Road rage fail: Aggressive NZ driver who hates cyclists

[TheDemonLord]

So it is possible to have accidents/incidents where nobody is at fault.

it is possible to have an accident involving a single driver and an unavoidable scenario (and possible 2 drivers if they were both affected by the same scenario at the same time) everything else however, will be caused by someone driving illegally and at fault

Excellent, those passages indicate you've finally seen the light and agree claiming the lane is a grey area legally, and a logical(for some) option!

Not quite - I did say IF I stretched to your position and I still maintain that the hazards introduced by claiming the lane IMO don't outweight the hazards of not. I did also say that even if I stretched - the number of situations where I could concede that claiming the lane was acceptable is far smaller than the number of situations where it is claimed.

Tolerance imposed is not imposed due to any grey area in the legislation though.

I'm gonna half ass this retort (and not do my fact checking) - I understand that cars must comply with various regulations (which are set in law, or power is given by law that they must comply with industry regulations - I am not sure if this is 100% correct) and part of those regulations is the acceptable limits of mechanical speedo innacuracy. and so by that extention (if it truly does exist) then grey area of mechanical tolerance is not in the favour of the defendant

A poll is not an omnibusman argument either though.

it isn't, but it could be used to add weight to what the average NZer would consider - and since the Man on the Omnibus is meant to be an everyman - a poll showing what most people think (and so the highest percentage of the everyman) could be used to grant validity to an Omnibus arguement.

You know that is just going to encourage my neckbearded pedantry in future right?

I would expect nothing less

[bogan]

it is possible to have an accident involving a single driver and an unavoidable scenario (and possible 2 drivers if they were both affected by the same scenario at the same time) everything else however, will be caused by someone driving illegally and at fault



Not quite - I did say IF I stretched to your position and I still maintain that the hazards introduced by claiming the lane IMO don't outweight the hazards of not. I did also say that even if I stretched - the number of situations where I could concede that claiming the lane was acceptable is far smaller than the number of situations where it is claimed.



I'm gonna half ass this retort (and not do my fact checking) - I understand that cars must comply with various regulations (which are set in law, or power is given by law that they must comply with industry regulations - I am not sure if this is 100% correct) and part of those regulations is the acceptable limits of mechanical speedo innacuracy. and so by that extention (if it truly does exist) then grey area of mechanical tolerance is not in the favour of the defendant



it isn't, but it could be used to add weight to what the average NZer would consider - and since the Man on the Omnibus is meant to be an everyman - a poll showing what most people think (and so the highest percentage of the everyman) could be used to grant validity to an Omnibus arguement.



I would expect nothing less

What if they cause half of it each though?

That's the concession though, it comes to 'if' and a narrow scope instead of the it illegal cos legislation you we saying before.

It is in favor because the regs say they can over-read but not under-read the speed. And it doesn't need to be anyway, because ignorance is not an excuse; unlike for this case where not knowing the exact clearance distance changes nothing about adherance to the legislation as the grey area is that there is no safe clearance distance stated.

It is mean to be an everyman in the sense that both sides can agree on what they would do. This is shown as a hypothetical; case precedent as you brought up before is another way to make a similar point, as is popular opinion. But popular opinion is not what the omnibusman's argument is about; remember saying earlier if you had to search for backup for the answer it was not applicable?

Tipping intensifies.

[FJRider]

Suddenly! A wild Challenger appears!

I can be wild ...

I have also read the law says that if you are slow you are to keep left, I agree on the principle that letting others decide your safety margin can be a one way ticket to the hospital - but there must be reasonable expectations - everyday we let other people decide our safety margins so long as they are within acceptable tolerances/what is legislated - the question here is at what point (if any) does the cyclists right to self determine the safety margin they are happy for people to overtake them with override the motorists right to drive unimpeded (as far as legally allowed)

I'm glad you can read. I might not have to explain everything then ...

But ... what right do YOU have you (as a motorist) to determine the safety margin of a cyclist you are overtaking .. ???

Contrary to public opinion ... motorists do not have the "Right" to drive unimpeded on public roads. Nowhere in written legislation does it state that they (or ANY road user) have that right ....

Again, I agree with your principle - but what of the practical application of this in the real world? There are reasonable safety margins and there are unreasonable safety margins, my contention is that often an unreasonable safety margin is demanded

Motorists/Cyclists have their own ideas of what is reasonable ...

are relevant - passing a cyclist with a 5 kph difference giving half a meter of room is fine, doing the same with a 105 kph difference, not so fine.

Motorists that also are at times ... cyclists ... tend to be more generous with safety margins. As do Car/Motorcycle pilots ...

The Police (and by extension, the motorist)

The Road Code suggests 1.5 meters of clearance should be allowed as a safety margin. Not legislation as many (cyclists) believe.

[TheDemonLord]

What if they cause half of it each though?

This is something that I understand other parts of the world have a concept of a multi fault accident - ie, both were doing something illegal at the time that contributed to the crash

That's the concession though, it comes to 'if' and a narrow scope instead of the it illegal cos legislation you we saying before.

You misunderstand - I still hold that it is illegal cos legislation - but IF I were to concede to you on that point - then many of the situations where it is currently practiced would be explicitly illegal

It is in favor because the regs say they can over-read but not under-read the speed. And it doesn't need to be anyway, because ignorance is not an excuse; unlike for this case where not knowing the exact clearance distance changes nothing about adherance to the legislation as the grey area is that there is no safe clearance distance stated.

So I actually had a look - there are 2 standards that NZ can be used - one is the Aussie standard which states +/- 10%, with no requirement to not under-read. The other is the European ECE-39 which does say that a speedometer cannot under read

It is mean to be an everyman in the sense that both sides can agree on what they would do. This is shown as a hypothetical; case precedent as you brought up before is another way to make a similar point, as is popular opinion. But popular opinion is not what the omnibusman's argument is about; remember saying earlier if you had to search for backup for the answer it was not applicable?

I am not so sure - I believe that if this were a court case and there was a jury and you and I were lawyers and we both presented our arguments as to what the man on the Omnibus would do - I believe that it would be up to the Jury to decide (by way or convicting or not) which interpretation they believed was the accurate one.

So from that perspective, popular opinion can be considered when making such an arguement

Tipping intensifies.

Indeed, excuse me while I pull out my Monocle

[TheDemonLord]

I can be wild ...

Oh Baby

I'm glad you can read. I might not have to explain everything then ...

But ... what right do YOU have you (as a motorist) to determine the safety margin of a cyclist you are overtaking .. ???

Contrary to public opinion ... motorists do not have the "Right" to drive unimpeded on public roads. Nowhere in written legislation does it state that they (or ANY road user) have that right ....

As for the rights of the motorist vs rights of the cyclist - this is liable to end up like a pissing contest of who is offended more - the middle ground is what is a reasonable distance - at higher closing speeds, a bigger margin is reasonable when compared to slower closing speeds, and Cyclists have a reasonable right to have a margin whilst being overtaken. It doesn't not grant them the dispensation to arbitrarily pick a number and stick with it, or to use it in an anti-social manner

Well, Impeding the reasonable flow of traffic is an offense - and so by that logic, there is a right of sorts, for a driver to drive unimpeded (whilst obeying all other relevant laws, driving to the conditions etc.)

Motorists/Cyclists have their own ideas of what is reasonable ...

Completely agree, and various factors can influence what is reasonable.

Motorists that also are at times ... cyclists ... tend to be more generous with safety margins. As do Car/Motorcycle pilots ...

Agreed, that with experiancing something tends to give one a new perspective.

The Road Code suggests 1.5 meters of clearance should be allowed as a safety margin. Not legislation as many (cyclists) believe.

That was my point

[bogan]

This is something that I understand other parts of the world have a concept of a multi fault accident - ie, both were doing something illegal at the time that contributed to the crash




You misunderstand - I still hold that it is illegal cos legislation - but IF I were to concede to you on that point - then many of the situations where it is currently practiced would be explicitly illegal




So I actually had a look - there are 2 standards that NZ can be used - one is the Aussie standard which states +/- 10%, with no requirement to not under-read. The other is the European ECE-39 which does say that a speedometer cannot under read



I am not so sure - I believe that if this were a court case and there was a jury and you and I were lawyers and we both presented our arguments as to what the man on the Omnibus would do - I believe that it would be up to the Jury to decide (by way or convicting or not) which interpretation they believed was the accurate one.

So from that perspective, popular opinion can be considered when making such an arguement



Indeed, excuse me while I pull out my Monocle

Nah, I mean not only half at fault, so doing nothing illegal.

So, 'if' you stretched to my position you would agree with me. Thanks captain obvious; but perhaps go back and address the point without the if for a more substantial discussion.

Exactly, in favor, and ignorance is not an excuse anyway.

But by that logic cos you could reduce demonstrable facts to just popular opinion as well (while you could argue that in essence it is, but it is a different evidence level, so the distinction should be maintained). The omnibus man argument is clearly defined, and not applicable in cases where the answer is ambiguous (like this one).

[FJRider]

As for the rights of the motorist vs rights of the cyclist - this is liable to end up like a pissing contest of who is offended more.

Bullshit ... Both cyclists and motorists are required by Legislation to adhere to all VEHICLE Traffic regulations (a bicycle is a vehicle in law).... and BOTH can be issued infringement notices for all their respective infringements ... if they do not.

At higher closing speeds, a bigger margin is reasonable when compared to slower closing speeds, and Cyclists have a reasonable right to have a margin whilst being overtaken. It doesn't not grant them the dispensation to arbitrarily pick a number and stick with it, or to use it in an anti-social manner

A closing speed is for vehicles approaching (from opposite directions) each other. Overtaking speeds is for vehicles traveling in the same direction.

Well, Impeding the reasonable flow of traffic is an offense - and so by that logic, there is a right of sorts, for a driver to drive unimpeded (whilst obeying all other relevant laws, driving to the conditions etc.)

Any traffic infringements/offenses by any vehicle operator are liable for fines/demerit points. Any offense taken by another motorist is their issue. NOWHERE in legislation is it written ... you have a right to NOT be offended (or impeded in your travels).

[neels]

Oh the irony

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/6558...eo-is-evidence

[Berries]

Oh the irony

Can you get done for bad language these days? Apart from his words I couldn't see any evidence whatsoever of 'road rage'.

[nzspokes]

Can you get done for bad language these days? Apart from his words I couldn't see any evidence whatsoever of 'road rage'.

Using a cellphone and reckless use. They will go after him.

[Murray]

Can you get done for bad language these days? Apart from his words I couldn't see any evidence whatsoever of 'road rage'.

Totally agree - maybe he could be done for using a cellphone in a car though

[Berries]

Using a cellphone and reckless use. They will go after him.

Watch it with the sound off and tell me what was reckless.

[awayatc]

Can you get done for bad language these days? Apart from his words I couldn't see any evidence whatsoever of 'road rage'.

Road rage .......?
not really, but in the end he is cutting it a bit fine...
oncoming car and he is filming the cyclists..
only manages passing manouvre just in time...
maybe he is cutting cyclists off..?

wet bus ticket coming his way...
that will learm him....

[Tazz]

So IF it's a phone the villagers that complain about the 1 kph tolerance are out with their pitchforks for the driver doing something illegal, yet if its a camera it's OK, or for that matter if it's the rozza or a truckie, 4x4er etc talking into their walkie it's also ok, but big no no for your phone.

Interesting logic that sheeple follow there sometimes.

[R650R]

Oh the irony

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/6558...eo-is-evidence

Wow that facebook page is Awesome, LIKED and SHARED

Yes there is a few silly comments in there but if the select small portion of the cycling community that is the problem wants to know what the problem is then they only have to look at that page.
Note there seems to be zero pics of normal commuter cyclists wearing workclothes, only the Lance Armstrong wannabees.
I note the complainants are staying anonymous, has anyone here whose ever been charged via *555 type case abale to say if they get to identify the complainant/witness or not? How do you know a complainant/witness is legitimate and not someone who knows you/has a grudge etc.