more bike bashing ?
alx
So, 94 extra deaths than last year, of which the increased motorcycle
deaths represents less than a quarter (21 increase).
Take out the bicycles (increase of 8..more than doubled..) and still
left with a conclusion that runaway road toll should be blamed on rise
in cars, trucks, buses and pedestrians as the majority contributor to
the increase (breakdown unknown from article).
Yes, as per usual, motorcyclists are over-represented in the stats as
a proportion of road users however is it statistically valid to assert
that the "runaway" toll increase is to be blamed ("a major cause of
the sharp increase ") on a group that (by numbers) represents less
than a third of the increase compared with non-2 wheeled deaths? (65)
Darn stats! Always makes for a good story and headline.
*****************
http://www.smh.com.au/national/runaway-road-toll-blamed-on-rise-in-motorcycle-use-20091120-iqva.html
ROAD safety experts say the growing popularity of motorcycles and the
recovery in the economy are behind the spike in the state's road toll.
The director of the NSW Government's Centre for Road Safety, Soames
Job, said a major cause of the sharp increase in the road toll - up
from 321 deaths in 2008 to 415 deaths in 2009, as of Wednesday - was
the increase in ''two-wheel vehicles''.
He said that as of midnight on Thursday, motorcycle fatalities stood
at 65 for 2009, compared with 44 fatalities for the same time last
year, while the number of deaths of bicycle riders had more than
doubled in the same period, from six to 14.
The Minister for Transport, David Campbell, said that following the
steep rise this year - even before the traditional Christmas party
season begins - the Government held an emergency road safety meeting
and implemented an action plan. It included increasing the number of
highway patrol officers and deploying them in known black spots and
introducing hard-line sanctions for high-level speeding offences.
''This year's road toll has already surpassed last year's total and
that is simply not good enough,'' he told the Herald.
Two children, aged 11 and 15, were killed and two teenagers critically
injured on the mid-North Coast late on Thursday night after the car
they were travelling in crashed into a power pole at high speed.
Police said a 16-year-old female learner driver had taken the 2004
model Mazda 3 sedan out unsupervised.
Senior Constable Jason Bentley, of the Port Macquarie Crash Unit,
said: ''They were travelling at high speed and overtaking other cars …
and there were a lot of witnesses. She panicked as she was overtaking
the cars and lost control.''
Dr Job said motorcyclists and cyclists were especially at risk riding
on sharp curves on country roads or at busy city intersections. He has
raised the possibility of new laws requiring the riders of mopeds and
motor scooters to wear protective clothing in addition to helmets.
In January, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries reported that
motorcycle sales had ''soared to record levels''.
Dr Stuart Newstead, a senior researcher at Monash University's
Accident Research Centre, said motorcycles had increased in popularity
because of traffic congestion in cities such as Sydney, easier parking
and drivers wanting vehicles that were cheaper to run and, in many
cases, created lower carbon emissions. But with their popularity came
a 25 per cent increase in motorcycle fatalities since 2004.
Dr Newstead also suggested higher overall road tolls were often
related to growing affluence because the wealthier people felt, the
more discretionary trips they made in their cars. Economic growth also
meant more trucks carting goods were on the road, increasing
motorists' exposure to risk of an accident.
Nev..
And this is exactly the point where the police and politicians who are
"responsible" (ie the ones who take all of the credit if the road toll
decreases) need to explain why they have failed. We constantly hear
about changes to laws, increased restrictions, increased enforcement etc
to make the roads safer, and yet clearly this is not the case. It's so
easy for them to take all of the credit in any reductions and then blame
'motorists' for any increases in the toll. It's a dream job. They
can't lost. The public and the media should be hanging them upside down
from a building by their toenails demanding an explanation for the
increase in the road toll.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
hippo
>
> "Runaway road toll blamed on rise in motorcycle use" (article below)
>
> So, 94 extra deaths than last year, of which the increased motorcycle
> deaths represents less than a quarter (21 increase).
>
> Take out the bicycles (increase of 8..more than doubled..) and still
> left with a conclusion that runaway road toll should be blamed on rise
> in cars, trucks, buses and pedestrians as the majority contributor to
> the increase (breakdown unknown from article).
>
> Yes, as per usual, motorcyclists are over-represented in the stats as
> a proportion of road users however is it statistically valid to assert
> that the "runaway" toll increase is to be blamed ("a major cause of
> the sharp increase ") on a group that (by numbers) represents less
> than a third of the increase compared with non-2 wheeled deaths? (65)
>
> Darn stats! Always makes for a good story and headline.
>
> *****************
>
Just looking at that final paragraph, if we get a significant amount of
long haul freight back onto rail instead of road, that should help matters
too. I suppose that even, "More Rail Freight Could Curb Savage Road Toll"
wouldn't sell quite as many papers though. Cheers
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
CrazyCam
<snip>
> Dr Job said motorcyclists and cyclists were especially at risk riding
> on sharp curves on country roads or at busy city intersections. He has
> raised the possibility of new laws requiring the riders of mopeds and
> motor scooters to wear protective clothing in addition to helmets.
The director of the NSW Government's Centre for Road Safety, Soames
Job,....
Fucking brilliant!
The head honcho for road safety, and he doesn't know there aren't any
mopeds in NSW. :-(
regards,
CrazyCam
George W Frost
"CrazyCam" <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b086027$0$5420$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Sounds more like Soames Job needs another type of Job
maybe head patient at the psych centre
Hammo
On 22/11/09 8:48 AM, in article
4b086027$0$5420$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Not just a case of potato vs potato?
H
CrazyCam
No.
Other states, Q'land,SA and WA, have a "moped" deal.
Car drivers don't need a licence or any training, they can just get on a
"moped", usually an automatic scooter of less than 50cc engine size, and
ride it.
In NSW, you have to have a licence for scooter or a motorcycle.
regards,
CrazyCam
Hammo
On 22/11/09 9:48 AM, in article
4b086e4d$0$5422$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
Does his comment mean that he is describing powered two wheeled bikes other
than motorcycles as either mopeds or scooters?
H
theo
> Hammo wrote:
>
> > On 22/11/09 8:48 AM, in article
> > <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> alx wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Dr Job said motorcyclists and cyclists were especially at risk riding
> >>> on sharp curves on country roads or at busy city intersections. He has
> >>> raised the possibility of new laws requiring the riders of mopeds and
> >>> motor scooters to wear protective clothing in addition to helmets.
> >> The director of the NSW Government's Centre for Road Safety, Soames
> >> Job,....
>
> >> Fucking brilliant!
>
> >> The head honcho for road safety, and he doesn't know there aren't any
> >> mopeds in NSW. :-(
>
> > Not just a case of potato vs potato?
>
> No.
>
> Other states, Q'land,SA and WA, have a "moped" deal.
>
> Car drivers don't need a licence or any training, they can just get on a
> "moped", usually an automatic scooter of less than 50cc engine size, and
> ride it.
>
> In NSW, you have to have a licence for scooter or a motorcycle.
The RAC in WA is trying to get that overturned so that we will need a
moped licence before we can ride one.
Theo
CrazyCam
<snip>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear.
> Does his comment mean that he is describing powered two wheeled bikes other
> than motorcycles as either mopeds or scooters?
I dunno <shrug>, but I'd expect someone in his position to know that a
moped is a class of vehicle which doesn't exist in NSW.
I wonder if this Job character has any kind of certificate to show that
he knows what he is doing? :-P
regards,
CrazyCam
Lars Chance
> Sorry, I wasn't clear.
> Does his comment mean that he is describing powered two wheeled bikes other
> than motorcycles as either mopeds or scooters?
>
Wouldn't it be wonderful to think that someone in Govco actually
understands enough about two-wheelers to know what the "ped" in moped means!
On another tack; non-motorised treadlies generally go a bog-load faster
than motorised ones do so it'd be peculiar that they'd be omitted if
that's the case. (1)
(1) We don't have (legal) petrol ones in my state so I'm only basing
that on the electric ones I see.
--
Elsie.
CrazyCam
<snip>
> Wouldn't it be wonderful to think that someone in Govco actually
> understands enough about two-wheelers to know what the "ped" in moped
> means!
<Cough> The ped bit fell by the wayside many years ago.
regards,
CrazyCam
alx
Licencing bicycle riders would be a better money earner for the NSW
guvvament.
Zebee Johnstone
alx <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Licencing bicycle riders would be a better money earner for the NSW
> guvvament.
DOubt it.
Because you have to decide whether you licence children and if so how
much for.
Then you have to charge enough to cover the admin costs. Which is
quite a lot.
THen you have to work out how you are going to enforce it.
Dunno why people think this "licence" thing is going to solve any
problems. It isn't as if it has before.
Zebee
G-S
There are pedal mopeds all over the place down here, but they have this
silly 200 watt restriction.
Yes yes... you are going to call them 'electric assist bicycles' which
is silly I reckon.
A moped means pedals.
What you're talking about (and some silly government nongs misused the
word for) are low powered scooters. [1]
G-S
[1] And yes I approve of car drivers being able to drive speed
restricted low power scooters.
Kevin Gleeson
Didn't Job get tried by this mythical religious person? Probably
fogged his senses.
George W Frost
"alx" <alx...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4094e92-e19a-48d1...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
***********************************
Sure, and it will have the same effect as the helmet law they brought in
which not many seem to abide by
F Murtz
main roads in peak hour and a few inconsiderate city couriers. children
are not a problem, not many children are silly enough to use main roads
in peak. Bicycles are not a problem on suburban streets.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> Dunno why people think this "licence" thing is going to solve any
>> problems. It isn't as if it has before.
>>
> main roads in peak hour and a few inconsiderate city couriers. children
> are not a problem, not many children are silly enough to use main roads
> in peak. Bicycles are not a problem on suburban streets.
Oddly enough, I've not been a problem on main roads in peak hour
either, as I filter through and overtake the majority of traffic.
People might *perceive* that I hold them up an extra 10 seconds, but
once I've filtered through past them at the next parking lot, they'll
still be stuck behind the same car they were stuck behind 10 minutes
ago.
'course, I have gotten rid of that problem these days. Some mornings
I don't see any traffic in an hour and a half, but a few sleepy 'roos.
--
TimC
Actually, I was most impressed when I looked up into the London sky and saw a
star through all the light pollution. A few of us checked a few astronomy
references to try and identify it, and we're reasonably confident that it was
Sol. -- Peter Corlett in ASR
Lars Chance
think was Hammo's point).
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
>
> The only reason motorists push for bicycle licensing is pushbikes on
> main roads in peak hour and a few inconsiderate city couriers. children
> are not a problem, not many children are silly enough to use main roads
> in peak. Bicycles are not a problem on suburban streets.
>
It's just a sour "why should *they* get away with it..." mentality same
as it is when they see someone else speeding or they whinge about
lane-splitting motorcycles!
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
motor/pedal vehicles that he might've been referring to.
--
Elsie.
alx
> In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
>
>
> > Licencing bicycle riders would be a better money earner for the NSW
> > guvvament.
>
> DOubt it.
>
> Because you have to decide whether you licence children and if so how
> much for.
>
> Then you have to charge enough to cover the admin costs. Which is
> quite a lot.
>
> THen you have to work out how you are going to enforce it.
>
> Dunno why people think this "licence" thing is going to solve any
> problems. It isn't as if it has before.
>
> Zebee
You have set out a few sensible arguments. This would far exceed the
grasp of the NSW guvvament people. I would never dare suggest that
it's a good idea or a revenue positive initiative.
alx
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
>
> >> Licencing bicycle riders would be a better money earner for the NSW
> >> guvvament.
>
> > DOubt it.
>
> > Because you have to decide whether you licence children and if so how
> > much for.
>
> > Then you have to charge enough to cover the admin costs. Which is
> > quite a lot.
>
> > THen you have to work out how you are going to enforce it.
>
> > Dunno why people think this "licence" thing is going to solve any
> > problems. It isn't as if it has before.
>
> > Zebee
>
> The only reason motorists push for bicycle licensing is pushbikes on
> main roads in peak hour and a few inconsiderate city couriers. children
> are not a problem, not many children are silly enough to use main roads
> in peak. Bicycles are not a problem on suburban streets.
But look at the stats! More than double increase! OMG think of the
children etc etc etc if it saves just one life....The guvvament must
do something about this carnage on the road etc etc.
CrazyCam
<snip>
> There are pedal mopeds all over the place down here, but they have this
> silly 200 watt restriction.
>
> Yes yes... you are going to call them 'electric assist bicycles' which
> is silly I reckon.
I wouldn't call them that, Geoff.
The 200 watt restriction basically stops them being motor vehicles.
Once some thing is a motor vehicle, it then has to comply with
regulations for motor vehicles.
> A moped means pedals.
Yes, and then again, no.
Australia has never really had much of a history of mopeds, while Europe
had millions of the buggers.
Originally, they did have pedals, but then again, if you look far enough
back in history, some quite large capacity motorcycles also had pedals.
The mere fact of having pedals wasn't the sole qualifier for a moped,
and then, some time in the sixties, most countries removed the
requirement for pedals on a moped, but left the power and/or speed
limitations for a class of vehicle which continued to be commonly
referred to as "mopeds".
> What you're talking about (and some silly government nongs misused the
> word for) are low powered scooters.
..or, some times, low powered motorcycles.
Another commonly used measure of a "moped" is a max power output of 2.4 bhp.
regards,
CrazyCam
Diogenes
In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
> Dunno why people think this "licence" thing is going to solve any
> problems.
I'm coming into this thread not having read the earlier bits, so maybe
this has already been said, but licensing could mean that:
[1] You had to demonstrate that you understood the road rules in
order to qualify for a license. That would bicycle-specific rules.
[2] You could be charged for breaking the rules and that these
charges form a record of your behaviour on the road which would be of
assistance to magistrates.
[3] Age restrictions for riding on certain roads could be applied and
policed.
> �It isn't as if it has before.
Huh? Are you seriously arguing that licensing (of any kind) has not
solved any problems?
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
theo
> A moped means pedals.
>
> What you're talking about (and some silly government nongs misused the
> word for) are low powered scooters. [1]
> [1] And yes I approve of car drivers being able to drive speed
> restricted low power scooters.
In WA moped officially means
Moped
A motorcycle that has a propelling engine having a piston
displacement not exceeding 50 cc and which is designed so as to be
capable of a speed not exceeding 60 kilometres per hour.
Licence Class R-N Minimum age 16. My 15 yo grandson has a learners
permit for this class at the moment. He will be able to get his
licence next May when he turns 16. Meanwhile he can ride around on L's
as long as his mum or dad are with him.
Theo
George W Frost
"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:4f06fde3-2bcb-4cbf...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Theo
*****************************
On a moped ??
CrazyCam
<snip>
> The mere fact of having pedals wasn't the sole qualifier for a moped,
> and then, some time in the sixties, most countries removed the
> requirement for pedals on a moped, but left the power and/or speed
> limitations for a class of vehicle which continued to be commonly
> referred to as "mopeds".
Ooops.... I was wrong. Not all that unusual, just ask Angie!
It was, apparently the seventies that the pedal business got disappeared
in various places.
For further edification, see:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
regards,
CrazyCam
Andrew
> On Nov 22, 8:51 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote: In
> aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
>
>> It isn't as if it has before.
>
> Huh? Are you seriously arguing that licensing (of any kind) has not
> solved any problems?
>
> =================
>
> Onya bike
>
> Gerry
I think the argument is rather that the current road toll is made up
(mainly) of licensed riders and drivers, their unwitting passengers,
other innocent road users and equally innocent bystanders. If licensing
car and bike users still leaves a road toll, why would licensing cyclists
achieve anything?
It's possible to understand the argument without agreeing with it, mind.
--
Regards
Andrew
Hammo
On 22/11/09 11:18 PM, in article
e_9Om.56719$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Lars Chance"
<lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
....although. I can see why one might use the term moped.
www.rta.nsw.gov.au/.../vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_
2008.pdf
H
Lars Chance
> For further edification, see:-
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
>
OK; to summarise, moped means Motor/Pedal and thus includes
power-assisted bicycles but various people, organisations, manufacturers
and Governments have mangled and bastardised the term and it's now
widely used to describe small-scooters. [1]
Many Australian State Governments have a moped vehicle classification
and/or licence classification but all refer just to small scooters (with
specific limitations).
NSW does *not* have a moped licence/vehicle classification but people
there also refer to small-scooters as mopeds. [2]
That it?
--
Elsie.
[1] I get the mild shits when this happens.
[2] Crazycam gets the medium shits when this happens.
Lars Chance
> In WA moped officially means
>
> Moped
> A motorcycle that has a propelling engine having a piston
> displacement not exceeding 50 cc and which is designed so as to be
> capable of a speed not exceeding 60 kilometres per hour.
>
> Licence Class R-N Minimum age 16. My 15 yo grandson has a learners
> permit for this class at the moment. He will be able to get his
> licence next May when he turns 16. Meanwhile he can ride around on L's
> as long as his mum or dad are with him.
>
60?!!?
Most of the states limit it to a less workable 50.
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
> In WA moped officially means
>
> Moped
> A motorcycle that has a propelling engine having a piston
> displacement not exceeding 50 cc and which is designed so as to be
> capable of a speed not exceeding 60 kilometres per hour.
>
> Licence Class R-N Minimum age 16. My 15 yo grandson has a learners
> permit for this class at the moment. He will be able to get his
> licence next May when he turns 16. Meanwhile he can ride around on L's
> as long as his mum or dad are with him.
>
Lars Chance
>
> ....although. I can see why one might use the term moped.
>
> www.rta.nsw.gov.au/.../vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_
> 2008.pdf
>
they then don't offer any different licencing or registration on that
classification, instead making users pay the same and use the same
licences as for motorcycles.
I had more luck with this link:
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_2008.pdf>
--
Elsie.
(The cynic in me says that the NSW classification exists *solely* to
stop people using "mopeds" to do motorcycle licence tests.)
Lars Chance
>
> ....although. I can see why one might use the term moped.
>
> www.rta.nsw.gov.au/.../vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_
> 2008.pdf
>
Lars Chance
Lars Chance wrote:
>
Bloody hell; I'm seeing double!
--
Elsie.
Nev..
> Hammo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sorry, I wasn't clear.
>> Does his comment mean that he is describing powered two wheeled bikes
>> other
>> than motorcycles as either mopeds or scooters?
>
> I dunno <shrug>, but I'd expect someone in his position to know that a
> moped is a class of vehicle which doesn't exist in NSW.
I dunno. Just because you're involved in one part of an industry or
something doesn't mean that you know all of the associated lingo, or
understand why it is used. I was riding motorbikes on the road for over
15 years and was a quite proficient lane splitter through high speed,
low speed and stationary traffic before I started hearing people on L
and P plates telling me that lane splitting and lane filtering were two
different things and one was good and one was evil. *shrug* Just
because someone knows the lingo doesn't mean they understand it or have
any particular proficiency... and vice versa.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
CrazyCam
<snip>
> Hmmm.. OK so NSW *does* have a moped vehicle-classification; just that
> they then don't offer any different licencing or registration on that
> classification, instead making users pay the same and use the same
> licences as for motorcycles.
OK, they have a document acknowledging the existence of the class, but,
in effect, lump them in with any other motorbike or scooter. :-(
A difference that makes no difference...... right.
I hadn't known that.
> (The cynic in me says that the NSW classification exists *solely* to
> stop people using "mopeds" to do motorcycle licence tests.)
When the pre-learners course was first established, the RTA chose, and
owned, the fleet of bikes used by the various schools running the
courses. There was usually at least one 49cc automatic scooter at each
school.
I dunno when that situation ceased.
For the MOST, provided it is a legal and roadworthy bike, they have to
allow folk to be tested on whatever they ride up on. Only the gear
changing mechanism makes any difference.
regards,
CrazyCam
alx
>
> For the MOST, provided it is a legal and roadworthy bike, they have to
> allow folk to be tested on whatever they ride up on. Only the gear
> changing mechanism makes any difference.
>
> regards,
> CrazyCam
Bizarrely, provided you do the pre-learners on a manual bike, you can
do the MOST on a scooter and still score a manual licence.
The pre-learners qualification determines the licence type (auto or
manual)...unless that's changed in the last few months.
alx
Couldnt get to the other link but this from the main RTA page (left
menu):-
"
Power-assisted pedal cycles discussion paper
The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) is proposing a new definition
for power-assisted pedal cycles through a discussion paper. This
addresses the need for a revised standard and description of the
characteristics of a power-assisted pedal cycle that is exempt from
registration without creating a new category of vehicle.
This paper is the latest step of a series of initiatives to develop a
national strategy in Australia to apply consistent design standards
and registration requirements for power-assisted pedal cycles (PAPCs).
A new definition is recommended along with the appropriate
justification and analysis with the emphasis on road safety.
Involving the community
A discussion paper has been prepared and is the basis for a nation-
wide consultation process aimed at seeking stakeholder views on the
proposed new definition for a power-assisted pedal cycle.
How to give feedback
The submission period on this issue closed on 30 June 2009.
"
alx
And they won't (or shouldn't) allow you to do the test on a non-LAMS
bike.
CrazyCam
That's what I meant by a legal bike.
regards,
CrazyCam
alx
Priceless moments...turning up to do MOST on a Rocket 3
Zebee Johnstone
If you can do the MOST on one, they'd probably give it to you.
I'll sell the tickets!
Zebee
Diogenes
<lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(The cynic in me says that the NSW classification exists *solely* to
>stop people using "mopeds" to do motorcycle licence tests.)
I don't see anywhere that it says a moped owner can't use their moped
to do their (required) motorcycle riders license tests.
"Please explain."
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Diogenes
<amckNOS...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:01 +1100, Diogenes wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 8:51�pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote: In
>> aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
>>
>>> �It isn't as if it has before.
>>
>> Huh? Are you seriously arguing that licensing (of any kind) has not
>> solved any problems?
>I think the argument is rather that the current road toll is made up
>(mainly) of licensed riders and drivers, their unwitting passengers,
>other innocent road users and equally innocent bystanders. If licensing
>car and bike users still leaves a road toll, why would licensing cyclists
>achieve anything?
You really need me to explain that to you?
[sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers
and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
one we would get if no licensing were required. I take that to be a
given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
roads).
Hence my question to Zebee (to which he, although he is a great bloke,
has not yet replied.)
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
theo
> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> In WA moped officially means
>
> Moped
> A motorcycle that has a propelling engine having a piston
> displacement not exceeding 50 cc and which is designed so as to be
> capable of a speed not exceeding 60 kilometres per hour.
>
> Licence Class R-N Minimum age 16. My 15 yo grandson has a learners
> permit for this class at the moment. He will be able to get his
> licence next May when he turns 16. Meanwhile he can ride around on L's
> as long as his mum or dad are with him.
>
> Theo
>
> *****************************
>
> On a moped ??
In WA as I believe in QLD, you must have an accompanying 'instructor'
when on L plates. The law says that that person may be riding another
motor cycle or be a pillion on the learners bike. I don't think I've
ever seen the second option exercised.
Theo
theo
> Ooops.... I was wrong. Not all that unusual, just ask Angie!
>
> It was, apparently the seventies that the pedal business got disappeared
> in various places.
>
> For further edification, see:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
In WA, the redefinition of mopeds was due largely to a campaign by the
legendary Ted Stolarski.
Theo
theo
The above definition was cut and pasted from the Dept of Transport
website. However, intro models like the V-Moto Milan can't do 60.
Theo
theo
> [sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers
> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
> one we would get if no licensing were required. I take that to be a
> given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
> roads).
In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964.
There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden
increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year.
Theo
Who was once cautioned for riding an unlicensed bicycle and went and
paid the 2/6 next day.
Pietro
news:efdmg5tnovfddv0hk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:35:38 GMT, Andrew
> <amckNOS...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Hence my question to Zebee (to which he, although he is a great bloke,
> has not yet replied.)
Maybe that is because you directed your question to alx - who has in fact
replied...
P
HTH
HAND
Diogenes
<theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 9:37锟絘m, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote:
>> [sigh] 锟紻'oh... OK, here we go: 锟絀 posit that the licensing of drivers
>> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
>> one we would get if no licensing were required. 锟絀 take that to be a
>> given. 锟紾iven this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
>> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
>> roads).
>In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964.
>There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden
>increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year.
I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. By licensing
the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road
rules knowledge and riding skills testable items.
Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the
introduction of such licensing. It follows therefore that no impact
on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension
of such licensing.
Your innunedo is that of an imbecile. Keep it up.
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
theo
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo
>
> >> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
> >> given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
> >> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
> >> roads).
> >In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964.
> >There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden
> >increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year.
>
> I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. By licensing
> the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road
> rules knowledge and riding skills testable items.
>
> Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the
> introduction of such licensing. It follows therefore that no impact
> on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension
> of such licensing.
So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on
the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced?
Theo
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:35:38 GMT, Andrew
><amckNOS...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:01 +1100, Diogenes wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 8:51�pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote: In
>>> aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
>>>
>>>> �It isn't as if it has before.
>>>
>>> Huh? Are you seriously arguing that licensing (of any kind) has not
>>> solved any problems?
>
>>I think the argument is rather that the current road toll is made up
>>(mainly) of licensed riders and drivers, their unwitting passengers,
>>other innocent road users and equally innocent bystanders. If licensing
>>car and bike users still leaves a road toll, why would licensing cyclists
>>achieve anything?
>
>You really need me to explain that to you?
>
>[sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers
>and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
>one we would get if no licensing were required.
I dunno how you can claim that. I tend to agree with it but there is
no logical sequence I can see that goes from someone having a licence
to lowering of death toll. I can see a logical sequence from training
to lowering of death toll, but unless that licence is made out of
bullet proof armour, it makes not a smeg of difference.
So yes, I really do need you to explain it to me.
Pietro
news:k2img5lo4mitqs30i...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok>
> wrote:
>
>>You really need me to explain that to you?
>>
>>[sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers
>>and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
>>one we would get if no licensing were required.
>
> I dunno how you can claim that. I tend to agree with it but there is
> no logical sequence I can see that goes from someone having a licence
> to lowering of death toll. I can see a logical sequence from training
> to lowering of death toll, but unless that licence is made out of
> bullet proof armour, it makes not a smeg of difference.
>
> So yes, I really do need you to explain it to me.
Doesn't the having of the license mean that you had done the required
traing? (are we back in the certification thread again?)
P
alx
my bike would prob fail an iq test, let alone a knowledge test.
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
Not nerecessily. Training people to not park 2m from a corner or
learning how to reverse park is not going to save many lives as far as
I can see. I still don't see that bit of paper doing anything but keep
track of cars, creating revenue, etc. The fuckwits that die from
stupidity are often unlicenced anyway, so that bit of paper didn't
save the stats did it?
Diogenes
<theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 10:40锟絘m, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo
>>
>> <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Nov 24, 9:37锟絘m, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote:
>> >> [sigh] 锟紻'oh... OK, here we go: 锟絀 posit that the licensing of drivers
>> >> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
>> >> one we would get if no licensing were required. 锟絀 take that to be a
>> >> given. 锟紾iven this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
>> >> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
>> >> roads).
>> >In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964.
>> >There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden
>> >increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year.
>>
>> I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. 锟紹y licensing
>> the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road
>> rules knowledge and riding skills testable items.
>>
>> Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the
>> introduction of such licensing. 锟絀t follows therefore that no impact
>> on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension
>> of such licensing.
>So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on
>the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced?
Motor vehicles are not licensed. There is a requirement that they be
registered. To be registered, requires that they are roadworthy. If
such a requirement did not exist, then arguably this would impact the
road toll.
Your problem is? What kind of a bean counter were you anyway? From
what I've seen so far in this NG, I wouldn't place my meagre finances
under your watchfull eye, I can tell you that much for nothing, Theo.
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
George W Frost
"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:253b4ba9-ca85-4d16...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Theo
********************************
Just trying to visualize a 15year old riding a moped with his mother on the
back.
Zebee Johnstone
Kevin Gleeson <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
> Not nerecessily. Training people to not park 2m from a corner or
> learning how to reverse park is not going to save many lives as far as
> I can see. I still don't see that bit of paper doing anything but keep
> track of cars, creating revenue, etc. The fuckwits that die from
> stupidity are often unlicenced anyway, so that bit of paper didn't
> save the stats did it?
I'd say the majority of drivers who die are licenced.
(We know a high percentage of fatal motorcycle crashes are unlicenced
but that's cos dirt bikes get counted if they are within spitting
distance of a road)
What we don't know is how many would die if we didn't have licences.
Is whatever it takes to get a licence stopping them dying?
As new drivers are over-represented in crash stats I dunno it is.
Zebee
George W Frost
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:29:43 +0930, "Pietro" <no...@dontbesilly.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Kevin Gleeson" <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:k2img5lo4mitqs30i...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok>
>
> learning how to reverse park is not going to save many lives as far as
> I can see.
Now Kev, you are not trying to say that all drivers can reverse park are
you?
Training people to reverse park, doesn't automatically make them into a
great reverase parker.
Yet, they still seem to get their piece of paper
I would make a guesstimation that only 15% of drivers can revers park
properly
So, with that rate, how many of them can actually drive properly?
Too many learner drivers are getting through the testing system with only
the basic knowledge of driving abilities
Make them work harder for it and pass all tests with no demerits at all.
None of this : "Oh, you missed the complete stop at the sign and almost hit
the pedestrian, but you were great at driving in a straight line so, here is
your licence"
Diogenes
wrote:
Maybe if you ACTUALLY read my message PROPERLY, you'll see that it was
reponding to Zebee's comment.
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Diogenes
Well, Kev, me old mate, I think it's fair to say that licencing
brings with it the applicant's need to demonstrate a reasonably
detailed knowledge and understanding of the road rules. With me so
far? Good.
Now, I think it is also fair to say that if no licencing regime
existed, things would get pretty chaotic on the roads, and this would
arguably lead to a greater death toll.
What's so hard to understand?
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Kevin Gleeson
<zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:25:32 +1100
>Kevin Gleeson <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>> Not nerecessily. Training people to not park 2m from a corner or
>> learning how to reverse park is not going to save many lives as far as
>> I can see. I still don't see that bit of paper doing anything but keep
>> track of cars, creating revenue, etc. The fuckwits that die from
>> stupidity are often unlicenced anyway, so that bit of paper didn't
>> save the stats did it?
>
>I'd say the majority of drivers who die are licenced.
Agreed, not arguing that, but I think we are both making the same
point. Just because they are licenced does not stop them dying. 99.9%
of drivers are licenced I would imagine. Removing the licence from
them is not going to keep them alive. My point was more that if
someone who is going to drive in a dangerous situation has their
licence removed, they will still drive. Similarly the mentality that
puts someone like that on the road is not going to save them even if
they have the piece of paper - or probably driver training in some
cases. Tick, tick, tick.
>(We know a high percentage of fatal motorcycle crashes are unlicenced
>but that's cos dirt bikes get counted if they are within spitting
>distance of a road)
>
>What we don't know is how many would die if we didn't have licences.
>Is whatever it takes to get a licence stopping them dying?
Not at the moment.
>As new drivers are over-represented in crash stats I dunno it is.
Agreed.
Although there is also a thought that no matter how much training you
give young drivers, you will struggle to take the testosterone out
plus experience can only be gained by being out there. Chuck in some
common sense helps though.
Considering the crazy shit I've done on open roads, race tracks, off
road and in the sky, I should be dead. SRSLY. So I guess you have to
throw a bundle lof luck into the formula too.
Kevin Gleeson
<george...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Kevin Gleeson" <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message
>news:tsnmg5hkevmhs93b1...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:29:43 +0930, "Pietro" <no...@dontbesilly.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Kevin Gleeson" <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:k2img5lo4mitqs30i...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok>
>>
>> Not nerecessily. Training people to not park 2m from a corner or
>> learning how to reverse park is not going to save many lives as far as
>> I can see.
>
>
>Now Kev, you are not trying to say that all drivers can reverse park are
>you?
Point taken
Pietro
Maybe if you were ACTUALLY responding to Zebee you should have ACTUALLY
responded to Zebee...
P
Just a thought mind you
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
OK, so where do I line up for my pedestrian licence?
I'm not saying people shouldn't be licenced. That would be silly.
"Ooh, is it OK if I have a go at flying this 747 to London? Ripper
mate, thanks".
I just don't see any connection between current drivers/riders
licences having much effect on the road toll.
George W Frost
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:08 +1100, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:46:35 +1100, Kevin Gleeson
>><keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:35:38 GMT, Andrew
>>>><amckNOS...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:01 +1100, Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 22, 8:51 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote: In
>>>>>> aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
>>
>
> OK, so where do I line up for my pedestrian licence?
>
Bloody great idea Kev,
Not for you, but for the total pedestrian population,
then maybe we will not have so many pedestrian deaths if they know what
their responsibilities are and not throw the blame all the time onto the
vehicle driver/rider.
G-S
motorbike license.
G-S
Diogenes
wrote:
>"Diogenes" <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote in message
>news:m5smg5dbnsq4i9rft...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:10:24 +0930, "Pietro" <no...@dontbesilly.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Diogenes" <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote in message
>>>news:efdmg5tnovfddv0hk...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:35:38 GMT, Andrew
>>>> <amckNOS...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Hence my question to Zebee (to which he, although he is a great bloke,
>>>> has not yet replied.)
>>>
>>>Maybe that is because you directed your question to alx - who has in fact
>>>replied...
>>
>> Maybe if you ACTUALLY read my message PROPERLY, you'll see that it was
>> reponding to Zebee's comment.
>
>Maybe if you were ACTUALLY responding to Zebee you should have ACTUALLY
>responded to Zebee...
Pietro, Pietro, Pietro...
I see you STILL can't read PROPERLY...
Here, I'll explicate it for you:
My message started with: "On Nov 22, 8:51�pm, Zebee Johnstone
<zeb...@gmail.com> wrote: In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009
01:15:45 -0800 (PST)"
Get it? I said "Zebee said".
And THEN I followed with a comment made by Zebee, to wit: "Dunno why
people think this 'licence' thing is going to solve any problems."
So, how was this NOT responding to what Zebee said?
>Just a thought mind you
Oh... Is THAT what you call it?
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Diogenes
<keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>>>So yes, I really do need you to explain it to me.
>>
>>Well, Kev, me old mate, I think it's fair to say that licencing
>>brings with it the applicant's need to demonstrate a reasonably
>>detailed knowledge and understanding of the road rules. With me so
>>far? Good.
>>
>>Now, I think it is also fair to say that if no licencing regime
>>existed, things would get pretty chaotic on the roads, and this would
>>arguably lead to a greater death toll.
>>What's so hard to understand?
>OK, so where do I line up for my pedestrian licence?
You've entered the dork side of the farce, Kev.
>I'm not saying people shouldn't be licenced. That would be silly.
>"Ooh, is it OK if I have a go at flying this 747 to London? Ripper
>mate, thanks".
>I just don't see any connection between current drivers/riders
>licences having much effect on the road toll.
That's a convenient position to take, Kev, but...
Would you be happy to drive on the roads in ten years time if ten
years' worth of new riders and drivers were on the roads who had to
sit for NO tests whatsoever? Would you really, Kev? And remember,
you would be letting all those riders/drivers with cancelled licences
right back on the roads immediatley after your scheme was implemented.
Still happy to maintain your "enlightened" position, Kev?
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Pietro
"Diogenes" <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote in message
Pietro
Yes - "Zebee said" was cut from a REPLY TO alx - this is a thread - things
follow in sequence...
It is patently obvious you don't understand sequence.
P
hippo
And while they're in training, you could strap Harold Scruby to their
front so that if some calamity befalls them, the airbag will protect them
and they'll live to tell the tale!
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Diogenes
wrote:
>> Here, I'll explicate it for you:
>>
>> My message started with: "On Nov 22, 8:51 pm, Zebee Johnstone
>> <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote: In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009
>> 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)"
>>
>> Get it? I said "Zebee said".
>
>Yes - "Zebee said" was cut from a REPLY TO alx - this is a thread - things
>follow in sequence...
>
>It is patently obvious you don't understand sequence.
It's patently obvious you don't understand that my commnet, wherever
it appeared in the thread, was responding to a comment Zebee made.
Ergo, it was NOT resonding to, or even mentioning ANY comment made by
alx.
Ergo, you allegation is a load of hot air issuing out of the arse end
of a nit-picking drongo.
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Pietro
Come on Gerry - this a newsgroup on that Interwebby thing that Al wossisname
invented.
It has expected ways of doing things, because it is text based and thread
based. People look for replies to their posts directly linked by this
Interwebby server thingo not in some other random post further down the
thread, or off in some other thread altogether.
You however, continue to ignore convention and wonder why you don't get the
replies you hope for.
Good luck with that.
P
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
You are totally missing the point. I want to see licenced trained
people on the road rather than the rabble we have at the moment. I
simply do not see the connection between the piece of paper and any
competence on the roads. How many ways can I try and explain that to
you?
When they connect the piece of paper to some sort of competence I'll
be happy.
I'm not saying training is going to solve it, but simply having a
licence is not gunna solve a fucking thing.
Before I left Tassie I had the joy of driving with my 24 yr old
flatmate going for her Ls. (Why does Gen Y leave it so late?)
She is a scatterbrain at the best, more worried about whether the mags
are shiny and how her lipstick looks. She's also an intelligent girl
behind all that. But her concentration on driving was in the wrng
direction, even though she was forking out a fortune for professional
driving lessons.
She now has her Ps. And moved to Los Angeles when I moved to
Melbourne. I got a text from her last week when she hired a car on her
way out (I'm surprised they hired a car to a P plater) saying "I can't
handle the traffic in Melbourne, it shits me. Meet me in St Kilda".
God knows how she is going to go in LA.
But my point here is they are teachin beancounter skills, not driving
skills. I asked her a few things when I was brave enough to let her
drive (which she did fairly we thankfully) but it was obvious they
were teaching road law rather than survival skills.
Zebee Johnstone
Kevin Gleeson <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
> But my point here is they are teachin beancounter skills, not driving
> skills. I asked her a few things when I was brave enough to let her
> drive (which she did fairly we thankfully) but it was obvious they
> were teaching road law rather than survival skills.
Teaching to the test.
If you don't have a lot of time - and lessons are expensive - then the
instructor has to teach you the physical skills (parking, hill start,
gear changes more or less smooth) and you have to mug up on the
questions in the test.
My driving instructor tried to give me the life lessons too, and did a
reasonable job in that I remember much of what he told me many years
later.
But... most people just want to pass the exam. ASk any teacher.
(Also, I think everyone learns to drive a car before they are 10 years
old. Like they learn most things in life. If the people who drive
them everywhere drive badly then that's what driving is. Think about
that next time you are lazy in traffic with kids in the car.)
Zebee
Knobdoodle
In WA as I believe in QLD, you must have an accompanying 'instructor'
when on L plates. The law says that that person may be riding another
motor cycle or be a pillion on the learners bike. I don't think I've
ever seen the second option exercised.
I think the instructor/pillion bit just got canned in Qld recently.
I've instructed a few people that way (and been instructed that way too). It
has it's moments; if the learner is smallish you can get them started by
having your fingers on the outside of the bars to cover the throttle and
levers for the starts & stops.
--
Clem
Nev..
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo
>>>
>>> <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
>>>>> given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
>>>>> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
>>>>> roads).
>>>> In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964.
>>>> There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden
>>>> increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year.
>>> the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road
>>> rules knowledge and riding skills testable items.
>>>
>>> Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the
>>> on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension
>>> of such licensing.
>
>> So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on
>> the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced?
>
> Motor vehicles are not licensed. There is a requirement that they be
> registered. To be registered, requires that they are roadworthy. If
> such a requirement did not exist, then arguably this would impact the
> road toll.
In the UK they licence televisions. In the USA cars wear licence
plates. You say potato...
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Diogenes
wrote:
I'm relatively comfortable with the idea that Zebee saw the message
and has chosen to ignore it. Zebee rarely responds to any messages
from me. This is fine by me. I doubt the outcome would have been any
different had I followed your fascist idea of Usenet protocols.
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
Nev..
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:07:43 +0000 (UTC), Zebee Johnstone
> <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd say the majority of drivers who die are licenced.
>
> Agreed, not arguing that, but I think we are both making the same
> point. Just because they are licenced does not stop them dying. 99.9%
> of drivers are licenced I would imagine. Removing the licence from
> them is not going to keep them alive.
Actually, I think you're not quite right there. There is an
over-representation of unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicle in
the road toll. It's not because having a licence makes you a better
driver or having a registered vehicle makes it safer. It's because the
type of drivers [beware of gross generalisations following] who are
likely to drive without a licence are more likely to be involved in
accidents.... those who have lost their licence for DUI, excessive
speeding, dangerous driving and are more likely to repeat those offences
whether they have a licence or not, and if you don't have a licence you
have nothing to lose. Likewise, the above grossly generalised
stereotyped driver who has lost their licence is more likely to drive an
unregistered vehicle than your average 'police fearing' driver who just
woulnd't drive a vehicle that wasn't registered, or would catch the bus
if they lost their licence. Just watch Cops or any of those police
highway patrol shows for further examples.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Diogenes
<keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
I wasn't asking you to explain anything to me, Kev. I was asking you
a question and you've chose to ignore it. I take that to mean that
you're dodging the issue.
>When they connect the piece of paper to some sort of competence I'll
>be happy.
Well, then, your happiness has arrived becasue to get a licence the
driver/rider has to display some sort of competence. Not a LOT of
competpence, but certainly SOME SORT of competence. Ergo, you now no
longer have any reason to be unhappy. ;-)
>I'm not saying training is going to solve it, but simply having a
>licence is not gunna solve a fucking thing.
See above.
>Before I left Tassie I had the joy of driving with my 24 yr old
>flatmate going for her Ls. (Why does Gen Y leave it so late?)
>
>She is a scatterbrain at the best, more worried about whether the mags
>are shiny and how her lipstick looks. She's also an intelligent girl
>behind all that. But her concentration on driving was in the wrng
>direction, even though she was forking out a fortune for professional
>driving lessons.
>
>She now has her Ps. And moved to Los Angeles when I moved to
>Melbourne. I got a text from her last week when she hired a car on her
>way out (I'm surprised they hired a car to a P plater) saying "I can't
>handle the traffic in Melbourne, it shits me. Meet me in St Kilda".
>God knows how she is going to go in LA.
I understand your concern, but it has very little to do with the issue
at hand in the exchange between you and me.
>But my point here is they are teachin beancounter skills, not driving
>skills. I asked her a few things when I was brave enough to let her
>drive (which she did fairly we thankfully) but it was obvious they
>were teaching road law rather than survival skills.
You said you needed me to explain to you why I was asserting that
licencing riders/drivers produces a lower road toll than would
otherwise be the case. I believe I have adequately explained this.
You seem to confuse the need for better training (a need with which I
agree, by the way) with the idea that the training/ knowledge test as
it stands, does not make any difference in the road toll, yet you fail
to answer my reciprocal question to you about exactly that point.
Therefore I am left with the suspicion that you're ducking and weaving
(a sure sign of someone soundly defeated in a debate.)
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
George W Frost
"G-S" <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:031b7179$0$1381$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
That's because you are fucking old
George W Frost
"hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
message news:heg3ja$jr3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Wow, fucking great ideas all coming out tonight
Scruby should have been used as an bumper bar years ago
Nev..
> But... most people just want to pass the exam. ASk any teacher.
It's not just the students who want to pass the tests. The instructors
want them to pass too, so that they can boast about their training
record to prospective students. There are driving schools in Melbourne
who guarantee that you will pass at the first attempt. Mind you, with
the new minimum 120hrs practice before you take your licence test,
anyone who fails at the first attempt obviously has no aptitude for the
task and should be banned from driving for life. When I was learing my
instructor thought I was ready after about 6.5 hrs total driving
experience. I'd have turned 30 before I could afford to pay for 120 hrs
instruction.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
CrazyCam
And, if the learner is kinda cute, the instructor may get some slight
pleasure out of the experience. ;-)
regards,
CrazyCam
CrazyCam
<snip>
> In the UK they licence televisions.
Works well, too!
When did you last hear of a pom being run down by an out of control TV?
regards,
CrazyCam
George W Frost
"CrazyCam" <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b0c377b$0$5424$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
With knobless, it wouldn't matter
but by his previous posts, he would prefer it to be a male
George W Frost
When it gets thrown out of the window
George W Frost
"Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:qeOdnROMec5nV5bW...@westnet.com.au...
Can't say that I even remember driving schools when I got my licence
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
120 hours instruction? Or 120 hours logbooked?
Christ, I had my pilots licence with less than 120 hours.
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
I'm not ducking and weaving. Don't put words into my mouth. I simply
fail to see your logic about simply being licenced means you are
competent and therefore less likely to die. I've never seen any stats
that can prove that licencing drivers dropped the road toll. I'm quite
happy for you o show me that evidence and I'll be quite happy to
accept it.
Again, I do believe everyone should be licenced. I just don't think
the two things are related.
Pietro
<snip>
>>It has expected ways of doing things, because it is text based and thread
>>based. People look for replies to their posts directly linked by this
>>Interwebby server thingo not in some other random post further down the
>>thread, or off in some other thread altogether.
>
>>You however, continue to ignore convention and wonder why you don't get
>>the
>>replies you hope for.
>
> I'm relatively comfortable with the idea that Zebee saw the message
> and has chosen to ignore it. Zebee rarely responds to any messages
> from me. This is fine by me. I doubt the outcome would have been any
> different had I followed your fascist idea of Usenet protocols.
Picture this - a group of people sitting around a table in a pub having a
chin wag.
Two of them go to the bar to get more drinks and continue the conversation.
One then says something to the effect of "why didn't one of the others
respond to the question I just asked?" to which his somewhat bemused mate
responds "because he's still over at the table, if you want him to answer
your question you should ask him over there".
First then gets all affronted and calls his mate a fascist for trying to
dictate how he runs his life and conducts his conversations.
Guess which party you are in this scenario?
P
HAND
theo
> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> In WA as I believe in QLD, you must have an accompanying 'instructor'
> when on L plates. The law says that that person may be riding another
> motor cycle or be a pillion on the learners bike. I don't think I've
> ever seen the second option exercised.
>
> Theo
>
> ********************************
>
> Just trying to visualize a 15year old riding a moped with his mother on the
> back
At 15, he is already taller and heavier than his mother.
Theo
theo
> Now Kev, you are not trying to say that all drivers can reverse park are
> you?
>
> Training people to reverse park, doesn't automatically make them into a
> great reverase parker.
> Yet, they still seem to get their piece of paper
> I would make a guesstimation that only 15% of drivers can revers park
> properly
Some people can only spell reverse right two times out of four.
Theo
Kevin Gleeson
My god-daughter at age 7 could sit on my Blackbird, hold the
handlebars and put both feet firmly on the pegs. She must be 12-13 now
(haven't seen her for a couple of years). God knows how tall she'd be
now. 4-5 years time her dad is going to be sitting on the front
verandah with a shotgun though . . .
theo
I'm getting this visual picture of gNat learning to ride a 250 with
you sitting on the back. Does the front wheel maintain contact with
the road? :-)
Theo