cradle route

[SwissVan]

 

Even from +/ 8500km?s away I can see that the Cradle residents representatives are trying to duck n dive from the dangerous (and stupid) actions of the car driver by bringing up the local crime issues. While these are valid issues they have very little to do with the present topic / original post and complaint raised by the cyclists.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

What would be appropriate is an apology from the car driver to the 3 cyclists, and then the steps that have been taken so far by local residents and cyclists to resolve the original issues ( i.e. cyclists riding like idiots) can continue without further distractions.

 

It?s now 2010 AD, it?s about time people (all over the world) realized that violent behavior and reactions does not achieve anything positive.

 

 

[Flowta]

 

I must be stupid but try as I might I cannot see the connection between farm murders and running cyclists off the road. Other than that they are both obviously criminal acts.

 

 

 

Cycling like an idiot and in the middle of a road is not a criminal act however' date=' it is a road offence and a different thing. You do not acquire a criminal record when doing 20km h over the speed limit for example.

 

 

 

I am not saying, Bruce, that you were riding like an idiot or in the middle of the road. I am just trying to put across the point that we do not have the moral or legal right to resort to crime when someone annoys or inconveniences us. [/quote']

 

I'm with you on the connection between farm murders and running cyclists off the road. They are separate issues.

 

With regard to the fact that the accussed says they were on a blind rise riding three abreast (if so that is also bad).

But if there was a car there instead would the accussed have overtaken it? (judging by his apparent disregard for safety, possibly).

He is endangering himself the cyclists/car that he passes as well as any traffic travelling in the opposite direction. Nevermind the fact that it has been said by Cradle Resident that the accused was driving his children to school. What sort of irresponsible parent is that?  What kind of example is he setting for his children?

 

[Cradleresident]

So what you are saying is that X must endanger his life and his kids life by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind rise.

At the meeting it was made clear by Metro that cyclysts can only ride 2 abreast in a cycling lane. This was a specific question asked.

This road does not have a cycling lane, not even a shoulder and X and other residents report that they were riding 3 abreast. Lets say they were riding 2 abreast. Still irresponsable and even more so from these guys as they know the situation and they know that riding in the middle of the road is not on. They go on about saftey saftey, but they ride like this.

[markStockton]

So what you are saying is that X must endanger his life and his kids life by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind rise.

 

At the meeting it was made clear by Metro that cyclysts can only ride 2 abreast in a cycling lane. This was a specific question asked.

 

This road does not have a cycling lane' date=' not even a shoulder and X and other residents report that they were riding 3 abreast. Lets say they were riding 2 abreast. Still irresponsable and even more so from these guys as they know the situation and they know that riding in the middle of the road is not on. They go on about saftey saftey, but they ride like this.

[/quote']

 

 

 

You really not very smart are you? How about X waiting till over the rise and then overtaking when it is safe to do so?

[Flowta]

 

So what you are saying is that X must endanger his life and his kids life by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind rise.

At the meeting it was made clear by Metro that cyclysts can only ride 2 abreast in a cycling lane. This was a specific question asked.

This road does not have a cycling lane' date=' not even a shoulder and X and other residents report that they were riding 3 abreast. Lets say they were riding 2 abreast. Still irresponsable and even more so from these guys as they know the situation and they know that riding in the middle of the road is not on. They go on about saftey saftey, but they ride like this.

[/quote']

 

NO, your clearly misread my post. It is reported that he passed themvery closely and you wrote yourself that he did so on a blind rise. (Or did I misread your post?)

 

Yes, they may have been reading 2 abreast but as far left as possible according to their description of events.

 

But that is also NOT the point, yes, they may have been in the wrong but to intentionally "buzz" them and try to run them off the road is not on.

 

[HappyMartin]

So what you are saying is that X must endanger his life and his kids life by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind rise.

 

At the meeting it was made clear by Metro that cyclysts can only ride 2 abreast in a cycling lane. This was a specific question asked.

 

This road does not have a cycling lane' date=' not even a shoulder and X and other residents report that they were riding 3 abreast. Lets say they were riding 2 abreast. Still irresponsable and even more so from these guys as they know the situation and they know that riding in the middle of the road is not on. They go on about saftey saftey, but they ride like this.

[/quote']

 

 

 

So what you are saying is braking, slowing down and waiting for a safe space to overtake is not an option? If this was not cyclists but a slow moving truck do you then just have to overtake on a blind rise? Suddenly I am understanding the death toll on our roads. And anyway this all assumes that the cyclists were 3 abreast. Saying its so often enough will not make it so.

[levett]

So what you are saying is that X must endanger his life and his kids life by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind rise.

The rules of the road are that the driver of a vehicle should drive at an appropriate speed to be able to stop in the event of an obstruction, and continue that the driver of a vehicle must only overtake another vehicle if it is safe to do so.

 

Simple as that!

[chucky]

To make it clear for the last time 2 riders were riding 2 a breast (as mentioned  by metro appropiate riding formation and i in the middle in a sort of triangle formation.We were going down hill .

As many of you i am road captain for cycle4 kids ,and cycle lab year end ride  to durban and PE to CT and will know that safty is paramount in my books.

This Mr X is back pedalling.

Once again if we were riding 3 a breast preforming this hidioius crime Mr X could have come behind us hooted once and we would have apologised and moved over,thats if we were riding 3 a breast or in the middle of the road on a blind rise.

Mr X would have waited for a tractor ,bus,truck that was in his way im sure.

[Mojoman]

While I most certainly do not agree with the actions of the questionable driver of the car, one can understand his frustration. I too live in the area (fortunetly in Magaliesburg) and some days are intolerable due to cyclists.

But to be fair it is the minority and not the majority who are offenders. I also mountain bike, have done for 14 years (and thankfully never have to touch tar unless I want to) but one thing that leaves me gob smacked is how many cyclists have attitude towards vehicles.
One thing I am sure of when I am out cycling is that the car will always win the argument!
Be safe, just take a quick look over your shoulder once in a while to see if there is anything behind you, be aware of what is happening around you.  When the car behind you hoots, its often not because he is gunning for you, he just wants you to acknowledge the car before he moves to overtake, some cyclists wobble all over and no-one wants to hurt someone if they can help it.

 
And to the people who drive the support vehicles driving behind the groups of cyclists, please remember some of us do live here and have work to do in the area, check your rearview and if you can let us pass please!!

Mojoman2010-01-15 04:18:46

[scotty]

So what you are saying is that X must endanger his life and his kids life by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind rise.

Bit of tolerance and patience, driving up along Sylvia's pass i often come across riders struggling up the incline which is windy, no problem to me i just patiently ride behind them until its safe for to overtake without endangering them or me, this elicits a wave of thanks from them.

 

If i do come across cyclists that are riding badly, i do hoot but do it in such a way as to not frighten them or anger them and get an apology wave rather than a middle finger wave.

[slowpoke]

ples and cradleresident and "mrx" - the point here is:

 

a - go and read the National Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1996, as amended in 1998. If there is anything you do not understand \I am sure your local school teachers will be able to assist.

 

b - "mr x" ADMITTED on the phone to the victims that it was him and that he deliberately drove recklessly and negligently. (and now it transpires that his kids were in the car with him)

 

c - you did not buy the roads when you bought your cars, contrary to common gauteng belief - the biggest/most expensive motorised vehicle does not own the road.

 

d - if "mr x" (and now due to ples and cr's comments them too) EVER cause any harm or injury to a cyclist or other road user this thread can quite easily be used to support charges of murder/attempted murder as you have all made it abundantly clear that you are aware that your actions could cause serious bodily harm or even death.

 

Have any of you 3 spoken to the actual livestock farmers out there??? If it wasn't for the presence of cyclists there will be many many many more bikers out riding on the "cradle track"/"kromdraai track". Yes, that is what the bikers call the area. The camber of the road only has one or two spots that aren't condusive to getting a knee down and man-oh-man it's fun to get your knee down on your boney without having to pay the high MSA fees... Being the proud owner of 3 bikes, 2 of which are utterly perfect for knee-down I should know.

 

So what say you - stick by the law and the 80kmph limit and wait till it's safe and legal to pass without attempting to commit murder, or let the area become a "free-Zwartkops"? (p.s. what will the impact of that be to the Rhino and Lion park?) Also, I trust you've spoken to Teak Place etc to rather change their atmosphere to one more conducive to your new road users? (you know, naked woman posters, pubs/beer halls instead of tea gardens, etc)

[WR 1.0]

While I most certainly do not agree with the actions of the questionable driver of the car' date=' one can understand his frustration. I too live in the area (fortunetly in Magaliesburg) and some days are intolerable due to cyclists.

But to be fair it is the minority and not the majority who are offenders. I also mountain bike, have done for 14 years (and thankfully never have to touch tar unless I want to) but one thing that leaves me gob smacked is how many cyclists have attitude towards vehicles.
One thing I am sure of when I am out cycling is that the car will always win the argument!
Be safe, just take a quick look over your shoulder once in a while to see if there is anything behind you, be aware of what is happening around you.  When the car behind you hoots, its often not because he is gunning for you, he just wants you to acknowledge the car before he moves to overtake, some cyclists wobble all over and no-one wants to hurt someone if they can help it.

 
And to the people who drive the support vehicles driving behind the groups of cyclists, please remember some of us do live here and have work to do in the area, check your rearview and if you can let us pass please!!

[/quote']

 

This for me is a good post. On saturday after cycling in the cradle I was on my way back and got stuck behind a group of riders (prob 10 or so), close to Avianto, riding across the whole road up to the white lane. I tapped my hooter to make them aware of my presence and hoping they would move over but was met with one of the riders only acknowledging me but the group made no attempt to move back into the yellow lane. I can there for understand the frustration but I'm sure (hoping) this is the exception to the rule.

Azkikr2010-01-15 04:31:04

[Cradleresident]

Mark, the road has no shoulder and the metro made it clear at the Teak meeting that cyclysts can NOT ride abreast on ANY road, ONLY WHERE THERE IS A CYCLE LANE.

 

The point about slow moving vechicles is simple. They don't ride next to each other, and if they did it would be an issue.

 

Mark when are you going to reply to the other points, the one im really interested in is the blockade one.

 

You had this exclusive information and only when you had this incident did you decide to share it and ask all cyclysts to do a mass ride and sorry i nearly forgot - threats have been made.

 

You start fires and then everybody else has to put them out, and then you tell everybody that you played a big part in putting the fire out.

 

Lets forget the X issue. Why were you riding on a road with no shoulder 2 abreast. In otherwords any vechicle passing you would have to face oncoming traffic at put their lives in danger. quote "safty is paramount in my books"

 

Mr x is not back pedling, he has not posted anything on the hub. He is just gatvol about cyclysts like every other resident. If you were at the Teak meeting you would of seen that cyclysts are not really welcome in the area and are seen as a problem.

[TNT1]

 

. Why were you riding on a road with no shoulder 2 abreast. In otherwords any vechicle passing you would have to face oncoming traffic at put their lives in danger.

 

Sure, riding two abreast is illegal. What happens when you motorists out there come up behind a slow moving truck? Do you wait untill it's safe to overtake (not putting your life in danger) or do you try and squeeze the truck into the dirt or what? I mean if the cyclists are riding illegally, fine and well, but who made you judge jury and executioner that you feel the need to drive over them or at best force them into the dirt? How is that possibly right?

 

[Paul Ruinaard]

Note sure if you saw this but Gauteng Cycling seems to be taking it seriously:

 

http://www.entelectclubmanager.co.za/ECGWebManager/MainContentImages/9/cgcnewsletterheader.png<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> URGENT WARNING

<?: prefix = u4 />   Please be aware that we do have issues that need resolving with regards to the cradle cycle routes and the residents in the area. Recently there have been incidents of tension and we have been informed that there could be blockading of the route to cyclists over the weekend. This would be totally illegal and we advise all cyclists firstly, not to be drawn into confrontations of any nature verbal or otherwise. Should you find yourselves blocked we implore you to sit it out without engagement, just phone the police and ask them to come out to resolve the stand off. We have the following contacts; firstly as the area is under the jurisdiction of Muldersdrift, the contact is the station commander, Capt. Van Wyk, on (011) 668-7600. Should for whatever reason you not be able to get the required response then the back up would be to contact Mogale City?s, Sup. Daan Grobler on (011) 951-1111. Please under no circumstances allow yourselves to be drawn into a confrontation, should there be any unlawful actions carried out toward you or your fellow cyclists take the necessary details and when able to, lay the appropriate charge against the perpetrators with the police and allow it to take it?s legal course, CGC will undertake the legal stand and ensure the matter is taken to it?s ultimate conclusion.   I am sure that you do not need to be reminded that we need to abide by the rules of the road and be predictable. A bicycle is a defined as a vehicle on the road and should be treated a such and the cyclist is termed the driver and is expected to travel on the road and abide by road rules as if he were in his car, this is as per the national traffic act. Please abide by the rules of the road, riding single file on narrow roads and two abreast only where there are shoulders or appropriate cycling paths, thank you for your cooperation and thus ensuring your safety.

[bruce]

Mark' date=' the road has no shoulder and the metro made it clear at the Teak meeting that cyclysts can NOT ride abreast on ANY road, ONLY WHERE THERE IS A CYCLE LANE.

 

The point about slow moving vechicles is simple. They don't ride next to each other, and if they did it would be an issue.

 

Mark when are you going to reply to the other points, the one im really interested in is the blockade one.

 

You had this exclusive information and only when you had this incident did you decide to share it and ask all cyclysts to do a mass ride and sorry i nearly forgot - threats have been made.

 

You start fires and then everybody else has to put them out, and then you tell everybody that you played a big part in putting the fire out.

 

Lets forget the X issue. Why were you riding on a road with no shoulder 2 abreast. In otherwords any vechicle passing you would have to face oncoming traffic at put their lives in danger. quote "safty is paramount in my books"

 

Mr x is not back pedling, he has not posted anything on the hub. He is just gatvol about cyclysts like every other resident. If you were at the Teak meeting you would of seen that cyclysts are not really welcome in the area and are seen as a problem.

[/quote']

cradleresident, let's cut down to the very basics here.

If the police choose to fine me for the minor traffic violation of cycling 2 abreast - which I have admitted to - then I will pay that fine.

If the residents of the area choose to attempt to assault me with intent, because I am performing a minor traffic violation, then I will report the incident to the police for them to handle.

Vigilante action is unacceptable.  Endangering someones life because they are doing something that strictly is illegal, is also unacceptable.

This is the principle of the matter.  There is no need for further debate, it is very clear.