Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

PB12IN wrote:At the 1.20 mark is he complianing that someone is out running their dog off a bike? This is a bad thing now?

Well I know it's illegal in NSW and for good reason.

Aushiker wrote:

No harm done and I didn't have to brake but really unnecessary and inconsiderate driving.

Andrew

i've been lurking for a while - i registered and posted after seeing this. and not just cos my name is also andrew

i got myself a bike just before Christmas. did it mainly for fitness (hence the username).

since getting the bike, i wouldn't have done 150km... and i had a situation very similar to this one that caused a crash already.

he came from behind me (though not a roundabout, just a normal 90 degree left) - he was turning left. he ignored my right of way, cut me off, forcing me to brake.

of course, i'm still getting the bike set up perfect - so combine idiot driver with a brand new bike (with brand new breaks) and with an idiot noob rider who didn't have his brakes in the right place to begin with, and who grabbed them too hard...

over the handlebars. splat on the road. hole in my leg, torn quadricep.

hasn't discouraged me though, i'm still really keen to get back on the bike... i'll just make sure i have lights and am wearing brighter clothes next time...

(and if i'm honest, this thread only 50% belongs in this thread. the other 50% belongs in the dumb cyclist thread).

Had my scariest MM moment for a while this morning. Riding on Oxley Road through Corinda, just going straight through a (green lighted) junction in the left lane, big bank of cars moving slowly in the right lane (light had only just changed from red) when some complete youknowwhat in a white 90s Camry decided they would take the left lane to zoom by all the slow cars, despite the fact that I was in it. I heard a car accelerating hard behind me, but it still took my by surprise (that is to say, scared the $ht out of me) when a car came by at about 50kmh about 9 inches from my elbow.

I don't usually swear or flip the bird at drivers (usually the worst they'll get from me is a thumbs down or a 'what the hell?' palms up shrug) but this guy got a lot of everything. If he'd have caught a red light I would have probably ranted at him closer to. If I had a helmet cam I would have been straight down to the copshop, it was outrageous. And frightening...

There's close passes, and then there's really close passes:



Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.

herzog wrote:There's close passes, and then there's really close passes:



Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.

Wow!

I reckon he would have been hit if the Suzuki factory gave it one more coat of paint.

lump_a_charcoal wrote:Wow!

I reckon he would have been hit if the Suzuki factory gave it one more coat of paint.

the pace of the car was enough to turn the handlebars. that was close!

holy showtime, i don't reckon he saw you at all

i'd send that to the cops.

jules21 wrote:holy showtime, i don't reckon he saw you at all

i'd send that to the cops.

Just a point of clarification - that's not me, it's just a fresh video that popped up on my Youtube feed that I thought you guys would want to see.

herzog wrote:Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.

Quoted for truth!

Mulger bill wrote:

herzog wrote:Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.

Quoted for truth!

while i generally agree, i reckon in that case it would have meant getting hit. it only works when the driver sees you! (which you can only assume they will)

You're more likely to be seen if you are riding in the place they expect to see something. RH wheel track is pretty much right in front of their face.

The guy is wearing a bright yellow jersey - if the driver didnt see him, he shouldnt be on the road.
I think I'd find it really hard to be as restrained as that guy was. I'm an admitted hothead - its something that I'm trying to work on while on the roads. But my first reaction wouldve been bike lock through the windscreen I think.

jules21 wrote:

Mulger bill wrote:

herzog wrote:Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.

Quoted for truth!

while i generally agree, i reckon in that case it would have meant getting hit. it only works when the driver sees you! (which you can only assume they will)

He had to have seen the cyclist, surely.

I reckon he just wanted to squeeze by before the lights and couldn't go to the right lane due to the line up of cars there.

Basically a lack of patience and no understanding of the 'a metre matters' campaign at all....typical of a lot of drivers really.

He had seen you, he just didn't care.

I really worry that I wouldn't be able to contain my rage if that happened to me.

I am normally pretty placid, but I also have a hair trigger when I, or a friend/family member are endangered. I probably would have kicked the mirror off at the very least.

Morons like that motorist should never be allowed to drive. If he really didn't see the cyclist then his eyesight is too poor to have a licence. If he did see the cyclist and passed that close then again his judgement/skill isn't good enough to driving.

Regarding public shaming, is there anywhere, apart from here, to shame bad drivers, or is it a law suit waiting to happen?

lump_a_charcoal wrote:Regarding public shaming, is there anywhere, apart from here, to shame bad drivers, or is it a law suit waiting to happen?

Sometimes the papers run these things if they're bad enough (eg: Jim's Mowing) otherwise there's probably not a lot you can do other than stick it on YouTube with their rego number.

At least there's a chance that when they come to selling their car and the prospective buyer enters the rego into google, they will see what a D-Head the seller is. Maybe kill the sale.

I reckon that Suzuki driver saw the bike. It was an angry expression on his face not a surprised one. He drove off instead of apologising also.
Full marks to that rider for his restraint, not even a profanity utterred . It made me angry just watching it, if I had been that rider I'd have been furious. Perhaps the knowledge that it is recorded and being recorded assists with the restraint.
Kudos to the rider, a furious response would have helped none in any case.

fatdudeonabike wrote: of course, i'm still getting the bike set up perfect - so combine idiot driver with a brand new bike (with brand new breaks) and with an idiot noob rider who didn't have his brakes in the right place to begin with, and who grabbed them too hard...

over the handlebars. splat on the road. hole in my leg, torn quadricep.

hasn't discouraged me though, i'm still really keen to get back on the bike... i'll just make sure i have lights and am wearing brighter clothes next time...

Ouch. Hope you are healing well and glad to hear you are not discouraged. Don't blame yourself.

Andrew

lump_a_charcoal wrote:Regarding public shaming, is there anywhere, apart from here, to shame bad drivers, or is it a law suit waiting to happen?

Truth is an absolute defence to a defamation suit. The video would seem to cover it, at least if the video is the 'communication' which gives rise to the suit.

London Boy wrote:Truth is an absolute defence to a defamation suit. The video would seem to cover it, at least if the video is the 'communication' which gives rise to the suit.

They are also in public so there is no expectation of privacy. Providing you don't doctor the footage to make them look worse or try to use it commercially then you shouldn't have any problems.

I was thinking about the position a motorist would be in if s/he was using a mobile phone and 'causing' an incident/crash.
Insurance companies can deny a claim if it arises out of a "deliberate; intentional; malicious or criminal act."

Does using a mobile phone fall into this description?

Traffic code (or whatever it's called) says no to handheld mobile use or texting ... but is it a 'criminal act'?

Kenzo wrote:Traffic code (or whatever it's called) says no to handheld mobile use or texting ... but is it a 'criminal act'?

I think it's an infringement rather than a criminal act.

Kenzo wrote:Traffic code (or whatever it's called) says no to handheld mobile use or texting ... but is it a 'criminal act'?

i think it's a summary offence, rather than a criminal one.