Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[bogan]

LOL not even close to antsy.... I don't care what people think about truckies, I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about that there is a danger when such shite is repeated often enough the masses start believeing it.

I've never stopped to think/value the social status or contribution to society of prostitutes but obviously its an issue close to your heart. When was this murder, haven't been following the news too closely lately.
Any stats on murders of prostitutes by cyclists? Everyone is a cyclist at some stage in their life so as a group their prob over represented in crime stats just like Maoris are...

Seems to me like there is an especially sore point around those who talk 'utter shite' about truckies though; do you know one?

Course it is, I'm all for equality no matter what ones job or social status is. I somehow think such calls about over-representation comes under the heading of 'talking utter shite', but that's all right, you're better entertainment this way.

[Virago]

It's a sad day when children cop the vitriol for simply being on the road...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/33...respect-mother

[R650R]

It's a sad day when children cop the vitriol for simply being on the road...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/33...respect-mother

Yep that is pretty sad, seems a lot of abusive nutters in the south island chch region post quake so always regard stories from down there as localised rare problems rather than nationwide.

[nzspokes]

It's a sad day when children cop the vitriol for simply being on the road...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/33...respect-mother

Agreed. It should be encouraged as the kids spend far to much time inside with Xboxes and the like.

That Facebook page has found the dregs of life and has given them an outlet to abuse others without fear of retaliation.

[Madness]

That Facebook page has found the dregs of life...

Is that why you liked the page yourself?

[TheDemonLord]

First up - Apologies Bogan in my Tardiness in replying - long weekend of doing nothing

Sounds like a bit of a catch all as well.

Maybe you should find and read it then.

Okay this is going to make me break 2 of my debating rules - firstly a cross thread quote (I really don't like these as generally I feel they are bad form, but in this case it is relephant) and secondly I am going to make an argumentum ab auctoritate (normally considered a fallacy to make such an arguement but in this case - also relephant)

(source: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130821111)

Describe such a crash please. I'd be willing to bet Careless Driving covers every crash.

Since Rastus is a police officer, and the Police are the ones who determine whether there is sufficient evidence/breach of law to take a crash to court - I can assert my original position - one cannot be at fault in an accident and driving legally

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

But that isn't the case, is it - Cyclists claim the lane when there is not room for the Car, the cyclist AND whatever safety margin the cyclist deems acceptable (which could be anywhere from 50 cm to 2 meters) so its not a strawman - its the practical application of your position.

As an aside - most NZ residential roads are wide enough that a car can cross the centreline slightly (enough to pass a cyclist who is keeping left whilst giving them room) and not be a hazard, whereas if the cyclist claims the lane, this is not possible.

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

Mechanical innacuracies of Speedos is the grey area where it is NOT on the side of the defendant

Case precedent is not an omnibusman argument either though.

Yes and no - they aren't the same, but I believe case precedent can be set using the omnibus arguement)

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

Then we shall have to agree to disagree, pending further evidence

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

Funny....

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

It can be dismissed in the same way that 1.5 meters passing room can be dismissed

[carbonhed]

I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about that there is a danger when such shite is repeated often enough the masses start believeing it.

Man I larfed and larfed

[Tazz]

I do slightly care about people talking utter shite so often about stuff they don't know about

seems a lot of abusive nutters in the south island chch region post quake

Do you live there or just commute to install your 25k security camera systems?

[HenryDorsetCase]

So why do you have these fantasies and thoughts in your head about murdering prostitutes? Did you have a bad experience? ;p

well, if getting caught is a bad experience, then yeah....

[HenryDorsetCase]

Any stats on murders of prostitutes by cyclists? Everyone is a cyclist at some stage in their life s..

incorrect: one of my friends has never learned to ride a pushbike. (which amazes me but there you go) and one of my extended family physically could not

so, not everybody.

[bogan]

First up - Apologies Bogan in my Tardiness in replying - long weekend of doing nothing



Okay this is going to make me break 2 of my debating rules - firstly a cross thread quote (I really don't like these as generally I feel they are bad form, but in this case it is relephant) and secondly I am going to make an argumentum ab auctoritate (normally considered a fallacy to make such an arguement but in this case - also relephant)

(source: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130821111)



Since Rastus is a police officer, and the Police are the ones who determine whether there is sufficient evidence/breach of law to take a crash to court - I can assert my original position - one cannot be at fault in an accident and driving legally



But that isn't the case, is it - Cyclists claim the lane when there is not room for the Car, the cyclist AND whatever safety margin the cyclist deems acceptable (which could be anywhere from 50 cm to 2 meters) so its not a strawman - its the practical application of your position.

As an aside - most NZ residential roads are wide enough that a car can cross the centreline slightly (enough to pass a cyclist who is keeping left whilst giving them room) and not be a hazard, whereas if the cyclist claims the lane, this is not possible.



Mechanical innacuracies of Speedos is the grey area where it is NOT on the side of the defendant



Yes and no - they aren't the same, but I believe case precedent can be set using the omnibus arguement)



Then we shall have to agree to disagree, pending further evidence



Funny....



It can be dismissed in the same way that 1.5 meters passing room can be dismissed

It's ok, I've decided I like your tenacity.

Firstly, remember it is near miss or accident we are talking about. I might have to break one of my own here too though, and go to an edge case. If you are riding down the road near some shurbbery, what is the legal stopping distance? is doing 100 ok cos you can see the road for ages? if so, then what legislation is broken when an animal jumps out and crashes into you?

It's that 'and the safety margin' that becomes the issue in such circumstance then; in the absense of one set by law, who is better equipped to judge what safety margin is required? The one at risk or the one doing the risking? And considering that, you're now implicitly excluding a large number of cases where the cyclist is right to claim the lane because his estimate of the safety margin is adequate (unless you determine the only acceptable safety margin to be 0?).

'Most', and 'cross slightly' are grey area terms.

There is no grey area in measurement and standards though, speedo innacuracy is soley the vehicle drivers responsibility and is not subject to any legal grey area.

Of course it can, but the omnibusman argument must be applied correctly.

Exactly, and because we disagree, and omnibusman argument is inapplicable.

Indeed, so all things are dismissed, and we are back have differing interpretations on legal status; thus constituting a defendant (cyclist) favorable grey area

[FJRider]

... I can assert my original position - one cannot be at fault in an accident and driving legally

Only if (that) one has taken ALL practicable steps to AVOID an accident.

But that isn't the case, is it - Cyclists claim the lane when there is not room for the Car, the cyclist AND whatever safety margin the cyclist deems acceptable (which could be anywhere from 50 cm to 2 meters) so its not a strawman - its the practical application of your position.

Ever heard of SHARE the road .. ??? Letting OTHERS decide YOUR safety margin can only end badly for YOU ...

As an aside - most NZ residential roads are wide enough that a car can cross the centreline slightly (enough to pass a cyclist who is keeping left whilst giving them room) and not be a hazard, whereas if the cyclist claims the lane, this is not possible.

Most but NOT all ... but "Safety margins" should be made/allowed for by those most at risk. Many have died having the right of way. NO legal action can change that.

Mechanical innacuracies of Speedos is the grey area where it is NOT on the side of the defendant

But ... is the speed you pass a cyclist more important than the safety margin you leave .. ???

It can be dismissed in the same way that 1.5 meters passing room can be dismissed

Dismissed by whom ... the cyclist or the motorist .. ??

[TheDemonLord]

It's ok, I've decided I like your tenacity.

Likewise (with appropriate Hat tiping and stroking of Moustaches)

Firstly, remember it is near miss or accident we are talking about. I might have to break one of my own here too though, and go to an edge case. If you are riding down the road near some shurbbery, what is the legal stopping distance? is doing 100 ok cos you can see the road for ages? if so, then what legislation is broken when an animal jumps out and crashes into you?

I would lean towards no one is at fault - if something happens (like a rockslide) where it is so quick that it one cannot react/avoid it, then I don't believe anyone is at fault. Unless of course it was a livestock animal and it jumped out through a farmers broken fence - in which case it would be the owner of the animal/owner of the fence

It's that 'and the safety margin' that becomes the issue in such circumstance then; in the absense of one set by law, who is better equipped to judge what safety margin is required? The one at risk or the one doing the risking? And considering that, you're now implicitly excluding a large number of cases where the cyclist is right to claim the lane because his estimate of the safety margin is adequate (unless you determine the only acceptable safety margin to be 0?).

Okay - lets indulge some reducto ad absurdium: if I present a cyclist who can only keep a constant 20 kph, but for what ever reason deemed that no margin was too great and so always claimed the lane - in your position, this is okay, because they are the one at risk, so they have the power to judge.

Yet I think we can both agree that in the above, claiming the lane at all times is lunacy and illegal riding. I concede that as there isn't a clear cut definition of what is a good safety margin, we should tend to err on the side of the cyclist, but this still doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to try and keep left at all times, except in a very small set of circumstances, much smaller than the circumstances in which they have been observed to claim the lane, and even then, I still maintain that the risk of being rear ended and the disruption to traffic flow doesn't constiture practicable (but you know that part)

'Most', and 'cross slightly' are grey area terms.

They are indeed, but think of all the instances where you have overtaken a car (in a car) turning left on a residential road, crossing the centre line slightly with oncoming traffic without issue - I agree they are grey, but they are rooted in reality

There is no grey area in measurement and standards though, speedo innacuracy is soley the vehicle drivers responsibility and is not subject to any legal grey area.

There is an accepted industry tolerance of +/- 5 kph (I think) which isn't factored in when a ticket is processed - unlike other countries where a ticket is only issued if the lowest possible speed according to the tolerance is higher than the threshold in which an infringement is applied.

Of course it can, but the omnibusman argument must be applied correctly.

Exactly, and because we disagree, and omnibusman argument is inapplicable.

I would wager that taking a poll of the wider NZ public, that more would be in favor of my interpretation than yours - but alas, I have not the resources nor oppertunity to test this.

Indeed, so all things are dismissed, and we are back have differing interpretations on legal status; thus constituting a defendant (cyclist) favorable grey area

favourable at a stretch, to a point - but as above, even if I concede that there may be some situations where I could stretch to your interpretation, they are much less than the situations where it is currently applied by cyclists (and I still hold that the potential hazards of being rear ended are higher than the other potential hazards)

[bogan]

Likewise (with appropriate Hat tiping and stroking of Moustaches)



I would lean towards no one is at fault - if something happens (like a rockslide) where it is so quick that it one cannot react/avoid it, then I don't believe anyone is at fault. Unless of course it was a livestock animal and it jumped out through a farmers broken fence - in which case it would be the owner of the animal/owner of the fence



Okay - lets indulge some reducto ad absurdium: if I present a cyclist who can only keep a constant 20 kph, but for what ever reason deemed that no margin was too great and so always claimed the lane - in your position, this is okay, because they are the one at risk, so they have the power to judge.

Yet I think we can both agree that in the above, claiming the lane at all times is lunacy and illegal riding. I concede that as there isn't a clear cut definition of what is a good safety margin, we should tend to err on the side of the cyclist, but this still doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to try and keep left at all times, except in a very small set of circumstances, much smaller than the circumstances in which they have been observed to claim the lane, and even then, I still maintain that the risk of being rear ended and the disruption to traffic flow doesn't constiture practicable (but you know that part)



They are indeed, but think of all the instances where you have overtaken a car (in a car) turning left on a residential road, crossing the centre line slightly with oncoming traffic without issue - I agree they are grey, but they are rooted in reality



There is an accepted industry tolerance of +/- 5 kph (I think) which isn't factored in when a ticket is processed - unlike other countries where a ticket is only issued if the lowest possible speed according to the tolerance is higher than the threshold in which an infringement is applied.



I would wager that taking a poll of the wider NZ public, that more would be in favor of my interpretation than yours - but alas, I have not the resources nor oppertunity to test this.



favourable at a stretch, to a point - but as above, even if I concede that there may be some situations where I could stretch to your interpretation, they are much less than the situations where it is currently applied by cyclists (and I still hold that the potential hazards of being rear ended are higher than the other potential hazards)

So it is possible to have accidents/incidents where nobody is at fault.

Excellent, those passages indicate you've finally seen the light and agree claiming the lane is a grey area legally, and a logical(for some) option!

Tolerance imposed is not imposed due to any grey area in the legislation though.

A poll is not an omnibusman argument either though.

You know that is just going to encourage my neckbearded pedantry in future right?

[TheDemonLord]

Suddenly! A wild Challenger appears!

Only if (that) one has taken ALL practicable steps to AVOID an accident.

Agreed.

Ever heard of SHARE the road .. ??? Letting OTHERS decide YOUR safety margin can only end badly for YOU ...

Is your Shift key broken? I have heard of share the road, I have also read the law says that if you are slow you are to keep left, I agree on the principle that letting others decide your safety margin can be a one way ticket to the hospital - but there must be reasonable expectations - everyday we let other people decide our safety margins so long as they are within acceptable tolerances/what is legislated - the question here is at what point (if any) does the cyclists right to self determine the safety margin they are happy for people to overtake them with override the motorists right to drive unimpeded (as far as legally allowed)

Most but NOT all ... but "Safety margins" should be made/allowed for by those most at risk. Many have died having the right of way. NO legal action can change that.

Again, I agree with your principle - but what of the practical application of this in the real world? There are reasonable safety margins and there are unreasonable safety margins, my contention is that often an unreasonable safety margin is demanded

But ... is the speed you pass a cyclist more important than the safety margin you leave .. ???

Both are relevant - passing a cyclist with a 5 kph difference giving half a meter of room is fine, doing the same with a 105 kph difference, not so fine.

Dismissed by whom ... the cyclist or the motorist .. ??

The Police (and by extension, the motorist)