On Oct 30, 10:46 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:55:44 -0700, theo wrote: > > When cyclists flout the road laws and get into difficulties
> Lol, too hot outide in WA to ride your bicycle Theo?
No, it is a lovely day today, low twenties, but I only did one leasurely lap of the block early this morning.
> Instead we have the typical post from Theo, the closet fat arsed cager, > once again blaming the bicycle rider yet again because they were not > lilly white in everything. In this country, if someone does something > illegal, it doesn't give just anyone to right to use lethal force against > them.
I'm not suggesting that at all Terry. Possibly the bus driver pulled in too early for safety but I doubt that he did that deliberately. He probably misjudged the speed of the bicycle. Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
> > Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a bus > > driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a cyclist got > > upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by smashing the > > cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many of you would be > > here defending the bus driver?
> No question, you would be in the front of the queue.
Not at all. I would consider the driver to be in the wrong, as was the cyclist in the actual scenario.
> Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote > > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than attempted > murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour that carries an > increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
That is not my experience. Since moving to 55 kms from work nine years ago I no longer commute. In the fifteen years before that I only found aggressive drivers in the first two years back on a bike since my youth. Amazingly, as I bcame more competent and developed what I considered to be improved roadskills, drivers became better and less agressive every year. Maybe your city is different to mine. I live in Perth.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote: > On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote: >> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
>> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
>> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than >> attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour >> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
> That is not my experience.
You need to ride more.
> Since moving to 55 kms from work nine years ago I no longer commute.
Things are very, very different now. That is like the fabled lands in driver attitude.
> Amazingly, as I bcame more competent and developed what I considered to > be improved roadskills, drivers became better and less agressive every > year.
Lol, Theo reverts to "blame the victim mode once again" and fails to recognise that he probably became more savy about route and time of riding.
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:43:36 +0000 (UTC)
terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote: >>> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than >>> attempted murder. ??Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour >>> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
>> That is not my experience.
> You need to ride more.
Dunno. I have not been riding much in the last 6 months but for the 2 years before that I was doing 20km each way on Sydney roads.
I didn't find people were trying to kill me.
Most people behaved well. There were dickheads of course, but in about the same proportion I find them when on the motorcycle or in a car.
But then as I don't identify as "A cyclist" I suppose I am not very invested in feeling the world is against me.
On Oct 30, 4:43 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote: > > On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote: > >> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
> >> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
> >> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than > >> attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour > >> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
> > That is not my experience.
> You need to ride more.
15 years of 8,000 kms a year doesn't count then?
> > Since moving to 55 kms from work nine years ago I no longer commute.
> Things are very, very different now. That is like the fabled lands in > driver attitude.
You think driver atitudes have changed that much in nine years? That is not my experience either using my current various modes of transport
> > Amazingly, as I bcame more competent and developed what I considered to > > be improved roadskills, drivers became better and less agressive every > > year.
> Lol, Theo reverts to "blame the victim mode once again" and fails to > recognise that he probably became more savy about route and time of > riding.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:42:31 -0700, theo wrote: > On Oct 30, 4:43 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote: >> > On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote: >> >> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
>> >> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
>> >> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than >> >> attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour >> >> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
>> > That is not my experience.
>> You need to ride more.
> 15 years of 8,000 kms a year doesn't count then?
That was then. You have to be on the road to see and feel it.
I have no doubts that some places haven't but in many places population increase and more cars competing for same saturated road space has definitely changed the situation.
> There's some fallacious logic here. He put himself in a situation that was > contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a > base jumper, say, does). He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence > was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on > the 'sin scale' to jaywalking. He expected other road users would treat his > health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting > the road laws. Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by > driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be > seriously injured or killed. While the odds of that might be remote, these > sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate > feel fearful and anxious. It's not surprising that someone who feels their > life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the > culprit.
> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced > in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme > distress.
>> There's some fallacious logic here. He put himself in a situation that was >> contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a >> base jumper, say, does). He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence >> was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on >> the 'sin scale' to jaywalking. He expected other road users would treat his >> health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting >> the road laws. Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by >> driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be >> seriously injured or killed. While the odds of that might be remote, these >> sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate >> feel fearful and anxious. It's not surprising that someone who feels their >> life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the >> culprit.
>> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced >> in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme >> distress.
> Very well said
> David
From what I read the driver was inconvenienced. He had to go around the bicycle a number of times on a road specifically designed so that he would have no such obstacles
>>> There's some fallacious logic here. He put himself in a situation >>> that was contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself >>> in danger (like a base jumper, say, does). He simply took an >>> unlawful shortcut - his offence was very minor, maybe a fine of a >>> few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on the 'sin scale' to >>> jaywalking. He expected other road users would treat his health >>> and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting >>> the road laws. Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully >>> cyclists by driving too close and increasing the probability that >>> the cyclist might be seriously injured or killed. While the odds of >>> that might be remote, these sorts of drivers certainly succeed in >>> making the cyclists they intimidate feel fearful and anxious. It's >>> not surprising that someone who feels their life has been exposed >>> to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the culprit. In this >>> particular case, it does not appear that the bus was >>> inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing >>> the cyclist extreme distress.
>> Very well said
>> David
> From what I read the driver was inconvenienced. He had to go around > the bicycle a number of times on a road specifically designed so that > he would have no such obstacles
If those facts are correct, the bike-rider is just another one of those who thinks that he can do as he pleases, and tough luck to everyone else. The sooner he is squashed, the better.
On Oct 29, 1:04 pm, "Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF"
somebody asked....
> >> Perspective, anyone?
> > This doesn't seem to be a case of road rage, but rather a bus driver > > being taught a lesson.
> And since when is that legal?
> > Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in > > the bus lane is no excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by > > a bus.
> He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
So its ok if the bus driver runs over the cyclist.
Next time your son or daughter or someone you know is in the wrong place at the wrong time, don't cry when they lose their life by "misadventure".
> > David - who has seen many many bus driver act like they own the road
Indeed many motorists don't like sharing the same road space.
> And I've seen many cyclists who think they do. As well as thinking they own > footpaths, etc.
I rarely ever see cyclists using footpaths in a dangerous manner.
But here the "cycle paths" are for shared use but excluding motorists. Having a good loud bell on a bicycle is a good way to let pedestrians know you are coming along behind them. They like being belled. Nobody in Canberra exclusively owns any cycle path or cycle lane. All those who share the paths and lanes here all get on rather marvellously IMHO. Sure there are isolated incidents of people having hissy fits and clashes, but that's normal ain't it?
I have deleted your moronic and stupid fucking signature.
On Oct 30, 12:46 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:55:44 -0700, theo wrote: > > When cyclists flout the road laws and get into difficulties
> Lol, too hot outide in WA to ride your bicycle Theo? > Instead we have the typical post from Theo, the closet fat arsed cager, > once again blaming the bicycle rider yet again because they were not > lilly white in everything. In this country, if someone does something > illegal, it doesn't give just anyone to right to use lethal force against > them.
Indeed we live in a country where we are not allowed to kill people while they are breaking a road user law.
Those who enforce our laws may arrest, fine, or deal with an offender. Then there is the issue of a citizen's arrest, and its a minefield for anyone because a civil liberties lawyer could make a case of deprivation of freedom, so usually tying up a road rule offender and carting him to a police station is a dodgy activity which could backfire. If an arsole breaks into your house and shoots your wife, and you take him along to the police and there is certain proof he done it then maybe you get away with it.
> > Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a bus > > driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a cyclist got > > upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by smashing the > > cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many of you would be > > here defending the bus driver?
Such a situation is extremely unlikely to occur.
But I would quite understand a bus driver paddy whacking a cyclist who nearly caused a death or accident when he clearly should not have.
But there is a point where chastizement turns into a criminal action.
But many a motorist returns the fire after the motorist has threatened the life of a cyclist who shames the motorist. I've personally gone out of may way to yell abuse and beat on windows of vehicles driven by morons who have just nearly run me over while I was obeying the law. I don't fucking let em get away with it.
To survive on roads with motorists cyclists should make the protests loud and clear from time to time.
But not all cyclists understand their rights, and certainly don't always understand their duty of care for themselves and other road/ cycle path users, and they don't always obey road laws.
In the fullness of time, cyclists who refuse to be considerate of how their road use affects others will pay a price of their activities.
The motorists cannot always get away with intimidating behaviour if they are spotted, let alone cause a death. Its a plain pain in the arse if you drive over a cyclist, all those court appearances, fines, and slaps on the wrist.
Patrick Turner wrote: > On Oct 29, 1:04 pm, "Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF"
> somebody asked.... >>>> Perspective, anyone? >>> This doesn't seem to be a case of road rage, but rather a bus driver >>> being taught a lesson. >> And since when is that legal?
>>> Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in >>> the bus lane is no excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by >>> a bus. >> He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
> So its ok if the bus driver runs over the cyclist.
The bus driver did not run over the cyclist. I do not know why some cyclists seem to be condoning cyclists putting themselves in danger by tresspassing on a road they are clearly not supposed to use.This road is one of the few where buses do the speed limit of 80 kmph (because the road is mostly empty)(bicycles do not do 80)
> Next time your son or daughter or someone you know is in the wrong > place at the wrong time, don't cry when they lose their life by > "misadventure".
>>> David - who has seen many many bus driver act like they own the road
> Indeed many motorists don't like sharing the same road space. >> And I've seen many cyclists who think they do. As well as thinking they own >> footpaths, etc.
> I rarely ever see cyclists using footpaths in a dangerous manner.
> But here the "cycle paths" are for shared use but excluding motorists. > Having a good loud bell on a bicycle is a good way to let pedestrians > know you are coming along behind them. > They like being belled. Nobody in Canberra exclusively owns any cycle > path or cycle lane. All those who share the paths and lanes here all > get on rather marvellously IMHO. Sure there are isolated incidents of > people having hissy fits and clashes, but that's normal ain't it?
> I have deleted your moronic and stupid fucking signature.
F Murtz wrote: > The bus driver did not run over the cyclist. I do not know why some > cyclists seem to be condoning cyclists putting themselves in danger by > tresspassing on a road they are clearly not supposed to use.This road > is one of the few where buses do the speed limit of 80 kmph (because > the road is mostly empty)(bicycles do not do 80)
Pardon the - what may seem to be a - really silly question but..... does anyone know whether the cyclist actually KNEW he wasn't supposed to be in that lane?
Peter Cremasco <FirsName.LastN...@bigpond.com> wrote: > F Murtz wrote:
>> The bus driver did not run over the cyclist. I do not know why some >> cyclists seem to be condoning cyclists putting themselves in danger by >> tresspassing on a road they are clearly not supposed to use.This road >> is one of the few where buses do the speed limit of 80 kmph (because >> the road is mostly empty)(bicycles do not do 80)
> Pardon the - what may seem to be a - really silly question but..... does > anyone know whether the cyclist actually KNEW he wasn't supposed to be > in that lane?
Until they find him no one will know for sure.
I recall seeing "Bus only" signs and much argument about bikes not being allowed, but I don't know how good the signage is.
I wouldn't ride it as it's clear there's bugger all room for anything but buses.
>> The bus driver did not run over the cyclist. I do not know why some >> cyclists seem to be condoning cyclists putting themselves in danger by >> tresspassing on a road they are clearly not supposed to use.This road >> is one of the few where buses do the speed limit of 80 kmph (because >> the road is mostly empty)(bicycles do not do 80)
> Pardon the - what may seem to be a - really silly question but..... does > anyone know whether the cyclist actually KNEW he wasn't supposed to be > in that lane?
It is fairly obvious, it is not a lane as such it is a completely separate walled off two way road with every entrance that I have seen saying buses only. It is a complete waste of money and space,it is almost always empty with just an occasional bus doing 80 as no one is allowed to use it. It is a pity motor cycles are not allowed, they would not cause any inconvenience to buses but it would not be suitable for bicycles. It has one narrow lane each way and slow bicycles would just block it.
|
