Angry driver takes out 50 cyclists (Australia)

[Forest]

This story was in the paper this morning.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/08/1210131112608.html


Witnesses to the crash have told smh.com.au the group of about up to 60 professional cyclists were riding south on Southern Cross Drive, just south of Dacey Avenue, Mascot about 6.30am when a driver, agitated with being held up, accelerated in front of the pack and then slammed on his brakes.

"The driver's come up close behind them and was worrying the rear of the pack and then [the driver has] gone past and got in front and slammed his brakes on," one of cyclist in the pack said.

"Everyone's slammed their brakes on and slammmed into each other ... there were broken bikes - wheels busted and wheels snapped - and people lying on the road."

[nodrog]

obviously they were not following the "2 second rule"

[Mikkel]

Not good. :no: I hope they get the fella and make him pay up!

However, given the arrogance of some cyclists, incidents like this are bound to happen sooner rather than later.

[Dargor]

That guy should get a motorbike so he can get past them easier.
Perhaps if the cyclists tried harder not to be in the way they wouldnt have pissed him off so much.

[Usarka]

However, given the arrogance of some cyclists, incidents like this are bound to happen sooner rather than later.

you forgot the :msn-wink:

[Lias]

Bwhahahahahaha..

Cant say I feel much sympathy for them, packs of cyclists incite me to road rage too. Individual cyclists or cyclists in a line sticking to the left are fine but when you get packs of them 2-4 abreast, going slow and acting like they own the road it makes me want to go carmageddon on their arse.

[sunhuntin]

if its a race with 60 or more cyclists, they should be on closed roads. having that many on an open road is just asking for trouble.

[Usarka]

not like the coro loop then..... :whistle:

[Mikkel]

you forgot the :msn-wink:

Erhm, what's that word again? ...NO!

[Boob Johnson]

Obviously the guy has over reacted but dang those farking cyclists don't do themselves any favours do they! Has anyone ever takin to writing a stern letter to a cyclist group? It seems many people have had a guts full of cyclist owning up the road when ever they get in packs on PUBLIC roads :bash:

They never seem to tell the police what they are up to either, ie a support car or two.

I wouldn't have gone that far myself but I won't loose sleep over what he did either :innocent:

[barty5]

Bwhahahahahaha..

Cant say I feel much sympathy for them, packs of cyclists incite me to road rage too. Individual cyclists or cyclists in a line sticking to the left are fine but when you get packs of them 2-4 abreast, going slow and acting like they own the road it makes me want to go carmageddon on their arse.

this happened a few year back on the way to helensville bikers pulled out to pass cyclists cause they wouldnt move over bout 6 of them spread out. Worst part was the car that came flying round corner cant remember all the details i know one of the bikers got hit dont know bout the other. Was couple a mates of a flat mate we had at the time. Cyclists came away unharmed. they are a pain in the arse allways seam to think they own the bloody roads.

[vifferman]

...allways seam to think they own the bloody roads.
But of course they do! They pay SO much road user tax! :rolleyes:

[bungbung]

But of course they do! They pay SO much road user tax! :rolleyes:

I cycle, and own 2 bikes a car and a van, all registered. I might even pay more to use the road than you.

I'd guess that most of the lycra clad roadies will own at least one car. It's the super stringy endurance types riding old 10 speeds wearing yellow pvc jackets and white stack hats that don't own vehicles.

[RC1]

obviously they were not following the "2 second rule"

and therefore the accident was there fault for running into the car :whistle:

[Maha]

and therefore the accident was there fault for running into the car :whistle:

Either way, Im picking the driver is a mean hand at Ten Pin!.....

[Forest]

this happened a few year back on the way to helensville bikers pulled out to pass cyclists cause they wouldnt move over bout 6 of them spread out. Worst part was the car that came flying round corner cant remember all the details i know one of the bikers got hit dont know bout the other. Was couple a mates of a flat mate we had at the time. Cyclists came away unharmed. they are a pain in the arse allways seam to think they own the bloody roads.

I don't know all of the details and I don't want to be disrespectful, but if bikers make a bad call and overtake on a blind corner then they're the ones who are responsible for the accident (not the cyclists).

The same thing is true for other slow moving road users e.g. tractors, trailors, agricultural equipment, over-size loads etc. You just have to anticipate it will be there and ride accordingly.

[Boob Johnson]

I don't know all of the details and I don't want to be disrespectful, but if bikers make a bad call and overtake on a blind corner then they're the ones who are responsible for the accident (not the cyclists).

The same thing is true for other slow moving road users e.g. tractors, trailors, agricultural equipment, over-size loads etc. You just have to anticipate it will be there and ride accordingly.
The difference being Tractors & the likes are UNABLE to split into little pieces & make room for other road users :girlfight:

While I agree with the overtaking thing, I sure as hell wouldn't overtake in that situation but can understand the frustration at such arrogance.

[The Pastor]

cars 1 cyclists 0.

hahahahaha

roads are built for motorvehicles, gtfo.

[Donor]

So how many of the cyclists would be done for failing to stop in a safe distance if that had happened over here?

And 9 grand for one guys front wheel?? Yer wot??

Still, the Falcon driver needs a swift kicking - other road users deserve respect, despite their sexual preferences...

[HTFU]

I have been road cycling for 15 years and agree in general the road habits and etiquette of fellow roadies is below par. Riding 2 abreast on our narrow windy roads is plain stupid. As is the European style clothing most wear which is in general hard to see as a motorist.

I wear a fluoro vest and have flashing lights day and night. Not trendy enough for most roadies here though who want to look like a European pro and ride side by side like you can in Europe. I am more a hairy legged mountain biker by trade though, so trendy isn't part of my game.

Bunch rides like we have on Sunday mornings in Hamilton and Te Awamutu do create problems because of size. Safety in numbers is true for the riders as a bunch is a lot easier to see than just a handful. Trouble is for cars and trucks these bunches can be 30-50m in length and unpredictable, as some ass pulls out to the right etc.

Working in the cycle industry I would say the majority of people riding road bikes and whom are good enough riders to be in a fast moving bunch ride, are also arrogant enough to think they own the road IMHO. The slow weekend warriors less so.

[BadCompany]

That guy deserves a fucking high five! He had the balls to do what so many of us wish we could do. Down with with fucking cyclists!

Ten points! YARRR!

[barty5]

I don't know all of the details and I don't want to be disrespectful, but if bikers make a bad call and overtake on a blind corner then they're the ones who are responsible for the accident (not the cyclists).

The same thing is true for other slow moving road users e.g. tractors, trailors, agricultural equipment, over-size loads etc. You just have to anticipate it will be there and ride accordingly.


Not saying pulling out on a semi blind corner is a good thing at all but.
The other way to look at it is that had they left enough room for them to pass safely early on instead of blocking the lane completely their fustrasion would not have got the better of them putting them were they were causing the end result ( both lived by the way just in hospital for long period)

[barty5]

I think they were riding to fast for the conditions maybe just maybe he had to brake to avoid hitting something that ran out on the road he managed to stop and miss it. if they had been cars they all would have been done for failing to stop in time following to close etc etc. Cause its a pedal bike the cage is in the wrong (probly was any way ) but thats not the point.

[curious george]

:Oi:
Unfuckingbelievable.
That so many can find this funny or justified.
It is just wrong wrong WRONG!
I agree cyclists can be an inconvenience on the road, that does not in any way give anybody the right to do that.
I expected better from a group that is so often hurt/damaged or killed by cars.

[Biggles2000]

Hard to say who is really at fault here.

If the cyclists did not leave enough room to stop it is their fault.

If the front cyclist fell off trying to avoid the car and his mates ran over him it's the cyclists fault.

However it sounds like road rage and the driver should be charged with dangerous causing, but he will say he had a legit reason to stop and the bikes back ended him cause they were following too close.

[BadCompany]

:Oi:
Unfuckingbelievable.
That so many can find this funny or justified.
It is just wrong wrong WRONG!
I agree cyclists can be an inconvenience on the road, that does not in any way give anybody the right to do that.
I expected better from a group that is so often hurt/damaged or killed by cars.

Its fucking brilliant, I'll buy that man a god damn beer!

And fuck all you pansy arse cunts who didn't leave their name when repping me.

[curious george]

blah blah blah, but he will say he had a legit reason to stop and the bikes back ended him cause they were following too close.
And then found a legitimate reason to continue after whatever emergency that caused him to brake in the first place?
What was it that caused him to stop so suddenly?
What was so important that he couldn't wait to see who he'd knocked off before carrying on to work at 630 in the freaking morning!

BadCompany - your attitude is not only disappointing but somewhat disturbing.
What is so brilliant about causing an accident that could have killed somebody?
Consider yourself very red-repped from me.

The law in NSW is:
"Road rules for cyclists

Cyclists riding in groups on public roads can only cycle next to one other rider - a law described by the Roads and Traffic Authority as riding "two abreast'' - and must not ride more than 1.5 metres apart.

The RTA's website also stipulates that cyclists must ride in a bicycle lane if one is available and can use bus lanes, except when the lane is marked 'buses only'.

Contrary to some correspondence to smh.com.au today, the section of road where today's crash happened was flanked by a shoulder, not a cycle path.

Children under 12 are allowed to ride on a footpath but adults are only permitted to use them if they are supervising a child.

Ferris said the group involved in today's crash were obeying the road rules before the pile-up.

"We were riding two abreast and 1.5 metres from the left of the lane,'' she said."

From what Google earth tells me about the general area, it a four lane road! There was another lane to go around the cyclists but he chose not to.
If this is true, it pretty bloody clear the driver of the Falcon has no right to still be breathing.

[Mr Skid]

Don't know what these pinkos are whining about, it's all fair game on the road.

I had great fun sitting on the back wheel of a gn250 in my Land Crusier the other day.

Dick heads like that should stay in the bus lanes if he can't hack the pace.

I'm sure I must pay more rego anyway with road user charges and the like.

[jrandom]

Personally, I can't wait for the nice people from LTNZ to come and take my licence away next month so that I can spend the winter taking up lane space at 15kph (yes, all right, Mr Skid, 8kph then) and frightening small children with my see-through Vermarc bib shorts.

:cool:

[peasea]

Ick.

Bring on the lions, I smell slaves!!!

[sunhuntin]

from what i saw on sunrise this morning, the bit of road that this happened on can best be called a motorway. it wasnt an open road between towns, but looked like what the roads going into auckland look like. no way should 60 bikes be bunched together on a road like that. looked to be very heavily populated with large vehicles, with not much room for error.
i can understand the drives frustration, but still no reason to nearly kill people. however, i still stand by my thought that large bunches of bikes should be on closed roads only.

apparently, after everybody fell off, they were nearly run over by a truck. had to jackknife, and stopped with meters to spare.

one of the dudes is pissed cos his TWELVE THOUSAND dollar bike is wrecked. 12grand on a fecking pushbike? hell!

[Pwalo]

What's the big deal. No one died. Everyone involved sounds like they were acting like dickheads. The driver (for being a bit of a wanker), and the cyclists (for also being a bunch of the same - you probably shouldn't have a bunch of 50 or so holding up traffic on an open road unless you'te the Tour de France, and you should really be able to stop before hitting the vehicle in front of you!).

Bugger about the expensive gear though.

[Jantar]

.....
The law in NSW is:
"Road rules for cyclists

Cyclists riding in groups on public roads can only cycle next to one other rider - a law described by the Roads and Traffic Authority as riding "two abreast'' - and must not ride more than 1.5 metres apart.

......

Contrary to some correspondence to smh.com.au today, the section of road where today's crash happened was flanked by a shoulder, not a cycle path.

..........

Ferris said the group involved in today's crash were obeying the road rules before the pile-up.

"We were riding two abreast and 1.5 metres from the left of the lane,'' she said."

From what Google earth tells me about the general area, it a four lane road! There was another lane to go around the cyclists but he chose not to.
If this is true, it pretty bloody clear the driver of the Falcon has no right to still be breathing.

I can see a couple of inconsistancies with the statement that the cyclists were obeying the road rules. If they were on 2 abreast and no more than 1.5 meters from the left on a 4.5 m wide carrageway, then the motorist would have had plenty of room to pass, and wouldn't have been held up by the cyclists.

Next, at 60 kmh each pair of cyclists should have been 34 meters awayfrom the pair in front (2 seconds) If this was the case then at most only 2 cyclists would have crashed badly, and maybe the next pair at very low speed.

I am not condoning the drivers actions at all, but I can certainly understand his frustrations. If 50 cyclists crashed then at least 46 of them were not obeying the road rules in at least one respect (following distance), so what reason is there for assuming that they aren't also lying about being only 2 abreast and only 1.5 m from the left.

We have all seen these gaggles of cyclists, and they are almost never only two abreast and usually taking up the whole lane.

[Swoop]

We have all seen these gaggles of cyclists, and they are almost never only two abreast and usually taking up the whole lane.
This is the ideal situation to be driving a snowplough or a roadworthy train that is fitted with a cow-catcher...:whistle:

[sunhuntin]

there needs to be some enforement of the rules and laws that they are meant to obey. disqualification for x amount of races, and/or a fine to go with it.

that 4 lane road should have had the lane they were in blocked off with cones.

[onearmedbandit]

ChCh police are launching a 'broken windows' policy on minor crime, including cyclists running red lights etc. Personally, I can't wait. Was at an intersection the other day waiting at the red light when a cyclist barreled straight through it and collided with some pedestrians. The funniest thing was he hit the anchors so hard he flipped the bike over and crashed.

Why do so many cyclists expect to get treated fairly on the roads when they pay no attention to road rules, ie controlled intersections, one way streets, riding without lights.

[avgas]

its not his fault they ride in packs lol

[curious george]

If they were on 2 abreast and no more than 1.5 meters from the left on a 4.5 m wide carrageway, then the motorist would have had plenty of room to pass, and wouldn't have been held up by the cyclists..
Obviously somebody disagreed...
I don't know if the 4.5m wide road was each lane or more than likely included both lanes. This would have effectively reduced it to one lane temporarily.


Next, at 60 kmh each pair of cyclists should have been 34 meters awayfrom the pair in front (2 seconds) If this was the case then at most only 2 cyclists would have crashed badly, and maybe the next pair at very low speed.. Perhaps technically correct, you obviously have no concept of bunch riding, which is the perfectly legal and preferred method of cycling. If that same bunch was at your quoted distances, the obstruction would have been 850m. At the time it was probably 75m. Which is safer and better for motorists to overtake? An 850m or 75m road block?


If 50 cyclists obeying the road rules in at least one respect only 2 abreast and only 1.5 m from the left.
There is no road rule for following distances for cyclists. See my above comment.

Taking up the whole lane is sometimes unavoidable due to such narrow roads, this is just the way it is, and all motorists have to share the road with other users, be they cyclists, horses, walkers, tractors.....
If you can't accept that, you should probably not be driving.
The only person breaking the law here seems to be the motorist.
Does anybody have any other 'evidence' to contradict that and not just whiney stories?

[sunhuntin]

cyclists have no right to block the road and refuse to move over when vehicles comes up behind them. horse riders, tractors etc all do their best to move as far left as safely possible. ive never seen cyclists attempt to do this when they are bunched.

[phoenixgtr]

:Oi:
Unfuckingbelievable.
That so many can find this funny or justified.
It is just wrong wrong WRONG!
I agree cyclists can be an inconvenience on the road, that does not in any way give anybody the right to do that.
I expected better from a group that is so often hurt/damaged or killed by cars.

Thank you CG. I'm disgusted with some of you. Sure road cyclists are annoying but that does not give you the right to intentionally harm them.

As for the following too close comment. The guy swerved right in front of them and slammed his brakes on. They didn't have a chance to do anything

[curious george]

....good points here...
Why do so many cyclists expect to get treated fairly on the roads when they pay no attention to road rules, i.e. controlled intersections, one way streets, riding without lights.
I have no trouble with cops enforcing the law. Cyclists are not exempt.
With regard to red light running, your one example excluded; how many cyclists have been recorded hurting pedestrians? Compare that to cars/trucks and motorbikes running red lights and not stopping on pedestrian crossings. I see the damage done far too frequently at work to think it's something minor.
What would you rather be hit by?
I would rather my tax money and cop time was spent policing intersections instead of speed cameras.
At some point Darwin becomes involved, and cyclists without lights and riding into oncoming traffic will meet their maker.
I suspect these are the minority, and most cyclists are hurt by: surprise car door openings and cars that "gosh, I didn't see you mate".
Isn't this a familiar cry on this forum?
How many people here have a close call because of some dim-wit of a motorist?

[jrandom]

curious george's points are well made.

I, however, have given up bothering to argue on this subject. The way that generally good bastards on this forum degenerate into blithering bigots when the topic of bicycles is raised simply confirms to me that no matter what I'm riding, everyone else on the road will be trying to kill me.

Sad, I suppose, but one can hardly expect more.

So I'll ride home on the motorcycle tonight in my usual inimitable fuck-the-traffic style and, undoubtedly, confirm some car driver's opinion that all motorcyclists are inconsiderate law-breaking swine.

And then they'll probably do something horrid to one of you the next time you ride past them.

And that, my dear cyclist-haters, is called 'karma'. Feel free to keep racking up those negative cosmic brownie points.

:niceone:

[Grahameeboy]

ChCh police are launching a 'broken windows' policy on minor crime, including cyclists running red lights etc. Personally, I can't wait. Was at an intersection the other day waiting at the red light when a cyclist barreled straight through it and collided with some pedestrians. The funniest thing was he hit the anchors so hard he flipped the bike over and crashed.

Why do so many cyclists expect to get treated fairly on the roads when they pay no attention to road rules, ie controlled intersections, one way streets, riding without lights.

Trubs is they also drive cars....bad cyclist = bad driver = baditude

Number of cars I see ignoring intersections, red lights and amber when they had ages to stop...cars without lights in the morning Dawn etc etc...car drivers who don't even bother to spend a few moments wiping windows in the morning...

[curious george]

cyclists have no right to block the road and refuse to move over when vehicles comes up behind them. horse riders, tractors etc all do their best to move as far left as safely possible. ive never seen cyclists attempt to do this when they are bunched.
True, but I suspect you have forgotten the practicalities of this.
Even as a single rider riding as far left as possible, cars still come far too close.
Sometimes you might need to 'block' the road for safety; the lane is too narrow to share with a car and a bike.
That is just an unfortunate consequence of bad road planning.
This is also something motorists just have to be patient for as you agreeded to when you signed up for your licence
I don't have any time for rude cyclists who make a nusience of themselves, but sometimes there is more than meets the eye.
Nothing justifies what this guy has done.
I'm no legal expert, but surely this comes as close to murder as it gets without killing somebody?
Why is that cool, funny or deserved?

[Mikkel]

Sometimes you might need to 'block' the road for safety; the lane is too narrow to share with a car and a bike.

Thing is - it is not safe to 'block' the road when you're sitting on 8 kgs of carbon fibre traveling at 40+ km/h wearing no safety gear besides your helmet... especially not if you have a slightly annoyed muppet sitting behind you, in a 1000+ kg car made mostly from steel, who is capable of traveling quite a bit faster than you are.

I'm not arguing right or wrong in this case. There are shitty drivers, there are shitty cyclists and there are shitty motorcyclists out there. If you fail to take that into consideration you are likely to end up hurt and worse sooner rather than later. Intentionally or unintentionally provoking your fellow road-users are not going to improve your chances either!

[Jantar]

Obviously somebody disagreed...
I don't know if the 4.5m wide road was each lane or more than likely included both lanes. This would have effectively reduced it to one lane temporarily. 4.5 m is the standard width for a single lane.


There is no road rule for following distances for cyclists. See my above comment.

Unless there is a law exempting cyclists from obeying the road rules, then they are expected to follow the same road rules as all other users. that means they are also legally required to maintain safe following distances.


Taking up the whole lane is sometimes unavoidable due to such narrow roads, this is just the way it is, and all motorists have to share the road with other users, be they cyclists, horses, walkers, tractors.....

Correct, but in this case it wasn't a narrow road, and taking up the whole lane obviously was avoidable.


If you can't accept that, you should probably not be driving.
The only person breaking the law here seems to be the motorist.
Does anybody have any other 'evidence' to contradict that and not just whiney stories?

Please read my post again. I do not accept that the driver was right to do what he did, however please do not try and say the cyclists are blameless. I also ride pushbikes, horses as well as motorbikes, so I do know how easy it is to give other road users plenty of room.

[Usarka]

I, however, have given up bothering to argue on this subject.

bahahaha me ditto. but my word for the day starts with hyp and ends in ocrisy.

[LilSel]

Either way, Im picking the driver is a mean hand at Ten Pin!.....

Te he... I'd be pretty good at that trick too then :innocent: :)

[McJim]

I blame the car drivers - going araound in bunches as if they own the road - I used to see a whole bunch of cars every morning all grouped together travelling at about 40kmh on the Southern Motorway. The fuckwits were 3 abreast! and to make matters worse sometimes they wouldn't get out of the way of vehicles going at the open road speed limit. Crazies I tell you. If they can't go at 100kph the cars should all be over to the left of the road.:argue:

[Usarka]

Te he... I'd be pretty good at that trick too then :innocent: :)

You probanly would have spun in on an angle......

[LilSel]

You probanly would have spun in on an angle......

haha... yeah... a bit of rotation would've hooked it around :P...

after a big comp once... we were having drinks/celebrating... & tried 'street bowling' with one of our old balls... totally rooted the ball, couldnt crack it tho... was heaps of fun till the neighbours came out n told us to clear off lol

[Number One]

after a big comp once... we were having drinks/celebrating... & tried 'street bowling' with one of our old balls... totally rooted the ball, couldnt crack it tho... was heaps of fun till the neighbours came out n told us to clear off lol

Effing killjoys....were you ruining the road? Causing a disturbance? Bowling it at cars?

Some people should take a chill pill!

[LilSel]

Effing killjoys....were you ruining the road? Causing a disturbance? Bowling it at cars?

Some people should take a chill pill!

ruining the road?? nooo... its just a bowling ball lol!!
no disturbance... but it was getting kinda late (10pm)...
at cars?? hell nooooo!!!! just having a bit of fun :)

[Usarka]

ruining the road?? nooo... its just a bowling ball lol!!
no disturbance... but it was getting kinda late (10pm)...
at cars?? hell nooooo!!!! just having a bit of fun :)

were you out on the piss with doug howlett :lol:

[LilSel]

were you out on the piss with doug howlett :lol:

LOL... :whistle:

oh yeah... topic... cyclists... It can be frustrating being stuck behind them... I just curse in my car (they cant hear) n wait till I can pass... sucks when you cant pass for ages tho n there is a queue behind you of cars... at least trucks/caravans/tractors etc pull over to let the flow of traffic thru

[Number One]

Days like today I do find myself "visualizing" running over them but mostly I just slap their arses on the way past as I sit in the passenger side :buggerd:


Mind you if it were the biarch I had a stand up with today...maybe I'd at least try to run her into the gutter!

oh my gosh...did I really type that out loud? hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Swoop]

Days like today I do find myself "visualizing" running over them but mostly I just slap their arses on the way past as I sit in the passenger side
Hmm. You have given me an idea. Anyone got a racehorse whip?:whistle:

[Number One]

Hmm. You have given me an idea. Anyone got a racehorse whip?:whistle:

Actually I do....now YOU have given me an idea...it really does hurt your hand slapping lycra arses manually from a car on the way past :whistle:

[LilSel]

Hmm. You have given me an idea. Anyone got a racehorse whip?:whistle:


Actually I do....now YOU have given me an idea...it really does hurt your hand slapping lycra arses manually from a car on the way past :whistle:

Both given me ideas too lol... !!! poor fireball :spanking: :devil2:

[Badjelly]

Unless there is a law exempting cyclists from obeying the road rules, then they are expected to follow the same road rules as all other users. that means they are also legally required to maintain safe following distances.

Putting the legal aspects aside for a moment and concentrating only on safety, I know from personal experience that it can be reasonably safe for one cyclist to follow another closely if both are aware of each other's presence and trust each other not to do anything silly. The reason it's reasonably safe is that the following cyclist can see past the one in front, see any hazards and anticipate the leader's reactions. However when you have 50 cyclists in a bunch on a road with the usual random hazards, then all the ones at the back can see are the ones immediately in front and the whole thing becomes rather dangerous, as demonstrated by the incident in question or any of the mass crashes on the Tour de France.

[curious george]

Unless there is a law exempting cyclists from obeying the road rules, then they are expected to follow the same road rules as all other users. that means they are also legally required to maintain safe following distances.

Correct, but in this case it wasn't a narrow road, and taking up the whole lane obviously was avoidable.


I don't think the cyclists were complaining about hitting one another, just the way it happened.
A deliberate assault on life.
There was another lane for the car to use, if they had of moved over any more they would have been on the footpath!
I cant see anything wrong in this situation from the cyclists side at all.
They paid for the road same as the drivers, they just used it differently.
As is allowed by law.
Why is this so hard to understand by some people?

[BadCompany]

I don't think the cyclists were complaining about hitting one another, just the way it happened.
A deliberate assault on life.
There was another lane for the car to use, if they had of moved over any more they would have been on the footpath!
I cant see anything wrong in this situation from the cyclists side at all.
They paid for the road same as the drivers, they just used it differently.
As is allowed by law.
Why is this so hard to understand by some people?

Because a lot of people really fucking hate cyclists, and everyone who hates cyclists loves that man who got really ticked off.

Why is this so hard to understand by some poeple?

[limbimtimwim]

So I'll ride home on the motorcycle tonight in my usual inimitable fuck-the-traffic style and, undoubtedly, confirm some car driver's opinion that all motorcyclists are inconsiderate law-breaking swine.Law breaking is one thing, people don't care about that very much. What they care about at rush hour is being held up.

You on your motorcycle doesn't do that. You ride between the slow and stopped cars, they don't have to brake or change direction as you do so and cause no inconvenience at all. At a red light you go to the front, and are 50 metres down the road after it turns green before most car drivers have taken their eyes off their cellphone and released the brake.

60 cyclists taking up a lane when they could be riding single file or 2 abreast just fucks everyone off. While driving into them is a disgusting thing to do (It's amazing no one died, he should be charged with attempted murder) it's not too difficult to understand why the driver got so pissed off.

[jrandom]

... it's not too difficult to understand why the driver got so pissed off.

When one reads between the lines, it's not too difficult to understand why that young lady Sophie Elliot was murdered by her ex-boyfriend earlier this year, either, but that doesn't make it appropriate to use her case as a platform from which to publicly spout off about how much one hates cheating, narcissistic women.

[Forest]

An update from this morning's paper:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/im-no-cyclist-hater-crash-driver/2008/05/09/1210131206412.html



The driver at the centre of an alleged Sydney road rage incident says he is no "cyclist hater" and he did not deliberately pull up in front of a pack of professional cyclists.

The man, who identified himself only as Jason, said it was an engine problem, and not his anger at being stuck behind the pack of 50 riders, that caused him to overtake the pack and then stop in front of them.

The incident occurred on Southern Cross Drive, near Sydney airport, yesterday morning. More than 20 riders - including professional cyclists Kate Nichols and Olympic hopeful Ben Kersten - were injured when they ran into the back of a grey Ford Falcon.

"I'm not a cyclists hater, I'm not nothing," Jason told Macquarie Radio this morning.

"I was just driving along and I had a car failure and now I'm in trouble - I dunno."

[curious george]

Infairness, the paper continues:
"Jason said he had spoken to police at 9pm yesterday and they had photographed some marks on his car.
Injured rider Ben Kersten rang the station immediately afterwards and said Jason was a liar.
"Mate, you're a lying dog. You are a liar and you are going to get caught for it," he said, while Jason remained on the line.
"You were doing 60 kilometres an hour and then stopped to zero ... what you did was ridiculous.
"Who takes off after they accidentally cause such damage - who isn't remorseful?"

I can see this going nowhere without an independent witness.
He said/she said....etc.
Terrible situation all round.
Mikkel = Correct. Nobody I know has ever beaten a car with a 8kg bike.
Bikes always loose. This includes motorcyclists too...

[The Stranger]

Fucken Ford owners.
Arseholes the lot of them!

[mattian]

I have gotta take issue with some peoples agro towards cyclists..... the roads are there for EVERYONE to use !! and, as motorcyclists ( a minority ) we should have some empathy and respect for the "other" road users.... (except skateboarders that ride on the road.... frikkin arseholes!!!) joking.


watch out for grey cars on a grey day with no headlights on....... and grandads on mobility scooters that fly over pedestrian crossings without hesitation !!!

[The Stranger]

The driver at the centre of an alleged Sydney road rage incident says he is no "cyclist hater" and he did not deliberately pull up in front of a pack of professional cyclists.

The man, who identified himself only as Jason, said it was an engine problem, and not his anger at being stuck behind the pack of 50 riders, that caused him to overtake the pack and then stop in front of them.



Ah a perfectly rational explanation.

Ordinarily I may find this suspicious, however we must remember, he was driving a Ford and given their penchant for breaking down any time any where his excuse would appear entirely plausible.

[Mikkel]

Yeah, the cyclists should just consider themselves really lucky he wasn't driving a Holden - then he wouldn't have been able to steer around them. :no:

[Usarka]

Ah the old engine problem that causes you to stop suddenly and then uncontrollably speed off when your rear-ended by cyclists.

i have that all the time :killingme

[Forest]

Ordinarily I may find this suspicious, however we must remember, he was driving a Ford and given their penchant for breaking down any time any where his excuse would appear entirely plausible.

Indeed. When I was young my father taught me FORD = Found On Rubbish Dumps

[The Stranger]

Yeah, the cyclists should just consider themselves really lucky he wasn't driving a Holden - then he wouldn't have been able to steer around them. :no:

Right...
I am sure there is some logic in that somewhere, perhaps it's got something to do with the Australian touring car governing body crippling Holdens suspension in order to loosen the Holden death grip in the Australian touring car championship?
It's ok though Mikkel, on the road they suffer no such set backs and are still allowed to run Holden suspension.

[Nagash]

Jesus.. all their stories are all over the place.

It's first describe as a Blue Ford "There was no doubt the driver of the dark blue Ford Falcon"

Then it magically changes colour to a Grey Ford "were injured when they ran into the back of a grey Ford Falcon."

And of all those people including police cars driving with them no one got his license plate number..?


Bloody terrible thing he did, I can understand that he was hassling the back of the group (though don't agree with it) and I can understand that he'd make dangerous maneuvers to get past them (though still don't agree) because everyone hates cyclists. But suddenly stopping just to get back at them is pathetic..

Hang him!

[Skyryder]

Ah the old engine problem that causes you to stop suddenly and then uncontrollably speed off when your rear-ended by cyclists.

i have that all the time :killingme


He'd have been better off blaming a wonky leg that suffers from intermitent leaditis. Or perhaps claiming that his invention of an anti gravity device straped to his ankle needs some bugs ironed out.


Skyryder

[EJT]

Because a lot of people really fucking hate cyclists, and everyone who hates cyclists loves that man who got really ticked off.

Why is this so hard to understand by some poeple?

:zzzz: Yawn - another cyclist thread. Heaps of cagers hate motorbikes. I suppose you will understand it if these cagers support someone who pulls out in front of a group of motorbikes and slams on their brakes causing a pile up.

[Lias]

I have gotta take issue with some peoples agro towards cyclists..... the roads are there for EVERYONE to use !! and, as motorcyclists ( a minority ) we should have some empathy and respect for the "other" road users.... (except skateboarders that ride on the road.... frikkin arseholes!!!) joking.

If they can't do 100km, they shouldnt be on the road.

Cyclists are banned from motorways, I dont see why they arnt banned from all high speed roads.

[Forest]

If they can't do 100km, they shouldnt be on the road.


I think that many of the classic car and motorbike community would disagree with you. Not to mention scooter riders.

[scumdog]

If they can't do 100km, they shouldnt be on the road.

Cyclists are banned from motorways, I dont see why they arnt banned from all high speed roads.

And motorcyclists who are only allowed to do 70kph, ban them all.

[scumdog]

Because a lot of people really fucking hate cyclists, and everyone who hates cyclists loves that man who got really ticked off.

Why is this so hard to understand by some poeple?

You forgot to include "as well as all who ride 250cc or less motorbikes" in the middle of your first sentence, everybody hates them as much as they hate cyclist, ferkin slow-as, just like a bicycle.

[Mikkel]

You forgot to include "as well as all who ride 250cc or less motorbikes" in the middle of your first sentence, everybody hates them as much as they hate cyclist, ferkin slow-as, just like a bicycle.

...and cruisers... boy are they slow :rolleyes:

[Lias]

And motorcyclists who are only allowed to do 70kph, ban them all.

I thought the 70km thing was going byebye, because the government realised it was retarded?

[TimeOut]

I cycle, and own 2 bikes a car and a van, all registered. I might even pay more to use the road than you.


I own a car, boat, trailer, horsefloat, caravan, all registered.
Does that mean I don't have to register my motorbike?




and therefore the accident was there fault for running into the car :whistle:

+1 Two second rule



They paid for the road same as the drivers, they just used it differently.
As is allowed by law.


And how did they pay, not with registration/fuel tax like everyone else.




Indeed. When I was young my father taught me FORD = Found On Rubbish Dumps

Na FORD= Fix Or Repair Daily

[Forest]

+1 Two second rule

Be careful what you wish for.

At 30km/h the two second rule mens you would have 16.66 metres between each cyclist.

The law also says the must not ride more than two abreast. So two columns of 25 cyclists spaced 16.66 metres apart would measure 24 x 16.66 = 400 metres.

Do you really think the situation in Sydney would have been improved by a convoy of cyclists 400 metres in length?

[The Stranger]

Be careful what you wish for.

At 30km/h the two second rule mens you would have 16.66 metres between each cyclist.

The law also says the must not ride more than two abreast. So two columns of 25 cyclists spaced 16.66 metres apart would measure 24 x 16.66 = 400 metres.

Do you really think the situation in Sydney would have been improved by a convoy of cyclists 400 metres in length?

Shit yeah. For one thing, they wouldn't have all crashed into each other.
It would also make it easier to overtake at your leasure as there would be plenty of space for a car to fit between them and overtake a few at a time as space permitted.

[TimeOut]

Be careful what you wish for.

At 30km/h the two second rule mens you would have 16.66 metres between each cyclist.

The law also says the must not ride more than two abreast. So two columns of 25 cyclists spaced 16.66 metres apart would measure 24 x 16.66 = 400 metres.

Do you really think the situation in Sydney would have been improved by a convoy of cyclists 400 metres in length?

I was referring to the fact that the cyclists ran into each other, therefore they're to blam :argh:i.e. following too close.

[Ixion]

...


There is no road rule for following distances for cyclists. See my above comment.

...

I do not know what the law is in Australia. But in NZ this statement is quite incorrect.

S5.9 of the Road User Rule 2004 sets out rules about stopping distances



Stopping and following distances
(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.
(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.
(3) A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.
(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—
(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or
(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or
(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or
(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or
(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more but less than 90 km an hour; or
(f) 36 m, if his or her speed is 90 km an hour or more.

And driver and vehicle are defined to include cycles



<dfn class="def-term" id="DLM302743" lang="en-NZ">driver</dfn> means a person driving a vehicle; and includes the rider of an all terrain vehicle, a motorcycle, a moped, a cycle, a mobility device, or a wheeled recreational device

Vehicle—
(a) Means a contrivance equipped with wheels, tracks, or revolving runners on which it moves or is moved; and
(b) Includes a hovercraft, a skateboard, in-line skates, and roller skates; but
(c) Does not include—
(i) A perambulator or pushchair:
(ii) A shopping or sporting trundler not propelled by mechanical power:
(iii) A wheelbarrow or hand-trolley:
(iv) [Repealed]
(v) A pedestrian-controlled lawnmower:
(vi) A pedestrian-controlled agricultural machine not propelled by mechanical power:
(vii) An article of furniture:
(viii) a wheelchair not propelled by mechanical power:
(ix) Any other contrivance specified by the rules not to be a vehicle for the purposes of this definition:
(x) any rail vehicle:


So, the law is quite clear. Bicycles must observe the same rules as regards distance apart as any other vehicle.

[TimeOut]

I do not know what the law is in Australia. But in NZ this statement is quite incorrect.

S5.9 of the Road User Rule 2004 sets out rules about stopping distances


And driver and vehicle are defined to include cycles



So, the law is quite clear. Bicycles must observe the same rules as regards distance apart as any other vehicle.

Thanks for clearing that up Ixion

[Forest]

I do not know what the law is in Australia. But in NZ this statement is quite incorrect.

S5.9 of the Road User Rule 2004 sets out rules about stopping distances

And driver and vehicle are defined to include cycles

So, the law is quite clear. Bicycles must observe the same rules as regards distance apart as any other vehicle.

Again - be careful what you wish for.

If bicycles are expected to be treated as equivalents to motor vehicles, then cars and motorbikes will need to travel at a minimum safe following distance behind them.

[BadCompany]

Again - be careful what you wish for.

If bicycles are expected to be treated as equivalents to motor vehicles, then cars and motorbikes will need to travel at a minimum safe following distance behind them.

We don't travel behind them, we travel past them.

[Badjelly]

If bicycles are expected to be treated as equivalents to motor vehicles, then cars and motorbikes will need to travel at a minimum safe following distance behind them.

If I am following a cyclist, waiting to pass, I do follow at a safe distance. Don't you?

[Ixion]

Again - be careful what you wish for.

If bicycles are expected to be treated as equivalents to motor vehicles, then cars and motorbikes will need to travel at a minimum safe following distance behind them.


Tis not what I wish for (or not). 'Tis what the law says. Has for donkey's years.

In almost all road rules bicycles are treated the same as any other vehicle , for good or ill. So they have the same duties and responsibilities as a cage or motorbike, and also the same rights.

The few exceptions, they have to be specifically excluded with a "This does not apply to cycles" type exclusion.

The only main areas where they are generally excluded are parking, rego, and WoF.

[Mikkel]

If I am following a cyclist, waiting to pass, I do follow at a safe distance. Don't you?

Safe for ME or safe for the cyclist? <_<

[Daffyd]

Tis not what I wish for (or not). 'Tis what the law says. Has for donkey's years.

In almost all road rules bicycles are treated the same as any other vehicle , for good or ill. So they have the same duties and responsibilities as a cage or motorbike, and also the same rights.

You used ta be able to cross a yellow line to pass them, does that still apply?
I guess it was the comparitively short distance required to pass them.

[BadCompany]

You used ta be able to cross a yellow line to pass them, does that still apply?
I guess it was the comparitively short distance required to pass them.

My interpretation of the yellow line was that you're not mean to cross it, so you can pass someone as long as you don't cross the yellow line. Am I close?

[HTFU]

:laugh: But sometimes cyclists are a danger to themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sojzynJoRj0&feature=related

[Daffyd]

I was led to believe that you weren't allowed to cross while passing a motor-vehicle.

[ManDownUnder]

Either way, Im picking the driver is a mean hand at Ten Pin!.....

That's disrespectfunny!