Thread: Cyclists.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

A 110km/hr zone doesn't mean you have to do 110km/hr. It's the maximum limit.

Correct, it is the limit and I am perfectly entitled to do do it. I had a scenario a while back that, had I been traveling a tad faster, could have ended badly.

It was a country road with a 100 limit. I was doing 100 and as I came over the top of a hill there was a pushbike and I had an oncoming car.

There was not enough room for all three. Luckily for the bike rider he was just far enough over the hill that all three did not meet at the same time, but it was close.

Had the bike been 50 meters further back, it would not have ended well.

It's also an offence for a cyclist to fail to keep left.
For other road users it's an offence to obstruct traffic, not cyclists?

Originally Posted by weeds

Er I think the rider still looses points. I believe the two are separate (license to drive and points). I.e. I believe unlicensed drivers still have points put against history (I think there is a proper name for it) and have to wait til they expire before applying for sauna learner.

There is nothing stopping a person from driving a car after they lost their license either ........chances of getting caught twice on a bike is slim.

I have never heard of a bike rider getting points but that does not mean you are wrong, however if the the rider does not drive a car he can rack up as many points as he likes and it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by d2dave

Correct, it is the limit and I am perfectly entitled to do do it. I had a scenario a while back that, had I been traveling a tad faster, could have ended badly.

It was a country road with a 100 limit. I was doing 100 and as I came over the top of a hill there was a pushbike and I had an oncoming car.

There was not enough room for all three. Luckily for the bike rider he was just far enough over the hill that all three did not meet at the same time, but it was close.

Had the bike been 50 meters further back, it would not have ended well.

In South Australia at least (probably similar in other states), you would have been at fault for not being able to stop in time.

In good clear driving conditions, you must drive within the posted speed limit however in certain circumstances, driving at the speed limit for that road can be dangerous. Conditions such as bad weather, heavy traffic, encountering children or pedestrians may require you to reduce speed to suit those road conditions. If you keep your speed down, you will have more time to avoid crashes and will reduce the seriousness of any injuries or damage. You may also save a life - possibly yours. You must only drive at a speed that would allow you to stop your vehicle within the distance that you can see ahead.

http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rule...dbook/speeding

You don't have the right to travel at the speed limit unless it's safe to do so.

Originally Posted by frantic

It's also an offence for a cyclist to fail to keep left.
For other road users it's an offence to obstruct traffic, not cyclists?

What does obstruct mean? I was doing 40kmh in a 50kmh zone the other day. There was an angry woman flashing her lights and honking me, then she pulled a ridiculous over taking manoeuvre on a blind corner in a built up area. Now who was obstructing traffic there?

Slowing down won't kill you.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

Slowing down won't kill you.

neither will speeding up

Originally Posted by d2dave

Correct, it is the limit and I am perfectly entitled to do do it. I had a scenario a while back that, had I been traveling a tad faster, could have ended badly.

It was a country road with a 100 limit. I was doing 100 and as I came over the top of a hill there was a pushbike and I had an oncoming car.

There was not enough room for all three. Luckily for the bike rider he was just far enough over the hill that all three did not meet at the same time, but it was close.

Had the bike been 50 meters further back, it would not have ended well.

Right so you're saying the bike rider wasn't entitled to be on the road?

"I was asked " Is it ignorance or apathy?" I replied "I don't know and I don't care."

Originally Posted by MrLandy

Right so you're saying the bike rider wasn't entitled to be on the road?

No, he was quite entitled to be there, but I get Daves point. Self preservation and some thinking should be used when on a bike - don't get me wrong, I'm very courteous to riders - always have been as I used to ride every day, but then - as now when I'm on my motorbike, I think about the positions I put myself in so I'm least likely to get hurt.

You can't expect motorists to drive around at 20kph just in case a cyclist isn't using their head. Both sides need to take care, it's not an 'us and them' argument from either side.

There are bad motorists, yes - but there are also bad cyclists.