Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[bogan]

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



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



Wing mirrors being included in the width of the vehicle



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.



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')



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.



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.



I never said that



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

The ones that spring to mind are poor hazard identification/reaction/classification. Be they moving hazard like childeren running out onto the road, or stationary but obscured ones like tar bleed or gravel patches.

That sounds like a catch-all interpretation, similar circualar logic. If having an incident or near miss is illegal cos it is classed as dangerous driving, then obviously any near miss or incident is because somebody did something illegal. But I'm betting the legislation you can point to for that one is just as much a grey area as the previous stuff.

Which doesn't change my point at all.

It is not really open to interpretation, if a cyclist is ticketed or convicted they are the defendant; as such the grey area favors them. Or can you give me an example when this applies in a way in which the cyclist is not the defendant?

So you say, but as I disagree with good reason, the omnibus argument does not apply.

Indeed, perhaps another reason why your views on the hypothetical new zealander do not make a good omnibus argument.

They want to use the roads, they should be proficient and aware of safe practice; sure it is good to encourage for environmental reasons, but safety first imo, especially considering how easy driving tests are (just a scratchy one would do).

You didn't have too

You knew about the road code bit then? Or does that not count as learning since you want to ignore it? I would hope you've also learnt those other things I listed as you didn't seem to be applying them to begin with.

[Swoop]

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...

Don't fuck about with horns as the lycra brigade are blind to it.

Drop 2 gears and FLOOR IT!

The cunts know immediately what that means!


I like a sea of faggotry parting before me. (Sunday morning and the bastards are wobbling across BOTH sides of the entire road. Fuck em!)

[TheDemonLord]

The ones that spring to mind are poor hazard identification/reaction/classification. Be they moving hazard like childeren running out onto the road, or stationary but obscured ones like tar bleed or gravel patches.

I would deem that driving without due care and attention

That sounds like a catch-all interpretation, similar circualar logic. If having an incident or near miss is illegal cos it is classed as dangerous driving, then obviously any near miss or incident is because somebody did something illegal. But I'm betting the legislation you can point to for that one is just as much a grey area as the previous stuff.

Admittedly I haven't actually looked at the specific legislation for that - but the rational argument is that if you are driving completely legally, you should not cause an accident, you maybe involved in an accident, but not at fault

Which doesn't change my point at all.

well, it should as there is now room for the car and cyclist to exist side by side (although maybe a little too cozy for each others preference)

It is not really open to interpretation, if a cyclist is ticketed or convicted they are the defendant; as such the grey area favors them. Or can you give me an example when this applies in a way in which the cyclist is not the defendant?

Unless the judge rules that the burden of proof is on the cyclist to proove why they weren't keeping left (like in a speeding ticket case)

So you say, but as I disagree with good reason, the omnibus argument does not apply.

Well, as per previous post - the only real way to settle this would be through precedent and an actual case.

Indeed, perhaps another reason why your views on the hypothetical new zealander do not make a good omnibus argument.

They make a great omnibus argument in NZ - a crappy one in countries with a higher standard of driving....

They want to use the roads, they should be proficient and aware of safe practice; sure it is good to encourage for environmental reasons, but safety first imo, especially considering how easy driving tests are (just a scratchy one would do).

What about kids riding their bikes on the streets? I am agreeing with the principle here, but the practical application would be a nightmare (plus I don't think it would actually change any of the LycraLout behaviour - that will only be changed by an attitude shift and more enforcement targeted at cyclists)

You knew about the road code bit then? Or does that not count as learning since you want to ignore it? I would hope you've also learnt those other things I listed as you didn't seem to be applying them to begin with.

I did, but since it wasn't backed up by specific legislation (like other things in the road code, like leaving 1.5 meters) it can be dismissed - although if one use a very loose definition of practicable (which as above, I don't think applies) then you can stretch to it being 'legal'

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=Berries;1130820674]My head hurts.[/QUOTE

Me too.

And them multiquotes are torturing my eyes..

[TheDemonLord]

[QUOTE=scumdog;1130821251]

My head hurts.[/QUOTE

Me too.

And them multiquotes are torturing my eyes..

I prefer multiquotes myself - it helps when responding to a specific statement IMO

[Tazz]

TL: DR update as follows:

[bogan]

I would deem that driving without due care and attention



Admittedly I haven't actually looked at the specific legislation for that - but the rational argument is that if you are driving completely legally, you should not cause an accident, you maybe involved in an accident, but not at fault



well, it should as there is now room for the car and cyclist to exist side by side (although maybe a little too cozy for each others preference)



Unless the judge rules that the burden of proof is on the cyclist to proove why they weren't keeping left (like in a speeding ticket case)



Well, as per previous post - the only real way to settle this would be through precedent and an actual case.



They make a great omnibus argument in NZ - a crappy one in countries with a higher standard of driving....



What about kids riding their bikes on the streets? I am agreeing with the principle here, but the practical application would be a nightmare (plus I don't think it would actually change any of the LycraLout behaviour - that will only be changed by an attitude shift and more enforcement targeted at cyclists)



I did, but since it wasn't backed up by specific legislation (like other things in the road code, like leaving 1.5 meters) it can be dismissed - although if one use a very loose definition of practicable (which as above, I don't think applies) then you can stretch to it being 'legal'

Sounds like a bit of a catch all as well.

Maybe you should find and read it then.

If they can safely exist side by side there is no need to claim the lane; and thus it is a straw man argument.

Another strawman as speeding is not a grey area, so the side of the defender is not erred upon.

Case precedent is not an omnibusman argument either though.

No they don't, because they are your views, not the views of a typical person that we can agree on.

Yeh, just tatoo it next to their ident barcode...

It can be dismissed because it is just an interpretation (albeit official) of the legislation you mean? just like your own interpretation (not official); and those other 4 blokes.

[BuzzardNZ]

someone put some life back into the Shorai thread, PLEASE

[bogan]

someone put some life back into the Shorai thread, PLEASE

Pffft, are you implying those things are not long lived?

[BuzzardNZ]

Pffft, are you implying those things are not long lived?

Not at all, just miss the shits and giggles that thread gave me!

[mstriumph]

Once gain you ignore the point in favor of piss weak ad-hominems; saying I've fathered a man of such distinguished tastes as HDC is certainly not an insult.

Still, I guess you've at least been spared the intellect to know you're a moron so it doesn't seem to be getting you down

tsk tsk subtle as a sledgehammer, your attempt at - well, whatever it was you were attempting.

glad to see you picked up on the 'moron-speak' ... my grandmother always taught me that it's polite to at least try and communicate with the natives in their own tongue and at their own level

[mstriumph]

Are you Ed's wife ?

I'm pretty certain I'm not? However, the seventies WERE a bit hazy for me ...................

[bogan]

Not at all, just miss the shits and giggles that thread gave me!

Here ya go Buzzy, she heard your calls and came to lower the tone.

tsk tsk subtle as a sledgehammer, your attempt at - well, whatever it was you were attempting.

glad to see you picked up on the 'moron-speak' ... my grandmother always taught me that it's polite to at least try and communicate with the natives in their own tongue and at their own level

Also, if you were impervious to my sledgehammer subtlety, does that make you as thick as a brick shithouse? Or are you only as wide as one?

[mstriumph]

Here ya go Buzzy, she heard your calls and came to lower the tone.



Also, if you were impervious to my sledgehammer subtlety, does that make you as thick as a brick shithouse? Or are you only as wide as one?

one doesn't need to be either thick or wide to recognise an irate hippopotamus blundering along through - well, a brick shithouse if that's where you currently are ...


I really DO seem to have upset you, don't I? It's probably a bad mark on my report that I'm enjoying it so hugely ... you really are such a soft target.

[BuzzardNZ]

I'm pretty certain I'm not? However, the seventies WERE a bit hazy for me ...................

you should be and then the two of you could adopt Bogan