Road raging pillocks in Perth

Theo Bekkers

Travis wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I don't agree with Travis comment.
>>
>> Theo
>
> There appears to be another Travis posting comments. I only posted
> one, last night, which last I saw was still awaiting moderation. My
> comment was just an answer to the repetitive claim that cyclists are
> constantly breaking the law by riding two abreast, with a link to the
> WA Govt "cycling and the law" page where as I pointed out it says that
> riders are allowed to ride two abreast, or three if overtaking.
>
> That said, I can't say I've been too outraged by anything the other
> Travis has said, but maybe I missed whatever comment you were
> objecting to.

The Travis that initiated this thread and said
"There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
cars.

Travis"

If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended Travisty.

Theo
Moderation? You have moderation?

Theo Bekkers

AndrewJ wrote:

> The key point here is that one of the cyclists got the registration
> number
> of the car. Very important to train yourself to note the number first,
> <then> start yelling.

Before the police did anything about it, the young lad presented himself at
his local police station with his dad to report the incident and his part in
it.

You've got to give him (and/or his dad) marks for that.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Adrian.Tritschler@gmail.com wrote:

> How well does their opinion when they're standing around chatting at
> work reflect their behaviour when "anonymous" out there in their cars
> and stuck in traffic and they perceive themselves to be held up by
> some other-species cyclist?
>
> Does it then become "you have every right to be on the road, so long
> as it isn't the road I'm using or you're not holding me up at all"

Feed the anger, you'll be over to the dark side soon.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Graeme Dods wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:02 pm, "Adrian.Tritsch...@gmail.com"
> <Adrian.Tritsch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does it then become "you have every right to be on the road, so long
>> as it isn't the road I'm using or you're not holding me up at all"
>
> Possibly, I've never been driven by any of them, but they all seemed
> pretty genuine. That said, there were those who didn't express an
> opinion who may have felt otherwise. As most know I'm a cyclist (the
> sight of me arriving at work as a red sweaty wreck having cycled 35km
> in 36 degree heat tends to stick in ones mind) they may have felt
> silence was the best option :-)

We now have two cyclists in the building but no shower. I'm trying to figure
out how and where to put one in. Meanwhile we paid for gym memberships to
our nearest good gym (Bayswater Waves) for all our staff who were
interested. Too far to go for a shower though as it's about 4 klicks away.

Theo

Travis

On Feb 21, 7:30 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:

> The Travis that initiated this thread and said
> "There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
> usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
> riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
> cars.
>
> Travis"
>
> If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended Travisty.
>
> Theo
> Moderation? You have moderation?

Actually I think I misread your comment.

Were you saying, when you said you disagreed with me, that you
disagreed with the comments I'd made at the newspaper's site (which
was my original assumption, though not what I currently think you
meant) or that you disagreed with my comment in aus.bicycles that the
comments were full of people complaining about rampaging hordes of
cyclists travelling two abreast, which I think is what you actually
meant.

The other post from Travis in this newsgroup was me, and I stand by
that remark (albeit tongue in cheek, the rampaging hordes bit is for
comic effect) but at the newspaper site there is someone else posting
as Travis, and all or most of the Travis posts at that site are from
someone else.

If you read through the early comments you'll find quite a lot of
people expressing outrage that these cyclists, as well as many other
bunches of cyclists they had come across, were traveling two abreast,
many of them obviously under the mistaken impression that this is
actually illegal. They were demanding to know why the police don't do
something to crack down on this common act of anti-motorist terrorism.

That wasn't really an "opinion" I was expressing, the posts I
commented on are there and you can see them when you read the
followups. Hence my confusion, I thought when you were referring to
an opinion of mine that you were disagreeing with you meant something
written by the person at the newspaper site calling himself "Travis",
though admittedly I haven't seen anything written by that guy which I
vehemently disagree with, it seems he's a cyclist too.

Travis

Travis

On Feb 21, 10:34 am, Travis <travismor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended Travisty.
>
> > Theo
> > Moderation? You have moderation?
>
> Actually I think I misread your comment.

And besides which, I don't take offense easily. I tend to assume when
there is something offensive about what someone wrote that it was
unintentional, unless it was clearly deliberate, in which case I'm
usually more bemused than anything else about what this person's
problem is.

Life's short, I figure its best not to waste it on taking offense all
the time!

Travis

Graeme Dods

On Feb 21, 7:41 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> We now have two cyclists in the building but no shower. I'm trying to figure
> out how and where to put one in.

Just put the two cyclists in an office together on their own, with a
fan blowing towards an open window. Problem solved, I'll put the fee
on your next bill.

Graeme

Terryc

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> We now have two cyclists in the building but no shower. I'm trying to figure
> out how and where to put one in.

Shipping container with one of those plastic modules you can buy?

Sorry, it has been a while so I do not have a reference. we were looking
at installing an ensuite in the back of our very large garage,but there
were these self contained modules (just add pipes and power) that you
could push in.

TimC

On 2008-02-20, Adrian.Tritschler@gmail.com (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Feb 20, 3:10?pm, Graeme Dods <GraemeD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This came up at work yesterday and I was pleasantly surprised by the
>> fact that everyone seemed to be of the opinion that cyclists have
>> every right to be on the road, and if you get delayed by them for a
>> wee while just chill out and live with it.
>
> How well does their opinion when they're standing around chatting at
> work reflect their behaviour when "anonymous" out there in their cars
> and stuck in traffic and they perceive themselves to be held up by
> some other-species cyclist?
>
> Does it then become "you have every right to be on the road, so long
> as it isn't the road I'm using or you're not holding me up at all"

I once met a cute girl who, when we started talking, revealed she
didn't mind cyclists, as long as they didn't hold her up. And she was
a country girl too, so presumably wouldn't be held up often.

Ugh. Funny how people become instantly less attractive.

--
TimC
> Bugger you guys.
> The babelfish is idempotent on the set above.
I'm afraid that isn't a very good pickup line either, Tim. - MaryG

TimC

On 2008-02-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> AndrewJ wrote:
>
>> The key point here is that one of the cyclists got the registration
>> number
>> of the car. Very important to train yourself to note the number first,
>> <then> start yelling.
>
> Before the police did anything about it, the young lad presented himself at
> his local police station with his dad to report the incident and his part in
> it.
>
> You've got to give him (and/or his dad) marks for that.

Him, not necessarily. We don't know.

I suspect he turned up at home with a few dents on the car, and dad
asked him what happened, and he couldn't think of a suitable lie in
time. But I display bias against this guy because I think that anyone
who's capable of deliberately aiming at a bunch of fellow human beings
probably wouldn't have the moral makeup and be the kind of person who
would show up to a police station voluntarily.

What I would love to see, despite the fact it would never happen, is
that if you know x people took part in an illegal activity, and only
some of those x present themselves to the law (and then try to
disclaim more than their share of responsibility, passing it off to
another of the members who conveniently can't be found), then those
who do present themselves get all of the penalty that ought to be
assigned to the totality.

3 people in a car run over a bunch of cyclists, with each participant
attracting 2 years in jail (and is required to restitute the victims)
if they were all sentenced, and only 1 turns up to police? He gets 6
years in jail, and pays the full compensation amount himself.

Would hopefully encourage people not to cover for their stupid mates.
Course, they'd be less likely to turn up to police at all, but you
could get around that by fooling with the prisoner's dilemma. Own up
yourself, and get off lighter. Be dobbed in, get a heavier penalty.
Fail to dob in people, get a heavier still penalty.

--
TimC
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using bottom
up development, you never solve the problem. -- John Kelly in debian-user

Theo Bekkers

Travis wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:30 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The Travis that initiated this thread and said
>> "There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
>> usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
>> riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
>> cars.
>>
>> Travis"
>>
>> If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended
>> Travisty.
>>
>> Theo
>> Moderation? You have moderation?
>
> Actually I think I misread your comment.
>
> Were you saying, when you said you disagreed with me, that you
> disagreed with the comments I'd made at the newspaper's site (which
> was my original assumption, though not what I currently think you
> meant) or that you disagreed with my comment in aus.bicycles that the
> comments were full of people complaining about rampaging hordes of
> cyclists travelling two abreast, which I think is what you actually
> meant.

The latter.

> If you read through the early comments you'll find quite a lot of
> people expressing outrage that these cyclists, as well as many other
> bunches of cyclists they had come across, were traveling two abreast,
> many of them obviously under the mistaken impression that this is
> actually illegal.

More than half of those were from cyclists. :-)

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Travis wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:34 am, Travis <travismor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended
>>> Travisty.

>> Actually I think I misread your comment.
>
> And besides which, I don't take offense easily. I tend to assume when
> there is something offensive about what someone wrote that it was
> unintentional, unless it was clearly deliberate, in which case I'm
> usually more bemused than anything else about what this person's
> problem is.
>
> Life's short, I figure its best not to waste it on taking offense all
> the time!

I went to a lot of trouble to use the nearly-correctly-spelt word
"Travisty", and apparently it was wasted. Oh well... :-)

Theo

Travis

On Feb 21, 5:17 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:

> I went to a lot of trouble to use the nearly-correctly-spelt word
> "Travisty", and apparently it was wasted. Oh well... :-)
>
> Theo

Don't you just hate it when some inconsiderate jerk doesn't LOL at
your puns? Makes you feel like running him and his bike over in your
car, doesn't it Theo? ;-)

Travis

Theo Bekkers

Travis wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> I went to a lot of trouble to use the nearly-correctly-spelt word
>> "Travisty", and apparently it was wasted. Oh well... :-)

> Don't you just hate it when some inconsiderate jerk doesn't LOL at
> your puns? Makes you feel like running him and his bike over in your
> car, doesn't it Theo? ;-)

Or my new 4WD ute. Actually, I usually think of it as a failure on my part,
not theirs.

Theo