Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[bogan]

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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

Or as Ocean1 put it (paraphrasing here):

Slow Cunts get the fuck out of my way

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

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

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

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

[Ocean1]

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

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

Most of the time.

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

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

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

[mossy1200]

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

[Ocean1]

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

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

[mossy1200]

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[R650R]

Most of the time.

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

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

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

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My full logic is this:

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

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

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

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

[Berries]

My head hurts.

[R650R]

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