When Opening Car Doors - Look 1st

[XR6_190]

I think everybody has just about missed the point here. I mean who the hell in their right mind would open their car door without looking, Sure there is a chance that you could almost decapitate a Cyclist (whether the cyclist should be there or not) but what about the more likely chance of a whopping big Kenworth taking your door clean off!! Not something I would be leaving to chance.

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by XR6_190

I think everybody has just about missed the point here. I mean who the hell in their right mind would open their car door without looking, Sure there is a chance that you could almost decapitate a Cyclist (whether the cyclist should be there or not) but what about the more likely chance of a whopping big Kenworth taking your door clean off!! Not something I would be leaving to chance.

No one is disputing that the person that opened the door without looking is in the worng, a very stupid thing to do. But the topic has progressed to cyclists' behavior in general.

nearly killed a cyclist today. he's riding at about 40kph, 500mm from the gutter, i'm tavelling behind him at 70kph (speed limit) then as i'm about to pass him, he swerves right in front of me to avoid a bloody manhole!!! if i was 2 meters further up he'd have gone under the ute for sure.

It's these things that get up the nose of motorists. The motorist is doing no wrong and all of a sudden is put in that situation. Just one of a thousand things cyclists do to make motoring hell at times. If a person jumped infront of a car doing 70km/h suddenly, everyone would agree that the pedestrian deserved to be squished. How is the cyclist's actions any different?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

I've quoted myself here because I'd like to hear what some the cyclists have to say about this, as it was ignored/not responded too.

The lack of accountability of their actions is my biggest gripe. I've seen a similar scenario of that examle of the Porchse Boxter window in a previous post - theres just nothing we can do without a rego plate. They can get away with anything and they usually do. What you cyclists need to understand is that there are more bad examples of you lot than there are good. And thats a shame, because I know many cyclists who are great and I'd share the road with them anytime, they are perfectly considerate on the road and follow rules. But these cyclists are in the minority on the roads.

Because 2 bikes side by side are easier to spot than one guy politely positioned tot he side of the road. I actually answered this, and Im not a cyclist.

In streams of traffic its unlikely the 5th or 6th car will know the cyclist is there. theres always a reasonable chance they will drift across the side line to the shoulder at the wrong time. By being 2 abreast the cars in front of the stream need to signal to go past the bikes, which warns the cars following.

Originally Posted by puts99

And thus forcing every single car to cross the centre line, into the path of oncoming traffic, make their way around the cyclists and back into the correct lane.

Safer for the cyclists, what about the motorist? And don't say cyclists only do this in dual-laned roads, because they do it single-laned roads all the time.

Just like a tractor or any other slow moving vehicle like someone looking for a street number. Are you saying youre forced to do so at the very moment you approach the bicycle, is youre brake pedal broken, no time to have a tad of patience? The only reason you would be in any danger is you used an unsafe overtaking technique, which is your fault, not theirs. You make it sound like the car drives itself, and you just tun the wheel.


As stated above, youre not permitted to share the lane with another vehicle. Yet most drivers do so with cyclists due to impatience.

Originally Posted by GORDZ

nearly killed a cyclist today. he's riding at about 40kph, 500mm from the gutter, i'm tavelling behind him at 70kph (speed limit) then as i'm about to pass him, he swerves right in front of me to avoid a bloody manhole!!! if i was 2 meters further up he'd have gone under the ute for sure. i'd probly have done a skid on his corpse to make my point.

stupid, stupid people.

So he swerved the width of a lane, or do you pass cyclists so close they have no room to move. Thanks for proving the points raised in the thread though.

The one performing the illegal act there, is YOU, you arent supposed to pass that close to a cyclist. You slow down, and pass with a reasonable distance when safe to do so. Just as you would if it was a street sweeper or any other slow moving traffic. I agree with you though, there are stupid people everywhere.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

It's these things that get up the nose of motorists. The motorist is doing no wrong and all of a sudden is put in that situation. Just one of a thousand things cyclists do to make motoring hell at times. If a person jumped infront of a car doing 70km/h suddenly, everyone would agree that the pedestrian deserved to be squished. How is the cyclist's actions any different?

You keep saying this like youre not in control of the car.

Are you the passenger or the driver? The cyclists actions are different because he is on the road already, there should be no surprises for a driver expecting the unexpected.

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by fmc351

As stated above, youre not permitted to share the lane with another vehicle. Yet most drivers do so with cyclists due to impatience.

And there your argument is flawed.

You say you're not permitted to share the lane with another vehicle, so explain why cyclists have no issues with riding 2-abreast? Thats 2 vehicles in the same lane, is it not?

[Piotr]

Originally Posted by puts99

And there your argument is flawed.

You say you're not permitted to share the lane with another vehicle, so explain why cyclists have no issues with riding 2-abreast? Thats 2 vehicles in the same lane, is it not?

Because your a bogan tool and if they didn't ride 2-abreast you would mow them down and claim its the riders fault

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by fmc351

You keep saying this like youre not in control of the car.

Are you the passenger or the driver? The cyclists actions are different because he is on the road already, there should be no surprises for a driver expecting the unexpected.

Are you serious? Thats the dumbest arguement ever. Ofcourse a driver should be expecting the unexpected, its a part of driving, driving anything. But as GORDZ said, it was a matter of 2 meters - if he were 2 meters ahead, then what could he have done to avoid the serving cyclists?

Are you the passenger or the driver? The cyclists actions are different because he is on the road already, there should be no surprises for a driver expecting the unexpected

And if we follow your logic, the original poster of this thread was also the driver of the vehicle on the road. The car door that opened was also on the road. If he (the injured cyclist) "expected the unexpected" he could have avoided the door.

What a stupid thing to say.

[Piotr]

GORDZ was not keeping a 3 second gap between vehicles. Do you follow other cars @ 70km/h and only keep 2m distance infront?

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by Piotr

Because your a bogan tool and if they didn't ride 2-abreast you would mow them down and claim its the riders fault

Hey I applied his own logic to cyclists, and what do you know? They break their own rules! Didn't like that too much hey?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

And there your argument is flawed.

You say you're not permitted to share the lane with another vehicle, so explain why cyclists have no issues with riding 2-abreast? Thats 2 vehicles in the same lane, is it not?

The safety factor of being much easier to spot outweighs the issue that two vehicles not in communication with each other pose. Just look up, there is a post whereby the driver admits passing to close to the cyclist.

If drivers were more patient, more attentive to cyclists and had less attitude, you may find that changed. As it is, drivers pose the danger to cyclists, not the other way round. Drivers pose a danger to themselves when dealing with cyclists on the road, and the cyclists.

Remember were talking in gereralisations here, while you and everyone can cite anecdotal evidence of exceptions, it doesnt change the fact cyclists arent the problem, drivers are.

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by Piotr

GORDZ was not keeping a 3 second gap between vehicles. Do you follow other cars @ 70km/h and only keep 2m distance infront?

Not an issue, other vehicles can do 70km/h. And hows about you tackle my other point above, you know, the one where you couldn't find a response so you resorted to calling me a bogan.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

Are you serious? Thats the dumbest arguement ever. Ofcourse a driver should be expecting the unexpected, its a part of driving, driving anything. But as GORDZ said, it was a matter of 2 meters - if he were 2 meters ahead, then what could he have done to avoid the serving cyclists?
It was your argument, I merely pointed it out. Youre the one saying they pose a danger because you need to go the middle of the road? Are you arguing overtaking anyone should be banned? A cyclist has to be easier to pass than a car, so if you cant pass a cyclist safely, then you cant pass a car.

What could he have done? NOT PASS SO CLOSELY FOR THE ISSUE TO BE A PROBLEM. Thus the point about sharing the lane. Thus why they ride two abreast.


And if we follow your logic, the original poster of this thread was also the driver of the vehicle on the road. The car door that opened was also on the road. If he (the injured cyclist) "expected the unexpected" he could have avoided the door.
What? Based on your logic, there are no accident ever
What a stupid thing to say.

Most of what youve said has been.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

Hey I applied his own logic to cyclists, and what do you know? They break their own rules! Didn't like that too much hey?

No you didnt. You had an autistic look at an issue and applied vacuum logic.

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by fmc351

The safety factor of being much easier to spot outweighs the issue that two vehicles not in communication with each other pose.

Can you not see where I'm coming from?

A. In post #123, you say its not okay for two vehicles to been in the same lane. (car and bike)
B. In post #130, you say its okay for two vehicles to be in the same lane (bike and bike)

I cannot make it clearer.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

Can you not see where I'm coming from?

A. In post #123, you say its not okay for two vehicles to been in the same lane. (car and bike)
B. In post #130, you say its okay for two vehicles to be in the same lane (bike and bike)

I cannot make it clearer.

Yeah, in post 129 you say 'their rules'. Youre wrong, the rules are government, not cyclists. And they apply to cars, trucks, motorcycles etc sharing lanes with other vehicles. For example, a car cant share a lane with a motor cycle. If you overtake a motorcycle, you must be completely out of its lane, not say with one set of tyres still in that lane as you pass.

Cyclists however are in direct communication with one another so sharing a lane is not an issue for the two cyclists, the only people who have a stake in the lane.

Can you not see a difference between what youre claiming is the same thing, and that above?

[XR8putts]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Cyclists however are in direct communication with one another so sharing a lane is not an issue for the two cyclists, the only people who have a stake in the lane.

Can you not see a difference between what youre claiming is the same thing, and that above?

What the hell is this communication rubish? They're still 2 vehicles. Perfectly demonstrated by the poster of this thread geting blindsighted whilst his two-abreast buddy getting away without a scratch.

You say yourself that it is a government law, and yet you have no issues with breaking it.

If cyclists cared that much about visibility, they'd all wear high-vis, bright flourscent jackets. Which hardly any do. Instead, they wear their race tights with a million and one sponsors all over them.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by puts99

What the hell is this communication rubish? They're still 2 vehicles. Perfectly demonstrated by the poster of this thread geting blindsighted whilst his two-abreast buddy getting away without a scratch.

You say yourself that it is a government law, and yet you have no issues with breaking it.

If cyclists cared that much about visibility, they'd all wear high-vis, bright flourscent jackets. Which hardly any do. Instead, they wear their race tights with a million and one sponsors all over them.

Well, can you talk to the guy on the motorcycle before you overtake him? See the cyclists are traveling together, in a similar way as passengers in a car, they talk to each other, they know where they are going, they know where they are headed. You dont know who they are, let alone anything about their intentions. Thats the communication.

The cyclsists arent breaking the law, it doesnt apply to them. It would, if it was safer to do so. It isnt safer, so its not applied to them. They are much more visable when traveling two abreast. Let alone it stops drivers from passing them without moving over far enough, as cited in the post above. Cars dont move over far enough because of oncoming traffic, but they still squeeze the cyclist to the side due to impatience. This is not allowed.

I agree with high-vis gear.

[Justin@]

Originally Posted by Piotr

Because your a bogan tool and if they didn't ride 2-abreast you would mow them down and claim its the riders fault

You say that like its a bad thing......
Some of the wacko riders that i come across on beach road are screaming to be run over, and trust me i feel like doing it too.

[dave289]

but just for the record some bike riders sh!t me no end.I am sorry if this was mentioned earlier but i could not be bothered reading through all the treads on this and just wanted to have my 2 bobs worth,as far as i am aware obstructing traffic is a traffic offence,when there is 2 lanes espsecially at peek our and some goose on a bike wants to ride in the middle or in any part of the lane for that matter at this time it forces drivers to have to merge across into the other lane,congesting the traffic and making it more dangerous for them and everyone else including the bike rider,just as if some driver was driving in that lane at 10 or 20 kays,obstructing traffic(either illegal or a traffic offence as far as i am aware).i could go on and on but im to ****ed and want to get back to my beer .i do pay to use the road directly and indirectly and in other ways so am having my paid say on the matter.

[ABoringUsername]

The only time i dislike cyclists is when they disobey things like red lights etc. If i have to sit there when i can see nothing is coming because the law says i have to, you bloody well should too!

Sorry the guy hit you with their door, i always try to at least check my mirror before opening my door.

[Tribal]

Bring it the **** on. I obey all the road laws and still have to fight for my life - trucks, buses and cars. Enough of the **** that you guys are going on about, if anyone took my previous post seriously you would not be going on about arguements that are ****** flawed. The current road laws expect everyone to follow current laws, and I for one do exactly that on a daily basis. Most of your petty arguments wouldn't hold any water in court.

If you have a ****** problem with this PM me, I'll be happy to set you straight. You are all going on like ****** beaureaucrats (?).

For ****s sake, just obey the road rules that are in place, and be a little tolerant of your fellow man - not really ****** hard to do.

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by Tribal

For ****s sake, just obey the road rules that are in place, and be a little tolerant of your fellow man - not really ****** hard to do.

Maybe it is the cyclists that should be tolerant to the majority that don't want you on the road.. But as a majority we have to bend over and lube up for the minority so you have every right to get fired up :

I have a tip for you though... Instead of dodging trucks and buses, How about you pay the $2.50 fare and get on one....

[Justin@]

Originally Posted by Tribal

For ****s sake, just obey the road rules that are in place, and be a little tolerant of your fellow man - not really ****** hard to do.

I am tolerant....just not of pushbikes on the road. There are ride paths all over the place, ride on them all you like with no fear of cars but if you get on the road then you have to put up with it.
Why should i have to go on the wrong side of the road to avoid you idiots ( other than it's a pain to clean blood from the paintwork) .

[|||]

lol nothing brings out the internet tough guys like a thread on cycling

[Nostalgia]

Oh my god. I cant believe this thread is still going.

[smee323]

Hah, I really love this. As above, nothing gets a forums blood boiling more than a good get the cyclists off the road thread.

I own 2 cars, and cycle every day to work, except in the peeing down rain. I average 150k per week in just the commute, and most is done between 7am and 7:30. then 5:30 - 6:30pm.

One of my cars legally has to be registered so I can drive it, but road and rego rules deem that I can only drive it when involved in a competition. Therefore I use the other 350 days when it is not allowed to be used as payment for my bike use. Seems fair to me.

If I was to pay rego for my bike, then you could expect me (and every other tom, dick and harry) to take up the whole lane and travel at a reduced pace. But because I have a rego plate, you would not be able to complain. (like hell).

In Adelaide, it is illegal for anyone over the age of fifteen to ride a push bike on a footpath. And with the amount of people, and cars parked on footpaths it makes it a little hard anyway. Another obscure rule is the one about proceeding in a manner where it lessons your danger of being involved in an accident, or you feel unsafe. Taking this literally would allow cyclists to go against red lights. I only use it to cross at scramble crossings at walking pace to get ahead of the maddening crowd. And the only one I do it at is King William and Pulteney.

In Adelaide, there are dedicated bike lanes, but the gumbyment has in its wisdom decided that they should end for no apparent reason, and put you at the mercy of traffic. People also seem to think the road edge is the outside edge of the cycle lane, so stand in it to watch traffic run down the street. They are the first to abuse you when you ring your bell, or shout for them to look out.

Coming from the Eastern states, I would have to say that SA drivers are teh suck at driving. They cannot merge, don't understand how roundabouts work, and seem to think that redlights mean send another 5 cars through, even if they were stopped and they wanted to turn right across a main road. Oh and they queue across intersections and block other traffic. Especially Buses and Taxi drivers.

When in Canberra, I rarely rode on the road. I used the cycle paths and single track. Problem is, some greenies or whomever did not like cyclists riding paths designated as dual use. Xmas 05 saw me removed from my bike by a piece of piano wire strung between 2 trees on a downhill section of path. The wire was situated just above wheel height and flung m to the ground. I landed head first and was knocked unconscious. From what I can gather, I woke 10 minutes later with a broken helmet, broken little finger, busted glasses and scratches, bruises etc, and was admitted to hospital after my wife came and picked me up. A friend I used to ride with, had a similar OTB, but was unlucky enough to break his neck. His now wife kept him alive for nearly 2 hours before the ambulance arrived. He is now paralised from the neck down. Another fellow Canberra rider moved aside so some school girls could walk 3 abreast down a cycle path. He hit a large hole covered by grass and suffered the same fate, only he asked for his life support to be turned off. Not all cyclist are aholes or inconsiderate.

I sympathise with you over your accident, and know that I look for the same action everytime I ride in the city.
And when people say stay off the road, spare a thought for those who have been seriously injured or hurt by those who don't want them offroad.

[Justin@]

What about the guy on a bike that smashed into the old guy on beach road and killed him? He rode through a red light, killed the guy and didnt even go to jail for it...

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by smee323

If I was to pay rego for my bike, then you could expect me (and every other tom, dick and harry) to take up the whole lane and travel at a reduced pace. But because I have a rego plate, you would not be able to complain. (like hell).

Imagine it, dual carriageway, bikes in both lanes. Oh what would the sooks cry about then.

Originally Posted by ZC-383

What about the guy on a bike that smashed into the old guy on beach road and killed him? He rode through a red light, killed the guy and didnt even go to jail for it...

Same reason many car drivers dont go to jail for running red lights and killing people?

[Tribal]

OK, I was going to let this be, but apparently there are some ****** morons that want to keep this going with selective one off incidents that are only known because it was in the media - what about all the incidents where cyclists, despite doing the right thing are involved in accidents that aren't ever reported?

Originally Posted by ZC-383

You say that like its a bad thing......
Some of the wacko riders that i come across on beach road are screaming to be run over, and trust me i feel like doing it too.

Pull your ****** head in, you've made you've made your deconstructive comments, now **** off.

[Justin@]

It's really simple and dont know why you guys dont get it, maybe your just plain dumb or retards...
Roads are for cars....pushbikes are for kids.