Cyclists.

A few interesting points made here.


Is there a speed limit for bikes on footpaths? - Curious Canberra - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

This is one reason why we need registration and licencing.


This fellow behaved atrociously, attacking a woman in a road rage attack and breaking several road rules in the process.


Cyclist smashes side mirrors off car in Chapel Street road rage attack


No wonder the police want to find this menace.

Complete nut job, regardless of what the circumstances are that's totally out of line. Hope they catch him and charge him. Yep, a licence plate on the bike sure would have helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

This is one reason why we need registration and licencing.


This fellow behaved atrociously, attacking a woman in a road rage attack and breaking several road rules in the process.


Cyclist smashes side mirrors off car in Chapel Street road rage attack


No wonder the police want to find this menace.

---

Sorry but the second mirror is her fault, as the wayne had to go around the car to get to the other mirror, she should have used his miserable arse as a speed-hump.:twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

Complete nut job, regardless of what the circumstances are that's totally out of line. Hope they catch him and charge him. Yep, a licence plate on the bike sure would have helped.

---

OK, so the "cars rule" fraternity has had a stab at guessing what went down here. The article only has the motorist's story so let's now imagine how this incident unfolded from the cyclist's perspective:

St Edmonds Rd - one lane each direction, alternating kerbside parking or narrow single lane along most of its length. No way for a cyclist to move left as far as I can see if there are cars parked in all the parking spaces.

Right turn into High St. The cyclist would have been in front of the car making the turn. They would not have moved left unless they were turning left. The cyclist would have been making this turn very carefully and straight across the intersection because of the TRAM TRACKS.

High St - has tram tracks along it so the cyclist can only have possibly been to the left of these in the lane which, by the way is usually full of parked cars.

Thomas St - single lane street, no lane markings with 90 degree parking all along the left side heading south. Again, the cyclist would have been riding cautiously clear of the parked cars in case one reversed out.

The woman has then overtaken the cyclist and turned left in front of them. We don't know how closely she "left hooked" but if the cyclist's reaction is anything to go by she probably cut them off.

The article then says the cyclist "crashed into the back of her car". The only way this would have happened is if she brake checked him. No-one, least of all a cyclist, will voluntarily crash into a larger vehicle.

So if we assume that the cyclist did nothing at all deliberate to block the car, as the woman claimed. Then the car, frustrated at not being able to overtake, aggressively passed before left hooking the cyclist. Then, noticing he was still riding behind her (probably yelling something about her cutting him off) she braked deliberately causing him to run into the back of her. This confrontation was therefore initiated by the motorist, firstly through an aggressive overtake & left hook, then followed up by a brake check.

Now the cyclist's reaction was unacceptable and yes, he should have the book thrown at him for wilful damage. But I doubt that anyone here (driving or riding) wouldn't blow their stack a bit if they were tailgated, cut off then brake checked. The only thing that stops a lot of car drivers from punching someone else's window or knocking their mirrors off is they can't be bothered getting out to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solmanic

OK, so the "cars rule" fraternity has had a stab at guessing what went down here. The article only has the motorist's story so let's now imagine how this incident unfolded from the cyclist's perspective:

St Edmonds Rd - one lane each direction, alternating kerbside parking or narrow single lane along most of its length. No way for a cyclist to move left as far as I can see if there are cars parked in all the parking spaces.

Right turn into High St. The cyclist would have been in front of the car making the turn. They would not have moved left unless they were turning left. The cyclist would have been making this turn very carefully and straight across the intersection because of the TRAM TRACKS.

High St - has tram tracks along it so the cyclist can only have possibly been to the left of these in the lane which, by the way is usually full of parked cars.

Thomas St - single lane street, no lane markings with 90 degree parking all along the left side heading south. Again, the cyclist would have been riding cautiously clear of the parked cars in case one reversed out.

The woman has then overtaken the cyclist and turned left in front of them. We don't know how closely she "left hooked" but if the cyclist's reaction is anything to go by she probably cut them off.

The article then says the cyclist "crashed into the back of her car". The only way this would have happened is if she brake checked him. No-one, least of all a cyclist, will voluntarily crash into a larger vehicle.

So if we assume that the cyclist did nothing at all deliberate to block the car, as the woman claimed. Then the car, frustrated at not being able to overtake, aggressively passed before left hooking the cyclist. Then, noticing he was still riding behind her (probably yelling something about her cutting him off) she braked deliberately causing him to run into the back of her. This confrontation was therefore initiated by the motorist, firstly through an aggressive overtake & left hook, then followed up by a brake check.

Now the cyclist's reaction was unacceptable and yes, he should have the book thrown at him for wilful damage. But I doubt that anyone here (driving or riding) wouldn't blow their stack a bit if they were tailgated, cut off then brake checked. The only thing that stops a lot of car drivers from punching someone else's window or knocking their mirrors off is they can't be bothered getting out to do it.

---

All supposition on your part.
Yes, I would like to hear the cyclists side of the story, and so would the police.
And yet, the cyclist has not seen fit to come forward and give his side of the story.

We might never know. The cyclist might lose his license over it.
Offenders risk losing their licence
Pity he'll still be able to ride his bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solmanic

OK, so the "cars rule" fraternity has had a stab at guessing what went down here. The article only has the motorist's story so let's now imagine how this incident unfolded from the cyclist's perspective:

St Edmonds Rd - one lane each direction, alternating kerbside parking or narrow single lane along most of its length. No way for a cyclist to move left as far as I can see if there are cars parked in all the parking spaces.

Right turn into High St. The cyclist would have been in front of the car making the turn. They would not have moved left unless they were turning left. The cyclist would have been making this turn very carefully and straight across the intersection because of the TRAM TRACKS.

High St - has tram tracks along it so the cyclist can only have possibly been to the left of these in the lane which, by the way is usually full of parked cars.

Thomas St - single lane street, no lane markings with 90 degree parking all along the left side heading south. Again, the cyclist would have been riding cautiously clear of the parked cars in case one reversed out.

The woman has then overtaken the cyclist and turned left in front of them. We don't know how closely she "left hooked" but if the cyclist's reaction is anything to go by she probably cut them off.

The article then says the cyclist "crashed into the back of her car". The only way this would have happened is if she brake checked him. No-one, least of all a cyclist, will voluntarily crash into a larger vehicle.

So if we assume that the cyclist did nothing at all deliberate to block the car, as the woman claimed. Then the car, frustrated at not being able to overtake, aggressively passed before left hooking the cyclist. Then, noticing he was still riding behind her (probably yelling something about her cutting him off) she braked deliberately causing him to run into the back of her. This confrontation was therefore initiated by the motorist, firstly through an aggressive overtake & left hook, then followed up by a brake check.

Now the cyclist's reaction was unacceptable and yes, he should have the book thrown at him for wilful damage. But I doubt that anyone here (driving or riding) wouldn't blow their stack a bit if they were tailgated, cut off then brake checked. The only thing that stops a lot of car drivers from punching someone else's window or knocking their mirrors off is they can't be bothered getting out to do it.

---

As Mick said, if he was innocent how come he didn't hang around for the Police? I can accept that one mirror may have been broken on an accident (which the cyclist left the scene of without providing details - illegal by the way) but what - under any circumstances - justifies the other mirror being broken off?

Yes I'm siding with the motorist until the cyclist comes forward to explain. When do you think that will happen? I'm all ears....

Drivers, don't be dicks!
Cyclists, don't be dicks!
Everybody! Don't be a dick!
Problem solved. Let's go have a cuppa :)


Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

Yes I'm siding with the motorist until the cyclist comes forward to explain. When do you think that will happen? I'm all ears....

---

Cyclists I know who have provided detailed video footage to the police of a car driving dangerously around them basically get told the equivalent of "we don't give a ****." Smashing a couple of mirrors at least gives this guy some satisfaction where the supposed law is highly unlikely to. Police generally support the more powerful party in these engagements, you know. ;)

Oh and it was a VW Golf, the poor guy was probably afraid of the toxic exhaust fumes. :wasntme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bee utey

Oh and it was a VW Golf, the poor guy was probably afraid of the toxic exhaust fumes. :wasntme:

---

That would explain how he rode into the back of the car.