Talkback one eyed lunatics.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
jackets with number on the back.

We would then be the only place in the world with it.
It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which
would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is
the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time.
He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
cover and can not identify the culprit)
It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and
would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and
would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city
or places like Gosford for use at the other end)

[Peter Jason]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.

Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!


>He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>jackets with number on the back.

Good idea. Ot tattooed on the back of the neck.
>
>We would then be the only place in the world with it.

Onwards and upwards, brave Oz!


>It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.


We poor suffering motorists live in hope!!!!!


>He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which
>would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is
>the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time.

Anyone who uses the roads must pay insurance. Why not the pestiferous
cyclists.?


>He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>cases of third party claims against bicycles. (every so often a bicycle
>knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>cover and can not identify the culprit)

Ah, the good-old age of entitlement,

>It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and
>would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and
>would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city
>or places like Gosford for use at the other end)

We ratepayers wonder who's paying for the bicycle strips with the
pretty green anti-slip coatings. And why the endless road narrowings
to accomodate these traffic pests, and the bike tracks, and all the
attendant maintenance. Yes the cyclists should pay plenty for their
licences just as dog and cat owners do.
Further, ban them form streets between 6.00am & 12.55pm. The roads
are safer then too.

[Pelican]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
...
> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name
> is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems
> manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to
> his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we
> will have rider registration by the end of the year.
> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets
> with number on the back.
>
> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which
> would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is the
> case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time.
> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
> cover and can not identify the culprit)
> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and
> would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and
> would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city or
> places like Gosford for use at the other end)

There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one -
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of
a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance
industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders,
or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The
simpler, the better.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 14 May 2015 16:09:38 +1000
Pelican > wrote:
> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of
> a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance
> industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders,
> or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The
> simpler, the better.

Is car registration self-funding does anyone know?

What about driver licencing? after all this is closer to that than it
is to rego.

At what age does a rider need to ahve a paid licence?

Should there be high penalties for hitting a licenced cyclist given
they would now have a "right to the road" many think they do not now
have?

Zebee

[Rod Speed]

F Murtz > wrote

> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name
> is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration,

Nope, never listen to any of that, ever.

The most I do that is anything like that is to listen to
radio national podcasts when walking for exercise.

> he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion
> that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.

Its more likely Gay is driving it and he is commenting on it.

> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".

Wota terminal ****wit.

> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets
> with number on the back.

Even for kids ? Raving mad.

> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.

I doubt it.

> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,
> which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which
> is the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time.

Dunno, apparently some personal liability insurance does cover it already.

> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
> cases of third party claims against bicycles.

Why should the govt be paying for that ?

Maybe you mean run by the govt with cyclists paying for the cover.

Can't see that being viable with kids.

> (every so often a bicycle knocks some one down injuring and even killing
> where the victim has no cover and can not identify the culprit)

> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,

Its not for revenge, its so you have cover if you get run over.

Corse Medicare does cover that unless you get killed.

> it is better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.

That suggests you don't mean a govt operation running the insurance
that is paid for by the cyclist. The govt already pays for injurys thru
Medicare and I don't see the point in the govt paying for those that
get killed by bike riders, there are so few of those its not worth doing
anything about when the relos can take a civil action in that case.

> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do

I don't ride at all.

> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city
> or places like Gosford for use at the other end)

I don't ever do anything like that. Don't use trains at all either.

I do get a few loons ride past when walking in the scrub at
the back of town on some pretty rough bush tracks and fire
trails but never have any problem with them, I generally
notice them coming and they are sensible if I don't.

Get a few on motorbikes, but far fewer than ordinary
bikes. The ones on motorbikes would almost all be
completely illegal, no insurance or rego at all.

[Rod Speed]

"Peter Jason" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>>I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>
> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>
>
>>He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>jackets with number on the back.
>
> Good idea. Ot tattooed on the back of the neck.
>>
>>We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>
> Onwards and upwards, brave Oz!
>
>
>>It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>
>
> We poor suffering motorists live in hope!!!!!
>
>
>>He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which
>>would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is
>>the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time.
>
> Anyone who uses the roads must pay insurance.

Nope, not the ones that walk on them.

> Why not the pestiferous cyclists.?

Because they don't injure people enough to matter.

>>He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>cases of third party claims against bicycles. (every so often a bicycle
>>knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>cover and can not identify the culprit)
>
> Ah, the good-old age of entitlement,
>
>>It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and
>>would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and
>>would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city
>>or places like Gosford for use at the other end)

> We ratepayers wonder who's paying for the bicycle
> strips with the pretty green anti-slip coatings.

None of ours have anything like that. There
are a few dedicated concrete bike tracks.

> And why the endless road narrowings
> to accomodate these traffic pests,

We don't have any of those.

> and the bike tracks, and all the attendant maintenance.

There is no maintenance of the bike tracks.

> Yes the cyclists should pay plenty for their
> licences just as dog and cat owners do.

Cat owners don't.

> Further, ban them form streets between 6.00am
> & 12.55pm. The roads are safer then too.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>jackets with number on the back.
>
>We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.

You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.

The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
day.

[Pelican]

"Zebee Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 14 May 2015 16:09:38 +1000
> Pelican > wrote:
>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea
>> of
>> a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the
>> insurance
>> industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike
>> riders,
>> or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The
>> simpler, the better.
>
> Is car registration self-funding does anyone know?

An interesting question (as are the others you raise), but not relevant to
the topic, which is not nearly so complicated.

> What about driver licencing? after all this is closer to that than it
> is to rego.
>
> At what age does a rider need to ahve a paid licence?
>
> Should there be high penalties for hitting a licenced cyclist given
> they would now have a "right to the road" many think they do not now
> have?
>
> Zebee
>

[Pelican]

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>>I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>jackets with number on the back.
>>
>>We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>
> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>
> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
> day.

Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
of making such a choice.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>> jackets with number on the back.
>>
>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>> beginning of time.
>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>
> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
> -
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing
against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
bike riders, a complete new industry with the insurers licking their
lips at the new windfall, which would increase as it takes hold, the
same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third
party compulsory building insurance etc, loads more govt staff to run
licensing etc.

[Pelican]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>
>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>> beginning of time.
>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>
>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>> -
>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.

> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing
> against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
> bike riders, a complete new industry with the insurers licking their lips
> at the new windfall, which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it
> did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party
> compulsory building insurance etc, loads more govt staff to run licensing
> etc.

You are over-exaggerating the problem. The law already provides a remedy
for cyclists with personal or property injuries. The law already provides a
remedy for others with personal or property injuries which are the fault of
cyclists, but the consequences might be difficult where a cyclist doesn't
have funds. That problem can arise in many situations, of course. All that
is apparently being considered is a measure to ensure that those injured by
cyclists have an effective remedy eg by there being some sort of fund of
contributions by cyclists. That need not involve licensing, registration of
bikes, annual payments etc etc. It's not an anti-biking measure.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>jackets with number on the back.
>>>
>>>We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>
>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>
>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>> day.
>
>Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>of making such a choice.

I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
to still be here.

After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
- both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
liking.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
>> Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>
>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>> beginning of time.
>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>
>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>>> -
>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>
>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>
>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be
>> nothing against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance
>> for all bike riders, a complete new industry with the insurers licking
>> their lips at the new windfall, which would increase as it takes hold,
>> the same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto
>> third party compulsory building insurance etc, loads more govt staff
>> to run licensing etc.
>
> You are over-exaggerating the problem. The law already provides a
> remedy for cyclists with personal or property injuries. The law already
> provides a remedy for others with personal or property injuries which
> are the fault of cyclists, but the consequences might be difficult where
> a cyclist doesn't have funds. That problem can arise in many
> situations, of course. All that is apparently being considered is a
> measure to ensure that those injured by cyclists have an effective
> remedy eg by there being some sort of fund of contributions by
> cyclists. That need not involve licensing, registration of bikes,
> annual payments etc etc. It's not an anti-biking measure.
Except that utopian idea wont take hold
but my over exaggerated idea might as people have a hatred of bicycles
(and motor cycles as well )because people see them doing things they
cant(even legal things), when they are stuck in traffic,
Bicycles drive me nuts too especially having to pass the same rider 10
times on the same bit of road but none of my annoyances would be fixed
one iota by registration.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>
>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>
>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>
>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>> day.
>>
>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>> of making such a choice.
>
> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
> to still be here.
>
> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
> liking.
>
>
You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?

[Rod Speed]

"Zebee Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 14 May 2015 16:09:38 +1000
> Pelican > wrote:
>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea
>> of
>> a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the
>> insurance
>> industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike
>> riders,
>> or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The
>> simpler, the better.

> Is car registration self-funding does anyone know?

Self funding in what sense ? The total fees they charge
do more than pay for the cost of all those shinybums.

> What about driver licencing?

It isn't really feasible to separate the cost of rego and
drivers licensing except with the license test stuff.

> after all this is closer to that than it is to rego.

What ?

> At what age does a rider need to ahve a paid licence?

> Should there be high penalties for hitting a licenced cyclist given
> they would now have a "right to the road" many think they do not now
> have?

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>
>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>> beginning of time.
>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>
>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>> -
>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.

> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts

Dunno.

> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing

Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's
a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already.

> against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
> bike riders,

Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding
that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers.

> a complete new industry

No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route.

> with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall,

Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a
new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes.

> which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all mandated
> insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory building insurance
> etc,

The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes.

> loads more govt staff to run licensing etc.

Not if its just a license with no testing involved.

Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO.

[Rod Speed]

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>jackets with number on the back.
>>>>
>>>>We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>
>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>
>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>> day.
>>
>>Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>situation
>>of making such a choice.
>
> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
> to still be here.

Legally he is entitled to be in the center of the lane if he wants to.

Your camera will be what sees you jailed.

> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
> liking.

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
web.com...
> Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>>> Pelican wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>> year.
>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>>> beginning of time.
>>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>>
>>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>>>> -
>>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>>
>>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>>
>>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be
>>> nothing against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance
>>> for all bike riders, a complete new industry with the insurers licking
>>> their lips at the new windfall, which would increase as it takes hold,
>>> the same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto
>>> third party compulsory building insurance etc, loads more govt staff
>>> to run licensing etc.
>>
>> You are over-exaggerating the problem. The law already provides a
>> remedy for cyclists with personal or property injuries. The law already
>> provides a remedy for others with personal or property injuries which
>> are the fault of cyclists, but the consequences might be difficult where
>> a cyclist doesn't have funds. That problem can arise in many
>> situations, of course. All that is apparently being considered is a
>> measure to ensure that those injured by cyclists have an effective
>> remedy eg by there being some sort of fund of contributions by
>> cyclists. That need not involve licensing, registration of bikes,
>> annual payments etc etc. It's not an anti-biking measure.

> Except that utopian idea wont take hold

It has in some places.

> but my over exaggerated idea might

I doubt it.

> as people have a hatred of bicycles (and motor cycles as well )

SOME people do.

> because people see them doing things they cant
> (even legal things), when they are stuck in traffic,

> Bicycles drive me nuts too especially having to pass the same rider 10
> times on the same bit of road

I object more to the fools that insist on riding
side by side and the fact that that is legal now.

> but none of my annoyances would be fixed one iota by registration.

It might help if your claim that it would see
lots not bother to register because they don't
ride enough to warrant the cost is true.

Can't see it being viable tho, particularly with kids.

[Peter Howard[_6_]]

On 14/05/2015 6:10 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>
>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>
>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>
>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>> day.
>>
>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>> of making such a choice.
>
> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
> to still be here.
>
> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
> liking.
>
>
You are quite right. You can't be expected to anticipate the possibility
of a slow moving vehicle like a tractor hauling hay, or a logging truck,
or a cyclist on a blind bend. Our brave Anzacs died for the motorists
right to drive with their heads stuck up their arse.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>Jeßus wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>
>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>
>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>> day.
>>>
>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>>> of making such a choice.
>>
>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>> to still be here.
>>
>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>> liking.
>>
>>
>You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?

He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 08:16:40 +1000, somebody forging Peter Howard
> wrote:

>On 14/05/2015 6:10 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>
>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>
>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>> day.
>>>
>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>>> of making such a choice.
>>
>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>> to still be here.
>>
>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>> liking.
>>
>>
>You are quite right. You can't be expected to anticipate the possibility
>of a slow moving vehicle like a tractor hauling hay, or a logging truck,
>or a cyclist on a blind bend. Our brave Anzacs died for the motorists
>right to drive with their heads stuck up their arse.

Interesting scenario there, no idea what it has to do with the one I
outlined. Our road rules say that a bicycle rider must stay as closely
to the left of the lane as possible. I'm supposed to give him up to 2m
clearance. Had he stayed to the left like he was supposed to, it
wouldn't have been an issue. But no, he cocked his head back as he
heard me approach, which caused him to veer further to the right,
until he was in the middle of our lane. At which point I had
insufficient time to brake and had to hope for the best by avoiding
both him and an oncoming vehicle on a tight bend.

Any tractor or logging truck wouldn't have been an issue - why would
it have been? The bike rider was perfectly visible to me just as any
tractor or truck would have been - that wasn't the problem. And where
the **** do Anzacs fit into all this?

But of course, it wouldn't matter what the rider said or did, as far
as you're concerned. Because he's entitled to be unreasonable. He's a
cyclist, after all. Unreasonable, just like you, evidently. Let's hope
you don't end up like a Jackson Pollack painting on some lonely road
some day. That would be such a shame. We need more reasonable people
like you to counter the stereotypical image of bike riders.

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

PS:

Message-ID: >
>For the record, I did not write any of the posts in this thread using my
>name where the email addy is given as
>I'm normally only on rec.bicycles.tech but for some reason the simple
>minded forger troll is using my name only on aus.bicycle and uk.rec.cycling
>PH

All noted Peter. But I'm hitting send anyway... cbf editing and I've
added your post to this anyway :)

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
>> Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>
>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>> beginning of time.
>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>
>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>>> -
>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>
>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>
>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>
> Dunno.
>
>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing
>
> Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's
> a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already.

I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be
covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by
cycles causing injury to third parties
>
>> against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
>> bike riders,
>
> Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding
> that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers.
>
>> a complete new industry
>
> No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route.
>
>> with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall,
>
> Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a
> new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes.
>
>> which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all
>> mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory
>> building insurance etc,
>
> The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes.
>
>> loads more govt staff to run licensing etc.
>
> Not if its just a license with no testing involved.
>
> Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO.

[Pelican]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>>> Pelican wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>> year.
>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>>> beginning of time.
>>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>>
>>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>>>> -
>>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>>
>>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>>
>>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>>
>> Dunno.
>>
>>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing
>>
>> Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's
>> a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already.
>
> I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered
> by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles
> causing injury to third parties

That's correct. The concern is about cyclists causing injury to third
parties. The problem received some publicity recently when a cyclist caused
a serious injury to a person. Luckily, the cyclist belonged to a cycling
club and he was was covered by his club's insurance. The point is that, if
he had not been covered, he would have had a very substantial bill to pay.
It could, for example, mean the loss of a home. Or, the person injured
loses because he has no remedy. Most of us have some sort of insurance
cover to protect us against substantial claims (eg car insurance or house
insurance). This was an example of a person (the cyclist) up for a very
high bill that just happened to be covered by his club's insurance.

So, there is a concern about the real possibility of a cyclist having a
substantial bill to pay and having no insurance. This is private law stuff,
and not a government or community responsibility.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>> Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>> day.
>>>>
>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>
>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>> to still be here.
>>>
>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>> liking.
>>>
>>>
>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>
> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>

The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
the dangers of blind curves.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

F Murtz wrote:
> Jeßus wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>> day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>> situation
>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>
>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>> to still be here.
>>>>
>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>> liking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>
>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>
>
> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
> the dangers of blind curves.


OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
when practicable on a bicycle.

[Rod Speed]

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>>Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>> day.
>>>>
>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>> situation
>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>
>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>> to still be here.
>>>
>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>> liking.
>>>
>>>
>>You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>
> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).

Nothing to stop you slowing down to the speed he was going at.

> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?

The only problem is between your ears.

[Rod Speed]

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 08:16:40 +1000, somebody forging Peter Howard
> > wrote:
>
>>On 14/05/2015 6:10 PM, wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>> day.
>>>>
>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>> situation
>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>
>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>> to still be here.
>>>
>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>> liking.
>>>
>>>
>>You are quite right. You can't be expected to anticipate the possibility
>>of a slow moving vehicle like a tractor hauling hay, or a logging truck,
>>or a cyclist on a blind bend. Our brave Anzacs died for the motorists
>>right to drive with their heads stuck up their arse.
>
> Interesting scenario there, no idea what it has to do with the one I
> outlined. Our road rules say that a bicycle rider must stay as closely
> to the left of the lane as possible. I'm supposed to give him up to 2m
> clearance. Had he stayed to the left like he was supposed to, it
> wouldn't have been an issue. But no, he cocked his head back as he
> heard me approach, which caused him to veer further to the right,
> until he was in the middle of our lane. At which point I had
> insufficient time to brake

Only because you were too stupid to allow for that possibility.

> and had to hope for the best by avoiding both
> him and an oncoming vehicle on a tight bend.

> Any tractor or logging truck wouldn't have been an issue - why would
> it have been? The bike rider was perfectly visible to me just as any
> tractor or truck would have been - that wasn't the problem.

Yes, the problem was you were so stupid/incompetent
that you assumed that he would stay over on the left
and left it too later to brake safely.

> And where the **** do Anzacs fit into all this?
>
> But of course, it wouldn't matter what the rider said or did, as far
> as you're concerned. Because he's entitled to be unreasonable.

You are legally obliged to allow for what might happen.

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>>> Pelican wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>> year.
>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>>> beginning of time.
>>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle
>>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no
>>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>>
>>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one
>>>> -
>>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>>
>>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory
>>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>>
>>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>>
>> Dunno.
>>
>>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing
>>
>> Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's
>> a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already.

> I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered
> by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles
> causing injury to third parties

But plenty are caused by the bike coming to bits or
just coming off the road with no car involved etc.

>>> against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
>>> bike riders,
>>
>> Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding
>> that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers.
>>
>>> a complete new industry
>>
>> No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route.
>>
>>> with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall,
>>
>> Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a
>> new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes.
>>
>>> which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all
>>> mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory
>>> building insurance etc,
>>
>> The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes.
>>
>>> loads more govt staff to run licensing etc.
>>
>> Not if its just a license with no testing involved.
>>
>> Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO.
>

[F Murtz[_2_]]

F Murtz wrote:
> F Murtz wrote:
>> Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an
>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>> situation
>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>> liking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane
>>>> cause
>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>
>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>> the dangers of blind curves.
>
>
> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
> when practicable on a bicycle.

OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to
refer to bicycle lanes
I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a
bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle
lanes

[Pelican]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> F Murtz wrote:
>> F Murtz wrote:
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very
>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E
>>>>>> Tas
>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane
>>>>> cause
>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>
>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>
>>
>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>
> OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to
> refer to bicycle lanes
> I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle
> riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes

The Australian Road Rules give the basic rule in rule 129 -


129 Keeping to the far left side of a road

(1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as
near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
Offence provision.

(2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor bike.


Rule 129 applies to cyclists.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 15 May 2015 11:36:30 +1000
Pelican > wrote:
>
>
> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
>>
>> OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to
>> refer to bicycle lanes
>> I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle
>> riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes
>
> The Australian Road Rules give the basic rule in rule 129 -
>
>
> 129 Keeping to the far left side of a road
>
> (1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as
> near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
> Offence provision.
>
> (2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor bike.
>
>
> Rule 129 applies to cyclists.

THe reason it doesn't apply to motorcyclists is due to some court
cases about safety and the meaning of the word practicable. (I was
involved in motorcycle lobbying in SA at the time the SA law was
changed before the national road rules came in and helped with the
defence of one of the riders.)

I expect that should a cyclist be prosecuted for it they'll be playng
the practical card.

I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in
a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if
a car does crowd me.

What I think is safe and what the impatient person behind me thinks is
safe can be very different of course.

Bicycles like motorcycles have to always take account of traction and
road surface. A bicycle needs to be more aware of road surface than a
motorcycle as a pothole that is an annoyance to a motorcycle can cause
a crash for a bicycle. A bicycle rider will also be more worried about
space to either side as bicycles often need to move on the road more
than motorcycles do.

I find that most times car drivers do the right thing, and I try and
share the road sensibly with them. If I can help them pass safely I
will.

But I will be the one making the decision about what is safe, and if
that means someone in a car is held up for 30 seconds or even a whole
minute till they can pass me safely, then I'll lose no sleep over it.

Should I ever be prosecuted for not keeping left, I will have good
reasons for doing so and I am confident I would win the case. I
expect it will go the same way as the SA ones many years ago.


Zebee

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>> eb.com...
>>>> Pelican wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>>>> beginning of time.
>>>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute
>>>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a
>>>>>> bicycle
>>>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim
>>>>>> has no
>>>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is
>>>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the
>>>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>>>
>>>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this
>>>>> one
>>>>> -
>>>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the
>>>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it
>>>>> compulsory
>>>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>>>
>>>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>>>
>>> Dunno.
>>>
>>>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be
>>>> nothing
>>>
>>> Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's
>>> a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already.
>
>> I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be
>> covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by
>> cycles causing injury to third parties
>
> But plenty are caused by the bike coming to bits or
> just coming off the road with no car involved etc.


But not usually involving a third party, I would have thought.


>
>>>> against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
>>>> bike riders,
>>>
>>> Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding
>>> that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers.
>>>
>>>> a complete new industry
>>>
>>> No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route.
>>>
>>>> with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall,
>>>
>>> Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a
>>> new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes.
>>>
>>>> which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all
>>>> mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory
>>>> building insurance etc,
>>>
>>> The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes.
>>>
>>>> loads more govt staff to run licensing etc.
>>>
>>> Not if its just a license with no testing involved.
>>>
>>> Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO.
>>

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> F Murtz wrote:
>> F Murtz wrote:
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very
>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E
>>>>>> Tas
>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane
>>>>> cause
>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>
>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>
>>
>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>
> OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to
> refer to bicycle lanes
> I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle
> riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes

http://www.amygillett.org.au/tas-cycle-specific-road-rules/

Corse that doesn't mean that you are legally welcome to run them over if
they don't.

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>>> eb.com...
>>>>> Pelican wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "F Murtz" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration,
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>> He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with
>>>>>>> license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee
>>>>>>> expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the
>>>>>>> beginning of time.
>>>>>>> He would be better served to get government paid cover for the
>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>> cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a
>>>>>>> bicycle
>>>>>>> knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim
>>>>>>> has no
>>>>>>> cover and can not identify the culprit)
>>>>>>> It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance
>>>>>>> and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith.
>>>>>>> It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do
>>>>>>> and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> city or places like Gosford for use at the other end)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-for-bicycle-registration-scheme-finds-powerful-backer-in-christine-forster-sister-to-pm-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1226738618261.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your
>>>>>> idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by
>>>>>> the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it
>>>>>> compulsory
>>>>>> for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it
>>>>>> self-funding. The simpler, the better.
>>>>
>>>>> No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts
>>>>
>>>> Dunno.
>>>>
>>>>> The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be
>>>>> nothing
>>>>
>>>> Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's
>>>> a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already.
>>
>>> I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be
>>> covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by
>>> cycles causing injury to third parties
>>
>> But plenty are caused by the bike coming to bits or
>> just coming off the road with no car involved etc.
>
>
> But not usually involving a third party, I would have thought.

Doesn't need to involve a third party to
be covered by your compulsory insurance.

>>>>> against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all
>>>>> bike riders,
>>>>
>>>> Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding
>>>> that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers.
>>>>
>>>>> a complete new industry
>>>>
>>>> No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route.
>>>>
>>>>> with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall,
>>>>
>>>> Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a
>>>> new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes.
>>>>
>>>>> which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all
>>>>> mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory
>>>>> building insurance etc,
>>>>
>>>> The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes.
>>>>
>>>>> loads more govt staff to run licensing etc.
>>>>
>>>> Not if its just a license with no testing involved.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO.
>>>
>

[Peter Jason]

>
>> Yes the cyclists should pay plenty for their
>> licences just as dog and cat owners do.
>
>Cat owners don't.

Yes they do.

http://www.cafepress.com.au/+victorian-cat+license-plates
See! If cats have to have licence plates, why not cyclists?

also:
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/cats/legal-requirements-for-cat-owners/code-of-practice-for-the-private-keeping-of-cats

[Max[_7_]]

"F Murtz" > wrote in message
web.com...
>>
>> You are over-exaggerating the problem. The law already provides a
>> remedy for cyclists with personal or property injuries. The law already
>> provides a remedy for others with personal or property injuries which
>> are the fault of cyclists, but the consequences might be difficult where
>> a cyclist doesn't have funds. That problem can arise in many
>> situations, of course. All that is apparently being considered is a
>> measure to ensure that those injured by cyclists have an effective
>> remedy eg by there being some sort of fund of contributions by
>> cyclists. That need not involve licensing, registration of bikes,
>> annual payments etc etc. It's not an anti-biking measure.
> Except that utopian idea wont take hold
> but my over exaggerated idea might as people have a hatred of bicycles
> (and motor cycles as well )because people see them doing things they
> cant(even legal things), when they are stuck in traffic,
> Bicycles drive me nuts too especially having to pass the same rider 10
> times on the same bit of road but none of my annoyances would be fixed one
> iota by registration.

Yeah, nothing worse than seeing the same rider over and over again. It
would be alright if they were different riders.

[Stuart Longland]

On 14/05/15 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:
> Good idea. Ot tattooed on the back of the neck.

That'll work real well when I'm wearing a hood under the helmet.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 15 May 2015 16:58:55 +1000
Stuart Longland > wrote:
> On 14/05/15 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:
>> Good idea. Ot tattooed on the back of the neck.
>
> That'll work real well when I'm wearing a hood under the helmet.

A while back one cold winter a friend of mine was getting petrol for
his motorcycle.

He fronted up to the counter and the person there demanded he take his
fullface helmet off, pointing to the sign that said he must do so.

He shrugged and took it off.

Revealing the full balaclava underneath....


Zebee

[Stuart Longland]

On 15/05/15 11:53, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in
> a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if
> a car does crowd me.

I avoid riding in the centre of the lane because I know it annoys
drivers. If I'm in the centre or the extreme right of a lane however,
there's usually a good reason for it:

- I'm avoiding a hazard (e.g. potholes, debris, car doors) in the far
left of the lane.
- I'm about to make a right turn in the next few hundred metres.

The latter, I'll likely be in the far right of the lane. I'll probably
have an indicator flashing too, or I'll be momentarily giving hand
signals if that isn't available to me.

At last check, it was legal to pass a vehicle on its left when it is
making a right turn.

I did nearly get taken out yesterday by some pillock who couldn't wait
30 seconds and decided to charge passed me, nearly having a head-on
collision with another car.

I have a rear facing camera on the bike, and if that collision had
occurred, the SD card would be immediately provided as evidence.
Thankfully the driver got away with it and no one was hurt, just a
couple of us rather rattled by the experience.

Personally I don't see why people are in such a hurry.

Ever seen peak hour in a major city? It doesn't need cyclists in lanes
to help it slow down to sub 20km/hr speeds, it does that all on its own
by the sheer volume of cars.

In fact the cyclist might do the traffic a favour by forcing a 20km/hr
creep instead of the constant start-stop traffic, which puts needless
wear and tear on engines and wastes fuel.

A mad dash isn't going to get anyone there any faster, and 90% of this
argument seems to be about people being in a hurry for no apparent
reason. Impatience is the real enemy here, not the driver or the cyclist.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 10:40:21 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>Jeßus wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>> day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>
>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>> to still be here.
>>>>
>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>> liking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>
>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>
>
>The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>every right to cycle in the middle of the lane

Umm, Jesus. Where do I start here with this?

1: They are NOT permitted to be in the middle of the lane (Where in
the hell are you getting that from?). They are required to keep as
close to the left of the lane as is possible.

2: You describe a life threatening situation as an 'inconvenience'.
Are you just trolling these days?


>and unless the law is
>changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>the dangers of blind curves.

Mate, you're not well.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:45 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>F Murtz wrote:
>> Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>> situation
>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>> liking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>
>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>> the dangers of blind curves.
>
>
>OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>when practicable on a bicycle.

Naturally. Why in the blue **** would some juridictions allow cyclists
to sit in the middle of the lane?

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:19:44 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>F Murtz wrote:
>> F Murtz wrote:
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane
>>>>> cause
>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>
>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>
>>
>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>
>OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to
>refer to bicycle lanes

LOL. Now it gets even more absurd. So you've just assumed all this
stuff? May I ask why?

> I can not find any law in Tasmania

What do you want to know? If you mean where cyclists are supposed to
ride on public roads is as close to the left as is possible. Drivers
are meant to give them 1 to 2m clearance in Tas.

>and most states that stops a
>bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle
>lanes

Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:45 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>> F Murtz wrote:
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>
>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>
>>
>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>
> Naturally. Why in the blue **** would some juridictions allow cyclists
> to sit in the middle of the lane?
>

Most jurisdictions have a rider, "if practicable"which would cover many
things.
They are allowed if they have a reason.which may be a number of things
including bad surface at the edge etc,If there are two bicycles side by
side at least one would be at the centre.
It would also seem strange that it seem that motor cycles do not have to
keep to the left when cars and bicycles are supposed to.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 10:40:21 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>> Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>> liking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>
>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane
>
> Umm, Jesus. Where do I start here with this?
>
> 1: They are NOT permitted to be in the middle of the lane (Where in
> the hell are you getting that from?). They are required to keep as
> close to the left of the lane as is possible.

Which may be the centre in some cases.
>
> 2: You describe a life threatening situation as an 'inconvenience'.
> Are you just trolling these days?
>
>
>> and unless the law is
>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>> the dangers of blind curves.
>
> Mate, you're not well.
>

[Rod Speed]

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:19:44 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>>F Murtz wrote:
>>> F Murtz wrote:
>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think
>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an
>>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated
>>>>>>>>>> fluoro
>>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very
>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country
>>>>>>> road
>>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very
>>>>>>> lucky
>>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E
>>>>>>> Tas
>>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane
>>>>>> cause
>>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>>
>>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like
>>>> wombats,
>>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put
>>>> on
>>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>>
>>>
>>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>>
>>OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to
>>refer to bicycle lanes
>
> LOL. Now it gets even more absurd. So you've just assumed all this
> stuff? May I ask why?
>
>> I can not find any law in Tasmania
>
> What do you want to know? If you mean where cyclists are supposed to
> ride on public roads is as close to the left as is possible. Drivers
> are meant to give them 1 to 2m clearance in Tas.
>
>>and most states that stops a
>>bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle
>>lanes
>
> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.

Wrong, we have a few.

[Stuart Longland]

On 15/05/15 21:30, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>
> Wrong, we have a few.

Not many though. I've been investigating routes that would take me out
of Brisbane and into NSW. So far it's a 50-50 toss between Spring Creek
Road or The Lions Road.

There's no inland cycle path that I know of, otherwise I'd gladly use it.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 20:44:25 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>Jeßus wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> F Murtz wrote:
>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>>
>>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>>
>>>
>>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>>
>> Naturally. Why in the blue **** would some juridictions allow cyclists
>> to sit in the middle of the lane?
>>
>
>Most jurisdictions have a rider, "if practicable"which would cover many
>things.
>They are allowed if they have a reason.which may be a number of things
>including bad surface at the edge etc,If there are two bicycles side by
>side at least one would be at the centre.

Side by side?

>It would also seem strange that it seem that motor cycles do not have to
>keep to the left when cars and bicycles are supposed to.

To me, the reason for that (and I AM assuming here) is that
motorcycles can keep up with the flow of traffic whereas a bicycle
generally cannot.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 20:45:48 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>Jeßus wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 10:40:21 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he
>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed
>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with
>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another
>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation
>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>
>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane
>>
>> Umm, Jesus. Where do I start here with this?
>>
>> 1: They are NOT permitted to be in the middle of the lane (Where in
>> the hell are you getting that from?). They are required to keep as
>> close to the left of the lane as is possible.
>
>Which may be the centre in some cases.

I don't care about 'some cases'.


>>
>> 2: You describe a life threatening situation as an 'inconvenience'.
>> Are you just trolling these days?
>>
>>
>>> and unless the law is
>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>
>> Mate, you're not well.
>>

[Stuart Longland]

On 16/05/15 07:43, wrote:
>> >Which may be the centre in some cases.
> I don't care about 'some cases'.

You clearly do care about "some cases", otherwise you'd care about "no
cases" and we would not be having this discussion.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 20:44:25 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>> Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> F Murtz wrote:
>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>>>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>>>
>>> Naturally. Why in the blue **** would some juridictions allow cyclists
>>> to sit in the middle of the lane?
>>>
>>
>> Most jurisdictions have a rider, "if practicable"which would cover many
>> things.
>> They are allowed if they have a reason.which may be a number of things
>> including bad surface at the edge etc,If there are two bicycles side by
>> side at least one would be at the centre.
>
> Side by side?

I think you will find that the law allows that.

>> It would also seem strange that it seem that motor cycles do not have to
>> keep to the left when cars and bicycles are supposed to.
>
> To me, the reason for that (and I AM assuming here) is that
> motorcycles can keep up with the flow of traffic whereas a bicycle
> generally cannot.

I think that that it was not to do with speed but the practicable bit.
Zebee Johnstone touched on it in an earlier post where she said,


"The reason it doesn't apply to motorcyclists is due to some court
cases about safety and the meaning of the word practicable. (I was
involved in motorcycle lobbying in SA at the time the SA law was
changed before the national road rules came in and helped with the
defence of one of the riders.)

I expect that should a cyclist be prosecuted for it they'll be playng
the practical card.

I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in
a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if
a car does crowd me."

>

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 16 May 2015 10:30:27 +1000
F Murtz > wrote:
>>
>> To me, the reason for that (and I AM assuming here) is that
>> motorcycles can keep up with the flow of traffic whereas a bicycle
>> generally cannot.
>
> I think that that it was not to do with speed but the practicable bit.
> Zebee Johnstone touched on it in an earlier post where she said,
>
>
> "The reason it doesn't apply to motorcyclists is due to some court
> cases about safety and the meaning of the word practicable. (I was
> involved in motorcycle lobbying in SA at the time the SA law was
> changed before the national road rules came in and helped with the
> defence of one of the riders.)
>
> I expect that should a cyclist be prosecuted for it they'll be playng
> the practical card.
>
> I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in
> a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if
> a car does crowd me."
>
>>

To add to that, see the British govt advice to cyclists at
http://think.direct.gov.uk/cycling.html which includes riding in the
centre of narrow lanes.

The poms have Bikeability which is a teaching setup for bicycle safety
at schools and elsewhere. (all Oz states should import it forthwith
and provide it in schools and regular classes for adults. Should be a
requirement for a driver's licence in my opinion. )

http://bikeability.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bikeability_Delivery_Guide.pdf

The instruction for on road includes
"Where the road is narrow and two-way
traffic would make it hazardous for the
trainee to be overtaken by a following
vehicle they must be observed
to ride in the primary position"

where the primary position is in the middle of the lane.

They also note that riders should not ride in the gutter, that the
normal riding position is "secondary position" which is about 1m from
the curb. That's far enough left that a car can perform a proper
passing manouvere on a normal road if nothing is coming the other way,
and far enough right for the cyclist to have good vision, to be easy
to see, and for cars to be encouraged to wait until it is safe to pass
instead of thinking "I can squeeze past" and endangering the cyclist.

There's more on that in
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques/balance_and_coordination/article/izn20130830-Effective-traffic-riding-part-1-0

Basically the Brits have done more thinking on this than the Oz mob
have. Eventually the rules will catch up with proper road safety
although given the mess the pollies (and the money grabbers at certain
privately owned standards organisations) have made of motorcycle
helmets, I wouldn't bet on it till the courts make them.

So should a zealous policeperson nab a cyclist for not riding in the
gutter and the cyclist fights the ticket the courts will get to decide
on the word "practicable" and as there is scads and scads of
information about safe cycling from all over the world I have no doubt
what the result of that case would be.

Zebee

[Rod Speed]

Stuart Longland > wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.

>> Wrong, we have a few.

> Not many though.

Irrelevant to his absolute claim.

> I've been investigating routes that would take me
> out of Brisbane and into NSW. So far it's a 50-50
> toss between Spring Creek Road or The Lions Road.

> There's no inland cycle path that I know of, otherwise I'd gladly use it.

I didn’t say anything about cycle paths on that sort of route.

[news13]

On Sat, 16 May 2015 05:39:47 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:

> On 15/05/15 21:30, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>
>> Wrong, we have a few.
>
> Not many though. I've been investigating routes that would take me out
> of Brisbane and into NSW. So far it's a 50-50 toss between Spring Creek
> Road or The Lions Road.

Where isx Spring Creek Road?
>
> There's no inland cycle path that I know of, otherwise I'd gladly use
> it.

There is/was a documented guide Ipswich(Brisbane) to Windsor(Sydney) via
Lions Road.
The rest of the alternatives were never described in print that I know of.

[news13]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


>>
>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>
> Wrong, we have a few.

Where are they?

[Rod Speed]

"news13" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>
>> Wrong, we have a few.
>
> Where are they?

Marked on the sides of some of the major roads
in town and we have a couple of dedicated cycle
paths too, concrete.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Sat, 16 May 2015 09:42:00 +1000, Stuart Longland
> wrote:

>On 16/05/15 07:43, wrote:
>>> >Which may be the centre in some cases.
>> I don't care about 'some cases'.
>
>You clearly do care about "some cases", otherwise you'd care about "no
>cases" and we would not be having this discussion.

No. I never brought up 'other cases', nor was I interested in any
other 'cases' either. Other people brought them up.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Sat, 16 May 2015 10:30:27 +1000, F Murtz >
wrote:

>Jeßus wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 20:44:25 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> F Murtz wrote:
>>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his
>>>>>>>>>>>> name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider
>>>>>>>>>>>> registration, he
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>> representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything".
>>>>>>>>>>>> His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro
>>>>>>>>>>>> jackets with number on the back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We would then be the only place in the world with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass.
>>>>>>>>>>> I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my
>>>>>>>>>>> vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think
>>>>>>>>>>> theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or
>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad
>>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a
>>>>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>>>>> of making such a choice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to
>>>>>>>>> install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on
>>>>>>>>> collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic,
>>>>>>>>> he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was,
>>>>>>>>> hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road
>>>>>>>>> with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming
>>>>>>>>> car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky
>>>>>>>>> to still be here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas
>>>>>>>>> - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all
>>>>>>>>> tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my
>>>>>>>>> liking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause
>>>>>>>> a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in
>>>>>>> the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane
>>>>>>> because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other
>>>>>>> lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner).
>>>>>>> I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has
>>>>>> every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is
>>>>>> changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats,
>>>>>> tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on
>>>>>> the dangers of blind curves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left
>>>>> when practicable on a bicycle.
>>>>
>>>> Naturally. Why in the blue **** would some juridictions allow cyclists
>>>> to sit in the middle of the lane?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most jurisdictions have a rider, "if practicable"which would cover many
>>> things.
>>> They are allowed if they have a reason.which may be a number of things
>>> including bad surface at the edge etc,If there are two bicycles side by
>>> side at least one would be at the centre.
>>
>> Side by side?
>
>I think you will find that the law allows that.

I saw that a lot in QLD but not Tasmania, thankfully. I guess cyclists
here aren't *that* suicidal, most of our roads are clearly unsuited to
riding two abreast. I know of a couple of freeways here (near
Launceston) where cyclists do, and it is safe to do so on those roads
IMO. but most roads here - no way.


>>> It would also seem strange that it seem that motor cycles do not have to
>>> keep to the left when cars and bicycles are supposed to.
>>
>> To me, the reason for that (and I AM assuming here) is that
>> motorcycles can keep up with the flow of traffic whereas a bicycle
>> generally cannot.
>
>I think that that it was not to do with speed but the practicable bit.
>Zebee Johnstone touched on it in an earlier post where she said,
>
>
>"The reason it doesn't apply to motorcyclists is due to some court
>cases about safety and the meaning of the word practicable. (I was
>involved in motorcycle lobbying in SA at the time the SA law was
>changed before the national road rules came in and helped with the
>defence of one of the riders.)
>
>I expect that should a cyclist be prosecuted for it they'll be playng
>the practical card.
>
>I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in
>a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if
>a car does crowd me."

To be honest, I'll stick with my original comment on this one.

[Jeßus[_3_]]

On Sat, 16 May 2015 15:34:11 +0000 (UTC), news13
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>
>> Wrong, we have a few.
>
>Where are they?

I suspect his definition of 'country' is significantly different to
mine.

[Rod Speed]

Jeßus > wrote
> news13 > wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.

>>> Wrong, we have a few.

>> Where are they?

> I suspect his definition of 'country' is significantly different to mine.

You're wrong, as always.

[news13]

On Sun, 17 May 2015 05:57:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "news13" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>>
>>> Wrong, we have a few.
>>
>> Where are they?
>
> Marked on the sides of some of the major roads in town and we have a
> couple of dedicated cycle paths too, concrete.

Urban bike paths, whooppeee do!!!!!
Woops, urban terrorist paths shared by the walking dead.

[Rod Speed]

"news13" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 May 2015 05:57:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "news13" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, we have a few.
>>>
>>> Where are they?
>>
>> Marked on the sides of some of the major roads in town and we have a
>> couple of dedicated cycle paths too, concrete.
>
> Urban bike paths,

Nope, not with the dedicated cycle paths.

[Stuart Longland]

On 17/05/15 01:33, news13 wrote:
>> > Not many though. I've been investigating routes that would take me out
>> > of Brisbane and into NSW. So far it's a 50-50 toss between Spring Creek
>> > Road or The Lions Road.
> Where isx Spring Creek Road?

A little bit further west toward Killarney, basically goes over The
Head. In fact, make a wrong turn after you cross the border and you
wind up *in* Killarney.

[news13]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 16:00:33 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:

> On 17/05/15 01:33, news13 wrote:
>>> > Not many though. I've been investigating routes that would take me
>>> > out of Brisbane and into NSW. So far it's a 50-50 toss between
>>> > Spring Creek Road or The Lions Road.
>> Where isx Spring Creek Road?
>
> A little bit further west toward Killarney, basically goes over The
> Head. In fact, make a wrong turn after you cross the border and you
> wind up *in* Killarney.

The one past Queen Mary's Falls?
you're glutton for punishment if you go that way. Two very steep hills in
that route.

Or the one past White Horse Swamp; looks a nice ride.

We've ridden the Condamine Gorge to the head and then climbed back
towards what they called the Igloo & Queen Mary, Brown & ? Falls. and got
my first puncture in 20 years just walking up it.

..

[Jeßus[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 15:10:37 +0000 (UTC), news13
> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 May 2015 05:57:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "news13" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, we have a few.
>>>
>>> Where are they?
>>
>> Marked on the sides of some of the major roads in town and we have a
>> couple of dedicated cycle paths too, concrete.
>
>Urban bike paths, whooppeee do!!!!!
>Woops, urban terrorist paths shared by the walking dead.

Yep. Not country at all, why am I not surprised <G>.

[Rod Speed]

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 May 2015 15:10:37 +0000 (UTC), news13
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 May 2015 05:57:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> "news13" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, we have a few.
>>>>
>>>> Where are they?
>>>
>>> Marked on the sides of some of the major roads in town and we have a
>>> couple of dedicated cycle paths too, concrete.
>>
>>Urban bike paths, whooppeee do!!!!!
>>Woops, urban terrorist paths shared by the walking dead.
>
> Yep. Not country at all,

Wrong, as always.

[Paul E Dunn]

On 14/05/2015 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:

> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
> wrote:
>
>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>
> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

I would probably have more empathy for cyclists if it wasn't for their
compentuous, superior and holier than thou attitude towards other road
users.

**** 'em.

[news13]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:30:44 +1000, Paul E Dunn wrote:

> On 14/05/2015 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the
>>> year.
>>
>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>
> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
> roads.

Yes, roll in user pays. no more priviledge for cagers.
>
> I would probably have more empathy for cyclists if it wasn't for their
> compentuous, superior and holier than thou attitude towards other road
> users.
>
> **** 'em.

Yep, make the cagers scream. Snub out their "entitlement" to subsidised
roads. Make em really pay for the true cost of their roads.

[news13]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 05:19:33 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 15:10:37 +0000 (UTC), news13
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 May 2015 05:57:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> "news13" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, we have a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are they?
>>>>
>>>> Marked on the sides of some of the major roads in town and we have a
>>>> couple of dedicated cycle paths too, concrete.
>>>
>>>Urban bike paths, whooppeee do!!!!!
>>>Woops, urban terrorist paths shared by the walking dead.
>>
>> Yep. Not country at all,
>
> Wrong, as always.

If the "outback" starts at Goulburn, then "country" must start at
Liverpool.

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:30:44 +1000, Paul E Dunn
> wrote:

>On 14/05/2015 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>
>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>
>Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
>roads.
>
>I would probably have more empathy for cyclists if it wasn't for their
>compentuous, superior and holier than thou attitude towards other road
>users.
>
>**** 'em.

To add insult to injury some of them, indeed most of them, wear tight
obscene lycra tights with which they moon we stressed-out
overly-patient motorists.
I always pray for rain and sleet. And a strong head wind.

[Rod Speed]

"news13" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 05:19:33 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 15:10:37 +0000 (UTC), news13
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 17 May 2015 05:57:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "news13" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:30:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mate, there's no freaking 'bicycle lanes' in the country/bush.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, we have a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are they?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marked on the sides of some of the major roads in town and we have a
>>>>> couple of dedicated cycle paths too, concrete.
>>>>
>>>>Urban bike paths, whooppeee do!!!!!
>>>>Woops, urban terrorist paths shared by the walking dead.
>>>
>>> Yep. Not country at all,
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> If the "outback" starts at Goulburn, then "country" must start at
> Liverpool.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Paul E Dunn wrote:
> On 14/05/2015 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
>>> conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.
>>
>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>
> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
> roads.
>
> I would probably have more empathy for cyclists if it wasn't for their
> compentuous, superior and holier than thou attitude towards other road
> users.
>
> **** 'em.
>
>
>


Yes you got to watch out for them compentuous Blighters. :)

[Stuart Longland]

On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>
> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
> roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too and
that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

[Rod Speed]

"Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
...
> On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
>>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>>
>> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
>> roads.
>
> There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
> small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
> and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
> entire road system.

> You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too

No it does not.

> and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

Wrong, as always.

[Rod Speed]

"Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
...
> On 30/05/15 20:33, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
>>>>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>>>>
>>>> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way
>>>> on our roads.
>>>
>>> There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow
>>> a small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle,
>>> luggage and rider over, and believing registration equates to
>>> ownership of an entire road system.
>>
>>> You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too
>>
>> No it does not.
>
> So you say it includes the bit the cars drive on only?
> Who maintains the footpath?

The local council, even with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any road.

> Any time I've seen it happen it's been the same mob that do the roads.

Irrelevant with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any road.

> The footpath often gets built at the same time as the road itself.

Wrong again. We have just added lots where there never was
any footpath done at the time when the road was built. In fact there
are FAR more roads without footpaths than roads with footpaths.

> It sees less maintenance, but the two are linked,

Not when the footpath is nowhere near any road.

> and generally in the towns, local council looks after both.

They generally look after the water supply and sewers and library too.

So what ?

>>> and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

>> Wrong, as always.

> "as always"? You say I'm "always" wrong?

You quite sure you ain't one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wit ?

> Could you provide evidence where I am "always" wrong?

Yes, every single one of your posts.

> Or are we making sweeping generalisations based on one post?

Nope.

> I did a quick search, so not exhaustive,
> I discovered the following document:

> https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/is_040.pdf

> Okay, it's from 2011. So a little old, but let's have a look anyway:

>> The total amount of funding for road-related expenditure by the
>> Australian, state, territory and local Governments in 2008–09 was
>> $15.8 billion (Table 1). This amount includes transfers from the
>> private sector. Between 2000–01 and 2008–09 total road-related
>> expenditure increased by an average of 8.57 per cent per year in
>> nominal terms

> So $15.8B spent. Where did that come from?

>> - Of the $15.6 billion collected in 2008–09 from selected taxes and
>> charges, $8.7 billion was petroleum products excise.
>> - State and territory governments raised $3.4 billion from vehicle
>> registration and licence fees.
>> - Stamp duty collected on vehicle registration fees raised $2.0
>> billion.
>> - Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid on motor vehicles added an extra $1.7
>> billion. The amount of GST (on motor vehicles purchase, maintenance
>> and use including fuel consumption) is not yet available but was $4.0
>> billion in 2004–05. FBT and GST are not included in the total because
>> no data are available on them for most years.

> So $3.4B from $15.8B.

So your original is just plain wrong, as I said.

> That's bugger all, and probably just covers the
> costs of running some of these departments.

You're wrong, as always.

> More than half of it came from taxing fuel:

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim.

> guess what, bicycles don't use it.

Some do.

> Any time I've seen a road being fixed, it's generally
> been local council doing it unless it's a major highway

Same is true of the sewers and water supply as well.

> (which I avoid using).

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to avoid using in spades.

> This document is more up to date:
> http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-papers/2013-14/bp2-3-2013-14.pdf

Even someone as stupid as you should have notice that Queensland
is only part of the entire country if someone was actually stupid
enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> How much did they make from vehicle registration there? Page 14
> says less than $700M. It's increasing from year to year because
> more cars are on the road, but it's still far short of the expenditure.

Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

> So "absolutely none of it" was an exaggeration,

It was in fact just plain wrong, as I said.

> but not far from the truth. Most of it seems
> to be from sources other than taxation.

Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

> More to the point, have you factored in what it would cost
> to regulate and manage a registratio system on bicycles?

Just one way of doing what is being discussed.

> It'd probably cost more to regulate than it would raise.

But the alternatives wouldn’t.

> I think we need to lose the "I own the road" attitude.

**** all have any such attitude.

> None of us own the road, it's a public utility and
> as members of the public, we all have the right
> to use, and responsibility to share, the roads.

Wrong with pedestrians.

> I avoid the major roads when I can, if I cannot then instead
> of getting angry at us, maybe you could join sides with us
> and get angry at the people who design these roads.

I don’t get angry at anyone and I actually have enough of a
clue to realise that it makes no sense to spend significant
money on designing roads for the trivial number of people
who are actually stupid enough to ride their bike on them.

> I never use the motorways.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to use in spades.

> I would use off-road cycle paths if such paths existed for the routes I
> use.

We aren't actually stupid enough waste our money
on something like that that **** all ever use.

> Quite often the paths follow creeks or take scenic
> routes which do not suit where I'm going.

Your problem, as always.

> I usually want to get from A to B, not
> do a Tour-de-Brisbane getting around.

Your problem, as always.

> The cycleways also have a habit of suddenly ceasing to exist
> with no clear direction as to where one is supposed to go.

Your problem, as always.

> The path just suddenly ends, say at an intersection,
> with no path continuing on the other side. So we
> get dumped onto the road whether we like it or not.

Your problem, as always.

> Some nice wide shoulders would benefit both of us:

Not worth the cost.

> it would benefit people who have a breakdown as it would give
> a safe area to be completely off the road and not blocking traffic.

Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

> It would benefit me because I can ride
> those shoulders and not bother the traffic.

Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

> We should be joining forces to lobby the government for a better deal,

Nope, because that isn't worth the immense
cost which we would obviously have to pay for.

> not fighting each-other over trivialities like registration.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

[Peter Jason]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:33:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
...
>> On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
>>>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>>>
>>> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
>>> roads.
>>
>> There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
>> small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
>> and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
>> entire road system.
>
>> You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too
>
>No it does not.
>
>> and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?
>
>Wrong, as always.


Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/bikes/images/decacycle.gif
....and so on ad infinitum.

Just thought I'd help a bit.

[Peter Jason]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason > wrote:

>On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:33:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
>>>>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>>>>
>>>> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
>>>> roads.
>>>
>>> There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
>>> small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
>>> and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
>>> entire road system.
>>
>>> You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too
>>
>>No it does not.
>>
>>> and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?
>>
>>Wrong, as always.
>
>
>Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
>the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
>reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
>bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
>http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/bikes/images/decacycle.gif
>...and so on ad infinitum.
>
>Just thought I'd help a bit.

P O S T S C R I P T:
http://bicicletario.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bicicleta-tandem-circular1.jpg
An even BETTER final solution!!

[Jeßus[_5_]]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:41:49 +1000, Peter Jason > wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason > wrote:
>>Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
>>the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
>>reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
>>bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
>>http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/bikes/images/decacycle.gif
>>...and so on ad infinitum.
>>
>>Just thought I'd help a bit.
>
>P O S T S C R I P T:
>http://bicicletario.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bicicleta-tandem-circular1.jpg
>An even BETTER final solution!!

I prefer the final solution:
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-07/20/15/enhanced/webdr07/enhanced-26709-1405883648-7.jpg

[Peter Jason]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:34:31 +1000, Jeßus >
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:41:49 +1000, Peter Jason > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason > wrote:
>>>Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
>>>the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
>>>reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
>>>bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
>>>http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/bikes/images/decacycle.gif
>>>...and so on ad infinitum.
>>>
>>>Just thought I'd help a bit.
>>
>>P O S T S C R I P T:
>>http://bicicletario.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bicicleta-tandem-circular1.jpg
>>An even BETTER final solution!!
>
>I prefer the final solution:
>http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-07/20/15/enhanced/webdr07/enhanced-26709-1405883648-7.jpg


Ah yes. Truly a heart-warming end of story.

[Stuart Longland]

Geez, you get wound up like a clock!

On 05/06/15 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:
> "Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 30/05/15 20:33, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>> So you say it includes the bit the cars drive on only?
>> Who maintains the footpath?
>
> The local council, even with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any
> road.

Doesn't mean they're not part of the road.

> You quite sure you ain't one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wit ?

Err, parse error? What's that supposed to mean? Doesn't read as
English to me.

>> Could you provide evidence where I am "always" wrong?
>
> Yes, every single one of your posts.

You must've looked real hard then. Or you're making sweeping
generalisations based on one or two posts in one thread.

>> Or are we making sweeping generalisations based on one post?
>
> Nope.

Seems like you are.

>> I did a quick search, so not exhaustive,
>> I discovered the following document:
>
>> https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/is_040.pdf
>
>> Okay, it's from 2011. So a little old, but let's have a look anyway:
>
>>> The total amount of funding for road-related expenditure by the
>>> Australian, state, territory and local Governments in 2008–09 was
>>> $15.8 billion (Table 1). This amount includes transfers from the
>>> private sector. Between 2000–01 and 2008–09 total road-related
>>> expenditure increased by an average of 8.57 per cent per year in
>>> nominal terms
>
>> So $15.8B spent. Where did that come from?
>
>>> - Of the $15.6 billion collected in 2008–09 from selected taxes and
>>> charges, $8.7 billion was petroleum products excise.
>>> - State and territory governments raised $3.4 billion from vehicle
>>> registration and licence fees.
>>> - Stamp duty collected on vehicle registration fees raised $2.0
>>> billion.
>>> - Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid on motor vehicles added an extra $1.7
>>> billion. The amount of GST (on motor vehicles purchase, maintenance
>>> and use including fuel consumption) is not yet available but was $4.0
>>> billion in 2004–05. FBT and GST are not included in the total because
>>> no data are available on them for most years.
>
>> So $3.4B from $15.8B.
>
> So your original is just plain wrong, as I said.

Not completely. While it's hard to dig up details on how the money gets
spent, my understanding is that the rego costs barely cover the costs to
actually run these departments, let alone maintenance costs.

Registration is more about ensuring your vehicle is safe enough to
travel down one of these roads at 40km/hr+. Otherwise, why have the
requirement to get roadworthy certificates?

>> That's bugger all, and probably just covers the
>> costs of running some of these departments.
>
> You're wrong, as always.

As I said, I've went looking, couldn't find any detailed expenditure
information, however if you happen to know of some, you are most welcome
to contribute it to the discussion.

>> More than half of it came from taxing fuel:
>
> Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim.

Ad hominem will get you nowhere.

>> guess what, bicycles don't use it.
>
> Some do.

The ones that do are illegal and aren't technically bicycles, they're
mopeds.

>> Any time I've seen a road being fixed, it's generally
>> been local council doing it unless it's a major highway
>
> Same is true of the sewers and water supply as well.

Nope, water supply has been privatised; around here a mob called Urban
Utilities look after it.

I haven't looked into the arrangement regarding the sewers. They are
probably a different department of the council.

>> (which I avoid using).
>
> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to avoid using in spades.

Then why are you spending so much time replying if I'm irrelevant?
Clearly I am not. :-)

>> This document is more up to date:
>> http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-papers/2013-14/bp2-3-2013-14.pdf
>
> Even someone as stupid as you should have notice that Queensland
> is only part of the entire country if someone was actually stupid
> enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

I didn't say it was the entire country now did I? It just happens to be
the second largest state, and the largest state on the eastern seaboard.
(Now tell me I'm wrong about that!)

>> How much did they make from vehicle registration there? Page 14
>> says less than $700M. It's increasing from year to year because
>> more cars are on the road, but it's still far short of the expenditure.
>
> Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

Is it? I could go look for data from NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, NT, WA,
SA… I dare say they'll show a similar trend. Again, you're welcome to
provide your own evidence.

>> So "absolutely none of it" was an exaggeration,
>
> It was in fact just plain wrong, as I said.
>
>> but not far from the truth. Most of it seems
>> to be from sources other than taxation.
>
> Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

You like that term don't you? I've already stated that yes, I did get
some of it wrong, but have since found out a bit more of the truth.
Clearly you know something about the topic I don't, and I invite you to
share.

I'm willing to be educated, kindly educate.

>> More to the point, have you factored in what it would cost
>> to regulate and manage a registratio system on bicycles?
>
> Just one way of doing what is being discussed.

To what end?

>> It'd probably cost more to regulate than it would raise.
>
> But the alternatives wouldn’t.

Well, one alternative is to "do nothing", which strangely enough, costs
very little.

>> I think we need to lose the "I own the road" attitude.
>
> **** all have any such attitude.

Indeed, bugger all do, that we agree on, but enough that there's a
problem. They're as much a problem for cars as they are for bicycles too.

I'm sure you've run across them, and they operate all kinds of vehicles.
Bicycles through to semi-trailers and everything in between.

>> None of us own the road, it's a public utility and
>> as members of the public, we all have the right
>> to use, and responsibility to share, the roads.
>
> Wrong with pedestrians.

Road rules say they have right of way, even on the road.

>> I avoid the major roads when I can, if I cannot then instead
>> of getting angry at us, maybe you could join sides with us
>> and get angry at the people who design these roads.
>
> I don’t get angry at anyone and I actually have enough of a
> clue to realise that it makes no sense to spend significant
> money on designing roads for the trivial number of people
> who are actually stupid enough to ride their bike on them.

So you'd rather be stuck in traffic that's clogged up with cars that
take about 3 times the space of a bicycle?

>> Some nice wide shoulders would benefit both of us:
>
> Not worth the cost.

Not worth making it safer to enter/exit a vehicle?
Not worth having an area where you can quickly pick up or drop someone off?

There was a study done regarding the main street of Edinburgh some time
back. This was some years ago, so do forgive me for not having the
specifics on hand. They were experiencing traffic snarls on their
four-lane stretch of road, and were considering widening it.

Instead, after some modelling, they made the outer two most lanes more
or less a drop-off zone. You could stop there for a minute or two, but
no more. The traffic snarls disappeared.

>> it would benefit people who have a breakdown as it would give
>> a safe area to be completely off the road and not blocking traffic.
>
> Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

Yep, but buses/taxis/private cars picking up and dropping off passengers
isn't so uncommon.

I wouldn't say breakdowns are rare either, otherwise the tow truck
businesses wouldn't make any income. There seems to be at least one or
two incidents on the road that I hear of if I turn on the radio of an
evening.

>> We should be joining forces to lobby the government for a better deal,
>
> Nope, because that isn't worth the immense
> cost which we would obviously have to pay for.

Suit yourself. I pay taxes, and would be assisting to fund such
projects. I'm not convinced the costs would be "immense"; we're talking
an extra 2.5m of bitumen, and would soon pay for itself with reduced
road congestion leading to shorter commute times.

[Rod Speed]

"Peter Jason" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:33:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
>>>>> Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!
>>>>
>>>> Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
>>>> roads.
>>>
>>> There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
>>> small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
>>> and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
>>> entire road system.
>>
>>> You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too
>>
>>No it does not.
>>
>>> and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?
>>
>>Wrong, as always.

> Have you considered that the imposition of
> bicycle regos would reduce the number of bikes?

Corse it would.

> Already they swarm like bugs,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> and a rego would reduce their number.

Duh.

> Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
> bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
> http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/bikes/images/decacycle.gif
> ...and so on ad infinitum.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> Just thought I'd help a bit.

You didn't.

[Rod Speed]

Stuart Longland > wrote

> Geez, you get wound up like a clock!

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed projections/fantasys.

> On 05/06/15 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:
>> "Stuart Longland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 30/05/15 20:33, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>> So you say it includes the bit the cars drive on only?
>>> Who maintains the footpath?
>>
>> The local council, even with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any
>> road.

> Doesn't mean they're not part of the road.

There is no road to be part of in that situation, ****wit.

>> You quite sure you ain't one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wit ?

> Err, parse error?

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of it.

> What's that supposed to mean? Doesn't read as English to me.

Your problem, as always.

>>> Could you provide evidence where I am "always" wrong?

>> Yes, every single one of your posts.

> You must've looked real hard then.

Nope.

> Or you're making sweeping generalisations
> based on one or two posts in one thread.

Nope.

>>> Or are we making sweeping generalisations based on one post?

>> Nope.

> Seems like you are.

Then you need to get your seem machinery seen to BAD.

>>> I did a quick search, so not exhaustive,
>>> I discovered the following document:
>>
>>> https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/is_040.pdf
>>
>>> Okay, it's from 2011. So a little old, but let's have a look anyway:
>>
>>>> The total amount of funding for road-related expenditure by the
>>>> Australian, state, territory and local Governments in 2008–09 was
>>>> $15.8 billion (Table 1). This amount includes transfers from the
>>>> private sector. Between 2000–01 and 2008–09 total road-related
>>>> expenditure increased by an average of 8.57 per cent per year in
>>>> nominal terms
>>
>>> So $15.8B spent. Where did that come from?
>>
>>>> - Of the $15.6 billion collected in 2008–09 from selected taxes and
>>>> charges, $8.7 billion was petroleum products excise.
>>>> - State and territory governments raised $3.4 billion from vehicle
>>>> registration and licence fees.
>>>> - Stamp duty collected on vehicle registration fees raised $2.0
>>>> billion.
>>>> - Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid on motor vehicles added an extra $1.7
>>>> billion. The amount of GST (on motor vehicles purchase, maintenance
>>>> and use including fuel consumption) is not yet available but was $4.0
>>>> billion in 2004–05. FBT and GST are not included in the total because
>>>> no data are available on them for most years.
>>
>>> So $3.4B from $15.8B.
>>
>> So your original is just plain wrong, as I said.

> Not completely.

Yes, completely.

> While it's hard to dig up details on how the money gets spent,

Wrong, as always.

> my understanding is that the rego costs barely
> cover the costs to actually run these departments,

You're wrong, as always.

> let alone maintenance costs.

Irrelevant to your original completely stupid claim.

> Registration is more about ensuring your vehicle is safe
> enough to travel down one of these roads at 40km/hr+.

Wrong, as always.

> Otherwise, why have the requirement to get roadworthy certificates?

Separate matter entirely to what how the fee is spent.

>>> That's bugger all, and probably just covers the
>>> costs of running some of these departments.

>> You're wrong, as always.

> As I said, I've went looking,

But are too ****ing stupid to even look in the right place.

> couldn't find any detailed expenditure information,

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Don’t make a mess of the carpet...

> however if you happen to know of some, you are
> most welcome to contribute it to the discussion.

You are most welcome to go and **** yourself.

>>> More than half of it came from taxing fuel:

>> Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim.

> Ad hominem will get you nowhere.

That isn't ad hominem, it’s a statement of fact.

>>> guess what, bicycles don't use it.

>> Some do.

> The ones that do are illegal

Wrong, as always.

> and aren't technically bicycles, they're mopeds.

Wrong, as always.

>>> Any time I've seen a road being fixed, it's generally
>>> been local council doing it unless it's a major highway

>> Same is true of the sewers and water supply as well.

> Nope,

Yep.

> water supply has been privatised;

Wrong, as always.

> around here a mob called Urban Utilities look after it.

Your problem, as always.

> I haven't looked into the arrangement regarding the sewers.

Your problem, as always.

> They are probably a different department of the council.

You might just find that is true of footpaths too, ****wit.

>>> (which I avoid using).

>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>> irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to avoid using in spades.

> Then why are you spending so much time replying if I'm irrelevant?

I spend no time at all, ****wit.

> Clearly I am not. :-)

Wrong, as always.

>>> This document is more up to date:
>>> http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-papers/2013-14/bp2-3-2013-14.pdf

>> Even someone as stupid as you should have notice that Queensland
>> is only part of the entire country if someone was actually stupid
>> enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> I didn't say it was the entire country now did I?

No one ever said you did.

> It just happens to be the second largest state,

Size is completely irrelevant.

> and the largest state on the eastern seaboard.

Also completely irrelevant.

>>> How much did they make from vehicle registration there? Page 14
>>> says less than $700M. It's increasing from year to year because
>>> more cars are on the road, but it's still far short of the expenditure.

>> Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

> Is it?

Yep.

> I could go look for data from NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, NT, WA,SA…

Still wouldn’t substantiate your original completely stupid pig ignorant
claim.

> I dare say they'll show a similar trend.

They don’t.

> Again, you're welcome to provide your own evidence.

YOU made that original completely stupid pig ignorant claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence that substantiates
your original completely stupid pig ignorant claim.

THAT'S how it works.

>>> So "absolutely none of it" was an exaggeration,

>> It was in fact just plain wrong, as I said.

>>> but not far from the truth. Most of it seems
>>> to be from sources other than taxation.

>> Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

> You like that term don't you?

Nope, and it isn't a term, it's a statement of fact.

> I've already stated that yes, I did get some of it wrong,

You got ALL of it completely wrong, as always.

> but have since found out a bit more of the truth.
> Clearly you know something about the topic I
> don't, and I invite you to share.

I order you to go and **** yourself, again.

> I'm willing to be educated, kindly educate.

More useful to try that with a stone.

>>> More to the point, have you factored in what it would cost
>>> to regulate and manage a registratio system on bicycles?

>> Just one way of doing what is being discussed.

> To what end?

To get some money from fools stupid enough to ride bikes.

>>> It'd probably cost more to regulate than it would raise.

>> But the alternatives wouldn’t.

> Well, one alternative is to "do nothing",
> which strangely enough, costs very little.

You'll end up completely blind if you don’t watch out.

>>> I think we need to lose the "I own the road" attitude.

>> **** all have any such attitude.

> Indeed, bugger all do, that we agree on,
> but enough that there's a problem.

Nope, no problem at all.

> They're as much a problem for cars as they are for bicycles too.

Nope, no problem at all.

> I'm sure you've run across them, and they operate all kinds of vehicles.
> Bicycles through to semi-trailers and everything in between.

No problem at all.

>>> None of us own the road, it's a public utility and
>>> as members of the public, we all have the right
>>> to use, and responsibility to share, the roads.

>> Wrong with pedestrians.

> Road rules say they have right of way, even on the road.

Wrong, as always.

>>> I avoid the major roads when I can, if I cannot then instead
>>> of getting angry at us, maybe you could join sides with us
>>> and get angry at the people who design these roads.

>> I don’t get angry at anyone and I actually have enough of a
>> clue to realise that it makes no sense to spend significant
>> money on designing roads for the trivial number of people
>> who are actually stupid enough to ride their bike on them.

> So you'd rather be stuck in traffic

Doesn’t ever happen to me.

> that's clogged up with cars that take
> about 3 times the space of a bicycle?

Which move at the same speed as other
cars, unlike ****wits like you on bikes.

>>> Some nice wide shoulders would benefit both of us:

>> Not worth the cost.

> Not worth making it safer to enter/exit a vehicle?

Its safe enough the way it is.

> Not worth having an area where you can
> quickly pick up or drop someone off?

I can do that fine now.

> There was a study done regarding the main street of
> Edinburgh some time back. This was some years ago,
> so do forgive me for not having the specifics on hand.

Request denied.

> They were experiencing traffic snarls on their four-lane
> stretch of road, and were considering widening it.

> Instead, after some modelling, they made the outer two most
> lanes more or less a drop-off zone. You could stop there for
> a minute or two, but no more. The traffic snarls disappeared.

Only because anyone with even half a clue avoided that abortion.

>>> it would benefit people who have a breakdown as it would give
>>> a safe area to be completely off the road and not blocking traffic.

>> Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

> Yep, but buses/taxis/private cars picking up
> and dropping off passengers isn't so uncommon.

They can do that fine now.

> I wouldn't say breakdowns are rare either, otherwise
> the tow truck businesses wouldn't make any income.

Doesn’t happen often enough to warrant the
immense cost of your steaming turd of a proposal.

> There seems to be at least one or two incidents on the
> road that I hear of if I turn on the radio of an evening.

Doesn’t happen often enough to warrant the
immense cost of your steaming turd of a proposal.

>>> We should be joining forces to lobby the government for a better deal,

>> Nope, because that isn't worth the immense
>> cost which we would obviously have to pay for.

> Suit yourself.

I always do.

> I pay taxes,

So does everyone else.

> and would be assisting to fund such projects.

****ing that money against the wall, actually.

> I'm not convinced the costs would be "immense";

They are anyway.

> we're talking an extra 2.5m of bitumen,

Pity about where that space is going to come from.

> and would soon pay for itself with reduced road
> congestion leading to shorter commute times.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

[Stuart Longland]

On 05/06/15 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> You are most welcome to go and **** yourself.

Well, I have news for you.

I've been on this planet for nearly 32 years. I'm not going anywhere.

I've been a regular cyclist since 2008, on roads, and again, I'm not
going anywhere.

I've been a legal road user with my bicycle on the road, this too, isn't
changing.

The cyclist numbers as I look around have been increasing, not
decreasing. The cost of running a car has been going up, and more
people are re-evaluating their need to use cars for transport.

Expect to see more of us on the road.

Your problem, not mine. :-)

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 05/06/15 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> You are most welcome to go and **** yourself.
>
> Well, I have news for you.
>
> I've been on this planet for nearly 32 years. I'm not going anywhere.
>
> I've been a regular cyclist since 2008, on roads, and again, I'm not
> going anywhere.
>
> I've been a legal road user with my bicycle on the road, this too, isn't
> changing.
>
> The cyclist numbers as I look around have been increasing, not
> decreasing. The cost of running a car has been going up, and more
> people are re-evaluating their need to use cars for transport.
>
> Expect to see more of us on the road.


Until or if they bring registration in.


>
> Your problem, not mine. :-)
>

[Rod Speed]

Stuart Longland > wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> You are most welcome to go and **** yourself.

> Well, I have news for you.

Nope.

> I've been on this planet for nearly 32 years.

Just another ****wit child.

> I'm not going anywhere.

Wrong, as always.

> I've been a regular cyclist since 2008,

Just another ****wit child.

> on roads,

Just another ****wit child.

> and again, I'm not going anywhere.

Wrong, as always.

> I've been a legal road user with my bicycle on the road,

Just another ****wit child.

> this too, isn't changing.

It will when you get run over, ****wit child.

> The cyclist numbers as I look around
> have been increasing, not decreasing.

Your problem, as always.

> The cost of running a car has been going up,

The cost of everything has been going up, ****wit child.

Its called inflation.

> and more people are re-evaluating
> their need to use cars for transport.

Must be why congestion keep getting worse
in every single state capital, ****wit child.

> Expect to see more of us on the road.

And more of you dying on the roads. Great.

[news13]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:


> Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
> the number of bikes?

and put more cars on the road, leading to increase road congestion and
slower traffic flows.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

news13 wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
>
>
>> Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
>> the number of bikes?
>
> and put more cars on the road, leading to increase road congestion and
> slower traffic flows.
>
I just hope that the Justin smiths and the Duncan Gays do not get their
way on this issue and some more intelligent minds get an input.
Much as some hate the stupid cyclists among the bicycle world,
registration has to be one of the more stupid solutions.
As far as I can ascertain nowhere in the world has it although some are
pressing for it in other countries, so far sense has prevailed,lets hope
we are not the ones to start it.
OOPs apparently there are places that do have it.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 07 Jun 2015 22:14:55 +1000
F Murtz > wrote:
> news13 wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
>>> the number of bikes?
>>
>> and put more cars on the road, leading to increase road congestion and
>> slower traffic flows.
>>
> I just hope that the Justin smiths and the Duncan Gays do not get their
> way on this issue and some more intelligent minds get an input.
> Much as some hate the stupid cyclists among the bicycle world,
> registration has to be one of the more stupid solutions.
> As far as I can ascertain nowhere in the world has it although some are
> pressing for it in other countries, so far sense has prevailed,lets hope
> we are not the ones to start it.
> OOPs apparently there are places that do have it.

Western Australia had it pre war I believe.

Cost more to administer than it brought in.

THe rego thing is one of those politician things: make a splash with a
wild policy that attacks a small segment of society while appealing to
people who aren't thinking about it because they have better things to
do. But will make them think "if only this happens my life will be
better". (Until they think about it for more than second or two and
think with focused thought rather than emotions about how ****ty car
commuting is these days)

It will not be implemented because of expense up front and ongoing,
will **** off the cops who have to work out how old a kid is and
generally have yet more non-core work to do. But Gay will have primed
a few minds with the idea he's someone who likes them and hates people
they hate.

Standard voter manipulation.

THe car commute problem is hard because there are too many people
wanting too few resources at certain times of day. If you increase
the road real estate people who didn't use it before will use it now
and the advtantage disappears. eg the M5 in Sydney which took less
than a year to becomes a carpark.

IN the end the answer has to be to find ways for fewer people to be on
the road at those congested times. Working in different places,
working at different times, using different methods of transport,
those are the only solutions.

Don't spent money registering cyclists, it will do nothing useful.
Instead spend it making motorcycle training free.... If 1 in 5 of the
single occupant cars on the road in peak were replaced by motorcycles
the traffic would flow far better.

Zebee