Herald Sun reader comments on death of James Gould - Page 4

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:22:24 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Snapped brake cable? ROTFL.

I know it's unlikely, but it's possible. We haven't got the details, and
we're not going to get them until there's been a coronial inquiry and/or
criminal prosecution. Or at least we shouldn't.

Everyone here knows the odds of a brake cable dying without warning are
fairly slim, especially on a road bike. But it has happened in the past,
and *could* be the case here. We're all speculating.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
Thus leading us to the obvious conclusion that all software should look
like a nipple. - Eric the Read

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> 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.

No, I've got two kids, I get to do that every day without going outside
;-)

(As a side note, my brother got fined for dumping a cigarette out of his
car [which serves him right], and the fine notice came with a pamphlet
that indicated that it was possible to become a registered 'litter
reporter'.)

--
BrettS

On 2006-08-30, BrettS (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> (As a side note, my brother got fined for dumping a cigarette out of his
> car [which serves him right], and the fine notice came with a pamphlet
> that indicated that it was possible to become a registered 'litter
> reporter'.)

I'm registeded with EPA to report smokey vehicles, but the try their
hardest to discard any entry given to them.

The burden on me to get all details appears to be worse than reporting
someone to the police. At least with the police, I can give them a
numberplate, and a car colour and approximate make as an added bonus
for verification is all very nice, but with the EPA, I require:

number plate
colour
make
model
*year*!
time
date
location


If you don't supply the make, then they simply don't allow you to
submit the form. I have more than once said "unknown", and "early
model hatchback, possibly mitsubishi" in boxes that weren't really
appropriate for that.

I'm just hoping that when I did such a submission, for a red hatchback
of unknown make with victorian number plate NAJ 624, a month ago along
camberwell road, they at least bothered to correlate that with the
earlier submission I made, 6 months prior, of the same car also along
Camberwell Rd. Didn't get the damned make either time.

I'm sure if they just sat somewhere along Camberwell Road any random
day around 11:30am, they'd catch him, but that would probably require
work.

--
TimC
Cult: (n) a small, unpopular religion.
Religion: (n) a large, popular cult.

perhaps the ped did all that was necessary, Zeebee, perhaps not..again we do not know, and the poor individual is not with us so we will never know...

now on questions of those words, "mandatory", "licences" and what not....

what does it matter... if you are properly instructed in a mandated course, you may be just doing some thing to obtain skill and discipline to control a vehicle ( being in this case a bike) on a public roadway... is that not a necessary thing? , or do we ignore adequate skill and let carnage as expressed by some here and in the media continue, as is the (erroneous) perception.

Let me be quite clear here, WoJ does not seek a licence system for cyclists, but, realistically, that may be a necessary part of the process to deliver a safer and more effective integration of cycling into our sense of community and culture.

Also it doesnt follow that a mandated course of skill and instruction is followed by a licence ( ie: akin to a drivers lic.), merely that the rider has satisfied a prescribed person of attaining a skill set, just like an HSC, VCE and the like....it is an achievement not a burden or annual impost.

To quote a common expression- If we keep on doing what weve always done, we'll keep on getting what weve always got...and in that context from the 3AWs of this earth its flack, brickbatts and negatives ...so change is necessary and it has to be soon....

Personally and it is my opinion here not WoJ's , I have no problems with a licence for cyclists...it would darn well put the whinging anti-cylists' lobby who want that, out of the equation....I know Government has not wanted to do it, but one day it may come... but it is not on the agenda for WoJ, and is not necessary.

What really concerns me, and this is the far greater problem as I see it, and that is not just that we need a better process of education for young cyclists and drivers, but how do we address the lack of skill already there amongst our existing population of cyclists?...

how many of you out there can truly say :-

• you can safely look behind whilst riding without changing direction, or
• can properly demonstrate an emergency break manouver, and
• come to a rapid complete stop from 30+klm an hour without skidding the back wheel sideways ( and falling off) and
• just which break lever would you grab first , ( and why) and
• where would you put your butt during all this ( and why) ....
• and how much forehead would you expose when wearing your helmet....
• and just how do you turn a corner without running off the road, ( and why) and where do you look when corning ( and why) , at the road in front of your wheel, at the traffic, at the exit point, where?.....
• and why do so many cyclists run into the back of parked cars?..are they looking where they are going?, can they see ahead? , do their bikes allow them to look up when riding to at least let them see where they are going without getting a sore neck or back.....?

these (few) very basic things cannot be competently achieved by many cyclists, there are a myriad of other necessary cycling skills which cannot be demonstrated as well...by those who probably havnt had any tuition on theses aspects anyway, nor might they have a bike that is safe to ride ...are you one of them....?

Sorry, this is not just about the Hell Ride anymore ( if it ever was), it runs much deeper, it is about culture, attitude, skill sets and responsibility...

so I ask that people stop belly aching and be positive and constructive...if anyone wants to be a pedantic pr.ck, then turn that energy into a positive supportive approach to align with what has to be done to make our communities safe for driver, pedestrian and cyclist alike.

WoJ sets out to bring these items to our attention and to advocate for improvement, stimulate for change and spead the message that the benefits of cycling deliver so much to our society....

if you want to nitpick, go nitpick Neil Mitchell or Miranda Devine, what positive contributions have they delivered to making cycling safer? ...none you might say!....IMHO ..they just want cycling banned from the roads....and as a result, could you see our already obese population dying out completely, from diabetes, cardiac arrest, stress, depression or suffocation from exhaust emissions...when we are all dead the problem is solved!

Dave Hughes wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:22:24 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > Snapped brake cable? ROTFL.
>
> I know it's unlikely, but it's possible. We haven't got the details, and
> we're not going to get them until there's been a coronial inquiry and/or
> criminal prosecution. Or at least we shouldn't.

I'm sure if he hired Eugene's lawyer, they could make it sound
plausible ... to some.

Donga

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.

I have no clue what the mother was doing. But a society with any
intelligence should have stopped her (somehow) fom having kids

Dave

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:39:28 +1000
> rooman <rooman.2dchbd@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
>>Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>>>In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:41:36 +0800
>>>
>>>How much more careful can he be than wait for cyclists to stop and
>>>then cross with the green light?
>>>
>>>Zebeefact is , we ... and all the commentators, the media and other agenda
>>
>>drivers, weren't there and therefore are none the wiser.....
>>
>
>
> No, but there doesn't seem to be any argument that he was crossing at
> a green light with riders stopped, and that one rider did not stop.
>
> Whether the rider was an official part of an group that apparently has
> no official parts isn't relevant. I have said nothing about the "hell
> ride", just that I don't think it right to say the man should have
> been more careful.
>
> What could the ped have done to be "more careful" except not cross the
> road at all?
>
>
> Zebee

Sometimes Zebee you make perfect sense

Dave

dave wrote:
> rooman wrote:
> <stuff>
> I can demonstrate perfectly adequately that I know what a red light
> looks like. ANd of all the advanced bike skills that exist thats the
> one that was needed. So unless you think that thats a skill one needs a
> licence for......

You consider those advanced bike skills? I consider them mandatory
skills for safely operating on the road. Maybe that's the point.
--
Cheers
Euan

Peter Signorini wrote:
> "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.

Difference is a licence can be revoked. A certificate proving a certain
level of achievement is very different to a licence.
--
Cheers
Euan

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:20:26 GMT
Euan <euan_b_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Difference is a licence can be revoked. A certificate proving a certain
> level of achievement is very different to a licence.

The idea being that you need no re-testing of any kind no matter
the length of layoff?

I'm not sure I see why that would be useful for "required to ride" or
ideed how it could be required unless you had to carry it on your
person at all times.

I think having decent training - similar perhaps to the theory
training that Stay Upright do on their advanced motorcycle course - is
a good thing, I stop at the idea of it being "required" for anything.

For one thing, "required" means enforcement of some kind and that's
expensive and would be user pays.

What kind of behaviour is happening that's due to lack of knowledge
rather than disregard of such knowledge? Lane discipline is probably
the former, red light running and lack of lights is more likely the
latter.



Zebee

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:18:19 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> What kind of behaviour is happening that's due to lack of knowledge
> rather than disregard of such knowledge? Lane discipline is probably
> the former, red light running and lack of lights is more likely the
> latter.

Parking lane bouncing, particularly if the rider isn't checking for cars
properly when they bounce out.

Riding in the RH parking lane, against the traffic (which is what peds are
supposed to do if there's no footpath, and presumably the logic behind
that decision).

A bit of knowledge about how to stop hard would be useful, but easily
picked up with a bit of practice.

The first one is probably the hardest to pick up, and I don't think
training is going to help that much. It's a confidence thing that really
requires a fair bit of road time to get over.

<Generalisation type=massive> I'd suggest a lot of the riders doing the no
lights, wrong side of the road, in and out of traffic thing are people who
have lost their car license. They probably don't have spare cash for a
training course (what does the moto one run to?), and have already
demonstrated a willingness to ignore road rules in a more dangerous
vehicle. What use is training going to be? </Generalisation>

People who decide that riding is going to be more fun/cheaper/better for
them are probably more interested in making it work well and might look
for a training course. But most people know how to ride a bike from
childhood, so will go for a back street or local park spin to refresh
their memory, then off down the road. Another $100 or so for a training
course will be a disincentive that may stop them getting on a bike at all.

Mandation will be too expensive to implement, maintain and enforce. The
benefits do not justify the expenses, unlike mandatory car
licensing/registration.

--
Dave Hughes | dave@hired-goons.net
Researchers in Fairbanks Alaska announced last week that they have
discovered a superconductor which will operate at room temperature.

Basic risk / benefit tradeoff. What's the risk in letting people get back on a bike, people who have had training, after a period of time? Even with recent events a bicycle is still the most benign means of transport known to man and that's without cyclists having easy access to training.

The same can not be said when it comes to operating a motor vehicle, hence more stringent (not stringent enough currently IMO) requirements are needed.

That's not a given.

Control of a bike for one, I see countless examples every day of cyclists who can't even take off from a stand still properly. Effective braking, looking behind you without weaving all over the place: pretty much what rooman listed.

In article <rooman.2dcz8g@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com>,
rooman <rooman.2dcz8g@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> Personally and it is my opinion here not WoJ's , I have no problems
> with a licence for cyclists...it would darn well put the whinging
> anti-cylists' lobby who want that, out of the equation...

You seriously think cycling licenses would shut up the Neil Mitchells of
the world? I think you're kidding yourself. They'd just move on to other
arguments, possibly emboldened by what they'd regard as a campaign
success.

--
Shane Stanley

In article <44f60119$1@news.comindico.com.au>,
Euan <euan_b_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Difference is a licence can be revoked. A certificate proving a certain
> level of achievement is very different to a licence.

So we have a set of compulsory tests for drivers, and when they complete
them they get a licence, which can be revoked if they break the law. And
then we have a set of compulsory tests for cyclists, and when they
complete them they get a certificate that can't be revoked. You don't
think this might amount to giving cycling opponents a free kick in front
of goal? I can see the Herald-Sun headlines already...

--
Shane Stanley

All this sounds unpleasantly familar. Actually, do cyclists have to placate the likes of Kneel or simply have the pragmatic sense to move the discussion past the rant stage?

Going OT but who has memory or knowledge of the 1950's "McCarthy" Trials? There was a classic moment caught on film where proceedings were ending. People were packing up, leaving the room etc. McCarthy (I think) was still at the stand, banging on, while virtually everyone else ignored him.