Thread: Disgraceful behaviour by Discovery driver

Originally Posted by MrLandy

[...]
The bigger the vehicle, the more care and consideration required, when driving past a small vulnerable bicycle. It's common sense.

And again the point on which we differ. I think common sense says a bigger vehicle owes the smaller no more care or consideration than he owes to peers or larger vehicles. Ie he owes care and consideration for safety of himself and others, as well as observance of the law, to all road users regardless of vehicle size.

A good example here may be overtaking clearance. Some countries may say, after consulting cyclists, 3ft clearance is good. In Malaysia it's 1.5m. That's about what I do for other cars and trucks too. I reckon that goes for a very lot of people. So my duty of care is to give at least 1.5m gap when I overtake a cyclist.

You seem to be saying that may be fine for car passing car but I owe it to a cyclist to go far wider - just because he isn't metalclad. Am I right?

There are common sense rules, some made law, as to how to drive around bigger/smaller vehicles. Eg It is very stupid for a Defender driver to duck inside the turning circle of an articulated vehicle and EXPECT the driver will notice you and stop before the trailer wheels run up and over you. It is stupid for a cyclist to EXPECT that a car (any larger vehicle) must see him and take avoiding action if the cyclist has placed himself into a danger zone.

There are accepted variances around things like following distance, that vary with vehicle size. But NOT the OTHER vehicle's size! Eg A 20t vehicle cannot cruise safely at 80km/h just 2 meters from the rear of the vehicle in front. It doesn't matter if the vehicle in front is a bicycle (pedaling FAST), a Morris minor (also pedaling FAST) or another truck.

It is equally unacceptable for an 18wheeler driver to barge minivans off the road because he is in a bad mood - as it would be unacceptable for a P Plater to deliberately dice with your safety.

Stops there though as far as my opinion extends for what common sense means. I don't accept what you seem to expect - that it's "common sense" that larger vehicle drivers MUST to go into some kind of super extra care mode whenever they see a cyclist. I reckon the car driver should be able to make assumptions that the cyclist will behave in certain ways and he can overtake as desired giving the requisite 1.5m and no more "extra care" than that.


Back in KL for a moment. You should love cycling here. If (motor)cyclist and car/truck collide - the (motor)cycle or cyclist is ALWAYS in the right.

Twice I have been hit by motorcyclists. Both times my vehicle was stationary and had been for some minutes (waiting in line on a service road for a gap in traffic on the main road). No way either my fault. But guess what...

It is common sense that we all "drive to the conditions". This means we vary our driving to make allowances for traffic, weather, school kids, visibility and many other factors. It is perfectly safe to drive a road-train at 100kph along a straight road with 5km of visibility. On the other hand it is not safe to drive any vehicle at 50kph around the double-parked narrow back streets of (for example) Newtown where there is barely enough width for a single vehicle. Yet this does not seem obvious to many people.

The responsibility to drive safely rests with the driver, and this covers both their own safety and that of others. Whilst this certainly means that a truck driver needs to be aware that they could "wobble" a cyclist as they pass, it also means that the cyclist should allow for the geometry of the truck when it corners. Yet how many times have I seen a cyclist (or motorcyclist and occasionally even a car) attempt to "undertake" a truck making a left turn because the truck moved to the right to give himself room?

On a regular basis I drive a range of vehicles from bicycles and motorcycles to cars, trucks and tractors. Sometimes, in an old Land Rover, I may be limited to 80kph or less. I believe it is my responsibility to allow for the fact that most other road users will wish to drive at 100kph, so I keep my eyes open and try to let them pass. In a tractor I may be limited to 20kph, and so I make allowances, even though my vehicle weighs 6 tonnes and I am at eye level with the truck drivers.

Almost daily I see people doing crazy things. They don't read the road ahead, they don't look for potential hazards. In fact many people seem to think that when they see a problem the solution is to accelerate towards it flashing their lights and sounding their horn. Those who ride bikes in that environment are doing so in full knowledge of the situation. Believe me, those drivers don't make allowances not matter whether you're on a bike or in a tractor.

Very few drivers make allowances for anything. They will try to force through a herd of cattle crossing the road. They will ignore a bunch of people with hazard lights on and flashing amber beacons, and speed passed the panicking escaped cow/horse that those people are trying to get through a gate. I have, in the past, actually had to weave my ute at walking pace in front of drivers trying force past, even though they can clearly see people trying to guide animals back in to paddocks.

Having said all that, I do not believe that I am responsible for the stupidity of others. The group of cyclists spreading across the lane and preventing others from overtaking safely are behaving irresponsibly. The cyclist weaving through at the traffic lights and ending up inside a vehicle turning left, or outside a vehicle turning right, is putting him/her self at risk. If I am driving a truck I cannot see them, and even in a car I have already made clear my intentions and positioned myself to make the manoeuvre safely. With the best will in the world, it is not my fault if they act stupidly.

Everyone should drive safely and be aware of their surroundings. But everyone should also know their own vulnerabilities, and make allowances for those. I came close to a head-on with a recumbent bicycle, who had no flags or other markers and was on the other side of a single lane bridge over a creek - he was so low that he was completely hidden by the rise in the bridge. Luckily my own vehicle was sufficiently tall that I spotted him just in time, but had I been driving a lower vehicle he would have been dead. Presumably he felt the extra drag from a sand flag outweighed his life?

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Cyclists pay taxes too.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Yep, and so too do I.
But then I have to pay rego too, which helps pay for roads, so why shouldn't a cyclist? Especially since they want "special" lanes etc. (??)

Has anyone else noticed that the "Cyclists" has morphed into a discussion about that Disco driver almost running down a couple of cyclists while the "Disgraceful behaviour ..." thread is now discussing the rights and behaviour of cyclists?

Originally Posted by Chops

Yep, and so too do I.
But then I have to pay rego too, which helps pay for roads, so why shouldn't a cyclist? Especially since they want "special" lanes etc. (??)

Cyclists wouldn't need special lanes if drivers were more courteous. Dangerous drivers is the only reason cycling lanes exist in Australia.

Originally Posted by vnx205

Has anyone else noticed that the "Cyclists" has morphed into a discussion about that Disco driver almost running down a couple of cyclists while the "Disgraceful behaviour ..." thread is now discussing the rights and behaviour of cyclists?

The two threads should be merged so the offended Disco owners can continue to ignore their own bad behaviour, cf Landy Andy.

Originally Posted by Chops

Yep, and so too do I.
But then I have to pay rego too, which helps pay for roads, so why shouldn't a cyclist? Especially since they want "special" lanes etc. (??)

Registration is generally a fixed annual charge and virtually all cyclists pay rego for the vehicle that took them to wherever they ride, or they left at home. The trivial amount that cyclists would have to pay extra for their sliver of poorly maintained bitumen wouldn't amount to more than a few bucks annually. And then there's the fact that rego fees all go into general taxation revenue and roads are funded by grants out of that collected pool of general revenue. So except for a miserable feeling of petty revenge that some people exhibit, cyclist rego covering the cost of bike lanes makes poor sense. Administration costs would be so high that revenue gained would be less than the cost to the cyclist. And that's not forgetting the benefit to motorists in increased traffic flow from having separated bike lanes. Oh, and yes, I am aware that some cyclists don't stay in their bike lanes, I'm talking about an average benefit across the whole community.

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.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

Cyclists wouldn't need special lanes if drivers were more courteous. Dangerous drivers is the only reason cycling lanes exist in Australia.

Agreed, but then we we were young, we were taught to do the right thing. Dad always taught me to give cyclists a wide birth, too easy. Well, it should be ehh??

It's too bad in recent years cyclists have become, let's say, non compliment to road rules, stuffing everything up for everybody around them with no regard to rules. Then they wonder why motorists get ****ed off with them and start treating them as second class whatever's when they see them.
As always, it ends up in tears and the majority have to pay for it one way or another,,, ohh, let's give cyclists there own lanes.
Now despite what you guys might think, I don't actually have a problem with this. I quite like the thought they have their own space, that way, they're out of my space, so all good, no one gets run over.

Naaa lets just use the next lane as well,,,,, and here we go again.