Bloody cyclists

[SimJen]

I got pinged down my road one morning doing 120ish by a hidden car with a laser. I and the car I'd just overtaken had only just had to come to almost a complete stop while 3 wankers on pushbikes took up the whole left lane on a country road, while a truck was coming the other way.
While the cops were busy telling me about a guy in an XR6 that they were actually trying to catch (another story), the old guy I overtook pulled up and complained about the cyclists.
Anyway, one of the cops then went on to say how much he hates "fucken cyclists" and when they came over the brow of the hill, he gave them an earful. Sweet as and worth every penny ;)
Teach them the single file rule (as in Britain etc).
Everyone else gets the blame, sure most cagers are busy drinking coffee or txting, but if the cyclists are putting themselves in the most dangerous positions, then they're gonna get squashed......

[curious george]

I'm now waiting for a post that says that cyclists are exempt from hand signals because the road code is irrelevant.

I'll bite.
The road code is irrelevent to cyclists.
And in all truth, it really is.
You don't get many second chances on a cycle, (much less than a motorbike in my opinion), so the only relevent bit is the one about not crashing into anything.
Anything else is fair game.
Red lights are there for suggestion only, same for green. Neither mean it's OK to go; only if it is safe may you then procede.
Cars/motorbikes/cycles/skateboards all have the same responsibility to safely share the road with each other, cars (and the like) are about the only ones who kill people on a regular basis.
Frustration is not a valid excuse to run somebody over, something I expected more support from on a motorbike forum....

[SimJen]

Basic courtesy and common sense would go a long way. Something many cyclists simply don't seem to possess.

[Wolf]

Frustration is not a valid excuse to run somebody over, something I expected more support from on a motorbike forum....
I never said I felt I had an excuse to run somebody over, frustrated or otherwise.

The only cyclist I could have run over was the retard that swerved between me and the car I was following. Fortunately, I was a trifle over two seconds behind the car and I was a better rider back then than that demented cyclist could ever hope to be (and I still had a fair bit to learn about riding back then) so I was able to avoid him.

Fortunately for both of us, actually.

If a person is incapable of obeying the road rules when other traffic is around, they have no right being on the road - no matter what they are in/on.

In all truth, they really don't.

It's one thing carefully running a red when there is no traffic at all on the road that's got the green light because your bike won't trigger the stupid fucking sensors and the light is locked in "default" mode. Fine, fair enough, I can name one set of lights here in Hamilton that my motorbike won't trigger no matter how much I try to make my presence known to the sensor (everywhere else, braking hard on the edge of the grid seens to work fine). But pulling out in front of traffic, no matter how far away they are, is not on. Nor is failing to indicate your intent to turn, nor is failing to check behind you.

I'm sick of the whining from certain cyclists to the effect of "we have just as much right to use the roads as "you" do but we don't have to actually obey the road rules."

That's not saying "We have just as much right" that is saying "we have more right."

And they're probably the same ones who'd whine their arses off if a car turned in front of them without signalling or without looking. "Boo hoo, bloody cagers, never fucking indicate, I hit him because he turned without signalling", "He just pulled out in front of me, didn't even check his mirrors, stupid fucking cager..."

If people cannot see that proper indication of intent, and proper checking of what is behind them, prior to manouevring is an important part of ensuring their own safety, then they're too stupid to be on the roads.

I put a brake light on my old Zundapp and upgraded the existing add-on indicators despite the fact that it did not legally require either because, although I was thoroughly comfortable with using hand signals (years of riding push bikes and my old TS125 which did not have indicators), I did not trust the other road users to notice them and respond to them appropriately. I put in the lights so other vehicles would see and recognise them for the sake of my own safety.

Watch me on the road, you will see me signal - usually more than three seconds in advance - then check my mirrors and my blind spot - not "because it's the law" but because it increases my chance of survival.

I'm stunned at how many people can sit and whinge about how arrogant, careless and retarded the car drivers are and then state that they expect these "arrogant, careless and retarded" car drivers to somehow react in an appropriate fashion when they (the whingers) randomly behave unpredictably (like swerving across the road without looking or signalling intent.)

[NordieBoy]

That means learning to ride safely in a bunch

This I think is the crux along with consideration to other road users.

[curious george]

Lots of good points and stuff was here. See above
I agree there is some shocking cyclists out there that dont do the group image any good at all.
Bottom line is this: a cyclist riding solo, or in annoying bunch crashing red lights, one hit from a car and it's all over. Cyclist is always in the wrong. The only way to be in the right is not to be hit.

I've never seen anybody successfully argue the point from under a car wheel.
Cyclists are subject to all traffic rules, and can be fined etc like any car driver. They have no more rights, just bigger penalties...

It's just harder to catch one...:innocent:
I hate seeing dopey cyclists piss traffic off without a proper reason, it must be possible to report bad riding like you can bad driving, people just cant be bothered, and not having any rego plates makes it pretty hard.

[Wolf]

I agree there is some shocking cyclists out there that dont do the group image any good at all.
It's not just cyclists - there are a lot of shocking road users that seem to think indicating, checking mirrors, actually slowing down and looking at roundabouts etc are "beneath them" or something. Some of whom are pretty much safe from us because they're encased in a cage while we are not.

Of course, vulnerability is relative and one day they're going to do it in front of an SUV or an 18-wheeler...

[MSTRS]

Of course, vulnerability is relative and one day they're going to do it in front of an SUV or an 18-wheeler...

We can only hope (that it won't be fatal and that the lesson will be learned)

[forkoil]

Cheers, Bell.

I noticed a couple in there acknowledged that some cyclists also act illegally and need to learn some respect - obviously they weren't "all-cyclists-are-saints" Forkoil.

I'm away on holiday Wolf, make the most of it, when I get back home I'll be blowing you out of the water again..... be patient

[Wolf]

I'm away on holiday Wolf, make the most of it, when I get back home I'll be blowing you out of the water again..... be patient

:killingme

Damn, you've gone and made me cry.

[bell]

Despite the thread looking like it was on its last legs I had a small incident yesterday worthy of sharing.

I cycle to work most days. I live up a hill. I don't ride very quickly up this hill in the afternoons, say, 10-15km/h or so. Big ring at the front, granny or 2nd at the rear. Point is I'm not crawling along, weaving all over the road.

Anyway, the street is narrow, close to 5 metres wide, no shoulder, just a bank on one side and a steep drop on the other. Cars are permitted to park on the RHS as you look up the hill. So, there's a line of perhaps 6 vehicles on my right and I'm approximately 1-2 cars away from the crest of the hill.

Prior to passing the bottom-most parked car I usually glance behind me to see what could be coming up the hill and, usually, trying to squeeze past between me and the parked vehicles on the right. I did this and noticed a single vehicle approaching the bottom of the hill - approx 80 metres away from me at that point.

I maintained my line up the hill. This is usually 30cms or so out from the yellow line painted on the left. 30cms out still means that my hands brush the vegetation that overhangs the street. There's about 10cms of 'shoulder' on the other side of the yellow line. Nelson's traffic engineers squeezed every bit of road they could out of this section.

"Wow! Fuck! There's that maroon car that was at the bottom of the hill 3 seconds ago - it's bonnet is very close to me.....that means that.....their mirror is likely to hit me...." and it did. They clipped my handlebar end and caused their mirror to fold in.

The ever-so-courteous driver of the vehicle thought he should firstly slow down a bit to check if the cyclist was still on the road, secondly, he gave a little wave of "ooh, sorry about that" as he peered into his rear view mirror, and thirdly, came to a stop and wound his window down as he realised that I was now alongside his drivers' window and wanting to have a 'chat'.

Mindful that there was now a vehicle approaching his now stopped vehicle at the top of the crest I kept it brief: "Don't try to squeeze past a cyclist when there's parked cars and you can't give them a bit of room. Ask yourself if you'd drive that close to the bike if it was your wife or child riding it. No? Then slow down for all of the 5 seconds it would have taken for me to be clear of the parked cars and then go past. Oh, thanks for stopping, it makes it easier to get your registration number now when you drive off. Expect the police to pay you a visit and ask you to explain how your vehicle came into contact with another road user". Or words to that effect.

Poor judgement on his part? Perhaps he has a limited spatial awareness of the exterior dimensions of his vehicle? In a hurry to get home? Texting on his phone? Fiddling with the radio/CD player? All are possible. I think the first 3 are more likely though.

I hope he gets a fine. At the least I hope that the next time he passes a bicycle on any road he gives them more room. And I hope anyone who's been reading this thread and hadn't considered how their driving/riding might impact on cyclists, especially when passing, gives it some mature thought.

[MSTRS]

Could have been a different story, ay Bell? Being monstered by anything bigger than you is never fun. Good on you for 'having a word'...
It'd be the rare motorist that did that sort of shit deliberately. Mostly they are just blind to the smaller road users. OISIDSY. That's what I find disturbing in some posts here....that cyclists somehow don't need to take due care and attention, rather that everyone else must do it for them.

[Wolf]

Sounds like you were doing everything right, Bell, glad you didn't get knocked off when he clipped your handlebars.

I, for one, am cautious passing cyclists - which is one of the reasons I get so fucked off with those who behave in a dangerous manner.

[bell]

Yep, so much of it is lack of awareness. Sometimes it takes an occurence like I outlined above to get people to up their awareness levels. Maybe this guy cycles himself and he would not have felt threatened by being overtaken like that?

I've supported too many people with spinal cord injuries to ride in anything but a hyper-defensive manner. I value my mobility very highly. Any opportunity I get to raise someone's awareness of how their driving has endangered me I generally take. The community roadwatch system is there too, but I don't know how effective it is.

Having a significant hearing impairment also dictates that I try and get a visual on what's happening around me as opposed to relying on hearing what's around me. I sometimes use a mirror that clips to my sunglasses. http://www.cycleaware.com/products/heads-up.php
Highly recommend these to anyone that rides in traffic regularly.

[forkoil]

:killingme

Damn, you've gone and made me cry.

You really DO feel antgonism, I'm surprised. The comment was actually tongue in cheek, I thought you would have sensed that. :gob:

[James Deuce]

I'm away on holiday Wolf, make the most of it, when I get back home I'll be blowing you out of the water again..... be patient

I think you've signally failed to do anything except convince a lot of people that some cyclists are convinced of their right to endanger themselves.

I work with a couple of competitive cyclists, am mates with a couple of triathletes, and my boss and his boss are recreational cyclists.

I've run this thread past them from time to time. You haven't endeared yourself to your fellow cyclists chap.

[forkoil]

I think you've signally failed to do anything except convince a lot of people that some cyclists are convinced of their right to endanger themselves.

I work with a couple of competitive cyclists, am mates with a couple of triathletes, and my boss and his boss are recreational cyclists.

I've run this thread past them from time to time. You haven't endeared yourself to your fellow cyclists chap.

What sort of dastardly crime have I committed to be referred to as "chap". That really cuts to the quick, aarrrhh that hurts. But I am of a forgiving disposition so I will ignore it today (I'm in Lower Hutt for a wedding). Unless the cyclists you referred the thread to wear chaps when on training rides, sort of cowboy cyclists, a bit kinky I think.
Could you be a little more prescriptive about the criticism, what did your cycling mates actually say about my comments that they disagreed with, otherwise your comments are just smoke blowing?
This thread has moved from initially just outright all on demonising of cyclists in general (those lycra wearing idiots someone called them), and has metamorphosed into a more reasonable criticism of "some" cycling behaviour by "some" cyclists, and acknowledging bad behaviour by other road users as well. It was only after myself and others pushed back against that initial vitriol that the bigots cleared off (in the main), so most of my comments were in reaction to those early nasties (including the guy who took delight skiting about using his truck to scare the shite out of those lycra wearing idiots). Some people in here are real twerps, some are reasonable. I tried to push the argument away from the twerp end of the spectrum.
I stand by my main point being that the law is at best a blunt instrument, and blandly comparing different vehicle types in relation to the one law applying to them all is unrealistic at best. That the vast majority of road users ignore when the situation is safe, some rules, speaks for itself, you will never get society following all laws to the letter, and pretending you will is a waste of effort (Wolf).

[forkoil]

I think you've signally failed ......
I think you mean singly, or maybe its a sign of things to come...

[MSTRS]

I think you mean singly, or maybe its a sign of things to come...

He means 'signally' - look it up....
If he meant singly, he would have said 'singularly' and that would be wrong, since you've failed multiple times to convince us that it's ok for cyclists to act like cocks

[Wolf]

You really DO feel antgonism, I'm surprised. The comment was actually tongue in cheek,
As was my reply - had I taken your post seriously I would have answered seriously.


I thought you would have sensed that. :gob:
I had.

[YLWDUC]

Bottom line is this: a cyclist riding solo, or in annoying bunch crashing red lights, one hit from a car and it's all over. Cyclist is always in the wrong. The only way to be in the right is not to be hit.


The only way to be right is not to be hit ?????? Sorry but my logic circuits can't figure that one out George. I know that you're going with the context of breaking the road code and copping the consequences, but shouldn't it be the other way round.

the only way to not be hit is to be in the right (and that's still no guarantee)

[Wolf]

the only way to not be hit is to be in the right (and that's still no guarantee)
Nope, no guarantee, but it increases your odds.

As does being super-vigilant and keeping a look-out for idiots then reacting appropriately when you see them.

[forkoil]

He means 'signally' - look it up....
If he meant singly, he would have said 'singularly' and that would be wrong, since you've failed multiple times to convince us that it's ok for cyclists to act like cocks
You've failed to convince many of your credibility when you threatened a cyclist with a bashing cos he leaned his bike against your car. No matter what the state of your car, I would hope that not many in here would agree with your remedy.

[Wolf]

You've failed to convince many of your credibility when you threatened a cyclist with a bashing cos he leaned his bike against your car. No matter what the state of your car, I would hope that not many in here would agree with your remedy.
What he said was that the bloke had leaned his bike against the car and when he (MSTRS) told the bloke to move it, the bloke's reply nearly earned him a clip.

That is to say, the cyclist reacted to being asked not to use a person's car as a bike park by saying/doing something that was inappropriate.

There's a world of difference to being this close to clobbering someone for reacting to a reasonable request in an unreasonable fashion and being this close to clobbering someone for leaning their bike against the car.

I used to park my bike near one of the buildings where I used to work so it would be out of the rain under the eaves. Someone told me that they felt it was too close to the exit and could obstruct egress from the building in the event of a fire.

I made a joke along the lines of "I'd hope that if the building were burning down, someone would be kind enough to move my bike away from it on the way out of the building" and then located another sheltered place to park it that was well away from any possible exit.

I did not feel that the bike was blocking the exit but the person voiced his concerns in a reasonable fashion and I obliged by moving the bike - despite my opinion that there was plenty of room to exit the building without encountering my bike.

If I had opted to say "fuck off ya wanker, I'll park it where ever I like", then it would be understandable to me if the person felt like clobbering me.

[curious george]

The only way to be right is not to be hit ?????? Sorry but my logic circuits can't figure that one out George. I know that you're going with the context of breaking the road code and copping the consequences, but shouldn't it be the other way round.

the only way to not be hit is to be in the right (and that's still no guarantee)

Nope, I mean what I say... The only way to be in the right is not to be hit.
If that means bending a few rules for safety, so be it.
By all means, don't obstruct traffic or be a prick for no good reason, but sometimes drivers need to understand I'm riding in the middle of the road for a bloody good reason, and the road is not for their sole unimpeded use.

How can I be in the right after being run over? It's poor consolation after riding along, minding my own business and hit from behind.
Ironman Taupo ring any bells?
What's the point in being in the right if you are dead?

Hate mail on the back of a postcard please:dodge:

[Wolf]

If that means bending a few rules for safety, so be it.
By all means, don't obstruct traffic or be a prick for no good reason, but sometimes drivers need to understand I'm riding in the middle of the road for a bloody good reason, and the road is not for their sole unimpeded use.
What would be an example of riding in the middle of the road for safety reason? Not taking the piss, interested to know the conditions that would make that the safest option.


Hate mail on the back of a postcard please:dodge:
That way at least you've got one side with something of value on it.

Unless its a postcard from Gore...

:dodge:

[bell]

What would be an example of riding in the middle of the road for safety reason? Not taking the piss, interested to know the conditions that would make that the safest option.

Narrow street, parked cars down one side, wanting to deter motorists from trying to squeeze past you and take away your 'bubble'. If I'd been more assertive about using the space I had on the section of road I described in my post above, I doubt the driver would have tried to pass me. I'd have effectively been in the middle of the road and he would have had to drive over the top of me to continue where he wanted to go.

Avoiding broken glass or those 'road works' signs that are frequently put on the shoulder of the road are other scenarios where I would do a quick shoulder check and then move out as far as needed into the (left) lane.

The middle of the road was an option recently when a car pulled out out of a parking space and blocked the shoulder and half of the left hand lane as they moved off. I might've stopped in time but it would not have allowed me to tap on his window as I passed him on his left and suggested "Don't forget your shoulder check mate". On this occasion I hadn't seen his head over the top of his headrest, as that's the best giveaway that you need to watch that vehicle - I'm sure lots of us do that when we ride past lines of parked cars.

I would enjoy cycling on the roads far more if motorists had this thought in mind as they approached me from behind:

Cyclists need space, give him as much room as possible as the conditions right here, right now will allow.

Only then would we have vehicles truly respecting that bikes have their place on the roads too, and that every individuals driving behaviour is critical to the safety of every cyclist.

[curious george]

What would be an example of riding in the middle of the road for safety reason? Not taking the piss, interested to know the conditions that would make that the safest option.


Eeek! Gore!
Something like what Bell has said. Potholes, glass, drain grates, narrow passages, the local golf course where sudden door opening is a valued ability, these all mean I might have to move out to the right more than I would like. A car might just drive over these without much of a problem, but can cause some pretty major problems to my bike. I know driving over that same section of road it's no big deal, but it's a f.ing goat track on a bicycle.
Best I can do is give as much warning as possible before moving to the right, and I gotta be prepared to stop in case the car following is unable to give me that room. All part of the "no touch" policy I have with vehicles:yes:



Cyclists need space, give him as much room as possible as the conditions right here, right now will allow.
I wish too. I give plenty of room to horse riders, loose stock, how about some for the deadly treadly?

[Jantar]

On the way back from Te Anau with the Birds Galore riders (Blackbird, Bikeycop et al) I noticed a cyclist near Kingston who had a short pole with a flag on the end sticking out horizontally on the right hand side of his bike to a distance of about half a meter. What a great idea, it shows just how much room that the cyclist feels comfortable with.

And for motorists and motorcyclists who are passing it shows how much room they need to give as a minimum. Great move from that cyclist. He has my respect. :rockon:

[NordieBoy]

On the way back from Te Anau with the Birds Galore riders (Blackbird, Bikeycop et al) I noticed a cyclist near Kingston who had a short pole with a flag on the end sticking out horizontally on the right hand side of his bike to a distance of about half a meter. What a great idea, it shows just how much room that the cyclist feels comfortable with.

And for motorists and motorcyclists who are passing it shows how much room they need to give as a minimum. Great move from that cyclist. He has my respect. :rockon:

Modern ChopperGuard Flag (man I hated mine, made it into a bow and arrow - give a kid a fiberglass pole and what do you think will happen :D).

[Swoop]

Modern ChopperGuard Flag (man I hated mine, made it into a bow and arrow - give a kid a fiberglass pole and what do you think will happen :D).
Buahahaha!
But... DID you have the Chopper to mount it on???(3-speed shifter and all???)

[forkoil]

What he said was that the bloke had leaned his bike against the car and when he (MSTRS) told the bloke to move it, the bloke's reply nearly earned him a clip.

That is to say, the cyclist reacted to being asked not to use a person's car as a bike park by saying/doing something that was inappropriate.

There's a world of difference to being this close to clobbering someone for reacting to a reasonable request in an unreasonable fashion and being this close to clobbering someone for leaning their bike against the car.

What MSTRS said was
"I was attending a bike meet some years ago and at the parking area afterwards, some dickwad leaned his (poxy) Cannondale against my car. On being told to move it or I would, his response was that close from earning him a smack in the mouth."

Do you regard a "move your bike or I will" a reasonable request. Sounds more like a threat to me, but then Wolf our judgement criteria do seem to be different.... I would regard a reasonable request to be something along the lines of "Thats my car your bike is leaning against, would you move it please" said in an assertive manner. Its also clear from the post that MSTRS regarded this cyclist (and maybe cyclists in general) as lycra clad dickwads. Its the generalised antipathy towards cyclists not just by their behaviour, but also because of their clothing, bikes, lack of WOF, lack of license, and "perceived" arrogance thats at the heart of the antipathy. Its analogous to hating Aucklanders because Aucklanders think they are so high and mighty. Demonise the victim, that way they are easier to dislike.

[Wolf]

What MSTRS said was
"I was attending a bike meet some years ago and at the parking area afterwards, some dickwad leaned his (poxy) Cannondale against my car. On being told to move it or I would, his response was that close from earning him a smack in the mouth."

Do you regard a "move your bike or I will" a reasonable request.
Actually, yes, "Move it or I will" is perfectly acceptable. A threat? "Oh noes, he threatened to move my bike. Lawks, however will I survive it?"

He made himself "free and easy" with MSTRS's car, using it as a cycle rack. I think it only fair that MSTRS should have equivalent licence to physically pick up the bike and move it elsewhere.

He gave the bloke fair warning and chance to move it, when he had every right to just walk over, pick it up and move it himself - the "don't touch another bloke's ride" ethic is suspended when said ride is leaning against your ride.

I had no idea that a fair warning that one's bike is going to be moved off someone else's property constitutes a threat against one's own person. If people feel that strongly "attached" to their own transport/property that they deem it an extension of themselves, perhaps they need to learn to respect other people's property/transport.

Tell you what, how would you feel if I leaned my bike against your car, house or bike? Not that I would, I've got way too much respect for other people's property than that.

But of course, the bloke was probably racing and leaning one's bike against other people's vehicles is an important race tactic that must be practised at every opportunity so he had every right to do it, huh?

Face it, the guy was an arrogant, disrespectful cock - it might surprise you to learn that some cyclists are like that (as are some motorcyclists, some cagers, some SUV drivers, some truckies etc etc). And instead of moving his bike when told to, he elected to be even more arrogant and disrespectful.

[NordieBoy]

Buahahaha!
But... DID you have the Chopper to mount it on???(3-speed shifter and all???)

Close, a Raliegh 20 :D

[MSTRS]

What MSTRS said was
"I was attending a bike meet some years ago and at the parking area afterwards, some dickwad leaned his (poxy) Cannondale against my car. On being told to move it or I would, his response was that close from earning him a smack in the mouth."

Do you regard a "move your bike or I will" a reasonable request. Sounds more like a threat to me, but then Wolf our judgement criteria do seem to be different.... I would regard a reasonable request to be something along the lines of "Thats my car your bike is leaning against, would you move it please" said in an assertive manner. Its also clear from the post that MSTRS regarded this cyclist (and maybe cyclists in general) as lycra clad dickwads. Its the generalised antipathy towards cyclists not just by their behaviour, but also because of their clothing, bikes, lack of WOF, lack of license, and "perceived" arrogance thats at the heart of the antipathy. Its analogous to hating Aucklanders because Aucklanders think they are so high and mighty. Demonise the victim, that way they are easier to dislike.

No threat - a simple request backed up with a statement of intent. As far as my opinion goes of this sort of cyclist, it was that event that caused me to form that opinion. Wouldn't surprise me if you were that complete dork. Yours is exactly the same type of attitude. Cock.

[Wolf]

No threat - a simple request backed up with a statement of intent. As far as my opinion goes of this sort of cyclist, it was that event that caused me to form that opinion. Wouldn't surprise me if you were that complete dork. Yours is exactly the same type of attitude. Cock.
Now, now MSTRS, you're being unreasonable. We are supposed to accept someone's lack of respect for us and our property and show respect for them and their property in return.

Remember: as a cyclist, that bloke can DO NO WRONG and his blatant lack of respect for your property must be responded to with respect and politeness. Such ultimata as threatening to touch his sanctified Cannondale, let alone move it, could have injured his delicate psyche and to be angry with his actions is to demonise every cyclist on the planet, past, present and future.

Just remember: your possessions exist merely for the gratification and use of the Cyclist-Deities that grace our humble world with their presence; feel honoured that this deity chose your humble car as a resting place for his sacred Cannondale; hearken unto the wisdom of the Prophet-Priest Forkoil who hath revealed unto us that cyclists are the Way and the Law.

[yungatart]

Thank you for enlightening me, Wolf.
I must say it is nice to have it explained to us mere mortals in this simple fashion. It is also nice to realise that my experience with a cyclist last week, was actually not a negative one, but positive in the sense that it set out to teach me, a mere law abiding motorist, that the cyclist was in the right, and therefore I was in the wrong, when he pulled up on the inside of me at a red light. Even though my indicator was on, indicating my intention to turn left when the lights went green, I should have known that the cyclist was going to proceed straight through the intersection on my left. Of course, as I was turning, he had the right of way.... no need for me to be upset with his behaviour at all.
Well, I am off to fine tune my ESP skills and work on my anger management..after all, it stands to reason that, since I live with a man with an anger problem, I would have one too!

[SimJen]

If any wanker leans a bike on my car, they will get it thrown onto the ground.
If they have a problem with that, they can kiss my Hairy Ass.

[Wolf]

Well, I am off to fine tune my ESP skills
I was thinking about doing that, too - you must've read my mind..

[Wolf]

Had a great moment yesterday.

X intersection controlled by lights, one lane to handle left and right turns and straight through traffic but in this case there's more than enough room for them to split it into two lanes. There's a car turning left and a line of cars turning right and I approach, desiring to go straight ahead.

For once, all the right turning cars are hard up against the centre line (rather than scattered about the lane) and the left-turning car is hugging the curb.

I can see them clearly indicating as I approach and so I'm able to lanesplit harmlessly between them and almost reach the line as the lights change to green.

Excellent, one of the few times in this town when I could lane-split safely and legally and not worry that someone would get shitty with me for "obstructing" them.

We three vehicles in the front peeled away from the line and went our respective directions with no worry.

As I said before: I seldom lane-split but this was an ideal opportunity for a safe, legal lane split. The slight curve in the road approaching the intersection gave a great view of the left-hand cars' indicators and then I saw the gap and the bloke signalling right with enough space between the two cars to fit a Goldwing.

[MSTRS]

Heresy, Wolf. Unless you were astride a treadlie, of course.

[Wolf]

If any wanker leans a bike on my car, they will get it thrown onto the ground.
If they have a problem with that, they can kiss my Hairy Ass.
The big trouble with your car being used as a bike stand is: if they gouge up your paintwork, you have no way of positively ID'ing the bugger responsible for the damage.

If someone clips your vehicle with their car/motorbike and you witness it, you've got their licence plate number even if they refuse to identify themselves but a cyclist can give any bullshit name they like - more than likely to after you've pointed out you want them to pay for your paint job to be touched up (standard gloss colours) or for the whole car to be repainted (metallic or colur-shift paints) - and you have no way of confirming it.

"So sorry, haven't got any ID on me..."

Of course, the answer is for us to all drive grungy pieces of shit with bulk-standard buy-a-touch-up-can-at-the-Warehouse colours so that the cyclists can lean their bikes against our vehicles without concern. It's only pure selfishness that prompts people to have nice-looking vehicles with beautiful metallic or custom paint jobs.

The real reason many cyclists are opposed to registering their pushbikes and having some kind of licence to ride on the road is because they trade on their anonymity when they do reckless or disrespectful things.

Make them display a prominent licence plate and carry a driver's licence (with photo) at all times and I'll warrant a lot of the complaints about arrogant and dangerous cyclists would disappear.

[Swoop]

It is also nice to realise that my experience with a cyclist last week... I was in the wrong, when he pulled up on the inside of me at a red light. Even though my indicator was on, indicating my intention to turn left when the lights went green, I should have known that the cyclist was going to proceed straight through the intersection on my left. Of course, as I was turning, he had the right of way.... no need for me to be upset with his behaviour at all.
You better have a kill painted on your door!

[yungatart]

You better have a kill painted on your door!

Working on it...is that your car?

[Swoop]

...is that your car?
Unfortunately not... :whistle:
Mine would have an additional "kill" area for corgis... :Punk:

[Mr Skid]

The big trouble with your car being used as a bike stand is: if they gouge up your paintwork, you have no way of positively ID'ing the bugger responsible for the damage.<snip><snip></snip></snip>
<snip><snip> Make them display a prominent licence plate and carry a driver's licence (with photo) at all times and I'll warrant a lot of the complaints about arrogant and dangerous cyclists would disappear.What about pedestrians that might scratch your car?
They wouldn't have anything large enough to attach a number plate to (apart from jsg's mum), and they might not hold a drivers license.

The only feasible solution is a mandatory national identity card.

You'd sign up, wouldn't you?</snip></snip>

[Wolf]

The only feasible solution is a mandatory national identity card.

You'd sign up, wouldn't you?
Ach, why the fuck not? I've already got a motor vehicle licence with my picture on it and a firearms licence with a far more identifiable picture on it (and I've carried that for longer than anyone who merely has a vehicle licence) so what's one more fucking photo ID? (Too much to hope that they'd be intelligent enough to base it on a unique registry like, for example, your hospital/health system number and tie it in to vehicle and firearms licences so you only need the one card and number...)

Besides, if all the National Party supporters, or at least the Anti-Labour mob, get their way we'll have a national identity card soon enough - National Party hankers for US government cock... got a taste for it when they were in charge, been screaming for it ever since. Once those tossers get in we'll have a card compliant with the USA's criteria within months - all in the interests of "closer [sexual] relations with the USA."

[Alice]

<snip><snip></snip></snip>What about pedestrians that might scratch your car?
They wouldn't have anything large enough to attach a number plate to (apart from jsg's mum), and they might not hold a drivers license.

The only feasible solution is a mandatory national identity card.

You'd sign up, wouldn't you?</snip></snip>

Yeeer, lets stick it to pedestrians, inconsiderate twats.

Couldn't resist, just back at work after been on holiday and had to look up this thread to see if its still going after my earlier imput, and fuck me, ( no not literally ) yu still going on about it.

Just before I went away I started typing a response to one dick who obviously has the intelligence of a worm, but the moderators did not like it cause the type turned a funny red colour and when I tryed to post the rant it disappeared, probably just as well really.

You'll always find examples of the type of behaviour you do not approve of, sometimes things turn a bit petty and this is going down that path from some respondents, live and let live, get over it.

As a cyclist we get hassled by motorists that obviously don't like us. I"ve lost count of the number of times that cars and trucks intentionally drive as close as they can, its amusing to watch them come really close, then as they drive away and approch a parked car they pull into the middle of their lane. I could tell you of incidence after incidence of unreasonable behaviour towards us. Do I hate cars, know. As for cyclists having to pedal with flags sticking out the side to show how much space we need, well I think thats ridiculous, it shows how these people feel intimidated by traffic if they are doing this. I saw some people cycle touring down South with the flag thing going on, a family with a kid in toe. If you need that to judge how much space to give us then you probably should be riding a mobility scooter where the only thing you might hit is a lampost on the edge of the footpath or a pedestrian, and since I think we should start dishing it to pedestrians them that would be a good thing. (now someone tell me I'm being ridiculous) :yes:

Every group of road users has people disobeying the law, and motorcyclists are just of guilty, maybe someone should start a thread on that one, that would get hostile real quick.

Now someone reply and we can all go round and round in circles again, cause we are never all going to see eye to eye, ... on lots of things, the beauty of being human.

[MSTRS]

.... (now someone tell me I'm being ridiculous) .....

Ok. You're being ridiculous.:devil2:

[jrandom]

already got a motor vehicle licence with my picture on it and a firearms licence with a far more identifiable picture on it... Once those tossers get in we'll have a card compliant with the USA's criteria within months...

You know, the REAL ID Act is running into a few snags in the implementation. It's federally-mandated, but supposed to be state-funded, and a lot of states are kicking up a fuss. Good on them, too. Big Brother hasn't won yet; a few people in Washington are starting to figure out that you can't just randomly legislate something like that without We The People (tm) making a noise.

Anyway, mandatory national ID cards don't do anything for anybody. You think criminals and terrrr-rists don't have IDs? Of course they do. Doesn't stop them. The 9/11 hijackers all had valid passports and credit cards and whatnot, some of them based on forged documents. A national ID card would have done nothing to prevent the events of that day.

What were we talking about, again? Bicycles? I bet most terrorists ride bicycles. Fucking terrorists. The Gubmint should ban bicycles. Why aren't they DOING something about this obvious problem? Think of the children!


fuck me, ( no not literally )

Into a bit of the old cyber-sex then, are we, luv? Jolly good, jolly good. I do fancy a bit of virtual-cyclist booty. Peel off that lycra nice and slow, now...

[Wolf]

Anyway, mandatory national ID cards don't do anything for anybody. You think criminals and terrrr-rists don't have IDs? Of course they do. Doesn't stop them. The 9/11 hijackers all had valid passports and credit cards and whatnot, some of them based on forged documents. A national ID card would have done nothing to prevent the events of that day.
I know it wouldn't have prevented 911. All a National ID does is give people who're good at faking things one more thing to fake and if the perception of it is that it's infallible, that's to their advantage because their fakes will be taken all the more seriously and trusted more.

A national ID card does not worry me, though - I'm well and truly identifiable as it is what with licences and whatnot so why should I worry about yet another ID?

A lot of European countries have had them for years with no major problems to the general public and have had the benefit that passengers in crashed vehicles have been identified by their ID cards even though they do not have vehicle licences of their own. But then, those countries aren't run by a bunch of paranoid control freaks intent on enslaving their own people...

[Alice]

One of my favourite passtimes this morning, chasing trucks, once yu catch them yu get a very nice ride on your pedally cruising at 50kph, came in on the road bike for a change instead of the commuting bike,.......that was fun.

[jrandom]

One of my favourite passtimes this morning, chasing trucks

Not really any trucks on my communting route; my favourite sport is dragging off scooters. I usually lose, but sometimes I'll manage to pull ahead of a particularly smoky old 50cc. Reminds me, I must get new cleats. Left foot shot out of the pedal at 40kph when I stood up to chase a scoot on Great North Rd the other day. Not pretty.


came in on the road bike for a change instead of the commuting bike,.......that was fun.

How long is your commute? I use my road bike as a matter of course; it'd be nice to have the advantage of the fat slicks and disc brakes on the hardtail, particularly in winter and heavy traffic, but I just can't stand the lower gearing for 25km each way.

[Alice]

I only have to travel 10km each way to and from work, so not far at all. I used to commute 22km each way but now I live in town. I'm not seriously into cycling anymore, after 15 years of being obsessed and doing the full on training thing, take the long way home etc I've had a bit of a change of focus after discovering the joys of motorcyling. Plus just need a change, will always be into it to some extent, and who knows after a bit of a break I might get back into it more. Did Le Race last March, kept training for about 4 more months then decided I needed a change.

The little GT is ideal for commuting, has SIDs with a lockout, Armadillo tyres, not as nice to ride on as fatboys by bullet proof puncture wise and you get amazing mileage outa them. One of the guys I used to train with had a pair on his road bike for training and got 10,000km out of a rear tyre which is pretty incredible. But yer, the MTBs are definetly slower, thats why the rd bike was such fun this morning, I had my race wheels on and there so smooth to ride on and just cut thru the air. Might need to go for a decant ride soon.

I've pulled my foot out with worn cleats, and your right, its not good. I was motoring down a hill and stood up to sprint up the other side, foot pops out, fires down hits the road, fires back up into the front chainrings, still got the scars, would have been funny to watch if yu got a warped scense of humour cause I ended up sitting on the toptube wobbling all over the road ( bloody inconsiderate to motorists - tongue in cheek ) how the hell I didn't crash I don't know.

I tryed drafting behind scooters to, but theres not much shelter and there screemy wee things, and they usually win which spoils the fun, the novelty wears of pretty quickly.

[bell]

http://www.woj.com.au/2007/03/28/melb-hell-ride-cyclists-told-to-clean-up-act/

If you can be bothered to follow the link and read the story then you might be tempted to stretch this wee thread out some more...

[Wolf]

http://www.woj.com.au/2007/03/28/melb-hell-ride-cyclists-told-to-clean-up-act/

If you can be bothered to follow the link and read the story then you might be tempted to stretch this wee thread out some more...
But treadlies are safe and couldn't possibly harm someone, unlike those nasty evil cars and motorcycles...

And don't forget, cyclists run red lights all over the world so that makes it OK...

Yeah, right.

Just waiting for Forkoil to explain that what they did was a valid racing manoeuvre and it was the silly pedestrian's fault for obeying the crossing lamp.

[Max Preload]

:angry2:
The other evening when I was on the bike turning left onto Wakefield Street from Queen Street, on the green arrow, in a dedicated left turn lane this silly bitch on a bicycle decides that despite being not only in the wrong place on the road to go straight ahead (the left side of the left lane which is clearly marked left turn only) that she will proceed against a red light and ride straight across in front of me after she'd already been stationary. I nearly collected her as I lawfully turned the corner allowing sufficient room for her as it was naturally assumed she too was turning. The barrage of profanities that exploded from my mouth when she tried to go straight would have made sailors blush. I don't know what she replied (earplugs) nor do I particularly care - my prime concern was not damaging myself or my passenger or my bike.

:angry2:

Between these lycra-clad fucktards and kamikaze pedestrians crossing anywhere, anytime without thought for anyone else (the crossing on Wellesley Street going left onto Mayoral Drive is a prime example - sit for 10 mins and watch the cunts streaming across there without waiting for the cross signal) and standing on the road in the gutters on tight corners (one I use regularly is Whitaker Place off Symonds Street) it's simply not safe to venture into the city centre on a bike. Cars pose a far less hazard these days compared to these assholes.

Isn't it about time for a crackdown on these dangerous twits?

[MSTRS]

Isn't it about time for a crackdown on these dangerous twits?

Yeah - some of them need a crack, alright.
Mind you, there's a few on m/cs and cages that need a serve too....

[NordieBoy]

Isn't it about time for a crackdown on dangerous twits?

Fixed .

[firefighter]

.............

[firefighter]

Mods - by all means merge this with an old thread that I remember (but can't find)...
This photo in last night's paper illustrates perfectly one of the biggest bitches we have with these pricks (prickesses, in this case). Not a single mention in the article of the 2 abreast rule. Note the centre line. And as far as keeping as far to the left as practicable....
Pity they weren't being tested on their ability to obey the road rules - eh,failed!

I think you'll find they ride like that caus' di*kheads in cages intimidate them so much it's their own form of protest, no chance of a cage pushing you into the gutter or seeing how close they can get, remember on a bicycle you can only move over so-far......