Angry driver takes out 50 cyclists (Australia)

[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...

[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]

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.

[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!