+1Kenzo wrote:Shouldn't consider it, you should do it. Road rage and menacing behavior.Lukeyboy wrote:You should really consider reporting that second incident mate.
Time to visit the police station I reckon.
Postby hannos » Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:55 pm
+1Kenzo wrote:Shouldn't consider it, you should do it. Road rage and menacing behavior.Lukeyboy wrote:You should really consider reporting that second incident mate.
Postby AndyTheMan » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:22 pm
Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:34 pm
+ 1AndyTheMan wrote: In recent dealings with my local police, they commented that they consider the most serious cases the ones where people deliberately try to cause incidents (ie not an accident, not a lack of concentration, but a deliberate attempt to do you some damage)
i suspect this is more often the case than we might otherwise think. people who try this sort of thing on are unlikely to be doing it for the first time - they think the rules don't apply to them and they own the road.AndyTheMan wrote:(imagine if he only has a few points left on his license, and this is the final nail the loses it for him....)
Postby boss » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:50 pm
Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:54 pm
shouldn't he have been a roadie in lycra?jimboss wrote:As I'm Just passing the car, an older gentleman on a touring style bike (flat bar, pannier bags) comes out of the car park and turns left.
Postby boss » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:05 pm
you don't wear lycra to the shops, talk about fashion faux paux.jules21 wrote:shouldn't he have been a roadie in lycra?jimboss wrote:As I'm Just passing the car, an older gentleman on a touring style bike (flat bar, pannier bags) comes out of the car park and turns left.
Postby Ozkaban » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:44 pm
Postby il padrone » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:09 pm
Postby PB12IN » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:12 pm
I believe the cyclist MADE her do it. Quite obviously you cut out the part of the video where you pulled a gun on her and made her drive illegally.il padrone wrote:Don't forget she's over double lines - the classic rule-breaker that 90%+ motorists will blatantly do because "must-get-past-cyclist"
Postby Mulger bill » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:59 pm
You and me both. If you do go to plod over it, highlight the school zone side of things.il padrone wrote:Don't forget she's over double lines - the classic rule-breaker that 90%+ motorists will blatantly do because "must-get-past-cyclist"
If I was you I'd take this footage along to the local plod and get a couple of books thrown at her.
Postby HiChris » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:55 pm
Postby westab » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:14 pm
+1 I would report that too - not only is it dangerous to any road user coming the other way, anyone on the ped. crossing it is also dangerous to you. I had a situation like this where a fool in a Hilux ute overtake on a blind bend and as a car came the other way he simply moved in as I was half way between his wheels (I stopped before being road pizza). We were both headed to the swimming centre where my kids swim less than 500m away. I let him leave his car so as not to vent my anger in a conflict and called the police. I didn't have a camera but his car did. The police officer paged him and viewed the camera then used it to charge him.Mulger bill wrote:You and me both. If you do go to plod over it, highlight the school zone side of things.il padrone wrote:Don't forget she's over double lines - the classic rule-breaker that 90%+ motorists will blatantly do because "must-get-past-cyclist"
If I was you I'd take this footage along to the local plod and get a couple of books thrown at her.
Postby Xplora » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:43 pm
Ermington Police... go get em tiger.Ozkaban wrote:That ute with the trailer on the hill would have been frightening...
Nothing much to this one. Just regular entitled fool driving along on the wrong side of the road over a pedestrian crossing outside a school (just after school zone hours).
Calder St, Rydalmere.
I wouldn't have bothered posting it except she (it was a she) turned right not even 50m up the street. I was doing about 30kmh through that section and it's a 50 zone so I would have delayed her by maybe 1 second. Possibly 2.
Postby zero » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:55 pm
Postby hannos » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:33 pm
um, what part of double un-broken white lines do you not understand?zero wrote:There was huge clearance to the only vulnerable road user present, its hardly an enforcement worthy event. If the camera user had been driving their car instead of riding, (and thus obscuring a good proportion of the crossing), then yes I would understand the desire for enforcement, as that move could not be made safe in such circumstances.
Postby westab » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:50 pm
Zero you may well be right but according to the two close friends I have who are police officers the reason we have accidents on hte roads is due to the habit of breaking the rules.zero wrote:There was huge clearance to the only vulnerable road user present, its hardly an enforcement worthy event. If the camera user had been driving their car instead of riding, (and thus obscuring a good proportion of the crossing), then yes I would understand the desire for enforcement, as that move could not be made safe in such circumstances.
Postby boss » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:22 pm
Double white lines are there for a reason.zero wrote:There was huge clearance to the only vulnerable road user present, its hardly an enforcement worthy event. If the camera user had been driving their car instead of riding, (and thus obscuring a good proportion of the crossing), then yes I would understand the desire for enforcement, as that move could not be made safe in such circumstances.
Postby Mulger bill » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:39 pm
Ahhh, the bit that says Do. Not. Overtake.?hannos wrote:um, what part of double un-broken white lines do you not understand?zero wrote:There was huge clearance to the only vulnerable road user present, its hardly an enforcement worthy event. If the camera user had been driving their car instead of riding, (and thus obscuring a good proportion of the crossing), then yes I would understand the desire for enforcement, as that move could not be made safe in such circumstances.
Postby arkle » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:57 pm
Postby Lukeyboy » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:50 pm
Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:56 pm
Going by the style of that driver's overtake move, I'd guess that this was very much a routine bad habit. Hence why I recommended passing the footage to the police for follow-up.westab wrote: If the lexus driver has made this mistake once they will hopfully learn and not repeat it (keeping us all safe) - if it is a habit of breaking the rules and they are running out of points it may still keep us safe by not allowing them to continue to take control of a lethal instrument.
Postby Kenzo » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 am
Don't now why you're directing that at Arkle.....il padrone wrote:Arkle, you've evidently not had the delights of being in a group of cyclists on a country road and have a nutcase driver overtake across double lines.... on a bend.... with oncoming traffic that you can see but the driver cannot..... and despite your signal to slow down, the driver pushes through anyway.
Double lines - 90+% of drivers will cross them to pass a cyclist. Must-get-past-cyclist
Postby Ross » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:02 am
Postby clydesmcdale » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:24 am
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.