Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

[treadly&me[_5_]]

These days I try to avoid heated exchanges with other road users, but
judging by an incident I witnessed last night, some riders are always
up for it. Even when they're completely in the wrong.

I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There
were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the
adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a few
lengths ahead of me.

As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn, the
lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's turn.
The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead, continued his
pace unchanged--swerving with the car as it cornered, shouting at the
driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.

-*Q. Was he justified in his rage and aggression?*-

Let's go to the road rules, specifically 'Rule 141'
(http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq):

>
> (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
> vehicle to the left of the vehicle...
>

So far, so good: cyclists are allowed to pass on the inside. However:

>
> (2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the
> left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of
> direction signal.
>

-*A. No.*-

So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the
road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's
car somewhat pathetic.

I was well aware of the rule that prohibits overtaking to the left of
another vehicle turning left, but I'll admit that I had to come away
and check that there were no subtleties in the rules that give priority
to traffic in a bike lane. And under rules '153'
(http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq) and '158' (http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq) the
existence of a bike lane bestows no special rights in this situation.

Regardless of the legalities, I'd have thought the rational action
would be to avoid trouble to begin with. Indeed, driving/riding in a
way that avoids collisions is a key concept underlying the road rules.
But this rider totally ignored that, preferring to ride in a manner
that -guaranteed- a collision.

Let me be clear here, this was not an emergency situation: the driver
hadn't suddenly and unexpectedly turned in front of the bike. On the
contrary, the car was stationary and indicating a turn well before we
arrived. There was time and space for the rider to slow or stop to
avoid the car but he chose to continue, seemingly with the intent of
escalating a confrontation. (Come to think of it, did he actually
-speed-up-? Hmm, not sure about that...)

Anyway, it looked a lot like the action of someone who deliberately
wanted to engage in a bit of argy-bargy. And it left me wondering, why?


--
treadly&me

[byron27[_50_]]

Small question, big answer.

Why does anyone look for confrontation in any sphere of their life?


--
byron27

[TimC]

On 2007-05-01, treadly&amp me (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> These days I try to avoid heated exchanges with other road users, but
> judging by an incident I witnessed last night, some riders are always
> up for it. Even when they're completely in the wrong.
>
> I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There
> were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the
> adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a few
> lengths ahead of me.
>
> As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn, the
> lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's turn.
> The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead, continued his
> pace unchanged--swerving with the car as it cornered, shouting at the
> driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.
>
> -*Q. Was he justified in his rage and aggression?*-

Snip ARR 141.1 and 141.2

> -*A. No.*-
>
> So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the
> road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's
> car somewhat pathetic.
>
> I was well aware of the rule that prohibits overtaking to the left of
> another vehicle turning left, but I'll admit that I had to come away
> and check that there were no subtleties in the rules that give priority
> to traffic in a bike lane. And under rules '153'
> (http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq) and '158' (http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq) the
> existence of a bike lane bestows no special rights in this situation.

However.


I agree with you, mostly. However, I think there is something
fundamentally flawed about cycle lanes in such situations. As much as
I think it's impractical to require driver to look to the left and
behind them everytime turning left, I think there is something wrong
here.

A cycle lane is a lane. When it goes through an intersection, the
right hand side of that lane is marked a broken white line. It's
identical to a normal lane, just thinner. Drivers are required to
check they are not about to cause a collision when switching or
crossing lanes. Why should this be any fundamentally different to
bike lanes? Sure, drivers aren't usually held responsible for things
behind them -- rear enders are deemed to be the fault of the party
doing the colliding in all situations (all but the exceptions that
prove the rule :) -- except when your lane merges into someone elses.

Indeed, does the law truly not have a couple of hidden hard to find
clause somewhere that would put the driver at fault by basically
saying "cross lane+collision && bike lane==lane => your fault" if you
hired an expensive enough lawyer?


As to your question "do some look for confrontation". Dunno. What I
suspect is that anyone who thinks their life was just placed at risk
is going to go off their heads just a little -- adrenaline does that.
People just differ in their threshold of what consitutes a risk to
their life, and what proportion of the risk lies on their own head.
Even though it was only a low speed colision, there is still a tiny
choice he could bounce off, into a firehydrant, hitting his head on
it, dying. He might have been going hard and not seen the blinkers
(but seen the green light?), hence may have mentally assigned 100% of
the blame on an apparently non indicating motorist. I can't remember
-- was this during the day? Lots of cars have extremely hard to see
indicators, that I could easily imagine being completely invisible
from certain angles.

--
TimC
"Indicators: There are controls in each vehicle that cause little bits
of coloured plastic to flash on and off at the corners of your vehicle.
Pretty, aren't they?" -- friend of Richard Sherratt in aus.bicycle

[treadly&me[_6_]]

TimC Wrote:
> A cycle lane is a lane. When it goes through an intersection, the right
> hand side of that lane is marked a broken white line. It's identical to
> a normal lane, just thinner.

Except where there is no broken line, in which case the bike lane is
deemed to end at the start of the intersection (paraphrasing ARR
153(4)(b)).

TimC Wrote:
> Drivers are required to check they are not about to cause a collision
> when switching or crossing lanes. Why should this be any fundamentally
> different to bike lanes?

It's not and shouldn't be. But this wasn't a lane merge, it was a turn
and rule 141(2) is clear: you can't ride past on the left of another
vehicle that's indicating a left turn. (Despite the fact that this
appears to make speed-up-to-turn-left-in-front-of-the-cyclist move
"legal"--although I'm sure I've seen something that prohibits that
somewhere.)

TimC Wrote:
> Indeed, does the law truly not have a couple of hidden hard to find
> clause somewhere that would put the driver at fault by basically saying
> "cross lane+collision && bike lane==lane => your fault" if you hired an
> expensive enough lawyer?

Agreed, but let's not get started on lawyers! They love it when we talk
about them...

TimC Wrote:
> As to your question "do some look for confrontation". Dunno. What I
> suspect is that anyone who thinks their life was just placed at risk is
> going to go off their heads just a little -- adrenaline does that.

Yes, I know the feeling. And I've certainly let fly the odd
adrenaline-charged spray when I've felt unduly threatened.

TimC Wrote:
> People just differ in their threshold of what consitutes a risk to their
> life, and what proportion of the risk lies on their own head.

You're dead right, but in this case the rider had a lot of control over
the level of risk. It may have got lost a bit in the telling but I did
say:

> There was time and space for the rider to slow or stop to avoid the car
> but he chose to continue

And that's basically the crux of my pondering: given the choice to back
off or escalate a potentially risky encounter (that could've included
things like bouncing off and sustaining a head injury), why would any
rational person choose the latter? This guy increased the risk,
apparently so that he could act the aggrieved victim--not a
particularly pleasant way to carry on.

TimC Wrote:
> He might have been going hard and not seen the blinkers (but seen the
> green light?), hence may have mentally assigned 100% of the blame on an
> apparently non indicating motorist. I can't remember -- was this during
> the day? Lots of cars have extremely hard to see indicators, that I
> could easily imagine being completely invisiblefrom certain angles.

I could easily keep up with him, so he wasn't exactly flogging it. :-)

It was fully dark but raining, so I'll grant that there might have been
-some- visibility issues. But we were approaching straight from behind
with the cars stationary at the lights through to the end of a red
light cycle, so I really can't imagine that he didn't see the
indicators.

The rain was a detail I didn't mention, but it adds texture to the
story. And another question: why would you go thundering in when your
ability to stop and/or manoeuvre is compromised by the wet conditions?

TimC Wrote:
> "Indicators: There are controls in each vehicle that cause little bits
> of coloured plastic to flash on and off at the corners of your vehicle.
> Pretty, aren't they?" -- friend of Richard Sherratt in aus.bicycle

Apposite. One to you, sir.

byron27 Wrote:
> Why does anyone look for confrontation in any sphere of their life?

Hoo, philosophy! And I was only looking for pragmatism. I think that's
taking it out into deep water...


--
treadly&me

[Michael Warner[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 18:33:42 +1000, treadly&me wrote:

> -*Q. Was he justified in his rage and aggression?*-

No, he was definitely in the wrong, since the car was indicating.

But sometimes when you slow down and wait for a car to turn,
the driver decides to wait for you, and everyone grinds to a halt.
Drivers trying to give way when you're clearly waiting for them
to take their right of way are a major irritant IMHO.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[Aeek]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 00:21:07 +0930, Michael Warner >
wrote:

>But sometimes when you slow down and wait for a car to turn,
>the driver decides to wait for you, and everyone grinds to a halt.

Which is why I often pull out of the bike lane and slot in behind.
--
Andre ==================== Speed Thrills!

[Michael Warner[_2_]]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:01:29 +1000, Aeek wrote:

> Which is why I often pull out of the bike lane and slot in behind.

That's definitely better if there's room to push in.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[EuanB[_40_]]

TimC Wrote:
> A cycle lane is a lane. When it goes through an intersection, the
> right hand side of that lane is marked a broken white line. It's
> identical to a normal lane, just thinner. Drivers are required to
> check they are not about to cause a collision when switching or
> crossing lanes. Why should this be any fundamentally different to
> bike lanes? Sure, drivers aren't usually held responsible for things
> behind them -- rear enders are deemed to be the fault of the party
> doing the colliding in all situations (all but the exceptions that
> prove the rule :) -- except when your lane merges into someone elses.
Let's not forget that all drivers can use the bike lane 50M prior to
the junction. I believe it would be better if left turning drivers
were required to move in to the lane, remove the ambiguity from the
situation.

A few months ago I had a driver pull out of a side street in to
traffic, travel approximately 20 meters and then without indicating
turn left down the following side street. It was peak hour and even
uphill I was going a fair bit faster than him and had to brake rather
hard to avoid a collision.

If the driver had stayed in the bike lane, as he was legally able to
do, there would have been no ambiguity.


--
EuanB

[Theo Bekkers]

me wrote:

> I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There
> were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the
> adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a
> few lengths ahead of me.
>
> As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn,
> the lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's
> turn. The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead,
> continued his pace unchanged--swerving with the car as it cornered,
> shouting at the driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.

> Let's go to the road rules, specifically 'Rule 141'
> (http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq):
>
>>
>> (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
>> vehicle to the left of the vehicle...
>>
>
> So far, so good: cyclists are allowed to pass on the inside. However:
>
>>
>> (2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the
>> left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of
>> direction signal.
>>
>
> -*A. No.*-
>
> So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the
> road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's
> car somewhat pathetic.

A valid question would be "Is the bicycle lane a lane?" If it is then the
car was clearly in the wrong. If it isn't, why mark it as one. I think the
cyclist was in the right. Still not a good reason to bash the car.

Theo

[rooman[_104_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>
>
> A valid question would be "Is the bicycle lane a lane?" If it is then
> the
> car was clearly in the wrong. If it isn't, why mark it as one. I think
> the
> cyclist was in the right. Still not a good reason to bash the car.
>
> Theo
If on approaching the intersection the car driver signalled an
intention to turn left, he/she had the right (when it is safe to do
so)to move into the bicycle lane within 50m of the intersection, and
quoted R. 141 (2) clearly requires bicycles behind that left turn
signalling car not to pass it on the left. It seems the car did not
enter the bicycle lane for what ever reason... we dont know (already
full of bikes, nothing there, just changed mind about the
turn..whatever) , so the car was stopped in the full traffic lane ,
prior to stopping it may or may not have been indicating a left turn,
but it was in a place that conceivebaly allowed riders to pass on the
left physically, (and legally if not signalling). It is also possible
after stopping the driver decided to turn left and then signalled, and
the signal could not be seen be a rider positioned to the left in the
bicycle lane. This wouldnt excuse the driver from just turning into the
bike lane and in that instance the driver should wait till the vehicle
to its left, ( the bicycle/s beside it) cleared the lane.

We are speculating here of course , but this seems a likely scenario
that may have also raised the angst of the rider. The driver *may* have
signalled late.

It just goes to show that you always have to keep your wits and be
observant and expect the worse.


--
rooman

[treadly&me[_7_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> A valid question would be "Is the bicycle lane a lane?" If it is then
> the car was clearly in the wrong. If it isn't, why mark it as one. I
> think the cyclist was in the right. Still not a good reason to bash the
> car.

No, I still reckon the cyclist was wrong, and the status of the bike
lane is not relevant here. (Stick with me, I'll get there in the
end...)

Road rule 153(4) says:

> A bicycle lane is a marked lane...
And elsewhere in the rules, a "marked lane" is defined as

> an area of a road marked by continuous or broken lines, or rows of studs
> or markers, on the road surface that is designed for use by a single
> line of vehicles
So Theo's right: a bicycle lane is indeed a traffic lane.

But rule 153(4) goes on to say that one of the things that terminates a
bike lane is

> an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the
> continuing road at a T–intersection or continued across the
> intersection by broken lines)
And neither of these exceptions applied in this case, so the bike lane
ended at the stop line and the driver was *not* crossing or merging
into the bike lane--he was simply turning left at an intersection. And
in this case, rule 141(2) definitely applies: the cyclist must not pass
on the left of the left turning vehicle.

Therefore, the cyclist was wrong for attempting such a pass. (Phew,
made it!)

This is, of course, a fundamental problem with bike lanes: conflict (or
collision!) is likely wherever a bike lane meets turning traffic. I
guess that's why we're starting to see those weird arrangements where
the turning lane and the bike lane swap places. I don't know if that's
better, but at least it doesn't imply that either lane has priority.

But let me return to another important point: a principle underlying
the road rules is that everyone drive/ride in a manner that avoids
collisions. So even if the driver were in the wrong, the cyclist was
also in the wrong because he didn't act to avoid a collision despite
having enough time and space to do so. (And "in the wrong" is not a
good position from which to deliver a self-righteous pounding...)


--
treadly&me

[treadly&me[_8_]]

rooman Wrote:
> We are speculating here of course , but this seems a likely scenario
> that may have also raised the angst of the rider. The driver *may* have
> signalled late.

I agree that a late or completely absent signal would be angst-raising
(it would certainly get me riled). But that's not what happened in this
case: the car was signalling a turn well before we arrived--there was
nothing unexpected about what the driver intended.

This gets back to what puzzles me: the other rider's aggro was just so
unjustified.

rooman Wrote:
> It just goes to show that you always have to keep your wits and be
> observant and expect the worse.

Certainly can't argue with that!


--
treadly&me

[OzCableguy]

<treadly&amp>; "me" >
wrote in message ...
> I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There
> were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the
> adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a few
> lengths ahead of me.
>
> As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn, the
> lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's turn.
> The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead, continued his
> pace unchanged--swerving with the car as it cornered, shouting at the
> driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.
>
>

Interesting situation. I agree with Euan that it is ambiguous and the car
taking the bike line would be the best solution.
If the traffic was moving, motorised traffic would & should be giving way to
bikes in the bike lane. If the light was red and the bike lane was clear
most cyclists would naturally move to the front of the lane irrispective of
anyone indicating left because they'd assume they'd be just on front of the
car/s turning left and would be across the intersection on the green before
the cars moved or at the very least force them to give way for 1 or 3
seconds. The only thing that went wrong in the situation you witnessed was
that the light changed earlier than the cyclist anticipated so he was caught
with the car moving across in front of him.
I would put the blame on the cyclist here because he should have adjusted
speed accordingly to allow for the possibility of this happening.

I had a similar situation a while back along an esplanade where I approached
a roundabout (with bike lanes on both sides) intending to go straight
through and I gave way to a car entering from the right that had right of
way. On exit he didn't pick up speed so 100 meters or so later I started
passing him on the left only to find when I drew level with the passenger
door that he was moving slowly because he was looking for a park. Well, he
found one and even though he would have been very much aware that I was
somewhere near him from our exchange at the roundabout where he watched me
drop in behind him, he promptly turned. Thankfully he turned slow enough for
me to put the hammer down and just make it through the gap before getting
squished. I put it down to "one of those things" that no one could really be
totally blamed for and settled for giving him the "wtf" shrug and continued
on my way a little wiser for it.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[Theo Bekkers]

me wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> A valid question would be "Is the bicycle lane a lane?" If it is then
>> the car was clearly in the wrong. If it isn't, why mark it as one. I
>> think the cyclist was in the right. Still not a good reason to bash
>> the car.
>
> No, I still reckon the cyclist was wrong, and the status of the bike
> lane is not relevant here. (Stick with me, I'll get there in the
> end...)
>
> Road rule 153(4) says:
>
>> A bicycle lane is a marked lane...
> And elsewhere in the rules, a "marked lane" is defined as
>
>> an area of a road marked by continuous or broken lines, or rows of
>> studs or markers, on the road surface that is designed for use by a
>> single line of vehicles
> So Theo's right: a bicycle lane is indeed a traffic lane.
>
> But rule 153(4) goes on to say that one of the things that terminates
> a bike lane is
>
>> an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the
>> continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the
>> intersection by broken lines)
> And neither of these exceptions applied in this case, so the bike lane
> ended at the stop line and the driver was *not* crossing or merging
> into the bike lane--he was simply turning left at an intersection. And
> in this case, rule 141(2) definitely applies: the cyclist must not
> pass on the left of the left turning vehicle.

Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left (bicycle)
lane before turning?

> Therefore, the cyclist was wrong for attempting such a pass. (Phew,
> made it!)
>
> This is, of course, a fundamental problem with bike lanes: conflict
> (or collision!) is likely wherever a bike lane meets turning traffic.
> I guess that's why we're starting to see those weird arrangements
> where the turning lane and the bike lane swap places. I don't know if
> that's better, but at least it doesn't imply that either lane has
> priority.
>
> But let me return to another important point: a principle underlying
> the road rules is that everyone drive/ride in a manner that avoids
> collisions. So even if the driver were in the wrong, the cyclist was
> also in the wrong because he didn't act to avoid a collision despite
> having enough time and space to do so. (And "in the wrong" is not a
> good position from which to deliver a self-righteous pounding...)

Totally agree. Attacking a one tonne vehicle, designed to protect the driver
from injury in a moderate collision with another one tonne vehicle, the
operator of a 10 kg vehicle on which they are totally unprotected is also
not that wise.

Theo

[Duncan]

On May 2, 3:17 pm, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
> Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left (bicycle)
> lane before turning?

No doubt Mr. "I'm ****ed off" would be doubly so if he came upon the
intersection and found the car stopped in the bike lane waiting to
turn left.

[Theo Bekkers]

Duncan wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left
>> (bicycle) lane before turning?

> No doubt Mr. "I'm ****ed off" would be doubly so if he came upon the
> intersection and found the car stopped in the bike lane waiting to
> turn left.

He'd probably be upset if the lights were red.

Theo

[treadly&me[_11_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left
> (bicycle) lane before turning?

Good point. Having established that the bike lane is a "marked lane"
and that cars may enter the lane for up to 50m before turning, it would
seem that cars -should- be moving into the bike lane to make left turns,
including at traffic lights.

Hands up who wants that to happen all the time? (Personally, I'd prefer
a clear run through to the bike box, if there is one.)

Duncan Wrote:
> No doubt Mr. "I'm ****ed off" would be doubly so if he came upon the
> intersection and found the car stopped in the bike lane waiting to turn
> left.

I'll put *him* down as a "No" then...

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> He'd probably be upset if the lights were red.

Nah, he's just roll through. He obviously wouldn't let anything so
trivial slow him down.


--
treadly&amp;me

[PHATRS]

treadly&amp;me wrote:

> Anyway, it looked a lot like the action of someone who deliberately
> wanted to engage in a bit of argy-bargy. And it left me wondering, why?
>
>

It's just a human thing. I see car drivers do it to other car drivers
all the time. They think the whole world owes them a free ride and
exempt them from any wrong-doing and they get super agro when someone
points out they're in the wrong.

--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

[PHATRS]

treadly&amp;me wrote:
> TimC Wrote:
>> A cycle lane is a lane. When it goes through an intersection, the right
>> hand side of that lane is marked a broken white line. It's identical to
>> a normal lane, just thinner.
>
> Except where there is no broken line, in which case the bike lane is
> deemed to end at the start of the intersection (paraphrasing ARR
> 153(4)(b)).
>
> TimC Wrote:
>> Drivers are required to check they are not about to cause a collision
>> when switching or crossing lanes. Why should this be any fundamentally
>> different to bike lanes?
>
> It's not and shouldn't be. But this wasn't a lane merge, it was a turn
> and rule 141(2) is clear: you can't ride past on the left of another
> vehicle that's indicating a left turn. (Despite the fact that this
> appears to make speed-up-to-turn-left-in-front-of-the-cyclist move
> "legal"--although I'm sure I've seen something that prohibits that
> somewhere.)
>
Forgot to mention the road rule that states all road users must make
every effort to avoid a collision. So even if someone would be breaking
the law by failing to give way to you, if you don't take action to try
to avoid a collision, part of the blame will be assigned to you.

--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

[Theo Bekkers]

me wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left
>> (bicycle) lane before turning?
>
> Good point. Having established that the bike lane is a "marked lane"
> and that cars may enter the lane for up to 50m before turning, it
> would seem that cars -should- be moving into the bike lane to make
> left turns, including at traffic lights.
>
> Hands up who wants that to happen all the time? (Personally, I'd
> prefer a clear run through to the bike box, if there is one.)

You'd prefer that the car turned across your lane as you were going straight
on?

Theo

[treadly&me[_12_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> me wrote:
> > Hands up who wants that to happen all the time? (Personally, I'd
> > prefer a clear run through to the bike box, if there is one.)
>
> You'd prefer that the car turned across your lane as you were going
> straight
> on?

No, but maybe I should clarify: I'd prefer a clear run to the bike box
-while the traffic is stationary-.


--
treadly&amp;me

[rooman[_118_]]

treadly&me Wrote:
> No, but maybe I should clarify: I'd prefer a clear run to the bike box
> -while the traffic is stationary-.that can still be a problem if the lights change as you are riding up
and they can't see you in their quarter's even if they look.

We expect drivers to wait a few seconds for us, why not give them a few
as well ( there are 86400 of them in a day) so what is wrong with
holding back behind a stationary car signalling a turn and making sure
they don't have to contend with getting a crushed body out from under
their wheels.

We all have to use common sense and give a little courtesy and respect,
even where right of way may be ours sometimes.
_____________________
*visible, predictable and legal.*


--
rooman

Roadie &amp; Track

[Meeba[_2_]]

Michael Warner Wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:01:29 +1000, Aeek wrote:
>
> > Which is why I often pull out of the bike lane and slot in behind.
>
> l slot in behind car as well if its safe ,but then sometimes other
> cyclists move up along bike lane to where l was, thus causing same
> problem.It is difficult in peak ride times,just have to judge each
> situation as they arise.


--
Meeba

[hippy[_34_]]

treadly&me Wrote:
> Anyway, it looked a lot like the action of someone who deliberately
> wanted to engage in a bit of argy-bargy. And it left me wondering, why?

Some of us are chilled out, some of us have short fuses and some of us
don't have a fuse at all. I think I'm one of the latter on some days.
BUT! I believe I have a good grasp of the rules and I will not turn
nutter on someone innocent.
I will rip apart anyone who does something stupid that risks my
safety.

I've seen exactly the situation you describe happen right in front of
me. I had backed off because I could see I wasn't going to make it
around the corner and I could see the driver had indicated right and
yet this tool in front of me barged on through and then hurled abuse at
the driver when they turned right!
Rider = tool. If a car suddenly decides to head down 'that' street and
cuts someone off then they are the tool.

There seem to be a few riders who think the road is all theirs (and I
do this 'to an extent'.. so hang me) but where have we seen this
before? Yeah, drivers.

hippy


--
hippy