bad cyclists and my local roundabout, Overport Rd Frankston

[AndrewJ]

In the interests of balance, or to convince you that idiocy is equally
distributed amongst the human race, this is a story about my local
roundabout.

It is at the intersection of Overport Rd and Seaview Rd in Frankston.
This is a steep hill, and getting onto the roundabout going uphill is
not a problem either for cars or for cyclists. Actually Overport Rd is
a bit of a cycling freeway, so the relevant cyclists may read this.

The problem is on the downhill.

When I try to get onto the roundabout, there is a problem with cars
coming down the hill and inventing a new road rule, which basically
consists of : "Here I come going as fast as I can down the hill, get
out of my way." This is not the rule. The rule is that vehicles not on
the roundabout must give way to vehicles on the roundabout. So if I get
onto the roundabout before you, then you must give way to me.

So what did I witness when I staggered out to get the paper on Saturday
morning? A group of cyclists invoking the same rule as the cars do,
going down the hill at max speed (let's say about 70km/hr). They
entered the roundabout at this speed. Unfortunately there was a car
already in the roundabout.

Said cyclists proceeded to shout at the car "What are you doing...
etc...etc. " as they attempted to hurtle through the roundabout at
60km/hr plus.

Let's be clear about this: you are in the wrong, and you have to obey
the same rules as any other vehicle on the road. You have to give way
to the car in the roundabout.

I was at the Ride of Silence where Simon Gillett expanded on the cause
of his foundation. He is absolutely right when he says that cyclists
have to obey the rules. What must he be thinking when he witnesses
cyclists playing "chicken" with cars? I can only imagine.

So next time guys: slow to 40km/hr approaching the roundabout and give
way to cars on the roundabout. You may have a vivid imagination, but
trust me: you are not riding a stage of the Tour de France. The road is
not closed to traffic, and that is not your team car. Us locals won't
scrape what is left of you off the road and assemble the bits to put in
the hearse.

[Max]

Had a similar experience on the Brissie to Bay ride on the weekend.
Riders coming down a long hill with a set of lights at the bottom before
another climb. A copper was sitting at the lights to oversee the
intersection. Watched as about 10 or so riders in the ride came
screaming down the hill and straight through the lights just avoiding
the cars turning in front of them. I pulled up at the lights and was
chatting to the copper while the light were red. He just shook his head
and said well at least he could give a good witness statement as they
were washing the blood off the road.
Whats wrong with stopping at the red lights people ..............
........................................if you were in your cars you'd
stop. maybe?????
--
Regards

Max

I repeat- your life is just a test life.
Had it been an actual life you would have received further instructions
on what to do and where to go.

http://www.ipswichbug.org

AndrewJ wrote:
> In the interests of balance, or to convince you that idiocy is equally
> distributed amongst the human race, this is a story about my local
> roundabout.
>
> It is at the intersection of Overport Rd and Seaview Rd in Frankston.
> This is a steep hill, and getting onto the roundabout going uphill is
> not a problem either for cars or for cyclists. Actually Overport Rd is
> a bit of a cycling freeway, so the relevant cyclists may read this.
>
> The problem is on the downhill.
>
> When I try to get onto the roundabout, there is a problem with cars
> coming down the hill and inventing a new road rule, which basically
> consists of : "Here I come going as fast as I can down the hill, get
> out of my way." This is not the rule. The rule is that vehicles not on
> the roundabout must give way to vehicles on the roundabout. So if I get
> onto the roundabout before you, then you must give way to me.
>
> So what did I witness when I staggered out to get the paper on Saturday
> morning? A group of cyclists invoking the same rule as the cars do,
> going down the hill at max speed (let's say about 70km/hr). They
> entered the roundabout at this speed. Unfortunately there was a car
> already in the roundabout.
>
> Said cyclists proceeded to shout at the car "What are you doing...
> etc...etc. " as they attempted to hurtle through the roundabout at
> 60km/hr plus.
>
> Let's be clear about this: you are in the wrong, and you have to obey
> the same rules as any other vehicle on the road. You have to give way
> to the car in the roundabout.
>
> I was at the Ride of Silence where Simon Gillett expanded on the cause
> of his foundation. He is absolutely right when he says that cyclists
> have to obey the rules. What must he be thinking when he witnesses
> cyclists playing "chicken" with cars? I can only imagine.
>
> So next time guys: slow to 40km/hr approaching the roundabout and give
> way to cars on the roundabout. You may have a vivid imagination, but
> trust me: you are not riding a stage of the Tour de France. The road is
> not closed to traffic, and that is not your team car. Us locals won't
> scrape what is left of you off the road and assemble the bits to put in
> the hearse.
>

[Tamyka Bell]

jmccr wrote:
>
> I guess that fact that 911 was an inside job through the Zionist media and
> that we are in the middle of a war didn't occur to you during this mediocre
> dilemma of your PRIVATE life.

Probably not. It didn't enter my mind reading his report either. So your
point?

T

[Bleve]

AndrewJ wrote:
> In the interests of balance, or to convince you that idiocy is equally
> distributed amongst the human race, this is a story about my local
> roundabout.

This is not news to many (although some may take exception .... :) )

> It is at the intersection of Overport Rd and Seaview Rd in Frankston.
> This is a steep hill, and getting onto the roundabout going uphill is
> not a problem either for cars or for cyclists. Actually Overport Rd is
> a bit of a cycling freeway, so the relevant cyclists may read this.

I ride that road reasonably regularly, know the intersection well. It,
and the one at the bottom of the hill, are to be treated with caution.

> The problem is on the downhill.
>
> When I try to get onto the roundabout, there is a problem with cars
> coming down the hill and inventing a new road rule, which basically
> consists of : "Here I come going as fast as I can down the hill, get
> out of my way." This is not the rule. The rule is that vehicles not on
> the roundabout must give way to vehicles on the roundabout. So if I get
> onto the roundabout before you, then you must give way to me.
>
> So what did I witness when I staggered out to get the paper on Saturday
> morning? A group of cyclists invoking the same rule as the cars do,
> going down the hill at max speed (let's say about 70km/hr). They
> entered the roundabout at this speed. Unfortunately there was a car
> already in the roundabout.
>
> Said cyclists proceeded to shout at the car "What are you doing...
> etc...etc. " as they attempted to hurtle through the roundabout at
> 60km/hr plus.
>
> Let's be clear about this: you are in the wrong, and you have to obey
> the same rules as any other vehicle on the road. You have to give way
> to the car in the roundabout.

That's very true, and you're quite right. The dickheads that fly
through those roundabouts without looking or giving way are ...
dickheads.

[Bleve]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> jmccr wrote:
> >
> > I guess that fact that 911 was an inside job through the Zionist media and
> > that we are in the middle of a war didn't occur to you during this mediocre
> > dilemma of your PRIVATE life.
>
> Probably not. It didn't enter my mind reading his report either. So your
> point?

Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)

[cfsmtb]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> That's very true, and you're quite right. The dickheads that fly
> through those roundabouts without looking or giving way are ...
> dickheads.

So true. Bicycles are considered legal road traffic, so why do some
cyclists behave as if they're completely without fault? Could a high
percentage of cyclists be Catholic and therefore believe they also
share in papal infallibility? Ok that can easily shown to be complete
bollox... :p

Here's another ver of FD's Crankbusters:
http://www.woj.com.au/crankbusters/

And here's State bike rules & road laws, brush up on it if you require
a refresh or know someone who does..
http://www.woj.com.au/australian-road-authority-links/


--
cfsmtb

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > jmccr wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess that fact that 911 was an inside job through the Zionist media and
> > > that we are in the middle of a war didn't occur to you during this mediocre
> > > dilemma of your PRIVATE life.
> >
> > Probably not. It didn't enter my mind reading his report either. So your
> > point?
>
> Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)

Hey, now he's hijacking other threads, I was hoping he'd get worked up!
Grrr. It's late, I'm tired etc. And it looks cold out there. BOM says
it's 15deg C. Brrrrr.

T ;)

[Donga]

AndrewJ wrote:
> So what did I witness when I staggered out to get the paper on Saturday
> morning? A group of cyclists invoking the same rule as the cars do,
> going down the hill at max speed (let's say about 70km/hr). They
> entered the roundabout at this speed. Unfortunately there was a car
> already in the roundabout.
>
> Said cyclists proceeded to shout at the car "What are you doing...
> etc...etc. " as they attempted to hurtle through the roundabout at
> 60km/hr plus.
>
> Let's be clear about this: you are in the wrong, and you have to obey
> the same rules as any other vehicle on the road. You have to give way
> to the car in the roundabout.
>
> I was at the Ride of Silence where Simon Gillett expanded on the cause
> of his foundation. He is absolutely right when he says that cyclists
> have to obey the rules. What must he be thinking when he witnesses
> cyclists playing "chicken" with cars? I can only imagine.
>
> So next time guys: slow to 40km/hr approaching the roundabout and give
> way to cars on the roundabout. You may have a vivid imagination, but
> trust me: you are not riding a stage of the Tour de France. The road is
> not closed to traffic, and that is not your team car. Us locals won't
> scrape what is left of you off the road and assemble the bits to put in
> the hearse.

AndrewJ, this is all your point of view. You are imaging Simon
Gillett's thoughts and imaging what other riders might be imagining. If
you've got time to spend railing about road behaviour, think about
risk. Your words won't be spent on the above. Try red-light running in
cars, speeding in cars, aggression in cars. They kill other people,
many times over, in every city, every day. Cyclists as a whole are no
more or less law-abiding than the rest of the community, including
car-ists. Hooning cyclists do not kill people, though they hurt
themselves from time to time. You won't pick up the cyclist and put
them in a hearse, but do you have the same approach to car crashes?
Attacking the behaviour of some cyclists is a classic divide-and-rule
strategy. Reject it. And don't be a boring fart. Have a try taking a
roundabout at 40 some time, and remember what it was like. You'll never
get in a tin box again.

Donga

(PS: did I just get trolled?)

[cfsmtb]

Donga Wrote:
>
> (PS: did I just get trolled?)

Er, no, but did we just get trolled by you? You missed a vital point
here. The bunch went into the roundabout, then some cyclists
apparentely blamed the vehicle driver for already being there.
Inadvertently imitating aggressive & illogical behaviour, that some
drivers already direct towards cyclists, ain't doing us any favours in
the PR stakes.


--
cfsmtb

[Travis]

Bleve wrote:

> That's very true, and you're quite right. The dickheads that fly
> through those roundabouts without looking or giving way are ...
> dickheads.

Wow Bleve, that is so profound. I think I'll go meditate on that one
for a while.

Travis

[harbinger]

> Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)
>

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
This is no clown matter.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 29 May 2006 22:55:12 +1000
cfsmtb > wrote:
>
> Donga Wrote:
>>
>> (PS: did I just get trolled?)
>
> Er, no, but did we just get trolled by you? You missed a vital point
> here. The bunch went into the roundabout, then some cyclists
> apparentely blamed the vehicle driver for already being there.
> Inadvertently imitating aggressive & illogical behaviour, that some
> drivers already direct towards cyclists, ain't doing us any favours in
> the PR stakes.

Not just the PR stakes... bunch of cyclists get killed or badly hurt
on roundabout because of their behaviour. Innocent driver seriously
upset (and possibly hurt if they swerve to avoid or lose control in
some way) and that's wrong. Plus government decides cyclists are not
able to handle roundabouts.

Zebee

[flyingdutch]

aint this 'possibly' the HellRide?
or do they go on the beach side of hwy now?

whatever...


--
flyingdutch

[Donga]

cfsmtb wrote:
> Donga Wrote:
> >
> > (PS: did I just get trolled?)
>
> Er, no, but did we just get trolled by you? You missed a vital point
> here. The bunch went into the roundabout, then some cyclists
> apparentely blamed the vehicle driver for already being there.
> Inadvertently imitating aggressive & illogical behaviour, that some
> drivers already direct towards cyclists, ain't doing us any favours in
> the PR stakes.

I don't think that's a vital point. Sure, it is bad behaviour. I
wouldn't do it, and these days I choose not to ride with the Wednesday
Worlds and the like where these things happen a bit. The criticism from
AndrewJ is still a distraction. I'll start criticising other cyclists
when their behaviour in terms of road rules and politeness is worse
than the general and the risks they pose are somewhat worse.

My comment about trolling is this is just the sort of article Mike
O'Connor would put in the Courier Mail to start of a trail of
backbiting amongst cyclists, and letters from cyclists and car-ists
having a big slag-off against guess who, cyclists, not car-ists.

When AndrewJ is out there riding in the bunch, not picking up his
paper, he is in a better position to comment, but even then, he might
think hooning cyclists are not the main game.

Is standing back criticising going to improve road behaviour by a few?
I don't think so. If there's a legal compliance issue, then educate and
enforce ... but even the police probably think their time is better
spent on those who kill.

Donga

[Bean Long]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>> jmccr wrote:
>>>> I guess that fact that 911 was an inside job through the Zionist media and
>>>> that we are in the middle of a war didn't occur to you during this mediocre
>>>> dilemma of your PRIVATE life.
>>> Probably not. It didn't enter my mind reading his report either. So your
>>> point?
>> Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)
>
> Hey, now he's hijacking other threads, I was hoping he'd get worked up!
> Grrr. It's late, I'm tired etc. And it looks cold out there. BOM says
> it's 15deg C. Brrrrr.
>
> T ;)
You're having a bad couple of days by the looks Tam. The, so-called,
cold weather in Brisvegas must be getting you down. I can sympathise..
the bike shed here is almost empty this time of year. Poor depressed
people! :-)

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[Bean Long]

Donga wrote:
Try red-light running in
> cars, speeding in cars, aggression in cars. They kill other people,
> many times over, in every city, every day. Cyclists as a whole are no
> more or less law-abiding than the rest of the community, including
> car-ists. Hooning cyclists do not kill people, though they hurt
> themselves from time to time. You won't pick up the cyclist and put
> them in a hearse, but do you have the same approach to car crashes?

Oh, and all this makes it OK to bend the road rules?? Hooning cyclists
do not kill people?? Perhaps I can't lay my hands on a single example
of this, but sure as hell there's a risk, both to the cyclist and peds
etc. Sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. You seem to be
suggesting that because cyclists "possibly" pose a lesser threat to
other road users (and apparently to themselves) then they should be able
to break the road rules like cagers sometimes do?? What a f$*king
crock! I don't want cagers on the road who break the rules and if you
truly have this opinion, I don't want you on the road either.

Just my opinion.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[Donga]

> Oh, and all this makes it OK to bend the road rules?? Hooning cyclists
> do not kill people?? Perhaps I can't lay my hands on a single example
> of this, but sure as hell there's a risk, both to the cyclist and peds
> etc. Sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. You seem to be
> suggesting that because cyclists "possibly" pose a lesser threat to
> other road users (and apparently to themselves) then they should be able
> to break the road rules like cagers sometimes do?? What a f$*king
> crock! I don't want cagers on the road who break the rules and if you
> truly have this opinion, I don't want you on the road either.

Bean

That's a bit personal. I'm for more riders on the road, not less, even
if I don't agree with them or like them. So I'll keep riding thanks.
BTW, there was a 42% increase in participants in the MS Ride on Sunday,
so things are looking up.

You haven't read what I said. Where did I condone the sort of behaviour
AndrewJ described?

Where were the pedestrians in this incident? How do you know that
AndrewJ's description of events is what actually happened? Why do you
assume his impression is more right than whatever said cyclists saw and
felt? This morning I yelled at a car driver who changed lanes in front
of me without indicating. Surrounding peds probably thought I was the
tosser.

As to the statistics, EuanB can usually oblige as to the damage done by
cars and the almost undetectable number of deaths caused to others by
cyclists. Or look up John Pucher. Yes, sure, the very few deaths are
likely to be caused by the hoons - those naughty young boys and girls
who like to go fast and live on the edge, tut tut.

Donga

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:
> aint this 'possibly' the HellRide?
> or do they go on the beach side of hwy now?

Hell ride does olivers hill, not the backroad back from Two
Bays/Canadian Bay.

Donga's wrong, Andrew J has a perfectly valid point, *we* have to play
by the rules and he's quite justified in what he (AndrewJ) wrote. Just
because car drivers do the wrong thing doesn't give cyclists the right
to also do the wrong thing and slip under the radar.

[Karen Gallagher]

Donga wrote:
>> Oh, and all this makes it OK to bend the road rules?? Hooning
>> cyclists do not kill people?? Perhaps I can't lay my hands on a
>> single example of this, but sure as hell there's a risk, both to the
>> cyclist and peds etc. Sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous.
>> You seem to be suggesting that because cyclists "possibly" pose a
>> lesser threat to other road users (and apparently to themselves)
>> then they should be able to break the road rules like cagers
>> sometimes do?? What a f$*king crock! I don't want cagers on the
>> road who break the rules and if you truly have this opinion, I don't
>> want you on the road either.
>
> Bean
>
> That's a bit personal. I'm for more riders on the road, not less, even
> if I don't agree with them or like them. So I'll keep riding thanks.
> BTW, there was a 42% increase in participants in the MS Ride on
> Sunday, so things are looking up.
>
> You haven't read what I said. Where did I condone the sort of
> behaviour AndrewJ described?
>
> Where were the pedestrians in this incident? How do you know that
> AndrewJ's description of events is what actually happened? Why do you
> assume his impression is more right than whatever said cyclists saw
> and felt? This morning I yelled at a car driver who changed lanes in
> front of me without indicating. Surrounding peds probably thought I
> was the tosser.
>
> As to the statistics, EuanB can usually oblige as to the damage done
> by cars and the almost undetectable number of deaths caused to others
> by cyclists. Or look up John Pucher. Yes, sure, the very few deaths
> are likely to be caused by the hoons - those naughty young boys and
> girls who like to go fast and live on the edge, tut tut.
>
> Donga

At the MS ride I saw a 'near' accident - police were holding up the traffic
for us at a junction, and an old lady decided to cross the road at a
pedestrian crossing, while we were being motioned forward by the rozzer.

She saw us coming, but decided she was entitled and asserted her rights. Not
sure who'd have been declared in error if a collision had happened.

Karen

--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast

[Bleve]

harbinger wrote:
> > Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)
> >
>
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> This is no clown matter.

This is aus.bicycle, not alt.conspiracy-theory.bork.bork.bork

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-05-30, Bleve > wrote:
> Donga's wrong, Andrew J has a perfectly valid point, *we* have to play
> by the rules and he's quite justified in what he (AndrewJ) wrote. Just
> because car drivers do the wrong thing doesn't give cyclists the right
> to also do the wrong thing and slip under the radar.

Indeed.

Criticising car drivers when they get it wrong is fair criticism. Nobody
should be arguing with that. But to overlook the infraction of a cyclist
*just because they're a cyclist* is to say to car drivers that we are
above the law. That's not an attitude that leads others to listen to
what you have to say.

Hypocrisy is not the issue here. We all say things to others that tend
to reflect what we believe is the right thing to do, not necessarily
what we *actually* do. The important part is that we strive to maintain
those attitudes ourselves; if we slip up from time to time, that's part
of life, as long as we strive to correct our mistakes as best we can.
Being able to criticise other cyclists when they stuff up is part and
parcel of that.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

[LotteBum]

Donga Wrote:
> AndrewJ, this is all your point of view. You are imaging Simon
> Gillett's thoughts and imaging what other riders might be imagining. If
> you've got time to spend railing about road behaviour, think about
> risk. Your words won't be spent on the above. Try red-light running in
> cars, speeding in cars, aggression in cars. They kill other people,
> many times over, in every city, every day. Cyclists as a whole are no
> more or less law-abiding than the rest of the community, including
> car-ists. Hooning cyclists do not kill people, though they hurt
> themselves from time to time. You won't pick up the cyclist and put
> them in a hearse, but do you have the same approach to car crashes?
> Attacking the behaviour of some cyclists is a classic divide-and-rule
> strategy. Reject it. And don't be a boring fart. Have a try taking a
> roundabout at 40 some time, and remember what it was like. You'll never
> get in a tin box again.
I hear what you're saying, Donga, but I think we all have a
responsibility to do the right thing on the roads regardless of mode of
transport. In particular, I think that we, as cyclists, carry this
responsibility. In this redneck society, all it takes is one cyclist
p!ssing a motorist off to get another cyclist killed. It is in this
way that I think we all owe it to eachother to do the right thing.
Unfortunately we are a minority group and I don't really like the idea
of being killed on the road because someone p!ssed a redneck off a few
kilometres back.


--
LotteBum

[AndrewJ]

Just to reply to some points:

Whilst I may have been wondering what Simon Gillett was thinking, there
was no ambiguity about what he said. The foundation is about improving
relations between car drivers and cyclists. He specifically criticised
the cyclists on that ride (the Ride of Silence) that did not obey the
law. Fair cop, I say.

Sure, bad cyclists (usually) don't kill people (often). Bad
pedestrians probably only fall over on top of dogs on shared paths. Bad
car drivers execute people in broad daylight, probably several a week.
Do psychopaths drive cars? Yes. I meet them. So far they have missed
me, but you never know which day is your last.

But let's be real about this. The relationship is between the 95% of
car drivers who behave responsibly, and the 95% of cyclists who behave
responsibly.

To put it on the record, I'm in favour of mandatory jail sentences of
greater than 5 years for any car driver that injures a cyclist (any
injury requiring hospital treatment) whilst breaking the road law (eg.
running a red light). Together with mandatory cancellation of driving
license, for life. A car driver that behaves in this way should not be
on the roads, and does not belong in our community. [Can a car injure a
cyclist without breaking the road law? Hopefully only if the cyclist
also breaks the law, eg. by running the red light in the opposite
direction. In which case, its your funeral.]

However, cyclists who flout the law should not be condoned either. They
poison the relationship and they make life more difficult for the 95%
of cyclists who behave responsibly.

[Bean Long]

Karen Gallagher wrote:
> Donga wrote:
>>> Oh, and all this makes it OK to bend the road rules?? Hooning
>>> cyclists do not kill people?? Perhaps I can't lay my hands on a
>>> single example of this, but sure as hell there's a risk, both to the
>>> cyclist and peds etc. Sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous.
>>> You seem to be suggesting that because cyclists "possibly" pose a
>>> lesser threat to other road users (and apparently to themselves)
>>> then they should be able to break the road rules like cagers
>>> sometimes do?? What a f$*king crock! I don't want cagers on the
>>> road who break the rules and if you truly have this opinion, I don't
>>> want you on the road either.
>> Bean
>>
>> That's a bit personal. I'm for more riders on the road, not less, even
>> if I don't agree with them or like them. So I'll keep riding thanks.
>> BTW, there was a 42% increase in participants in the MS Ride on
>> Sunday, so things are looking up.

I'm also for more riders on the road but I'd prefer they obey the road
rules. Quite frankly, riders who disobey the road rules, get cagers
****ed off and therefore increase the risk to other riders can cop the
abuse the rest of us dish out to cagers who do the same thing. End of
story.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[Donga]

LotteBum wrote:
> I hear what you're saying, Donga, but I think we all have a
> responsibility to do the right thing on the roads regardless of mode of
> transport. In particular, I think that we, as cyclists, carry this
> responsibility. In this redneck society, all it takes is one cyclist
> p!ssing a motorist off to get another cyclist killed. It is in this
> way that I think we all owe it to eachother to do the right thing.
> Unfortunately we are a minority group and I don't really like the idea
> of being killed on the road because someone p!ssed a redneck off a few
> kilometres back.

I must have had too much coffee this morning - I'm enjoying this debate
- and I don't mind being wrong either, because I think this discussion
is worthwhile. There are valid points on both sides - wild riders do
**** off the public, and the public does get steamed up on this
behaviour while turning a blind eye to the horrific toll of careless
car use; some even use it as an excuse to drive like Lotte describes.

Donga

[Paulie-AU]

> Donga Wrote:
>Is standing back criticising going to improve road behaviour by a few?
>I don't think so. If there's a legal compliance issue, then educate
and
>enforce ... but even the police probably think their time is better
>spent on those who kill.

I for one really don't look foward to the day I am riding through a
roundabout and some heros plough into me because they choose not to
look or give way.

These people have already been educated (basic road rules) and will
self enforce through Darwinism!!


--
Paulie-AU

[TimC]

On 2006-05-30, AndrewJ (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Just to reply to some points:
>
> Whilst I may have been wondering what Simon Gillett was thinking, there
> was no ambiguity about what he said. The foundation is about improving
> relations between car drivers and cyclists. He specifically criticised
> the cyclists on that ride (the Ride of Silence) that did not obey the
> law. Fair cop, I say.

I missed that -- went in search of a damn toilet. What'dhe say?

--
TimC
New!: Sysadmin Barbie! Complete with tiny pager, Leatherman, selection of
LARTs, and makeup kit for that haven't-slept-in-3-days look. --unknown

[AndrewJ]

I forget the exact words. Just that he wasn't happy about people riding
way out from the kerb etc. It surprised me, since I thought that (as
group of cyclists go) it was a particularly well-behaved group. Got me
thinking.

[TimC]

On 2006-05-30, AndrewJ (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> I forget the exact words. Just that he wasn't happy about people riding
> way out from the kerb etc. It surprised me, since I thought that (as
> group of cyclists go) it was a particularly well-behaved group. Got me
> thinking.

Er -- there were a couple of times when a particular rider at the
front hadn't realised we had shifted into the left hand lane after
passing parked cars. I do hope Simon wasn't advocating us to ride in
the gutter.

--
TimC
"I give up," said Pierre de Fermat's friend. "How DO you keep a
mathematician busy for 350 years?"

[MikeyOz]

TimC Wrote:
> On 2006-05-30, AndrewJ (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > I forget the exact words. Just that he wasn't happy about people
> riding
> > way out from the kerb etc. It surprised me, since I thought that (as
> > group of cyclists go) it was a particularly well-behaved group. Got
> me
> > thinking.
>
I actually thought that was a bit rough, that was a fairly large group,
trying to keep together through a lot of traffic lights, passing a lot
of parked cars, so I thought it was a bit rough to have a go at the
group.


--
MikeyOz

[cfsmtb]

MikeyOz Wrote:
> I actually thought that was a bit rough, that was a fairly large group,
> trying to keep together through a lot of traffic lights, passing a lot
> of parked cars, so I thought it was a bit rough to have a go at the
> group.

Ummmmmm, maybe Simon is more used to bunch riding rather than a
informal group of cyclists dealing with city traffic conditions? I
honestly wouldn't think he was trying to to be rude, he's probably
experienced different riding conditions.


--
cfsmtb

[monsterman]

PHP code:
--------------------

--------------------
Donga Wrote:
> I must have had too much coffee this morning - I'm enjoying this debate
> - and I don't mind being wrong either, because I think this discussion
> is worthwhile. There are valid points on both sides - wild riders do
> **** off the public, and the public does get steamed up on this
> behaviour while turning a blind eye to the horrific toll of careless
> car use; some even use it as an excuse to drive like Lotte describes.
>
> Donga
PHP code:
--------------------

--------------------


Aaahhh .... .... ....group hug. There's the Brizzy
collegiate spirit of love and fellowship amongst all
travellers again. Kodak moment everyone ... ....

And for f*ck's sake lay off the beans Donga.
You're killing me. :D I was getting all ready to plough
into you at the next roundabout:D :D
Are you LA'ing this Friday morn?


--
monsterman

[Donga]

monsterman wrote:
> Aaahhh .... .... ....group hug. There's the Brizzy
> collegiate spirit of love and fellowship amongst all
> travellers again. Kodak moment everyone ... ....
>
> And for f*ck's sake lay off the beans Donga.
> You're killing me. :D I was getting all ready to plough
> into you at the next roundabout:D :D
> Are you LA'ing this Friday morn?

Awww shucks MM, I thought I had leprosy, so thanks!
I think I'm on kid duty, so I'll see how I go. I'll be out in the
Volvo, so don't let me see any of you yodelling around a roundabout!

Donga

[MikeyOz]

Donga Wrote:
>
> Awww shucks MM, I thought I had leprosy, so thanks!
> I think I'm on kid duty, so I'll see how I go. I'll be out in the
> Volvo, so don't let me see any of you yodelling around a roundabout!
> Donga

sh&t man.... you drive a Volvo.. watch out all those cyclists up there
in Brisbane :)


--
MikeyOz

[hemyd]

"cfsmtb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Donga Wrote:
>>
>> (PS: did I just get trolled?)
>
> Er, no, but did we just get trolled by you? You missed a vital point
> here. The bunch went into the roundabout, then some cyclists
> apparentely blamed the vehicle driver for already being there.
> Inadvertently imitating aggressive & illogical behaviour, that some
> drivers already direct towards cyclists, ain't doing us any favours in
> the PR stakes.
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
>
My concern with such cyclists who flaunt laws is that they make it difficult
for cyclists such as myself, who hopefully ride responsibly, in coping with
drivers who are extra aggressive because they've seen groups of cyclists who
don't give a damn about other traffic.

Henry (commuting by bicycle 25km a day)

[Resound]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> harbinger wrote:
>> > Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)
>> >
>>
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>> This is no clown matter.
>
> This is aus.bicycle, not alt.conspiracy-theory.bork.bork.bork
>

He's right though. Clowns won't solves this problem. We'll have to send in
the mimes.

[Bleve]

Travis wrote:
> MikeyOz wrote:
> > Donga Wrote:
> > >
> > > Awww shucks MM, I thought I had leprosy, so thanks!
> > > I think I'm on kid duty, so I'll see how I go. I'll be out in the
> > > Volvo, so don't let me see any of you yodelling around a roundabout!
> > > Donga
> >
> > sh&t man.... you drive a Volvo.. watch out all those cyclists up there
> > in Brisbane :)
>
> Leave him alone MikeyOz, I have it on good authority that a sizeable
> minority of Volvo drivers are quite decent people who are easily able
> to suppress their cannibalistic urges.

Is there such a thing as auto-canniabalism*? Does fingernail chewing
count?


* auto as in "to self", vis a vis auto fellatio, not auto as in car.

[Aeek]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:52:54 +1000, LotteBum
> wrote:

>transport. In particular, I think that we, as cyclists, carry this
>responsibility. In this redneck society, all it takes is one cyclist
>p!ssing a motorist off to get another cyclist killed. It is in this
>way that I think we all owe it to eachother to do the right thing.
>Unfortunately we are a minority group and I don't really like the idea
>of being killed on the road because someone p!ssed a redneck off a few
>kilometres back.

****ed off by riding 2 abreast when there are empty lanes to pass in.
Unaware that its legal for cyclists to ride two abreast.
Fixated on "Keeping Left" but either forgetting that its "unless
overtaking" or not acknowledging that this includes overtaking
cyclists. Or just because a cyclist dares to ride on the road.

Because I didn't obey the fictious "All Bicycles" sign. There's enough
confusion about what the cycling road rules actually are without the
authorities adding to it.
Andre

[TimC]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C5E43E.BDEF77A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2006-05-30, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "Bleve" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> harbinger wrote:
>>> > Tam, don't get trolled by this clown, please :)
>>> >
>>>
>>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>> This is no clown matter.
>>
>> This is aus.bicycle, not alt.conspiracy-theory.bork.bork.bork
>>
>
> He's right though. Clowns won't solves this problem. We'll have to send in
> the mimes.

What's that? I can't hear you.

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C5E43E.BDEF77A0--

--
TimC
Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek. --unknown

[Aeek]

On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:25:35 +1000, cfsmtb
> wrote:


>And here's State bike rules & road laws, brush up on it if you require
>a refresh or know someone who does..
>http://www.woj.com.au/australian-road-authority-links/

I'm been looking for this for years! Damn, just links.

The ACT Road Rules handbook doesn't fully cover cyclists - no mention
of signalling left and stop being entirely optional.

The SA one is so clear and simple, should be a model for the states
that can't get it right.

Interesting, in NSW bicycles include scooters. Again, they don't cover
signalling.

2/3 of my sample don't fully inform on cyclists road rules.

In the ACT you have to look at the National Road Rules plus the
enacting legislation. At least that's online, last time I looked NSW
didn't have online links.


Andre

[Aeek]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:47:05 +1000, Paulie-AU
> wrote:

>These people have already been educated (basic road rules) and will
>self enforce through Darwinism!!

WHAT, basic road rules don't cover how the rules differ for cyclists.
Idiot with airbags hit cyclist, not selecting against the idiot.
I don't get your point.

[Travis]

Bleve wrote:
> Travis wrote:

> > Leave him alone MikeyOz, I have it on good authority that a sizeable
> > minority of Volvo drivers are quite decent people who are easily able
> > to suppress their cannibalistic urges.
>
> Is there such a thing as auto-canniabalism*? Does fingernail chewing
> count?

I've heard somewhere that there is an abnormal psychological condition
where people want to be eaten. It might have a variant where people
actually want to eat one of their own limbs or something (and not in a
life and death survival situation).

Travis

[monsterman]

PHP code:
--------------------

--------------------
Travis Wrote:
>
> I've heard somewhere that there is an abnormal psychological condition
> where people want to be eaten.
> Travis
PHP code:
--------------------

--------------------


Sounds pretty normal to me ... .... :D (Sorry everyone. Always a
little toey after a good ride)


--
monsterman

[Plodder]

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Bean Long" > wrote in message
...
> Karen Gallagher wrote:
> > Donga wrote:
> >>> Oh, and all this makes it OK to bend the road rules?? Hooning
> >>> cyclists do not kill people?? Perhaps I can't lay my hands on a
> >>> single example of this, but sure as hell there's a risk, both to the
> >>> cyclist and peds etc. Sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous.
> >>> You seem to be suggesting that because cyclists "possibly" pose a
> >>> lesser threat to other road users (and apparently to themselves)
> >>> then they should be able to break the road rules like cagers
> >>> sometimes do?? What a f$*king crock! I don't want cagers on the
> >>> road who break the rules and if you truly have this opinion, I don't
> >>> want you on the road either.
> >> Bean
> >>
> >> That's a bit personal. I'm for more riders on the road, not less, even
> >> if I don't agree with them or like them. So I'll keep riding thanks.
> >> BTW, there was a 42% increase in participants in the MS Ride on
> >> Sunday, so things are looking up.
>
> I'm also for more riders on the road but I'd prefer they obey the road
> rules. Quite frankly, riders who disobey the road rules, get cagers
> ****ed off and therefore increase the risk to other riders can cop the
> abuse the rest of us dish out to cagers who do the same thing. End of
> story.
>
> --
> Bean
>
> Remove "yourfinger" before replying

And, when they jump in their cars, are more likely to ignore rules then,
too...

It's less about the vehicle (bike, car, truck, whatever) than the behaviour
displayed by the operator of the vehicle.

Cheers,

Frank

[Donga]

Aeek wrote:
> ****ed off by riding 2 abreast when there are empty lanes to pass in.
> Unaware that its legal for cyclists to ride two abreast.
> Fixated on "Keeping Left" but either forgetting that its "unless
> overtaking" or not acknowledging that this includes overtaking
> cyclists. Or just because a cyclist dares to ride on the road.
>
> Because I didn't obey the fictious "All Bicycles" sign. There's enough
> confusion about what the cycling road rules actually are without the
> authorities adding to it.
> Andre

Spot on, Andre! Drivers who hate bikes are bigots who use any excuse.
They just laugh when we join in their ranting at bogan cyclists.
Hooning riders are just a reflection of society's views about the law -
comply if you feel like it and are made to.

Have you ever heard this from a motorist: "oh, those hooning drivers
make me feel ashamed to be a motorist"? Why do some cyclists feel
responsible for how others ride?

Falling for the argument that another cyclist "****ing off" a motorist
makes me unsafe just justifies the murderous driver.

Donga

[Tamyka Bell]

Donga wrote:
>
> Aeek wrote:
> > ****ed off by riding 2 abreast when there are empty lanes to pass in.
> > Unaware that its legal for cyclists to ride two abreast.
> > Fixated on "Keeping Left" but either forgetting that its "unless
> > overtaking" or not acknowledging that this includes overtaking
> > cyclists. Or just because a cyclist dares to ride on the road.
> >
> > Because I didn't obey the fictious "All Bicycles" sign. There's enough
> > confusion about what the cycling road rules actually are without the
> > authorities adding to it.
> > Andre
>
> Spot on, Andre! Drivers who hate bikes are bigots who use any excuse.
> They just laugh when we join in their ranting at bogan cyclists.
> Hooning riders are just a reflection of society's views about the law -
> comply if you feel like it and are made to.
>
> Have you ever heard this from a motorist: "oh, those hooning drivers
> make me feel ashamed to be a motorist"? Why do some cyclists feel
> responsible for how others ride?
>
> Falling for the argument that another cyclist "****ing off" a motorist
> makes me unsafe just justifies the murderous driver.

I don't think it makes me unsafe (or you), but I do think that it
propagates the negative image that a lot of motorists have about
cyclists, and reinforces an us-against-them manner. Drivers who are not
anti-cyclist will probably not become anti-cyclist just because of
seeing one cyclist acting stupid. However the anti-cyclist types will
become angry seeing this and will feel more justified in their
attitude. It doesn't mean that you disapproving of the cyclist's
behaviour justifies their attitude in any way. It doesn't mean you feel
responsible for a demonstration of negligent/ignorant cycling any more
than you would for a poor driving demonstration.

I feel exactly the same way about dangerous cycling as I do about
dangerous driving. If you are always on the alert, most occurrences
won't even affect you. But I do think it should be a priority for
everyone to encourage road safety awareness and knowledge of the road
rules, for all road users. So I guess we are all responsible in some
part for any bad driving/cycling caused by ignorance - we haven't done
enough to ensure everyone is educated.

T

[Trevor_S]

Aeek > wrote in news:hbgo72tsr5fgv6pp6elai56bfvmvrkck14
@4ax.com:

<snip>

> In the ACT you have to look at the National Road Rules plus the
> enacting legislation. At least that's online, last time I looked NSW
> didn't have online links.

I wonder sometimes at the infatuation of some (many ?) for the production
of rules.

While I understand there to be a need for some rules, like, don't kill
someone (which, like most "rules" are flagrantly ignored when they're not
suitable), I am not quite sure why the necessity for ensuring their are
rules to apply to every situation envisaged. Two reasons, often they are
never obeyed (i.e speed rules, giving way on a round-a-bout in this example
are two that spring to mind). Australia seems to have become an officious
group, with the emphasis on making rules but never really enforcing them
nor examining the physce involved in allowing this to happen and
questioning if it's a good thing.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[LotteBum]

Aeek Wrote:
> ****ed off by riding 2 abreast when there are empty lanes to pass in.
> Unaware that its legal for cyclists to ride two abreast. Fixated on
> "Keeping Left" but either forgetting that its "unless overtaking" or
> not acknowledging that this includes overtaking cyclists. Or just
> because a cyclist dares to ride on the road. Because I didn't obey the
> fictious "All Bicycles" sign. There's enough confusion about what the
> cycling road rules actually are without the authorities adding to it. I was referring to cyclists who break the law. There does also come a
point where common courtesy should come into play. For instance, it's
legal to ride two abreast. Great. But there also comes a point where
you ride single file to let cars pass without forcing them into the
path of oncoming traffic. It's all about commonsense, really.

Actually, forget the above. Commonsense and common courtesy no longer
exist.

Lotte


--
LotteBum

[Tamyka Bell]

LotteBum wrote:
>
<snip>

> ...Commonsense and common courtesy no longer exist.
>
> Lotte

Not true!

They've just changed names and are now known as "uncommon sense" and
"uncommon courtesy". In the future this may change to "endangered
sense/courtesy" and at some stage we presume they will become extinct.

Tam

[Euan]

LotteBum wrote:
> Donga Wrote:
>
>>AndrewJ, this is all your point of view. You are imaging Simon
>>Gillett's thoughts and imaging what other riders might be imagining. If
>>you've got time to spend railing about road behaviour, think about
>>risk. Your words won't be spent on the above. Try red-light running in
>>cars, speeding in cars, aggression in cars. They kill other people,
>>many times over, in every city, every day. Cyclists as a whole are no
>>more or less law-abiding than the rest of the community, including
>>car-ists. Hooning cyclists do not kill people, though they hurt
>>themselves from time to time. You won't pick up the cyclist and put
>>them in a hearse, but do you have the same approach to car crashes?
>>Attacking the behaviour of some cyclists is a classic divide-and-rule
>>strategy. Reject it. And don't be a boring fart. Have a try taking a
>>roundabout at 40 some time, and remember what it was like. You'll never
>>get in a tin box again.
>
> I hear what you're saying, Donga, but I think we all have a
> responsibility to do the right thing on the roads regardless of mode of
> transport. In particular, I think that we, as cyclists, carry this
> responsibility. In this redneck society, all it takes is one cyclist
> p!ssing a motorist off to get another cyclist killed. It is in this
> way that I think we all owe it to eachother to do the right thing.
> Unfortunately we are a minority group and I don't really like the idea
> of being killed on the road because someone p!ssed a redneck off a few
> kilometres back.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/Marginalization.htm

Worth a read if you've not read it before. Pretty much captures what
you're saying Lotte I believe.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Random Data]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 23:19:56 +1000, Aeek wrote:

> In the ACT you have to look at the National Road Rules plus the
> enacting legislation. At least that's online, last time I looked NSW
> didn't have online links.

Last time I tried rta.nsw.gov.au it was broken. However a bit of diffing
on austlii.edu.au can get you the NSW version of the "National" road
rules. I've got a PDF of them somewhere around, which is good fun to pull
out when someone tells you you're not allowed to do what you just did.

--
Dave Hughes |
Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different
than riding a bicycle just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the
spokes.

[Aeek]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 11:52:25 +1000, cfsmtb
> wrote:


>It took me a while to collate all that.

I should have been more positive, wonderful, all the links in one
place - does make it at lot easier to compare, thanks :)

[Resound]

"Travis" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> TimC wrote:
>
>> >> This is aus.bicycle, not alt.conspiracy-theory.bork.bork.bork
>> >>
>> >
>> > He's right though. Clowns won't solves this problem. We'll have to send
>> > in
>> > the mimes.
>>
>> What's that? I can't hear you.
>
> That's because he's being drowned out by an elite force of crack piano
> accordian players. When the trolls persist we need to get serious
> about extermination, every last goddamn one of them.
>
> Travis
>

Well, as anyone who was even marginally well read as a child knows, the
natural enemy of the troll is the Goat. Arm yourself!

[cfsmtb]

Resound Wrote:
>
> Well, as anyone who was even marginally well read as a child knows,
> the
> natural enemy of the troll is the Goat. Arm yourself!

Lift arm. Drink!


--
cfsmtb