Re: Police, David Campbell need some perspective: Road rage incident
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> In article <hcaahm$kij$1...@bjf.motzarella.org>,
> B J Foster <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> http://media.smh.com.au/national/breaking-news/bike-rage-do-you-know-this-man-
>> 816174.html
>>
>> It seems clear that the rider was illegally in a transit lane.
>>
>> Looking at the video, it also seems clear that the rider was nearly
>> squashed by the bus.
>>
>> From the comments by the Police and the Transport minister, are we to
>> assume that bus drivers can squash cyclists found riding in a transit lane?
>>
>> Perspective, anyone?
>
> This doesn't seem to be a case of road rage, but rather a bus driver
> being taught a lesson.
And since when is that legal?
> Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in
> the bus lane is no excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by
> a bus.
He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
> David - who has seen many many bus driver act like they own the road
And I've seen many cyclists who think they do. As well as thinking they own
footpaths, etc.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
Phil Allison
"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSC Massive Fuckwit"
>
> David wrote:
>
>> Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in the bus lane is no
>> excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by a bus.
>
> He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
** That is just so blatantly false.
.... Phil
Claude
"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF" <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com ."> wrote in
message news:02f8e6bb$0$1380$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
> He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
>
contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a
base jumper, say, does). He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence
was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on
the 'sin scale' to jaywalking. He expected other road users would treat his
health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting
the road laws. Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by
driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be
seriously injured or killed. While the odds of that might be remote, these
sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate
feel fearful and anxious. It's not surprising that someone who feels their
life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the
culprit.
In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced
in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme
distress.
Phil Allison
"Claude"
>
> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was
> inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the
> cyclist extreme distress.
** Better go read the news stories.
The cyclist earlier damaged the bus, breaking mirrors etc.
No excuse for his engaging in predatory driving of course.
... Phil
Eunometic
> "Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF" <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com ."> wrote in
>
> > He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
>
> There's some fallacious logic here. He put himself in a situation that was
> contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a
> base jumper, say, does).
Possibly he unwittingly put himself in danger. However, just as
possibly (given his attitude) he took the risk.
> He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence
> was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on
> the 'sin scale' to jaywalking.
An offense against the road and traffic act that carries a minor fine
but an offense of lack of common sense that might carry a penalty of
death by the law of the universe. He may as well be riding on a
railway track: it would be safer.
> He expected other road users would treat his
> health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting
> the road laws.
The bus had to cross into the oncomming traffic and did so as much as
it could without wasting several minutes.
The options were:
1 Let dozens of bus passengers arrive late for the sake of one or two
commited cyclists.
2 Move to the verge of the oncomming lane and thus risk the lives of
oncomming motorists and the health of the passengers.
> Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by
> driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be
> seriously injured or killed.
Its not a case of bullying in most instances. There simply isn't a
choice.
I know sever cases of young female pedestrians killed by adult
cyclists smashing into them on footpaths. They're all over some inner
city footpaths (King street Newtown). Hint cyclists don't respect
pedestrians in their haste either. A problem that is getting worse.
Cylists have become some of the most obnoxious and self centered
people on the road.
They just don't get that they live in a densely populated city not a
provincial European ctown. A cyclist on an inappropriate road during
peak hour can hold up dozens of motorists and cause a ripple effect,
so much for them saving road space and fuel.
While the odds of that might be remote, these
> sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate
> feel fearful and anxious. It's not surprising that someone who feels their
> life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the
> culprit.
Cylists are often paraoid and tense (for good reason given the idiocy
of their expectations) Having done long cycle rides through the Royal
National park I know what is like and always give them a wide birth.
I've STILL gotten the finger even after crossing all the way to the
opposit side of the road presumably because I've accelerated briskly
(so that I can get back quickly without lingering in the wrong side)
>
> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced
> in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme
> distress.
The bus was inconvenienced and motorists were endangered. This is
the CBD of Sydney not some cul de sac subburb where there is no though
traffic. Its a Hilly city not suitable for most people to ride a bike
either.
Claude
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7kshjsF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Claude"
>>
>> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was
>> inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the
>> cyclist extreme distress.
>
>
> ** Better go read the news stories.
>
> The cyclist earlier damaged the bus, breaking mirrors etc.
>
That was the cyclist retaliating *after* he felt he had been treated badly.
What I'm saying is that there was no inconvenience to the bus at the time of
their first encounter that might explain whatever aggression the cyclist
evidently believed was directed at him by the driver. The bus appears to
simply have gone around the cyclist without slowing significantly. Of
course had the bus been forced to slow that would not justify aggressive
behaviour, but it might explain why the bus driver behaved badly (as the
cyclist appears to think he did). As it is, I'm forced to the interim
conclusion that *probably* what happened is that the bus driver drove
aggressively (at least in the opinion of the cyclist) simply because he
didn't like the idea of the cyclist being where he wasn't supposed to be.
Epsilon
>
> I'm forced to the interim conclusion that
> *probably* what happened is that the bus driver drove aggressively
> (at least in the opinion of the cyclist) simply because he didn't
> like the idea of the cyclist being where he wasn't supposed to be.
Forced to that interim conclusion, eh? Without knowing anything about the
bus driver's story or the bike-rider's story. I'll bet you are shock jock
fodder.
Phil Allison
"Claude"
> "Phil Allison"
>>> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was
>>> inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the
>>> cyclist extreme distress.
>>
>>
>> ** Better go read the news stories.
>>
>> The cyclist earlier damaged the bus, breaking mirrors etc.
>>
>
> That was the cyclist retaliating *after* he felt he had been treated
> badly.
** Which totally contradicts your claim above.
> What I'm saying is that there was no inconvenience to the bus at the time
> of their first encounter
** You never said anything like that previously.
> The bus appears to simply have gone around the cyclist without slowing
> significantly.
** What video are YOU seeing???
The bus had been deliberately damaged just prior to the incident in the
video.
You have not got the tiniest comprehension of the matter.
.... Phil
Epsilon
> "Claude"
>>
>
> You have not got the tiniest comprehension of the matter.
>
>
>
>
> .... Phil
He's just following your lead.
terryc
> You have not got the tiniest comprehension of the matter.
And when was your arse last on a bicycle seat in Sydney traffic?
I have never seen any bicycle rider get agro because a motor vehicle
overtook them in the correct manner.
Claude
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:cc91817c-06f1-48fa...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>An offense against the road and traffic act that carries a minor fine
>but an offense of lack of common sense that might carry a penalty of
>death by the law of the universe. He may as well be riding on a
>railway track: it would be safer.
He was taking no greater risk than any cyclist does on the roads - their
lives depend on motorists acting responsibly and with a sense of proportion.
Yes, cyclists flout the road laws all the time, but it would be immoral to
drive in a way that endangers cyclists' lives just because of what in the
bigger picture is a minor offence
>The options were:
>1 Let dozens of bus passengers arrive late for the sake of one or two
>commited cyclists.
>2 Move to the verge of the oncomming lane and thus risk the lives of
>oncomming motorists and the health of the passengers.
The video I saw didnt' show too much traffic. It was pretty early in the
morning. Maybe he would've been delayed for 20 seconds waiting for a break
in oncoming traffice. Whatever, you don't endanger someone's life to save
seconds or minutes or even hours
>Its not a case of bullying in most instances. There simply isn't a
>choice.
There's always a choice to wait a bit. This driver could've waited for a
gap in the oncoming traffic.
>I know sever cases of young female pedestrians killed by adult
>cyclists smashing into them on footpaths. They're all over some inner
>city footpaths (King street Newtown). Hint cyclists don't respect
>pedestrians in their haste either. A problem that is getting worse.
I agree completely with you on this point. There is a minority of cyclists
that have essentially made shared recreational bike paths unuseable for
pedestrians, especially those with children. I'm not surprised to hear it
also happens with footpaths
Claude
>
>SLASH AND BURN>
> .... Phil
>
You're just being deliberately obtuse, which makes you a trolling dickhead,
or your just plain stupid
terryc
Please don't encourage the impotent feeble minded trolls.
Claude
"terryc" <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:hcbamm$9e$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:44:27 +0000, Claude wrote:
>
> Please don't encourage the impotent feeble minded trolls.
Yes, lesson learnt
Phil Allison
"Claude is a Moron "
Phil Allison
thread.
"B J Foster"
>
> http://media.smh.com.au/national/breaking-news/bike-rage-do-you-know-this-man-816174.html
>
> It seems clear that the rider was illegally in a transit lane.
** One news report said there was a distinct lack of signs to that effect
and the more were planned to be added soon.
> Looking at the video, it also seems clear that the rider was nearly
> squashed by the bus.
** Looked very deliberate to me.
> From the comments by the Police and the Transport minister, are we to
> assume that bus drivers can squash cyclists found riding in a transit
> lane?
** The police suggested no such thing - imbecile.
> Perspective, anyone?
** If that cyclist HAD been squeezed between the bus and the wall and
seriously injured or killed - the bus driver would be on a criminal
charge.
The previous incident where the cyclist damaged to bus is not shown - but
looks like it upset the driver enough to decide to teach the cyclist a
lesson by engaging in a bit of "predatory driving".
Fact is in NSW, the criminal law relating to " predatory driving " (Crimes
Act, S51A) includes all kinds of motorised or horse drawn vehicles BUT
excludes bicycles. This is not to say, however, that bicyclists are fair
game.
If the bus driver hints to police he was giving the cyclist a bit of pay
back - then he ought to be charged with assault, probably using S61 of the
Crimes Act.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61.html
.... Phil
Eunometic
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:cc91817c-06f1-48fa...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> There's always a choice to wait a bit. This driver could've waited for a
> gap in the oncoming traffic.
Which eventually become untenable once more than a few cyclists start
doing the same thing.
>
> >I know sever cases of young female pedestrians killed by adult
> >cyclists smashing into them on footpaths. They're all over some inner
> >city footpaths (King street Newtown). Hint cyclists don't respect
> >pedestrians in their haste either. A problem that is getting worse.
>
> I agree completely with you on this point. There is a minority of cyclists
> that have essentially made shared recreational bike paths unuseable for
> pedestrians, especially those with children. I'm not surprised to hear it
> also happens with footpaths
Two ladies died in the last few years in Sydney, one older, which
makes me worry about my mother. My wife went to primary school with
a girl whose mother died when she steped on to the footpath in front
of her house one morning and suffered a ruptured spleen when a cyclist
hit her at speed. A cyclist who hurts a member of may family on a
footpath will suffer dearly.
It hideous what we've let happen to roads and how cars have to
dominate them. There are simply no effective motorways and tunnels
to funnel traffic away from residential areas or shopping strips.
Many have to use a suburbun "rat runs" to make reasonable time to
work. Ofcourse adaquet public transport would allow a few people to
leave their cars at home but even that isn't happening.
I recall the Barrie Unsworth ALP government squandered many of the
right of way for freeways by selling it of to developers to close of a
budget deficit.
theo
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >An offense against the road and traffic act that carries a minor fine
> >but an offense of lack of common sense that might carry a penalty of
> >death by the law of the universe. He may as well be riding on a
> >railway track: it would be safer.
>
> He was taking no greater risk than any cyclist does on the roads - their
> lives depend on motorists acting responsibly and with a sense of proportion.
> Yes, cyclists flout the road laws all the time, but it would be immoral to
> drive in a way that endangers cyclists' lives just because of what in the
> bigger picture is a minor offence
When cyclists flout the road laws and get into difficulties they
appear to get outraged at drivers apparent lack of concern for their
personal safety, some other cyclists feel compelled to share their
outrage and berate not only this particular driver, but all other
drivers as well in this newsgroup.
Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a
bus driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a
cyclist got upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by
smashing the cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many
of you would be here defending the bus driver?
Theo
terryc
> When cyclists flout the road laws and get into difficulties
Lol, too hot outide in WA to ride your bicycle Theo?
Instead we have the typical post from Theo, the closet fat arsed cager,
once again blaming the bicycle rider yet again because they were not
lilly white in everything. In this country, if someone does something
illegal, it doesn't give just anyone to right to use lethal force against
them.
> Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a bus
> driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a cyclist got
> upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by smashing the
> cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many of you would be
> here defending the bus driver?
No question, you would be in the front of the queue.
Phil Allison
"theo the loon"
Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a
bus driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a
cyclist got upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by
smashing the cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many
of you would be here defending the bus driver?
** The two scenarios are not compliments.
You are an imbecile.
.... Phil
Claude
"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:a7f55f41-f31b-4050...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Logic, logic. logic. This would only be a valid analogy if the bus driver
felt his safety was put at risk by the cyclist, thus provoking the driver to
get out of the bus and go the biff. Bit hard to see a plausible scenario
where a bicycle could do this?
Claude
>
>>
> ** The two scenarios are not compliments.
>
> You are an imbecile.
>
houses.....etc
Phil Allison
"Claude"
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>> ** The two scenarios are not compliments.
>>
>> You are an imbecile.
>>
> And you are illiterate - the word is 'complements'.
** Blame the spell checker - you pedantic TWAT.
..... Phil
Claude
from 'complement' to 'compliment'? ROFLMAO!
theo
I assume you mean complementary. Thank you for responding in an
entirely predictable manner.
Theo
theo
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:55:44 -0700, theo wrote:
> > When cyclists flout the road laws and get into difficulties
>
> Lol, too hot outide in WA to ride your bicycle Theo?
No, it is a lovely day today, low twenties, but I only did one
leasurely lap of the block early this morning.
> Instead we have the typical post from Theo, the closet fat arsed cager,
> once again blaming the bicycle rider yet again because they were not
> lilly white in everything. In this country, if someone does something
> illegal, it doesn't give just anyone to right to use lethal force against
> them.
I'm not suggesting that at all Terry. Possibly the bus driver pulled
in too early for safety but I doubt that he did that deliberately. He
probably misjudged the speed of the bicycle. Very few people actually
attempt to kill cyclists..
> > Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a bus
> > driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a cyclist got
> > upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by smashing the
> > cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many of you would be
> > here defending the bus driver?
>
> No question, you would be in the front of the queue.
Not at all. I would consider the driver to be in the wrong, as was the
cyclist in the actual scenario.
Theo
terryc
> I'm not suggesting that at all Terry.
The trouble is that you are now suggesting nothing but engaging in the
usual blame the cyclist that you usually do.
> Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists.
Compared to the total number of drivers on the road, but there are enough
already trying to do it and expecting to get away with it.
Claude
> Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than attempted
murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour that carries an
increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
Epsilon
<snigger>
You silly, little, illiterate toaster-boi.
theo
> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
>
> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than attempted
> murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour that carries an
> increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
That is not my experience. Since moving to 55 kms from work nine years
ago I no longer commute. In the fifteen years before that I only found
aggressive drivers in the first two years back on a bike since my
youth. Amazingly, as I bcame more competent and developed what I
considered to be improved roadskills, drivers became better and less
agressive every year. Maybe your city is different to mine. I live in
Perth.
Theo
terryc
> On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
>
>> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
>>
>> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than
>> attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour
>> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
>
> That is not my experience.
You need to ride more.
> Since moving to 55 kms from work nine years ago I no longer commute.
Things are very, very different now. That is like the fabled lands in
driver attitude.
> Amazingly, as I bcame more competent and developed what I considered to
> be improved roadskills, drivers became better and less agressive every
> year.
Lol, Theo reverts to "blame the victim mode once again" and fails to
recognise that he probably became more savy about route and time of
riding.
Zebee Johnstone
terryc <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote:
>>> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than
>>> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
>>
>> That is not my experience.
>
> You need to ride more.
Dunno. I have not been riding much in the last 6 months but for the 2
years before that I was doing 20km each way on Sydney roads.
I didn't find people were trying to kill me.
Most people behaved well. There were dickheads of course, but in
about the same proportion I find them when on the motorcycle or in a
car.
But then as I don't identify as "A cyclist" I suppose I am not very
invested in feeling the world is against me.
Zebee
theo
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
>
> >> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
>
> >> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than
> >> attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour
> >> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
>
> > That is not my experience.
>
> You need to ride more.
15 years of 8,000 kms a year doesn't count then?
> > Since moving to 55 kms from work nine years ago I no longer commute.
>
> Things are very, very different now. That is like the fabled lands in
> driver attitude.
You think driver atitudes have changed that much in nine years? That
is not my experience either using my current various modes of
transport
> > Amazingly, as I bcame more competent and developed what I considered to
> > be improved roadskills, drivers became better and less agressive every
> > year.
>
> Lol, Theo reverts to "blame the victim mode once again" and fails to
> recognise that he probably became more savy about route and time of
> riding.
Whoosh.
Theo
terryc
> On Oct 30, 4:43 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:57 -0700, theo wrote:
>> > On Oct 30, 12:35 pm, "Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote
>>
>> >> > Very few people actually attempt to kill cyclists..
>>
>> >> Agreed, but the main issue is 'attempted manslaughter' rather than
>> >> attempted murder. Too many drivers engage in intimidatory behaviour
>> >> that carries an increased risk of potentially hurting cyclists.
>>
>> > That is not my experience.
>>
>> You need to ride more.
>
> 15 years of 8,000 kms a year doesn't count then?
That was then. You have to be on the road to see and feel it.
I have no doubts that some places haven't but in many places population
increase and more cars competing for same saturated road space has
definitely changed the situation.
David
"Claude" <Cla...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF" <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com ."> wrote in
> message news:02f8e6bb$0$1380$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> >>
> > He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
> >
> There's some fallacious logic here. He put himself in a situation that was
> contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a
> base jumper, say, does). He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence
> was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on
> the 'sin scale' to jaywalking. He expected other road users would treat his
> health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting
> the road laws. Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by
> driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be
> seriously injured or killed. While the odds of that might be remote, these
> sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate
> feel fearful and anxious. It's not surprising that someone who feels their
> life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the
> culprit.
>
> In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced
> in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme
> distress.
Very well said
David
F Murtz
From what I read the driver was inconvenienced. He had to go around the
bicycle a number of times on a road specifically designed so that he
would have no such obstacles
Epsilon
If those facts are correct, the bike-rider is just another one of those who
thinks that he can do as he pleases, and tough luck to everyone else. The
sooner he is squashed, the better.
Patrick Turner
somebody asked....
> >> Perspective, anyone?
>
> > This doesn't seem to be a case of road rage, but rather a bus driver
> > being taught a lesson.
>
> And since when is that legal?
>
> > Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in
> > the bus lane is no excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by
> > a bus.
>
> He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
So its ok if the bus driver runs over the cyclist.
Next time your son or daughter or someone you know is in the wrong
place at the wrong time, don't cry when they lose their life by
"misadventure".
>
> > David - who has seen many many bus driver act like they own the road
Indeed many motorists don't like sharing the same road space.
>
> And I've seen many cyclists who think they do. As well as thinking they own
> footpaths, etc.
I rarely ever see cyclists using footpaths in a dangerous manner.
But here the "cycle paths" are for shared use but excluding motorists.
Having a good loud bell on a bicycle is a good way to let pedestrians
know you are coming along behind them.
They like being belled. Nobody in Canberra exclusively owns any cycle
path or cycle lane. All those who share the paths and lanes here all
get on rather marvellously IMHO. Sure there are isolated incidents of
people having hissy fits and clashes, but that's normal ain't it?
I have deleted your moronic and stupid fucking signature.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:55:44 -0700, theo wrote:
> > When cyclists flout the road laws and get into difficulties
>
> Lol, too hot outide in WA to ride your bicycle Theo?
> Instead we have the typical post from Theo, the closet fat arsed cager,
> once again blaming the bicycle rider yet again because they were not
> lilly white in everything. In this country, if someone does something
> illegal, it doesn't give just anyone to right to use lethal force against
> them.
Indeed we live in a country where we are not allowed to kill people
while they are breaking a road user law.
Those who enforce our laws may arrest, fine, or deal with an offender.
Then there is the issue of a citizen's arrest, and its a minefield for
anyone because a civil liberties lawyer could make a case of
deprivation of freedom, so usually tying up a road rule offender and
carting him to a police station is a dodgy activity which could
backfire.
If an arsole breaks into your house and shoots your wife, and you take
him along to the police and there is certain proof he done it then
maybe you get away with it.
> > Let us look at the opposite scenerio for a second or two. Suppose a bus
> > driver decided to take a shortcut along a bicycle path and a cyclist got
> > upset and yelled at him. If the bus driver retaliated by smashing the
> > cyclists mirror and then assaulted the cyclist, how many of you would be
> > here defending the bus driver?
Such a situation is extremely unlikely to occur.
But I would quite understand a bus driver paddy whacking a cyclist who
nearly caused a death or accident when he clearly should not have.
But there is a point where chastizement turns into a criminal action.
But many a motorist returns the fire after the motorist has threatened
the life of a cyclist who shames the motorist.
I've personally gone out of may way to yell abuse and beat on windows
of vehicles driven by morons who have just nearly run me over while I
was obeying the law. I don't fucking let em get away with it.
To survive on roads with motorists cyclists should make the protests
loud and clear from time to time.
But not all cyclists understand their rights, and certainly don't
always understand their duty of care for themselves and other road/
cycle path users, and they don't always obey road laws.
In the fullness of time, cyclists who refuse to be considerate of how
their road use affects others will pay a price of their activities.
The motorists cannot always get away with intimidating behaviour if
they are spotted, let alone cause a death. Its a plain pain in the
arse if you drive over a cyclist, all those court appearances, fines,
and slaps on the wrist.
Patrick Turner.
F Murtz
> On Oct 29, 1:04 pm, "Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF"
>
> somebody asked....
>>>> Perspective, anyone?
>>> This doesn't seem to be a case of road rage, but rather a bus driver
>>> being taught a lesson.
>> And since when is that legal?
>>
>>> Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in
>>> the bus lane is no excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by
>>> a bus.
>> He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.
>
> So its ok if the bus driver runs over the cyclist.
The bus driver did not run over the cyclist. I do not know why some
cyclists seem to be condoning cyclists putting themselves in danger by
tresspassing on a road they are clearly not supposed to use.This road
is one of the few where buses do the speed limit of 80 kmph (because
the road is mostly empty)(bicycles do not do 80)
Peter Cremasco
> The bus driver did not run over the cyclist. I do not know why some
> cyclists seem to be condoning cyclists putting themselves in danger by
> tresspassing on a road they are clearly not supposed to use.This road
> is one of the few where buses do the speed limit of 80 kmph (because
> the road is mostly empty)(bicycles do not do 80)
Pardon the - what may seem to be a - really silly question but..... does
anyone know whether the cyclist actually KNEW he wasn't supposed to be
in that lane?
Zebee Johnstone
Until they find him no one will know for sure.
I recall seeing "Bus only" signs and much argument about bikes not
being allowed, but I don't know how good the signage is.
I wouldn't ride it as it's clear there's bugger all room for anything
but buses.
Zebee
F Murtz
separate walled off two way road with every entrance that I have seen
saying buses only.
It is a complete waste of money and space,it is almost always empty with
just an occasional bus doing 80 as no one is allowed to use it.
It is a pity motor cycles are not allowed, they would not cause any
inconvenience to buses but it would not be suitable for bicycles.
It has one narrow lane each way and slow bicycles would just block it.