Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[bogan]

That would be my interpretation of the law - I would have to watch the original video to confirm if that was the scenario - but I can't find anything that supersedes the keep left rule, so yes, if you are holding up traffic, you need to stop riding 2 abreast, and keep left.



The law is a little ambiguous - and I think in my first post I even conceded that a re-write is needed - I will further concede that I am not sure what the laws default position would be, I would feel that the onus would be on the person making the claim that practicable in their scenario meant not keeping left as opposed to the opposite (as the law states you must keep left as far as practicable, so any change to not keeping left must be confirmed in debate, not the other way around)



Well, the cyclist in the second video justified his actions under the guise of claiming the Lane, so I don't think it can be considered a true strawman. In that video however, he used the same justification you are attempting to use for his actions.



but neither of them were ticketed, which indicates both were at fault:

We know from the video that the Car driver clearly engaged in a dangerous move. If the cyclist was not at fault, we would expect further action to be taken. No further action was taken. Since no further action was taken, we can conclude that there most be a mitigating reason for no further action being taken. The most likely mitigating factor is that the cyclist was also at fault. (there is no logical fallacy in that reasoning, unless you believe the car driver didn't do a dangerous move)

Typically in incidents were one party is solely at fault, there are consequences, however when both parties equally contributed to the near miss (ie nothing major happened) then the default response is to not push forward with charges (since each sides lawyers will proceed to blame the other party)



Anecdotally - the only people who I have heard infer they have a right to claim the lane is road cyclists
From the KB forum - those that have participated in this debate actively are 3, Myself, yourself and Ocean1, 2 of us think you don't have a right to claim the lane, 1 of us does. Thats a 66.6% majority (666 \m/)
From observations of how the average Kiwi road user interacts with cyclists - overwhelming majority
Finally the reverse - Cyclists make up a small percentage of the population I don't have figures to hand, and TBH I can't be arsed since we know that those who commute via car far outweigh (both figuratively and literally ) the number of cyclists. Since Cyclists are the generally the only ones who hold the position that claiming the lane is okay, we know that only a minority holds this position - thus the Clapham Omnibus defence stands

Do I kow the scope in which it applies - well from my perspective, it never applies (this is my interpretation of practicable) from your interpretation it is when the lane/road conditions are such that in order to complete an overtaking move the car behind most cross the centreline into the oncoming lane (Have I got your interpretation of Practicable correct?)



And my point is that if he wasn't riding illegally, there is a reasonable expectation that there would be further action against the car driver from the police. There wasn't, so we can conclude that the rider was riding illegally.



Are you not doing the same? I hold to one definition of Practicable, you hold to another - we are both projecting (more or less) our definition of this rule and applying it to what we have watched.

Anything besides your interpretation is what I meant. Ie, it could be interpreted that if riding abreast it is not practicable to go single file every time a car comes up.

Indeed, like claiming a lane to avert unsafe passes being a valid debatable option.

Tailor built straw man then, because his way of claiming the lane is at the very edge of what I term it to be.

At fault or illegal, why has the terminology changed?

Anecdotaly.
How do we know cyclists are the only ones that think claiming the lane is ok?

Yes those are the conditions; and was that the case in the second vid?

What if he was just riding shit but contributory? (imo exactly what happened).

Indeed, except you keep saying it is definitely illegal, while I prefer to think of it more as a happy grey area to be bent to increase ones safety.

My full logic is this:

The law says keep as far left as practicable if you are impeding the flow of traffic. My interpretation of Practicable is that for something going as slow as a cyclist that this means if there is traffic behind them, they need to keep as far left as possible - the hazard of being rear-ended by a vehicle traveling much faster than them outweighing the hazard of being sideswiped or forced off the road. Using this definition - Claiming the lane is always illegal

You believe contrary to this (that is fine) but what can you offer in proof to back up your claim? The closest you have offered is the riding abreast rule, but as per previous comments - this does not dispense or supersede the keep left rule.

Of course my position would be rendered null and void if Cyclists were riding on a road where they were able to keep to the speed limit consistently (such as Orewa where it has a flat and level 30 kph section)

I would genuinely be interested to see what would happen if a matter such as this went to court (hopefully by a means other than how it usually ends in court, with a dead or seriously injured cyclist)

If you are impeding the flow of traffic, there is no speed differential to get rear ended by though. Rear ending logically cannot be part of the holding up traffic argument/legislation for this reason.

I offer the riding abreast rule, and my interpretation; to say it is a grey area that can be argued as legal. You offer only your interpretation (and your interpretation of other's interpretations) and say it is illegal. Do you honestly think your case is stronger?

[TheDemonLord]

Anything besides your interpretation is what I meant. Ie, it could be interpreted that if riding abreast it is not practicable to go single file every time a car comes up.

Simple - don't ride two abreast if its too hard

Indeed, like claiming a lane to avert unsafe passes being a valid debatable option.

but the rebuttal to that would be since the driver should only overtake when safe to do so, there is no need to claim the lane.

Tailor built straw man then, because his way of claiming the lane is at the very edge of what I term it to be.

Not a strawman, but certainly reducto ad absurdium (using the very edge of what you term it to be to highlight the bad arguement)

At fault or illegal, why has the terminology changed?

At fault is synonymous with illegal - its hard to be legal and at fault

Anecdotaly.
How do we know cyclists are the only ones that think claiming the lane is ok?

A quick survey of NZ driving attitudes would confirm that - but since all I have is this thread, its now 75% in my favour, 25% to yours (thanks to R650 pointing out its okay in the UK, but not in NZ)

Yes those are the conditions; and was that the case in the second vid?

What if he was just riding shit but contributory? (imo exactly what happened).

Certainly the rider in the video would claim that as the case as would every other rider who claimed the lane would claim as well - to deny this would be to commit the no true scotsman fallacy

Indeed, except you keep saying it is definitely illegal, while I prefer to think of it more as a happy grey area to be bent to increase ones safety.

Not keeping left is definitely illegal unless you can prove that to not do so would be not practicable - I agree it is grey, but the wording in this case IMO supports an arguement of 'forbidden unless expressly allowed' as opposed to 'allowed unless expressly forbidden'

If you are impeding the flow of traffic, there is no speed differential to get rear ended by though. Rear ending logically cannot be part of the holding up traffic argument/legislation for this reason.

Hmmmm - I beg to differ, one can get rear ended whilst one is holding up traffic. It has unfortunately occurred far too often on NZ roads

I offer the riding abreast rule, and my interpretation; to say it is a grey area that can be argued as legal. You offer only your interpretation (and your interpretation of other's interpretations) and say it is illegal. Do you honestly think your case is stronger?

I honestly do. The riding abreast rule does not negate the need to keep left if you are holding up traffic - fine if there is no traffic, not fine if there is. The grey area IMO is worded in a way where the default is to deny as opposed to the default is to allow. I have also presented the Omnibus argument as to what a reasonable person would think - and as per the responses in this thread - in NZ reasonable people think that slow vehicles need to keep left in order to let others pass. And I offer the actions of the police as an implicit reinforcement of all of the above.

But as always - I concede that a review is needed and were I presented with legal precedent - I would be very interested to read

[bogan]

Simple - don't ride two abreast if its too hard



but the rebuttal to that would be since the driver should only overtake when safe to do so, there is no need to claim the lane.



Not a strawman, but certainly reducto ad absurdium (using the very edge of what you term it to be to highlight the bad arguement)



At fault is synonymous with illegal - its hard to be legal and at fault



A quick survey of NZ driving attitudes would confirm that - but since all I have is this thread, its now 75% in my favour, 25% to yours (thanks to R650 pointing out its okay in the UK, but not in NZ)



Certainly the rider in the video would claim that as the case as would every other rider who claimed the lane would claim as well - to deny this would be to commit the no true scotsman fallacy



Not keeping left is definitely illegal unless you can prove that to not do so would be not practicable - I agree it is grey, but the wording in this case IMO supports an arguement of 'forbidden unless expressly allowed' as opposed to 'allowed unless expressly forbidden'



Hmmmm - I beg to differ, one can get rear ended whilst one is holding up traffic. It has unfortunately occurred far too often on NZ roads



I honestly do. The riding abreast rule does not negate the need to keep left if you are holding up traffic - fine if there is no traffic, not fine if there is. The grey area IMO is worded in a way where the default is to deny as opposed to the default is to allow. I have also presented the Omnibus argument as to what a reasonable person would think - and as per the responses in this thread - in NZ reasonable people think that slow vehicles need to keep left in order to let others pass. And I offer the actions of the police as an implicit reinforcement of all of the above.

But as always - I concede that a review is needed and were I presented with legal precedent - I would be very interested to read

Is that in legislation too?

Defensive riding rebuts the shit out of that though.

Agreed.

Not really, lots of times it is driver fault for not being defensive enough, but that is not illegal.

So you don't, at all, biased sample size of 4 is simply inadmissible. I hope you're taking the piss.

But the one in the vid would be demonstrably wrong to claim it. He was just riding shit, not necessarily illegally.

There we go, one slice served.

Not at much speed though, in fact wouldn't you be less likely to be rear ended if you were directly in the drivers vision under those circumstances?

Hang on, you admit it is a grey area above, and still say that your case for it being illegal is stronger than my case for it being a grey area? The omnibus argument was shit, consisting of your own opinion interspersed with a handful of others you agree with. I could easily counter that with my own omnibus interspersion, but of course I realise that would defeat the point of trying to make it.

edit:
Actually, how about I make the point that the road code is a good indicator for omnibus.

If the road is too narrow to safely allow vehicles to pass, you are in danger of being run off the road or hit by a passing car. In this situation it is acceptable to ‘take the lane’ and move further out into the path of traffic to prevent other users from passing you. If you do have to move further out, remember to find a gap, signal your intentions, do a quick shoulder check and move across when it is safe. Once you have moved out try to ride as quickly as you can and allow the following traffic to pass when the road widens.

Have another slice :P

[TheDemonLord]

Is that in legislation too?

Well, yes - if you can't conform to the relevant legislation while doing something, stop doing it.

Defensive riding rebuts the shit out of that though.

Only if you consider claiming the lane as defensive riding, certainly as others have pointed out, in other parts of the world is is considered good road craft, I am not convinced however that in NZ the general consensus would consider it defensive riding except in extreme cases, like on a narrow one lane bridge (and not the manner in which most NZ cyclists seem to claim the lane)

Agreed.

Why, Thank you

Not really, lots of times it is driver fault for not being defensive enough, but that is not illegal.

Can you provide a scenario where a driver has followed all laws, yet still been in an accident? I can't - if a driver could see the accident happening, but chose not to avoid it (i.e to not give way when the didn't have to) I would deem that not driving with due care, or dangerous driving.

So you don't, at all, biased sample size of 4 is simply inadmissible. I hope you're taking the piss.

Certainly inadmissably for a full peer reviewed study, but as a representation of NZ driving attitudes, its reasonable enough - especially since with the exception of being motorcyclists, we are a good cross section of NZ society

But the one in the vid would be demonstrably wrong to claim it. He was just riding shit, not necessarily illegally.

Where then, do you draw the line between riding shit and riding well - at the moment it is solely at the cyclists discretion which isn't a good way to make laws.

Not at much speed though, in fact wouldn't you be less likely to be rear ended if you were directly in the drivers vision under those circumstances?

Doesn't need to be much speed for the cyclist to end up in hospital or worse, and I disagree - you would be less likely to be rear ended if the driver only has to swerve a small amount as opposed to an entire car width to avoid hitting you

Hang on, you admit it is a grey area above, and still say that your case for it being illegal is stronger than my case for it being a grey area? The omnibus argument was shit, consisting of your own opinion interspersed with a handful of others you agree with. I could easily counter that with my own omnibus interspersion, but of course I realise that would defeat the point of trying to make it.

Yes I do - There is a grey area - we both admit and agree on that. My interpretation is that the Grey area is a Default Deny situation (strict) as opposed to a default allow situation (permissive) which is where there is doubt, one should keep left, not where there is doubt, one does not need to keep left.

edit:
Actually, how about I make the point that the road code is a good indicator for omnibus.
Have another slice :P

I would counter with the Police comments - thats a guide and doesn't mean dick - and The police comments would be a good indicator for my Omnibus comment.

I'm feeling full, Fancy a second slice?

[bogan]

Well, yes - if you can't conform to the relevant legislation while doing something, stop doing it.



Only if you consider claiming the lane as defensive riding, certainly as others have pointed out, in other parts of the world is is considered good road craft, I am not convinced however that in NZ the general consensus would consider it defensive riding except in extreme cases, like on a narrow one lane bridge (and not the manner in which most NZ cyclists seem to claim the lane)



Why, Thank you



Can you provide a scenario where a driver has followed all laws, yet still been in an accident? I can't - if a driver could see the accident happening, but chose not to avoid it (i.e to not give way when the didn't have to) I would deem that not driving with due care, or dangerous driving.



Certainly inadmissably for a full peer reviewed study, but as a representation of NZ driving attitudes, its reasonable enough - especially since with the exception of being motorcyclists, we are a good cross section of NZ society



Where then, do you draw the line between riding shit and riding well - at the moment it is solely at the cyclists discretion which isn't a good way to make laws.



Doesn't need to be much speed for the cyclist to end up in hospital or worse, and I disagree - you would be less likely to be rear ended if the driver only has to swerve a small amount as opposed to an entire car width to avoid hitting you



Yes I do - There is a grey area - we both admit and agree on that. My interpretation is that the Grey area is a Default Deny situation (strict) as opposed to a default allow situation (permissive) which is where there is doubt, one should keep left, not where there is doubt, one does not need to keep left.



I would counter with the Police comments - thats a guide and doesn't mean dick - and The police comments would be a good indicator for my Omnibus comment.

I'm feeling full, Fancy a second slice?

Ah, confirmation bias again. It is only conforming to the relevant legislation if you discount Y and assume X is the way it is for the outcome of Z; but if Y is still an option, so is their actions conforming to legislation; and Z would still be the outcome. Thus only when confirmation bias is present can X => Z be the only solution.

I do.

In an accident? Even your edge case second video didn't show an accident. Whose fault was the near miss is what we were discussing I thought.

Ok, admissible, but overturned by examining the road code; that is what people learn from, so it is fairly well reflective of their expectations.

Riding shit (nadverb) riding in such a manner to unnecessarily increase chances of having an accident; not necessarily by doing anything illegal though.

But now you are back to a speed differential, if you are holding people up, they have identified you, and slowed to match your speed. To then get rear ended they must accelerate (or you brake) and them not notice this change; it is more likely for them to notice it if you are prominent in their visual area.

Grey area means simply it is unknown, and likely treated on a case by case basis (often in favor of wiggle room for the defendant) not that it is strictly controlled. There is no such thing as a strictly controller or defined grey area.

That's a learning tool. A learning tool used to teach the population. The population therefor is likely to parrot back what is taught; thus my case for the Omnibus argument of a national teaching resource agreeing with me is immensely stronger than your 75% of 4 bikers who agree with you. It is important to note I'm not saying it being in the road code makes it definitively legal; but it is a massive nail in the coffin of your Omnibus argument; and does point to leeway in the interpretation. Or put it this way, how often are people ticketed for something the road code suggests you do?

It does look good, can I have even a little taste? You're hogging the whole thing.

[Flip]

I used to run into groups of Lycra wankers all the time.

This was one group one Saturday morning.

The first pic I was following them down a hill, I was waiting for a space to pass.

The second pic was them riding on the wrong side of the road going around a blind right hander.

The 3rd pic was the cunts still doing a mobile road block after several miles riding up hill at about 10 kph. I was getting pissed off by this stage.

There is never a cop around when you want one.

[awayatc]

Feel for you flip.....
must have a lot of self discipline..

Was towing rather large car transporter from port hills ( before quakes) to the city...
lycra clad bunch of tossers insisted on riding sedately in my lane, eventhough there was a marked cycle lane inboard...
Gentle wee toot had no results, neither a slightly more prolonged honk on loud horn...
traffic was building up behind me, lots of oncoming traffic,..what do you do...?
I slowly but steadily sped up and came alongside, almost brushing closest muppets arm....
I could see him trying not to make eye contact...but keeping an eye on the ever widening shape of large trailer....
at very last second he gave up playing chicken, and rather unceremoniously launched himself into his riding partners.....
I bet the lycra bulged a bit around his cheeks....
He would only have had a few mm to spare at best...
arsewipes...

[TheDemonLord]

Ah, confirmation bias again. It is only conforming to the relevant legislation if you discount Y and assume X is the way it is for the outcome of Z; but if Y is still an option, so is their actions conforming to legislation; and Z would still be the outcome. Thus only when confirmation bias is present can X => Z be the only solution.

Nope - X always applies - Y does not grant a dispensation of X. Y and X can exist together so long as situation Z is not in effect. When Z is in effect, since Y does not Dispense X, X takes priority - therefore when situation Z occurs, X is in effect

I do.

Well I figured that....

In an accident? Even your edge case second video didn't show an accident. Whose fault was the near miss is what we were discussing I thought.

Both were at fault in the near miss

Ok, admissible, but overturned by examining the road code; that is what people learn from, so it is fairly well reflective of their expectations.

Disagree - Cyclists are not required to study the road code in order to cycle on the road (clearly shown by Flip's pictures) and furthermore, you yourself had to go find that section in the roadcode (meaning prior, you didn't know of its inclusion)

Riding shit (nadverb) riding in such a manner to unnecessarily increase chances of having an accident; not necessarily by doing anything illegal though.

I agree with Riding shit, but disagree that it is by not doing anything illegal

But now you are back to a speed differential, if you are holding people up, they have identified you, and slowed to match your speed. To then get rear ended they must accelerate (or you brake) and them not notice this change; it is more likely for them to notice it if you are prominent in their visual area.

Road conditions change, people accelerate and brake, hell, Cyclists speed up and slow down - so it is possible to be held up and then rear-end a cyclist resulting in serious injury and or death, and being in front IMO increases the danger as opposed to being on the side.

Grey area means simply it is unknown, and likely treated on a case by case basis (often in favor of wiggle room for the defendant) not that it is strictly controlled. There is no such thing as a strictly controller or defined grey area.

Well - the reference I made there was to a computing concept - where a lack of explicitly defined permissions on an object - there can either be Permissive or Strict - with permissive, if you aren't explicitly denied, you can access the file whereas strict means unless you are explicitly given access to a file, you don't get access.

In this - you can have a grey area (no explicit allow or deny permission set) and so then it is up to how the OS/application interprets permissions - transfer this over to the legal arguement - there is a grey area (its not explicitly defined as allowed or denied) but the writing of the rules is keep as far left as practicable - which to me means that the default position is to keep left and in the event of a grey area, one should er on the side of keeping left, not the other way.

That's a learning tool. A learning tool used to teach the population. The population therefor is likely to parrot back what is taught; thus my case for the Omnibus argument of a national teaching resource agreeing with me is immensely stronger than your 75% of 4 bikers who agree with you. It is important to note I'm not saying it being in the road code makes it definitively legal; but it is a massive nail in the coffin of your Omnibus argument; and does point to leeway in the interpretation. Or put it this way, how often are people ticketed for something the road code suggests you do?

It is a nail, but now we are up to 5 for, 1 against - that's now 83.3% in my favour and as above - you had to look for it, which negates the Omnibus defence (ie if it is something you have to specifically find out to know, then it isn't what a reasonable person would do)

as for how often people are ticketed - if it isn't in the legislation, then never - and the Legislation says keep as far left as practicable so for this, it would truly reside on what the Police/judge deemed the definition to be.

However I think we can agree that a Lot of the instances where Cyclists claim the lane - they have no right to, and a lot of Cyclists ignore the rules that they are meant to conform to (which effect them negatively) - as a case in point, the second video and Flip's still shots showing the behaviour of the steriotypical LycraLout, riding 3 abreast (which is illegal by your own admission) and not keeping left when they should be (by my interpretation)

It does look good, can I have even a little taste? You're hogging the whole thing.

I think you have snaffled a fair few slices between retorts

[bogan]

Nope - X always applies - Y does not grant a dispensation of X. Y and X can exist together so long as situation Z is not in effect. When Z is in effect, since Y does not Dispense X, X takes priority - therefore when situation Z occurs, X is in effect



Well I figured that....



Both were at fault in the near miss



Disagree - Cyclists are not required to study the road code in order to cycle on the road (clearly shown by Flip's pictures) and furthermore, you yourself had to go find that section in the roadcode (meaning prior, you didn't know of its inclusion)



I agree with Riding shit, but disagree that it is by not doing anything illegal



Road conditions change, people accelerate and brake, hell, Cyclists speed up and slow down - so it is possible to be held up and then rear-end a cyclist resulting in serious injury and or death, and being in front IMO increases the danger as opposed to being on the side.



Well - the reference I made there was to a computing concept - where a lack of explicitly defined permissions on an object - there can either be Permissive or Strict - with permissive, if you aren't explicitly denied, you can access the file whereas strict means unless you are explicitly given access to a file, you don't get access.

In this - you can have a grey area (no explicit allow or deny permission set) and so then it is up to how the OS/application interprets permissions - transfer this over to the legal arguement - there is a grey area (its not explicitly defined as allowed or denied) but the writing of the rules is keep as far left as practicable - which to me means that the default position is to keep left and in the event of a grey area, one should er on the side of keeping left, not the other way.



It is a nail, but now we are up to 5 for, 1 against - that's now 83.3% in my favour and as above - you had to look for it, which negates the Omnibus defence (ie if it is something you have to specifically find out to know, then it isn't what a reasonable person would do)

as for how often people are ticketed - if it isn't in the legislation, then never - and the Legislation says keep as far left as practicable so for this, it would truly reside on what the Police/judge deemed the definition to be.

However I think we can agree that a Lot of the instances where Cyclists claim the lane - they have no right to, and a lot of Cyclists ignore the rules that they are meant to conform to (which effect them negatively) - as a case in point, the second video and Flip's still shots showing the behaviour of the steriotypical LycraLout, riding 3 abreast (which is illegal by your own admission) and not keeping left when they should be (by my interpretation)



I think you have snaffled a fair few slices between retorts

I think you need to put labels on X Y and Z. cos Abreast riding (Z) can equate to illegal or not illegal depnding on if Y (riding abreast is not illegal even when being followed) is a possible solution or if X (riding abreast is illegal) is active. And if you assert X is active instead of Y to proclaim that Z must be illegal, it is ciruclar logic, and confirmation bias.

Indeed, they were at both fault for the near miss; not necessarily illegal though.

How about riding so as you cannot stop within your visual distance; shit? illegal?

But there is no option to be on the side, otherwise they could safely pass anyway and you should be on the side. Be in the front, and they have more chance to correct for speed up/slow downs.

Well we don't drive computers, so it is a grey area in the general sense of the term.

That is a very wrong application of the omnibus defense. To apply it correctly you have to actually find out what a typical person would do. The way you are trying to apply it is considering yourself as a typical person and just inflating your own opinion as it suits; I had expected better of you tbh.

Nicely dodged.

I do agree with that; but my original point still stands, and has indeed now been bolstered. That it is acceptable to own the lane in situations when those looking to pass cannot do so safely within the lane.

Haven't seen any of it tbh. I'm still sticking to my original point, but now I've also learned that is exactly what cyclists are taught to do under the official NZ road code. I've also learnt the keep left legislation for cyclists is the same as that for any other vehicle. I've also learnt that what is practicable can be distilled down to what is safe. I've also learnt that 4 bikers don't agree with me, but given the other points this is not even a little bit concerning. Have you learnt anything other than that a few biker agree with you?
To put it another way, you write in and get them to change the road code for this point and I'll eat all the humble pie you can serve. If not, I think my pie fork will stay nice and shiningly clean.

[TheDemonLord]

I think you need to put labels on X Y and Z. cos Abreast riding (Z) can equate to illegal or not illegal depnding on if Y (riding abreast is not illegal even when being followed) is a possible solution or if X (riding abreast is illegal) is active. And if you assert X is active instead of Y to proclaim that Z must be illegal, it is ciruclar logic, and confirmation bias.

In my Example - X is keeping left if holding others up, Y is riding 2 abreast, Z is the situation where one is riding abreast and holding someone up (and its safe to overtake, staying in a single lane)

Indeed, they were at both fault for the near miss; not necessarily illegal though.

If they are at fault, then they must have been doing something illegal

How about riding so as you cannot stop within your visual distance; shit? illegal?

Both

But there is no option to be on the side, otherwise they could safely pass anyway and you should be on the side. Be in the front, and they have more chance to correct for speed up/slow downs.

Side being keeping left, maybe not enough for a safe overtake, but unless the road width is narrorer than the width of the vehicle + 75 cm (for the rider) then on the side would be correct

Well we don't drive computers, so it is a grey area in the general sense of the term.

Well, you said yourself that grey areas tend to favor the defendant which means the system (in this case the Legal system) has a default position that it tends towards in grey areas - so similar to computing (except Lawyers don't output error codes)

That is a very wrong application of the omnibus defense. To apply it correctly you have to actually find out what a typical person would do. The way you are trying to apply it is considering yourself as a typical person and just inflating your own opinion as it suits; I had expected better of you tbh.

Okay, exclude me - we still have 4 typical New Zealanders, from different areas, occupations etc that all favour my definition over yours - yes it is not a full peer reviewed survey, but as an indication of what the typical person would do - its a pretty good indication

Nicely dodged.

You're welcome

I do agree with that; but my original point still stands, and has indeed now been bolstered. That it is acceptable to own the lane in situations when those looking to pass cannot do so safely within the lane.

Haven't seen any of it tbh. I'm still sticking to my original point, but now I've also learned that is exactly what cyclists are taught to do under the official NZ road code. I've also learnt the keep left legislation for cyclists is the same as that for any other vehicle. I've also learnt that what is practicable can be distilled down to what is safe. I've also learnt that 4 bikers don't agree with me, but given the other points this is not even a little bit concerning. Have you learnt anything other than that a few biker agree with you?
To put it another way, you write in and get them to change the road code for this point and I'll eat all the humble pie you can serve. If not, I think my pie fork will stay nice and shiningly clean.

I have seen good cyclists, I have seen bad cyclists, I have seen self righteous cyclists and I have seen defensive cyclists - just like all other road users, and like other road users, there is a contingent that operate in an anti-social manner (Boy Racers for cars, Mid-life Crisis Superbike riders, LycraLouts for cyclists) and while the stereotypes may exaggerate and even be a touch unfair - they exist as observations of repeated behavior among a specific group

Except Cyclists aren't taught, are they?

You don't have to pass a theory test to cycle on the road (which I offer as a reason as to why the LycraLout exists)

What have I learnt?

That contrary to what Cassina and MsTriumph say - you are great fun to Argue with and made a couple of points that made me have to search for corroborating reasons/evidence/logic to back up my original claim.

As for writing in to get the Road Code updated - I am too lazy (yes, I can see how someone reading my novel length posts might think thats a little bit hypocritical) and I will simply sit back and wait for the normal way these kind of debates are resolved (someone dies, and then lawyers do exactly what we have just done, except to the tune of $1000/hr)

And finally - my Pie fork remains clean regardless - if the Pie is delicious, I eat all the pie, I don't leave it on the fork

[bogan]

In my Example - X is keeping left if holding others up, Y is riding 2 abreast, Z is the situation where one is riding abreast and holding someone up (and its safe to overtake, staying in a single lane)



If they are at fault, then they must have been doing something illegal



Both



Side being keeping left, maybe not enough for a safe overtake, but unless the road width is narrorer than the width of the vehicle + 75 cm (for the rider) then on the side would be correct



Well, you said yourself that grey areas tend to favor the defendant which means the system (in this case the Legal system) has a default position that it tends towards in grey areas - so similar to computing (except Lawyers don't output error codes)



Okay, exclude me - we still have 4 typical New Zealanders, from different areas, occupations etc that all favour my definition over yours - yes it is not a full peer reviewed survey, but as an indication of what the typical person would do - its a pretty good indication



You're welcome



I have seen good cyclists, I have seen bad cyclists, I have seen self righteous cyclists and I have seen defensive cyclists - just like all other road users, and like other road users, there is a contingent that operate in an anti-social manner (Boy Racers for cars, Mid-life Crisis Superbike riders, LycraLouts for cyclists) and while the stereotypes may exaggerate and even be a touch unfair - they exist as observations of repeated behavior among a specific group

Except Cyclists aren't taught, are they?

You don't have to pass a theory test to cycle on the road (which I offer as a reason as to why the LycraLout exists)

What have I learnt?

That contrary to what Cassina and MsTriumph say - you are great fun to Argue with and made a couple of points that made me have to search for corroborating reasons/evidence/logic to back up my original claim.

As for writing in to get the Road Code updated - I am too lazy (yes, I can see how someone reading my novel length posts might think thats a little bit hypocritical) and I will simply sit back and wait for the normal way these kind of debates are resolved (someone dies, and then lawyers do exactly what we have just done, except to the tune of $1000/hr)

And finally - my Pie fork remains clean regardless - if the Pie is delicious, I eat all the pie, I don't leave it on the fork

Makes sense then. Y => Z X!=Z Z = cunty but not specifically illegal.

Not really, grey area.

Ok, now what happens when despite being able to stop in your visual distance, you don't. Shit riding, or illegal?

Assuming the following guy puts his wing mirror right on the center line; at which point we are back to square one because he is likely to try and pass, but cannot do so safely.

The defendant is the cyclist, they are favored in this grey area.

Still not applying it right. Omnibus should be a hypothetical dude, whose response is obvious to and therefor agreed upon by all parties. It is not just a little sample. I posted the road code excerpt to demonstrate why sample-derived omnibusman was not agreed upon by all parties.

Depends on the cyclist, some would read up on the road code, some would be taught in primary school, others would adapt their driving skills to the task.

It would be nice if they got a test too though.

Yeh well, it doesn't take long to learn those two are full of shit...

See, if I was prone to confimation bias, I would see the lack of listed learning on this subject, and lack of writing to road code as a tacit admission that my position is likely correct But it is luck for you I explore other option like you are just bored, fat, and lazy

[Virago]

Also, E=MC2

[TheDemonLord]

Not really, grey area.

Can you elaborate on a situation where one is riding legally but still at fault?

Ok, now what happens when despite being able to stop in your visual distance, you don't. Shit riding, or illegal?

Both - Driving without due care, Dangerous driving or Attempted vehicular murder

Assuming the following guy puts his wing mirror right on the center line; at which point we are back to square one because he is likely to try and pass, but cannot do so safely.

Wing mirrors being included in the width of the vehicle

The defendant is the cyclist, they are favored in this grey area.

In this instance, I am not so sure - again I read it as the onus is to prove that the circumstances were such that keeping left wasn't practicable - so the grey area favours the motorist.

Still not applying it right. Omnibus should be a hypothetical dude, whose response is obvious to and therefor agreed upon by all parties. It is not just a little sample. I posted the road code excerpt to demonstrate why sample-derived omnibusman was not agreed upon by all parties.

The Hypothetical average Zew Zealander would expect a cyclist to keep left (in keeping with our national Psyche of 'Slow cunts get out of my way')

Depends on the cyclist, some would read up on the road code, some would be taught in primary school, others would adapt their driving skills to the task.

I am quoting this seperately because there is an observation I would like to make - when I was younger (and lived in the UK) and taught to ride on the road - we were told we should be 30 cm from the Kerb - which was enough to avoid most drains, but not be in the gutters. Reading other Cyclists comments - they have expanded it to 1-1.5 metres - I would also raise that this is where I get my strict adherence to keeping left from and in before you ask - yes I used to cycle to school in the UK and so rode in that manner.

It would be nice if they got a test too though.

This is where I truly am conflicted - I think that encouraging cycling as an alternative is a good thing, and so we shouldn't put road blocks in place, but at the same time, I see bad cycling that goes unchecked, I see cyclists with no protective gear, I see cyclists thumbing their noses at rules they don't like or taking overly liberal definitions and then complaining when other people get annoyed with them for doing so.

Yeh well, it doesn't take long to learn those two are full of shit...

I never said that

See, if I was prone to confimation bias, I would see the lack of listed learning on this subject, and lack of writing to road code as a tacit admission that my position is likely correct But it is luck for you I explore other option like you are just bored, fat, and lazy

The only reason there is a lack of learning on my part was cause I did all my reading prior when I was busy telling the 2nd Youtube video person that he was riding like a twat in most of his videos - so on this debate, I didn't find out much cause it was already fresh in my mind.

As for the lack of writing - I could, but unlike on here where I get to engage in stimulating (Oh Eeerrr vicar) debate, I would get a polite letter from some nobody pleb 'thank you for your concern, blah, policy changes, blah, politicians blah' which isn't worth my time.

I would point out you got the last option slightly wrong:

I'm bored, Fat, Lazy and able to type a coherent and reasonably well worded arguement in a short space of time

[nzspokes]

I used to run into groups of Lycra wankers all the time.

This was one group one Saturday morning.

The first pic I was following them down a hill, I was waiting for a space to pass.

The second pic was them riding on the wrong side of the road going around a blind right hander.

The 3rd pic was the cunts still doing a mobile road block after several miles riding up hill at about 10 kph. I was getting pissed off by this stage.

There is never a cop around when you want one.

How were these photos taken?

[BuzzardNZ]

How were these photos taken?

I would think with a camera