Jump to content
twinair

Bloody cyclists!

Recommended Posts

Cyclist in the right. Passenger in the wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The '1 metre rule' is a new Qld law. It only applies to cars overtaking cyclists, and mandates that cars must maintain a gap of at least 1 metre.

I'm speaking from broken memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong... but regarding our QLD law.... Its illegal (under common law) to force another person to commit a crime against their will, is it not?

 

I was discussing this months ago with a law student specializing in common law. Despite the rule saying 'cars give 1m' If a cyclist lane-filters, or comes within 1m, you cant move your car untill they do. Technically if you're in crawling grid-lock, you should SLAM your brakes the second they ride past, to ensure you're completely stationary. Otherwise you're breaking said law. If They're turning and you're not, you technically often cant drive away 'legally' (as you pass them) and even worse, if they go to the front of the pack, you're often impeding traffic.

 

As I said, my memory on the discussion is sketchy, but the 'cars' 1m rule, easily applies to cyclists too, even if it wasn't intended to.

 

 

 

Keep in mind, this is petty bullshit, and I'm aware. Fuck any of that actually applying in real life; i'm not THAT bloody stupid, but Im interested in a purely technical level.

 

I'm guesstimating based on the vision of the taxi behind the one that cleaned her up, which is in final stages of coming to a gentle stop. And I'm seeing a cyclist who is slowing down for the entirety of the very brief footage, and probs doing ~20kph tops at time of impact.

 

Which is still faster than I'd ride through there. Not that I'd ride through there. But then, I don't have to commute.

Which is exactly what I said, and ended up disgusting someone. Hopefully I didnt offend too badly by being more cautious than the norm.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The '1 metre rule' is a new Qld law. It only applies to cars overtaking cyclists, and mandates that cars must maintain a gap of at least 1 metre.

I'm speaking from broken memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong... but regarding our QLD law.... Its illegal (under common law) to force another person to commit a crime against their will, is it not?

 

I was discussing this months ago with a law student specializing in common law. Despite the rule saying 'cars give 1m' If a cyclist lane-filters, or comes within 1m, you cant move your car untill they do. Technically if you're in crawling grid-lock, you should SLAM your brakes the second they ride past, to ensure you're completely stationary. Otherwise you're breaking said law. If They're turning and you're not, you technically often cant drive away 'legally' (as you pass them) and even worse, if they go to the front of the pack, you're often impeding traffic.

 

As I said, my memory on the discussion is sketchy, but the 'cars' 1m rule, easily applies to cyclists too, even if it wasn't intended to.

 

 

 

Yes and No ,keep in mind this is why the law can now be manipulated both ways.

 

Who really has the rights to use the road ? the Car or the cyclist?

 

If that car had of pulled up too a Wall and the passengers alighted with less than a metre ,would the cyclist have passed between the wall and the car?

 

It was a setup ? and it was clearly seen as a setup . Most probably the cyclist knew that passengers alighted in that zone and the cyclist was pissed off from having to pass on the right into Traffic.

 

This cyclist has done more damage not only to laws in regards other cyclists but also in many legal aspects.

 

What is the safe distance a cyclist can pass between a car and a stationary object. The 1 metre rule is a good point ,but it can be abused quite easily as the footage displayed.

 

Many years ago when i was cycling we had bells on our bikes to alert cars of our presence ,where have they gone? and why?

 

The car was stationary and the cyclist should have passed on the right ,not the left. If the cyclist passes on the left and does damage to the vehicle through passing on the left who is too blame? Should the car be parked in the centre of the road for cyclists.

 

The vehicle is a TAXI and the cyclist knew that quite clearly ,so the TAXI would be stopping secondly the vehicle had stop lights . In the drivers manual you can only pass a vehicle on the left if it is safe to do so. Other wise you must pass on the Right.

Edited by codecreeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really has the rights to use the road ? the Car or the cyclist?

Both

If that car had of pulled up too a Wall and the passengers alighted with less than a metre ,would the cyclist have passed between the wall and the car?

It depends on the signage/road markings'

It was a setup ? and it was clearly seen as a setup . Most probably the cyclist knew that passengers alighted in that zone and the cyclist was pissed off from having to pass on the right into Traffic.

Yes and no :) Yes people get out of cars in cities all the time, and very often in the wrong spot. As a bike rider you should ride accordingly.

This cyclist has done more damage not only to laws in regards other cyclists but also in many legal aspects.

I disagree here. I think this incident has done more to shine a light on the inadequate rules/lanes/markings than any other to date(as this discussion and the media coverage shows). Hopefully something will come of it...

What is the safe distance a cyclist can pass between a car and a stationary object. The 1 metre rule is a good point ,but it can be abused quite easily as the footage displayed.

 

Many years ago when i was cycling we had bells on our bikes to alert cars of our presence ,where have they gone? and why?

You'd need a bell from the top of St. Patricks to be heard in a car. Bells were to warn pedestrians but are much less effictive now since most pedestrians come equipped with headphones.

The car was stationary and the cyclist should have passed on the right ,not the left. If the cyclist passes on the left and does damage to the vehicle through passing on the left who is too blame? Should the car be parked in the centre of the road for cyclists.

The car was stationery BUT not parked and it is against the law to let passengers out here - the passengers and taxi driver are at fault.

The vehicle is a TAXI and the cyclist knew that quite clearly ,so the TAXI would be stopping secondly the vehicle had stop lights . In the drivers manual you can only pass a vehicle on the left if it is safe to do so. Other wise you must pass on the Right.

It was safe to do so, assuming the taxi obeys the road laws and doesn't let the passengers out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh IMHO:

 

Setup dedicated bike lanes completely separate to the roads (Don't think that could be done in melb though).

 

Then force registration of all bikes that are intended to be ridden on said bike lanes, add some red light cameras and actually enforce the rules against them.

 

If you want the right to be a road user you can have the responsibilities as well.

 

Same goes for motorists and pedestrians, more cops booking jaywalkers would be nice, particularly in Sydney.

 

And hell more cops on the road would be great to curb the dickhead drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh IMHO:

 

Setup dedicated bike lanes completely separate to the roads (Don't think that could be done in melb though).

 

There is, but not going that way across the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then force registration of all bikes that are intended to be ridden on said bike lanes, add some red light cameras and actually enforce the rules against them.

Yep. The amount of 'speed cyclists' coming home from work, speeding through school zones is bloody messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then force registration of all bikes that are intended to be ridden on said bike lanes, add some red light cameras and actually enforce the rules against them.

Yep. The amount of 'speed cyclists' coming home from work, speeding through school zones is bloody messed up.

 

How many cyclists are doing > 40 km/hr through a school zone during the hours it's 40? Not many I'd hazard. Yes, even one is too many... I'm all for pulling up speeding cyclists. Cyclists would be mad to speed through school zones. It's in their best interest to take it easy, with all those car doors opening unexpectedly, causing possible serious injury.

 

-workmate got cleaned up a few weeks ago. Red P Plater pulled out in front of him. - He was doing all the right things - safest most law abiding rider I know given he's also super fast - He went over the car roof, landed on his head cracking his helmet in half. Completely separated his shoulder blade from wherever it's connected. Also ended his competitive rowing for ever (and he was rather good at that) - off work until early May. Cycling is a dangerous pursuit at the best of times. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then force registration of all bikes that are intended to be ridden on said bike lanes, add some red light cameras and actually enforce the rules against them.

Yep. The amount of 'speed cyclists' coming home from work, speeding through school zones is bloody messed up.

 

How many cyclists are doing > 40 km/hr through a school zone during the hours it's 40? Not many I'd hazard. Yes, even one is too many... I'm all for pulling up speeding cyclists. Cyclists would be mad to speed through school zones. It's in their best interest to take it easy, with all those car doors opening unexpectedly, causing possible serious injury.

 

-workmate got cleaned up a few weeks ago. Red P Plater pulled out in front of him. - He was doing all the right things - safest most law abiding rider I know given he's also super fast - He went over the car roof, landed on his head cracking his helmet in half. Completely separated his shoulder blade from wherever it's connected. Also ended his competitive rowing for ever (and he was rather good at that) - off work until early May. Cycling is a dangerous pursuit at the best of times. ...

 

The school Im near has a HUGE sweeping hill directly before it. Every cyclist almost literally just FLIES down there. I'd see... maybe 3 or so a day? probably repeat offenders though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was discussing this months ago with a law student specializing in common law. Despite the rule saying 'cars give 1m' If a cyclist lane-filters, or comes within 1m, you cant move your car untill they do. Technically if you're in crawling grid-lock, you should SLAM your brakes the second they ride past, to ensure you're completely stationary. Otherwise you're breaking said law. If They're turning and you're not, you technically often cant drive away 'legally' (as you pass them) and even worse, if they go to the front of the pack, you're often impeding traffic.

 

As I said, my memory on the discussion is sketchy, but the 'cars' 1m rule, easily applies to cyclists too, even if it wasn't intended to.

Not as I understand it. I think you're making error in two respects:

 

Firstly, the 1 metre rule, as implemented in legislation in Qld, is wholly and solely a restriction imposed on motorists who are overtaking cyclists.

Secondly, passing another vehicle in a different traffic lane is not "overtaking". It's simply continuing on in your traffic lane. "Overtaking" under Australian Road Law, is the action of changing lanes to pass a vehicle in the lane ahead of you. Understandable mistake to make of course, coz a helluva lot of people misunderstand it similarly. Road law clearly defines what "overtaking" is though. It's not actually synonymous with "passing" in general.

 

 

In truth, the '1 metre rule' as implemented is designed to address one specific scenario - that of vehicle drivers expecting cyclists to ride at the left of the traffic lane and allow them to squeeze past illegally within the same lane. It's a dangerous practice. To be quite honest I despair at the sight of cyclists riding over there and encouraging it to happen! Theory is that '1 metre rule' will somehow force drivers to leave enough room for safety, and not overtake when it's too dangerous. (Pretty hard to leave a metre gap without at least encroaching the centre line with driver side wheels). I believe it's half-arsed and inadequate, and that in general it'll create a scenario in which drivers pass more closely than they usually do. Responsible drivers already leave more than a metre gap when overtaking cyclists. Greater crackdown on irresponsible drivers is what's needed, not half-arsed inadequate 'rules'.

 

 

I'm speaking from broken memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong... but regarding our QLD law.... Its illegal (under common law) to force another person to commit a crime against their will, is it not?

 

 

 

As I said, my memory on the discussion is sketchy, but the 'cars' 1m rule, easily applies to cyclists too, even if it wasn't intended to.

 

 

Yes and No ,keep in mind this is why the law can now be manipulated both ways.

 

Who really has the rights to use the road ? the Car or the cyclist?

 

If that car had of pulled up too a Wall and the passengers alighted with less than a metre ,would the cyclist have passed between the wall and the car?

 

It was a setup ? and it was clearly seen as a setup . Most probably the cyclist knew that passengers alighted in that zone and the cyclist was pissed off from having to pass on the right into Traffic.

 

This cyclist has done more damage not only to laws in regards other cyclists but also in many legal aspects.

 

What is the safe distance a cyclist can pass between a car and a stationary object. The 1 metre rule is a good point ,but it can be abused quite easily as the footage displayed.

 

Many years ago when i was cycling we had bells on our bikes to alert cars of our presence ,where have they gone? and why?

 

The car was stationary and the cyclist should have passed on the right ,not the left. If the cyclist passes on the left and does damage to the vehicle through passing on the left who is too blame? Should the car be parked in the centre of the road for cyclists.

 

The vehicle is a TAXI and the cyclist knew that quite clearly ,so the TAXI would be stopping secondly the vehicle had stop lights . In the drivers manual you can only pass a vehicle on the left if it is safe to do so. Other wise you must pass on the Right.

Are you this level of fail at everything? Or just road law?

 

You're incorrect on every point made. Even the one about bicycle bells. All bicycles are required by law to have a bell fitted when used on the road and/or on shared pathways.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The school Im near has a HUGE sweeping hill directly before it. Every cyclist almost literally just FLIES down there. I'd see... maybe 3 or so a day? probably repeat offenders though.

And how far are they above the ground with their literal flying? I bet 40 km/hr is not enough for a bicycle to remain in the air. I think more like 400. Maybe faster. That's definitely breaking the speed limit! Edited by kikz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The school Im near has a HUGE sweeping hill directly before it. Every cyclist almost literally just FLIES down there. I'd see... maybe 3 or so a day? probably repeat offenders though.

And how far are they above the ground with their literal flying? I bet 40 km/hr is not enough for a bicycle to remain in the air. I think more like 400. Maybe faster. That's definitely breaking the speed limit!

 

That's your bad there :P

almost literally just FLIES down there

passing another vehicle in a different traffic lane is not "overtaking". It's simply continuing on in your traffic lane. "Overtaking" under Australian Road Law, is the action of changing lanes to pass a vehicle in the lane ahead of you. Understandable mistake to make of course, coz a helluva lot of people misunderstand it similarly.

So in that case, cyclists who ride on the shoulder outside the white line by 1", technically aren't being overtaken within 1m by cars? since you're not in the same lane to begin with, and I'm not merging to avoid them?

 

I'm only this curious because there is ONE major road in and out of my little seaside town, and its about 1.5km, 80kmph, and full of completely blind bends. Its a favorite for huge mobs of cyclists unfortunately. With a clear road, its a minute or so to get through. With the cyclists it can take up to 10 minutes! (its a pretty steep incline, which is why i assume its that slow).

Its also a cop hot-spot, so having this clarified would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in that case, cyclists who ride on the shoulder outside the white line by 1", technically aren't being overtaken within 1m by cars? since you're not in the same lane to begin with, and I'm not merging to avoid them?

 

I'm only this curious because there is ONE major road in and out of my little seaside town, and its about 1.5km, 80kmph, and full of completely blind bends. Its a favorite for huge mobs of cyclists unfortunately. With a clear road, its a minute or so to get through. With the cyclists it can take up to 10 minutes! (its a pretty steep incline, which is why i assume its that slow).

Its also a cop hot-spot, so having this clarified would be great.

 

As I understand it, yes. That's what it means. As far as I'm aware Queensland's '1 metre rule' is an overtaking rule.

 

Cyclists who ride skinny little spaces outside the traffic lane are riding unwisely, and by their action encouraging motorists to squeeze past them in close proximity. They should instead, where no adequate dedicated cycle lane/path is present or no adequate wide, sealed shoulder is present, be riding in the traffic lane. And motorists in such areas, when bicycles are present on the road, should be remaining behind them until safe opportunity arises to overtake in the same way vehicles and other modes of transport are overtaken.

 

That said, it can also be a courtesy extended. In similar fashion to how you see, on some sections of highway for example, slow tractor drivers or caravan towers pull over onto the verge to allow a buildup of traffic behind to go past on stretches where no overtaking lanes are present. But it's not something which the slower traffic is or should be obliged to do, and it's not a scenario in which the trailing traffic should necessarily pass. If you can't get in front safely, then stay behind.

 

Silliest part of it all is that, in such circumstances and on such stretches of road as you describe, if it was a truck hauling a heavy load that was crawling up the winding hill the motorists behind wouldn't be immediately thinking that the truck had no right to be there. It'd just be considered bad luck that the delay was there. Yet the cyclists have every bit as much right to be there as the truck does.

 

 

 

I very much dislike and disagree with the concept of the '1 metre rule'. Its only legal impact is in relation to actual overtaking actions, and its only potential impact is to allow motorists to overtake cyclists in closer proximity than they'd otherwise ensure if those cyclists were occupying the traffic lane as they are entitled to. (1 metre rule means that motorists don't have to actually cross completely over into the oncoming traffic lane to overtake bicycles, as a sensible and responsible motorist would.)

 

 

 

I see similar principles involved with the 'dooring' incident which is subject of the thread. Heaps of disgruntled peeps in discussions about it are bleating about "She shouldn't have been there!"

 

I actually agree. She shouldn't have been there. The pissy-arsed 'cyclist area' shouldn't have been there. Ridiculous and narrow 'cycle areas' marked on the road on the traffic side in the door zone also shouldn't be there. 'Blaming the cyclist' in such situations is nonsensical. Truth is that the cyclists should be in the traffic lane when no adequate alternative facilities are present, and truth is that our culture of infrastructure provision and the driver culture that we allow encourages them not to be. Was I in the position to have need to ride through that stretch I'd be doing so in the traffic lane. Fortunately for me, though, there's no scenario in which I'd have need to ride through there during busy, peak-period commuter traffic. I despair at the plight of peeps who have need to travel by bicycle during rush-hour.

 

 

 

 

For the record, by the way, I'm semi-retired, a country resident, and don't cycle anywhere near as much as I'd like to. And when I have need to stay in inner-suburb areas for stretches of days or more I always take bicycle with me and use that as primary mode of transport whilst there. Coz, unless you're carting bulky cargo, travelling around such areas on bicycle is better and quicker than travelling by car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silliest part of it all is that, in such circumstances and on such stretches of road as you describe, if it was a truck hauling a heavy load that was crawling up the winding hill the motorists behind wouldn't be immediately thinking that the truck had no right to be there. It'd just be considered bad luck that the delay was there. Yet the cyclists have every bit as much right to be there as the truck does.

Only if the cyclist is also slowing traffic to keep the country running\feed their family.

 

Dont get me wrong, I'm courteous and will happily wait 2-3 minutes for a safe time to pass. on a slow up hill crawl I just consider it common courtesy to let the car pass, burning un-renewable resources, and costing money.

 

Its not the cyclist or the speed per-se, its the inconsideration. And there are plenty of curteous riders out there; especially once you approach the CBD. Its just the ones in my area who are arrogant. Seriously?? 3 abreast on a blind 80km road?? just shits me off. (honest, i'm not making that shit up!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the 'courtesy' contention. But it has to be understood that it's neither an obligation nor a 'one size fits all' solution. On narrow, windy uphill stretches in particular there is increased chance that pulling over to allow trailing traffic to pass won't be safely possible, increased chance that pulling over will mean stopping completely, and increased chance that, for less experienced riders in particular, pulling over in such fashion will mean the end of the uphill ride. (Coz they just won't get going again!)

 

When that last bit is the case, the remainder of the uphill travel will be the even more potentially dangerous scenario of added width of rider on foot plus bicycle width, wheeling it up the rest of that narrow, squishy stretch.

 

 

 

 

But get back to door zones, and passing in general. Compare with the often-seen scenario of narrow cycle areas between parked cars and traffic lanes. they're a dangerous spot to ride in, and their provision is more often than not just an inadequate attempt to defuse road rage rather than ensure cyclist safety. Studies have demonstrated quite clearly that, on average, motorists pass bicycles in closer proximity when those road markings are present than they do if such markings aren't present. When a cyclist is riding in such a spot, the tendency is for it to be seen as legitimising a closer presence of cars to bicycles. I firmly believe the same will apply to the '1 metre' overtaking law. It'll legitimise an attitude of "I'm allowed to go this close!" 1 metre isn't very far away. It's stupidly close. At that short distance it quite conceivably only really takes front wheel of a bicycle to hit a pebble and a collision can be created.

 

Over-riding principle should always be that drivers exercise due caution when sharing the road with cyclists. Inadequate measures which really only pander to motorist impatience are never a suitable rresponse.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you enforce the 1 metre rule when you're travelling without a tape measure?

Dumb.

Attach those old yard rulers to your mirrors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, 'SLAP!' too close, sorry!

 

Same as they enfore the 300m headlight rule; or 10m corner parking rule. eyeball it. Its why 90% of those who bother to fight them get off the charge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guesstimating based on the vision of the taxi behind the one that cleaned her up, which is in final stages of coming to a gentle stop. And I'm seeing a cyclist who is slowing down for the entirety of the very brief footage, and probs doing ~20kph tops at time of impact.

 

Which is still faster than I'd ride through there. Not that I'd ride through there. But then, I don't have to commute.

 

okay, so i revisited the video, using an editor.

 

by counting the actual frames of this 25fps video, there is actually around 3.7 seconds to impact.

 

also, i made a far more exacting estimate of the distance using multiple geometrical approaches. (using Bing too, which actually has a far more useful satellite pic)

 

now, to the best of my objective judgement, i am willing to concede i'd previously overestimated the distance -- by around 7m!

 

so, that brings my revised Bullshit Forensic Estimate™ to:

 

(27m / 3.7s) = 26.3 km/h

 

it seems i was engaged in the very definition of bad science -- looking for evidence to match my hypothesis.

 

one reason i was apt to make this mistake is that i am well acquainted with the way lenses can distort estimations of speed, especially with moving frames of reference, and especially when deprived of peripheral cues, as is the case with the vertical letterboxing in the video.

 

also....because i guess i am just hopelessly biased against the reckless goose riding that bike. :S

 

regardless of who was in the right on paper, if it were me, i would be sheepishly burying that video (not flaunting it) and taking great consolation in the fact that learning that little lesson didnt come at far greater personal cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guesstimating based on the vision of the taxi behind the one that cleaned her up, which is in final stages of coming to a gentle stop. And I'm seeing a cyclist who is slowing down for the entirety of the very brief footage, and probs doing ~20kph tops at time of impact.

 

Which is still faster than I'd ride through there. Not that I'd ride through there. But then, I don't have to commute.

 

okay, so i revisited the video, using an editor.

 

by counting the actual frames of this 25fps video, there is actually around 3.7 seconds to impact.

 

also, i made a far more exacting estimate of the distance using multiple geometrical approaches. (using Bing too, which actually has a far more useful satellite pic)

 

now, to the best of my objective judgement, i am willing to concede i'd previously overestimated the distance -- by around 7m!

 

so, that brings my revised Bullshit Forensic Estimate™ to:

 

(27m / 3.7s) = 26.3 km/h

 

it seems i was engaged in the very definition of bad science -- looking for evidence to match my hypothesis.

 

one reason i was apt to make this mistake is that i am well acquainted with the way lenses can distort estimations of speed, especially with moving frames of reference, and especially when deprived of peripheral cues, as is the case with the vertical letterboxing in the video.

 

also....because i guess i am just hopelessly biased against the reckless goose riding that bike. :S

 

regardless of who was in the right on paper, if it were me, i would be sheepishly burying that video (not flaunting it) and taking great consolation in the fact that learning that little lesson didnt come at far greater personal cost.

 

The only issue i can find with your estimate is that the bike hits the taxi and she should end up doing a loony toons flight for a good distance at that speed or am i over estimating it?

 

Edit: And if she was moving that fast there no way in hell the guy could have seen her coming getting out of the cab.

Edited by Xen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The school Im near has a HUGE sweeping hill directly before it. Every cyclist almost literally just FLIES down there. I'd see... maybe 3 or so a day? probably repeat offenders though.

And how far are they above the ground with their literal flying? I bet 40 km/hr is not enough for a bicycle to remain in the air. I think more like 400. Maybe faster. That's definitely breaking the speed limit!

 

That's your bad there :P

almost literally just FLIES down there

Fuck reading properly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i believe she is in the process of slowing down. she mightve only been doing a little over 20 upon impact.

 

i hit a parked truck once at speed lol. luckily the gooseneck collided very squarely with the bumper. most of the energy was quickly absorbed by lifting my weight into the air. the abruptness of the stop was...astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue i can find with your estimate is that the bike hits the taxi and she should end up doing a loony toons flight for a good distance at that speed or am i over estimating it?

 

Edit: And if she was moving that fast there no way in hell the guy could have seen her coming getting out of the cab.

 

That's the main reason I put it at 20kph tops!

 

I actually doubt that she was even travelling at the upper limit of that, coz if she had it'd be unlikely that she'd be straight back up again spitting and hissing about it. Despite the games played with faux analysis, that looks like a quite low speed impact to me. At 20kph or greater there'd be a very good chance that cyclist would have been thrown over the door.

 

 

The speed is an irrelevance anyway. It's slower than allowable speed for traffic on that stretch of road, and the cab passenger opened the door onto a traffic flow section of the road. And despite that ~20kph or whatever speed possibly resulting in a relatively severe impact, on a half-decent bicycle it's not really an instance of cyclist putting in any strenuous effort, coz it only requires about the same expenditure of energy as walking does.

 

And the campaign/rules against 'dooring' have been rather heavily publicised in Victoria. I find all the argument about the cyclist supposedly being irresponsible is utter nonsense. Truth is, peeps in Vic should know by now not to do what the bloke did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×