday. Cyclists riding 2 abreast. which is normally sort of fine except theae idiots were riding the first about 1 m from the edge and the other 1m from the centreline. So 2 abreast is legal and taking up a whole lane travelling +-15km/h in a 100km/h zone... hmmmmm

Car was a dickhead, cyclists should take some of the blame. But most important hope your mate gets himself and his bike sorted soon.

Squeak the Rat

28th August 2006, 11:35

Beemer, I am quite chilled. If I actually believed you loathed me because I sometimes ride a bicycle I may have been somewhat offended on principle.

A lot of the general public make similar comments about motorcyclists. The people who live on the coast around the coromandel do not enjoy the numbers of fast sports bikes screaming past their homes every fine weekend (doing the Coro-GP as it is named by some). I can assure you a lot of them think motorcycles should be banned from the road, and they probably have their own good reasons.

As motorcyclitsts we are a group that is often stereotyoped by the behaviour of a subset of our members. We should be the last to make the same judgments against other groups.

That's not saying I don't think some cyclists are arrogant pricks. But “hating” or “loathing” a whole group of people because of the actions of some is a principle best reserved for racists. And as motorcyclists it makes us no different to the car drivers who “hate” us.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 11:38

... is it any wonder many of us have a hatred of cyclists?

Try riding a bicycle sometime, lady. It's good for the soul, it makes you less fat, and it helps you to appreciate that in fact, it's pedestrians who are at the bottom of the 'situationally aware road users' pile.

Anyway, you're being a twit, and you should shut up now.

Beemer

28th August 2006, 12:22

Try riding a bicycle sometime, lady. It's good for the soul, it makes you less fat, and it helps you to appreciate that in fact, it's pedestrians who are at the bottom of the 'situationally aware road users' pile.

Anyway, you're being a twit, and you should shut up now.

I have ridden bicycles for years so I know what it's like to be passed by cars and bikes going at warp speed nine. But whenever I did cycle, I kept well to the left and was always considerate to ALL other road users. Because of the associated dangers of the country roads where I live, I prefer walking now - and I still remain on the alert for other road users at all times.

My soul - and my arse - are both in good health thank you Fish. When I want to shut up I will. And when I want to hear from an arsehole, I'll fart.

ManDownUnder

28th August 2006, 12:34

Try riding a bicycle sometime, lady. It's good for the soul, it makes you less fat, and it helps you to appreciate that in fact, it's pedestrians who are at the bottom of the 'situationally aware road users' pile.

You're right... anyone walking on the road taking up the whole lane is stupid...

and welcome back - long time no abuse!

ManDownUnder

28th August 2006, 12:36

...and was always considerate to ALL other road users.

And therein lies the essence of the problem. Those cyclists weren't thinking of others, and nor was the rocket scientist that passed them on a blind corner

McJim

28th August 2006, 12:40

Try riding a bicycle sometime, lady. It's good for the soul, it makes you less fat, and it helps you to appreciate that in fact, it's pedestrians who are at the bottom of the 'situationally aware road users' pile.

Anyway, you're being a twit, and you should shut up now.

Nah fish - don't let her stop please - I'm pissing myself laughing at some of the shite she's spouting. :bleh: :niceone: :killingme I'm not going to repeat any of my previous posts though cos most people are doing that for me.

Thanks for the laugh Beemer...now on a more serious note are you trolling or what?

jrandom

28th August 2006, 13:14

I have ridden bicycles for years...

Bollocks. Maybe you've pedalled around town a bit, or ridden a few mountainbike trails, but only a sociopath would be able to express the opinions you profess after spending any real time on a bicycle.

You're not a sociopath, are you?

Beemer

28th August 2006, 13:46

Bollocks. Maybe you've pedalled around town a bit, or ridden a few mountainbike trails, but only a sociopath would be able to express the opinions you profess after spending any real time on a bicycle.

You're not a sociopath, are you?

That's a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? Or are you just trying to be erudite?

I used to do road racing, never been mountain biking.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 14:01

... never been mountain biking.

Oh. Well, you can't be much of a sociopath, then.

Mountain bikers are a bunch of bastards, see, got no consideration for other trail users. In fact, I think the Gubmint should ban them. I hate mountain bikers.

Next time I hear a breezy voice call out "on yer right" as I'm struggling desperately to avoid planting my face in a tree stump, I am going to put a stick through its spokes and dance about on its grave singing Hallelujah.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 14:10

Mountain bikers are a bunch of bastards I hate mountain bikers.

Next time I hear a breezy voice call out "on yer right" as I'm struggling desperately to avoid planting my face in a tree stump, I am going to put a stick through its spokes and dance about on its grave singing Hallelujah.

OIY I'm a mountain biker and I ain't no bastard!.

If anyone put sticks in my spokes they'd be getting my fist in their mouth and my foot up their arse.

Swoop

28th August 2006, 14:16

Popcorn! Popcorn! Get your popcorn here!!!
:corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn:
No need to rush folks, the entertainment is in full swing.

marty

28th August 2006, 14:16

what an ironic melting pot of names.....

jrandom

28th August 2006, 14:24

what an ironic melting pot of names.....

Poignant, even.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 14:28

I'm a mountain biker and I ain't no bastard!

True, perhaps, but you're a disaffected, bitter man, aren't you? Because you know you should be riding an Epic.

i-Drives are slow.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 14:30

True, perhaps, but you're a disaffected, bitter man, aren't you? Because you know you should be riding an Epic.

i-Drives are slow.

I do agree with you on that Mr Fish. If I had the extra $$$ a Specialized Epic with Fox brain shocks would definitely be on my shopping list.

dnos

28th August 2006, 14:35

my ten cents.
Driver of the car was on the wrong side of the road on double yellow lines - no excuse, they were the ones that caused the accident.

Even if it were one cyclist they can't pass on a blind corner that is ridiculous.

I agree that cyclists can be a pain but people need to deal with it. pass when its safe, there is far too much stupid behaviour on our roads.

I am glad to hear that no one was hurt in a very dangerous situation.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 14:40

I do agree with you on that Mr Fish. If I had the extra $$$ a Specialized Epic with Fox brain shocks would definitely be on my shopping list.

You wouldn't believe (well, perhaps you would) the pain and suffering that I went through with a certain Mrs Fish as she vacillated between i-Drives and Epics. She ended up buying an i-Drive 4 1.0, and almost immediately started complaining that it was too slow.

Pfft.

I coulda done gone and bought a pretty nice motorcycle with that money.

Or a Cannondale Six-13 frame for my road bike.

Women, eh?

jrandom

28th August 2006, 14:41

pass when its safe, there is far too much stupid behaviour on our roads...

Bugger off and stop hijacking our mountainbiking thread.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 14:46

You wouldn't believe (well, perhaps you would) the pain and suffering that I went through with a certain Mrs Fish as she vacillated between i-Drives and Epics. She ended up buying an i-Drive 4 1.0, and almost immediately started complaining that it was too slow.

Pfft.

I coulda done gone and bought a pretty nice motorcycle with that money.

Or a Cannondale Six-13 frame for my road bike.

Women, eh?

Yep know what ya mean mate, thats some expensive toy alright.

You seen this pic of a truely dedicated MTB rider.......

Patrick

28th August 2006, 14:46

Marty, your a retard, that simple. Marty you have allways been somewhat of a dickwad, I guess some things will never change... :whocares:

and...

IL4 again..."You yet again show your personal calibre by getting upset over some constructive criticsm."

The above was constructive criticism???? WTF???

jrandom

28th August 2006, 14:55

You seen this pic of a truely dedicated MTB rider

Roffle. Pic duly forwarded.

We learned a while back not to sleep in the tent the night before a race. I could tell a little story about the Coro Intrigue and the band that played at the hotel opposite the campsite until 2am.

I ain't staying there for K2 this year.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 15:02

Roffle. Pic duly forwarded.

We learned a while back not to sleep in the tent the night before a race. I could tell a little story about the Coro Intrigue and the band that played at the hotel opposite the campsite until 2am.

I ain't staying there for K2 this year.

Poor bugger must have been a tough race!! Did you do Colville Connection this year? Me lady's parents have a house up at Port Charles which is a big bonus for me :yes:

Patrick

28th August 2006, 15:06

[QUOTE=Ixion;732741(Incidentally I wish one of the plod members could explain to me why driving can only be dangerous, as far as the law is concerned, if the speed limit is exceeded.)[/QUOTE]

Dunno where that one came from... speed is just one form of dangerous. There are many, like... passing cyclists on blind bends while crossing over yellow no passing lanes almost crashing head on into two innocent motorcyclists... just as an example, perhaps?

Patrick

28th August 2006, 15:08

but personally I think the blame is entirely on the car in this situation, he did not NEED to pass them, he CHOSE to pass them.

Unfortunately his choice was one made with very poor judgement.

Gotta agree with that call.

Patrick

28th August 2006, 15:10

Your original title was the correct one. We'll never know just why the cager chose that point to pass the cyclists. Maybe he was just ignorant, or maybe he misjudged his closing speed to the cyclists and realised that he would hit them if he stayed on his side of the road, but whatever the reason he was in the wrong.

Flag the rest Jantar... there is your own answer.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 15:19

Poor bugger must have been a tough race!!

Mm hmm. I was just support crew, mind you. About half the field dropped out this year, and the winning time was an hour or so slower than last year's. Mudville, it was. That clay is yucky. Sleep deprivation just made it a bit more surreal. The Intrigue is a dumb course that just doesn't work in bad weather. I don't dig this "hike a bike" shit.

Did you do Colville Connection this year?

Of course, old bean. It's the most civilised MTB race on the calendar.

Was a bit slow, though. At the start line I gave my entire Camelbak Picnic (tm) to the silly chap that travelled and rode with me, because he forgot to eat breakfast. Twit. Fast forward a few hours - he shot off into the distance, and I bonked with 20km to go. I also forgot to pack lube. Lots of squeaking. And the heel blisters I got at Karapoti three weeks earlier were killing me on the big hill.

I have decided that I prefer riding on the road.

Fishy

28th August 2006, 15:28

Of course, old bean. It's the most civilised MTB race on the calendar.

You must have gone past me while I was sitting out on the deck chairs drinking champagne cheering you lot on lol

I sat around and watched most people go past then went out fishing for the rest of the day.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 15:36

You must have gone past me while I was sitting out on the deck chairs drinking champagne cheering you lot on lol

Yeah, I do remember going past a bunch of folk woo-hooing at the riders and boozing it up in deck chairs at a house in Port Charles. I concluded that they were obviously far smarter than me.

You bastard.

If you saw a sorry-looking dude in a bright orange Scotty Browns jersey and matching Camelbak (sorry, Scotty) pedal past on a black hardtail, that was me.

twinkle

28th August 2006, 15:40

Maybe the cyclists weren't even riding three abreast. Maybe the third one was overtaking the other two, which would mean the guy in the car was overtaking an overtaking vehicle :p

Fishy

28th August 2006, 15:46

Yeah, I do remember going past a bunch of folk woo-hooing at the riders and boozing it up in deck chairs at a house in Port Charles. I concluded that they were obviously far smarter than me.

Haha yep that would have been us. Oh well at least you know now where you can have a quick pitstop next time....you will smell the alcohol as you come up the hill from little sandy bay.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 15:47

Maybe the third one was overtaking the other two...

Well, on the button, my contention causing all the headaches is that unless we take into account of Monte Cristo in our thinking George the Fifth this phenomenon the other hand, we shall not be able satisfact or fiction section of the Watford Public Library again to understand to attention when I'm talking to you, and stop laughing, about human nature, man's psychological make-up some story the wife'll believe and hence the very meaning of life itselfish bastard, I'll kick him in the balls Pond Road.

twinkle

28th August 2006, 16:20

And the really well that is surprising partner in crime is that a lot and his wife
of the lions' feeding time we may be c d e effectively quite unaware of the
fact or fiction section of the Watford Public Library that we are even doing it
is a far, far better thing that I do now then, now then, what's going onward
christian Barnard the famous hearty part of the lettuce now praise famous
mental homes for loonies like me.

jrandom

28th August 2006, 16:31

lettuce...

Luxury.

We used to get nobbut blades o' grass washed down w' 'ot gravel, if we were lucky!

Jantar

28th August 2006, 16:46

... speed is just one form of dangerous. There are many, like... passing cyclists on blind bends while crossing over yellow no passing lanes almost crashing head on into two innocent motorcyclists... just as an example, perhaps?
I take it then that if you witnessed this incident that you would ticket the motorist for dangerous driving. Would you also book the cyclists for riding more than two abreast and for obstructing traffic?

twinkle

28th August 2006, 17:07

Once again we've got the secondary school championships on the road around the corner from us next month - and once again we will be prevented from exiting our road during races. They don't get permission to close the roads, but they park on the corners to stop you getting in or out.

They really block the road? Usually there is just a couple of cones and someone with a flag to warn motorists if a team are coming.

inlinefour

28th August 2006, 17:30

and...

IL4 again..."You yet again show your personal calibre by getting upset over some constructive criticsm."

The above was constructive criticism???? WTF???

You might live in a politically correct world and get upset when others don't, but thats your problem. I say things as I see it and don't mind using some of the swear words/slang. Once again, if you have a problem with that, then its also your problem. Do you cry yourself to sleep at nights at times also?:whocares:

RT527

28th August 2006, 20:18

Any one on this thread advocating the running over of cyclists or similar has no right to complain when a car driver closes the gap when you are lanesplitting.

At the end of the day, we ride on the road with other road users. You need to expect this shit. Road users should not be on your side of the road on a blind corner - absolutely no excuses. But sometimes they are - be prepared to deal with it.

Beyond - congrats to you and Jason for the avoidance. Good riding. And your thread title is understandable given the situation.....

OOOPs I didnt Word My post right I would never advocate running cyclists over or off the road , I meant to say I would rather see a cyclist who was riding as practical to the left as possible go off the road to avoid disrupting traffic behind them, Although they are allowed on the road as well , just saying if I do it at the risk of getting fined why cant they.

Jamezo

28th August 2006, 22:21

considering some of us can do 70k on the flat, 70 downhill is not hard.

what if it was 3 learner motorcyclists doing 70km/h on the open road, out on a learner ride, staggered 2 abreast with one close behind? would it then be the L motorcyclists fault?
Learner motorcyclists doing 70k? Is that a trick question?

Wankers all of them, sounds like it could have easily been a fatal head-on.

People like that should be strapped to a table with their eyes held open and made to watch gruesome crash footage. Of their own family. Specially produced for them.

beyond

29th August 2006, 09:07

Just thinking. (Second time this year) :)
Makes you wonder about the stats eh? Been a lot of heat and comments on this thread but what if there had been a fatal. Lets say we both shot of the corner to avoid a head on, went through the fence, hit the trees and it was all over for both of us.

The car and cyclists go on oblivious, as they did. No skid marks would be apparent as it was over so fast.

The accident report would have read, two motorcyclists died near kawakawa Bay. It appears they may have been riding too fast and failed to take a bend.

How many accident reports involving motorcyclist, actually reflect exactly what happened. I bet, 90% of the time a motorcyclist goes off road, it wasn't their fault if they have been riding for a while. Makes you wonder doesn't it? :(

marty

29th August 2006, 13:09

pritch

29th August 2006, 13:28

Lou Girardin

29th August 2006, 14:12

I had a similar experience on Kahikatea Flat Rd, a 4WD drove straight at me rather than slow down for a mob of psyclists using their entire lane. Luckily the road had good vis and I saw him pulling out.
We also saw similar things going through Arthurs Pass when some psycle race was on, even a support car driving in the middle of the road at 10 km/h while the driver had a chat with one of the competitors.
While the supporters of these two wheel retards love to say they have as much right to the road as other vehicles, it's convieniently forgotten that most other vehicles can consistently maintain the speed limit. Psyclists can't, so they should fuck off.

jrandom

29th August 2006, 15:29

Psyclists can't, so they should fuck off.

Did I ever tell you that the front window of AMPS is perfect for a quick sideways mirror-check on my lycra styles as I ride down Khyber Pass every morning?

One of these days I reckon I'll dismount and, you know, just preen for a few minutes.

Lou Girardin

29th August 2006, 16:18

Did I ever tell you that the front window of AMPS is perfect for a quick sideways mirror-check on my lycra styles as I ride down Khyber Pass every morning?

One of these days I reckon I'll dismount and, you know, just preen for a few minutes.

That was YOU?
I got a brief glimpse before waves of nausea overtook me.

jrandom

29th August 2006, 16:30

That was YOU?

Indeed. I do, of course, realise that in my Quick.Step gear, I'm easily mistaken for Tom Boonen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Boonen).

And, Lou - it's OK to be aroused. I'd be the last to pass judgment if you felt the need to express your sweet, sweet man-love.

McJim

29th August 2006, 16:38

I was descending a twisty road down from the pass of Ben Lawers in Scotland - it's probably the highest sealed road in UK - had a great time really leaning over and not touching the brakes at all - then came accross Friggen Motorcyclist blocking my lane doing about 60kph! He wouldn't move over and let me pass the ignorant bastard - just coz he didn't have the skill in the twisties.

As you say Lou - people who can't consistently maintain the speed limit on the open road...I was on my bicycle that day - Campagnolo Chorus equipped 531c!

The doors swing both ways people deal with it or sell your bikes and walk.

Lou Girardin

29th August 2006, 17:05

And, Lou - it's OK to be aroused. I'd be the last to pass judgment if you felt the need to express your sweet, sweet man-love.

I don't vomit when I'm aroused. Do you get that often?

Lou Girardin

29th August 2006, 17:06

Patrick

1st September 2006, 09:33

I take it then that if you witnessed this incident that you would ticket the motorist for dangerous driving. Would you also book the cyclists for riding more than two abreast and for obstructing traffic?

Yeah... quotas....

Patrick

1st September 2006, 09:47

You might live in a politically correct world and get upset when others don't, but thats your problem. I say things as I see it and don't mind using some of the swear words/slang. Once again, if you have a problem with that, then its also your problem. Do you cry yourself to sleep at nights at times also?:whocares:

Geez... dickwad and tugger is constructive criticism???? What else was there in that thread that was constructive? Oh... yeah...that was all it was... " you're a dickwad and a tugger." I couldn't see the link between these comments and "constructive criticism" as you call it, thats all.

I don't have problems, the voices in my head tell me all is OK.... most of the time.... except on days ending with the words "...day..." and if I forget to take my meds...