Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road?

[swbarnett]

You only need 20kmph contact with your head to be of significant risk to life or quality of life.
Sans helmet you would be lucky to have only a headache.

I know of one rider that flew over a car and landed square on his head sans helmet. Got up and walked away with no ill affects. He even got an MRI that showed no damage. I, myself, have been hit over the head with a large hardback physics textbook and didn't even know they'd done it (I was wondering what the noise was).

[Transalper]

... Regardless of what speed I'm doing, I always pull over to let the vehicle behind me past (if they caught up, they are faster than me)....

Same here wether on motorbike, in Van or car and when cycling I never ride two abreast and keep out of the way as much as I can.

[swbarnett]

I am perfectly capable of handling a car, the reality of what you are suggesting however is creating an artificial hazard for any law abiding car driver.

OK, what are you going to do if you find a pig in the same position? Complain that the pig doesn't respect your ownership of the road?

And that assumes that the car driver is driving legally

Of you can't stop in your visibility you're not driving legally.

[swbarnett]

Why should a car driver face a manslaughter charge because boy racer cyclists want to look cool instead of protecting themselves properly?

Because "safety" gear on a cyclist can be seriously counter productive.

This is like saying why should a guy be charged with rape if the girl dressed provocatively.

Or perhaps more relevant to this forum - why should a car driver face a manslaughter charge because the victim chose to ride a motorcycle instead of hiding in a protective cage?

[gjm]

I tried to read through tthe thread, but most of the posts appear to be missing the point. Protective clothing can be worn when riding a bicycle. It is a legal and enforced requirement to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. (I disagree with this, but that's a completely different matter and discussion.)

On a motorbike, it is a legal requirement to wear a helmet while riding. As far as I know, there is no legal requirement to wear anything else (within the bounds of decency!) There are many motorcyclists riding around in t-shirts and so on.

Whatever.

Why should a motorbike or car give way to a cyclist? Becasue steam gives way to sale - if the cyclist stops to allow someone to pass, how long does it take for him to get going again? If you slow to accommodate a cyclist, how long does it take you to accelerate back to your previous speed?
Equally, it is sensible and correct for a cyclist to give way to other traffic.

C'mon. Quit whinging. Live and let live... Ride or drive according to the prevalent traffic conditions, ride or drive considerately, and arguments like the one that has started here won't be necessary.

And let's not start on the 'cyclists don't pay to use the road' discussion either. Most cyclists will have a car or motorbike at home, paid up and legal for road use. They're actually paying and not using.

[Shadowjack]

And let's not start on the 'cyclists don't pay to use the road' discussion either. Most cyclists will have a car or motorbike at home, paid up and legal for road use. They're actually paying and not using.

To (legally) use my car and bike on the road, I have to pay various charges to the gummint - I don't have to pay to use my bicycle.
With the current road user legalities being centred around the vehicle, not the user, every time I use my bicycle on the road, I am freeloading on all the other paying road users, including myself.
Oh, the guilt...

[SMOKEU]

Please define ''all other modes'' and why I should give a shit. My point is why should I take longer to get anywhere because you choose an inefficient mode of transport, more often than not those that cause problems are the lycra fags who ride bikes that cost more than my car and motorbike combined, so riding is not a necessity, it's a choice.

Cycling is the most efficient way of transport, not the least. What is very inefficient is people driving a car with no passengers, causing wear on the roads, burning fossil fuels, causing pollution etc when there's no need to do any of that. The majority of able bodied people could cycle to get back and forth for their daily transport if they don't live too far from work, but people are just so fucking lazy that they refuse to do so. It's no wonder NZ is one of the fattest countries in the world with all the associated health problems that cost taxpayers money.

If more people cycled the roads will also be much less congested, so those who really do need a cage to get around won't be held up as much in traffic. It's a win win for everyone. For many people, cycling is a necessity rather than a choice since not everyone can afford to buy a car, and pay the associated running costs. I've saved many thousands of $ over the years by cycling, rather than driving a car. NZ is a car obsessed country, where people are too small minded to consider other options such as the European cycle networks, where a much larger percentage of people cycle to work every day in many large cities overseas.

And on a side but related not - if you can travel at 40 kph on the straight - why aren't you wearing protective clothing like motorcyclists?

Why don't Cyclists?

and before you start the arguement that there isn't appropriate safety gear for cyclists let us think on the following statements:

There hasn't been any invented, because there isn't any demand for it.

There isn't any demand for it, Because Cyclists don't think they need it.

That 40kmh speed is only in favourable conditions. If there's any headwind, or a road that doesn't have a really smooth surface then that speed is not attainable at all, even on a modern road bike. Wearing motorcycle type safety gear on a push bike is far too hot and heavy for cycling.

[Big Dog]

I know of one rider that flew over a car and landed square on his head sans helmet. Got up and walked away with no ill affects. He even got an MRI that showed no damage. I, myself, have been hit over the head with a large hardback physics textbook and didn't even know they'd done it (I was wondering what the noise was).

There is a vast array of variables. Saxon descendants have thicker craniums at the front. Due to style of warfare. For same reason Vikings are thicker on top and at the back. The cranium and it's contents are designed for operation at speeds achievable on foot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike.Gayner]

I am perfectly capable of handling a car, the reality of what you are suggesting however is creating an artificial hazard for any law abiding car driver.

It's not an artificial hazard it's an actual hazard, which you need to be prepared to deal with.

Again, if you're incapable of handling your car maybe you shouldn't drive.

[PrincessBandit]

And here was me thinking they rode like that to give blind drivers (who can't see motorcyclists, high-viz vests and flouro lycra) maximum chance to get as many points for road skittles as possible. Guess I was wrong!

[caspernz]

Trucks overtaking each other is always a laugh... if you're in that mood...

Yep, exactly! It's always puzzled me why some of my fellow truckers can't see the sense in just staying left in the passing lane...if it takes you all the passing lane to get past the other trucker you're only gonna piss off all the cars that have been waiting behind you...all for a few clicks of extra road speed, tossers!!

[SMOKEU]

Yep, exactly! It's always puzzled me why some of my fellow truckers can't see the sense in just staying left in the passing lane...if it takes you all the passing lane to get past the other trucker you're only gonna piss off all the cars that have been waiting behind you...all for a few clicks of extra road speed, tossers!!

That's one of the reasons why I don't like driving cages usually, too fucking big and slow for easy overtaking on our narrow roads.

[R650R]

Cycling is the most efficient way of transport, not the least. What is very inefficient is people driving a car with no passengers, causing wear on the roads, burning fossil fuels, causing pollution etc when there's no need to do any of that. The majority of able bodied people could cycle to get back and forth for their daily transport if they don't live too far from work, but people are just so fucking lazy that they refuse to do so. It's no wonder NZ is one of the fattest countries in the world with all the associated health problems that cost taxpayers money.

If more people cycled the roads will also be much less congested, so those who really do need a cage to get around won't be held up as much in traffic. It's a win win for everyone. For many people, cycling is a necessity rather than a choice since not everyone can afford to buy a car, and pay the associated running costs. I've saved many thousands of $ over the years by cycling, rather than driving a car. NZ is a car obsessed country, where people are too small minded to consider other options such as the European cycle networks, where a much larger percentage of people cycle to work every day in many large cities overseas.

That 40kmh speed is only in favourable conditions. If there's any headwind, or a road that doesn't have a really smooth surface then that speed is not attainable at all, even on a modern road bike. Wearing motorcycle type safety gear on a push bike is far too hot and heavy for cycling.

There's a lot of false assumptions in that classic argument:
Pollution, that bike is made of steel or alloy then built in a factory and shipped across the world. It didn't happen with zero emmisions.
Cycling requires lot of carbs to be burned which means extra food consumption which means extra emmisions by food/agri industry.
The small amount of fuel saved is soon offset by the ambos and rescue helicopter taking you to hospital.
Motorbike gear is hot and heavy too but most of us accept the need to wear it.
The amount of people that would need to shift to bikes to improve congestion is massive, will never happen. Then look at chine, you'll just have cycle congestion instead lol
How many workplaces have either showers or allow you to turn up dirty and sweaty?

I cycle sometimes and did the regular commute thing when I was in UK on main roads but don't agree with the argument that its a clean green activity as there is so much associated things to consider.
I think cyclists must increase their cancer risk too as they are breathing deep into their lungs fine particulate and benzene emmisions from cars.

[swbarnett]

To (legally) use my car and bike on the road, I have to pay various charges to the gummint - I don't have to pay to use my bicycle.
With the current road user legalities being centred around the vehicle, not the user, every time I use my bicycle on the road, I am freeloading on all the other paying road users, including myself.
Oh, the guilt...

No you're not. You pay taxes don't you?

[SMOKEU]

There's a lot of false assumptions in that classic argument:
Pollution, that bike is made of steel or alloy then built in a factory and shipped across the world. It didn't happen with zero emmisions.
Cycling requires lot of carbs to be burned which means extra food consumption which means extra emmisions by food/agri industry.
The small amount of fuel saved is soon offset by the ambos and rescue helicopter taking you to hospital.
Motorbike gear is hot and heavy too but most of us accept the need to wear it.
The amount of people that would need to shift to bikes to improve congestion is massive, will never happen. Then look at chine, you'll just have cycle congestion instead lol
How many workplaces have either showers or allow you to turn up dirty and sweaty?

I cycle sometimes and did the regular commute thing when I was in UK on main roads but don't agree with the argument that its a clean green activity as there is so much associated things to consider.
I think cyclists must increase their cancer risk too as they are breathing deep into their lungs fine particulate and benzene emmisions from cars.

Yes, manufacturing a push bike and maintaining it does indeed create carbon emissions, but to a far less extent than to build a car. The pollution that is created by these ancient cars that make up the majority of the vehicle fleet in NZ is terrible, and even modern cars still put out a fuckload more pollution than a pushbike. Eating extra food for the energy required to cycle is true, but New Zealanders in general tend to be so disgustingly fat to begin with that most people need all the exercise they can get, and more.

If it weren't for stupid cagers crashing into cyclists, then cycling would be far safer than driving some badly maintained old wreck with no modern safety features with the driver having no concern for other road users. Road cycling crashes that don't involve other vehicles rarely end up in serious injury, or death, unlike crashing a car into a pole at 100kmh.

I don't usually need to shower straight after my commute, as I generally don't ride at a pace which makes me really sweaty, unless it's quite a hot day. If more people drove modern vehicles or cycled instead of driving these shitty old wrecks then there would be less pollution, meaning fewer health risks. However, the benefits of good exercise outweighs the risk of pollution, for most people any way. Cars are not a sealed box, so air still enters the cockpit, even that polluting outside air.

Since I've given up being a cager and started cycling, I'm much healthier and fitter than ever, and the huge sums of money I save go toward buying weed and spending it on the motorbike. Win win.