Cyclists being bad drivers to other Cyclist - Disgraceful

[RetroPilot]

and half the time roadworks lollipops wave cyclists past anyway..

[Oxford]

means I cant be accused of being anti-cycling redneck,surely, doesnt it,
drivers accuse you of being a bike nazi, that cant be me because I drive, cyclists accuse you of being anti-bike redneck, that cant be me either for reasons given..

but these blokes were so out of line...there is a generous cycling lane and these guys were pointedly out multiple abreast, pretty clear that any motor-vehicle is trapped behind them and they dont give a ****...did I ask why /confront them?
No, to what possible end...???
theyre doing as they please without it really being 100% essential to their own progress, at the total expense of everyone else , and Im going to ask them why?
And from there is plays out to a pretty predictable confrontational aggravated cliched script, doesnt it?

the thing about cars blocking you in peak hour traffic presumably with you presumably mobile on a bike, I dont really understand..I never met a traffic jam that I couldnt penetrate with little or no impediment on a bike, thats one of the key advantages in fact..the only time I couldnt proceed in good order was when directed not to by traffic police or road work traffic controllers ...

you missed the point, you're getting upset at legal road users (cyclists) who seem to be doing nothing illegal (there is no legal requirement to use a bike lane and they may have been avoiding it for a reason you are not aware of). you claim they are riding more than two abreast but as if often illustrated it looks like more than two abreast only from where you are sitting, its often an optical illusion. yet you do not get upset at other classes of legal road users holding you up in peak hour traffic. we're not talking about whether you or I are on a bike in peak hour traffic, we're talking about you being in a car being "trapped" by legal road users using the road legally. if cyclists do it, its somehow bad, but if other cars do it, that's OK?

[RetroPilot]

Im not going to debate the legalities with you,a big fat whatever,
lets debate the common sense and PR of everyday life and getting along.

More than two abreast, it was 4+ ranging up to 6 from memory..

there was no need for their approach, theyd be f-you militants the exact zealots who do give drivers ammo against us..

not even other gaggles of cyclists going along that strip arrange themselves in this particular kind of formation, is another facet of my own point.

if it was 2 lanes each way, different matter, they pointedly inconvenienced me and anyone else who was going to happen along there that morning..

[RetroPilot]

what other kind of road user inconveniences other road users in a way analagous with that sketch?

I dont know who you mean, I cant think of an example...who...a slow driver not keeping left lane , maybe?

Some guy in a tractor or front-end loader isnt an example, he is physically constrained both by the dimensions of his vehicle and the speed which it is safe to drive such an unwieldy vehicle?

an optical illusion as to how many there were or how far across the road they were?

jesus.

anyway, you like their behavior maybe you do the same thing on the foundations of logic that you have offered up, I didnt like their behavior, and once more, my point is, I ride too, 90% of my travel is in fact thus.
So im neither ignorant of what it is to ride around on bikes on city roads in the current day nor too slack to get out and do it every single day.
Am I a clubbie? No...maybe that too is an emerging hard to penetrate nexus.

[Oxford]

wow, you really are wound up, personal attacks and all. you really do need to chill out thinking that these cyclists targeted you and inconvenienced you.

this is the optical illusion I refer to:

il padrone explains it well here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=44491&p=673752&hilit=+abreast#p673752

but hey you believe what you want to believe, those cyclists were out to get you that day.

[blkmcs]

wow, you really are wound up, personal attacks and all. you really do need to chill out thinking that these cyclists targeted you and inconvenienced you.

this is the optical illusion I refer to:

il padrone explains it well here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=44491&p=673752&hilit=+abreast#p673752

but hey you believe what you want to believe, those cyclists were out to get you that day.

Oxford, you were not present at the incident so why claim to know more about it than RetroPilot who was actually there?

I accept and believe RetroPilot's version of events.

[jasonc]

I accept and believe RetroPilot's version of events.

There are three versions of the event:
1. what retropilot saw
2. what another party saw
3. the truth

1 & 2 will make up 3.

[sumgy]

Trekstar
Where exactly did you have your run in with this Pajero?
Had a run in with a Pajero driver myself this morning.
The car had an attachment for a bike rack on the back so I am wondering if it is the same family.
My driver was female though.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=28321&p=744978#p744971

[scotto]

Maybe it is pajero drivers only..

well in spanish it may be true...

[damhooligan]

Then he turns around and says to me (not a direct quote but the gist of what he said): Mate I am a cyclist too - it's hard to give you more space without me scraping my car on the other side.

just because he says he is a cyclist, doesn't mean he is one...

[Livetoride]

Monday morning riding down into Port Melb on the road, ahead of by three car lengths is a 4WD parked, noticed a guy walking around the front of it, looked at me for a few seconds (at this stage I'm less than a car length away) he then opens his door and slowly gets in, which means obviously the door was open as I passed. What annoyed me was two things, one, he stopped and still opened his door after seeing me and two he was dressed in lycra and had just finished his ride by the looks of it. As I went I through a few choice words at him. We caught up again in traffic and he decided to tell me I had plenty of room, my rely was you're a numb nut you saw me coming and your a bleedin cyclist you should know better. You could see the penny drop with the moron...

[ColinOldnCranky]

...
there was no need for their approach, theyd be f-you militants the exact zealots who do give drivers ammo against us..
...

And you know this because???

Even with some evidence this is always a big call to make on a single transaction. But I have read the thread and can't for the life of me see where it came from.

[eeksll]

...You could see the penny drop with the moron...

at least he got it in the end. Maybe he won't do it next time.

[rokwiz]

Hi,
Yes I have to add my bit to this.
As a long time cyclist who grew up in Sydney and now base myself at Everton on the Victorian "Murray to the mountains" railtrail I'm well aware of bad driving by some cyclist racing around city / country roads pushing other cyclist off the road.
And as an owner of three trucks which I use to travel between Melbourne and the Qld border I'm shocked at the stupid things and speeding some of these motoring cyclist do on country roads and freeways.
I have found its usually the (FIRST) cyclist who is competing in a race of some sort (interstate or intrastate) who is the main offended as they bolt around the country trying to get somewhere in a weekend,(read; drive 800km race, drive another 800km home)
OR the (SECOND) family man cyclist (5 bikes perched on a pretend 4WD, no third number plate, packed full) who comes up to the high country to freewheel down from Beechworth to Everton (17km) then drive all the way home.
And the (THIRD) the caravaner with the 2 bikes on the back covered in rust, no towing mirrors (I thought that was a law) and the vans step still down, just missing your bars as they scrap by not knowing where they're positioned on the road in relation to you.

It don't matter whether your riding your bike, driving a car or driving a truck an idiots an idiots,
By the way as a long time cyclist, I have never had a near miss or incident with a long haul trucker,(no not a Surly) I've found these guys to be most professional, will change lanes completely and signal to others the presences of a rider. I always respect them on the roads and give way to them if they're caught out in a situation and ask other cyclist to do the same.
After all everything you've got ,came in a truck.........That my 2 bobs worth
Geoff

[rokwiz]

Just noticed on thread.
Don't know about QLD Oxford, but in NSW a couple of years ago now, (Real Threat to Animals) RTA changed in their road rules handbook (without notification by the way) in the cycling section.
The law use to read ""Cyclist where praticle are to use marked cycle paths and lanes" to the word "MUST".
Look it up.
Geoff

[Oxford]

Just noticed on thread.
Don't know about QLD Oxford, but in NSW a couple of years ago now, (Real Threat to Animals) RTA changed in their road rules handbook (without notification by the way) in the cycling section.
The law use to read ""Cyclist where praticle are to use marked cycle paths and lanes" to the word "MUST".
Look it up.
Geoff

Wasn't aware they had a duty to inform anyone personally, but since it is NSW and I live in Qld, it does not concern me, more so since I do not plan to cycle in NSW at any time in the forseeable future (or ever for that matter).

[rokwiz]

Hi Oxford, yeh Im not having a go at you mate,
I just wanted to know what the QLD road rules state regarding this, I know road Authorities (all states) have been sneeking in laws which cover alot of onroad cycling issues, being part of a National Road Law.
Geoff

[Oxford]

Hi Oxford, yeh Im not having a go at you mate,
I just wanted to know what the QLD road rules state regarding this, I know road Authorities (all states) have been sneeking in laws which cover alot of onroad cycling issues, being part of a National Road Law.
Geoff

in Qld it is practicable, not must, I don't know the NSW reg's but I doubt it is must, there has to be an out option otherwise you would be required to ride across broken glass, rocks, mud, broken down vehicles etc etc which is patently absurd.

[rokwiz]

Hi Oxford,
You might doubt what it says BUT you would be wrong it states, MUST I buy the traffic act book every year and they did change the wording, I did at the time put up an objection to this, but wasn;t backed up by any cycling groups.
Geoff
Here's the link read bicycle lanes section
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bi ... rules.html

[simonn]

Hi Oxford,
You might doubt what it says BUT you would be wrong it states, MUST I buy the traffic act book every year and they did change the wording, I did at the time put up an objection to this, but wasn;t backed up by any cycling groups.
Geoff
Here's the link read bicycle lanes section
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bi ... rules.html

I'll see your guidelines and raise you the actual legislation:

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road

(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y

There is a "must" in there, but also an "unless" too.

[Mulger bill]

Hi Oxford,
You might doubt what it says BUT you would be wrong it states, MUST I buy the traffic act book every year and they did change the wording, I did at the time put up an objection to this, but wasn;t backed up by any cycling groups.
Geoff
Here's the link read bicycle lanes section
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bi ... rules.html

I'll see your guidelines and raise you the actual legislation:

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road

(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y

There is a "must" in there, but also an "unless" too.

THIS is why I detest these guidebooks, problem is too many believe them to be gospel and will use their interpretation of some unknown pen pushers interpretation of the law as justification for appalling behaviour.

[Oxford]

thanks simonn, rokwiz, it makes sense for the very points I raised that cyclists have a choice not an obligation. as others have said, I never trust guidelines, they are an interpretation. the law is the law (regulations the regulations) and the only true source you should rely upon for guidance.

[simonn]

THIS is why I detest these guidebooks, problem is too many believe them to be gospel and will use their interpretation of some unknown pen pushers interpretation of the law as justification for appalling behaviour.

Yep. Especially when they are out and out wrong (in bold).

• Cyclists must use a shared path or marked bicycle lane where they are provided unless it is impractical to do so.

http://www.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/Igniti ... 2010-3.pdf

You have to call them, not email them for errors as well. Sigh.

[elStado]

I don't understand how a person who identifies as a 'cyclist' can drive in such a manner. I know that when I (rarely) get in a car and drive I am now super cautious and aware of other road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. Part of this is from being a commuter cyclists for a number of years and also from having a couple of vehicle accidents (both in a car and on the bike, caused by other peoples negligence) which has really driven home how important it is to watch out for others so to avoid injuring or killing someone else or yourself.

[rokwiz]

Yeh hi,
Don't get why your talking about guidelines, guide books,the book I'm quoting from is a RTA road rules book also the website link I posted its listed under laws and penalties.
I'm quite happy to run blocker for any cyclist out there. Done so many times as a support truck and elStado I toally agree.
Geoff