|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 15 May 2015 11:36:30 +1000
Pelican wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to refer to bicycle lanes I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes The Australian Road Rules give the basic rule in rule 129 - 129 Keeping to the far left side of a road (1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road. Offence provision. (2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor bike. Rule 129 applies to cyclists. THe reason it doesn't apply to motorcyclists is due to some court cases about safety and the meaning of the word practicable. (I was involved in motorcycle lobbying in SA at the time the SA law was changed before the national road rules came in and helped with the defence of one of the riders.) I expect that should a cyclist be prosecuted for it they'll be playng the practical card. I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if a car does crowd me. What I think is safe and what the impatient person behind me thinks is safe can be very different of course. Bicycles like motorcycles have to always take account of traction and road surface. A bicycle needs to be more aware of road surface than a motorcycle as a pothole that is an annoyance to a motorcycle can cause a crash for a bicycle. A bicycle rider will also be more worried about space to either side as bicycles often need to move on the road more than motorcycles do. I find that most times car drivers do the right thing, and I try and share the road sensibly with them. If I can help them pass safely I will. But I will be the one making the decision about what is safe, and if that means someone in a car is held up for 30 seconds or even a whole minute till they can pass me safely, then I'll lose no sleep over it. Should I ever be prosecuted for not keeping left, I will have good reasons for doing so and I am confident I would win the case. I expect it will go the same way as the SA ones many years ago. Zebee |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
Rod Speed wrote:
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Rod Speed wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Pelican wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message ... I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time. He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no cover and can not identify the culprit) It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith. It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city or places like Gosford for use at the other end) There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226738618261. It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The simpler, the better. No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts Dunno. The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already. I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles causing injury to third parties But plenty are caused by the bike coming to bits or just coming off the road with no car involved etc. But not usually involving a third party, I would have thought. against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all bike riders, Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers. a complete new industry No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route. with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall, Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes. which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory building insurance etc, The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes. loads more govt staff to run licensing etc. Not if its just a license with no testing involved. Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... F Murtz wrote: F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats, tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on the dangers of blind curves. OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left when practicable on a bicycle. OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to refer to bicycle lanes I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes http://www.amygillett.org.au/tas-cyc...ic-road-rules/ Corse that doesn't mean that you are legally welcome to run them over if they don't. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Rod Speed wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Rod Speed wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Pelican wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message ... I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time. He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no cover and can not identify the culprit) It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith. It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city or places like Gosford for use at the other end) There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226738618261. It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The simpler, the better. No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts Dunno. The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already. I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles causing injury to third parties But plenty are caused by the bike coming to bits or just coming off the road with no car involved etc. But not usually involving a third party, I would have thought. Doesn't need to involve a third party to be covered by your compulsory insurance. against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all bike riders, Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers. a complete new industry No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route. with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall, Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes. which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory building insurance etc, The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes. loads more govt staff to run licensing etc. Not if its just a license with no testing involved. Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
Yes the cyclists should pay plenty for their licences just as dog and cat owners do. Cat owners don't. Yes they do. http://www.cafepress.com.au/+victori...license-plates See! If cats have to have licence plates, why not cyclists? also: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/cats...eeping-of-cats |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"F Murtz" wrote in message
web.com... You are over-exaggerating the problem. The law already provides a remedy for cyclists with personal or property injuries. The law already provides a remedy for others with personal or property injuries which are the fault of cyclists, but the consequences might be difficult where a cyclist doesn't have funds. That problem can arise in many situations, of course. All that is apparently being considered is a measure to ensure that those injured by cyclists have an effective remedy eg by there being some sort of fund of contributions by cyclists. That need not involve licensing, registration of bikes, annual payments etc etc. It's not an anti-biking measure. Except that utopian idea wont take hold but my over exaggerated idea might as people have a hatred of bicycles (and motor cycles as well )because people see them doing things they cant(even legal things), when they are stuck in traffic, Bicycles drive me nuts too especially having to pass the same rider 10 times on the same bit of road but none of my annoyances would be fixed one iota by registration. Yeah, nothing worse than seeing the same rider over and over again. It would be alright if they were different riders. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
On 14/05/15 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:
Good idea. Ot tattooed on the back of the neck. That'll work real well when I'm wearing a hood under the helmet. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 15 May 2015 16:58:55 +1000
Stuart Longland wrote: On 14/05/15 16:03, Peter Jason wrote: Good idea. Ot tattooed on the back of the neck. That'll work real well when I'm wearing a hood under the helmet. A while back one cold winter a friend of mine was getting petrol for his motorcycle. He fronted up to the counter and the person there demanded he take his fullface helmet off, pointing to the sign that said he must do so. He shrugged and took it off. Revealing the full balaclava underneath.... Zebee |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
On 15/05/15 11:53, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
I certainly take the lane when it is not safe to stay left such as in a lane too narrow for safe passing and with no escape route for me if a car does crowd me. I avoid riding in the centre of the lane because I know it annoys drivers. If I'm in the centre or the extreme right of a lane however, there's usually a good reason for it: - I'm avoiding a hazard (e.g. potholes, debris, car doors) in the far left of the lane. - I'm about to make a right turn in the next few hundred metres. The latter, I'll likely be in the far right of the lane. I'll probably have an indicator flashing too, or I'll be momentarily giving hand signals if that isn't available to me. At last check, it was legal to pass a vehicle on its left when it is making a right turn. I did nearly get taken out yesterday by some pillock who couldn't wait 30 seconds and decided to charge passed me, nearly having a head-on collision with another car. I have a rear facing camera on the bike, and if that collision had occurred, the SD card would be immediately provided as evidence. Thankfully the driver got away with it and no one was hurt, just a couple of us rather rattled by the experience. Personally I don't see why people are in such a hurry. Ever seen peak hour in a major city? It doesn't need cyclists in lanes to help it slow down to sub 20km/hr speeds, it does that all on its own by the sheer volume of cars. In fact the cyclist might do the traffic a favour by forcing a 20km/hr creep instead of the constant start-stop traffic, which puts needless wear and tear on engines and wastes fuel. A mad dash isn't going to get anyone there any faster, and 90% of this argument seems to be about people being in a hurry for no apparent reason. Impatience is the real enemy here, not the driver or the cyclist. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
On Fri, 15 May 2015 10:40:21 +1000, F Murtz
wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has every right to cycle in the middle of the lane Umm, Jesus. Where do I start here with this? 1: They are NOT permitted to be in the middle of the lane (Where in the hell are you getting that from?). They are required to keep as close to the left of the lane as is possible. 2: You describe a life threatening situation as an 'inconvenience'. Are you just trolling these days? and unless the law is changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats, tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on the dangers of blind curves. Mate, you're not well. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Talkback one eyed lunatics | F Murtz[_2_] | Australia | 2 | May 15th 15 07:57 AM |
lunatics or heroes? | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 3 | June 18th 08 03:38 AM |
ABC 774 talkback etc | cfsmtb | Australia | 3 | May 16th 06 04:36 AM |
Clarkson pie-eyed | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 219 | September 28th 05 07:08 AM |
RR: Get away from me you lazy eyed freak | Jimbo(san) | Mountain Biking | 1 | December 2nd 03 01:47 PM |