Anti cyclists threats in the media



On 27 Nov 2005 19:04:08 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>obviously not one of the 1000+ riders on friday...
>
>CM does nothing to 'deliberately obstruct traffic'
>they have every right to ride on the roads like all other road users.
>they dont make traffic - they are traffic...


Yep. They have the right to ride two abreast in a lane. And to keep
left since they are slow moving vehicles.

That however was not what they were doing a few years ago in Sydney.
They were riding as a bunch taking up all lanes, deliberated
obstructiing motorists illegally, even stopping at points.

And I know some of the people behind it, they weren't really cyclists
and didn't give a damn about cycling, they were just maxists, members
of resistance and out to cause any havok possilble in an attempt to
combat capitalism. I got into an argument with them at a peaceful demo
to protest against forcing ISPs to censor the net where they turned up
with Resistance posters and were recruiting for their next traffic
obstruction stunt.

>threats like those published really dont do anything to portray the
>average motorist in a good light.
>after all the years of positive advertising of drink/drunk drivers,
>speeding motorists, on-the-phone motorists, hit/run motorists......


Well no, you don't generalise from the sensationalist quotes whipped
up by the media to make money to ordinary drivers.

As I said, just ignore the talk.

dewatf.
 
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:04:09 +1100, DaveB
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You forgot to mention: helmets are the work of the devil, red light
>runners should be drawn and quartered, bicycles should be registered,
>Dutchy wears short shorts (hey it was Bleve that said it, not me), and
>... oh who cares I'm sure any I missed will come up over the next month.


Hemets are probably of little real effect (unless you are a
professional cyclist or a kid) but a rather trivial matter.

Red light runners should be fined.

Bicycles should not be registered.

dewatf.
 
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:38:43 +1100, cfsmtb
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you comprehend the legal definition of incitement?


Sorry I forgot you live in Victoria where the law thinks that it is is
business to gaol everybody on the basis of media hype.
When the police kick in your door and drag you off in the middle of
night because you looked at someone the wrong way, don't come crawling
to me for pity.

dewatf.
 
dewatf <[email protected]> wrote:
> And I know some of the people behind it, they weren't really cyclists
> and didn't give a damn about cycling, they were just maxists,


"Would you believe 99 anarchists and a sprinkling of economic
rationalists?"
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
On 2005-11-29, dewatf (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 27 Nov 2005 19:04:08 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>obviously not one of the 1000+ riders on friday...
>>
>>CM does nothing to 'deliberately obstruct traffic'
>>they have every right to ride on the roads like all other road users.
>>they dont make traffic - they are traffic...

>
> Yep. They have the right to ride two abreast in a lane. And to keep
> left since they are slow moving vehicles.


Not if they are overtaking. And in the city, that surely is not a
requirement anyway. Cars don't always stick in the left lane despite
not overtaking, do they? It's not practical for two lanes of traffic
in grid lock to all stay in the left lane.


They are slow because of other traffic on the road, so why should htey
yield to traffic behind them?

> That however was not what they were doing a few years ago in Sydney.
> They were riding as a bunch taking up all lanes, deliberated
> obstructiing motorists illegally, even stopping at points.


Did they have a police escort? I would suggest it is not illegal if
they did.

--
TimC
A: Top posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
dewatf said:
Sorry I forgot you live in Victoria where the law thinks that it is is
business to gaol everybody on the basis of media hype.
When the police kick in your door and drag you off in the middle of
night because you looked at someone the wrong way, don't come crawling
to me for pity.

Sheesh you're a right plonker. I prefer to conversing to my QC instead of a troll like you. Now run along little one. :p
 
>> --
>> TimC
>> A: Top posters.
>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, DRS has been
reincarnated as TimC.

DaveB
 
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:35:07 +1100, TimC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Cars don't always stick in the left lane despite not overtaking, do they?


They are required to by law, and if traveling slowly in the right lane
they get fined.

But yes that only applies if there is traffic moving faster than you.

>Did they have a police escort? I would suggest it is not illegal if
>they did.


No they did not have a police escort, they were trying to block the
approaches to the Harbour Bridge and antagonise the police at the
time.

dewatf.
 
dewatf wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> Cars don't always stick in the left lane despite not overtaking, do
>> they?

>
> They are required to by law, and if traveling slowly in the right lane
> they get fined.


That's news to me. Would you mind quoting the law that says cars must keep
in the left lane?

Theo
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> dewatf wrote:
>
>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cars don't always stick in the left lane despite not overtaking, do
>>>they?

>>
>>They are required to by law, and if traveling slowly in the right lane
>>they get fined.

>
>
> That's news to me. Would you mind quoting the law that says cars must keep
> in the left lane?


surely you've seen signs that say "keep left unless overtaking".
not sure about law that specifically apply in this case tho...

kim
 
On 2005-11-30, Kim Hawtin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> That's news to me. Would you mind quoting the law that says cars must keep
>> in the left lane?

>
> surely you've seen signs that say "keep left unless overtaking".
> not sure about law that specifically apply in this case tho...


The only such law -- at least in Victoria -- applies only at speed
limits greater than 80 kph. Where traffic is flowing freely, and the
speed limit is above 80 kph (ie: 90, 100, or 110 kph), vehicles must
keep in the left lane, unless overtaking or otherwise necessary.

The same applies to roads where a "keep left unless overtaking" sign has
been posted, but those are generally above 80 kph speed limits anyway.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
 
dewatf wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:35:07 +1100, TimC
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Cars don't always stick in the left lane despite not overtaking, do they?

>
>
> They are required to by law, and if traveling slowly in the right lane
> they get fined.
>
> But yes that only applies if there is traffic moving faster than you.
>
>
>>Did they have a police escort? I would suggest it is not illegal if
>>they did.

>
> No they did not have a police escort, they were trying to block the
> approaches to the Harbour Bridge and antagonise the police at the
> time.
>
> dewatf.


ROFLMPO. What a complete and utter **** you have just shown yourself to be.

http://moz.net.nz/cmass/rides/2005-11/index.php

First picture shows what?
Oh look, it is the police contingent.
 
Stuart Lamble wrote:
> Kim Hawtin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> That's news to me. Would you mind quoting the law that says cars
>>> must keep in the left lane?

>>
>> surely you've seen signs that say "keep left unless overtaking".
>> not sure about law that specifically apply in this case tho...

>
> The only such law -- at least in Victoria -- applies only at speed
> limits greater than 80 kph. Where traffic is flowing freely, and the
> speed limit is above 80 kph (ie: 90, 100, or 110 kph), vehicles must
> keep in the left lane, unless overtaking or otherwise necessary.
>
> The same applies to roads where a "keep left unless overtaking" sign
> has been posted, but those are generally above 80 kph speed limits
> anyway.


Even then, I think it is only an advisory sign, with no legal standing. On
our Freeways, in WA, the normal speed limit is 100 but there are different
minimum speeds for the left and right lanes. In the right lane you must be
doing at least 90, in the left lane the minimum is 80. (This is assuming the
traffic is actually capable of moving). There are no other minimum speeds in
WA and you may drive in any lane you want on a multilane road.

There is a law says you must keep left on a single lane (each way) road.

Theo
 
Theo Bekkers said:
Even then, I think it is only an advisory sign, with no legal standing. On
our Freeways, in WA, the normal speed limit is 100 but there are different
minimum speeds for the left and right lanes. In the right lane you must be
doing at least 90, in the left lane the minimum is 80. (This is assuming the
traffic is actually capable of moving). There are no other minimum speeds in
WA and you may drive in any lane you want on a multilane road.

There is a law says you must keep left on a single lane (each way) road.

Theo
In Victoria it's law, although I've never heard of anyone being done for it. And I quote (not sure about the definition of Penalty Units though):


130.​
Keeping to the left on a multi-lane road








(1) This rule applies to a driver driving on a multi-lane road if—




(a) the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the​

driver is driving is over 80 kilometres per hour; or​

(b) a​
keep left unless overtaking sign applies to the length of road where


the driver is driving.​



Note 1​
Length
of road and multi-lane road are defined in the dictionary.







Note 2​
Part 3 deals with speed-limits.







(2) The driver must not drive in the right lane unless—




(a) the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the​

road, and is giving a right change of direction signal; or​

(b) the driver is overtaking; or​

(c) a​
left lane must turn left sign or left traffic lane arrows apply to any other


lane and the driver is not turning left; or​

(d) the driver is required to drive in the right lane under rule 159; or​

(e) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or​

(f) the traffic in each other lane is congested; or​

(g) the traffic in every lane is congested.​

Penalty: 2 penalty units.​

 
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
> > Kim Hawtin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >>> That's news to me. Would you mind quoting the law that says cars
> >>> must keep in the left lane?
> >>
> >> surely you've seen signs that say "keep left unless overtaking".
> >> not sure about law that specifically apply in this case tho...

> >
> > The only such law -- at least in Victoria -- applies only at speed
> > limits greater than 80 kph. Where traffic is flowing freely, and the
> > speed limit is above 80 kph (ie: 90, 100, or 110 kph), vehicles must
> > keep in the left lane, unless overtaking or otherwise necessary.
> >
> > The same applies to roads where a "keep left unless overtaking" sign
> > has been posted, but those are generally above 80 kph speed limits
> > anyway.

>
> Even then, I think it is only an advisory sign, with no legal standing. On
> our Freeways, in WA, the normal speed limit is 100 but there are different
> minimum speeds for the left and right lanes. In the right lane you must be
> doing at least 90, in the left lane the minimum is 80. (This is assuming

the
> traffic is actually capable of moving). There are no other minimum speeds

in
> WA and you may drive in any lane you want on a multilane road.
>
> There is a law says you must keep left on a single lane (each way) road.
>
> Theo


I know someone who was recently fined for driving in the right lane without
a good reason (she was in it for about 500m when the cops pulled her up) so
I think it's one of those laws that are not enforced as much rather than
don't exist. The incident was on Albany Highway in Armadale, WA. Can't be
stuffed looking up a proper source, so I'll stick to anecdotal...

Cheers,

Frank
 
peterlip wrote:
>Victoria it's law, although I've never heard of anyone being
> done for
> it. And I quote (not sure about the definition of Penalty Units
> though):
>
>
> *130. -Keeping to the left on a multi-lane road*-


> (1) This rule applies to a driver driving on a multi-lane road
> if-


> (a) the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road
> where the
>
> driver is driving is over 80 kilometres per hour; or
>
> (b) a -keep left unless overtaking sign -applies to the length of
> road where


Ditto for WA, except that the speed limit must be 90 or higher.

So there is no requirement to keep left on a metropolitan multilane road
where the speed limit is 60 or 70.

Theo
 

Similar threads