Cyclists cause an accident :(

[Jantar]

Cyclists are the single most vulnerable group of road users.
Bicycles pre-date cars and motorcycles - they were here first.

Aren't we all fuckin' brave for having a go at the vulnerable?

I disapprove of these cyclists in a 3 abreast formation but does that mean all cyclists are tossers? No.

I've seet motorcycles doing stupid things and causing accidents does that make all motorcyclists arseholes? No.

FFS people! classing all Cyclists/bikers/cage drivers as all being the same is as bad as racism - completely unfounded in fact.

Calm down a bit Big McJim, We aren't saying ALL cyclists are tossers at all. We are discussing this one particular incident whereby the actions of 3 cyclists led to a motorcylist coming off.

Here in Central Otago we get a lot of cyclists on tour and almost without exception they are courteous and safe riders. We also get groups of riders either racing or practicing for racing. Again almost without exception, they are a hazard on the road. I do believe that some of the comments made in this thread show that many cyclists just aren't aware of their obligations to other road users, just as it is possible that the three who caused this particular incident may not have been aware. However they still should have stopped and offered assistance at the scene of an accident.

[twinkle]

ok I looked up 'primary cause' and found a couple of definitions.
It could either be the first action in a chain of events, or the single most important action in the chain of events.
I'm guessing it is the first one under NZ law?

[UberSchnell]

At the risk of perpetuating the argument over the symantics of 'cause', 'fault' and 'primary cause' you should realise that this really comes down to 'blame' and in this instance I don't agree that the cyclists are to blame for the accident.

The car driver should not have been in the oncoming lane - he should have slowed down to the pace of the cyclists and overtaken when safe.

It is never OK to overtake when it's unsafe!!

As for 'taxing cyclists' my understanding of road tax, is that it is based on the premise that roads need to be built and maintained. In NSW(I think), this is reflected in the different tax amounts that different vehicles pay - eg. $100 for a car, $50 motorcycle, $200 truck. ie the greater impact a vehicle has on the roads, the greater the amount of road tax they incur.

Cyclists don't chew ruts in roads, don't contribut to pot holes etc. so taxing them makes little sense.

[inlinefour]

I Hope The Cunt Drives His Car Under An Oncoming Truck Next Time , Hopefully With His Family In The Car , Thatll Learn The Cunt, Im Sick Of Wankers Like That

Stop the fuckers from contaminating the gene pool. Marty, your a retard, that simple. Having three cyclists abreast taking up the entire lane is simply careless use of a cycle as it impedes traffic flow. Also puts the retard cyclists in danger of being wiped out on blind courners. The cyclists where the ones responsible for setting up the scene for the accident and the cager just was retarded enough to add the final element. Marty you have allways been somewhat of a dickwad, I guess some things will never change...

I find some of the sentiments being exressed here somewhat surprising.

From the evidence of many threads on KB it would seem motorcyclists often seem to feel somewhat vulnerable and sometimes discriminated against, both officially and otherwise.

This would have led me to think that perhaps we would have some empathy for another group of vulnerable road users. As a sometime cyclist I can assure you I don't feel arrogant, I feel extremely vulnerable, particularly on the open road.

There is a bridge near where I live and there is just no way I would ride a cycle across there on the road. The footpath is the only way to travel.

Cyclists riding in a bunch can be frustrating if you have to slow down and wait for oncoming traffic. You could always point out the error of their ways in a few short words. Realistically though, how often does this situation actually arise?

Agreed 100%, I simply never ride my push bike on the road anymore. Used to as a kid, but wuld not even consider it these days...

[SwanTiger]

Dangle one of these out the window when you come across a dickhead cyclist, justice on the spot.

[twinkle]

At the risk of perpetuating the argument over the symantics of 'cause', 'fault' and 'primary cause' you should realise that this really comes down to 'blame' and in this instance I don't agree that the cyclists are to blame for the accident.

yes, I agree. The cyclists share very little if any blame for the accident. I had always assumed primary cause was the majority of blame for an accident.

[Jantar]

yes, I agree. The cyclists share very little if any blame for the accident. I had always assumed primary cause was the majority of blame for an accident.

And here I disagree. If the cyclists had been in single file then the accident would not have happened. If they had been no more than two abreast (the maximum permitted by law) then the accident may not have happened. They are equally to blame with the car driver.

[UberSchnell]

I agree that they should not have been 3 abreast and by all means fine them for it... but the accident happend because the driver of the car reacted badly to the situation. All he had to do was hit the brakes, slow down and wait for a safe oportunity to overtake.

On another note why are drivers and in some cases riders, always reluctant to slow down? I for one love slowing down coz it means I get to hit the throttle again and experience the rush I get on my 2 wheeled rocket!!!

[Lias]

Cage = Wanker
Cyclists = Wankers

FWIW, I'm all for banning any vehicle that cant maintain the open road speed limit from travelling on public roads, and that includes all the prats on bicycles, and vespas.

[twinkle]

And here I disagree. If the cyclists had been in single file then the accident would not have happened. If they had been no more than two abreast (the maximum permitted by law) then the accident may not have happened. They are equally to blame with the car driver.

What if they had of been in single/double file and the accident still had of happenned? Would you still lay the blame equally between cyclists and driver? Why/Why not? They would have been riding legally therefore not at fault? Just being in the way is not a good reason to blame them for the accident.

[marty]

i see this has degenerated into a name-calling abusive thread. IL4/honda/johnny, whatever personality you're relying on today - you're showing your true colours.

thanks jantar for finding the road rule re cyclists - i'll take my pill on that.

i still stand by my insistance that riding cycles on the road is a matter of survival - more so that on my motorbike - and i will do whatever it takes to keep myself and my mates safe. to those of you that threaten to 'take us out', just remember you have a number plate, and i have some dodgy mates.

see ya'll.

[inlinefour]

i see this has degenerated into a name-calling abusive thread. IL4/honda/johnny, whatever personality you're relying on today - you're showing your true colours.

see ya'll.

I'm just saying it as it is, after reading your previous posts. You yet again show your personal calibre by getting upset over some constructive criticsm. But then again, just like I previously stated, some thing never change...

[Jantar]

What if they had of been in single/double file and the accident still had of happenned? Would you still lay the blame equally between cyclists and driver? Why/Why not? They would have been riding legally therefore not at fault? Just being in the way is not a good reason to blame them for the accident.

Some blame would still be attached to the cyclists, but not as much. The car driver should then have been able to leave sufficient room for the motorcyclist, but still should not have overtaken on a blind bend. However even though the cyclist may have been legal in riding two abreast, theu still have the obligation to not obstruct other road users.

[Jantar]

I have had some experience with an accident of this nature where I was in the position of the car driver although no cyclists were involved.

My first ever motorcycle accident occured when I had a head on crash into a car, and I was on the wrong side of the road. The circumstances were that I was turning left on a blind off-camber corner. As I rounded the corner I saw a truck driving straight at me on my side of the road. I swerved right onto the wrong side of the road, to avoid the truck and went head on into a car that was travelling legally in its own lane.

The police prosecuted both myself and the truck driver for failing to keep left. I hired a lawyer and defended the charge. The magistrate's decision was that I was not guilty as the primary cause of the accident was the truck on the wrong side of the road.

[twinkle]

I have had some experience with an accident of this nature

yes but in your case you weren't overtaking another vehicle, the truck was travelling in the opposite direction in your lane. The truck was somewhere it shouldn't have been and you had little choice as to what to do (left or right I guess...).
In this case the cyclists were where they should be (albeit 3 abreast) travelling in the right direction, and the car was on the wrong side of the road where the driver deliberately put it. He could have chosen to brake hard and wait but he didn't he chose to overtake.

still have the obligation to not obstruct other road users.

I'm pretty sure that is 'to not unreasonably obstruct other road users', otherwise people would have to put themselves in danger to remove themselves from the road, or worse, people would start getting the idea that they can overtake on blind corners believing that other road users should be getting out of their way.