I read articles like this as I like to understand an improve my driving skills and my very basic riding skills.
The article was well written and simply report the information provided. It did not make a judgement on who was in the right or wrong. The person reporting the incident, known as Clint, appears to be one of the riders. The location was not provided except that it was in the Main Ridge Mornington Peninsula area. The time of the incident was during a weekday morning ride. Whilst it is hard to read the date/time stamp looks like it is Mar 29 or May 29 at 10:35. At the news article is dated May 29 at 8:35am, this must have been in March.
The headline "Cyclists slam ute driver after accident" was written leading one to feel this was a ute driver at fault which plays into the cyclist versus cars mentality, which reinforces the us and them argument.
What is also interesting is to read the comments and whilst I admit I don't know all the road rules, so I'm like everyone else, some of the comments show people getting the road rules wrong.
Watching the video the ute driver was not considerate of other road users. Around five seconds after overtaking the riders, the ute driver turns into a property.
The first question I have is has the ute driver done anything wrong. Whilst we may not like a car overtaking us and then making us slow down immediately afterwards, I don't think that is illegal. Yes rude, but that's what people can be like.
It appears from the video the ute driver's indicator isn't on whilst overtaking, or moving back into the left lane. However, when the ute driver turns into the driveway, the indicator does appear to be on.
After overtaking a single white line divides the road. The ute driver has returned to the left lane before the single white line appears. The ute driver turns right over the single white lane into a property, which as I read, is legal.
The ute driver's driving would thus appear to be legal, although for many it may be considered rude, but that's not illegal.
There is a group of eight cyclists travelling together. The leading two cyclists have time to slow and stop as the ute turns into the property. A voice is heard calling out wait, wait, indicating an issue.
At this point the outside cyclist in the second row loses control and falls off their bike. This causes the inside cyclist in the second row to lose control. The third row of cyclists avoid the two fallen cyclists. The rider taking the video in the fourth row who appears to move left and right in the lane indicating the fourth row may be staggered, then loses control and falls.
The rider taking the video has around three seconds warning from the wait, wait alert to when the second rider has fallen blocking their path causing them to lose control.
According to the article, "The abrupt move led to two cyclists crashing as they were forced to slam on their brakes to avoid running into the back of the vehicle." This doesn't appear to be correct. The two cyclists in front had stopped so the two that fell had to break to avoid running into the two stopped cyclists.
Clint uses word's such as deliberate which imply to me as a reader the driver deliberately meant to interfere with the riders. This may not have been the case. Yes their action was deliberate to turn into their driveway.
Clint states the car didn't have to merge back in front of them before turning into the driveway. Clint's suggestion for the ute would mean the ute would probably be breaking the law by driving on the wrong side of the road (divided by a white line) and turning incorrectly from the wrong lane.
Client states the driver was more interested in arguing, however from the gesture of the first rider's arm held up in the air and body turned toward the ute, you could only assume the driver would be entering into a heated situation.
In the comment section a person states the cyclists were riding two abreast which is illegal in Victoria. Riding two abreast is not illegal in Victoria.
When I look at this video I see two problems. A driver of a ute who is not considerate of other road users. A group of riders who are travelling too close together that would enable them to safely stop if they have to.
Until reading this article I thought there was a road rule that said if I left the road turning into private property I had to give way to other road users. I took that to mean road users behind me. I decided to read the road rules and I could not find anywhere where people who turn into private property have to consider road users behind them. Yes to pedestrians and other vehicles they have to give way to, but that's not vehicles behind them.
Was the driver's driving style illegal I don't know. We see driving like that all the time on our roads were people speed ahead just to block the traffic and turn at the next intersection.
Whilst the cyclists may not be happy, as soon as the vehicle has overtaken and is in front of them, if the vehicle puts their indicator on to turn for a sufficient period of time, the cyclists should slow down and stop if necessary.
According to Clint the riders had been travelling at 35 to 40 km/h. This speed is not insignificant. The close formation riding is a concern. The video shows the riders in front whilst inconvenienced had no problems stopping. The riders following had significant issues stopping and in three cases ran into serious issues possibly causing injury.
The problem for the riders, apart from the action of a driver, is they weren't travelling at a safe distance from each other which would enable them to stop safely if required.
Perhaps it's time for peloton style of riding to be reviewed on our roads. If riders need to train peloton style, then perhaps additional safety controls should be put into place. We may not like it, and cyclists certainly won't, but people's safety is important. None of us like giving up anything, but this happens all the time in our society, so hopefully our society works better together.
Kelvin Eldridge
www.JustLocal.com.au
PS. This video has been posted on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp3d4qojvx8).