Perhaps it’s time to amend the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Act to remove the word motor so that it will apply equally to cyclists and motorists. In fact, it’s high time the same was done with the parent Act. If cyclists want equality with motorists then that is the place to start. Although cyclists would have to take a step backward if they want financial equality with motorists in so far as getting what they paid for.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As usual the right is taking a turn for the worse here. Several posts that have identifiable “Green” signatures on them have pointed out both the “General Prudential Rule” and have agreed that there is a responsibility that must be shared with the cyclists taking on some of it.

More to the point, a rather EXCELLENT observation was made, again by someone more Green than Red or Blue, that there is a hardening of attitudes of both the motorheads and the hard-core-cyclists, about ownership of the roads and both are annoyingly and distressingly aggravating the situation.

Which does not prevent you from going on, and on, and on, and on as though we don’t understand the problem. It’d be a good idea to listen once in a while. Talking over people doesn’t make it any easier to find ways to agree with them when that is actually reasonable.

About “Give way to tonnage” – the official rule is the “General Prudential Rule” which basically says, no matter what the rules say about who has the right-of-way, do whatever you need to do to avoid a collision.

If you are in a smaller more agile vessel, that translates to “give-way-to-tonnage” but it has application to bulk crude carriers and aircraft carriers no less,

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Denialist!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Unbeliever!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That’s strange I can’t seem to find that in my good book. Are you sure you are reading from the correct one?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

In the good book it says:

Cyclists are pure of spirit, and the chosen ones.

Those that ride with motors are evil, and be the devils spawn.

This is the word of the Greens.

Amen.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BLAME?!

In the wrong?!

Responsible?!

When two ‘things’ collide and cause damage in New Zealand it is called a NO FAULT Accident and all costs not covered by vehicle insurance are compensated by ACC. Since when did we need to establish Fault? Do the Green Party want to abolish ACC and no fault accident compensation and revert to a litigation based approach to ‘accident’ compensation? If so, we better get a lot of students through Law School quick!

In sailing there is a clear guide to situations like this, it’s the concept of ‘give way to tonnage’. In other words, if it’s bigger than you stay out of the way. You’ll find that sailors also always observe the simple things in the boatie’s handbook. Interestingly, sailors who race have a vast number of rules that govern their behaviour while racing (anyone ever watch an Americas Cup regatta? – Thought so!); perhaps cyclists need the same diligent approach to their sport!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>As to the rule that the dominant vehicle is presumed at fault, I think that’s an excellent idea. No car driver was ever killed by a careless pedestrian or cyclist

No way.

I’m not taking the blame for some reckless cyclist running a red light, as they often do, or their dangerous road racing antics.

Cyclists should operate under the exact same laws as other road users. And fault, and fines, should be determined in the same way.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jockmoron,

As to the rule that the dominant vehicle is presumed at fault, I think that’s an excellent idea.

Meaning all trucks are responsible in a truck versus anything else accident.

And if a 40 tonne truck hits a 39 tonne truck that means the 40 tonne truck was ALWAYS in the wrong.

Dont like your sense of innocent before proven guilty sense at all.

Last time a car driver was killed by a pedestrian was when a boofhead threw a lump of concete from a motorway off bridge in Otahuhu.

And not long ago a suicide jumper from the Grafton Road overbridge nearly landed on a car. So yes pedestrians do and can kill car drivers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

““The ute was going faster to pass the bikes before the tanker got too close. Near the front, a couple of guys touched wheels and then there was a 10-bike pile-up.

“The injured guy got pushed into the tanker’s moving wheels and then bounced high into the air and did a 180-degree flip. He then hit the ground. He was probably about 2m in front of me, it wasn’t a good sight.”"

PARDON?

A Couple of guys touched wheels? Seems like the accident was caused by poor road code adherence by the cyclist!
.
.
.
.
.
““The cyclists were using the road as if they owned it and came round a blind corner and met a milk tanker.”

I thought they did own the road? At least they owned it as much as milk tankers and impatient white utes?”"

Round a blind corner – Could they have been on the wrong side of the road – a common problem with racing cyclists?

NO ‘ONE’ “OWNS” the road, it is a state or local government asset on which the public has right of passage. If there is any ‘higher than your’ claim it would be on the part of the motor vehicles, as they at least pay a fee towards upkeep and maintenance of roads, as well as towards the ACC cost of accident compensation. Perhaps all bikes over 12′ frames should have to be registered and appropriate fees paid towards ‘common’ costs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jgg argued that “Given that the road wear and tear from cycling is negligible, cyclists on average subsidise motorists.” Is jgg unaware that wear and tear from light vehicles costs less than 50cents per thousand km travelled? In fact wear and tear from light vehicles accounts for less than 10% of road maintenance costs. Heavy vehicles account for a mere one-third. The environment causes most of the damage but does the environment front up with the moolah? Not on your nellie! The long sufferring motor user subsidises the environment

More generally, roads are public spaces. The idea that paying for all-weather dustless surfaces and the damage you don’t do to this public space – that is what petrol tax and Road User Charges do – confers exclusive use rights is downright straightforward.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog asks – “I thought they did own the road? At least they owned it as much as milk tankers and impatient white utes?”
Not if it’s a State Highway. State Highways are 100% “owned” by road users who pay petrol taxes, RUCs and rego fees. Cyclists don’t pay any of those user charges so they can’t claim to “own” any part of a State Highway.

However we do live in an egalitarian society so motorists are willing to share “their” roads with other road users provided those other road users show some basic courtesy and common sense.

At the very least obey the law that hippie_64 mentioned. The road code isn’t something that was made necessary by the advent of the motorcar. The basic road rules became law in 1876, in s99 of ” The Public Works Act, 1876.”
99. If any person does any of the following things upon a road :-
(13.) does not keep any vehicle driven by him on the left or
near-side of the road when meeting, and on the right or
off-side when passing, another vehicle, or does not leave a
reasonable portion of the road for any vehicle passing him :
every person so offending shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding
five pounds.

Maybe if the fine was still equal to the minimum weekly wage it might be worth enforcing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t think anyone can justify recklessness on the road, whether directed against bikers or otherwise, and whether deliberate or inadvertent.

But what I find amusing is that bikers rant on about the right to use the roads like anyone else, but happily flout roadrules.

I’d say 80% of cyclists I have witnessed run the red light.

I asked a mate of mine in the Greens, a biking enthusiast, how it is possible to justify going through red lights. His response shocked me:

“Well, bikes can get away with it, unlike cars, which are bulkier – so why not?”

So let me get this straight:

1) Bikies wish to use the roads, but they do not wish to abide by the road rules that apply to all road users. So you want your cake and eat it too.

2) It’s ok to do something, as long as you can get away with it. Such upright citizens we have in this country. No wonder the Greens are soft on crime; they commit it all the time.

For the record, Rights come with responsibilities – something bikers and lefties obviously don’t seem to be able to grasp.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hippie64, good on you. You’ve said it as it is. Put a Kiwi in charge of some wheels, it doesn’t matter what, a cycle, a car, a truck, a roller blade, whatever, and their character changes from an open, friendly, personable and helpful individual to something more akin to road warrior – aggressive, impatient and dangerously competitive for the same space on the road.

Attitudes have to change, there is a bothersome and dangerously childish them and us attitude that really concerns me, both from cyclist to car drivers, and vice versa, and I write as a regular cyclist and occasional car driver. The only problem for us cyclists is that in any confrontation the result is pretty predictable, when did you last read the headline “Hit and run cyclist kills two in Ford Transit van”?

I would like all New Zealanders who use the roads to grow up – it’s long past time we did so. And practical measures to help would be an education campaign, restrictions or a levy on car advertising on TV so that educational adverts could be run (when did you last see an advert on TV for a bicycle?), lower road speed limits for open road to 90 kph and in towns to 40 kph on main roads and 30 kph on side and suburban streets and cycle friendly cities and lanes along country roads, etc. etc.

Having said that, having a cycle race on open roads with ordinary uncontrolled traffic is a big NO-NO, very stupid and almost designed to cause tragedy.

As to the rule that the dominant vehicle is presumed at fault, I think that’s an excellent idea. No car driver was ever killed by a careless pedestrian or cyclist, there is a duty of care by all drivers to all people using the road, because the driver is the one that will do the damage if there is a collision. However I think the likelihood of getting such a law passed in this car driven country is pretty near zero.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Cynical1, it starts with you and me acting the way we wish others would, in the possibly vain hope that it rubs off. Not easy, not when everyone else is pushing and shoving and only thinking of themselves, but it has to start with someone. You’re right though, it’s something most people find easy to ignore.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>we now need new road rules that protect cyclists by making the dominant vehicle liable for accidents.

That would be guilty until proven innocent. Cyclist rounds blind corner, in wrong lane, and gets hit by a bus. It’s the bus drivers fault?

I think not.

We need to stop cyclists using roads as a racetrack. If they’re going to insist on doing so, then accept the consequences, or close the road.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hippie64 – you are totally right, I think laws rarely work in solving the overall problem, they just result in a few individuals getting pinged.

However, I think it is harder in practice to get that improvement in attitudes than you suggest. How exactly do you imagine this occuring? You can put as many ads on TV and pamphlets in people’s letterboxes, but if they just choose to ignore them what have you really achieved?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I have come across non racing cyclists riding two abreast in well inside the vehicle lane and they couldn’t give a stuff whether they are holding up traffic or not, they refuse to budge.
I can get a ticket for driving too slow, holding up traffic and refusing to pull over, so why should it be different for cyclists.
Promoting an arogant attitude of “rights” for cyclists is going to get people killed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m both a cyclist and a motorist and this whole problem is caused by a lack of courtesy and consideration shown by all road users, two wheels or four. This can’t be fixed by legislation, only by an attitude change.

Legally, the problem is already covered. Drivers, if it isn’t safe to pass, you don’t. Period. Cyclists, like any slow moving vehicle, you may not unnecessarily impede traffic and can get a ticket for doing so. Pull over wherever possible and allow traffic to pass. This is all basic road-code stuff.

Bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour in return. Motorists who get stuck behind cyclists riding three and four abreast end up hating cyclists and acting aggressively towards them. Cyclists who are repeatedly squeezed off the road by motorists passing too close where there isn’t room, get militant and start riding three and four abreast to force motorists to go around in the other lane.

This isn’t going to change until everyone takes a chill-pill and starts showing courtesy and patience in the hope of getting some of the same back.

Chill dudes, peace, love and mung beans…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ari,

Roads are not for racing, in/on any vehicle, unless those roads are closed.

Those who do race on public roads are engaging in dangerous behavior, and it isn’t surprising that more accidents would occur as a result.

Be consistent. If you replace ever instance of “bike” with “car” in this report, would you feel the same way? Boy racer dies because he was involved in a collision with a truck when racing with his mates?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)