Angry driver takes out 50 cyclists (Australia)

[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?

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

[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

+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:Me]

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 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

driver 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.