Bikes on footpaths - damn...



Status
Not open for further replies.
> It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for cyclists to ride on the footpath
> but then again it is not a cyclist's right but an privilege.

Hi Kenneth! What is the difference between a right and a privilege? It is legal for a pedestrian to
use the "Bicentennial Bikeway" shared path. Is that a privilege, or a right?
 
"Arpit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7 Oct 2003 15:45:34 +0950, Cheryl <[email protected]> wrote:
<...>
> >What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has the right to ride on the
> >footpath what right does he have at a crossing? I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed
> >out onto a crossing causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for walkers
> >near the crossing.
>
> um, you checked for walkers, why didnt you see the cyclist?

My guess is that they were moving at speed from the footpath onto the pedi crossing.

Just in the same way that a pedi that is running and does a sharp turn onto a pedi crossing does not
give road users adequate time to stop for them.

Tim
 
Glen F wrote:

>>It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for cyclists to ride on the footpath
>>but then again it is not a cyclist's right but an privilege.
>
>
> Hi Kenneth! What is the difference between a right and a privilege? It is legal for a pedestrian
> to use the "Bicentennial Bikeway" shared path. Is that a privilege, or a right?
>
>

A "privilege" is a "right" that can be "taken away" for no reason, obviously! :) It takes a little
more perspiration to remove a "right".

However, in actual fact, there is no such thing as a "right" or a "privilege", in the context being
discussed. An abstract noun ("state"/"government") can neither confer nor revoke any "right". This
is the reason a "bill of human rights" is an affront. Human rights exist independently and outside
of any "state", "government" or "bill".

Similarly, my right to ride a bicycle where it is safe to do so is independent of any "law" that
pretends to say what I can and can't do. This is *particularly* evident where laws vary from place
to place, and state to state. It can't be safe in one state and unsafe in another. This is (one)
proof that the law cannot tell you what is OK or not OK to do.

Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am a Christian, I will refuse to be
conscripted under any circumstances whatsoever. Not only do Christians recognise no authority but
God's, it is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that murder and Christianity
are mutually incompatible. I will not bother to go into a long explanation of this, except to refer
the interested reader to a couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :

"You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer
the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him
the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak
as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who
asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."

and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both can be found in full text
form on the Internet. **

Not all laws are bad, of course, in the sense that what they prescribe is prescribed for a good
reason. Traffic regulations are (generally) a good example. Having everyone drive on the same side
of the road is very convenient! :) (For some values of "same") Whether we need a *law* to tell us
this, though, is quite another matter. It should be clear to the majority that people would continue
to drive on the correct side of the road without a law that says they have to!

Even the law (in some places) against (some people) riding bicyles on (some) footpaths is intended
to protect pedestrians from reckless idiots on bikes. **

Bye for now.

David

** As an aside, I see a motorcyclist riding along footpaths in our area every day, and I think
nothing of it. He's obviously doing nothing unsafe.

--

The recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on external causes, but on certain
other causes within the man himself. So that at times under external conditions apparently very
favorable for the recognition of truth, one man will not recognize it, and another, on the contrary,
under the most unfavorable conditions will, without apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in
the Gospel, "No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." That is to
say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause of all the manifestations of human life, does not
depend on external phenomena, but on certain inner spiritual characteristics of the man which escape
our observation.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
 
"David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<...>

> I will not bother to go into a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to
> a couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
>
> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you:
> offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek,
> offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him
> have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give
> to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
>
> and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both can be found in full text
> form on the Internet. **
>

If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have it?

;-)

Tim
 
Tim Jones wrote:

> "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <...>
>
>>I will not bother to go into a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader to
>>a couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
>>
>> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you:
>> offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek,
>> offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him
>> have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give
>> to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
>>
>>and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both can be found in full text
>>form on the Internet. **
>>
>
>
> If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have it?
>
> ;-)

Yeah, "give to anyone who asks" is a tough one, isn't it? Do you need it more than I do?

:)

Ciao for niao.

David

--

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
 
"David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Tim Jones wrote:
>
> > "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >>I will not bother to go into a long explanation of this, except to refer the interested reader
> >>to a couple of sources: (1) The gospels, e.g., Matthew 5:38-42. :
> >>
> >> "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you:
> >> offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek,
> >> offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him
> >> have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him.
> >> Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
> >>
> >>and (2) a book by Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Both can be found in full
> >>text form on the Internet. **
> >>
> >
> >
> > If that's the case, have you got a decent bike, and if so, can I have
it?
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Yeah, "give to anyone who asks" is a tough one, isn't it? Do you need it more than I do?
>

Damn! Got me there - I already have a bike!

Tim

> :)
 
"David Trudgett" wrote

> Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am
a
> Christian, I will refuse to be conscripted under any circumstances whatsoever.

I also refuse to be conscripted but I'm an atheist.

> Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's

You should go and live in God's country.

, it
> is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that
murder
> and Christianity are mutually incompatible.

Have you watched the current series on Foxtel Ch 19 about the Crusades. "Killing for God".

Theo
 
"Arpit" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

> >I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride (carefully) on their paths,
> >but they mustn't walk on ours"
mentality.

> I ride on the footpaths, but I do get annoyed if pedestrians are a bike only lane, and dont give
> way. I give way to them on the
footpaths
> and shared paths and offroad tracks.

You get annoyed if pedestrians are on a bike only path, but you ride on a pedestrian only path?

<shakes head>

Theo
 
Hi Theo,

> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
> > Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am Christian, I will refuse to
> > be conscripted under any circumstances whatsoever.
>
> I also refuse to be conscripted but I'm an atheist.

You are 100% right! I didn't mean to imply that it is necessary to be a Christian, nor even a
theist, to refuse to be conscripted. In fact, even if I were not a Christian, I would remain
absolutely opposed to conscription on grounds that have nothing to do with Christianity or
God as such.

Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a curious fact many atheists,
such as yourself, are opposed [1] to conscription, whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite
prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women and children they have never seen before.
Furthermore, people who one would be forgiven for mistaking as Christian, people who I know
personally, and who seem to be otherwise very decent people, have lent their moral support to the
bombing, invasion and occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. These people claim to be Christian,
yet it is clear that they are not. It is clear that they are not because of the answer to this very
simple question: "Who would Jesus bomb?"

It can be argued that the Christian who declines to attend church on the sabbath, who eats meat on
Fridays or during Lent, who doesn't believe in the virgin birth, and who has been known to get
sloshed down the pub, is still a Christian nevertheless, but simply an imperfect one. On the other
hand, the person who would take a gun and shoot any person indicated by his commanding officer, can
in no way claim to be Christian. It's sort of a fundamental conflict, like saying that black is
really white, for very small values of white. And so it is also with those who advocate or condone
the mass slaughter of men, women and children that has occurred in Afghanistan, and in Iraq for the
last twelve years [2].

I'm not saying that these "Christians" are "evil" people, or even (knowing) hypocrites. Many of them
sincerely believe that murder is a necessary part of Christianity, given an appropriate set of
circumstances. Many of them have even convinced themselves that a soldier does not commit murder
when he kills the designated "enemy". (It is this spurious belief, among many, that Tolstoy
demolishes once and for all in "The Kingdom of God is Within You".)

So we have the irony of ironies: the Christian who is prepared to murder strangers, and the atheist
who refuses to have anything to do with it.

>
> > Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's
>
> You should go and live in God's country.

Sure! :) Got a map? ;-)

>
> > it is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that murder and Christianity are
> > mutually incompatible.
>
> Have you watched the current series on Foxtel Ch 19 about the Crusades. "Killing for God".

No, I haven't seen that particular series, but yes, I know as much as I need to know about the
Crusades. It is deeply shameful for the "Christian" Churches to reflect on how much evil they have
perpetrated in God's name. Notice the scare quotes, though. That should tell you something.

To anyone who has read the gospels with anything like an open mind, it should be plain that no
mainstream "Christian" Church has been in actual fact Christian in anything but name. One cannot be
reading the beatitudes in Matthew 5 one moment, and then plunging a sword through Muslims the next.
It just doesn't add up. The only possible explanation is that the so-called "Christian" Churches are
not in fact Christian at all, but something else.

Does anyone but George W himself reckon he's a Christian? Same goes for our own war criminal at home
for that matter. I wonder where Bush and Howard keep their bloodied swords? That much hasn't changed
over the ages, has it?

Anyway, this has drifted a bit from bicycles. I went for a ride to the beach the other day (about
15.5km each way to this particular beach). It was about four in the afternoon when I got there, sun
shining, slight breeze. Beautiful. Went for a dip for fifteen minutes or so (plenty of time to get
numb!). Very invigorating the water is at this time of year! :)

Phew, on topic again... :)

Catchya.

David

[1] I'm assuming here that it's not simply that you're a coward, or flat footed, or something...

[2] Many people don't know that the US and UK, through their manipulation of the UN, deliberately
brought about the deaths of over 600,000 Iraqi children under the age of five through their
genocidal sanctions regime called "Oil for Food", over which the senior UN official in charge of
the programme resigned in protest.

--

Only let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see that this cruel social organization,
which holds them in bondage, and is represented to them as something stable, necessary, and ordained
of God, is already tottering and is only propped up by the falsehood of hypocrisy, with which we,
and others like us, support it.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
 
It's a time now to be "politically correct". "Christian valuables" are vanishing under pressure of
multicultural and multireligional global people migration. So, no Europe no USA anymore "Christian"
or "Muslim". Polititians claims it to be "home for all".

"David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Theo,
>
> > "David Trudgett" wrote
> >
> > > Another proof can easily be seen in conscription laws. Because I am Christian, I will refuse
> > > to be conscripted under any circumstances whatsoever.
> >
> > I also refuse to be conscripted but I'm an atheist.
>
> You are 100% right! I didn't mean to imply that it is necessary to be a Christian, nor even a
> theist, to refuse to be conscripted. In fact, even if I were not a Christian, I would remain
> absolutely opposed to conscription on grounds that have nothing to do with Christianity or God
> as such.
>
> Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a curious fact many atheists,
> such as yourself, are opposed [1] to conscription, whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite
> prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women and children they have never seen before.
> Furthermore, people who one would be forgiven for mistaking as Christian, people who I know
> personally, and who seem to be otherwise very decent people, have lent their moral support to the
> bombing, invasion and occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. These people claim to be Christian,
> yet it is clear that they are not. It is clear that they are not because of the answer to this
> very simple question: "Who would Jesus bomb?"
>
> It can be argued that the Christian who declines to attend church on the sabbath, who eats meat on
> Fridays or during Lent, who doesn't believe in the virgin birth, and who has been known to get
> sloshed down the pub, is still a Christian nevertheless, but simply an imperfect one. On the other
> hand, the person who would take a gun and shoot any person indicated by his commanding officer,
> can in no way claim to be Christian. It's sort of a fundamental conflict, like saying that black
> is really white, for very small values of white. And so it is also with those who advocate or
> condone the mass slaughter of men, women and children that has occurred in Afghanistan, and in
> Iraq for the last twelve years [2].
>
> I'm not saying that these "Christians" are "evil" people, or even (knowing) hypocrites. Many of
> them sincerely believe that murder is a necessary part of Christianity, given an appropriate set
> of circumstances. Many of them have even convinced themselves that a soldier does not commit
> murder when he kills the designated "enemy". (It is this spurious belief, among many, that Tolstoy
> demolishes once and for all in "The Kingdom of God is Within You".)
>
> So we have the irony of ironies: the Christian who is prepared to murder strangers, and the
> atheist who refuses to have anything to do with it.
>
>
> >
> > > Not only do Christians recognise no authority but God's
> >
> > You should go and live in God's country.
>
> Sure! :) Got a map? ;-)
>
>
> >
> > > it is quite plainly obvious after less than a moment's thought that murder and Christianity
> > > are mutually incompatible.
> >
> > Have you watched the current series on Foxtel Ch 19 about the Crusades. "Killing for God".
>
> No, I haven't seen that particular series, but yes, I know as much as I need to know about the
> Crusades. It is deeply shameful for the "Christian" Churches to reflect on how much evil they have
> perpetrated in God's name. Notice the scare quotes, though. That should tell you something.
>
> To anyone who has read the gospels with anything like an open mind, it should be plain that no
> mainstream "Christian" Church has been in actual fact Christian in anything but name. One cannot
> be reading the beatitudes in Matthew 5 one moment, and then plunging a sword through Muslims the
> next. It just doesn't add up. The only possible explanation is that the so-called "Christian"
> Churches are not in fact Christian at all, but something else.
>
> Does anyone but George W himself reckon he's a Christian? Same goes for our own war criminal at
> home for that matter. I wonder where Bush and Howard keep their bloodied swords? That much hasn't
> changed over the ages, has it?
>
>
> Anyway, this has drifted a bit from bicycles. I went for a ride to the beach the other day (about
> 15.5km each way to this particular beach). It was about four in the afternoon when I got there,
> sun shining, slight breeze. Beautiful. Went for a dip for fifteen minutes or so (plenty of time to
> get numb!). Very invigorating the water is at this time of year! :)
>
> Phew, on topic again... :)
>
> Catchya.
>
> David
>
>
> [1] I'm assuming here that it's not simply that you're a coward, or flat footed, or something...
>
> [2] Many people don't know that the US and UK, through their manipulation of the UN, deliberately
> brought about the deaths of over 600,000 Iraqi children under the age of five through their
> genocidal sanctions regime called "Oil for Food", over which the senior UN official in charge
> of the programme resigned in protest.
>
> --
>
> Only let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see that this cruel social
> organization, which holds them in bondage, and is represented to them as something stable,
> necessary, and ordained of God, is already tottering and is only propped up by the falsehood of
> hypocrisy, with which we, and others like us, support it.
>
> -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
 
Hi Andrey,

I see you're posting from Russia! Thanks for your post, I appreciate the effort required to write in
a foreign language.

How are things in Russia these days? Since the fall of state capitalism in the Soviet Union, I
haven't heard much news about Russia.

andrey wrote:

> It's a time now to be "politically correct".

Do you think television has much to do with that? People seem to be extraordinarily susceptible to
being hypnotised by what they perceive as "majority opinion". In times of declining social
interaction, the TV seems to supply this "majority opinion" to people.

> "Christian valuables" are vanishing under pressure of multicultural and

"Christian values" vanished a long, long time ago, with the rise of the "official" Church, which
has functioned simply as an organ of State for many centuries. Of course, the miracle is that
true Christian teaching has never been entirely lost, and the truth is available to those who
sincerely seek it.

> multireligional global people migration. So, no Europe no USA anymore "Christian" or "Muslim".
> Polititians claims it to be "home for all".

Even in Russia? :) When people begin to fully realise that "nations", as we know them now, are an
abomination because all people everywhere are brothers and sisters, then the current order will
start to crumble under its own falsehoods. This has nothing to do with any religion, by the way.

Have you read any of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy's works, such as "War and Peace" and "The Kingdom of
God is Within You"? You have the advantage of being able to read them in the original language.

Before I go, I should mention that it is considered bad practise to "top-post" (which means putting
your reply above the text to which you are replying). This joke might enlighten you:

A. Top-posters
B. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Bye for now! :)

David

--

...Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that as an inveterate skeptic I
have closed my mind to the truth. Most notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six
thousand years old. Well, I haven't ignored it; I considered the purported evidence and *then*
rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a difference, we might say, between prejudice and
postjudice. Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice is making
a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit injustices and you make
serious mistakes. Postjudice is not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may make mistakes
also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some circles
it is even encouraged.

-- Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism, Skeptical Enquirer, Vol. 12, pg. 46
 
"David Trudgett" wrote
> Hi Theo,

> Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a curious fact many atheists,
> such as yourself, are opposed to conscription,

Why is that curious. Theists believe in an afterlife, atheists don't. Which do you think would value
_this_ life more?

> whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women
> and children
they
> have never seen before.

Or even people they have.

Theo
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> "David Trudgett" wrote
>
>>Hi Theo,
>
>
>>Actually, I'm very pleased that you made that point, because it is a curious fact many atheists,
>>such as yourself, are opposed to conscription,
>
>
> Why is that curious. Theists believe in an afterlife, atheists don't. Which do you think would
> value _this_ life more?

Good point! Doesn't seem to work that way with all atheists, though, does it? Same with theists. Go
figure. :)

>
>>whereas many so-called "Christians" are quite prepared to be conscripted and to murder men, women
>>and children
>
> they
>
>>have never seen before.
>
>
> Or even people they have.

Indeed.

Cheers.

David
 
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:48:07 +1000, Alan Erskine said (and I quote):
> I just don't feel safe on the road. How many cyclists get hit by cars versus how many pedestrians
> get hit by cyclists?

The more important issue is that it is more dangerous for cyclists on the footpath than it is on the
road. You may *feel* insulated from cars when on the footpath, but the only type of accident you are
insulated from is the hit-from-behind. This is a very rare type of accident.

The most common type of accident (for both cyclists and motorists) occurs at intersections, and
footpaths intersect with roads as often as roads intersect with roads, and have other intersections
with driveways where visibility is poor. And here's the thing - when you're on the road, other cars
can see you coming at intersections, but when you're on the footpath you're almost invisible.

If you restrict your riding to walking speed then the footpath is fine, but any faster and you will
be outside the expectations of nearly all drivers.

Remember, the cars behind you are not the danger. It is the cars that are in front of you that are
dangerous, and if you're out there in the middle of the road you stand a much better chance of them
seeing you and therefore not hitting you.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.