Herald Sun reader comments on death of James Gould - Page 3

On 2006-08-30, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Terryc wrote:
>> BrettS wrote:
>>
>>>Just like when you push a stroller across a zebra crossing, you can't
>>>assume anything...
>>
>> Well, can you explain what all those mothers who blindly push them onto
>> busy roads are doing?
>
> I actually picked upa kid once whose mum had just pushed the stroller
> out the front of a bus. Saw the whole thing. The cab driver had not
> the slightest chance of missing or stopping and if he hadnt slowed down
> to aa cautious crawl the kid wouldnt have had a chance.

A few days ago, a young mother walked across the road, and let her
toddler toddle along down the middle of a road, not watched. Gave an
"oops" look when I rode past slowly.

--
TimC
The Unixverse ends on Tue, 19 Jan 2038 03:14:07 +0000

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:48:10 +1000, cfsmtb wrote:

> Dave Hughes Wrote:
>>
>> To go from that to requiring a license (which is what you're
>> advocating, as proof that training and assessment has taken place) is
>> ridiculous.

> You've created a incorrect assumption there.
>
> Was licensing or rego mentioned ONCE? No, it wasn't.

Read my statement again, specifically the bit in parentheses.
Here's 'roo's :

>>> there is a need across Australia to provide a level of skill and
>>> competency assessment to all cyclists, commencing in our schools, and
>>> extending to when a bike is purchased, and that certified training
>>> courses be part of the road cycling awareness/competency skillset that
>>> is required to ride on the road

How can you have a requirement for certified training courses as a
requirement to ride on a road without requiring some form of documentary
proof (aka a license)?

If you're saying that training and assessment should be undertaken to
develop those skills which are required to ride on the road, your
statement needs to be reworded to remove the ambiguity. Taking offense
when someone reads your sentence in a grammatically reasonable manner [1]
is indicative of your passion. It's also not a particularly good way to
win friends and influence people. If I sound narky, it's because I'm a
pedantic prick, but I am trying to offer constructive advice here.

You're welcome to take my phrasing above if you wish. It still leaves the
question of how one proves that one has undertaken such training and
assessment to develop those skills.


[1] Arguably the last "is" should be "are", depending on whether you take
road cycling awareness and competency skillset as a pair of requirements,
or whether the awareness forms part of the skillset
--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes,
and I had to eat him - adferraro

"cfsmtb" wrote:

> You've created a incorrect assumption there.
>
> Was licensing or rego mentioned ONCE? No, it wasn't.

Well the way I read it:

"rooman" wrote:
>
> the Hell Ride...that will solve nothing...there is a need across
> Australia to provide a level of skill and competency assessment to all
> cyclists, commencing in our schools, and extending to when a bike is
> purchased, and that certified training courses be part of the road
> cycling awareness/competency skillset that is required to ride on the
> road (and I would extend that to drivers as well).

This training and assessment system, while perhaps desirable, does sound
pretty much like a licecing structure to me.
>
> 'roo is directly refering the WoJ line:
> http://www.woj.com.au/2006/08/29/whe...media-release/
>
> Education, Enforcement, Accountability

Agree with these principles, but Australian cyclists are nowhere near ready
for a certified training structure "that is required to ride on the road"

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Nope, this isn't licensing and it certainly isn't a new or novel concept.

Had this excellent piece of bicycle advocacy history sent to us today by one Alan Parker:

Freewheeling No 46 November /December 1987
The Struggle for the Melbourne Bikeplan 1975/1987
http://www.woj.com.au/HistoryMelbBik...wk%20%5Bv6.pdf

No, you replied in an offensive manner in your first sentence, by implying someone was on drugs. That's hardly an intelligent response to any discussion, and then later attempting to salvage some high moral ground in your second reply. Pot, kettle, black.

"cfsmtb" wrote:
>
> Peter Signorini Wrote:
>>
>> Well the way I read it:
>
> Nope, this isn't licensing and it certainly isn't a new or novel
> concept.

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'd reckon that having "certified
training courses" that are "part of the road cycling awareness/competency
skillset that is *required to ride* on the road" without some form of
documentation that one has met the requirement (a.k.a a licence) would be a
waste of time.

> Had this excellent piece of bicycle advocacy history sent to us today
> by one Alan Parker:
>
> Freewheeling No 46 November /December 1987
> The Struggle for the Melbourne Bikeplan 1975/1987
> http://www.woj.com.au/HistoryMelbBik...wk%20%5Bv6.pdf

Yes I was beginning to become active in cycling myself at this time, and had
a bit to do with Alan. He sold me Freewheeling's first issue at the 1977
Melbourne BikeWeek Rally. I still save the full set of Freewheeling in a
box under the bench. But the Geelong and Melbpourne Bike Plans had nothing
about a required cycling skillset for all cyclists that Rooman was
advocating. They only addressed primary students skills via the BikEd kit.
Good training for juniors, but not the sort of thing that will sharpen up
the behaviour of the Hell Ride peleton.
--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Peter Signorini wrote:

> We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'd reckon that having "certified
> training courses" that are "part of the road cycling awareness/competency
> skillset that is *required to ride* on the road" without some form of
> documentation that one has met the requirement (a.k.a a licence) would be a
> waste of time.


So why do you think is any difference to the WoJ proposal, to the very
issue you discussed in the previous (lengthy) Adult Bike Ed threads on
BV forums?

http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1406

Even the BFA has informed us that cyclist training is one of their key
projects at the moment.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:39:18 +1000, cfsmtb wrote:

> No, you replied in an offensive manner in your first sentence, by
> implying someone was on drugs. That's hardly an intelligent response to
> any discussion, and then later attempting to salvage some high moral
> ground in your second reply. Pot, kettle, black.

I'd consider a call for mandatory licensing for bike riders to be evidence
of schedule 1 drug use, or listening to MMM (who were talking about this
subject as I flicked through looking for something to listening). My
misread of what you were saying lead to that comment. If offense was
taken I apologise, but "what are you smoking" is normally a tongue in
cheek way to say that you believe a statement to require considerable
justification.

Remember, you're the one acting as a voice for WoJ (AFAICT), which behooves
you to be careful with your words. I'm just a random **** stirrer on the
internet so I can say whatever I want.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
Oh, loneliness and cheeseburgers are a dangerous mix.
- Comic Book Guy

"cfsmtb" <cfsmtb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156940414.627363.98730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Signorini wrote:
>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'd reckon that having "certified
>> training courses" that are "part of the road cycling awareness/competency
>> skillset that is *required to ride* on the road" without some form of
>> documentation that one has met the requirement (a.k.a a licence) would be
>> a
>> waste of time.
>
>
> So why do you think is any difference to the WoJ proposal, to the very
> issue you discussed in the previous (lengthy) Adult Bike Ed threads on
> BV forums?
>
> http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1406

:0

Point taken - where's that humble pie!

But, even though I did talk of possible mandated training, I do seem to
recall that this thread started off about providing a recognised cycle
training course for newbies to cycling or for people who are scared of the
perceived traffic risks that they only want to ride on the
bikepath/footpath. The aim being to boost their skills and road confidence,
not a "requirement for cycling". It is a bit of a step from that to
instituting a mandatory training course, that would I expect require
licencing. This, as we both agree, is not a goer in Victoria at the moment.

> Even the BFA has informed us that cyclist training is one of their key
> projects at the moment.

Great to hear.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:20:14 -0700, cfsmtb wrote:

> So why do you think is any difference to the WoJ proposal, to the very
> issue you discussed in the previous (lengthy) Adult Bike Ed threads on
> BV forums?

Pete and I are reading that you're asking for mandatory training for
cyclists before they're allowed to ride on the road. That's licensing,
whether you call it that or not. Your follow up comments imply that you're
actually trying to push for easily available and strongly recommended
training programs for riders at all ages, which is considerably different.

The difference is that you don't need enforcement and associated
infrastructure with the second proposal. That's effectively impossible.

I'm not going to comment on the linked discussion, since I'm not entirely
sure to what extent Mr Signorini is playing devil's advocate with that
question.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
"When all you've got is a nailgun, every problem looks like a messiah."
- Iain Chalmers

Dave Hughes wrote:>
> I'd consider a call for mandatory licensing for bike riders to be evidence
> of schedule 1 drug use, or listening to MMM (who were talking about this
> subject as I flicked through looking for something to listening).

Your jumping to conclusions again, there is no call for bicycle rego or
licensing so stop repeating a spurious assumption on your behalf.

Dave Hughes wrote:
>My
> misread of what you were saying lead to that comment. If offense was
> taken I apologise, but "what are you smoking" is normally a tongue in
> cheek way to say that you believe a statement to require considerable
> justification.


If you want the discussion to be serious, then don't send messages
implying drug use or if someone listens to The Cage or whatever. It's
not pertinent and says potentially a lot more about you, than the topic
at hand.


> Remember, you're the one acting as a voice for WoJ (AFAICT), which behooves
> you to be careful with your words. I'm just a random **** stirrer on the
> internet so I can say whatever I want.


Pffff, do you need reminding that you're using your real name in a ng?
BTW I am careful with what I am discussing on this thread, and don't
appreciate your misreading the issue. And I have every right to
clarify, and challenge any silly ****stirring when required.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:58:26 -0700, cfsmtb wrote:

> Your jumping to conclusions again, there is no call for bicycle rego or
> licensing so stop repeating a spurious assumption on your behalf.

I am not jumping to conclusions. I've already stated that it is your
message, repeated by rooman, that I replied to. I've stated that
it's easily misread as saying you require someone to undertake training
before they are to be permitted to ride on a road. That is licensing, pure
and simple, whether you call it that or not. If that is your position, I
consider it to be untenable. If it is not your position then you need to
improve the grammar with which your message is propagated to ensure that
this reading is not taken.

Note that recommending training is a different kettle of fish to requiring
it.

> Pffff, do you need reminding that you're using your real name in a ng?

Whoop-de-do. So I'm a comedian from Western Victoria when you google me.
I've always used a valid email address that would allow someone with half
a clue to work out where I am in the world.

> BTW I am careful with what I am discussing on this thread, and don't
> appreciate your misreading the issue. And I have every right to clarify,
> and challenge any silly ****stirring when required.

Then fix the phrasing of your message, or stop denying you're calling for
licensing. You grouched on me for jumping to conclusions when the
conclusion I reached was stated in the original message. You've yet to
clarify that you're not playing semantics with "license" vs "certificate
of completion", and that you're simply recommending all riders undertake
training when they purchase a bike for use on the road.

I understand that you're passionate about this subject. It's obvious from
how you react when anyone disagrees with you. But it's counterproductive
when someone asks for clarification and you spend more time complaining
about the manner of that request than responding to it.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
Flagrant system error! The system is down. I dunno what you did,
moron, but you sure screwed everything up - Strongbad

Peter Signorini wrote:

> Point taken - where's that humble pie!
>
> But, even though I did talk of possible mandated training, I do seem to
> recall that this thread started off about providing a recognised cycle
> training course for newbies to cycling or for people who are scared of the
> perceived traffic risks that they only want to ride on the
> bikepath/footpath. The aim being to boost their skills and road confidence,
> not a "requirement for cycling". It is a bit of a step from that to
> instituting a mandatory training course, that would I expect require
> licencing. This, as we both agree, is not a goer in Victoria at the moment.


You've neatly worked out what the problem is here, roo's used the word
"mandatory", which has set off (not surprisingly) a few alarm bells.
"Mandatory" is a poor choice for what we've been actually implying.
Just as a side point, going back a decade or more I would of
appreciated a Adult Bike Ed course conducted either from the local
community house or even as a CAE course, instead of having to learn
"cyclecraft" the hard way.

Doubtless numerous others would of as well, not everyone has the
inclination or time to join a competitive CC or similar. In all
seriousness I'd be interested in what you would have to say about any
potential Adult Bike Ed (ok, the title is daggy) Alan assures me it's
all been mentioned before, so we shouldn't really be completely
re-inventing the wheel so to speak. Developing Course framework,
service delivery? Hrmm, the BFA are asking for AGM delegates for issues
to be promoted for the 2007 Federal election. WoJ have just joined the
BFA. Again, if you have time or the interest, we'd be very interested
in what you could contribute.

BrettS wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Hehehehe. Where do you want me to start? The Vinnies, the Keep Oz
>> Beautiful Council, the Adult Literacy Council, the Red Cross, the
>> Bush Fire Brigades, or just regular monetary donations?
>
> Keep Australia Beautiful Council? Are you one of those guys who dobs
> in litterbugs? I thought they got paid. :-)

You've never spent a Sunday morning picking up roadside rubbish? Organised a
street crew by doorknocking? I've still got the "site leader" T-shirt.

Theo

Dave Hughes wrote:

> This is a rather nasty accident, the cause of which we don't currently
> know. It may have been rider error, and at this stage looks as though
> it is - but it could just as easily have been a snapped brake cable.

Snapped brake cable? ROTFL.

Theo