Disgraceful behaviour by Discovery driver

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

3rd February 2016, 04:29 PM
Eevo

if everyone rode bikes, there would be no money for the roads which bikes use.
3rd February 2016, 04:29 PM
JoeFriend

Quote:

Originally Posted by tact

Exactly.

Now let me be the devil's advocate. The (invalid) argument, about special privileges for certain road users, sees the tables turned back the other way - what if a ****ing stupid ignorant careless example of a cyclist tosses his own life under my wheels through his own carelessness or recklessness and causes me pain and suffering and anguish over his death - despite it being NO fault of mine at all.

In fact I dread this every day I drive in Malaysia because it is a very real possibility, happens to someone every day here. Then, not only do I suffer anguish for the rest of my life uncomforted by the knowledge it wasn't my fault - I will be rotting in jail too.

But this too, please realize! as I do, is a matter for a thread complaining about bad drivers/riders. It doesn't justify expectations for special care or privilege for any road user.

This possibly unique risk I face (kamikaze road users) is well understood by me. As are the consequences even if a death is not my fault. I still drive on the road regardless THIS "vulnerability" that I feel/face. I choose to take this risk. I could choose to take public transport but it is not why I want.

I do NOT feel a need to lobby for my protection as if I have a special right to have my vulnerability insulated from those life&liberty threatening two wheelers on the roads.

I think you are not understanding, or things are different in KL.

I don't want special privileges. I just want to be respected on the road while riding. You will find that is what most cyclists want in Aus. Cyclepaths were built because we weren't getting any respect, and to encourage those who aren't confident riders to begin to ride to reduce congestion. I can assure you that by and large, most riders don't want to end up under your wheel, and those that do will be a lot worse off than you.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app
3rd February 2016, 04:35 PM
Chops

I'm impressed you've managed to put all this on me. Well done,,, now go for a ride and get it out of your system dude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeFriend

Registration is a stupid idea. Rego fees are based on weight. My bike is 7kgs, I am happy to pay the approximately $1.46 to shut you up and move on from this ridiculous argument. **** it, I will round it up to $1.50 if I have to if you think that will help to have better roads and give me the same rights in your eyes as every other road user.

You do have the same rights as me,,, at least that's what I've been taught and abide by.

I don't usually get involved in this argument because neither side ever really understands the other. There are dickheads on both sides, bad riders and bad drivers. BUT the issue is cyclists are more often than not guilty until proven innocent and I am sick to death of it. So don't read, write, or get involved,, simples. I get cut off, pushed into parked cars, have doors open, have idiots thinking its great fun to put their boot down and fill my face with black smoke Get some cams and dob them in,,, get it sorted. and then people sit around forums moaning about how cyclists are taking up the entire lane etc - its because one too many times we have nearly died from an idiot driver with an agenda and we now ride defensively. No, probably not,, it's probably because a driver was confronted with a group of cyclists that took up the whole road and had a near heart attack as he tried to dodge them.

Don't get me wrong, I am courteous on the road, but coming up to a choke point I will move into the middle, have a car overtake 30cms from your bars at anything above 20km/h faster than you can get scary. Think about riding a bike on a train platform on the wrong side of the yellow line while a trains pulls in. I am entitled to do it and I will. Yep, its YOUR right, go for it, but most of us would regard this as possibly dangerous, I'd be sticking with the bike lane, or on the left. NOW, when I get a nice driver who takes it easy I will generally make sure its safe for me and waive them through, because I am aware of it. Excellent, you'll be waving at me then too :D

This argument will go on into eternity, until there is more empathy (I am a big believer in everyone should be a cyclist for a week and you understand a hell of a lot more why we do what we do). Well, here's the thing,,, see, I am a bike rider, although since being in Melb, although tempted, I'm not keen and have not had the treadly out. I've been side swiped, I was lucky, my mate wasn't quite so, and the driver didn't give a **** and kept going.

I am a motorist and cyclist, I am a respectful person when doing both, and when off the bike and out of the car I like to think I am the same but it shouldn't be cyclists are guilty until proven innocent so move on from that otherwise the argument is never going to be productive. Don't panic, I'm as critical of drivers as I am with riders, and I see a lot more drivers per day than riders. Realistically, I think the argument only refers to groups of riders. It seems when they are on their own, they generally are well behaved. (its a bit hard to ride three abreast when there's only one there ;))

Just remember, that cyclist you cut off to save 5-30 seconds of your travel time I've never cut any cyclist off, ever,,,,, is someone's partner, son, daughter, father, mother etc - is that miniscule time saving worth someone else's life? Why is your time more important than their safety? Its not, never has been, and never will be! If you did something dangerous would you be open to going around and explaining to their family why that person will never be coming home? I've had to give notice of this sort on a couple of occasions, wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Total respect for Police etc who have to do this **** on a daily basis. Do you think its fair a paramedic has to attend an accident because of that? They won't be doing it on my account. Or the police have to do your dirty work and tell the family? As above.

Cyclists are people too, it doesn't matter who is using the road - your time is NOT more important than their safety and life, regardless of what sort of wheeled adventure they are on. If you can't understand that then I hope they take your license off you. I'll be stuffed, and here I was thinking I was a robot for a bit,,, bugger, guess I should learn a new dance then. Good luck with the license part.

Here's a bit more for you to ponder on too. I reckon riders should be licensed as well.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app
3rd February 2016, 04:53 PM
tact

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeFriend

I think you are not understanding, or things are different in KL.

I don't want special privileges. I just want to be respected on the road while riding. You will find that is what most cyclists want in Aus. Cyclepaths were built because we weren't getting any respect, and to encourage those who aren't confident riders to begin to ride to reduce congestion. I can assure you that by and large, most riders don't want to end up under your wheel, and those that do will be a lot worse off than you.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Then I have no point of contention with you.

MrLandy has stated that he does believe cyclists should be given special care and privs simply because they are smaller & more vulnerable road users. It is to this I disagree.

Am also arguing that examples of bad drivers/riders who do not give the requisite care/respect to other road users - are no argument for special privs for cyclists.
3rd February 2016, 04:55 PM
vnx205

Quote:

Originally Posted by tact

Not giving adequate clearance.... IS a matter of (NOT) giving what is due.
Yes, you are quite right.
My argument starts with the premise that a cyclist should be given what he is due, proper clearances and regard. Nothing more special than any other road user.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.

You just argued from a place where the cyclist is denied his due. That wasn't the main point of what I was trying to explain. That's a matter for a thread about bad drivers. Yes. Doesn't have any weight regards special privs for cyclists.I didn't intend it to.

I wasn't trying to agree or disagree with you or anyone else.

I thought that the extent of the disagreement between you and some others might not be as great as it appeared to be.

I thought that maybe some confusion was arising because of some of the terminology people were using.

I thought that by explaining things as I did, that I was in some way supporting both sides of the argument. I was looking for common ground between you and some others.

Maybe my efforts were misguided or badly expressed. :)

About the only new idea I was trying to add was that there is an element of self preservation for the motorist in being very careful around cyclists. The motorist may be protecting himself/herself from having to live with the knowledge that their stupidity, carelessness, or illegal action may have led to someone's death.
3rd February 2016, 04:59 PM
JoeFriend

The first part about the rego was a reply to your argument, the rest was not directed purely at you but at all road users. Apologies for the confusion.

At the end of the day, there will never be consensus on this between groups due to the minority of people who are dickheads and unreasonably so (on both sides). Riding 3 abreast is ridiculous and unnecessary and groups I ride in don't do it, nor do they run red lights. I have mates who on bunch rides with some pros, saw people run red lights. The pros and him buried them all (rode at pace, but legally) and then publically shamed them after giving them a bolicking on the road.

The actions of the few ruin it for the many - its just when the actions of cyclists ruin it people are delayed, frustrated maybe some panel damage but when the actions of a driver ruin it for a cyclist its much worse.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app
3rd February 2016, 05:52 PM
tact

Quote:

Originally Posted by vnx205

I wasn't trying to agree or disagree with you or anyone else.

I thought that the extent of the disagreement between you and some others might not be as great as it appeared to be.

I thought that maybe some confusion was arising because of some of the terminology people were using.

I thought that by explaining things as I did, that I was in some way supporting both sides of the argument. I was looking for common ground between you and some others.

Maybe my efforts were misguided or badly expressed. :)

About the only new idea I was trying to add was that there is an element of self preservation for the motorist in being very careful around cyclists. The motorist may be protecting himself/herself from having to live with the knowledge that their stupidity, carelessness, or illegal action may have led to someone's death.

Gotcha.

For sure if inconsiderate and unsafe riders/drivers thought about the anguish THEY may face for the rest of their lives in the aftermath of a tragedy they cause - maybe they wouldn't be arseholes. (Privately I doubt it)

Even decent people like you and me, who do drive with care and attention to giving other road users what they are due - we would still feel anguish in the aftermath of a tragedy even if it was in no way our fault.

If you and I choose to cross the centerline and give min 4m wide gap when overtaking apparently sane and sensible and stable law abiding cyclists because we worry about the requisite 1m or 1.5m (KL) not being enough to cope with some freak occurance resulting in the rider dying on us - then so be it. That's OUR choice for OUR comfort.

When our paranoia/anxiety meds kick in, we should be permitted to revert back to giving cyclists normal due care and considerations.
3rd February 2016, 06:06 PM
Warb

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eevo

in the UK, your 3rd party is on your licence not your rego.

No. The "registered keeper" of the vehicle must by law have 3rd party insurance on it. It has nothing to do with your licence, or even who is behind the wheel. The 3rd party policy is taken on each vehicle separately, the only difference is that unlike Australia I do not recall actually having to present the policy to buy "rego".
3rd February 2016, 06:59 PM
Eevo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warb

No. The "registered keeper" of the vehicle must by law have 3rd party insurance on it. It has nothing to do with your licence, or even who is behind the wheel. The 3rd party policy is taken on each vehicle separately, the only difference is that unlike Australia I do not recall actually having to present the policy to buy "rego".

3rd party personal, not 3rd party property.
3rd February 2016, 08:20 PM
bee utey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chops

Funny how if I choose to drive something different, I have to pay rego on that vehicle too so I can drive it.
Maybe we should only have to pay one rego for a heap of cars.

But you could walk, ride a gopher, roller skate, take a bus, all without paying rego. Rego is a cost for things with engines capable of damaging road surfaces and equipment.

Oh and as an owner of too many vehicles and a number of bikes, I think the current rego system is a useless idea. I'd like to think that you should be able to drive any suitable vehicle by just hanging a small plate off it (or an electronic tag) with your driver's licence number on it. You could then be charged for your actual wear and tear on the road system instead of some wild guess of the amount. If your licence was an etag it could even serve to identify you if you broke the road rules when cycling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eevo

:eek:

Take those smug coloured glasses off and you might learn something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pop058

Not in relation to using your pushy on public roads you don't.

And the GST on your lyca outfit doesn't count :D

its LYCRA with a "r"

You couldn't be wronger if you tried. Your rego that you pay every year might pay for a patch of bitumen just big enough to park your car on. All the rest of the time you (and every cyclist) use roads paid for out of general taxation.

And if you think that cyclists don't spend money (paying tax on their income to pay GST on what they consume) then you are sadly mistaken. It has been proven time and time again that good cycling facilities can prove a significant boost for rural towns while the stink boxes roar past on the freeway bypass. Catering for cyclists is good business strategy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eevo

if everyone rode bikes, there would be no money for the roads which bikes use.

Still wrong. Roads existed long before cars and cyclists associations were amongst the first people to get roads improved. The rattle trap early cars that followed were greatly benefitted by the improved roads.

Quote:

In 1886, the CTC/NCU's Roads Improvement Association organised the first ever Roads Conference in Britain. With patronage ? and cash ? from aristocrats and royals, the RIA published pamphlets on road design and how to create better road surfaces. County surveyors took this on board (some were CTC members) and started to improve local roads.

Roads Were Not Built For Cars | How two cycling organisations (and a Minister for War) created better roads for all

Roads suitable for cyclists save the community more money than they cost.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page