Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lady cyclists: please be killed politely

poetix 30 April 2013 68

cycle path

I very rarely have a rant.  But today, I ventured onto the road in Challis Street Dickson.  There are little bicycles painted on the road.  I was riding right over them on the left hand side of the road, near Dame Pattie Menzies House.

Suddenly a car passed me, pulled in ahead of me (that is, to the extreme left of the road) and started reversing towards me.  I managed to move slightly into a car parking spot to my left and stop.  Then he eventually braked.  The left hand side of his car was about 2 cm away from my right pedal. He unwound the window and said ‘Sorry love, but I need to park.’

In other words, he thought it was legitimate to start reversing into a park even if it meant possibly taking out a cyclist.  It’s only because I am so slow that I managed to stop my bike and move over into the car parking spots, and only because the rear of my bike was right in front of his intended park that he acknowledged me.

I told him he was a f***ing idiot, and he said ‘How very ladylike.  But I suppose you’re not a lady.’  So not only did he nearly kill me, but after calling me ‘love’ he followed it up with a little sexist homily.

Etiquette tips from a moron who thinks it is fine to endanger a life to get a park are my very favourite type of etiquette tip.

Now I feel so much better.  But I think I’ll probably stick to pavements and bike-paths for a while.

[ED – I went out and took this picture just to show how stencilling a bicycle onto the road now counts as building a bicycle path]


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
68 Responses to
Lady cyclists: please be killed politely
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Postalgeek 8:44 am 03 May 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Yes, point taken.

No, point not taken. Point has passed you without pulling in front of you, hitting its brakes, and reversing into you.

KB1971 9:28 pm 02 May 13

I will add, a car performing a reverse park needs to ensure the road behind them is clear. If in the process of performing a reverse par the vehicle behind happens to stop too close & the car in front reverses into it then it is the reversing cars fault.

It’s no different if it is a push bike. It is up to the car in front to give adequate warning of its intentions.

KB1971 9:24 pm 02 May 13

Your comprehension is not that good is it Wild turkey?

The scenario was that the vehicle moved in front of Poetix in such a way that she had to take evasive action. It wasn’t a case of she was following a car down the road, it indicated with time to warn other road users if the intention to reverse park & she blindly rode into the path of the car. Trust me, riders don’t do this intentionally.

Had Poetix been a car there would have been an accident because she would not have been able to stop.

Am I reading a different English ? Or were you the driver of the car?

wildturkeycanoe 6:53 pm 02 May 13

KB1971 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, you are saying that he was reversing into a parking spot and almost hit you. Was it an actual parking spot where he could legally park? If so, why were you riding in a parking spot? If it is a parking spot AND a cycle lane, then there is a serious issue with the road design and the government is to blame. If it wasn’t a parking spot and he was reversing into the one into which you were forced to merge, this becomes a complex issue. How is a driver supposed to reverse into a park on the left, if it is off-street, when he has to wait for traffic to pass on his left, whilst the cars behind are waiting? It’d be like trying to reverse from the middle lane of Northbourne Avenue into the front of the Rex Hotel – totally ludicrous!! This is why cycle lanes on the road are a fail in my opinion. It puts them in the way of every vehicle that has to merge from the left lane to the kerb.

“Suddenly a car passed me, pulled in ahead of me (that is, to the extreme left of the road) and started reversing towards me.”

Yes, point taken. The car was reversing into the off road parking space, which he is legally entitled to do. In this situation the person behind said vehicle is at fault if a collision occurs. I take this from previous incidents I have heard 1st person from, that if a car is reversing – be it into a park or at the traffic lights – the car behind is at fault if a collision occurs. That is, unless the vehicle behind sounds their horn to warn the reversing vehicle of an imminent collision.
As I stated, having to give way to traffic on your left when you reverse into the off-road parking space, is not what every driver should expect to have to do when in normal circumstances the vehicles behind stop to let the person park.
In my opinion, the OP has just got in the way and is upset because they think they are above the road rules. Nuff said.

KB1971 9:32 am 02 May 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, you are saying that he was reversing into a parking spot and almost hit you. Was it an actual parking spot where he could legally park? If so, why were you riding in a parking spot? If it is a parking spot AND a cycle lane, then there is a serious issue with the road design and the government is to blame. If it wasn’t a parking spot and he was reversing into the one into which you were forced to merge, this becomes a complex issue. How is a driver supposed to reverse into a park on the left, if it is off-street, when he has to wait for traffic to pass on his left, whilst the cars behind are waiting? It’d be like trying to reverse from the middle lane of Northbourne Avenue into the front of the Rex Hotel – totally ludicrous!! This is why cycle lanes on the road are a fail in my opinion. It puts them in the way of every vehicle that has to merge from the left lane to the kerb.

“Suddenly a car passed me, pulled in ahead of me (that is, to the extreme left of the road) and started reversing towards me.”

Erg0 9:24 am 02 May 13

BicycleCanberra said :

Masquara said :

Poetix do you wear a helmet? I think you’ve mentioned on a previous thread whether you do – but if you didn’t, perhaps you would in future after this episode!

Whats that got to do with it? Did the driver where a Helmet?

I would take it as a suggestion that she should make maximum effort to ensure her own safety since she obviously can’t rely on (some) motorists to do so.

BicycleCanberra 8:05 am 02 May 13

Masquara said :

Poetix do you wear a helmet? I think you’ve mentioned on a previous thread whether you do – but if you didn’t, perhaps you would in future after this episode!

Whats that got to do with it? Did the driver where a Helmet?

Jono 7:45 am 02 May 13

Aeek said :

The road rules do state that its an offence to ride on the footpath.

Incorrect – the Australian Road Rules state that it is an offence to ride on a footpath (if you’re 12 years or older), ONLY if it’s in breach of a law in the local jurisdiction. There is no such law in the ACT, therefore it’s not an offence.

Aeek said :

The declaration that all footpaths in the ACT is a regulation, and not part of the road rules.

The enabling legislation in the ACT is the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation, and that doesn’t even mention the term “shared paths”, but does make specific mention of the term “footpath” and in its dictionary says that the definition of “footpath” is the same as its definition in the Australian Road Rules.

If you’re going to keep claiming this to be true, how about you provide a reference to the regulation which “redefines footpaths as shared paths” in the ACT.

wildturkeycanoe 5:50 am 02 May 13

So, you are saying that he was reversing into a parking spot and almost hit you. Was it an actual parking spot where he could legally park? If so, why were you riding in a parking spot? If it is a parking spot AND a cycle lane, then there is a serious issue with the road design and the government is to blame. If it wasn’t a parking spot and he was reversing into the one into which you were forced to merge, this becomes a complex issue. How is a driver supposed to reverse into a park on the left, if it is off-street, when he has to wait for traffic to pass on his left, whilst the cars behind are waiting? It’d be like trying to reverse from the middle lane of Northbourne Avenue into the front of the Rex Hotel – totally ludicrous!! This is why cycle lanes on the road are a fail in my opinion. It puts them in the way of every vehicle that has to merge from the left lane to the kerb.

Aeek 10:26 pm 01 May 13

Jono said :

My point was that in your first post, you said that it’s an offence to ride on a footpath in the ACT, but that is negated by the fact that there are no footpaths in the ACT, as they’ve all been declared to be “shared paths”. Both of those statements are incorrect.

As you say, the effect is the same, but if you’re going to talk about the road rules it’s best to get it right.

The road rules do state that its an offence to ride on the footpath. The declaration that all footpaths in the ACT is a regulation, and not part of the road rules. When the National RR were 1st brought in, the ACT amended them to allow for riding on footpaths. In 2008, the road rules were updated and someone had the bright idea to redefine footpaths as shared paths, so no need to amend the road rules. As you say, its best to get it right.

Jono 7:55 pm 01 May 13

Aeek said :

That’s what TAMS has to say. However its not what the road rules say. The effect is the same, and TAMS’s phrasing is simpler.

What TAMS says, and what the road rules say are completely in agreement. The road rules say that it’s only an offence if there’s a law in the local jurisdiction which prohibits it. There is no such law in the ACT.

My point was that in your first post, you said that it’s an offence to ride on a footpath in the ACT, but that is negated by the fact that there are no footpaths in the ACT, as they’ve all been declared to be “shared paths”. Both of those statements are incorrect.

As you say, the effect is the same, but if you’re going to talk about the road rules it’s best to get it right.

zorro29 11:09 am 01 May 13

what a jerk…car drivers are so stupid sometimes. glad you’re ok!!!

gentoopenguin 11:06 am 01 May 13

DrKoresh said :

I think you’re assessment was pretty bang on, there’s not much more to be said. I’m not much of a rider, but even if I were I don’t think I could handle riding on the road/cycle lane, I’d be too worried about crap like this. I think it’s an offence of somekind to cycle on a footpath but I’ve never been pulled up for, nor heard of anyone who has so I prefer to take that risk to the risk of cycling on the road.

Hope you’re not too shaken up, Poetix.

+1 I ride on footpaths on busier stretches too. I figure if the cops ever pull me over then I’ll happily pay the fine. It’s a small insurance given that I have previously had my front wheel run over by taxi while WALKING a bike across a pedestrian crossing in Bruce.

Aeek 10:54 am 01 May 13

Jono said :

Pork Hunt said :

Aeek said :

johnboy said :

It is not an offence to cycle on the footpath in the ACT.

It is still an offence. However, there are no footpaths in the ACT. They have all been declared to be shared paths.

Well that makes sense.

It might make sense, but it’s not correct. Here’s what TAMS has to say on the subject:

That’s what TAMS has to say. However its not what the road rules say. The effect is the same, and TAMS’s phrasing is simpler.

tuco 10:09 am 01 May 13

SigmaOctantis said :

To the OP, you used the word “I”, “me” or “my” 20 times in your original post, and a further 19 times in your follow up post (#19). Just pointing it out. A little bit self-important are we?

I think you can do better here. I really do. In my opinion, your counting is good, but at this stage I believe it is merely Trolling 101 (or CI to increase my quota). Surely it is important (three more i’s right there) for you to focus on the extension skills. But that’s just me.

Jim Jones 9:57 am 01 May 13

SigmaOctantis said :

To the OP, you used the word “I”, “me” or “my” 20 times in your original post, and a further 19 times in your follow up post (#19). Just pointing it out. A little bit self-important are we?

When you write about yourself do you refer to yourself in the third person?

poetix 9:55 am 01 May 13

SigmaOctantis said :

To the OP, you used the word “I”, “me” or “my” 20 times in your original post, and a further 19 times in your follow up post (#19). Just pointing it out. A little bit self-important are we?

It happened to me, so using ‘I’ is pretty standard, I think, but please correct me if I have made a mistake.

There’s another swag for you.

Perhaps ‘we’ should post something ‘ourselves’ and use say, first person plural for no apparent reason. Unless ‘we’re’ the Queen…

SigmaOctantis 9:30 am 01 May 13

To the OP, you used the word “I”, “me” or “my” 20 times in your original post, and a further 19 times in your follow up post (#19). Just pointing it out. A little bit self-important are we?

poetix 9:28 am 01 May 13

Thank you to all the Rioters who have expressed concern.

I am a wimp. However, it would be a shame if only gung-ho types felt comfortable riding bikes. I’m glad a made a point of criticising his behaviour, even if, in retrospect, I can think of wittier ways of doing so. I must make a point of dinking Oscar Wilde’s ghost.

eyeLikeCarrots 9:27 am 01 May 13

Props to the OP for being aware and riding defensively.

Props to the driver for at least saying ‘sorry’.

Now put your cleated foot through his window and cave the door skin in to teach that total wanker a lesson.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site