Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[mossy1200]

Now im a raciest also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JTuSXfaWc

[bogan]

Mate, don't we have enough idiots here without importing content from the youtubes?

[Ocean1]

Exactly, and being 1m in serves to ensure the car behind knows they must cross the center line to make the pass safely.

I'm not defending the guy's actions that mossy posted (he does seem like a bit of cunt), just pointing out that owning the road is an applicable safety measure where cyclists are concerned in some circumstances.

Yes, it's applicable where you don't want to be passed.

Which is fine, if you're doing near the posted limit.

If not then you need to fuck off out of the way.

[TheDemonLord]

Now im a raciest also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6JTuSXfaWc

Lol - both posters seem to think that the minimum 1.5 meters of clearance is law, simply because it is in the road code. It isn't in legislation.

Should it be in legislation - probably a minimum should be specified (I would go with 0.5 meters as a minimum) but I digress - I could jump in and have fun, but I have debated him to the point where he can't respond with a rational and logical argument and reverted to calling names (thus showing the calibre of both his position and personality) so further debate would be shooting fish in the proverbial

[bogan]

Yes, it's applicable where you don't want to be passed.

Which is fine, if you're doing near the posted limit.

If not then you need to fuck off out of the way.

Doing near speed limit, or if it is not safe to pass. When I'm doing 80 in my van into a heavy headwind or uphill, I won't fuck off out of the way unless there is space for others to pass safely. Me moving aside is actually the less safe option in those circumstances as it would encourage unsafe passing.

so further debate would be shooting fish in the proverbial

Try #131 then...

[neels]

Is it though? Do the police prosecute or give fines to pedlies riding 2 abreast for not keeping as far left as possible?

Yep, read the other day about a cyclist getting a $150 fine for failing to keep left, so it does happen

Which is fine, if you're doing near the posted limit.

If not then you need to fuck off out of the way.

I agree, where it's possible, and there are certainly groups of cyclists that are completely ignorant of other road users.

Unfortunately cyclists are somewhat of an anomaly, in being the only 'vehicle' which is not capable of travelling at the posted speed limit, which is legally allowed on the road.

Add to that the fact that there are plenty of roads where there is nowhere for a cyclist to go even if they wanted to get out of the way (for example, the old waimak bridge which is the only legal way for a cyclist to cross the river), and you get motorists who get incredibly frustrated at taking 30 seconds longer to get where they are going because there's a cyclist in the way.

It isn't going to be solved this week......

[buggerit]

I propose the instalation of rollers on the LH end of bumpers as an aid to help cyclists stay with the traffic flow and rest their weary
legs, and cars can then maintain posted speed limits

[TheDemonLord]

Must have missed this post - but seeing as you challenged me - Oh go on then

What police response? You mean the lack of prosecution of the driver? this is not the same as prosecution of the cyclist. That is just wrong, they fine them for no helmets easy enough.

Well - not necessarily, the police could choose to push a charge of dangerous driving, but probably decided against it as the cyclist was partially at fault for creating the situation where the incident occurred by not following the road rules.

As for Fines - I know they fine for no helmets - I was remembering this case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1031...yclists-ticket

Also wrong, they are 'letting it slide' because it is not against the law. (see riding abreast)

Or as above, they could be exercising digression

I do in the van. But again, you have to search far for an example that suits your needs, thus proving my point.

You still don't understand, if a motorist has to use another lane to pass, then the cyclist does own the lane; on many NZ roads the only way to avoid this would be to stay home.

Another point, do you ride your motorcycle in the lines you say cyclists should ride? Because the legislation you posted does not differentiate between cycles and motorcycles "A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides." I'll bet you don't because it is not safe, but you seem to think cyclists don't have the same leeway in terms of their safety.

The rule really only applies to those that are obstructing the reasonable flow of traffic (as Ocean1 pointed out, although maybe not as eloquently as I would have done, but I think the point was made)

[carbonhed]

And when the road is so narrow that the pushbike just being there forces a passing car to use the other lane, what is the practical difference between the cycle being on the hard left, and being 1m in?

On the one hand you're making it as easy as possible for the car to overtake and on the other you're making their job more difficult... in lycra... on a pushbike. Do you really think that's a good idea in NZ?

Own the lane

[bogan]

Must have missed this post - but seeing as you challenged me - Oh go on then



Well - not necessarily, the police could choose to push a charge of dangerous driving, but probably decided against it as the cyclist was partially at fault for creating the situation where the incident occurred by not following the road rules.

As for Fines - I know they fine for no helmets - I was remembering this case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1031...yclists-ticket



Or as above, they could be exercising digression



The rule really only applies to those that are obstructing the reasonable flow of traffic (as Ocean1 pointed out, although maybe not as eloquently as I would have done, but I think the point was made)

Confirmation bias.

More confirmation bias as plenty of cyclists get fines.

Or as above, it's just more confirmation bias. They are allowed to ride abreast, by law. Riding abreast is not riding so as to keep as far left as possible. Therefor they are not ticketed simply for failing to keep as far left as possible.

Does it? where is that written into the legislation then?

On the one hand you're making it as easy as possible for the car to overtake and on the other you're making their job more difficult... in lycra... on a pushbike. Do you really think that's a good idea in NZ?

Own the lane

Is it though? in either case they need to use the oncoming lane.

So on the one hand, you're making it easier for the car to know when it is safe to overtake, and on the other hand you are leaving the decision up to them. Do you really think that is a good idea in NZ?

[TheDemonLord]

Confirmation bias.

More confirmation bias as plenty of cyclists get fines.

Or as above, it's just more confirmation bias. They are allowed to ride abreast, by law. Riding abreast is not riding so as to keep as far left as possible. Therefor they are not ticketed simply for failing to keep as far left as possible.

Does it? where is that written into the legislation then?

Plenty of Cyclists get fines for no helmet, Fuck all cyclists get fines for anything else - so I would say its not confirmation bias if you remove the one outlier result (ie no helmets)

as for the rest

And Lo - I quoteth yon Land Transport (Road User) Act dated 2004:

"Keeping left

(1) A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.

(2) If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass."

That is where is is written into law - Again, we can argue about what constitutes practicable and what doesn't - but confirmation bias or not, If Me, the Police and the legislation all agree on a point, then I would put forward that is fairly strong evidence in favor of our collective viewpoint

As for riding 2 abreast I would say that it is a violation of the above - unless of course they are maintaining a constant 50 kph - but how many cyclists can do that up a hill, or in a wind?

[carbonhed]

Is it though? in either case they need to use the oncoming lane.

So on the one hand, you're making it easier for the car to know when it is safe to overtake, and on the other hand you are leaving the decision up to them. Do you really think that is a good idea in NZ?

It's their call and their responsibility.

[R650R]

I attended a crash involving multiple cyclists and a car at Xmas (fortunately nobody seriously hurt) where the cyclists were to blame. What interested me was the way they normally scream blue murder when a car is involved unless, like in this case, one of their own caused the crash and then do they shut up like a book.
Seems, they were being dicks and riding in their "close quarters" bunch (over a narrow bridge on a busy road no less) when one tried to dodge something small on the road taking out a few of the others and flicking one of the bikes under the front of a car.
Trying to interview them about who did the dodging, who was following to close etc was met with complete ignorance (but they did insist the car coming the other way that hit the bike should have been able to stop) and none of them would man up about riding too close.
As for Lycra, it does dick to stop road rash! Plenty of skin off and blood flowing. When it was suggested to them that (a) they should wear better protective clothing, (b) they should be obeying all road rules including single file and maintaining a safe following distance and (c) they should have to cover their own medical expenses as they haven't paid sufficient ACC levies as motorcycle riders have to they got quite pissy.
Hopefully the road rash for Xmas has taught them to ride safer but unfortunately I doubt it.

Well done, I'll shout you a dozen for that....

It's high time the LTSA addressed the pack riding factor especially when it has contributed to unnecessary multiple fatalities or serious injurys. Eg recently in the bay a car hit one bike at roundabout in Hav'Nth, that bike then took out the other bike. So while the car was in the wrong, there was no need for two cyclists to be injured. I think pack riding should be banned except for sanctioned official sports events of a national championship level. (not just any race as clubs hold those every weekend). Pack riding should still be ok for kids as they smaller and need the visibility.
Police and LTSA should start keeping separate records of normal cyclist crashers versus racer type cycles. As lets be honest here its not your ride to work john doe who cant afford petrol for the car this week that is in these crashes all the time.
Lately I've added helmetless tourist cyclists to the major hazard list but they are generally going so slow it doesn't matter when they do dumb stuff.
Where I'm operating now though pedestrians have become my new number one annoyance. Despite 99% of site drivers often waiting for them and waving them to cross they often make up their own plan and walk behind qued trucks instead of in front.... which sets them up for being hit by someone else.... Time to fill in some OSH hazard forms, its nice to be with a reputable employer that cares about this stuff.

[bogan]

Plenty of Cyclists get fines for no helmet, Fuck all cyclists get fines for anything else - so I would say its not confirmation bias if you remove the one outlier result (ie no helmets)

as for the rest

And Lo - I quoteth yon Land Transport (Road User) Act dated 2004:

"Keeping left

(1) A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.

(2) If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass."

That is where is is written into law - Again, we can argue about what constitutes practicable and what doesn't - but confirmation bias or not, If Me, the Police and the legislation all agree on a point, then I would put forward that is fairly strong evidence in favor of our collective viewpoint

As for riding 2 abreast I would say that it is a violation of the above - unless of course they are maintaining a constant 50 kph - but how many cyclists can do that up a hill, or in a wind?

No, that is exactly what confirmation bias is, seeing the result and attributing it to your preconceived cause.

So 1, applies to all road users at any circumstance and says that "must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides"
and 2, applies to road users going slower than the traffic behind them and says that "that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass"

So tell me, why does the definition of 'practicable' change between the two? or is some other definition changing between the two? (note; i'm not asking why your interpretation changes, but the definition itself).

You are agreeing on a different point than that which police and legislation does though, and it is confirmation bias that makes your view is shared by the police and legislation.

Exactly, and the following demonstrates why your interpretation of the above is wrong.

11.10Riding abreast
(1)A person must not ride a cycle or moped on a roadway so that it remains abreast and to the right of—
(a)2 other vehicles that are cycles or mopeds; or
(b)1 other cycle or moped while that cycle or moped is overtaking and passing another vehicle, including a parked vehicle; or
(c)any other vehicle having 3 or more road wheels (including a motorcycle fitted with a sidecar).

It is specifically written into legislation that you cannot ride abreast of 2 cycles, not one. Thus you can legally ride 2 abreast. Because your interpretation of practicable does not allow for 2 cycles abreast, I have just demonstrated it is wrong.

It's their call and their responsibility.

But not their arse on the line.

[carbonhed]

But not their arse on the line.

Cruel but true.