Bikes on footpaths - damn...

[Alan Erskine]

From Bicycle Victoria:

A change to the Road Rules gazetted on 15 November 2001 allows adults to
cycle on
footpaths when accompanying a child under 12 years old. The change provides
an exemption
to Rule 250 (1): "The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must
not ride on a
footpath". This rule now does not apply if:
a) the rider of the bicycle is 18 years old or older; and
b) the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding a
bicycle on the
footpath; and
c) the child is under the rider's supervision.

I'm still riding on the footpath (39yo), but ride on the _outside_ edge so I
don't get hit by cars backing out of driveways.

There's also a few questions here: why aren't bikes allowed on footpaths?
Is it the speed they travel at? Maybe the stopping distance?

I just don't feel safe on the road. How many cyclists get hit by cars
versus how many pedestrians get hit by cyclists?

Personally, I ride at less than 15km/h (about the same as a jogger) when on
a footpath and dare say I can stop in the same, or less, distance as a
jogger. Then there's the joggers pushing a pram, but that's another story
all together.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[DJ]

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on
a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
peice of road.

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of
safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
trailer.

Cheers

DJ
"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
> From Bicycle Victoria:
>
> A change to the Road Rules gazetted on 15 November 2001 allows adults to
> cycle on
> footpaths when accompanying a child under 12 years old. The change
provides
> an exemption
> to Rule 250 (1): "The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must
> not ride on a
> footpath". This rule now does not apply if:
> a) the rider of the bicycle is 18 years old or older; and
> b) the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding a
> bicycle on the
> footpath; and
> c) the child is under the rider's supervision.
>
> I'm still riding on the footpath (39yo), but ride on the _outside_ edge so
I
> don't get hit by cars backing out of driveways.
>
> There's also a few questions here: why aren't bikes allowed on footpaths?
> Is it the speed they travel at? Maybe the stopping distance?
>
> I just don't feel safe on the road. How many cyclists get hit by cars
> versus how many pedestrians get hit by cyclists?
>
> Personally, I ride at less than 15km/h (about the same as a jogger) when
on
> a footpath and dare say I can stop in the same, or less, distance as a
> jogger. Then there's the joggers pushing a pram, but that's another story
> all together.
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
>
> Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.
>
>
>
>

[DJ]

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on
a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
peice of road.

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of
safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
trailer.

Cheers

DJ
"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
> From Bicycle Victoria:
>
> A change to the Road Rules gazetted on 15 November 2001 allows adults to
> cycle on
> footpaths when accompanying a child under 12 years old. The change
provides
> an exemption
> to Rule 250 (1): "The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must
> not ride on a
> footpath". This rule now does not apply if:
> a) the rider of the bicycle is 18 years old or older; and
> b) the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding a
> bicycle on the
> footpath; and
> c) the child is under the rider's supervision.
>
> I'm still riding on the footpath (39yo), but ride on the _outside_ edge so
I
> don't get hit by cars backing out of driveways.
>
> There's also a few questions here: why aren't bikes allowed on footpaths?
> Is it the speed they travel at? Maybe the stopping distance?
>
> I just don't feel safe on the road. How many cyclists get hit by cars
> versus how many pedestrians get hit by cyclists?
>
> Personally, I ride at less than 15km/h (about the same as a jogger) when
on
> a footpath and dare say I can stop in the same, or less, distance as a
> jogger. Then there's the joggers pushing a pram, but that's another story
> all together.
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
>
> Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.
>
>
>
>

[DJ]

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on
a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
peice of road.

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of
safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
trailer.

Cheers

DJ
"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
> From Bicycle Victoria:
>
> A change to the Road Rules gazetted on 15 November 2001 allows adults to
> cycle on
> footpaths when accompanying a child under 12 years old. The change
provides
> an exemption
> to Rule 250 (1): "The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must
> not ride on a
> footpath". This rule now does not apply if:
> a) the rider of the bicycle is 18 years old or older; and
> b) the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding a
> bicycle on the
> footpath; and
> c) the child is under the rider's supervision.
>
> I'm still riding on the footpath (39yo), but ride on the _outside_ edge so
I
> don't get hit by cars backing out of driveways.
>
> There's also a few questions here: why aren't bikes allowed on footpaths?
> Is it the speed they travel at? Maybe the stopping distance?
>
> I just don't feel safe on the road. How many cyclists get hit by cars
> versus how many pedestrians get hit by cyclists?
>
> Personally, I ride at less than 15km/h (about the same as a jogger) when
on
> a footpath and dare say I can stop in the same, or less, distance as a
> jogger. Then there's the joggers pushing a pram, but that's another story
> all together.
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
>
> Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.
>
>
>
>

[PC]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:

>Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on
>a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
>peice of road.

Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
desperate to ride on the footpath..

>IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of
>safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
>yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
>trailer.

Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..


PC

[PC]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:

>Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on
>a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
>peice of road.

Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
desperate to ride on the footpath..

>IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of
>safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
>yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
>trailer.

Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..


PC

[PC]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:

>Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on
>a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
>peice of road.

Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
desperate to ride on the footpath..

>IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of
>safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
>yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
>trailer.

Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..


PC

[Roger Martin]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:
>
> >Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride
on
> >a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
> >peice of road.
>
> Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
> down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
> Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
> desperate to ride on the footpath..
>
> >IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit
of
> >safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> >yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
> >trailer.
>
> Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
> and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
> Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..
>
>
> PC
>
I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle accident
at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.

My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
tackle to the throat.

[Roger Martin]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:
>
> >Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride
on
> >a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
> >peice of road.
>
> Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
> down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
> Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
> desperate to ride on the footpath..
>
> >IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit
of
> >safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> >yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
> >trailer.
>
> Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
> and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
> Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..
>
>
> PC
>
I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle accident
at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.

My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
tackle to the throat.

[Roger Martin]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:
>
> >Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride
on
> >a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular
> >peice of road.
>
> Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
> down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
> Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
> desperate to ride on the footpath..
>
> >IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit
of
> >safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> >yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a semi
> >trailer.
>
> Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
> and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
> Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..
>
>
> PC
>
I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle accident
at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.

My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
tackle to the throat.

[Tim Jones]

"Roger Martin" > wrote in message
...
<...>

> I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
> cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
> bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
> even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
> reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
> remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle
accident
> at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.
>

Jesus - what a scumbag!

What sort of footpath was it? Just a suburban one or something?

> My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
> dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
> tackle to the throat.
>

Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should be
no real problems!

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Roger Martin" > wrote in message
...
<...>

> I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
> cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
> bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
> even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
> reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
> remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle
accident
> at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.
>

Jesus - what a scumbag!

What sort of footpath was it? Just a suburban one or something?

> My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
> dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
> tackle to the throat.
>

Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should be
no real problems!

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Roger Martin" > wrote in message
...
<...>

> I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
> cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
> bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
> even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
> reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
> remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle
accident
> at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.
>

Jesus - what a scumbag!

What sort of footpath was it? Just a suburban one or something?

> My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
> dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
> tackle to the throat.
>

Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should be
no real problems!

Tim

[DJ]

Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common
sense which at times like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an
arsehole, but you get them everywhere. Sorry about your Mum Roger.

There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do
much to reduce the chances.

Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta
rail link which is a shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train
station carparks etc, also riding on these i pass many walkers, riders, and
dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.

I know you will always get the ******s who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm
riding in an area that I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to
the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in a back street, if the road
is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd
rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Cheers
DJ
"Roger Martin" > wrote in message
...
> "PC" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to
ride
> on
> > >a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a
particular
> > >peice of road.
> >
> > Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
> > down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
> > Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
> > desperate to ride on the footpath..
> >
> > >IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a
bit
> of
> > >safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> > >yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a
semi
> > >trailer.
> >
> > Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
> > and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
> > Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..
> >
> >
> > PC
> >
> I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
> cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
> bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
> even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
> reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
> remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle
accident
> at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.
>
> My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
> dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
> tackle to the throat.
>
>

[DJ]

Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common
sense which at times like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an
arsehole, but you get them everywhere. Sorry about your Mum Roger.

There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do
much to reduce the chances.

Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta
rail link which is a shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train
station carparks etc, also riding on these i pass many walkers, riders, and
dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.

I know you will always get the ******s who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm
riding in an area that I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to
the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in a back street, if the road
is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd
rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Cheers
DJ
"Roger Martin" > wrote in message
...
> "PC" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to
ride
> on
> > >a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a
particular
> > >peice of road.
> >
> > Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
> > down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
> > Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
> > desperate to ride on the footpath..
> >
> > >IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a
bit
> of
> > >safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> > >yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a
semi
> > >trailer.
> >
> > Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
> > and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
> > Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..
> >
> >
> > PC
> >
> I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
> cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
> bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
> even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
> reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
> remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle
accident
> at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.
>
> My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
> dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
> tackle to the throat.
>
>

[DJ]

Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common
sense which at times like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an
arsehole, but you get them everywhere. Sorry about your Mum Roger.

There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do
much to reduce the chances.

Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta
rail link which is a shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train
station carparks etc, also riding on these i pass many walkers, riders, and
dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.

I know you will always get the ******s who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm
riding in an area that I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to
the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in a back street, if the road
is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd
rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Cheers
DJ
"Roger Martin" > wrote in message
...
> "PC" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:53:16 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to
ride
> on
> > >a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a
particular
> > >peice of road.
> >
> > Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding
> > down, say, Nicholson Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street..
> > Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are so
> > desperate to ride on the footpath..
> >
> > >IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a
bit
> of
> > >safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> > >yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a
semi
> > >trailer.
> >
> > Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you
> > and dies, with the potential to seriously injure you in the process..
> > Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have rights too..
> >
> >
> > PC
> >
> I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad
> cyclist on a footpath, he just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his
> bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath and rode off. Did not
> even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
> reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant
> remember exactly - but I think that it was not considered a vehicle
accident
> at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.
>
> My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and
> dismount to pass pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm
> tackle to the throat.
>
>

[David Trudgett]

DJ wrote:

> Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common
> sense which at times like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an
> arsehole, but you get them everywhere. Sorry about your Mum Roger.
>
> There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do
> much to reduce the chances.
>
> Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta
> rail link which is a shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train
> station carparks etc, also riding on these i pass many walkers, riders, and
> dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.
>
> I know you will always get the ******s who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm
> riding in an area that I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to
> the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in a back street, if the road
> is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
> mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd
> rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Yes indeed. If it were so dangerous, it wouldn't be legal in Tassie. For
heaven's sake, everyone just needs to use a bit of common sense,
caution, and courtesy to get along. There are many, many places where it
is perfectly safe to ride at a reasonable speed on a footpath, so that
*everyone* is safe. Obviously, except if you're a bicycle courier <evil
grin/> (I'm not one! :-)) you won't be riding a bike down the footpath
on George St Sydney at midday.

Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop, doesn't
stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young to
die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out
where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the road
pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane hogging,
or whatever.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to do
is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of course.

Bye for now.

David

[David Trudgett]

DJ wrote:

> Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common
> sense which at times like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an
> arsehole, but you get them everywhere. Sorry about your Mum Roger.
>
> There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do
> much to reduce the chances.
>
> Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta
> rail link which is a shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train
> station carparks etc, also riding on these i pass many walkers, riders, and
> dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.
>
> I know you will always get the ******s who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm
> riding in an area that I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to
> the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in a back street, if the road
> is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
> mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd
> rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Yes indeed. If it were so dangerous, it wouldn't be legal in Tassie. For
heaven's sake, everyone just needs to use a bit of common sense,
caution, and courtesy to get along. There are many, many places where it
is perfectly safe to ride at a reasonable speed on a footpath, so that
*everyone* is safe. Obviously, except if you're a bicycle courier <evil
grin/> (I'm not one! :-)) you won't be riding a bike down the footpath
on George St Sydney at midday.

Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop, doesn't
stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young to
die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out
where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the road
pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane hogging,
or whatever.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to do
is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of course.

Bye for now.

David

[David Trudgett]

DJ wrote:

> Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common
> sense which at times like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an
> arsehole, but you get them everywhere. Sorry about your Mum Roger.
>
> There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do
> much to reduce the chances.
>
> Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta
> rail link which is a shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train
> station carparks etc, also riding on these i pass many walkers, riders, and
> dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.
>
> I know you will always get the ******s who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm
> riding in an area that I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to
> the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in a back street, if the road
> is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
> mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd
> rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Yes indeed. If it were so dangerous, it wouldn't be legal in Tassie. For
heaven's sake, everyone just needs to use a bit of common sense,
caution, and courtesy to get along. There are many, many places where it
is perfectly safe to ride at a reasonable speed on a footpath, so that
*everyone* is safe. Obviously, except if you're a bicycle courier <evil
grin/> (I'm not one! :-)) you won't be riding a bike down the footpath
on George St Sydney at midday.

Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop, doesn't
stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young to
die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out
where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the road
pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane hogging,
or whatever.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to do
is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of course.

Bye for now.

David

[Alan Erskine]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
be
> no real problems!
>
> Tim
>
>

Likewise. I give plenty of time so they know I'm there and then _I_ move
out of _their_ way; I don't expect them to move out of my way at all.

By the way, I'm hardly a "Lycra-clad cyclist" I wear jeans and an old
shirt - don't like too much sun and don't like being cut up by branches etc.
I ride slowly (15km/h at most) and on the outside edge of the path so I
_don't_ hit pedestrians.

I'm courteous, friendly and polite to a fault.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
be
> no real problems!
>
> Tim
>
>

Likewise. I give plenty of time so they know I'm there and then _I_ move
out of _their_ way; I don't expect them to move out of my way at all.

By the way, I'm hardly a "Lycra-clad cyclist" I wear jeans and an old
shirt - don't like too much sun and don't like being cut up by branches etc.
I ride slowly (15km/h at most) and on the outside edge of the path so I
_don't_ hit pedestrians.

I'm courteous, friendly and polite to a fault.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
be
> no real problems!
>
> Tim
>
>

Likewise. I give plenty of time so they know I'm there and then _I_ move
out of _their_ way; I don't expect them to move out of my way at all.

By the way, I'm hardly a "Lycra-clad cyclist" I wear jeans and an old
shirt - don't like too much sun and don't like being cut up by branches etc.
I ride slowly (15km/h at most) and on the outside edge of the path so I
_don't_ hit pedestrians.

I'm courteous, friendly and polite to a fault.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote

> Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,
doesn't
> stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
> doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young
to
> die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work
out
> where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
> pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the
road
> pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane
hogging,
> or whatever.
>
> Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to
do
> is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
> doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
course.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
foot-path.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote

> Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,
doesn't
> stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
> doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young
to
> die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work
out
> where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
> pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the
road
> pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane
hogging,
> or whatever.
>
> Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to
do
> is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
> doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
course.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
foot-path.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote

> Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,
doesn't
> stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
> doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young
to
> die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work
out
> where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
> pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the
road
> pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane
hogging,
> or whatever.
>
> Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to
do
> is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
> doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
course.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
foot-path.

Theo

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
> > Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,
> doesn't
> > stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
> > doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young
> to
> > die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work
> out
> > where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
> > pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the
> road
> > pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane
> hogging,
> > or whatever.
> >
> > Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to
> do
> > is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
> > doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars illustrated
when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the comments in
this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
> > Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,
> doesn't
> > stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
> > doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young
> to
> > die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work
> out
> > where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
> > pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the
> road
> > pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane
> hogging,
> > or whatever.
> >
> > Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to
> do
> > is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
> > doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars illustrated
when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the comments in
this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
> > Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,
> doesn't
> > stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It
> > doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young
> to
> > die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work
> out
> > where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the
> > pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the
> road
> > pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane
> hogging,
> > or whatever.
> >
> > Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to
> do
> > is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
> > doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars illustrated
when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the comments in
this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

> Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
be
> no real problems!
>

I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with
discretion. Factors to include are the level of traffic on the road, whether
or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people
around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on
going. Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and I
can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the main
road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid
about it.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be there.
Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
caught, cop it sweet.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

> Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
be
> no real problems!
>

I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with
discretion. Factors to include are the level of traffic on the road, whether
or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people
around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on
going. Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and I
can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the main
road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid
about it.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be there.
Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
caught, cop it sweet.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

> Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
be
> no real problems!
>

I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with
discretion. Factors to include are the level of traffic on the road, whether
or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people
around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on
going. Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and I
can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the main
road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid
about it.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be there.
Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
caught, cop it sweet.
---
DFM

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote

> > I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have
been
> > some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> > riding on the footpath.
> >
> > Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my
car on
> > the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> > promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

> Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars
illustrated
> when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the
comments in
> this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.

I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
whoosh?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote

> > I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have
been
> > some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> > riding on the footpath.
> >
> > Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my
car on
> > the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> > promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

> Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars
illustrated
> when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the
comments in
> this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.

I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
whoosh?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote

> > I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have
been
> > some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> > riding on the footpath.
> >
> > Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my
car on
> > the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> > promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

> Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars
illustrated
> when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the
comments in
> this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.

I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
whoosh?

Theo

[David Trudgett]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
>>is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
>>doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
>
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
> foot-path.

Hi Theo,

I respect your point of view, but I obviously disagree with it
(strongly). If I ever get booked (not that I ever ride on the
footpath... that would be illegal), I'll cop it sweet, as someone else
correctly observed in this thread. Then after that, I'll continue to do
the *right thing*.

I'll be happy as long as *you* continue to do the *right thing* also.
Only you know what the right thing for you is. Check your conscience
(and educate it).

Happy cycling! :-)

Bye for now.

David


--

We come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the
source of the grossest errors of mankind. Men on a lower level of
understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher
order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise
themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the
subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they
understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and
unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

[David Trudgett]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
>>is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
>>doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
>
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
> foot-path.

Hi Theo,

I respect your point of view, but I obviously disagree with it
(strongly). If I ever get booked (not that I ever ride on the
footpath... that would be illegal), I'll cop it sweet, as someone else
correctly observed in this thread. Then after that, I'll continue to do
the *right thing*.

I'll be happy as long as *you* continue to do the *right thing* also.
Only you know what the right thing for you is. Check your conscience
(and educate it).

Happy cycling! :-)

Bye for now.

David


--

We come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the
source of the grossest errors of mankind. Men on a lower level of
understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher
order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise
themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the
subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they
understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and
unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

[David Trudgett]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
>>is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
>>doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
>
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
> foot-path.

Hi Theo,

I respect your point of view, but I obviously disagree with it
(strongly). If I ever get booked (not that I ever ride on the
footpath... that would be illegal), I'll cop it sweet, as someone else
correctly observed in this thread. Then after that, I'll continue to do
the *right thing*.

I'll be happy as long as *you* continue to do the *right thing* also.
Only you know what the right thing for you is. Check your conscience
(and educate it).

Happy cycling! :-)

Bye for now.

David


--

We come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the
source of the grossest errors of mankind. Men on a lower level of
understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher
order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise
themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the
subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they
understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and
unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> > Theo Bekkers wrote
>
> > > I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have
> been
> > > some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> > > riding on the footpath.
> > >
> > > Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my
> car on
> > > the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> > > promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> > Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars
> illustrated
> > when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the
> comments in
> > this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.
>
> I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
> vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being discussed in
the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not. There
is a difference!

> Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
> whoosh?

I believe you mean 'reductio ad absurdum', reduced to an absurdity. Do I
hear a touché?
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> > Theo Bekkers wrote
>
> > > I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have
> been
> > > some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> > > riding on the footpath.
> > >
> > > Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my
> car on
> > > the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> > > promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> > Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars
> illustrated
> > when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the
> comments in
> > this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.
>
> I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
> vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being discussed in
the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not. There
is a difference!

> Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
> whoosh?

I believe you mean 'reductio ad absurdum', reduced to an absurdity. Do I
hear a touché?
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> > Theo Bekkers wrote
>
> > > I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have
> been
> > > some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> > > riding on the footpath.
> > >
> > > Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my
> car on
> > > the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> > > promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> > Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars
> illustrated
> > when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the
> comments in
> > this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.
>
> I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
> vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being discussed in
the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not. There
is a difference!

> Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
> whoosh?

I believe you mean 'reductio ad absurdum', reduced to an absurdity. Do I
hear a touché?
---
DFM

[Alan Erskine]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
> vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.
>
> Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
> whoosh?
>
> Theo

What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a jogger
doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
> vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.
>
> Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
> whoosh?
>
> Theo

What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a jogger
doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as
> vehicles in the traffic code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.
>
> Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a
> whoosh?
>
> Theo

What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a jogger
doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...
> > Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> > son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
> be
> > no real problems!
> >
>
> I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with
> discretion. Factors to include are the level of traffic on the road,
whether
> or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people
> around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on
> going. Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and
I
> can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the
main
> road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid
> about it.
>
> The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be
there.
> Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
> caught, cop it sweet.
> ---
> DFM

There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...
> > Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> > son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
> be
> > no real problems!
> >
>
> I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with
> discretion. Factors to include are the level of traffic on the road,
whether
> or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people
> around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on
> going. Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and
I
> can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the
main
> road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid
> about it.
>
> The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be
there.
> Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
> caught, cop it sweet.
> ---
> DFM

There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...
> > Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO
> > son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should
> be
> > no real problems!
> >
>
> I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with
> discretion. Factors to include are the level of traffic on the road,
whether
> or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people
> around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on
> going. Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and
I
> can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the
main
> road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid
> about it.
>
> The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be
there.
> Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
> caught, cop it sweet.
> ---
> DFM

There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[PC]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:48:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be
>> there.
>> Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
>> caught, cop it sweet.

>There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
>"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
>carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
>suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.

Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths.. I
can't think of an incident where a driver of a horse drawn carriage
has been involved in an accident where his concentration was impaired
due to the use of a mobile phone..


PC

[PC]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:48:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be
>> there.
>> Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
>> caught, cop it sweet.

>There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
>"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
>carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
>suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.

Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths.. I
can't think of an incident where a driver of a horse drawn carriage
has been involved in an accident where his concentration was impaired
due to the use of a mobile phone..


PC

[PC]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:48:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be
>> there.
>> Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get
>> caught, cop it sweet.

>There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
>"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
>carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
>suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.

Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths.. I
can't think of an incident where a driver of a horse drawn carriage
has been involved in an accident where his concentration was impaired
due to the use of a mobile phone..


PC

[Alan Erskine]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:48:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
>
> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..

How many? References, cites etc?


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:48:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
>
> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..

How many? References, cites etc?


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:48:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
>
> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..

How many? References, cites etc?


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
discussed in
> the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
There
> is a difference!

And what is this difference. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the
footpath as well. Is that OK? The question is not whether it is OK
with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest you
don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
discussed in
> the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
There
> is a difference!

And what is this difference. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the
footpath as well. Is that OK? The question is not whether it is OK
with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest you
don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
discussed in
> the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
There
> is a difference!

And what is this difference. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the
footpath as well. Is that OK? The question is not whether it is OK
with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest you
don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote

> What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a
jogger
> doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.

The possibility that a legal user of the path may be faster than you
doesn't make you legal.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote

> What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a
jogger
> doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.

The possibility that a legal user of the path may be faster than you
doesn't make you legal.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote

> What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a
jogger
> doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.

The possibility that a legal user of the path may be faster than you
doesn't make you legal.

Theo

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
> discussed in
> > the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
> There
> > is a difference!
>
> And what is this difference.

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

> It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the
> footpath as well. Is that OK?

If someone is riding up over the footpath to park, then it is ok. If they
are flying along a busy shopping strip knocking people over, then it's not
ok. That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

>The question is not whether it is OK
>with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest you
>don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
> discussed in
> > the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
> There
> > is a difference!
>
> And what is this difference.

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

> It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the
> footpath as well. Is that OK?

If someone is riding up over the footpath to park, then it is ok. If they
are flying along a busy shopping strip knocking people over, then it's not
ok. That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

>The question is not whether it is OK
>with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest you
>don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
> discussed in
> > the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
> There
> > is a difference!
>
> And what is this difference.

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

> It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the
> footpath as well. Is that OK?

If someone is riding up over the footpath to park, then it is ok. If they
are flying along a busy shopping strip knocking people over, then it's not
ok. That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

>The question is not whether it is OK
>with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest you
>don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
---
DFM

[PC]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
>> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
>> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
>> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
>>
>> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
>> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
>
>How many? References, cites etc?

Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..


PC

[PC]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
>> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
>> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
>> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
>>
>> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
>> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
>
>How many? References, cites etc?

Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..


PC

[PC]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a
>> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn
>> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
>> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
>>
>> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
>> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
>
>How many? References, cites etc?

Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..


PC

[Deep Freud Moors]

PC > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it
a
> >> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the
horse-drawn
> >> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> >> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
> >>
> >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
> >
> >How many? References, cites etc?
>
> Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..
>

Interpretation:
"I pulled that statement out of my arse"
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

PC > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it
a
> >> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the
horse-drawn
> >> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> >> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
> >>
> >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
> >
> >How many? References, cites etc?
>
> Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..
>

Interpretation:
"I pulled that statement out of my arse"
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

PC > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it
a
> >> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the
horse-drawn
> >> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> >> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
> >>
> >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
> >
> >How many? References, cites etc?
>
> Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..
>

Interpretation:
"I pulled that statement out of my arse"
---
DFM

[Alan Erskine]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...
> PC > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is
it
> a
> > >> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the
> horse-drawn
> > >> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> > >> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
> > >>
> > >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> > >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
> > >
> > >How many? References, cites etc?
> >
> > Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..
> >
>
> Interpretation:
> "I pulled that statement out of my arse"

Yep...


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...
> PC > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> >There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is
it
> a
> > >> >"frivolous" charge by the police? Remember the rider of the
> horse-drawn
> > >> >carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this thread have
> > >> >suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
> > >>
> > >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
> > >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..
> > >
> > >How many? References, cites etc?
> >
> > Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..
> >
>
> Interpretation:
> "I pulled that statement out of my arse"

Yep...


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[PC]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:13:13 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> > >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
>> > >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..

>> > >How many? References, cites etc?

>> > Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..

>> Interpretation:
>> "I pulled that statement out of my arse"

>Yep...

True or not, that doesn't mean that cycling on footpaths is
frivolous..


PC

[PC]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:13:13 +1000, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>> > >> Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are
>> > >> injured by cyclists on footpaths that should not be on footpaths..

>> > >How many? References, cites etc?

>> > Personal experience.. It happens, so accept it..

>> Interpretation:
>> "I pulled that statement out of my arse"

>Yep...

True or not, that doesn't mean that cycling on footpaths is
frivolous..


PC

[stu]

the thing l find funny about this law is, for the safety of pedestrians ,
the bikes have been forced back onto the roads where they belong. but at
almost the same time bike every bike path l know of, was turned into a
"share carriage way". surely if it is to dangerous for pedestrains and bikes
to mix of footpaths, then pedestrains should stay off the bike paths.

[stu]

the thing l find funny about this law is, for the safety of pedestrians ,
the bikes have been forced back onto the roads where they belong. but at
almost the same time bike every bike path l know of, was turned into a
"share carriage way". surely if it is to dangerous for pedestrains and bikes
to mix of footpaths, then pedestrains should stay off the bike paths.

[Glen F]

> True or not, that doesn't mean that cycling on footpaths is
> frivolous..

Not frivolous perhaps, but entirely legal and therefore a "right"
in Qld and ?ACT.

[Glen F]

> True or not, that doesn't mean that cycling on footpaths is
> frivolous..

Not frivolous perhaps, but entirely legal and therefore a "right"
in Qld and ?ACT.

[Alan Erskine]

"stu" > wrote in message
u...
> the thing l find funny about this law is, for the safety of pedestrians ,
> the bikes have been forced back onto the roads where they belong. but at
> almost the same time bike every bike path l know of, was turned into a
> "share carriage way". surely if it is to dangerous for pedestrains and
bikes
> to mix of footpaths, then pedestrains should stay off the bike paths.

Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a two-way
bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but also
a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last summer
(and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of peds
that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that protect
cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"stu" > wrote in message
u...
> the thing l find funny about this law is, for the safety of pedestrians ,
> the bikes have been forced back onto the roads where they belong. but at
> almost the same time bike every bike path l know of, was turned into a
> "share carriage way". surely if it is to dangerous for pedestrains and
bikes
> to mix of footpaths, then pedestrains should stay off the bike paths.

Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a two-way
bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but also
a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last summer
(and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of peds
that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that protect
cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote

> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a two-way
> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
also
> a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last summer
> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of peds
> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that protect
> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?

Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK to
ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on bikepaths.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote

> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a two-way
> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
also
> a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last summer
> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of peds
> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that protect
> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?

Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK to
ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on bikepaths.

Theo

[PC]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:52:58 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
> wrote:

>> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a two-way
>> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
>> also a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last summer
>> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of peds
>> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that protect
>> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?

>Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK to
>ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on bikepaths.

There are hypocrites everywhere, dear..

For the record, I do not support adults riding bikes on footpaths
(unless it's a short section of a few metres such as getting between
two bike paths, if done with care, preferably after sounding your
bell), and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..


PC

[PC]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:52:58 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
> wrote:

>> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a two-way
>> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
>> also a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last summer
>> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of peds
>> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that protect
>> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?

>Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK to
>ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on bikepaths.

There are hypocrites everywhere, dear..

For the record, I do not support adults riding bikes on footpaths
(unless it's a short section of a few metres such as getting between
two bike paths, if done with care, preferably after sounding your
bell), and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..


PC

[stu]

>and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
>pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..

are there any bike paths in melbourne?
they are all shared paths now, as far as l know.
there is even one in camberwell(l think) that has a 10kph speed limit on it.

[stu]

>and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
>pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..

are there any bike paths in melbourne?
they are all shared paths now, as far as l know.
there is even one in camberwell(l think) that has a 10kph speed limit on it.

[Alan Erskine]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK
to
> ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on bikepaths.

Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK
to
> ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on bikepaths.

Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[PC]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:38:28 +1000, "stu" > wrote:

>>and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
>>pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..

>are there any bike paths in melbourne?
>they are all shared paths now, as far as l know.

Yes, there's a couple of segregated paths.. Princess Bridge is
segregated, Port Melbourne to St Kilda (and a bit further I think) is
segregated.. Both see peds all the bloody time..


PC

[PC]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:38:28 +1000, "stu" > wrote:

>>and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
>>pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..

>are there any bike paths in melbourne?
>they are all shared paths now, as far as l know.

Yes, there's a couple of segregated paths.. Princess Bridge is
segregated, Port Melbourne to St Kilda (and a bit further I think) is
segregated.. Both see peds all the bloody time..


PC

[DJ]

Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!

The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX....but the law
states that they are allowed to ride on the footpaths.

Also, if it was such a dilemma, why are there shared paths with pedestrians
and cycles? ok they may be a bit wider in places but to me it's the same as
a footpath.

What about these silly little bicycle lanes that are sometimes provided
which are about 15 inches wide along some roadways only to end at a kurb
near a roundabout...great when you're trying to negotiate a roundabout with
the traffic islands that block the bike paths...bugger it, I'll use a
footpath anytime in those situations.Consideration to others is important
though.

DJ
"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:52:58 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a
two-way
> >> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
> >> also a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last
summer
> >> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of
peds
> >> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that
protect
> >> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?
>
> >Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK
to
> >ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.
>
> There are hypocrites everywhere, dear..
>
> For the record, I do not support adults riding bikes on footpaths
> (unless it's a short section of a few metres such as getting between
> two bike paths, if done with care, preferably after sounding your
> bell), and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
> pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..
>
>
> PC
>

[DJ]

Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!

The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX....but the law
states that they are allowed to ride on the footpaths.

Also, if it was such a dilemma, why are there shared paths with pedestrians
and cycles? ok they may be a bit wider in places but to me it's the same as
a footpath.

What about these silly little bicycle lanes that are sometimes provided
which are about 15 inches wide along some roadways only to end at a kurb
near a roundabout...great when you're trying to negotiate a roundabout with
the traffic islands that block the bike paths...bugger it, I'll use a
footpath anytime in those situations.Consideration to others is important
though.

DJ
"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:52:58 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a
two-way
> >> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
> >> also a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last
summer
> >> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of
peds
> >> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that
protect
> >> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?
>
> >Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK
to
> >ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.
>
> There are hypocrites everywhere, dear..
>
> For the record, I do not support adults riding bikes on footpaths
> (unless it's a short section of a few metres such as getting between
> two bike paths, if done with care, preferably after sounding your
> bell), and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
> pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..
>
>
> PC
>

[Tim Jones]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:38:28 +1000, "stu" > wrote:
>
> >>and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
> >>pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..
>
> >are there any bike paths in melbourne?
> >they are all shared paths now, as far as l know.
>
> Yes, there's a couple of segregated paths.. Princess Bridge is
> segregated, Port Melbourne to St Kilda (and a bit further I think) is
> segregated.. Both see peds all the bloody time..
>

Also following the Yarra from the bike path underpass to bridge road has
separate lanes for walking and biking (not enforced). Similarly going the
other way from the underpass bridge towards the city when you hit the St
Georges road bridge towards the burnley freeway turnoff.

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"PC" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:38:28 +1000, "stu" > wrote:
>
> >>and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
> >>pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..
>
> >are there any bike paths in melbourne?
> >they are all shared paths now, as far as l know.
>
> Yes, there's a couple of segregated paths.. Princess Bridge is
> segregated, Port Melbourne to St Kilda (and a bit further I think) is
> segregated.. Both see peds all the bloody time..
>

Also following the Yarra from the bike path underpass to bridge road has
separate lanes for walking and biking (not enforced). Similarly going the
other way from the underpass bridge towards the city when you hit the St
Georges road bridge towards the burnley freeway turnoff.

Tim

[Alan Erskine]

"DJ" > wrote in message
...
> Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>
> The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
> the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
> difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
> doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
> If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the
pedestrian
> would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
> results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX....but the law
> states that they are allowed to ride on the footpaths.
>
> Also, if it was such a dilemma, why are there shared paths with
pedestrians
> and cycles? ok they may be a bit wider in places but to me it's the same
as
> a footpath.

Especially when there's two or three people side-by-side.

>Consideration to others is important though.

Agreed.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Thinking of converting to Optusnet?
Don't - they're hopeless - use another server.

[Alan Erskine]

"DJ" > wrote in message
...
> Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>
> The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
> the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
> difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
> doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
> If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the
pedestrian
> would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
> results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX....but the law
> states that they are allowed to ride on the footpaths.
>
> Also, if it was such a dilemma, why are there shared paths with
pedestrians
> and cycles? ok they may be a bit wider in places but to me it's the same
as
> a footpath.

Especially when there's two or three people side-by-side.

>Consideration to others is important though.

Agreed.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Thinking of converting to Optusnet?
Don't - they're hopeless - use another server.

[Deep Freud Moors]

Alan Erskine > wrote in message
u...
> "Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's
OK
> to
> > ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.
>
> Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?
>

Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important in this
matter.

On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy road, and I
have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and then
it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get to the
shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!

I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Alan Erskine > wrote in message
u...
> "Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's
OK
> to
> > ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.
>
> Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?
>

Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important in this
matter.

On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy road, and I
have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and then
it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get to the
shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!

I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
---
DFM

[rickster]

"DJ" > wrote in message >...
> Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>
> The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
> the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
> difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
> doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
> If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
> would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
> results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX

Ummm, momentum ?


[snip]

[rickster]

"DJ" > wrote in message >...
> Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>
> The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
> the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
> difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
> doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
> If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
> would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
> results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX

Ummm, momentum ?


[snip]

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

> > Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's
it's OK
> to
> > ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.

> Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?

Neither is OK Alan.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Alan Erskine" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

> > Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's
it's OK
> to
> > ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.

> Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?

Neither is OK Alan.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important
in this
> matter.
>
> On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
road, and I
> have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and
then
> it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get
to the
> shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!
>
> I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?

Not really. Technically, you are breaking the law. If nobody cops you
and you don't injure anyone it really doesn't matter at all. What you
can to stay within the law is the same as you're supposed to do at
marked pedestrian crossings. Get off the bike and wheel it the few
yards. But, if nobody's around, nobody cares.

I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours" mentality.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important
in this
> matter.
>
> On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
road, and I
> have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and
then
> it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get
to the
> shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!
>
> I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?

Not really. Technically, you are breaking the law. If nobody cops you
and you don't injure anyone it really doesn't matter at all. What you
can to stay within the law is the same as you're supposed to do at
marked pedestrian crossings. Get off the bike and wheel it the few
yards. But, if nobody's around, nobody cares.

I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours" mentality.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
is not OK.

> Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
or not:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
>
> That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
it
> is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

> Just in case you missed it the first time...
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
born with it".

There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
is not OK.

> Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
or not:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
>
> That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
it
> is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

> Just in case you missed it the first time...
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
born with it".

There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

Theo

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?
>
> Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
> is not OK.
>

What the hell planet do you live on???? The law says we couldn't ride
through the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne, but we did with the blessing of the
police!!! And yes, that made it OK.

> > Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
> or not:
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
> >
> > That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
> it
> > is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.
>
> > Just in case you missed it the first time...
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
>
> A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
> common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
> born with it".

What the hell does THAT mean????

> There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
> specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
> exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
> 'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
> traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
> incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
> you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
> pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.
>
> If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
> you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
> does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride anywhere I
want. This suggests to me you are incapable of digesting my point of view.
As such, there would be little point in continuing.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?
>
> Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
> is not OK.
>

What the hell planet do you live on???? The law says we couldn't ride
through the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne, but we did with the blessing of the
police!!! And yes, that made it OK.

> > Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
> or not:
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
> >
> > That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
> it
> > is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.
>
> > Just in case you missed it the first time...
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
>
> A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
> common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
> born with it".

What the hell does THAT mean????

> There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
> specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
> exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
> 'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
> traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
> incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
> you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
> pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.
>
> If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
> you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
> does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride anywhere I
want. This suggests to me you are incapable of digesting my point of view.
As such, there would be little point in continuing.
---
DFM

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote

> > A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition
of
> > common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody
was
> > born with it".

> What the hell does THAT mean????

It means that you were not born with 'common sense', 'common sense' is
learned.

> > If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where
ever
> > you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what
Alan
> > does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

> OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride
anywhere I
> want.

Contact your local TAFE for Comprehension 101, or Remedial Reading
102.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote

> > A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition
of
> > common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody
was
> > born with it".

> What the hell does THAT mean????

It means that you were not born with 'common sense', 'common sense' is
learned.

> > If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where
ever
> > you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what
Alan
> > does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

> OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride
anywhere I
> want.

Contact your local TAFE for Comprehension 101, or Remedial Reading
102.

Theo

[Cheryl]

I suppose there are times and places when cycling on the footpath is ok.
Speeding up a shopping centre footpath is not one of them, just
witnessed a cyclist & pedestrian collision today. No one was hurt, the
cyclist profusely apologised and the pedestrian accepted and went on his
way. BUT so did the cyclist riding exactly the same way he had been.
Next time he may not be so lucky.

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
walkers near the crossing.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Cheryl]

I suppose there are times and places when cycling on the footpath is ok.
Speeding up a shopping centre footpath is not one of them, just
witnessed a cyclist & pedestrian collision today. No one was hurt, the
cyclist profusely apologised and the pedestrian accepted and went on his
way. BUT so did the cyclist riding exactly the same way he had been.
Next time he may not be so lucky.

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
walkers near the crossing.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Theo Bekkers]

"Cheryl" wrote

> What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
has
> the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo
Awaiting the avalanche.

[Theo Bekkers]

"Cheryl" wrote

> What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
has
> the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo
Awaiting the avalanche.

[Tim Jones]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
> the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
> I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
> causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
> walkers near the crossing.
>

As Theo stated - a cyclist should be walking their bike across the road.

At the very least, common sense should prevail (please no web dictionaries!
;-) and the cyclist should at least wait for traffic to stop before coasting
out - much as you would do as a pedestrian on the crossing!

Walking (or riding) blindly out onto the road is a recipe for disaster.

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
> the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
> I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
> causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
> walkers near the crossing.
>

As Theo stated - a cyclist should be walking their bike across the road.

At the very least, common sense should prevail (please no web dictionaries!
;-) and the cyclist should at least wait for traffic to stop before coasting
out - much as you would do as a pedestrian on the crossing!

Walking (or riding) blindly out onto the road is a recipe for disaster.

Tim

[Glen F]

> > What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a
> > cyclist has the right to ride on the footpath what right does
> > he have at a crossing?
>
> The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.
>
> Theo
> Awaiting the avalanche.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state.
It was written that way in the original "model" national regs.

That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which
are incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and
also wrong in all* other states for under 12s and those
supervising them. Footpath riding may not always be smart,
but in this state (Qld), it is legal unless signed otherwise
- and therefore a cyclist's "right".

[* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg
doesn't actually say that, though apparently there is
some subordinate notice that does?]

[Glen F]

> > What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a
> > cyclist has the right to ride on the footpath what right does
> > he have at a crossing?
>
> The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.
>
> Theo
> Awaiting the avalanche.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state.
It was written that way in the original "model" national regs.

That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which
are incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and
also wrong in all* other states for under 12s and those
supervising them. Footpath riding may not always be smart,
but in this state (Qld), it is legal unless signed otherwise
- and therefore a cyclist's "right".

[* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg
doesn't actually say that, though apparently there is
some subordinate notice that does?]

[kwv]

Glen F wrote:
> > > What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
> > > has the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
> > > crossing?
> >
> > The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.
> >
> > Theo Awaiting the avalanche.
> To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state. It was
> written that way in the original "model" national regs.
> That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which are
> incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and also wrong in
> all* other states for under 12s and those supervising them. Footpath
> riding may not always be smart, but in this state (Qld), it is legal
> unless signed otherwise
> - and therefore a cyclist's "right".
> [* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg doesn't
> actually say that, though apparently there is some subordinate notice
> that does?]



It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
right but an privilege.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Glen F wrote:
> > > What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
> > > has the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
> > > crossing?
> >
> > The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.
> >
> > Theo Awaiting the avalanche.
> To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state. It was
> written that way in the original "model" national regs.
> That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which are
> incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and also wrong in
> all* other states for under 12s and those supervising them. Footpath
> riding may not always be smart, but in this state (Qld), it is legal
> unless signed otherwise
> - and therefore a cyclist's "right".
> [* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg doesn't
> actually say that, though apparently there is some subordinate notice
> that does?]



It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
right but an privilege.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
> Alan Erskine > wrote in message news:3f8112-
> :3f811 2e5$0$15134$afc38c87@-
> news.optusnet.com.au...
> > "Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message news:3f81c81b$1-
> > om.au...
> > > Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree
> > > that's it's
> OK
> > to
> > > ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
> bikepaths.
> >
> > Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?
> >
> Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important in
> this matter.
> On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
> road, and I have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40
> metres, and then it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy
> road twice to get to the shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the
> footpath of course!
> I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
> ---
> DFM



If you don't see anything wrong with this then do you know the
road rules ?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
> Alan Erskine > wrote in message news:3f8112-
> :3f811 2e5$0$15134$afc38c87@-
> news.optusnet.com.au...
> > "Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message news:3f81c81b$1-
> > om.au...
> > > Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree
> > > that's it's
> OK
> > to
> > > ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
> bikepaths.
> >
> > Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?
> >
> Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important in
> this matter.
> On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
> road, and I have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40
> metres, and then it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy
> road twice to get to the shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the
> footpath of course!
> I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
> ---
> DFM



If you don't see anything wrong with this then do you know the
road rules ?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
> Theo Bekkers > wrote in message news:wpRfb.137305$b-
> @ news-s-
> erver.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> >
> > > But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
> > discussed in
> > > the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
> > There
> > > is a difference!
> >
> > And what is this difference.
> You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?
> Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK or
> not: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsensehttp://diction-
> ary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
> > It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the footpath as well. Is
> > that OK?
> If someone is riding up over the footpath to park, then it is ok. If
> they are flying along a busy shopping strip knocking people over, then
> it's not ok. That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract
> concept, but it is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.
> >The question is not whether it is OK with you, is it OK with the
> >other path users? I would suggest you don't ask them as you already
> >know the answer.
> Just in case you missed it the first time... http://dictionary.refere-
> nce.com/search?q=commonsensehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-
> commonsense
> ---
> DFM



But is it okay to ride on the footpath when the law said you can not ?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
> Theo Bekkers > wrote in message news:wpRfb.137305$b-
> @ news-s-
> erver.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> >
> > > But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
> > discussed in
> > > the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
> > There
> > > is a difference!
> >
> > And what is this difference.
> You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?
> Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK or
> not: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsensehttp://diction-
> ary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
> > It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the footpath as well. Is
> > that OK?
> If someone is riding up over the footpath to park, then it is ok. If
> they are flying along a busy shopping strip knocking people over, then
> it's not ok. That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract
> concept, but it is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.
> >The question is not whether it is OK with you, is it OK with the
> >other path users? I would suggest you don't ask them as you already
> >know the answer.
> Just in case you missed it the first time... http://dictionary.refere-
> nce.com/search?q=commonsensehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-
> commonsense
> ---
> DFM



But is it okay to ride on the footpath when the law said you can not ?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "Alan Erskine" wrote
> > Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a
> > two-way bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate
> > boards), but
> also
> > a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last
> > summer (and several summers before and probably this summer), the
> > number of peds that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there
> > laws that protect cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?
> Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's
> OK to ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
> bikepaths.
> Theo



And that is the thing why is it okay to ride on the footpath but it is
not okay to walk on the bikepath.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "Alan Erskine" wrote
> > Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a
> > two-way bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate
> > boards), but
> also
> > a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last
> > summer (and several summers before and probably this summer), the
> > number of peds that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there
> > laws that protect cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?
> Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's
> OK to ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
> bikepaths.
> Theo



And that is the thing why is it okay to ride on the footpath but it is
not okay to walk on the bikepath.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Dj wrote:
> Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride
> on a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a
> particular peice of road.
> IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit
> of safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a
> semi trailer.
> Cheers
> DJ "Alan Erskine" > wrote in message new
> >



And of course it is not too dangerous for cyclists to ride on footpath
in Sydney and that is why it is banned for cyclists over 12.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Dj wrote:
> Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride
> on a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a
> particular peice of road.
> IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit
> of safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect
> yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under the wheels of a
> semi trailer.
> Cheers
> DJ "Alan Erskine" > wrote in message new
> >



And of course it is not too dangerous for cyclists to ride on footpath
in Sydney and that is why it is banned for cyclists over 12.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Originally posted by David Trudgett Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
>>is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
>>doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
>
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
> foot-path.



I'll be happy as long as *you* continue to do the *right thing* also.
Only you know what the right thing for you is. Check your conscience
(and educate it).

Happy cycling! :-)

Bye for now.

David

--

QUOTE]

David if many cyclists Check their conscience (and educate it) then we
wouldn't have them breaking the law.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[kwv]

Originally posted by David Trudgett Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
>>is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing*
>>doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of
>
> course.
>
> I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been
> some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of
> riding on the footpath.
>
> Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on
> the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I
> promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.
>
> Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the
> foot-path.



I'll be happy as long as *you* continue to do the *right thing* also.
Only you know what the right thing for you is. Check your conscience
(and educate it).

Happy cycling! :-)

Bye for now.

David

--

QUOTE]

David if many cyclists Check their conscience (and educate it) then we
wouldn't have them breaking the law.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Theo Bekkers]

"Glen F" wrote
> Theo wrote
> > The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

> That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which
> are incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and
> also wrong in all* other states for under 12s and those
> supervising them. Footpath riding may not always be smart,
> but in this state (Qld), it is legal unless signed otherwise
> - and therefore a cyclist's "right".

Did I mention adults accompanying under 12's?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Glen F" wrote
> Theo wrote
> > The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

> That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which
> are incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and
> also wrong in all* other states for under 12s and those
> supervising them. Footpath riding may not always be smart,
> but in this state (Qld), it is legal unless signed otherwise
> - and therefore a cyclist's "right".

Did I mention adults accompanying under 12's?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"kwv" wrote
> Deep Freud Moor wrote:

> > DFM

> But is it okay to ride on the footpath when the law said you can not
?

I think DFM means Don't Fxxking Matter.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"kwv" wrote
> Deep Freud Moor wrote:

> > DFM

> But is it okay to ride on the footpath when the law said you can not
?

I think DFM means Don't Fxxking Matter.

Theo

[Arpit]

I'm sort of half way between, im 16, i take the footpath a lot, but I
never go very fast when Im on there, and if theres a pedestrian, I
slow down to a very slow jogging speed. and overtake on the grass with
over 1.5 meters clearance. sometimes in the day time they don't hear
me, and get a little surpised, but I do it with lots of clearance so
theres no problem, yes I know I should use a bell, but it doesnnt work
when its hard to take my hand off hte handlebar when im riding slowly.
At night there isnt a problem, Ive got a 55 watt bike light, they can
see their shadows :)

THeres one are near some shops where the only way to get to them
(reasonably) ona bike is on the footpath outside them. I travel at a
SLOW walking pace then, not overtaking at all.
I think its ok as long as you are sensible. I know other poeple who do
50km/h on footpaths, and have melted their brakes trying to stop.
THatttts what I think the law is addressing.



On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:15:59 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:

>Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>
>The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
>the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
>difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
>doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
>If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
>would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
>results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX....but the law
>states that they are allowed to ride on the footpaths.
>
>Also, if it was such a dilemma, why are there shared paths with pedestrians
>and cycles? ok they may be a bit wider in places but to me it's the same as
>a footpath.
>
>What about these silly little bicycle lanes that are sometimes provided
>which are about 15 inches wide along some roadways only to end at a kurb
>near a roundabout...great when you're trying to negotiate a roundabout with
>the traffic islands that block the bike paths...bugger it, I'll use a
>footpath anytime in those situations.Consideration to others is important
>though.
>
>DJ
>"PC" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:52:58 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a
>two-way
>> >> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
>> >> also a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last
>summer
>> >> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of
>peds
>> >> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that
>protect
>> >> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?
>>
>> >Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK
>to
>> >ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
>bikepaths.
>>
>> There are hypocrites everywhere, dear..
>>
>> For the record, I do not support adults riding bikes on footpaths
>> (unless it's a short section of a few metres such as getting between
>> two bike paths, if done with care, preferably after sounding your
>> bell), and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
>> pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..
>>
>>
>> PC
>>
>

[Arpit]

I'm sort of half way between, im 16, i take the footpath a lot, but I
never go very fast when Im on there, and if theres a pedestrian, I
slow down to a very slow jogging speed. and overtake on the grass with
over 1.5 meters clearance. sometimes in the day time they don't hear
me, and get a little surpised, but I do it with lots of clearance so
theres no problem, yes I know I should use a bell, but it doesnnt work
when its hard to take my hand off hte handlebar when im riding slowly.
At night there isnt a problem, Ive got a 55 watt bike light, they can
see their shadows :)

THeres one are near some shops where the only way to get to them
(reasonably) ona bike is on the footpath outside them. I travel at a
SLOW walking pace then, not overtaking at all.
I think its ok as long as you are sensible. I know other poeple who do
50km/h on footpaths, and have melted their brakes trying to stop.
THatttts what I think the law is addressing.



On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:15:59 GMT, "DJ" > wrote:

>Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>
>The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
>the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
>difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
>doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
>If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
>would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
>results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX....but the law
>states that they are allowed to ride on the footpaths.
>
>Also, if it was such a dilemma, why are there shared paths with pedestrians
>and cycles? ok they may be a bit wider in places but to me it's the same as
>a footpath.
>
>What about these silly little bicycle lanes that are sometimes provided
>which are about 15 inches wide along some roadways only to end at a kurb
>near a roundabout...great when you're trying to negotiate a roundabout with
>the traffic islands that block the bike paths...bugger it, I'll use a
>footpath anytime in those situations.Consideration to others is important
>though.
>
>DJ
>"PC" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:52:58 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Beaconsfield Parade is a good example of this. There's not only a
>two-way
>> >> bike path (specifically marked for bikes, blades and skate boards), but
>> >> also a path for pedestrians that is separate from the bike path - last
>summer
>> >> (and several summers before and probably this summer), the number of
>peds
>> >> that get on 'our' turf is incredible. Why aren't there laws that
>protect
>> >> cyclists and bike paths from peds at the same time?
>>
>> >Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree that's it's OK
>to
>> >ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
>bikepaths.
>>
>> There are hypocrites everywhere, dear..
>>
>> For the record, I do not support adults riding bikes on footpaths
>> (unless it's a short section of a few metres such as getting between
>> two bike paths, if done with care, preferably after sounding your
>> bell), and I am equally irritated by cyclists on footpaths as I am by
>> pedestrians or unleashed animals on bike paths or cars in bike lanes..
>>
>>
>> PC
>>
>

[Arpit]

More relevant is energy . energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity squared.
Velocity matters more as you can see.
LEts take a kid who weighs 40kilos, on a bike which weighs 10. he
travels at 36km/h( 10m/s) Energy is 0.5 x 40x 100 = 2000 joules. THats
enough to light a hundred watt light bulb for 20 seconds.
Now take an adult cycler, travelling at 10.8 km/h (3m/s) THis guy
weighs 100 kilos with his bike. ENergy = 0.5 x 100 x 9 = 450 joules



On 6 Oct 2003 15:58:41 -0700, (rickster) wrote:

>"DJ" > wrote in message >...
>> Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>>
>> The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
>> the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
>> difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
>> doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
>> If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
>> would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
>> results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX
>
>Ummm, momentum ?
>
>
>[snip]

[Arpit]

More relevant is energy . energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity squared.
Velocity matters more as you can see.
LEts take a kid who weighs 40kilos, on a bike which weighs 10. he
travels at 36km/h( 10m/s) Energy is 0.5 x 40x 100 = 2000 joules. THats
enough to light a hundred watt light bulb for 20 seconds.
Now take an adult cycler, travelling at 10.8 km/h (3m/s) THis guy
weighs 100 kilos with his bike. ENergy = 0.5 x 100 x 9 = 450 joules



On 6 Oct 2003 15:58:41 -0700, (rickster) wrote:

>"DJ" > wrote in message >...
>> Wow......this thread is getting interesting!!
>>
>> The law says that it's ok for children the age of 12 and under to ride on
>> the footpaths, so taking this into consideration, what would be the
>> difference of a wild 11 yr old on a BMX doing breakneck speed and adult
>> doing a sensible speed on a footpath?
>> If there was an accident with a pedestrian, do you think that the pedestrian
>> would be betteroff being hit by the 11 yr old or the adult? I reckon the
>> results would be far more serious with the kid on the BMX
>
>Ummm, momentum ?
>
>
>[snip]

[Arpit]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:42:41 GMT, "Theo Bekkers" >
wrote:

>"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
>> Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important
>in this
>> matter.
>>
>> On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
>road, and I
>> have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and
>then
>> it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get
>to the
>> shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!
>>
>> I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
>
>Not really. Technically, you are breaking the law. If nobody cops you
>and you don't injure anyone it really doesn't matter at all. What you
>can to stay within the law is the same as you're supposed to do at
>marked pedestrian crossings. Get off the bike and wheel it the few
>yards. But, if nobody's around, nobody cares.
>
>I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
>(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours" mentality.
>

I ride on the footpaths, but I do get annoyed if pedestrians are a
bike only lane, and dont give way. I give way to them on the footpaths
and shared paths and offroad tracks.
>Theo
>

[Arpit]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:42:41 GMT, "Theo Bekkers" >
wrote:

>"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
>> Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important
>in this
>> matter.
>>
>> On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
>road, and I
>> have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and
>then
>> it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get
>to the
>> shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!
>>
>> I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
>
>Not really. Technically, you are breaking the law. If nobody cops you
>and you don't injure anyone it really doesn't matter at all. What you
>can to stay within the law is the same as you're supposed to do at
>marked pedestrian crossings. Get off the bike and wheel it the few
>yards. But, if nobody's around, nobody cares.
>
>I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
>(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours" mentality.
>

I ride on the footpaths, but I do get annoyed if pedestrians are a
bike only lane, and dont give way. I give way to them on the footpaths
and shared paths and offroad tracks.
>Theo
>

[Arpit]

On 7 Oct 2003 15:45:34 +0950, Cheryl >
wrote:

>I suppose there are times and places when cycling on the footpath is ok.
>Speeding up a shopping centre footpath is not one of them, just
>witnessed a cyclist & pedestrian collision today. No one was hurt, the
>cyclist profusely apologised and the pedestrian accepted and went on his
>way. BUT so did the cyclist riding exactly the same way he had been.
>Next time he may not be so lucky.
>
>What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
>the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
>I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
>causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
>walkers near the crossing.

um, you checked for walkers, why didnt you see the cyclist?

[Arpit]

On 7 Oct 2003 15:45:34 +0950, Cheryl >
wrote:

>I suppose there are times and places when cycling on the footpath is ok.
>Speeding up a shopping centre footpath is not one of them, just
>witnessed a cyclist & pedestrian collision today. No one was hurt, the
>cyclist profusely apologised and the pedestrian accepted and went on his
>way. BUT so did the cyclist riding exactly the same way he had been.
>Next time he may not be so lucky.
>
>What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
>the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
>I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
>causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
>walkers near the crossing.

um, you checked for walkers, why didnt you see the cyclist?

[Glen F]

> It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
> cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
> right but an privilege.

Hi Kenneth! What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
It is legal for a pedestrian to use the "Bicentennial Bikeway" shared
path. Is that a privilege, or a right?

[Glen F]

> It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
> cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
> right but an privilege.

Hi Kenneth! What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
It is legal for a pedestrian to use the "Bicentennial Bikeway" shared
path. Is that a privilege, or a right?

[Tim Jones]

"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Oct 2003 15:45:34 +0950, Cheryl >
> wrote:
<...>
> >What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
> >the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
> >I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
> >causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
> >walkers near the crossing.
>
> um, you checked for walkers, why didnt you see the cyclist?

My guess is that they were moving at speed from the footpath onto the pedi
crossing.

Just in the same way that a pedi that is running and does a sharp turn onto
a pedi crossing does not give road users adequate time to stop for them.

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Oct 2003 15:45:34 +0950, Cheryl >
> wrote:
<...>
> >What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
> >the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
> >I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
> >causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
> >walkers near the crossing.
>
> um, you checked for walkers, why didnt you see the cyclist?

My guess is that they were moving at speed from the footpath onto the pedi
crossing.

Just in the same way that a pedi that is running and does a sharp turn onto
a pedi crossing does not give road users adequate time to stop for them.

Tim

[David Trudgett]

Glen F wrote:

>>It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
>>cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
>>right but an privilege.
>
>
> Hi Kenneth! What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
> It is legal for a pedestrian to use the "Bicentennial Bikeway" shared
> path. Is that a privilege, or a right?
>
>

A "privilege" is a "right" that can be "taken away" for no reason,
obviously! :-) It takes a little more perspiration to remove a "right".

However, in actual fact, there is no such thing as a "right" or a
"privilege", in the context being discussed. An abstract noun
("state"/"government") can neither confer nor revoke any "right". This
is the reason a "bill of human rights" is an affront. Human rights exist
independently and outside of any "state", "government" or "bill".

Similarly, my right to ride a bicycle where it is safe to do so is
independent of any "law" that pretends to say what I can and can't do.
This is *particularly* evident where laws vary from place to place, and
state to state. It can't be safe in one state and unsafe in another.
This is (one) proof that the law cannot tell you what is OK or not OK to do.

Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am a
Christian, I will refuse to be conscripted under any circumstances
whatsoever. Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's, it
is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that murder
and Christianity are mutually incompatible. I will not bother to go into
a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :

"You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."

and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
can be found in full text form on the Internet. **

Not all laws are bad, of course, in the sense that what they prescribe
is prescribed for a good reason. Traffic regulations are (generally) a
good example. Having everyone drive on the same side of the road is very
convenient! :-) (For some values of "same") Whether we need a *law* to
tell us this, though, is quite another matter. It should be clear to the
majority that people would continue to drive on the correct side of the
road without a law that says they have to!

Even the law (in some places) against (some people) riding bicyles on
(some) footpaths is intended to protect pedestrians from reckless idiots
on bikes. **

Bye for now.

David


** As an aside, I see a motorcyclist riding along footpaths in our area
every day, and I think nothing of it. He's obviously doing nothing unsafe.


--

The recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on
external causes, but on certain other causes within the man himself.
So that at times under external conditions apparently very favorable
for the recognition of truth, one man will not recognize it, and
another, on the contrary, under the most unfavorable conditions will,
without apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in the Gospel, "No
man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."
That is to say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause of all
the manifestations of human life, does not depend on external
phenomena, but on certain inner spiritual characteristics of the man
which escape our observation.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

[David Trudgett]

Glen F wrote:

>>It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
>>cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
>>right but an privilege.
>
>
> Hi Kenneth! What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
> It is legal for a pedestrian to use the "Bicentennial Bikeway" shared
> path. Is that a privilege, or a right?
>
>

A "privilege" is a "right" that can be "taken away" for no reason,
obviously! :-) It takes a little more perspiration to remove a "right".

However, in actual fact, there is no such thing as a "right" or a
"privilege", in the context being discussed. An abstract noun
("state"/"government") can neither confer nor revoke any "right". This
is the reason a "bill of human rights" is an affront. Human rights exist
independently and outside of any "state", "government" or "bill".

Similarly, my right to ride a bicycle where it is safe to do so is
independent of any "law" that pretends to say what I can and can't do.
This is *particularly* evident where laws vary from place to place, and
state to state. It can't be safe in one state and unsafe in another.
This is (one) proof that the law cannot tell you what is OK or not OK to do.

Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am a
Christian, I will refuse to be conscripted under any circumstances
whatsoever. Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's, it
is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that murder
and Christianity are mutually incompatible. I will not bother to go into
a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :

"You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."

and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
can be found in full text form on the Internet. **

Not all laws are bad, of course, in the sense that what they prescribe
is prescribed for a good reason. Traffic regulations are (generally) a
good example. Having everyone drive on the same side of the road is very
convenient! :-) (For some values of "same") Whether we need a *law* to
tell us this, though, is quite another matter. It should be clear to the
majority that people would continue to drive on the correct side of the
road without a law that says they have to!

Even the law (in some places) against (some people) riding bicyles on
(some) footpaths is intended to protect pedestrians from reckless idiots
on bikes. **

Bye for now.

David


** As an aside, I see a motorcyclist riding along footpaths in our area
every day, and I think nothing of it. He's obviously doing nothing unsafe.


--

The recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on
external causes, but on certain other causes within the man himself.
So that at times under external conditions apparently very favorable
for the recognition of truth, one man will not recognize it, and
another, on the contrary, under the most unfavorable conditions will,
without apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in the Gospel, "No
man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."
That is to say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause of all
the manifestations of human life, does not depend on external
phenomena, but on certain inner spiritual characteristics of the man
which escape our observation.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

[Tim Jones]

"David Trudgett" > wrote in message
...

<...>

> I will not bother to go into
> a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
> couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
>
> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
> But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
> contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
> other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
> tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
> to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
> and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
>
> and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
> can be found in full text form on the Internet. **
>

If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have it?

;-)

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"David Trudgett" > wrote in message
...

<...>

> I will not bother to go into
> a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
> couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
>
> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
> But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
> contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
> other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
> tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
> to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
> and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
>
> and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
> can be found in full text form on the Internet. **
>

If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have it?

;-)

Tim

[David Trudgett]

Tim Jones wrote:

> "David Trudgett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <...>
>
>>I will not bother to go into
>>a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
>>couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
>>
>> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
>> But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
>> contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
>> other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
>> tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
>> to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
>> and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
>>
>>and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
>>can be found in full text form on the Internet. **
>>
>
>
> If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have it?
>
> ;-)

Yeah, "give to anyone who asks" is a tough one, isn't it? Do you need it
more than I do?

:-)

Ciao for niao.

David




--

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage

[David Trudgett]

Tim Jones wrote:

> "David Trudgett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <...>
>
>>I will not bother to go into
>>a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
>>couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
>>
>> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
>> But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
>> contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
>> other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
>> tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
>> to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
>> and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
>>
>>and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
>>can be found in full text form on the Internet. **
>>
>
>
> If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have it?
>
> ;-)

Yeah, "give to anyone who asks" is a tough one, isn't it? Do you need it
more than I do?

:-)

Ciao for niao.

David




--

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage

[Tim Jones]

"David Trudgett" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Jones wrote:
>
> > "David Trudgett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >>I will not bother to go into
> >>a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
> >>couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
> >>
> >> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
> >> But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
> >> contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
> >> other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
> >> tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
> >> to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
> >> and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
> >>
> >>and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
> >>can be found in full text form on the Internet. **
> >>
> >
> >
> > If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have
it?
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Yeah, "give to anyone who asks" is a tough one, isn't it? Do you need it
> more than I do?
>

Damn! Got me there - I already have a bike!

Tim

> :-)
>

[Tim Jones]

"David Trudgett" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Jones wrote:
>
> > "David Trudgett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >>I will not bother to go into
> >>a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to a
> >>couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
> >>
> >> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
> >> But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
> >> contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
> >> other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
> >> tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
> >> to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
> >> and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
> >>
> >>and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both
> >>can be found in full text form on the Internet. **
> >>
> >
> >
> > If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have
it?
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Yeah, "give to anyone who asks" is a tough one, isn't it? Do you need it
> more than I do?
>

Damn! Got me there - I already have a bike!

Tim

> :-)
>

[Theo Bekkers]

"Arpit" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

> >I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
> >(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours"
mentality.

> I ride on the footpaths, but I do get annoyed if pedestrians are a
> bike only lane, and dont give way. I give way to them on the
footpaths
> and shared paths and offroad tracks.

You get annoyed if pedestrians are on a bike only path, but you ride
on a pedestrian only path?

<shakes head>

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Arpit" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

> >I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
> >(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours"
mentality.

> I ride on the footpaths, but I do get annoyed if pedestrians are a
> bike only lane, and dont give way. I give way to them on the
footpaths
> and shared paths and offroad tracks.

You get annoyed if pedestrians are on a bike only path, but you ride
on a pedestrian only path?

<shakes head>

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote

> Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am
a
> Christian, I will refuse to be conscripted under any circumstances
> whatsoever.

I also refuse to be conscripted but I'm an atheist.

> Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's

You should go and live in God's country.

, it
> is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that
murder
> and Christianity are mutually incompatible.

Have you watched the current series on Foxtel Ch 19 about the
Crusades. "Killing for God".

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote

> Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am
a
> Christian, I will refuse to be conscripted under any circumstances
> whatsoever.

I also refuse to be conscripted but I'm an atheist.

> Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's

You should go and live in God's country.

, it
> is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that
murder
> and Christianity are mutually incompatible.

Have you watched the current series on Foxtel Ch 19 about the
Crusades. "Killing for God".

Theo

[David Trudgett]

Hi Andrey,

I see you're posting from Russia! Thanks for your post, I appreciate the
effort required to write in a foreign language.

How are things in Russia these days? Since the fall of state capitalism
in the Soviet Union, I haven't heard much news about Russia.


andrey wrote:

> It's a time now to be "politically correct".

Do you think television has much to do with that? People seem to be
extraordinarily susceptible to being hypnotised by what they perceive as
"majority opinion". In times of declining social interaction, the TV
seems to supply this "majority opinion" to people.


> "Christian valuables" are vanishing under pressure of multicultural and

"Christian values" vanished a long, long time ago, with the rise of the
"official" Church, which has functioned simply as an organ of State for
many centuries. Of course, the miracle is that true Christian teaching
has never been entirely lost, and the truth is available to those who
sincerely seek it.


> multireligional global people migration.
> So, no Europe no USA anymore "Christian" or "Muslim".
> Polititians claims it to be "home for all".

Even in Russia? :-) When people begin to fully realise that "nations",
as we know them now, are an abomination because all people everywhere
are brothers and sisters, then the current order will start to crumble
under its own falsehoods. This has nothing to do with any religion, by
the way.

Have you read any of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy's works, such as "War and
Peace" and "The Kingdom of God is Within You"? You have the advantage of
being able to read them in the original language.

Before I go, I should mention that it is considered bad practise to
"top-post" (which means putting your reply above the text to which you
are replying). This joke might enlighten you:

A. Top-posters
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


Bye for now! :-)

David



--

....Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that
as an inveterate skeptic I have closed my mind to the truth. Most
notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six thousand
years old. Well, I haven't ignored it; I considered the purported
evidence and *then* rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a
difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice
is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice
is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense
that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice
is not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may make mistakes
also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined
the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged.

-- Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism, Skeptical Enquirer,
Vol. 12, pg. 46

[David Trudgett]

Hi Andrey,

I see you're posting from Russia! Thanks for your post, I appreciate the
effort required to write in a foreign language.

How are things in Russia these days? Since the fall of state capitalism
in the Soviet Union, I haven't heard much news about Russia.


andrey wrote:

> It's a time now to be "politically correct".

Do you think television has much to do with that? People seem to be
extraordinarily susceptible to being hypnotised by what they perceive as
"majority opinion". In times of declining social interaction, the TV
seems to supply this "majority opinion" to people.


> "Christian valuables" are vanishing under pressure of multicultural and

"Christian values" vanished a long, long time ago, with the rise of the
"official" Church, which has functioned simply as an organ of State for
many centuries. Of course, the miracle is that true Christian teaching
has never been entirely lost, and the truth is available to those who
sincerely seek it.


> multireligional global people migration.
> So, no Europe no USA anymore "Christian" or "Muslim".
> Polititians claims it to be "home for all".

Even in Russia? :-) When people begin to fully realise that "nations",
as we know them now, are an abomination because all people everywhere
are brothers and sisters, then the current order will start to crumble
under its own falsehoods. This has nothing to do with any religion, by
the way.

Have you read any of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy's works, such as "War and
Peace" and "The Kingdom of God is Within You"? You have the advantage of
being able to read them in the original language.

Before I go, I should mention that it is considered bad practise to
"top-post" (which means putting your reply above the text to which you
are replying). This joke might enlighten you:

A. Top-posters
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


Bye for now! :-)

David



--

....Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that
as an inveterate skeptic I have closed my mind to the truth. Most
notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six thousand
years old. Well, I haven't ignored it; I considered the purported
evidence and *then* rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a
difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice
is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice
is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense
that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice
is not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may make mistakes
also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined
the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged.

-- Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism, Skeptical Enquirer,
Vol. 12, pg. 46

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote
> Hi Theo,

> Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a
> curious fact many atheists, such as yourself, are opposed
> to conscription,

Why is that curious. Theists believe in an afterlife, atheists don't.
Which do you think would value _this_ life more?

> whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite
> prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women and children
they
> have never seen before.

Or even people they have.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"David Trudgett" wrote
> Hi Theo,

> Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a
> curious fact many atheists, such as yourself, are opposed
> to conscription,

Why is that curious. Theists believe in an afterlife, atheists don't.
Which do you think would value _this_ life more?

> whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite
> prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women and children
they
> have never seen before.

Or even people they have.

Theo

[David Trudgett]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
>>Hi Theo,
>
>
>>Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a
>>curious fact many atheists, such as yourself, are opposed
>>to conscription,
>
>
> Why is that curious. Theists believe in an afterlife, atheists don't.
> Which do you think would value _this_ life more?

Good point! Doesn't seem to work that way with all atheists, though,
does it? Same with theists. Go figure. :-)


>
>>whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite
>>prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women and children
>
> they
>
>>have never seen before.
>
>
> Or even people they have.

Indeed.



Cheers.

David

[David Trudgett]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
>>Hi Theo,
>
>
>>Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a
>>curious fact many atheists, such as yourself, are opposed
>>to conscription,
>
>
> Why is that curious. Theists believe in an afterlife, atheists don't.
> Which do you think would value _this_ life more?

Good point! Doesn't seem to work that way with all atheists, though,
does it? Same with theists. Go figure. :-)


>
>>whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite
>>prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women and children
>
> they
>
>>have never seen before.
>
>
> Or even people they have.

Indeed.



Cheers.

David

[David Trudgett]

I said there were no such things as rights and privileges, but this
article by Ran Prieur sums it up far better than I ever could. Enjoy! :-)

When is a Right Not a Privilege?

http://web.pitas.com/ranprieur/112702.html



Cheers,

David

[David Trudgett]

I said there were no such things as rights and privileges, but this
article by Ran Prieur sums it up far better than I ever could. Enjoy! :-)

When is a Right Not a Privilege?

http://web.pitas.com/ranprieur/112702.html



Cheers,

David