bicycle road rage
F Murtz
suddenly brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage
to his car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
Phil Allison
"F Murtz = a total fucking arsehole "
>
> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then suddenly
> brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage to his
> car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
** The recent case you allude to involved a deliberate act by a car driver
who *intended* to cause damage to property and injury to many persons. And
it certainly did.
It was also a highly reckless act with regard to human life - so a very
serious crime.
Once arrested, the culprit(s) will face a criminal trial and a possible long
jail term.
OTOH - wankers like YOU can be as big a fucking dick on usenet as you
like without suffering the consequences.
Kindly go drop dead.
..... Phil
Knobdoodle
"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4822f5d3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then suddenly
> brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage to his
> car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
>
car-driver is drunk, unlicenced and a fugitive from the law he may stand a
chance of winning damages.......
--
Knob
Lu R
> brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage to his
> car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
Considering the car was in a bicycle lane I think the drivers fucked dont
you?
F Murtz
deliberately causing mayhem as this person appears to have
Harold Hughes
You failed to mention it was 50 bicycles and he ran up the back of them
drove along side and swerved toward them then pulled in front then
slammed on the brakes.
What I found interesting from the story was he did all this (ran over
the back ones and swerved the middle ones off the road) but the front
ones were still riding at full speed.
When i used to do recreational mountain biking if you heard a mate
scream you would look to see what was happening.
Didn't the lead pack give a fuck about those behind them or do you not
abuse someone running you over?
Trevor Wilson
> brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage to his
> car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
**That he is at fault, there is no doubt. Of more interest is if his
insurance company will pay for the (very considerable) property damage. Some
of those high bicycles can cost many thousands of Dollars.
I hope he rots in gaol for a long time.
Trevor Wilson
Roger
Phil has stopped taking his anti psychotic drugs, it could be Phil or
Allison replying at present. Allison is a real bitch, whereas Phil is just
dil(doe).
Roger
> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then suddenly
> brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage to his
> car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
The rear vehicle at fault disappeared in the mid 1980s if you can prove the
driver changed lanes without regard to the vehicles behind - road
conditions, type of vehicle, etc etc.
Truck insurance companies nearly always dispute a rear end (truck hits car)
accident at traffic lights and roundabouts as the car driver(s) is usually
at fault.
Jeßus
You whine like a little faggot about a "highly reckless act with regard
to human life - so a very serious crime" and then in the next instant
wish someone to die. Go back to licking your toasters.
The Raven
> brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage to his
> car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
If the lane change was otherwise legal the bikes will find themselves to
blame, just as if they had been a car. Of course, there may be more to such
an incident than a legal lane change followed by a need to emergency brake.
The Raven
news:4822ff8a$0$30466$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
are solely for the use of bicycle riders they should be paying registration
fees etc.
Phil Allison
>
>>> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then
>>> suddenly brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the damage
>>> to his car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
>>
>>
>> ** The recent case you allude to involved a deliberate act by a car
>> driver who *intended* to cause damage to property and injury to many
>> persons. And it certainly did.
>>
>> It was also a highly reckless act with regard to human life - so a very
>> serious crime.
>>
>> Once arrested, the culprit(s) will face a criminal trial and a possible
>> long jail term.
>>
>> OTOH - wankers like YOU can be as big a fucking dick on usenet as you
>> like without suffering the consequences.
>>
>> Kindly go drop dead.
>>
>
> deliberately causing mayhem as this person appears to have
** Looks like you did - fuckwit.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Jeßus = a total fucking arsehole "
Kindly go drop dead.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Harold Hughes"
> You failed to mention it was 50 bicycles and he ran up the back of them
** Not the case according to those involved.
..... Phil
David Springthrope
>If the lane change was otherwise legal the bikes will find themselves to
>blame, just as if they had been a car. Of course, there may be more to such
>an incident than a legal lane change followed by a need to emergency brake.
As he pulled in suddenly ON PURPOSE to CAUSE MAYHEM then the lane change most
certainly wasn't "legal" !
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> "Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Cars are allowed in bicycle lanes under certain conditions. If bicycle lanes
> are solely for the use of bicycle riders they should be paying registration
> fees etc.
Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
dimwit
Peter Jason
"The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
in message
news:48237d72$0$30462$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
They should be paying rego & 3rd party fees
anyway, assuming they will be injured on the
roads. Why should these candy-coloured
pests be any different from other road users?
Were all the 20 cyclists in the bike lane?
Not bloody likely. Indeed they often ride
two abreast, overflowing the bike lane, to
talk to each other.
The incident probably went like this:
1/ Some of the 20 cyclists overflowed the
bike lane, so causing obstruction to
motorists.
2/ A motorist became enraged, as well he
might.
3/ Motorist taught them a lesson.
Way to go!!
Incidentally, why are these mooning rainbow
freaks not allowed on freeways? I suspect
for the same reason they cause mayhem
everywhere else.
Schadenfreude!
Phil Allison
"Peter Jason Criminal Psychopath "
veritas
Not if the car driver could prove it - it does, however, raise another
question tho; if a third person was killed or injured as a result of the
cyclist's reckless actions - where is his (C)TP insurance to cover the victim/s?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
veritas
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> They should be paying rego & 3rd party fees
> anyway, assuming they will be injured on the
> roads.
1/ because your rego pays for what, exactly?
2/ You're assuming that they're not insured.,. which is highly
unlikely if they were professional cyclists
> Why should these candy-coloured
> pests be any different from other road users?
- Exactly.. do you swerve in front of other road users and put their
lives at risk? no
> Were all the 20 cyclists in the bike lane?
- probably not. Have you tried riding in a 'bike lane' recently?
Usually full of parked cars.
> Not bloody likely. Indeed they often ride
> two abreast, overflowing the bike lane, to
> talk to each other.
Which they are legally entitled to do (2 abreast in a lane). You seem
to be ignorant of a fair number of road rules.. did you get your
license from a wheeties packet, too?
> The incident probably went like this:
>
> 1/ Some of the 20 cyclists overflowed the
> bike lane, so causing obstruction to
> motorists.
diddums. Must have held him up for at least 30 seconds before he came
up against the next Sydney traffic jam.
> 2/ A motorist became enraged, as well he
> might.
because he's a psychopath?
> 3/ Motorist taught them a lesson.
>
> Way to go!!
I'll add you to the list of psychopaths
> Incidentally, why are these mooning rainbow
> freaks not allowed on freeways?
Err... the same reasons that horses are carts aren't? Do you plan on
swerving in front of the next horse you see on the road, too?
(should not feed trolls..)
duncan
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
I'll assume you really mean't to say "a cyclists actions", rather than
"the cyclists reckless actions"
then..
Who says they weren't insured for third party damage?
There is a whole lot of ignorance and idiotic assumptions going on in
this thread.
duncan
Noddy
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:285ef791-dbad-4531...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
Rego pays for the *right* to use the road, and compulsory third party
insurance covers those injured in any accidents the vehicle may cause.
Two things cyclists seem to not only be exempt from, but vehemently opposed
to.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a7804-5b0d-4b0d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Who says they weren't insured for third party damage?
You know that they were, or are you just guessing?
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know what percentage of cyclists
voluntarily pay for such insurance coverage?
> There is a whole lot of ignorance and idiotic assumptions going on in
> this thread.
There is indeed.
*ALL* road going vehicles should pay a registration fee and compulsory third
party insurance premium regardless of how they're powered.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Phil Allison
"Noddy"
dunca...@my-dejanews.com>
>
>> Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
>
> Rego pays for the *right* to use the road,
** The " right " to use the publically funded road system requires no
payment. Rego fees mostly go towards the overall cost of operating the motor
vehicle registration system.
> and compulsory third party insurance covers those injured in any accidents
> the vehicle may cause.
** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main and
kill without facing the financial consequences.
CTP coverage cannot be denied to any licensed driver, no matter how bad that
driver's record becomes - even if he/she has killed people while drunk
driving etc.
Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a lawyer
and sue the insurer in order to get one dime - in reality only a small
fraction of the harm done to people by road accidents is ever compensated by
CTP insurance payouts.
> Two things cyclists seem to not only be exempt from, but vehemently
> opposed to.
** Cyclists are just as liable under the law as a motorist for causing
injury or damage - the fact is they cause very little. Most bicycle riding
clubs hold PLI policies covering all their members and very few claims are
ever made.
BTW:
You are an utter ass - Noddy.
...... Phil
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>
> news:285ef791-dbad-4531...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
>
> Rego pays for the *right* to use the road,
Paid for by everyone in the state from consolidated revenue, whether
they use it or not.
> and compulsory third party
> insurance covers those injured in any accidents the vehicle may cause.
>
> Two things cyclists seem to not only be exempt from, but vehemently opposed
> to.
At _least_ 10000 cyclists in NSW disagree with your baseless
assumptions on insurance.
duncan
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb7a7804-5b0d-4b0d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Who says they weren't insured for third party damage?
>
> You know that they were, or are you just guessing?
given they were composed of
a) professional cyclists
b) A-grade riders (ie: club member ship etc).
then I'd hazard that odds are better than not they were insured.
> Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know what percentage of cyclists
> voluntarily pay for such insurance coverage?
No. I do know that it numbers > 10k in NSW. Are we counting every
person with a bike?
> > There is a whole lot of ignorance and idiotic assumptions going on in
> > this thread.
>
> There is indeed.
>
> *ALL* road going vehicles should pay a registration fee and compulsory third
> party insurance premium regardless of how they're powered.
I'll pay my $2 based on GVM. Where do I sign up?
duncan
Noddy
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:68hqedF...@mid.individual.net...
> ** Cyclists are just as liable under the law as a motorist for causing
> injury or damage -
Sure they are, if you're able to identify them after they've dusted
themselves off and ridden away and if you're willing to take out a civil
suit against then to recover your costs. Of course, we all know that any
judgement may mean nothing more than a buck a week in payments after you've
spent thousands.
*if* they decide to pay.
> the fact is they cause very little.
How much damage they cause is completely irrelevant.
The fact remains that they can cause damage and kill, and they have.
> Most bicycle riding clubs hold PLI policies covering all their members and
> very few claims are ever made.
I wonder why :)
> BTW:
>
> You are an utter ass - Noddy.
Hey Phil, you sound like a typical "head so far up your own arse you look
like a pretzel" cyclist. Why don't you nick outside and play hide and go
fuck yourself.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:5449c8fd-902d-4f84...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Paid for by everyone in the state from consolidated revenue, whether
> they use it or not.
People who don't drive or own a car do *not* pay a specific fee for the
right to use the road.
> At _least_ 10000 cyclists in NSW disagree with your baseless
> assumptions on insurance.
Baseless?
How many pushbikes are there in NSW, and of those how many do *you* think
are covered when they're taken out?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:d7832579-c009-479a-b04d-
>
> given they were composed of
> a) professional cyclists
> b) A-grade riders (ie: club member ship etc).
> then I'd hazard that odds are better than not they were insured.
So you *were* just guessing then.
In an interview to the TV media yesterday, one of the riders suggested that
he wasn't insured, and that as his bike is now a right-off he's facing
uncertain times as he was training for the Olympics.
Two points here worth noting: One is that public roads are *not* test tracks
for medal wannabees, and the story as portrayed by the media thus far is
only one side of it.
> No. I do know that it numbers > 10k in NSW. Are we counting every
> person with a bike?
If that bike gets used on the road, then yes.
> I'll pay my $2 based on GVM. Where do I sign up?
Nice try, but you don't get to set the premiums *you* want to pay :)
Is it just me, or are all fanatical cyclists tight-arses?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:d7832579-c009-479a-b04d-
>
> > given they were composed of
> > a) professional cyclists
> > b) A-grade riders (ie: club member ship etc).
> > then I'd hazard that odds are better than not they were insured.
>
> So you *were* just guessing then.
>
> In an interview to the TV media yesterday, one of the riders suggested that
> he wasn't insured, and that as his bike is now a right-off he's facing
> uncertain times as he was training for the Olympics.
you are confusing third party (which is what we're discussing) and
comprehensive.
My home and contents covers my bike for damage on the roads.. If
people don't have their ridiculously expensive sporting goods covered,
that's their idiocy biting them on the bum, as far as I'm concerned.
> Two points here worth noting: One is that public roads are *not* test tracks
> for medal wannabees, and the story as portrayed by the media thus far is
> only one side of it.
Agreed it is very one sided coverage.. the fact that they're olympic
wannabees is irrelevent to the matter, so I'm not sure why the media
is beating up on it (anythings for a story, I guess).
There's a comment from the driver in the SMH which portrays a
different picture of the incident. I am not absolving anyone.
> > No. I do know that it numbers > 10k in NSW. Are we counting every
> > person with a bike?
>
> If that bike gets used on the road, then yes.
> > I'll pay my $2 based on GVM. Where do I sign up?
>
> Nice try, but you don't get to set the premiums *you* want to pay :)
>
> Is it just me, or are all fanatical cyclists tight-arses?
what's all that bleating about fuel prices I can hear on aus.cars?
duncan
George W. Frost
> dunca...@my-dejanews.com>
>>
>>> Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
>>
>> Rego pays for the *right* to use the road,
>
> ** The " right " to use the publically funded road system requires no
> payment. Rego fees mostly go towards the overall cost of operating the
> motor vehicle registration system.
Then why is it that they tells us that all registrations costs go towards
the upkeep of the road system
Are you saying that my registration fees are going toward paying the wages
and upkeep of all the curry munchers in there ??
>> and compulsory third party insurance covers those injured in any
>> accidents the vehicle may cause.
>
Sure, tell me another one
> ** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main
> and kill without facing the financial consequences.
Huh ? please explain, in English please ..........
> CTP coverage cannot be denied to any licensed driver, no matter how bad
> that driver's record becomes - even if he/she has killed people while
> drunk driving etc.
COmpulsort Third Party Insurance is for the hospitalisation and recovery of
any victims of a road incident
> Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a lawyer
> and sue the insurer in order to get one dime
One dime ....?
what are you...a septic tank, always full of shit??
what is a dime?
>- in reality only a small fraction of the harm done to people by road
>accidents is ever compensated by CTP insurance payouts.
>
Then okay braniac, where does it all go to?
>
>> Two things cyclists seem to not only be exempt from, but vehemently
>> opposed to.
>
>
> ** Cyclists are just as liable under the law as a motorist for causing
> injury or damage - the fact is they cause very little.
You really need to check up on the facts before you start dribbling
>Most bicycle riding clubs hold PLI policies covering all their members and
>very few claims are ever made.
Try telling that to the family of the old bloke who was run down and killed
by a recreational bicycle club rider.
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5449c8fd-902d-4f84...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Paid for by everyone in the state from consolidated revenue, whether
> > they use it or not.
>
> People who don't drive or own a car do *not* pay a specific fee for the
> right to use the road.
What's this specific fee you keep bleating on about? Every person in
NSW pays through their arse for the road system. Do pedestrians get
pay to a fee to walk on your sacred tarmac, too?
Rego pays for nothing other than the beaurocracy which supports it.
> > At _least_ 10000 cyclists in NSW disagree with your baseless
> > assumptions on insurance.
>
> Baseless?
>
> How many pushbikes are there in NSW, and of those how many do *you* think
> are covered when they're taken out?
No idea how many pushbikes are ridden on the roads. I do know that
bicycle NSW membership (> 10k a few years back.. so who knows how many
now) specifically has $20million public liability insurance attached
to membership.
duncan
George W. Frost
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:5449c8fd-902d-4f84...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 9, 11:55 am, "Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:285ef791-dbad-4531...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
>>
>> Rego pays for the *right* to use the road,
>
> Paid for by everyone in the state from consolidated revenue, whether
> they use it or not.
Don't talk crap
>> and compulsory third party
>> insurance covers those injured in any accidents the vehicle may cause.
>>
>> Two things cyclists seem to not only be exempt from, but vehemently
>> opposed
>> to.
>
> At _least_ 10000 cyclists in NSW disagree with your baseless
> assumptions on insurance.
>
> duncan
SO you are saying that there are at least 10,000 New South Waylian cyclists
who have covering insurance in case of an road incident?
Show me your proof
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> SO you are saying that there are at least 10,000 New South Waylian cyclists
> who have covering insurance in case of an road incident?
yes.
> Show me your proof
Bicycle NSW membership: ~10k as of 2007
Membership includes $20mill public liability insurance plus personal
accident insurance.
duncan
Phil Allison
"Noddy the Nutcase "
>> ** Cyclists are just as liable under the law as a motorist for causing
>> injury or damage -
>
> Sure they are,
** All that needs to be said.
>> the fact is they cause very little.
>
> How much damage they cause is completely irrelevant.
** Nothing could be more relevant - you fuckwit.
> The fact remains that they can cause damage and kill, and they have.
** No different to thousands of other activities where PLI is non
compulsory.
>> Most bicycle riding clubs hold PLI policies covering all their members
>> and very few claims are ever made.
>
> I wonder why :)
** The congenitally stupid are always wondering.
>> BTW:
>>
>> You are an utter ass - Noddy.
>
> Hey Phil,
** Go get fucked - you lying arsehole.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"George W. Frost the Fuckhead "
>> ** The " right " to use the publically funded road system requires no
>> payment. Rego fees mostly go towards the overall cost of operating the
>> motor vehicle registration system.
>
>
> Then why is it that they tells us that all registrations costs go towards
> the upkeep of the road system
** Bollocks they do.
>> ** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main
>> and kill without facing the financial consequences.
>
>
> Huh ? please explain, in English please ..........
** You must be thick as three planks.
>> CTP coverage cannot be denied to any licensed driver, no matter how bad
>> that driver's record becomes - even if he/she has killed people while
>> drunk driving etc.
>
>> Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a lawyer
>> and sue the insurer in order to get one dime
>
>
> One dime ....?
** I see you are totally illiterate as well.
>>- in reality only a small fraction of the harm done to people by road
>>accidents is ever compensated by CTP insurance payouts.
>>
>
> Then okay braniac, where does it all go to?
** Even worse that I thought .....
...... Phil
Phil Allison
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> There's a comment from the driver in the SMH which portrays a
> different picture of the incident. I am not absolving anyone.
** Yep - he bravely went on talkback radio (2GB) to defend himself
against all the libelling going on.
If his story stacks up ( pun intended ) after the police have spoken with
everyone involved - he may well not be charged with any offence.
The cyclists were all travelling in a close pack, contrary to all good road
sense & as a result some of them failed to see and avoid his car when he
stopped on the verge due to a fuel problem.
..... Phil
Trevor Wilson
"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:g004d8$2dsd$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:48237d72$0$30462$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4822ff8a$0$30466$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4822f5d3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then
>>>> suddenly brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the
>>>> damage to his car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
>>>
>>> Considering the car was in a bicycle lane I think the drivers fucked
>>> dont you?
>> Cars are allowed in bicycle lanes under certain conditions. If bicycle
>> lanes are solely for the use of bicycle riders they should be paying
>> registration fees etc.
>
>
> They should be paying rego & 3rd party fees anyway, assuming they will be
> injured on the roads. Why should these candy-coloured pests be any
> different from other road users?
**They are no different to other road users. Drivers should avoid hitting
them.
>
> Were all the 20 cyclists in the bike lane? Not bloody likely. Indeed they
> often ride two abreast, overflowing the bike lane, to talk to each other.
**Unlikely, in this case. The bike lane is generously large.
>
> The incident probably went like this:
>
> 1/ Some of the 20 cyclists overflowed the bike lane, so causing
> obstruction to motorists.
**Wrong. Cyclists are entitled to use the road, UNLESS they are specifically
disallowed from doing so (on a motorway, for instance). YOU are precisely
what is wrong with many road users. Cyclists are road users and need to be
treated as such.
>
> 2/ A motorist became enraged, as well he might.
**And that motorist should be stripped of his or her right to drive.
>
> 3/ Motorist taught them a lesson.
>
> Way to go!!
**Fuckwit. You are demented.
Trevor Wilson
Peter Jason
"Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:68i3uuF...@mid.individual.net...
You're one of them aren't you? Are you old
enough to drive and have you ever encountered
any of these pests?
I have never seen a bike lane wide enough to
allow 2 bike pests to ride side-by-side;
surely the pedals and other bits would become
entangled.
I collided with one of the idiots once and it
demolished my LHS mirror which ended up with
all the spokes and junk with the bike-person
appropriately ensconced in the gutter. It
gave me great pleasure, though I had to buy a
new mirror. I should have sued the prick!
They should all be confined to the footpaths!
Trevor Wilson
**What? A car driver? Yes, I am. A cyclist? Yes.
Are you old
> enough to drive and have you ever encountered any of these pests?
**Other car drivers? Yes. Many should not be on the road. You appear to be
one who does not understand the road rules.
>
> I have never seen a bike lane wide enough to allow 2 bike pests to ride
> side-by-side; surely the pedals and other bits would become entangled.
**The road under discussion has a wide bicycle lane. In any case, that is
irrelevant. A cyclist is entitled to use the lane.
>
> I collided with one of the idiots once and it demolished my LHS mirror
> which ended up with all the spokes and junk with the bike-person
> appropriately ensconced in the gutter. It gave me great pleasure, though
> I had to buy a new mirror. I should have sued the prick! They should all
> be confined to the footpaths!
**You are a fuckwit. Learn to drive, or get off the road.
Trevor Wilson
George W. Frost
>
> "George W. Frost the Fuckhead "
>
>
>>> ** The " right " to use the publically funded road system requires no
>>> payment. Rego fees mostly go towards the overall cost of operating the
>>> motor vehicle registration system.
>>
>>
>> Then why is it that they tells us that all registrations costs go towards
>> the upkeep of the road system
>
> ** Bollocks they do.
Bollocks they do?
what doesnt do what, the costs don't go where you claim, or the Government
don't say that?
Make up your feeble mind foolish phil
Give a good example of where the registration fees do where you claim.
A real one and not one of your made-up versions
>>> ** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main
>>> and kill without facing the financial consequences.
>>
>>
>> Huh ? please explain, in English please ..........
>
>
> ** You must be thick as three planks.
That was an answer of a dillusioned foolish phil who cant explain his report
>
>>> CTP coverage cannot be denied to any licensed driver, no matter how bad
>>> that driver's record becomes - even if he/she has killed people while
>>> drunk driving etc.
>>
>>> Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a
>>> lawyer and sue the insurer in order to get one dime
>>
>>
>> One dime ....?
>
>
> ** I see you are totally illiterate as well.
You are a fucking idiot, dimes are not a currency here and the terminology
has never been used here except for some septic tank lovers
typical foolish phil is a septic lover, you are also full of shit phil
>
>>>- in reality only a small fraction of the harm done to people by road
>>>accidents is ever compensated by CTP insurance payouts.
>>>
>>
>> Then okay braniac, where does it all go to?
>
>
> ** Even worse that I thought .....
No answer I see, total fool phil.
>
> ...... Phil
>
George W. Frost
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:6fa8e3bc-1c96-476b...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Where can I see this "proof"?
Where is it posted on the web or from which Government department?
George W. Frost
>
>>
> I have never seen a bike lane wide enough to allow 2 bike pests to ride
> side-by-side; surely the pedals and other bits would become entangled.
You obviously don't get out much, the bicycle lane is my town, ranges from 2
meters to 5 metres wide
Typically a 4 lane road with parking space alongside, has been transformed
to a 2 lane road with a parking lane and a bloody great huge bicycle lane.
Even then, the cyclists, from a club, ride three for and five abreast,
riding in the cycle lane and also the parking lane and half way into the car
lane, which has already been narrowed from 2 to 1 lane.
Noddy
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:1fbacd99-2531-4a81...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> What's this specific fee you keep bleating on about?
Listen carefully, I'll say it slowly for you: R e g i s t r a t i o n.
> Every person in NSW pays through their arse for the road system. Do
> pedestrians get
> pay to a fee to walk on your sacred tarmac, too
If they own a house it's part of their Rates (or it's supposed to be :).
> Rego pays for nothing other than the beaurocracy which supports it.
It's all part of the consolidated revenue process. It pays for health,
roads, nursing homes, gay & lesbian mardi-gras. The point being that you
cannot legally drive a motor vehicle on a road without having paid a
registration fee. Pushbikes are the only road going vehicle which are exempt
from this, and for the life of me I can't see any logical reason for that.
Nor can I see any reason to dedicate part of any road specifically for their
use.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:c894e59e-44a2-4803...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> you are confusing third party (which is what we're discussing) and
> comprehensive.
Um, no, I was just quoting the person being interviewed.
> My home and contents covers my bike for damage on the roads.. If
> people don't have their ridiculously expensive sporting goods covered,
> that's their idiocy biting them on the bum, as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed.
> Agreed it is very one sided coverage.. the fact that they're olympic
> wannabees is irrelevent to the matter, so I'm not sure why the media
> is beating up on it (anythings for a story, I guess).
That's the way they work.
> what's all that bleating about fuel prices I can hear on aus.cars?
Probably from people complaining about being anally raped paying a "world
price" for locally made petrol.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> The cyclists were all travelling in a close pack, contrary to all good
> road sense & as a result some of them failed to see and avoid his car when
> he stopped on the verge due to a fuel problem.
There you go.
London to a brick that version of events doesn't get anywhere near the press
it deserves :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> "Noddy the Nutcase "
Ooh looky, he made a funny.
> ** Nothing could be more relevant - you fuckwit.
Wow. That totally convinced me.
Jesus Christ....
> ** No different to thousands of other activities where PLI is non
> compulsory.
Yeah? Like what?
Bearing in mind that we're talking about road going vehicles here. Getting
killed by being hit in the head by a wayward golf ball doesn't count.
> ** The congenitally stupid are always wondering.
It would be more accurate to suggest that those who are completely full of
shit are very adept at avoiding the issue.
Like you seen to be.
> ** Go get fucked - you lying arsehole.
Lying? I'm sorry, but what specifically did I say that wasn't true?
Don't worry shit lips, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to get back
to me with anything tangible.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
the fonz
> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:d7832579-c009-479a-b04d-
>
> > I'll pay my $2 based on GVM. Where do I sign up?
>
> Nice try, but you don't get to set the premiums *you* want to pay :)
>
economists advocate pricing based on the externalities of an activity
or product, i.e. those costs not already incurred.
in the case of cyclists, it would be difficult to justify what those
externalities would be:
1. road wear - negligible
2. congestion/road space - negative cost (societal benefit)
3. health care - negative cost (societal benefit)
4. road building - cost of bike paths, although since they're shared
with pedestrians, so should the cost be - negligible
5. emissions (health care) - negative cost (societal benefit)
the reality is that if you applied a registration cost to cyclists
based on genuine, accepted economic principles, you'd have to pay them
to use the road.
The Raven
news:4823af26$0$89002$c30e...@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> <dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>
>> Ah yes... because we all know your rego pays for the roads..
>
>
> Two things cyclists seem to not only be exempt from, but vehemently
> opposed to.
>
Bingo! Obviously duncanmcrae is too dim to see that.
TomTom
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> typed:
>
> ....an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a
> lawyer and sue the insurer...
The would-be litigant must sue the insured tortfeasor, not the insurer.
dunca...@my-dejanews.com
> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
Once more for the slow children..
Today, we have this interwebnet thing.. it is often useful for
ignoramus's .. as they can find things.. like sparkly objects... and
porn.. or even the odd useful tidbit of information.
BNSW membership: http://tinyurl.com/57z5hk
and surprisingly enough, insurance details are on their website
http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/Membership.asp
Please, for christs sake, use a little more grey matter when
naviguessing your 1+ tonne car around the place. you dipshit.
duncan
Trevor Wilson
**I take it, then, you wish to eliminate pedestrians, strollers, scooters,
disabled users' vehicles and other forms of traffic from the roads too?
Trevor Wilson
Phil Allison
"TomTom = Total Tosser "
** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main and
kill without facing the financial consequences.
CTP coverage cannot be denied to any licensed driver, no matter how bad that
driver's record becomes - even if he/she has killed people while drunk
driving etc.
Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a lawyer
and sue the insurer in order to get one dime - in reality only a small
fraction of the harm done to people by road accidents is ever compensated by
CTP insurance payouts.
> The would-be litigant must sue the insured tortfeasor, not the insurer.
** In practice - one has to sue the CTP insurance company covering the
particular driver. They will have a firm of lawyers contracted to them to
make sure that task is as slow, difficult and expensive as possible for the
injured party.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Noddy"
"Phil Allison"
>
>> The cyclists were all travelling in a close pack, contrary to all good
>> road sense & as a result some of them failed to see and avoid his car
>> when he stopped on the verge due to a fuel problem.
>
> There you go.
>
> London to a brick that version of events doesn't get anywhere near the
> press it deserves :)
** Was covered on ABC TV news tonight - maybe other services too.
Be a real HOOT if the car driver gets to sue the media for defamation !!
..... Phil
Jock
(once liability is admitted by the CTP co) for all medical expenses required
to get the injured back to health - medical attention, procedures, rehab,
physio, medications etc. and once the situation is stable, ie the injury
stabilises / heals or goes away and all is good, the CTP insurer will pay
out the injured to settle the case and clear their books after 3 years max.
If the claimant is not happy with the sum offered, a CARS claim is issued to
the insurance company with a counter claim. The insurance co. will then
make another stab somewhere between their initial offer and the counter
claim amount - this is normal.
In this case, the CTP insurer will be liable for all and any medicals for
all injuries to all people. To have the bikes fixed, that is a
comprehensive insurance claim against the driver who refers this to his
comprehensive insurer. They may well tell him he is on his own through any
proven malicious actions by himself.
Time will tell and heal all wounds. Hopefully.
Jock
.
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:68ioeqF...@mid.individual.net...
Phil Allison
"Jock"
** Another top posing fuckwit.
( snip reams of his narcissistic drivel)
.... Phil
Noddy
"the fonz" <arthur.fo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de5a48e2-4b97-426d-9b7b-
> economists advocate pricing based on the externalities of an activity
> or product, i.e. those costs not already incurred.
Yeah, but economists don't send out registration renewals.
> in the case of cyclists, it would be difficult to justify what those
> externalities would be:
> 1. road wear - negligible
True enough.
> 2. congestion/road space - negative cost (societal benefit)
I'd argue that cyclists add to congestion woes in certain circumstances.
Particularly those on multi lane roads where the traffic is flowing at a
reasonable pace but has to slow and change lanes when a couple of bike
riders are riding two abreast in one lane at a dawdling pace upsetting all
the traffic behind them.
> 3. health care - negative cost (societal benefit)
Dunno about that.
Something tells me that riding a bike in city traffic wouldn't be much chop
for you.
> 4. road building - cost of bike paths, although since they're shared
> with pedestrians, so should the cost be - negligible
Many roads in Victoria have sections of the road dedicated purely to
cyclists, and in some cases they've shut down a complete lane and made it
exclusive to cyclists. Apart from the costs associated with doing this
(which we all have to pay for whether you ride a bike or not) there is also
the associated traffic problems that seem completely out of proportion to
the number of bikes that use these paths.
> 5. emissions (health care) - negative cost (societal benefit)
Agreed.
> the reality is that if you applied a registration cost to cyclists
> based on genuine, accepted economic principles, you'd have to pay them
> to use the road.
No, you wouldn't, unless you were also going to apply the same principles to
things like mopeds (which are so close to a pushbike it ain't funny).
Of course, some cyclists should pay a *heavy* annual premium for the right
to wear those fucking ridiculous mutil coloured outfits they wear that we
all have to look at and lose our lunch over.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jock
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:68iq93F...@mid.individual.net...
Phil Allison
"Jock the Jerkoff "
** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main and
kill without facing the financial consequences.
So it actually legitimises reckless drivers & dangerous driving practices.
CTP coverage cannot be denied to any licensed driver, no matter how bad that
driver's record becomes - even if he/she has killed people while drunk
driving etc.
Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a lawyer
and sue the insurer in order to get one dime - in reality only a small
fraction of the harm done to people by road accidents is ever compensated by
CTP insurance payouts.
..... Phil
Noddy
> **I take it, then, you wish to eliminate pedestrians, strollers, scooters,
> disabled users' vehicles and other forms of traffic from the roads too?
Where did I ever say cyclists *shouldn't* be on the roads?
I'm not advocating a ban on anything Trev. My point, in case you missed it,
is that cyclists should pay their way like everyone else. Cars, trucks,
busses, vans, motorbikes, scooters, tractors, forklifts and anything else
that takes to the road has to pay a registration premium for the privilege
of doing so *except* for bicycles and Horses.
Horses are a pretty rare commodity on our roads these days, but there are
*thousands* of bicycles in use.
Now, if you've got some time to spare, sit back and watch all the bleeding
heart tight-arsed pushbike riders pipe up about how they "pay their taxes
and already pay their way".
Fucking idiots.
Pushbike: A kid's toy usually discarded by most people when they become old
enough to drive, or taken up by drivers when they blow over the legal limit
:)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> ** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to main
> and
> kill without facing the financial consequences.
You must think that bit of useless blurb to be particularly clever as it's
the second time today you've proudly trotted it out.
Can't think of anything else?
> Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a lawyer
> and sue the insurer in order to get one dime - in reality only a small
> fraction of the harm done to people by road accidents is ever compensated
> by
> CTP insurance payouts.
And what would that "small fraction" be exactly?
> ** In practice - one has to sue the CTP insurance company covering the
> particular driver. They will have a firm of lawyers contracted to them to
> make sure that task is as slow, difficult and expensive as possible for
> the injured party.
A number of firms in fact.
The difference is that at the end of the day, they pay. The might piss and
moan about it and drag things out, but you'll get your money.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
>
> "Jock"
>
> ** Another top posing fuckwit.
>
>
> ( snip reams of his narcissistic drivel)
You have to work at this, don't you?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jock
post. I do agree that any monetary compensation doesn't grow back lost
limbs, replace destroyed skeletal elements or heal the mental and physical
scarring that follows a bad injury but it can help people to get on with
their lives. It would be good to preclude these motorists from reoffending
by a lifetime ban but I don't see any democracy wearing that these days.
Now, go and play in the traffic - there's a boy.
Jock
PS, I think you meant maim, not main. Damned copy/paste limitations.
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:68iqvdF...@mid.individual.net...
Noddy
> ** Was covered on ABC TV news tonight
Like I said.... :)
> - maybe other services too.
Don't hold your breath.
They've head their pound of flesh out of the bad headlines. Good follow-ups
don't rate.
> Be a real HOOT if the car driver gets to sue the media for defamation !!
I don't think he was named.
He certainly wasn't in any report I saw anyway.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Phil Allison
" "Jock the Jerkoff "
** CTP insurance is effectively a government license for drivers to maim and
Phil Allison
"Noddy the Nut Case "
( snip shite )
** Beyond totally clueless.
This anonymous, autistic cretin make a virtue of ignorance and stupidity.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Noddy the Nutter"
>> Be a real HOOT if the car driver gets to sue the media for defamation !!
>
> I don't think he was named.
** His damaged Ford & its rego number, his house and his girlfriend were all
shown on ABC TV tonight.
His name is " Jason " and he lives in Colquhoun Way, Claymore in Sydney.
Bout as publicly identified as you can get.
> He certainly wasn't in any report I saw anyway.
** Do you even live in Sydney?
Yawn .....
..... Phil
Phil Allison
" Jock the Jerkoff "
> I already responded to your post.
** With a pile of asinine, top posted, irrelevant shite.
..... Phil
Jock
Noddy
> So it actually legitimises reckless drivers & dangerous driving practices.
Oh, right.
So, by that logic, everyone who has house & contents insurance wants to burn
down there own house. Just for the hell of it I mean....
> ..... Phil
You're a fucktard Phil.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> This anonymous, autistic cretin make a virtue of ignorance and stupidity.
Oh, the ironing.....
It's another of Ozone's alter egos.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> ** His damaged Ford & its rego number, his house and his girlfriend were
> all shown on ABC TV tonight.
>
> His name is " Jason " and he lives in Colquhoun Way, Claymore in Sydney.
>
> Bout as publicly identified as you can get.
Oh.
Get back to me with his full details. I'll wait here :)
> ** Do you even live in Sydney?
You're fucking kidding, right?
Only truck drivers and homosexuals live in Shitney.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
George W. Frost
"The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:482419d3$0$1024$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
duncan mcrae is too dim to see anything
George W. Frost
<dunca...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:2ef7870d-38b6-47f1...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On May 9, 4:48 pm, "George W. Frost" <fro...@iceworks.org> wrote:
>> <duncanmc...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6fa8e3bc-1c96-476b...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 9, 1:31 pm, "George W. Frost" <fro...@iceworks.org> wrote:
>> >> SO you are saying that there are at least 10,000 New South Waylian
>> >> cyclists
>> >> who have covering insurance in case of an road incident?
>>
>> > yes.
>>
>> >> Show me your proof
>>
>> > Bicycle NSW membership: ~10k as of 2007
>>
>> > Membership includes $20mill public liability insurance plus personal
>> > accident insurance.
How much is it for excess?, I read in there that it is $1000
>> > duncan
>>
>> Where can I see this "proof"?
>> Where is it posted on the web or from which Government department?
>
> Once more for the slow children..
>
> Today, we have this interwebnet thing.. it is often useful for
> ignoramus's .. as they can find things.. like sparkly objects... and
> porn.. or even the odd useful tidbit of information.
>
> BNSW membership: http://tinyurl.com/57z5hk
All this shows is a balance sheet which depicts rapid surge toward
insolvency
and the next bit claims 10,000 members at an average of $85 membership fees
so that is theoretically, $850,000 in the coffers
but the balance sheet shows only $2000 in revenue.
George W. Frost
There you go again, foolish phil with another septic saying
a hoot...?
what the fuck is a hoot, apart from the call of an owl?
You apparently love the septic tanks so much foolish phil, that you should
go there and live
TomTom
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> typed:
>
>
> Plus - an injured person ( or dependant of a deceased) must find a
> lawyer and sue the insurer in order to get one dime - in reality
> only a small fraction of the harm done to people by road accidents is
> ever compensated by CTP insurance payouts.
>
>
>> The would-be litigant must sue the insured tortfeasor, not the
>> insurer.
>
>
> ** In practice - one has to sue the CTP insurance company covering
> the particular driver. They will have a firm of lawyers contracted to
> them to make sure that task is as slow, difficult and expensive as
> possible for the injured party.
Arrant nonsense.
The persom suing for compensation sues the person responsible, and that
person's insurer will take over the handling of the matter for the person
insured. Both legally and in practice, one sues the persom responsible,
*not* the insurer.
You are plainly wrong. Go on, admit it.
Jason James
>
> > "Noddy the Nutcase "
>
> Ooh looky, he made a funny.
>
> > ** Nothing could be more relevant - you fuckwit.
>
> Wow. That totally convinced me.
>
> Jesus Christ....
>
> > ** No different to thousands of other activities where PLI is non
> > compulsory.
>
> Yeah? Like what?
>
> Bearing in mind that we're talking about road going vehicles here. Getting
> killed by being hit in the head by a wayward golf ball doesn't count.
>
> > ** The congenitally stupid are always wondering.
>
> It would be more accurate to suggest that those who are completely full of
> shit are very adept at avoiding the issue.
>
> Like you seen to be.
>
>
> > ** Go get fucked - you lying arsehole.
>
> Lying? I'm sorry, but what specifically did I say that wasn't true?
>
> Don't worry shit lips, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to get
back
> to me with anything tangible.
Allison is a loudmouthed, self aggrandising tool, from aus.electronics. Why
they tolerate him there, I don't know. Comedy relief I guess.
Jason
RE_fuse
I think some bike riders should pull there head in
--
RE_fuse
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
John McKenzie
>
>
> You're fucking kidding, right?
>
> Only truck drivers and homosexuals live in Shitney.
and the truck drivers are mostly passing through.
--
John McKenzie
tos...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@earthlink.com
ab...@aol.com vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov pres...@whitehouse.gov
swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov admin@loopback ab...@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer ro...@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost ab...@msn.com
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au frau...@psinet.com ab...@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost ab...@sprint.com ab...@fbi.gov ab...@cia.gov
Doug Jewell
> "the fonz" <arthur.fo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de5a48e2-4b97-426d-9b7b-
>
>> economists advocate pricing based on the externalities of an activity
>> or product, i.e. those costs not already incurred.
>
> Yeah, but economists don't send out registration renewals.
>
>> in the case of cyclists, it would be difficult to justify what those
>> externalities would be:
>> 1. road wear - negligible
>
> True enough.
even if they aren't getting used. Look at the dedicated bike
lanes, and dedicated bikeways. They still need maintenance,
even if the bikes themselves cause negligible damage.
>
>> 2. congestion/road space - negative cost (societal benefit)
>
> I'd argue that cyclists add to congestion woes in certain circumstances.
> Particularly those on multi lane roads where the traffic is flowing at a
> reasonable pace but has to slow and change lanes when a couple of bike
> riders are riding two abreast in one lane at a dawdling pace upsetting all
> the traffic behind them.
the fuckwits overtake you on the left while you are stopped,
and you have to go through the whole routine again.
>
>> 3. health care - negative cost (societal benefit)
>
> Dunno about that.
>
> Something tells me that riding a bike in city traffic wouldn't be much chop
> for you.
>
>> 4. road building - cost of bike paths, although since they're shared
>> with pedestrians, so should the cost be - negligible
>
> Many roads in Victoria have sections of the road dedicated purely to
> cyclists, and in some cases they've shut down a complete lane and made it
> exclusive to cyclists. Apart from the costs associated with doing this
> (which we all have to pay for whether you ride a bike or not) there is also
> the associated traffic problems that seem completely out of proportion to
> the number of bikes that use these paths.
the fuckwits still ride out in the main traffic anyway! Or
they'll have a concrete dedicated bike path separate from
the road - it'll be empty and they'll all be on the road.
Must be something about the seat pressure on their arse that
destroys their ability to think.
I wouldn't say the cost of road building would be
negligible. In many cases the bike lane takes up 10-20% of
the road surface. That's a lot of space and value dedicated
to just one type of road user.
Trevor Wilson
**Really? Pop on up sometime. We can wander down to my local and you can
repeat those words. I'll pretend not to know you though. I'll carry a 'phone
with me (for the ambulance).
Trevor Wilson
Phil Allison
"Jason James = Prince Jerk "
** What a dumb wanker.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Noddy the Nutcase"
"Phil Allison"
>
>> So it actually legitimises reckless drivers & dangerous driving
>> practices.
>
> Oh, right.
>
> So, by that logic,
** You have no logic, except false logic.
The common philosophy of all fuckwits.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Tom the Tosser "
> Phil Allison
>>> The would-be litigant must sue the insured tortfeasor, not the
>>> insurer.
>>
>>
>> ** In practice - one has to sue the CTP insurance company covering
>> the particular driver. They will have a firm of lawyers contracted to
>> them to make sure that task is as slow, difficult and expensive as
>> possible for the injured party.
>
>
> Arrant nonsense.
** Shame how it is complete fact.
> The persom suing for compensation sues the person responsible, and that
> person's insurer will take over the handling of the matter for the person
> insured.
** Which is just what I said.
You are plainly another grossly autistic, illiterate cretin.
Go on - admit it.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Noddy"
"Phil Allison"
>
>> ** His damaged Ford & its rego number, his house and his girlfriend were
>> all shown on ABC TV tonight.
>>
>> His name is " Jason " and he lives in Colquhoun Way, Claymore in Sydney.
>>
>> Bout as publicly identified as you can get.
>
> Oh.
>
> Get back to me with his full details. I'll wait here :)
** He is now been identified - as far as defamation is concerned.
Shame YOU are too thick to see that.
>> ** Do you even live in Sydney?
>
> You're fucking kidding, right?
** So why did you expect to see Sydney local news coverage ??
IDIOT.
... Phil
Noddy
>
> "Jason James = Prince Jerk "
>
>
>
> ** What a dumb wanker.
I'm guessing you're around 12 years old by this. If you're any older than
that then you should be profoundly embarrassed :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Klompmeester
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:68k0utF...@mid.individual.net...
Will he need to have his arse sown back up?
Trevor Wilson
"Klompmeester" <whow...@andwhy.com> wrote in message
news:Qt-dnXAECZGoQ7nV...@posted.internode...
**Nope. More like his face. Fists will do that. The guys at my local don't
have a sense of humour, when told that they are gay. Some are even truck
drivers. Almost all are tradies.
Trevor Wilson
Noddy
> ** Shame how it is complete fact.
You were away from school the day they explained "fact", you fucking
dickhead.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> **Nope. More like his face. Fists will do that.
Oh, right.
Bring them on :)
> The guys at my local don't have a sense of humour, when told that they
> are gay. Some are even truck drivers. Almost all are tradies.
Jeez, waiting for some huge gutted blue singlet wearing mouth breather to
take a swing at you while he has a coronary with the effort involved in
raising his arm should be good for a laugh :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> ** He is now been identified - as far as defamation is concerned.
Your definition of it, which seems to be at odds to everyone elses.
> ** So why did you expect to see Sydney local news coverage ??
It was a national story.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Phil Allison
"Noddy the Nut Case "
( snip shite )
** Beyond totally clueless.
This anonymous, autistic cretin make a virtue of ignorance and stupidity.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Noddy the Nut Case "
> You're fucking kidding, right?
>
> Only truck drivers and homosexuals live in Shitney.
Trevor Wilson
**Yeah, that was my vision of you trying to defend yourself against some fit
young tradie too. Better that you stay holed up down South.
Trevor Wilson
Michael C
news:4823...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Did I say anything that leads you to believe that I would condone anyone
> deliberately causing mayhem as this person appears to have
Yes.
TomTom
Noddy <m...@home.com> typed:
Insensate entities always fail the embarrassment test.
TomTom
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> typed:
Only because he omitted toaster-repairers from Summer Hill...
Just JT
"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Pushbikes are the only road going vehicle which are exempt from this, and
> for the life of me I can't see any logical reason for that.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps because GovCo is encouraging more people to use pushbikes in lieu of
fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.
--
Green.and.all.that.jazz....