 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / May 2008Sydney Bicycle accident
In the days since there has been reports saying there were between 20 and 100 riders. Most of these were training for the Olympics on a busy Sydney road during peak hour. Why can't they train on the Eastern Creek raceway away from traffic? Do they really have to be riding on main roads? > In the days since there has been reports saying there were between 20 and > 100 riders. > Most of these were training for the Olympics on a busy Sydney road during > peak hour. > > Why can't they train on the Eastern Creek raceway away from traffic? **Real smart. A flat, almost circular track. That's just like real road conditions. NOT! > Do they really have to be riding on main roads? **They're legally entitled to do so. Trevor Wilson >> In the days since there has been reports saying there were between 20 and >> 100 riders. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > **They're legally entitled to do so. I presume they were all abiding by Australian Road Rule # 253 which requires that they are not to create a traffic hazard. If there were 20-100 riding in a pack I'd find it difficult to believe. I presume also that they were all abiding by Australian Road Rule # 151 which requires that they ride not more than 2 abreast. Again, if they were in a pack of 20-100 then I'd find that a little hard to believe. So were they abiding by the above 2 road rules? if not then they are NOT legally entitled to do so as you claimed. > Trevor Wilson >>> In the days since there has been reports saying there were between 20 >>> and 100 riders. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So were they abiding by the above 2 road rules? if not then they are NOT > legally entitled to do so as you claimed. **Your speculation is duly noted. Trevor Wilson > **Your speculation is duly noted. As was yours in blaming the car driver before you had a clue as to what happened. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **Your speculation is duly noted. > > As was yours in blaming the car driver before you had a clue as to what > happened. **Incorrect. The car driver pulled across in front of a bunch of cyclists, who were unable to stop before hitting the car. The car driver then left the scene of the accident. THAT is what happened. Trevor Wilson > **Incorrect. The car driver pulled across in front of a bunch of cyclists, > who were unable to stop before hitting the car. The car driver then left > the scene of the accident. THAT is what happened. The police can now wrap up their investigation and just ask you for a report on the incident. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **Incorrect. The car driver pulled across in front of a bunch of >> cyclists, who were unable to stop before hitting the car. The car driver >> then left the scene of the accident. THAT is what happened. > > The police can now wrap up their investigation and just ask you for a > report on the incident. **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of other factors to be examined. Trevor Wilson > **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into > account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of > other factors to be examined. Until the cops release a statement saying "our investigation suggests that this is what happened", the "facts" as you call them are very much disputed as we've only had one side of the story. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this is what happened", the "facts" as you call them are very much > disputed as we've only had one side of the story. **Incorrect. Both the driver and at least one cyclist confirm that is what occurred. Trevor Wilson >>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >>> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Trevor Wilson so why did most of the bikes crash into the car or each other shouldn't they have been riding in a fashion so as to be able to stop and avoid an accident,if the car jumped in front of them and braked hard only two bike should have hit the car and the rest able to stop safely, or does the 2 second rule not apply to push bikes?? Kev >>>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >>>> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > two bike should have hit the car and the rest able to stop safely, or does > the 2 second rule not apply to push bikes?? **Non-sequitur. Trevor Wilson > **Non-sequitur. So, you're now saying that the road rules that apply to every vehicle that use them do *not* apply to cyclists? -- Regards, Noddy. >> **Non-sequitur. > > So, you're now saying that the road rules that apply to every vehicle that > use them do *not* apply to cyclists? **Nope. The question was not relevant to my comment. Trevor Wilson >>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >>> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Trevor Wilson But, you claimed previously, that there would be 50 potential witnesses now you only have one ?? >>>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >>>> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But, you claimed previously, that there would be 50 potential witnesses **Correct. > now you only have one ?? **Only one has provided an interview to the media. I have no idea how many statements were taken by police. I suspect the figure was considerably higher than one. Trevor Wilson > **Only one has provided an interview to the media. I have no idea how many > statements were taken by police. I suspect the figure was considerably > higher than one. And if they any of them were as fanatically pro bicycle as you I expect the accuracy of them is worth a bucket full of Aardvark sh.t. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **Only one has provided an interview to the media. I have no idea how >> many statements were taken by police. I suspect the figure was >> considerably higher than one. > > And if they any of them were as fanatically pro bicycle as you I expect > the accuracy of them is worth a bucket full of Aardvark sh.t. **Actually, I am anti-fuckwit drivers. Like any other driver, I've been inconvenienced by cyclists. I've see cyclists in my own area riding at 6:00AM (when it is still dark) with NO LIGHTS! It was sheer luck when I saw one guy coming down the road. There was a small amount of reflected light from his bike frame. I managed to stop before I pulled out in front of him. OTOH, I recognise the right of cyclists to share the road. Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but extremely poor form. Trevor Wilson > Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving the > scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but extremely poor > form. It depends entirely on the circumstances. It's been reported that the guy in question suffered a mechanical fault and had to stop in a hurry, and after a bike or 6 ran into him he left when it became clear that he wasn't popular amongst the pack of 50 or so cyclists. If that's what happened (and we should bear in mind that this account of events carries no more or less weight than any other), then the poor form lays entirely at the feet of the bike riders. -- Regards, Noddy. >> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving the >> scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but extremely poor >> form. > > It depends entirely on the circumstances. **Indeed. An engine fault is not a situation which calls for endangering the lives of 50 cyclists. It is a situation which calls for the driver to allow the vehicle to slow, whilst looking for an opportunity to get off the road SAFELY. > It's been reported that the guy in question suffered a mechanical fault > and had to stop in a hurry, **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can you think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such that the lives of 50 people were put at risk? Hell, he (allegedly) re-started quickly enough, so he could flee the scene. Smells like bullshit to me. and after a bike or 6 ran into him he left when it > became clear that he wasn't popular amongst the pack of 50 or so cyclists. **Gee, I wonder why? He swerved in front of them, placing their lives at risk. > If that's what happened (and we should bear in mind that this account of > events carries no more or less weight than any other), then the poor form > lays entirely at the feet of the bike riders. **They weren't Hell's Angel bikers, for f.ck's sake. They were cyclists. Come to think of it: It is a shame he didn't pull the same stunt in front of a group of Hell's Angels. I suspect the police would be investigating an entirely different scenario. Chalk outlines and all that. Trevor Wilson > **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can you > think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such that > the lives of 50 people were put at risk? Hell, he (allegedly) re-started > quickly enough, so he could flee the scene. Smells like bullshit to me. Of course it does, because you've already got your mind made up that he is guilty *regardless* of what actually happened. I never said he had an *engine* fault, and I've never seen that reported anywhere. All that has been said is that he had a "mechanical issue" and that could have been anything from a blown tyre to no brakes. > **Gee, I wonder why? He swerved in front of them, placing their lives at > risk. As much as I don't mind a good stoush, and the though of taking on 50 lycra wearing homosexual bicycle riders could make for an entertaining slap fest, I don't blame the guy for getting out of Dodge in a hurry. > **They weren't Hell's Angel bikers, for f.ck's sake. They were cyclists. It doesn't matter if they were f.cking little old ladies with training wheels. The guy might have been the type who is frightened by his own shadow, and 50 pissed off people is enough for most. > Come to think of it: It is a shame he didn't pull the same stunt in front > of a group of Hell's Angels. I suspect the police would be investigating > an entirely different scenario. Chalk outlines and all that. Your bias in this case is staggering. -- Regards, Noddy. In article "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote: > > **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can you > > think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anywhere. All that has been said is that he had a "mechanical issue" and > that could have been anything from a blown tyre to no brakes. How does someone stop so quickly when they have no brakes? Quoting from http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23670161-29277,00.html, | Jason said his car stalled, forcing him to pull up partly in the | emergency lane and partly in the left-hand lane. | "I've pulled over, I had time to put my hazard lights on, put it into | park, go to start it in petrol, ... | Jason said he switched the car from gas to petrol and it started. Sounds like a fuel/engine fault to me. > > **Gee, I wonder why? He swerved in front of them, placing their lives at > > risk. > > As much as I don't mind a good stoush, and the though of taking on 50 lycra > wearing homosexual bicycle riders could make for an entertaining slap fest, > I don't blame the guy for getting out of Dodge in a hurry. What logical leap did you take from 'lycra wearing' to 'homosexual'? > > **They weren't Hell's Angel bikers, for f.ck's sake. They were cyclists. > > It doesn't matter if they were f.cking little old ladies with training > wheels. The guy might have been the type who is frightened by his own > shadow, and 50 pissed off people is enough for most. That guy behaved as cowardly as that idiot who ploughed his car into & killed that half dozen teenagers in Victoria (last year?). > > Come to think of it: It is a shame he didn't pull the same stunt in front > > of a group of Hell's Angels. I suspect the police would be investigating [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Regards, > Noddy.  SignatureK.A. Moylan Canberra, Australia Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au > In article "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > | Jason said he switched the car from gas to petrol and it started. > Sounds like a fuel/engine fault to me. If this is true as you have quoted, then the cyclists riding behind him would have had plenty of time to go around and avoid him. Sounds more like they were on some sort of a hell ride, intent on getting from one place to another in the shortest possible time. To pull over, put it into park and restart on petrol takes a fair amount of time, or a short amount of time, depending on what you call short or long. It would take somewhere around 10 seconds, doesnt sound like a very long time, but long enough time for following cyclists to avoid a collision if they were looking where they were going !! >> > **Gee, I wonder why? He swerved in front of them, placing their lives >> > at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That guy behaved as cowardly as that idiot who ploughed his car into & > killed that half dozen teenagers in Victoria (last year?). Different place, time and circumstances, you cannot claim that the two are similar. >> > Come to think of it: It is a shame he didn't pull the same stunt in >> > front [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Regards, >> Noddy. >> **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can you >> think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anywhere. All that has been said is that he had a "mechanical issue" and > that could have been anything from a blown tyre to no brakes. **Here are the alleged words used by the driver: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/13/1210444378585.html?from=top5 "The driver, calling himself "Jason", telephoned Macquarie Radio last Friday and claimed his car had stalled after "the airbox popped" and blamed the cyclists for failing to watch where they were going." Is an airbox the air filter assembly? I see nothing which required the lives of 50 people to be placed in jeopardy. I should mention, at this point, that the accident occured AGAINST the direction of peak hour traffic. At 6:35AM, heading South on Southern Cross Drive, the traffic is relatively light. >> **Gee, I wonder why? He swerved in front of them, placing their lives at >> risk. > > As much as I don't mind a good stoush, and the though of taking on 50 > lycra wearing homosexual bicycle riders could make for an entertaining > slap fest, I don't blame the guy for getting out of Dodge in a hurry. **HE LEFT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT! That is against the law. BTW: Not all cyclists are homosexuals. I'm a little unsure of how you arrived at your conclusion. >> **They weren't Hell's Angel bikers, for f.ck's sake. They were cyclists. > > It doesn't matter if they were f.cking little old ladies with training > wheels. The guy might have been the type who is frightened by his own > shadow, and 50 pissed off people is enough for most. **He should have thought of that, BEFORE trying to cause the mayhem he did cause. He is a fuckwit. >> Come to think of it: It is a shame he didn't pull the same stunt in front >> of a group of Hell's Angels. I suspect the police would be investigating >> an entirely different scenario. Chalk outlines and all that. > > Your bias in this case is staggering. **I'm just dealing with the facts. His story doesn't add up. He left the scene of an accident. I hope they lock the c.nt up. Trevor Wilson >>> **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can >>> you think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Is an airbox the air filter assembly? I see nothing which required the > lives of 50 people to be placed in jeopardy. Ford's with LPGas have on the odd occasion, backfired through the air filter, which slows the car rapidly, almost like standing on the brakes, It depends on how the gas system is set up and the gas system itself. On a carburettor system with L.P.Gas, the butterfly valve will sometimes be forced back past its normal position and the car will never get started again, without pressure to force the butterfly valve back to its original position. Even on an injected system, the backfire or "airbox pop" will cause a hole to be blown in the system. >>>> **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can >>>> you think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Ford's with LPGas have on the odd occasion, backfired through the air > filter, which slows the car rapidly, almost like standing on the brakes, **Only with a manual gearbox (very unlikely). > It depends on how the gas system is set up and the gas system itself. > On a carburettor system with L.P.Gas, the butterfly valve will sometimes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Even on an injected system, the backfire or "airbox pop" will cause a hole > to be blown in the system. **OK. Thanks for the clarification. I see nothing which required the driver to endanger the lives of 50 cyclists. Trevor Wilson > **OK. Thanks for the clarification. I see nothing which required the > driver to endanger the lives of 50 cyclists. Just out of curiosity, what *would* you accept? :) -- Regards, Noddy. > **HE LEFT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT! That is against the law. The f.cking *criminal*. Lock him up for life, along with every cyclist at the scene who wasn't wearing a helmet or had lights and bells fitted to their bikes. > BTW: Not all cyclists are homosexuals. I'm a little unsure of how you > arrived at your conclusion. Look at the outfits they wear. You couldn't get a hetrosexual man to wear that sh.t if you held a gun to his head :) > **He should have thought of that, BEFORE trying to cause the mayhem he did > cause. He is a fuckwit. You're doing a fine job of it yourself. > **I'm just dealing with the facts. No, you're a bicycle rider who has an obvious bent against motorists and you're just letting your own bias talk you into what you *want* to have happened. You weren't there, and are making yourself look like a moron by letting the sensationalism of the press make your mind up for you. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **HE LEFT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT! That is against the law. > > The f.cking *criminal*. Lock him up for life, along with every cyclist at > the scene who wasn't wearing a helmet or had lights and bells fitted to > their bikes. **I have no problems with harsh penalties being handed out to ALL road users when they break the law. Particularly idiots who ride without lights (during the dark). I know if I ran one down, I'd lose a lot of sleep. And that ain't fair to me. >> BTW: Not all cyclists are homosexuals. I'm a little unsure of how you >> arrived at your conclusion. > > Look at the outfits they wear. You couldn't get a hetrosexual man to wear > that sh.t if you held a gun to his head :) **Well, I know a few cyclists who wear that sh.t. They're straight (AFAIK). Perhaps they're less afraid of ebing different. Perhaps the bold colours enhance their visibility to other road users. >> **He should have thought of that, BEFORE trying to cause the mayhem he >> did cause. He is a fuckwit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, you're a bicycle rider who has an obvious bent against motorists **Nope. I'm a motorist and an occasional cyclist who respects other road users. and > you're just letting your own bias talk you into what you *want* to have > happened. **Nope. I smell a bullshit story. Are seriously telling me that you believe the sh.t that the motorist told the cops? You weren't there, and are making yourself look like a moron by > letting the sensationalism of the press make your mind up for you. **And again: We have the word of ONE motorist, who left the scene of an accident (of his own making) and the words of at least one cyclist which conflict each other. What will you say when (or if) 5, 10, 15 or 50 cyclists rebuke the claim of the motorist? Trevor Wilson > **I have no problems with harsh penalties being handed out to ALL road > users when they break the law. Particularly idiots who ride without lights > (during the dark). I know if I ran one down, I'd lose a lot of sleep. And > that ain't fair to me. I'd feel no different to knocking down some idiot who ran across the street in the dark. In other words it would be *his* actions that got him killed not mine, and I wouldn't lose any sleep at all. > **Well, I know a few cyclists who wear that sh.t. They're straight > (AFAIK). Perhaps they're less afraid of ebing different. Perhaps the bold > colours enhance their visibility to other road users. You can be visible without having to look like float at the gay & lesbian Mardi-gra :) > **Nope. I'm a motorist and an occasional cyclist who respects other road > users. Sure. > **Nope. I smell a bullshit story. Are seriously telling me that you > believe the sh.t that the motorist told the cops? There's part of you're problem right there. You're assuming that the guy who called in *was* the motorist, and we have no idea if he was or wasn't. We *also* have no idea if the bike riders are telling the truth and just sticking to a story *they* made up to cover their own actions which may have been illegal. In short, we have no idea what happened other than what was printed in the media, and media reports about "events" can be anything they want them to be. In answer to your question specifically, I don't believe *either* side as I wasn't there and there is no video evidence to support one side or the other. As I said previously if the cops charge the car driver with something relating to the cause of the accident then I'll believe he most likely was responsible for it, but until then I'll withhold my judgement. The fact that they haven't charged him with anything other than leaving the scene of an accident suggests to me that there were faults on both sides. > We have the word of ONE motorist, who left the scene of an accident (of > his own making) and the words of at least one cyclist which conflict each > other. What will you say when (or if) 5, 10, 15 or 50 cyclists rebuke the > claim of the motorist? As I said, I'm happy to leave the decision of laying blame up to the cops. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **I have no problems with harsh penalties being handed out to ALL road >> users when they break the law. Particularly idiots who ride without lights [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > As I said, I'm happy to leave the decision of laying blame up to the cops. HO HO fuckin ho.............. > -- > Regards, > Noddy. SignatureDon`t be sexist...........Broads hate that. >> **I have no problems with harsh penalties being handed out to ALL road >> users when they break the law. Particularly idiots who ride without [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > street in the dark. In other words it would be *his* actions that got him > killed not mine, and I wouldn't lose any sleep at all. **We're not the same. I'm pretty certain that if I killed someone, it would bother me for quite some time. >> **Well, I know a few cyclists who wear that sh.t. They're straight >> (AFAIK). Perhaps they're less afraid of ebing different. Perhaps the bold >> colours enhance their visibility to other road users. > > You can be visible without having to look like float at the gay & lesbian > Mardi-gra :) **Obviously, you've missed the Dykes on Bikes (my favourites). >> **Nope. I'm a motorist and an occasional cyclist who respects other road >> users. > > Sure. **Good. I'm glad we finally cleared that up. >> **Nope. I smell a bullshit story. Are seriously telling me that you >> believe the sh.t that the motorist told the cops? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're assuming that the guy who called in *was* the motorist, and we have > no idea if he was or wasn't. **Good point. He may not have been. We *also* have no idea if the bike riders are > telling the truth and just sticking to a story *they* made up to cover > their own actions which may have been illegal. **I often toddle down to my favourite coffee shop/patisserie some mornings. Around 7:00AM. It happens to be on The Grande Parade, at Brighton (Sydney). It is on the same piece of road that the riders probably ride on. There are a *lot* of riders who ride past (though some of the not so dedicated ones, stop for a coffee and cake) at that time of day. Almost all ride two abreast in the kerbside lane. Whilst I cannot say, I'd bet your balls that I've seen that same group ride past. They ride properly and considerately. Hell, they even stop for the pedestrian crossing. In short, we have no idea what > happened other than what was printed in the media, and media reports about > "events" can be anything they want them to be. **Agreed. I guess we'll have to wait for the police reports. > In answer to your question specifically, I don't believe *either* side as > I wasn't there and there is no video evidence to support one side or the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the scene of an accident suggests to me that there were faults on both > sides. **That is a real possibility, which I have never denied. >> We have the word of ONE motorist, who left the scene of an accident (of >> his own making) and the words of at least one cyclist which conflict each >> other. What will you say when (or if) 5, 10, 15 or 50 cyclists rebuke the >> claim of the motorist? > > As I said, I'm happy to leave the decision of laying blame up to the cops. **We'll see what happens. Trevor Wilson > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You can be visible without having to look like float at the gay & lesbian > Mardi-gra :) i suspect the designers of recent generation falcons and commodores are closet cyclists >> **I have no problems with harsh penalties being handed out to ALL road >> users when they break the law. Particularly idiots who ride without [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > street in the dark. In other words it would be *his* actions that got him > killed not mine, and I wouldn't lose any sleep at all. What a callous c.nt you are. So if it was your kid who ran out in front of a car and got smashed to a pulp, you'd be ok with that because it was your kid's fault? f.ck you say some sad sh.t at times Nod! Roger > What a callous c.nt you are. So if it was your kid who ran out in front of > a car and got smashed to a pulp, you'd be ok with that because it was your > kid's fault? f.ck you say some sad sh.t at times Nod! Re-read what I said (and my further reply to Trevor) about this again and understand what I was talking about Woger. Just once more for your benefit, if it was some deadshit doing something stupid that got him killed I couldn't care less. However, if I knocked over a kid chasing a ball onto a road it'd be a different story. There's a very big difference here. Many years ago I was a front seat passenger in a car that knocked a guy over and killed him. It was about 10:00pm in Swan Street Richmond and a mate and I were on our way home from a card game when this bloke ran out from between two parked cars right in front of us and hit the windscreen right in front of my face. My mate who was driving the car wasn't doing a thing wrong (and subsequently wasn't charged with anything by the police after questioning), and the guy just ran onto the road so close to the car that neither of us knew anything about it we'd hit him. It scared the crap out of both of us as it was so totally unexpected, but once we realised what had happed we both knew the guy was dead as we'd seen his head split open on the windscreen like a watermelon right in front of our faces. After we'd stopped and confirmed that he didn't need any urgent help we called the cops and waited for them to arrive, and while doing that we thought that because of the way it happened he must have deliberately jumped in front of the car to kill himself as only a blind man wouldn't have known we were there. As it turns out he was blind drunk, and had just been booted out of a nearby pub for causing trouble. I was sorry that he got killed, but I really didn't care any more about it than that. He was an idiot and it was his own stupid actions that lead to his death, and I didn't lose any sleep over it. -- Regards, Noddy. >> What a callous c.nt you are. So if it was your kid who ran out in front >> of a car and got smashed to a pulp, you'd be ok with that because it was [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > As it turns out he was blind drunk, and had just been booted out of a > nearby pub for causing trouble. SNAP!! except the guy we hit in my mates HB Torana only broke a few bones, along with the front and back windscreens on the poor old car. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > I was sorry that he got killed, but I really didn't care any more about it > than that. He was an idiot and it was his own stupid actions that lead to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. > SNAP!! > except the guy we hit in my mates HB Torana only broke a few bones, along > with the front and back windscreens on the poor old car. Scary :) We were also in a Torana, but it was an LH G pak (anyone remember those?). The guy busted the laminated windscreen with his head, but he hit it on the passenger's side rather than in the middle where it was probably less likely to deflect being closer to the pillar and that's what most likely split his head open. He put a big burn mark up the A pillar as he slid up it and over the car, cleared the roof and boot and landed on the road some way behind us. I'm sure he had other injuries as well as he looked like a Ken doll that had been dropped from a tall building when we went back to check on him, but as his head was almost in two pieces I don't think they were important. -- Regards, Noddy. >> What a callous c.nt you are. So if it was your kid who ran out in front >> of a car and got smashed to a pulp, you'd be ok with that because it was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > over a kid chasing a ball onto a road it'd be a different story. There's a > very big difference here. That's NOT what you originally said you f.cker! Only in a later post you changed your story as well you should have. > Many years ago I was a front seat passenger in a car that knocked a guy > over and killed him. It was about 10:00pm in Swan Street Richmond and a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > than that. He was an idiot and it was his own stupid actions that lead to > his death, and I didn't lose any sleep over it. Whilst I can sympathise with any one who witnesses a mans head split open in front of them, he was still "possibly" someone's partner, father and son and if it was alcohol that caused him to do it, doesn't make the tragedy any different to "losing any sleep over it". That is what would cause me to lose sleep over it. I have seen many a humans smashed remains and no matter whose fault it is, it still remains a life is extinct through an accident or suicide. There are many others who will feel the hurt in these situations and if you can live through "not losing any sleep over it" all I can say is what I have already said to you. Roger > That's NOT what you originally said you f.cker! Only in a later post you > changed your story as well you should have. You know Woger, you're a f.cking twonk if you need to have the difference between an idiot doing something stupid and a kid being a kid explained to you. > Whilst I can sympathise with any one who witnesses a mans head split open > in front of them, he was still "possibly" someone's partner, father and > son and if it was alcohol that caused him to do it, doesn't make the > tragedy any different to "losing any sleep over it". It didn't effect me. > That is what would cause me to lose sleep over it. I have seen many a > humans smashed remains and no matter whose fault it is, it still remains a > life is extinct through an accident or suicide. There are many others who > will feel the hurt in these situations and if you can live through "not > losing any sleep over it" all I can say is what I have already said to > you. Everyone is different Woger. Like I said, some cry at movies while others don't. -- Regards, Noddy. > Everyone is different Woger. Like I said, some cry at movies while others > don't. I never cried but I got quite emotional whenever the bugle sounded and the cavalry came charging over the hill. :-) SignatureTake Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^ >> That's NOT what you originally said you f.cker! Only in a later post you >> changed your story as well you should have. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Everyone is different Woger. Like I said, some cry at movies while others > don't. I cried when Eleanor (the 67 Mustang) was crushed at the end of 'Gone in sixty seconds' SignatureKwyj. >> **HE LEFT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT! That is against the law. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Look at the outfits they wear. You couldn't get a hetrosexual man to wear > that sh.t if you held a gun to his head :) Plus you forgot to mention they shave their legs just like women. Roger >> **Yeah, sounded like he was coached well by his lawyer to me too. Can you >> think of an engine fault which requires such emergency action, such that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Your bias in this case is staggering. This group would not be worth reading without you Nod 'ol chap. You're a f.cking laugh a second with your sayings. "50 lycra wearing homosexual bicycle riders" is the best of the month so far. I'm sure even you underestimate your value in here. I don't think I need to edge you on any more at the moment, just agreeing with you should be enough. Roger >>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving the >>> scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but extremely poor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the vehicle to slow, whilst looking for an opportunity to get off the road > SAFELY. One report that I saw (and bear in mind it was a report, so there is no guarantee to it's truth), said that several cyclists overtook him BEFORE they started ploughing into the back of the car. If he stopped in the way you are describing you would expect the front cyclists to be the ones hitting him. If the front cyclists got past, and it was ones further down in the pack that hit him, it tells me that there is nothing wrong with his stopping action, but it was the cyclists were riding too close to each other to be able to A) see the unexpected and B) react to the unexpected. >> It's been reported that the guy in question suffered a mechanical fault >> and had to stop in a hurry, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lives of 50 people were put at risk? Hell, he (allegedly) re-started quickly > enough, so he could flee the scene. Smells like bullshit to me. Frig, if I had 50 pissed off sportsman gathering around me, I'd cut and run too. Although I would head to a safe area before calling the police on my mobile, or go to a police station. > and after a bike or 6 ran into him he left when it >> became clear that he wasn't popular amongst the pack of 50 or so cyclists. > > **Gee, I wonder why? He swerved in front of them, placing their lives at > risk. I once tooted my horn at a group of 6 cyclists who were riding abreast at about 30km/hr on a country road (80 zone) with double white lines, stopping me from overtaking them. The way they carried on after I gave 1 short toot, I might as well have clipped their wheels with my bumper. The dickheads stopped in the road and were looking for a fight. With the way they carried on, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that side of the bloke's story is 100% accurate. >> If that's what happened (and we should bear in mind that this account of >> events carries no more or less weight than any other), then the poor form [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a group of Hell's Angels. I suspect the police would be investigating an > entirely different scenario. Chalk outlines and all that. At 50 vs 1, it doesn't matter a hoot if they were Hell's Angels or cyclists. Faced with 50 physically fit, angry blokes, would you stand up to them, or would you cut and run? I'm a big bloke and can handle myself in a fight, but I'd cut and run if I was faced with a dozen angry teenage girls, let alone 50 angry blokes. With odds like that, it would only take 3 or 4 out of the crowd to have a little bit of a criminal mindset, or to be high on the adrenaline of the situation, and he quite likely would have been beaten to death. Lets say the bloke didn't take off, and the cyclists did beat him to death - I wonder what the headlines would be saying then? > Trevor Wilson >>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving the >>>> scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but extremely [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > stopping action, but it was the cyclists were riding too close to each > other to be able to A) see the unexpected and B) react to the unexpected. Precisely. For a hypothetical, try reversing the situation........... 5 cars driving nose to tail. The front car comes upon a cyclist and at the last minute swerves to pass the bike. The other 4 cars, driving to close to the car in front, don't have time to react and run straight over the cyclist. Who does Trevor think would be at fault there? SignatureKwyj. >>>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving >>>>> the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cyclist. > Who does Trevor think would be at fault there? He would definitely claim the car driver was at fault because he should have been keeping a look-out for cyclists who may or may not have been in front of him >>>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving >>>>> the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cyclist. > Who does Trevor think would be at fault there? **Try reversing the situation and I'll attempt to answer. Your scenario doesn't come close. Trevor Wilson >>>>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving >>>>>> the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > **Try reversing the situation and I'll attempt to answer. Your scenario > doesn't come close. **In fact, I'll do it for you: Cyclist swerves into the right hand lane, in front of several vehicles, travelling at high speed. The cyclist slams his brakes on, thus causing the cars to crash into him and each other. IMO, the cyclist, if he is still alive, should be locked up for the rest of his life. Clearly, the cyclist is at fault. Additionally, he should be forced to pay the full costs of damage to the vehicles concerned. Same deal with this idiot motorist, who caused the lives of 50 cyclists to be placed at risk. I hope they take his driver's license away and lock the bastard up. His property should be sold to pay for any damage caused, because I doubt insurance would cover it. His story is simply not believable. Trevor Wilson >>>>>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving >>>>>>> the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > because I doubt insurance would cover it. His story is simply not > believable. Whatever the reason he stopped, I ride bikes as well as drive, and I can stop my bike from 50-60 much quicker than I can a stop a car. It has also been stated that the front riders got past him, and it was riders in the middle of the pack that hit him. Sounds to me like the cyclists were not paying due care and attention, or possibly even used their numbers to deliberately hit the car to teach him a lesson. Some cyclists seem to get agro over the slightest thing car drivers do, like the bunch I encountered near Canberra that were blocking the road preventing overtaking, that started looking for a fight when I tooted the horn. Sorry, but I find the motorists story quite believable, and even IF he did deliberately pull up in front of the pack as has been claimed, the cyclists should have been able to avoid him if they were maintaining sufficient gap between each other and observing the road ahead properly. As I said, sounds VERY much like the cyclists have deliberately run into him. > Trevor Wilson >>>>>>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then leaving >>>>>>>> the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > As I said, sounds VERY much like the cyclists have deliberately run into > him. **Not to me. Tell you what: Go out onto any motorway in the country. Drive in the right hand lane, when traffic is heavy and jump on the brakes. See who avoids you and see he gets thrown into gaol for being an idiot. Trevor Wilson > Same deal with this idiot motorist, who caused the lives of 50 cyclists to > be placed at risk. I hope they take his driver's license away and lock the > bastard up. His property should be sold to pay for any damage caused, > because I doubt insurance would cover it. His story is simply not > believable. There's no doubt about it: You're a f.cking retard of the highest order. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this is what happened", the "facts" as you call them are very much disputed > as we've only had one side of the story. fuckin eh!! none of that was of any concern to you after a train/truck crash a few months back.....ran yer mouth without any concern about one of the party`s rights.....or was that incident somehow different...nah, yer just a motor mouth c.nt, much lacking in NOUS....go FOAD......... > -- > Regards, > Noddy. SignatureDon`t be sexist...........Broads hate that. >>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >>> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > train/truck crash a few months back.....ran yer mouth without any concern > about one of the party`s rights.....or was that incident somehow different It was a completely different and incomparable scenario. >>>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >>>> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It was a completely different and incomparable scenario. if your opinion is required, the chain will be pulled........ SignatureDon`t be sexist...........Broads hate that. >>>>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken >>>>> into account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > if your opinion is required, the chain will be pulled........ It was required to flush your reams of puerile sh.t where they belong. >> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken into >> account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a raft of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. he has been charged http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/13/1210444378585.html?from=top5 > he has been charged > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/13/1210444378585.html?from=top5 "Police yesterday served the driver at his Claymore home with a court summons for leaving the scene without supplying his details" For a minute there I expected him to have done something terrible :) -- Regards, Noddy. >>> **I did not say there were not other factors that need to be taken >>> into account. I merely presented the undisputed facts. There are a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/13/1210444378585.html?from=top5 Only with leaving the scene of an accident without supplying particulars. He hasn't been charged for the crash. > > he has been charged > > >http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/13/1210444378585.html?from=top5 > > Only with leaving the scene of an accident without supplying > particulars. He hasn't been charged for the crash of course it's speculation, but i'd be willing to bet he will be. the evidence given by witnesses is compelling. the police have not concluded their investigations - a hint that they're at a minimum, considering it. >>> **Your speculation is duly noted. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > who were unable to stop before hitting the car. > The car driver then left the scene of the accident. THAT is what happened. So the cyclists are guilty of negligent driving/riding and the driver for leaving the scene of the accident. >>>> **Your speculation is duly noted. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So the cyclists are guilty of negligent driving/riding and the driver for > leaving the scene of the accident. **Not necessarily. Trevor Wilson > > **Your speculation is duly noted. > > As was yours in blaming the car driver before you had a clue as to what > happened. I wouldn't go defending the git in the Ford too quickly. Here's another account (yes.. it's third hand or whatever, so believe of it what you will). "I've heard from an aquaintance who was there...road is 3 lanes wide & a breakdown lane where the incident happened. No traffic was held up before the incident. said Bogan apparently drove up behind the bunch blowing his horn (despite there being 2 other lanes to choose from) then drove around them in one of the free lanes, ducked back into the cyclists lane & slammed on the brakes. very few actually hit the car, but the evasive action of the other cyclists brought many of the pack down." duncan >> > **Your speculation is duly noted. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but the evasive action of the other cyclists brought many of the pack > down." So there may have been 3 causes to the accident. 1. One dickhead in a car being overly aggressive 2. Lots of dickheads on bikes riding to close to each other to be able to stop in an emergency 3. Lots of dickheads on bikes not looking far enough ahead to see what is coming up. So the cause is one inconsiderate prick and about fifty f.cking lemmings. SignatureKwyj. >>> > **Your speculation is duly noted. >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So the cause is one inconsiderate prick and about fifty f.cking lemmings. Exactly, and the trouble with the Lemmings is one day their dickhead actions (riding in a huge pack, often 5 or 6 abreast) will get some equally dickhead driver so pissed off that he will just plow straight through the mob and speed off (much to the delight of many frustrated drivers I might add) Cyclists are often their own worst enemy as they get as aggressive as some drivers (Probably 'roid rage for the professional cyclists) and quite a few (though not the majority) think they are above the law, thus painting the law abiding riders with the same brush. While I don't in any way condone someone deliberately causing an accident, I can see why some people would get frustrated enough to think about it. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > Cyclists are often their own worst enemy as they get as aggressive as some > drivers Have you ever wondered why this is so? Have some idiot in a car try to kill you with his/her complete lack of care or attention to the task at hand (driving) once or twice a week for a few months, and you tend to start yelling obscenities at the next bugger that does it. Sort of like the clown I locked up for the other morning. Clear, straight, flat road, light traffic, stacks of visibility and the numbnut turned across right in front of me. Didn't apparently see me until I almost collected his rear quarter, even though I was yelling at him when he started to accelerate out of his RH turn lane Yes, I gave him a right good spray (and some of the pedestrians nearby might have wondered about aggressive cyclists). duncan (owner of a fluoro yellow harry potter cloak of invisibility). >> Cyclists are often their own worst enemy as they get as aggressive as >> some [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > duncan (owner of a fluoro yellow harry potter cloak of > invisibility). I completely understand, having ridden myself for many years so your trying to preach to the choir here, my point is the large packs of riders who think that because they are in significant numbers they can make up their own rules (and don't try and pretend it doesn't happen as mob mentality takes over) are the ones that create the image of aggressive fuckwit riders in the drivers mind, and they soon start to thing that ALL riders are aggressive *law unto themselves* types. Maybe riding in such large packs should be looked at by the police instead of just blaming the drivers. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > *law unto themselves* types. Maybe riding in such large packs should be > looked at by the police instead of just blaming the drivers. I don't think packs are a problem, per se. I agree completely that many cyclists are their own (our) worst enemies.. We cannot expect to be given consideration on the road if we flaunt the rules. I have mouthed off at more than one cyclist going through a red light when on my pushie. But there certainly is a worrying number of drivers who think its fine to push cyclists around with their vehicles. and another large proportion of drivers who seemed to have received their license in the weeties packet and are completely ignorant of cyclists rights and the rules of the road. duncan > <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > So the cause is one inconsiderate prick and about fifty f.cking lemmings. No the _cause_ of the accident was one dangerous and reckless prick. The consequences were compounded by a bunch of people probably travelling too close together. STell me, what would you expect to happen if you jammed on your brakes on the M4 for no apparent reason at 8 in the morning travelling at 100km/h? would it be a) one motorist immediately behind you stopping in time.. no collisions with other vehicles. b) the motorist immediately behind you managing to avoid a collision.. no collisions with other vehicles. or c) large pile-up of cars rear-ending each other. glass houses etc.. duncan >> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > duncan What bites my a.s is how bicyclists get to ride for free in their own lanes at OUR EXPENSE! No license, no rego no insurance..no wonder car drivers get upset! f.ck em all till they pay like the rest of us do. > <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > upset! > f.ck em all till they pay like the rest of us do. how many time must it be pointed out to dimwits like you that your rego DOES NOT pay for roads. We all pay for roads through consolidated revenue. The other flaw in your argument is that most cyclists do infact own cars, so they're paying rego and NOT using your precious road space. Maybe you'd like them all to clog the roads up more? duncan >> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > rego DOES NOT pay for roads. We all pay for roads through > consolidated revenue. You are right of course that roads are paid for out of consolidated revenue, but rego is part of that. And like any user-pays tax, rego is structured so that (in theory at least) greater road users pay more rego. Ie truck rego is greater than cars which is in turn greater than a motorbike. > The other flaw in your argument is that most cyclists do infact own > cars, so they're paying rego and NOT using your precious road space. And someone who owns 2 cars can only drive one at a time, but still pays 2 lots of rego. Rego is not just about being a tax, but also about providing a means of regulating the vehicles that go onto the road, by identifying vehicles, ensuring vehicles are roadworthy etc. It is also used to ensure that 3rd party personal insurance is available. Currently bicycles are exempt from these restraints, but why should they be? I wonder how much better behaved a lot of cyclists would be if they had a number plate on the back of their bike making them identifiable? I wonder what proportion of bikes are truly roadworthy (how many have a bell, horn or equivalent warning device)? Obviously bikes shouldn't be subject to the $500+ rego's that car owners pay, but I think something in the order of $50/year or less would be appropriate. > Maybe you'd like them all to clog the roads up more? > > duncan > duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message > > how many time must it be pointed out to dimwits like you that your > > rego DOES NOT pay for roads. We all pay for roads through [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And someone who owns 2 cars can only drive one at a time, > but still pays 2 lots of rego. Which it is arguable (especially for third party), that they shouldn't. > Rego is not just about being a tax, but also about providing > a means of regulating the vehicles that go onto the road, by > identifying vehicles, ensuring vehicles are roadworthy etc. > It is also used to ensure that 3rd party personal insurance > is available. > Currently bicycles are exempt from these restraints, but why > should they be? > > I wonder how much better behaved a lot of cyclists would be > if they had a number plate on the back of their bike making > them identifiable? I wonder how much better car drivers would be behaved if they were booked every time they - ran a red light - sped - spoke on a phone whilst driving - etc.. etc.. > I wonder what proportion of bikes are truly roadworthy (how > many have a bell, horn or equivalent warning device)? .. wonder away.. completey specious > Obviously bikes shouldn't be subject to the $500+ rego's > that car owners pay, but I think something in the order of > $50/year or less would be appropriate. You can think what you want. Rego is only about $200-250/yr. The rest is third party. I'll pay my fair share.. say by GVM. Should be about $2 duncan [...] >Rego is only about $200-250/yr. The rest is third party. > >I'll pay my fair share.. say by GVM. Should be about $2 Unfortunately for you, I have a set of registration papers here from the RTA. The Registration fee is $51. The Motor vehicle tax (based on GVM) is $187. Tare weight of this vehicle is 1140kg. So if your bike weighs 11.4kg, then you'd need to pay $51 + $1.87 = $52.87 (that's assuming the tax is linear WRT weight - AFAIK, it's not but anyway...). Oh, you'll also need to purchase number plates - a one off cost, natch. About $90, IIRC. Sounds fair to me... Neil --- Neil Fisher / Bob Young Thundercords personal opinion unless otherwise noted. Looking for spark plug leads? Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au > I'll pay my fair share.. say by GVM. Should be about $2 Not by GVM. Vehicles under 4.5T are not done by GVM. In the case of bicycles, it should be by length compared to cars, as that is their effective use of the road when they take up a whole lane. SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. > how many time must it be pointed out to dimwits like you that your > rego DOES NOT pay for roads. We all pay for roads through > consolidated revenue. Everyone pays for *everything* whether they use it or not. However, those that use a motor vehicle pay *extra*. > The other flaw in your argument is that most cyclists do infact own > cars, so they're paying rego and NOT using your precious road space. Stiff sh.t. Paying rego on one car does not entitle you to drive as many vehicles on the road as you like. You own ten cars you pay rego on each of them. Own ten pushbikes you pay on none of them *and* have sections of the road set aside for your exclusive use. Fair, yes? -- Regards, Noddy. > Own ten > pushbikes you pay on none of them *and* have sections of the road set aside > for your exclusive use. And where.. prey tell.. do I find these exclusive parts of the road space? duncan > And where.. prey tell.. do I find these exclusive parts of the road > space? Never seen a bike lane, huh? -- Regards, Noddy. >> And where.. prey tell.. do I find these exclusive parts of the road >> space? > Never seen a bike lane, huh? Or a cycleway. Separate "roads" for bicycles and pedestrians only. SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. > > <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >> And where.. prey tell.. do I find these exclusive parts of the road > >> space? > > Never seen a bike lane, huh? > > Or a cycleway. Separate "roads" for bicycles and pedestrians only. we are discussing roads.. duncan >> > <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >> >> And where.. prey tell.. do I find these exclusive parts of the road [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > duncan Yes, we are discussing roads, where the priority should be for the motor vehicle, not a bicycle, The bicycle rider has got total priority over anything and everything on cycle paths, everything must keep out of their way The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over pedestrians on the footpath, pedestrians must keep out of their way The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over anything and everything on the roads, cars must keep out of their way The bicycle rider has got the Victorian Government to back down on its rule of no bicycles on trains during peak periods Where next is the bicycle rider going to claim total priority ? > <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yes, we are discussing roads, where the priority should be for the motor > vehicle, not a bicycle, No. Priority is for 'vehicles', which include bicycles. > The bicycle rider has got total priority over anything and everything on > cycle paths, everything must keep out of their way Which don't exist. Cycle paths (at least here in sydney) are always shared, and pedstrians (and their dogs etc) have priority. > The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over pedestrians on the > footpath, pedestrians must keep out of their way Illegal in NSW for bicycles to ride on footpaths (excluding kids, but again, peds have right of way) > The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over anything and everything > on the roads, cars must keep out of their way How so? Road rules apply to cyclists, too. > The bicycle rider has got the Victorian Government to back down on its rule > of no bicycles on trains during peak periods In NSW, we have to buy an extra ticket. > Where next is the bicycle rider going to claim total priority ? More to the point, where do they now, other than in your mind? You seem to have some sort of persecution complex going on. duncan >> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > No. Priority is for 'vehicles', which include bicycles. Not when a bicycle rider gets the first word in. which they generally do because of the media sensing a story >> The bicycle rider has got total priority over anything and everything on >> cycle paths, everything must keep out of their way > > Which don't exist. Cycle paths (at least here in sydney) are always > shared, and pedstrians (and their dogs etc) have priority. You try telling that to the cyclists in Victoria >> The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over pedestrians on the >> footpath, pedestrians must keep out of their way > > Illegal in NSW for bicycles to ride on footpaths (excluding kids, but > again, peds have right of way) Again, not here in Vic, the bicycle rider is encouraged to ride on the footpath it keeps them off the road and "safe" >> The bicycle rider has |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message