Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby great uncle bulgaria on Sat 6/Jul/13 6:19pm

God forbid that i would be mistaken for someone apologising for truckies or other road users who drive dangerously around cyclists.

I thought it was an interesting point about the length of a group of cyclists though. whilst we have the right to ride 2 abreast as many as we want in a line, it would seem a bit selfish to extend that to a 20 or 30 metre group routinely as it creates a group that makes drivers impatient - and we know what the outcome of cyclists and impatient drivers is!

Having said that, the number of times I've been passed far too closely, while riding alone, by trucks with wide open straight flat roads, full visibility and no other traffic around is huge. This would suggest to me that there is a serious issue with either comprehension of the effect they have on cyclists or an attitude which strongly resembles that of the bully.
I think it is both but fear it is the later. :( :angry:
great uncle bulgaria
User avatar
""misunderstood and persecuted""
Member for: 10 years 1 month

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby great uncle bulgaria on Sat 6/Jul/13 6:21pm

znomit wrote:
umog wrote:...these drivers are baboons.


Harsh.

on baboons
great uncle bulgaria
User avatar
""misunderstood and persecuted""
Member for: 10 years 1 month

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby znomit on Sat 6/Jul/13 6:41pm

CrustyMTB wrote:The issue isn't the judiciary. They can only hand down what the statute allows and taking the factors set out in the sentencing act. You want those changed? Talk to your mp because that's parliaments area.


In 2011:
The maximum sentence for dangerous driving causing death will raise form five to ten years in prison.
http://www.newlaws.co.nz/road-laws-change-–-driving-age-increases-to-16/

So doubling the maximum penalty should trickle down to a real world double wet bus ticket slap.
znomit
User avatar
Member for: 12 years 6 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby znomit on Sat 6/Jul/13 6:56pm

great uncle bulgaria wrote:I thought it was an interesting point about the length of a group of cyclists though. whilst we have the right to ride 2 abreast as many as we want in a line, it would seem a bit selfish to extend that to a 20 or 30 metre group routinely as it creates a group that makes drivers impatient - and we know what the outcome of cyclists and impatient drivers is!


I seem to remember when new rules were rolled out 5-6 years ago that the "2 second rule" got replaced with:
"When you are following another vehicle and you don’t intend to overtake, leave enough space for vehicles behind to pass you"
I thought this was for all users....
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadc ... ssing.html
znomit
User avatar
Member for: 12 years 6 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby FLATULENTFRIEND on Sat 6/Jul/13 7:11pm

znomit wrote:
brian245 wrote:Don't hold your breath thinking the courts will do anything about this

They'll do something
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10712476


Sadly the reality is the judge couldn't have given him a stiffer sentence - 10 months lose of licence when the max is 12 months, likely to have no $ to pay a fine, unlikely to be able to imprison him :hmmm:
FLATULENTFRIEND
User avatar
"I'm a Sponsored rider; My Wife Pays me to get out of the house!"
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby FLATULENTFRIEND on Sat 6/Jul/13 7:20pm

[quote="great uncle bulgaria"]God forbid that i would be mistaken for someone apologising for truckies or other road users who drive dangerously around cyclists.

I thought it was an interesting point about the length of a group of cyclists though. whilst we have the right to ride 2 abreast as many as we want in a line, it would seem a bit selfish to extend that to a 20 or 30 metre group routinely as it creates a group that makes drivers impatient - and we know what the outcome of cyclists and impatient drivers is!


I totally agree with you :baaa: Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Same with riding 2 abreast on busy or winding roads. We shouldn't - if we value our lives and wish to coexist with motorised road users.
FLATULENTFRIEND
User avatar
"I'm a Sponsored rider; My Wife Pays me to get out of the house!"
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby great uncle bulgaria on Sat 6/Jul/13 7:22pm

znomit wrote:
great uncle bulgaria wrote:I thought it was an interesting point about the length of a group of cyclists though. whilst we have the right to ride 2 abreast as many as we want in a line, it would seem a bit selfish to extend that to a 20 or 30 metre group routinely as it creates a group that makes drivers impatient - and we know what the outcome of cyclists and impatient drivers is!


I seem to remember when new rules were rolled out 5-6 years ago that the "2 second rule" got replaced with:
"When you are following another vehicle and you don’t intend to overtake, leave enough space for vehicles behind to pass you"
I thought this was for all users....
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadc ... ssing.html


so does that reduce it to pairs with gaps then?. I would've thought the police would be enforcing that if it did . . .
great uncle bulgaria
User avatar
""misunderstood and persecuted""
Member for: 10 years 1 month

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby slidecontrol on Sat 6/Jul/13 7:43pm

znomit wrote:I seem to remember when new rules were rolled out 5-6 years ago that the "2 second rule" got replaced with:
"When you are following another vehicle and you don’t intend to overtake, leave enough space for vehicles behind to pass you"
I thought this was for all users....
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadc ... ssing.html


there's a poorly thought out bit of horseshit right there. does anyone at bullshit castle engage the grey matter before they spew out any old thing thats springs to mind?
slidecontrol
User avatar
"YOLO = carpe diem for idiots"
Member for: 13 years 8 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby Conners on Sat 6/Jul/13 7:50pm

slidecontrol wrote:
znomit wrote:I seem to remember when new rules were rolled out 5-6 years ago that the "2 second rule" got replaced with:
"When you are following another vehicle and you don’t intend to overtake, leave enough space for vehicles behind to pass you"
I thought this was for all users....
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadc ... ssing.html


there's a poorly thought out bit of horseshit right there. does anyone at bullshit castle engage the grey matter before they spew out any old thing thats springs to mind?

Huh? Leaving a gap if you don't intend to overtake seems logical to me?
Conners
User avatarMedal
"Seeing Double"
Member for: 17 years 5 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby Mickyfinn on Sat 6/Jul/13 7:53pm

I think its time for a day of action
Mickyfinn
Member for: 10 years 10 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby great uncle bulgaria on Sat 6/Jul/13 8:07pm

great uncle bulgaria wrote:
znomit wrote:
great uncle bulgaria wrote:I thought it was an interesting point about the length of a group of cyclists though. whilst we have the right to ride 2 abreast as many as we want in a line, it would seem a bit selfish to extend that to a 20 or 30 metre group routinely as it creates a group that makes drivers impatient - and we know what the outcome of cyclists and impatient drivers is!


I seem to remember when new rules were rolled out 5-6 years ago that the "2 second rule" got replaced with:
"When you are following another vehicle and you don’t intend to overtake, leave enough space for vehicles behind to pass you"
I thought this was for all users....
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadc ... ssing.html


so does that reduce it to pairs with gaps then?. I would've thought the police would be enforcing that if it did . . .

having said that it seems routinely ignored by motor vehicles, so there isn't really a reason why they would enforce it on cyclists . . .
great uncle bulgaria
User avatar
""misunderstood and persecuted""
Member for: 10 years 1 month

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby OneTrackMind on Sat 6/Jul/13 8:34pm

Just read through most of the posts and read the articles, but not them all.

Hopefully the increase in the difficulty of passing the drivers licence test in NZ will lead to better drivers in the future. I'm not sure if defensive driving courses are compulsory or not now, but I firmly believe they should be. The one I chose to attend when getting my motorcycle licence (15 years after getting my full car licence), was fantastic. Breaking down most incidents to be the result of attitude, and not the mythical 'accident' that is nobody's fault. Being aware of the risks you are taking, and the consequences, leads to much safer driving in my experience.

I hope some charges are laid against the driver, as then an informed person (the judge who will hear all the evidence) can make a decision about whether the driver should be punished for his actions, and whether the driver is a danger to other road users by continuing to drive with the recently displayed attitudes.

Even if there is a conviction, the punishment is likely to be very minor, given the publicised punishments given out to other motorists who have hit cyclists in recent years (especially the ones who were driving drunk). Perhaps a few thousand dollars reparations, a few months home detention and 18 months loss of licence ...

Just a really sad event all around.
OneTrackMind
Member for: 17 years 5 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby slidecontrol on Sat 6/Jul/13 8:50pm

Conners wrote:Huh? Leaving a gap if you don't intend to overtake seems logical to me?



at the face value, yes you are correct, it does seem logical. how big does the gap need to be if you're in a stream of traffic doing the speed limit? do we have to make allowances for the wanker who feels that speed limits do not apply to them?
slidecontrol
User avatar
"YOLO = carpe diem for idiots"
Member for: 13 years 8 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby znomit on Sat 6/Jul/13 9:01pm

slidecontrol wrote:
Conners wrote:Huh? Leaving a gap if you don't intend to overtake seems logical to me?

at the face value, yes you are correct, it does seem logical. how big does the gap need to be if you're in a stream of traffic doing the speed limit? do we have to make allowances for the wanker who feels that speed limits do not apply to them?


Nothing worse than getting stuck behind a slow truck AND someone who refuses to pass the truck.
znomit
User avatar
Member for: 12 years 6 months

Re: 20 Cyclists Hit - Hamilton

Postby great uncle bulgaria on Sat 6/Jul/13 9:37pm

slidecontrol wrote:
Conners wrote:Huh? Leaving a gap if you don't intend to overtake seems logical to me?



at the face value, yes you are correct, it does seem logical. how big does the gap need to be if you're in a stream of traffic doing the speed limit? do we have to make allowances for the wanker who feels that speed limits do not apply to them?

I would say yes to that, we do have to make allowances. If we want the roads to be safer.
Our intelligent and humble attitude in leaving a gap might be enough to prevent the accident about to be caused by their driving/attitude.
But I can't imagine anyone ever being prosecuted for not leaving a gap in the event of someone else overtaking failing, as the onus is on them to overtake safely into a gap that already exists.
great uncle bulgaria
User avatar
""misunderstood and persecuted""
Member for: 10 years 1 month

Hamilton | New Zealand | Regions | Upper North Island | Waikato - Latest Posts

Who is online

85 Users browsing this website: Google [Bot] and 84 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • ProBikeKit
  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle
  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles

cron