Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[AllanB]

Why did he not toot his horn so they would shift over and make way for him instead of talking to himself in an angry way inside the car. His comment about them not being registered is nonsense as I am sure they would ride the same way if they were or would he just be happier to follow behind if they were.

Seriously? - do you not leave your house in Christchurch? Try the Old TaiTapu Road - both sides of the road. Tooting at the CHCH riders just gets you a finger and some fuck-wad will move out three abreast.

[Ocean1]

as Ocean1 pointed out, although maybe not as eloquently as I would have done

Oi!

fuck off out of the way

Lacks very little in the way of eloquence. Cunt.

[cynna]

what had become of NZ - i would hardly call him an agressive driver. And the 60 year old in akaroa that got attacked by a group of motorcyclists didnt require medical attention

the internet has brought out a new bunch of internet tough guys that hide behind a camera and then speed home to post video from the safety of their computer screen

[BlackSheepLogic]

what had become of NZ - i would hardly call him an agressive driver. And the 60 year old in akaroa that got attacked by a group of motorcyclists didnt require medical attention.

It really puzzles me why a 60 year old attacked by a group of motorcyclists didn't require medical attention. Something's not quite right about the story unless they were actually scooterists. At best some words probably exchanged blown out of all proportion.

[mossy1200]

what had become of NZ - i would hardly call him an agressive driver. And the 60 year old in akaroa that got attacked by a group of motorcyclists didnt require medical attention

the internet has brought out a new bunch of internet tough guys that hide behind a camera and then speed home to post video from the safety of their computer screen

Wrong thread.

It really puzzles me why a 60 year old attacked by a group of motorcyclists didn't require medical attention. Something's not quite right about the story unless they were actually scooterists. At best some words probably exchanged blown out of all proportion.

Wrong thread.

This is the hate some cyclist thread. Akaroa brawler can be found elsewhere.

[cynna]

i meant how this driver was called agressive then got side tracked....

[mossy1200]

i meant how this driver was called agressive then got side tracked....

Minister Mossy says you can say- 3 "cyclist rages" and 2 "own your lanes" and we will forgive you Son of KB as thou art in keyboard warrior land.

[Berries]

Minister Mossy says you can say- 3 "cyclist rages" and 2 "own your lanes"

And a cyclist in a pear tree?

[BlackSheepLogic]

Wrong thread.
This is the hate some cyclist thread. Akaroa brawler can be found elsewhere.

Is this some new KB Netiquette rule the rest of us don't know about?

[pritch]

I was remembering this case:

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

Interesting, the dude says he can stop faster than a car. He must be related to Skidmark?

[TheDemonLord]

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

You say confirmation bias, I say a likely explanation of the results based on the info we have. To truly be confirmation bias I would need to ignore or discount evidence that didn't agree with my position

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).

A worthy question and challenge- It changes as speed changes. What is practicable for a Motorcyclist traveling at 50-60 kph is not what is practicable for a cyclist traveling at 20-30 kph. At 50 kph practicable would be sat in the middle of the lane - giving one the maximum amount of safe distance between hazards from the oncoming lane and hazards coming from the pavement and by maximum amount of safe distance I mean time to react (either brake or swerve). Contrast now to doing 20-30 kph, what it practicable has now changed as there is less danger from hazards from the pavement but an increased danger from faster traffic, by less danger I mean that a cyclist travelling at 20-30 kph can safely brake to avoid a hazard from the pavement in the space that they have to react to the hazard that a motorcycle travelling at 50 kph can't.

So to sum up - the definition of Practicable changes as the speed at which the road user is traveling (relative to the rest of the traffic, speed limit etc,) changes

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.

As above - looking at the result and putting forward a likely explanation is not confirmation bias.

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.

Here is where we are going to get into a Lawyers argument - My interpretation of the above and the keep left rule would be this:

You can ride 2 abreast (but not 3) unless you are holding up the traffic flow, in which case, you are to keep left.

The reason I interpret in this way is that in that section of legislation it does not grant a dispensation of the keep left rule - so from that perspective the keep left rule always applies, even when riding 2 abreast. Thus if you are not doing the speed limit and are holding the traffic flow up, the Cyclist is responsible to stop riding 2 abreast, keep left and allow the traffic to pass.

There is still nothing that I have found thus far that supersedes or dispenses a cyclists legal obligation to keep left and not inhibit the traffic flow and so nothing that allows for them to claim the lane, except for a loose definition of Practicable which I don't believe applies, but technical definitions of legal English is unfortunately beyond my experiance - I will however make one final arguement which is the man on the clapham omnibus argument as to what is the commonly accepted definition or behavior: I put forward as shown by the average NZ driver and also members of this forum that the commonly accepted definitions is that Cyclists are to keep left.

Or as Ocean1 put it (paraphrasing here):

Slow Cunts get the fuck out of my way

[pritch]

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

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

Sometimes. There was a clip on the 'Net - on the Whaleoil blog IIRC? There was a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane. The "lane" was in an area of roadworks and was of minimum width, marked by road cones. There was absolutely no room to overtake even if the cyclist was proceeding relatively slowly on the unsealed surface The guy in a car following the cyclist, and filming this, was having a rant. The public comments were about "road lice" and ignorant cyclists. All of which tended to convince me that none of the pricks commenting should have a drivers licence.

My experience riding a moped convinced me that there should be a psychometric component to the drivers licence testing. There are too many drivers who lack the mental stability to be in charge of a deadly weapon - ie a motor vehicle. Having diagnosable nut jobs behind the wheel can't help the road toll.

[TheDemonLord]

My experience riding a moped convinced me that there should be a psychometric component to the drivers licence testing. There are too many drivers who lack the mental stability to be in charge of a deadly weapon - ie a motor vehicle. Having diagnosable nut jobs behind the wheel can't help the road toll.

I would be all for it - for me though it comes down to in this country, Driving is percieved as a right, not a privledge

Compare this to say the US - I draw parrallels with our road toll to the Gun crime in the US, over there it is also a right, not a privledge. then compare our Firearms record where it is a privledge and not a right - somehow we are great with firearms (where it is a privledge that can be revoked) but crap with cars (where it is percieved as a right and not a privledge)

[DamianW]

...for me though it comes down to in this country, Driving is percieved as a right, not a privledge...)

Agreed. Also throw in an unhealthy dose of ambivalence among drivers on the consequences of their shit driving. For example earlier today I drove past a two car RTA just before Surfdale on Waiheke. Ambulance and cops were already on the scene clearing up the carnage. A few hundred metres further on down the road a complete twat in a people carrier comes hurtling around a 35km/h bend at around 60. He veers with both front wheels over the centre line in to my lane and I swerved to get out of his way to avoid a head on. Did he stop? Did he bollocks!

Add to that we are told on the news last night that a recent poll shows that 60% of drivers fess up to texting while driving. Words fail me.

[mossy1200]

Is this some new KB Netiquette rule the rest of us don't know about?

No I just went all vigilante while sitting here in my lycra hero suit.