Re: NSW bike laws....

[Jeßus[_6_]]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:30:20 +1100, Noddy >
wrote:

>On 02/03/16 8:39 AM, Je?us wrote:
>
>> You'd think that my living out in the bush means I'm isolated from
>> that sort of **** - NOPE.
>>
>> I encounter the lycra biker nazis nearly every time I travel to
>> Launceston. They come quite a way out from there, onto fairly narrow,
>> steep and windy roads. They frequently sit two abreast in the middle
>> of the lane, and you can suddenly come up behind them on a tight bend
>> going uphill, meaning they're only crawling along while you're doing
>> 100KM/H. And they won't move over either, I've seen logging trucks
>> stuck behind them (who haven't a hope of passing them) and they still
>> won't move. Any sign of indignation from you is invariably answered
>> by the finger. Some of them must have a death-wish.
>
>Same here.
>
>I get the week-end flouro types "racing" each other up and down the
>Avenue of Honour here leading into town, and the attitude is
>astonishing. It's like they have to defiantly show they have a "right:
>to be there by deliberately holding up every other vehicle on the road
>which does *nothing* but cause agro against them.

Yep, most of them seem to *want* to create agro. I've had them hear me
coming and them swarm all over *both* lanes to block me. That was
between Kin Kin and Pomona in QLD.

>Smart.

Again, yep. Sooner or later we'll start to see a few people target
these idiots intentionally.

>> They are the reason I put cameras in all my vehicles, after a close
>> shave some years ago where I nearly had to choose between hitting the
>> bike or the oncoming car (bike was in the middle of my lane). I
>> should really collect the videos and make a compilation of these
>> lycra pricks.
>
>I think "Dashcams" along with reversing cameras should be standard in
>every vehicle and I have them in mine as well.
>
>Personally I think anyone who rides a bike without regard to how much of
>an obstruction to other traffic they're making of themselves is a
>****ing lunatic, as being run over and killed is a *massive* price to
>pay for exercising your "right to be there".

Indeed. I don't understand it. Maybe some of them just like the idea
of being an 'oppressed minority' or something, and are standing up for
their 'rights'.

>I think cyclists should also make themselves aware of the rules, and in
>particular, Rule 125, which states:
>
>> 125. Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
>>
>> (1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian.
>> Penalty: 2 penalty units.
>> Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the definition of drive in the dictionary.
>> (2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because—
>> (a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
>> (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).
>>
>> Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
>> A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.
>
>The short answer for cyclists is that you have as much right to use the
>roads as anyone else. However, you do *not* have the right to slow
>everyone else down to your pace and become a mobile road block just
>because you feel that you *want* to.

Exactly. The trouble is, even with dash cams you have no way to
identify and then report them to the cops, unless you're lucky enough
to have a cop nearby or you stop and get involved in a serious
altercation or whatever where somebody is injured. For that reason I'm
all for bike to have plates.

[Noddy[_3_]]

On 02/03/16 11:44 AM, Je�us wrote:

>> I get the week-end flouro types "racing" each other up and down the
>> Avenue of Honour here leading into town, and the attitude is
>> astonishing. It's like they have to defiantly show they have a "right:
>> to be there by deliberately holding up every other vehicle on the road
>> which does *nothing* but cause agro against them.
>
> Yep, most of them seem to *want* to create agro. I've had them hear me
> coming and them swarm all over *both* lanes to block me. That was
> between Kin Kin and Pomona in QLD.

****ing knob-ends.

>> Smart.
>
> Again, yep. Sooner or later we'll start to see a few people target
> these idiots intentionally.

I wouldn't wish that on any of them, but with incidents of "road rage"
becoming more prevalent you're not a particularly clever person if
you're prepared to put your 100 odd kg of yourself and your bike up
against a tonne and a half of irrational irritated driver.

>> Personally I think anyone who rides a bike without regard to how much of
>> an obstruction to other traffic they're making of themselves is a
>> ****ing lunatic, as being run over and killed is a *massive* price to
>> pay for exercising your "right to be there".
>
> Indeed. I don't understand it. Maybe some of them just like the idea
> of being an 'oppressed minority' or something, and are standing up for
> their 'rights'.

That's what it seems like, even if getting run over seems to be the
ultimate pyrrhic victory.

>> The short answer for cyclists is that you have as much right to use the
>> roads as anyone else. However, you do *not* have the right to slow
>> everyone else down to your pace and become a mobile road block just
>> because you feel that you *want* to.
>
> Exactly. The trouble is, even with dash cams you have no way to
> identify and then report them to the cops, unless you're lucky enough
> to have a cop nearby or you stop and get involved in a serious
> altercation or whatever where somebody is injured. For that reason I'm
> all for bike to have plates.

Absolutely.

Look at this ****wit:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA

Rides straight into the back of a parked car. I have no idea if he did
any damage (apart to his face), but had he caved the back door in (which
is easy to do on today's cars) and then just dusted himself off and rode
away like this bloke does no one has any way of identifying him and the
cost of the damage has to be borne by the car's owner (or at least their
insurance excess if they have it).

Bike riders need to be clearly identifiable, and there is not a single
valid argument against the idea.



--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Jeßus[_6_]]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:39:13 +1100, Noddy >
wrote:

>On 02/03/16 11:44 AM, Je?us wrote:
>
>> Again, yep. Sooner or later we'll start to see a few people target
>> these idiots intentionally.
>
>I wouldn't wish that on any of them, but with incidents of "road rage"
>becoming more prevalent you're not a particularly clever person if
>you're prepared to put your 100 odd kg of yourself and your bike up
>against a tonne and a half of irrational irritated driver.

I would have thought it common sense that sooner or later, you're
going to **** off the wrong person behaving that way. Do they think
they're immune to road rage for some reason?

I know I regularly get the finger when passing these idiots just
because I pass within 1.5 to 2 metres of them instead of making a huge
gesture of needlessly going way over into the oncoming lane (when
possible).

>>> Personally I think anyone who rides a bike without regard to how much of
>>> an obstruction to other traffic they're making of themselves is a
>>> ****ing lunatic, as being run over and killed is a *massive* price to
>>> pay for exercising your "right to be there".
>>
>> Indeed. I don't understand it. Maybe some of them just like the idea
>> of being an 'oppressed minority' or something, and are standing up for
>> their 'rights'.
>
>That's what it seems like, even if getting run over seems to be the
>ultimate pyrrhic victory.

That seems to be all it's about. Yet to hear of any other reason from
these riders.

>>> The short answer for cyclists is that you have as much right to use the
>>> roads as anyone else. However, you do *not* have the right to slow
>>> everyone else down to your pace and become a mobile road block just
>>> because you feel that you *want* to.
>>
>> Exactly. The trouble is, even with dash cams you have no way to
>> identify and then report them to the cops, unless you're lucky enough
>> to have a cop nearby or you stop and get involved in a serious
>> altercation or whatever where somebody is injured. For that reason I'm
>> all for bike to have plates.
>
>Absolutely.
>
>Look at this ****wit:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA
>
>Rides straight into the back of a parked car. I have no idea if he did
>any damage (apart to his face), but had he caved the back door in (which
>is easy to do on today's cars) and then just dusted himself off and rode
>away like this bloke does no one has any way of identifying him and the
>cost of the damage has to be borne by the car's owner (or at least their
>insurance excess if they have it).

What an idiot. Not even looking where he's going. I'd have pursued him
but of course a lot of ppl shy away from any confrontations like that.

>Bike riders need to be clearly identifiable, and there is not a single
>valid argument against the idea.

Yep.

[Noddy[_3_]]

On 03/03/16 7:45 AM, Je�us wrote:

>> I wouldn't wish that on any of them, but with incidents of "road rage"
>> becoming more prevalent you're not a particularly clever person if
>> you're prepared to put your 100 odd kg of yourself and your bike up
>> against a tonne and a half of irrational irritated driver.
>
> I would have thought it common sense that sooner or later, you're
> going to **** off the wrong person behaving that way. Do they think
> they're immune to road rage for some reason?

I don't know, but the defiant stance is idiotic.

> I know I regularly get the finger when passing these idiots just
> because I pass within 1.5 to 2 metres of them instead of making a huge
> gesture of needlessly going way over into the oncoming lane (when
> possible).

Same here :)

I saw a video some time ago now of a bloke riding around on a bike with
a helmet cam who was criticising every car that went past for being "too
close". It's hard to tell exactly how close the cars were when passing
him because of the somewhat fish-eyed perspective of the camera lens,
but from what I could see none of them ever looked like hitting him but
he would be effing and blinding at every car seemingly just because it
was there.

Anyway one little car went past and he decided he'd had enough and gave
chase. Up the road a ways the car stopped at a light and the idiot bike
rider went around to the driver's side and banged on the window to give
the driver a mouthful. As he did he knocked the bloke's mirror with his
handlebars and bent it back on it's pivot. The bloke in the car, who
could clearly handle himself, opened the door, got straight out and
drove this ****ing idiot on the bike into the ground like a ****ing tent
peg :)

I remember laughing and thinking "well, you know what mate? You got
exactly what you deserved for being a ****ing idiot".

>> That's what it seems like, even if getting run over seems to be the
>> ultimate pyrrhic victory.
>
> That seems to be all it's about. Yet to hear of any other reason from
> these riders.

Yeah, I'm ****ed if I know. I can't work it out. I haven't ridden a
pushbike since I was a kid waiting to get my driver's licence, but when
I did I made sure I kept *right* out of the way of faster moving larger
traffic.

I mean, you're the weakest link in the road food chain and by a *very*
long way. Arguing the legality point when you're out there dodging cars
seems like a really ridiculous idea.

>> Look at this ****wit:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA
>>
>> Rides straight into the back of a parked car. I have no idea if he did
>> any damage (apart to his face), but had he caved the back door in (which
>> is easy to do on today's cars) and then just dusted himself off and rode
>> away like this bloke does no one has any way of identifying him and the
>> cost of the damage has to be borne by the car's owner (or at least their
>> insurance excess if they have it).
>
> What an idiot. Not even looking where he's going. I'd have pursued him
> but of course a lot of ppl shy away from any confrontations like that.

Sadly. ****ed if I would have been springing 500 bucks for my excess
because of this dopey **** riding around with his eyes shut.




--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Jeßus[_6_]]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:16:20 +1100, Noddy >
wrote:

>On 03/03/16 7:45 AM, Je?us wrote:
>
>I saw a video some time ago now of a bloke riding around on a bike with
>a helmet cam who was criticising every car that went past for being "too
>close". It's hard to tell exactly how close the cars were when passing
>him because of the somewhat fish-eyed perspective of the camera lens,
>but from what I could see none of them ever looked like hitting him but
>he would be effing and blinding at every car seemingly just because it
>was there.

I've seen one like that too. A rider in London, IIRC.

>Anyway one little car went past and he decided he'd had enough and gave
>chase. Up the road a ways the car stopped at a light and the idiot bike
>rider went around to the driver's side and banged on the window to give
>the driver a mouthful. As he did he knocked the bloke's mirror with his
>handlebars and bent it back on it's pivot. The bloke in the car, who
>could clearly handle himself, opened the door, got straight out and
>drove this ****ing idiot on the bike into the ground like a ****ing tent
>peg :)

Awesome :)

>I remember laughing and thinking "well, you know what mate? You got
>exactly what you deserved for being a ****ing idiot".

Yep.

>>> That's what it seems like, even if getting run over seems to be the
>>> ultimate pyrrhic victory.
>>
>> That seems to be all it's about. Yet to hear of any other reason from
>> these riders.
>
>Yeah, I'm ****ed if I know. I can't work it out. I haven't ridden a
>pushbike since I was a kid waiting to get my driver's licence, but when
>I did I made sure I kept *right* out of the way of faster moving larger
>traffic.

I was thinking the same about when I rode a push bike as a kid. We
used to ride for *miles* each day and rarely had an issue. We used to
give way to both vehicles and pedestrians and it wasn't a problem?

>I mean, you're the weakest link in the road food chain and by a *very*
>long way. Arguing the legality point when you're out there dodging cars
>seems like a really ridiculous idea.

Rider's 'rights' is immaterial as far as I am concerned when it comes
to these issues. Common sense says to let vehicles and pedestrians
have right of way in 99% of situations.

[Noddy[_3_]]

On 03/03/16 11:11 AM, Je�us wrote:

>> I saw a video some time ago now of a bloke riding around on a bike with
>> a helmet cam who was criticising every car that went past for being "too
>> close". It's hard to tell exactly how close the cars were when passing
>> him because of the somewhat fish-eyed perspective of the camera lens,
>> but from what I could see none of them ever looked like hitting him but
>> he would be effing and blinding at every car seemingly just because it
>> was there.
>
> I've seen one like that too. A rider in London, IIRC.

I think that may have been the one. Can't recall other than thinking
that the bike rider was a ****ing knob-end.

>> Yeah, I'm ****ed if I know. I can't work it out. I haven't ridden a
>> pushbike since I was a kid waiting to get my driver's licence, but when
>> I did I made sure I kept *right* out of the way of faster moving larger
>> traffic.
>
> I was thinking the same about when I rode a push bike as a kid. We
> used to ride for *miles* each day and rarely had an issue. We used to
> give way to both vehicles and pedestrians and it wasn't a problem?

Exactly the same here. I grew up in a very inner city area as a kid with
heaps of traffic ranging from cars & trucks to buses and trams. I would
go out from sunrise to sunset on my bike as a kid and ride from one end
of town to the other. I never knocked anyone over, never came even
*remotely* close to being involved in an accident with any other
vehicle, nothing. My entire childhood riding bikes was accident free
from a "sharing the road with other traffic" perspective.

Then again, the difference may have been that I rode with the philosophy
of that if I wanted to avoid spilling blood it was *my* obligation to
get out of everyone else's way, not carry on like a ****wit about my
"right to be there" and expect everyone else to get around me.

>> I mean, you're the weakest link in the road food chain and by a *very*
>> long way. Arguing the legality point when you're out there dodging cars
>> seems like a really ridiculous idea.
>
> Rider's 'rights' is immaterial as far as I am concerned when it comes
> to these issues. Common sense says to let vehicles and pedestrians
> have right of way in 99% of situations.

Agreed.

Stupidest thing I saw in quite some time was recently after the
government here announced 1.5 metre bike "clearance laws". Some total
****tard appeared on the Nightly News riding his bike with a 1.5 metre
long stick attached to the frame at a right angle with a red flag on the
end of it signifying the distance other vehicles need to keep away from
his "personal space".

My immediate thought was that if he wanted to kill himself there are
easier ways.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.