Channel 7 news tonight



"Michael Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > You should consider the risk vs gain of such a ride, and consider the

>
> > three ambulances, the dozen riders down, the broken hip and

>
> > collarbones of last Tuesday's Nth road ride

>
> What ****. There was no correlation between cars, lanes, drivers and last
> Tuesday's accident. Dozen riders down is **** too. That accident had nothing
> to do with the issue being discussed. That's what causes a lot of the
> frustrations between bikes and cars - people throwing in red herrings!


I'm pointing out the risk of big bunch rides compared to the gain they
give you.
At no point did I suggest a correlation/connection between the
accident and traffic. Big bunch rides are much more dangerous than
riding in a small group and I question the benefit of being in one.

And it looked like about 12 riders to me, but in the half light, maybe
it was less.
 
"Michael Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > You should consider the risk vs gain of such a ride, and consider the

>
> > three ambulances, the dozen riders down, the broken hip and

>
> > collarbones of last Tuesday's Nth road ride

>
> What ****. There was no correlation between cars, lanes, drivers and last
> Tuesday's accident. Dozen riders down is **** too. That accident had nothing
> to do with the issue being discussed. That's what causes a lot of the
> frustrations between bikes and cars - people throwing in red herrings!


I'm pointing out the risk of big bunch rides compared to the gain they
give you.
At no point did I suggest a correlation/connection between the
accident and traffic. Big bunch rides are much more dangerous than
riding in a small group and I question the benefit of being in one.

And it looked like about 12 riders to me, but in the half light, maybe
it was less.
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Michael Day <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
>
> [...]
>
> > What ****. There was no correlation between cars, lanes, drivers and
> > last Tuesday's accident. Dozen riders down is **** too. That accident
> > had nothing to do with the issue being discussed. That's what causes
> > a lot of the frustrations between bikes and cars - people throwing in
> > red herrings!

>
> What happened?



Didn't see it (saw the after effects), so only have second hand info
and are open to correction. A guy snapped a pedal and he went down,
and guys went with him, in that chain reaction effect.

From what I know, one guy broke his hip and there was a couple of
colar bones.

RMan
 
Did anyone notice on the news last night (channel 7) that Cycling Australia
have spoken up?

They say that they will revoke racing licences of those who are caught
breaking any of the cycling laws....

I thought they couldnt do it, but it appears they can. They can set up a
system similar to CAMS (confed of Aus motorsport) where if one of their
licence holders get charged for speeding/red lights they have their
car/motorcycle racing licence revoked (or at least suspended)

It will be hard first off - but it might just work..
 
On 1 Mar 2004 13:56:53 -0800, [email protected] (rickster) wrote:

>Becasue the human powered vehicle is illegally in the second lane
>(both lanes) leaving the motorist no where to go. A slow
>truck/tractor will only be in ONE lane.


I regularly see slow moving trucks wide enough to require two lanes on
curved sections of road and while turning, and also some that require
two even on straights..

Indeed about two years ago, I was up on Bell Street, an OD truck with
three escort vehicles were occupying the right lane and a fair bit of
the left lane on the 4 lane stretch between the Freeway and Coburg.
Some moron car driver decided to pass them all on the left.. It got
squeezed in between the truck and a telegraph pole, and came to a
somewhat abrupt stop. The truck and two of the escort vehicles
continued on without slowing, and the third escort stopped to swap
details (and presumably berate the motorist for doing something so
stupid instead of finding an alternate route or matching speed and
staying behind until it was safe to proceed, like the car driver
should have done)..

Car drivers will simply never learn that forward sometimes isn't an
option, and I have no sympathy for those who try and make it an option
by doing really dumb things, like Channel 7's footage showed..


PC
 
This is the typical lofty, intellectually stimulating height of
Australian TV current affairs IMHVUO (In My Honest Valuable Underrated
Opinion). At least twice a year they run the same old reliable stories;
Crooked Mechanics, Crooked TV Repairmen, Our Children can't Read or
Write. Same old garbage. Every now and then someone moans to them about
something (cyclists, council workers) and so they do some twisted
moronic thing. I just wonder if any Australians actually take any of it
seriously. Maybe the type with hairy two headed babies probably do. I
just don't watch any of that clap trap anymore. It just amazes me that
these idiots can seriously call themselves journalists and happily take
home their very healthy looking pay packets for the **** they create.



--
 
Paul J wrote:
> This is the typical lofty, intellectually stimulating height of
> Australian TV current affairs IMHVUO (In My Honest Valuable Underrated
> Opinion). At least twice a year they run the same old reliable stories;
> Crooked Mechanics, Crooked TV Repairmen, Our Children can't Read or
> Write. Same old garbage. Every now and then someone moans to them about
> something (cyclists, council workers) and so they do some twisted
> moronic thing. I just wonder if any Australians actually take any of it
> seriously. Maybe the type with hairy two headed babies probably do. I
> just don't watch any of that clap trap anymore. It just amazes me that
> these idiots can seriously call themselves journalists and happily take
> home their very healthy looking pay packets for the **** they create.



That was good. Also honourable mentions to, Law and Order Issues. Har
Working Aussie Tax Payers Ripped Off. Our Kids Are Taking Drugs. Pai
Product Endorsement (pretending to be a) As A Community Servic
Annoucement. blahblahblah

Now where were we, ah, yes, talking about the Hell Ride. Saw the ite
last night and in my IMHO it was heavily edited and possibly biased. Bu
at least the recent "Shared Code of Conduct" was mentioned


-
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Michael Day <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
>
> > That's what causes
> > a lot of the frustrations between bikes and cars - people throwing in
> > red herrings!

>
> What happened?


Sounds like someone threw in a red herring. First rider slips over on
it, and you can guess the rest.

For my money, the thing that causes me much more frustration than any
metaphorical fish are the impatient pricks that value a few seconds of
their time more highly than human life, but that's just me. Them, and
tv so-called 'news' shows. Fortunately I can avoid the latter.

Allister
 
>2) Stupid motorists are less inclined to squeeze past in stupid places
> - they >just get ****** off that they have to use the brake or take
> their foot off the >accelerator.


Thats exactly right. There seems to be the EXPECTATION amongst motorists
that they should not even have to ease their foot off the throttle pedal
for any reason whatsoever. Hence all the aggression when their
expectations are not meet not matter what the circumstances.

>BTW a previous post suggested that the news reporter/ editor might
>>apologise for a biased story. In your dreams. Apparently there is no
>>compulsion for reports to be unbiased or balanced under the

>voluntary >code.


That seems to be a basic right of the media. If you really want to
destroy someone, have a moan to A Current Affair. Doesn't matter what
they say about them to the public the innocent party just seems to have
no right to appeal. And as we all know, "mud sticks".



--
 
On 1 Mar 2004 13:56:53 -0800, [email protected] (rickster) wrote:

>Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> They wouldn't do it if it was a slow car/tractor/truck in front of them.
>> So why MUST they squeeze past just because it's a human powered vehicle?

>
>Becasue the human powered vehicle is illegally in the second lane
>(both lanes) leaving the motorist no where to go. A slow
>truck/tractor will only be in ONE lane.
>
>See the difference ?


Why is it illegal for a human powered vehicle to be in the second lane?

And, to be honest, I cannot recall one instance (Outside of CM) where
cyclists take up both lanes. And yet, cars continue to try and squeeze
past - mostly dangerously and possibly illegally.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:54:01 +1000, Peter Cremasco
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And, to be honest, I cannot recall one instance (Outside of CM) where
>cyclists take up both lanes.


This thread is about the Hell Ride, which does take up both lanes, ..

>And yet, cars continue to try and squeeze
>past - mostly dangerously and possibly illegally.


Definately illegally.. Cars are supposed to move wholly into the next
lane to overtake.. I think there's an exception for cyclists and
motorcyclists though..


PC
 
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:32:43 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:


> Not just motorists! I don't do a lot if cycling and have very little
> experience with bunches like this. My only experience was bad. I went in
> the Sydney to the 'Gong last year. I was appalled to see (in a nice
> casual ride like that) bunches of flash looking riders going down the 2nd
> of two lanes so they could get past all us "slow" riders.


Huh? One vehicle overtaking a bunch of others using the outside lane?!
That's what its there for.

Are you visiting from aus.cars ?

-kt
 
Paul J wrote:
> This is the typical lofty, intellectually stimulating height of
> Australian TV current affairs IMHVUO (In My Honest Valuable Underrated
> Opinion). At least twice a year they run the same old reliable stories;
> Crooked Mechanics, Crooked TV Repairmen, Our Children can't Read or
> Write. Same old garbage. Every now and then someone moans to them about
> something (cyclists, council workers) and so they do some twisted
> moronic thing. I just wonder if any Australians actually take any of it
> seriously. Maybe the type with hairy two headed babies probably do. I
> just don't watch any of that clap trap anymore. It just amazes me that
> these idiots can seriously call themselves journalists and happily take
> home their very healthy looking pay packets for the **** they create.


I loved that segment on CNNNN about the shonky Lebanese
builder-plastic-surgeon guy who was ripping off little old ladies,
costing the taxpayer millions, etc. etc. All of the typical ACA/60Mins
**** story themes rolled into one. Top stuff.

&roo
 
Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 1 Mar 2004 13:56:53 -0800, [email protected] (rickster) wrote:
>
> >Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> They wouldn't do it if it was a slow car/tractor/truck in front of them.
> >> So why MUST they squeeze past just because it's a human powered vehicle?

> >
> >Becasue the human powered vehicle is illegally in the second lane
> >(both lanes) leaving the motorist no where to go. A slow
> >truck/tractor will only be in ONE lane.
> >
> >See the difference ?

>
> Why is it illegal for a human powered vehicle to be in the second lane?
>


it's not, you can when overtaking. but when you're riding 5,6,7...
wide you spill over into the second lane.

> And, to be honest, I cannot recall one instance (Outside of CM) where
> cyclists take up both lanes. And yet, cars continue to try and squeeze
> past - mostly dangerously and possibly illegally.
>


It's a weekly occurence on the hell ride
 
"kingsley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:32:43 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:
>
>
> > Not just motorists! I don't do a lot if cycling and have very little
> > experience with bunches like this. My only experience was bad. I went

in
> > the Sydney to the 'Gong last year. I was appalled to see (in a nice
> > casual ride like that) bunches of flash looking riders going down the

2nd
> > of two lanes so they could get past all us "slow" riders.

>
> Huh? One vehicle overtaking a bunch of others using the outside lane?!
> That's what its there for.
>
> Are you visiting from aus.cars ?


No, but I do drive as well as ride and I like to look at things from both
sides.

My understanding of the bike road rules is that you can ride 2 abreast. I'm
not sure (and it is not worth me looking up for the purpose of this
discussion) how this works when overtaking. That is, if a 2 abreast pair
catches another 2 abreast pair can they overtake 2 abreast and thereby make
4 abreast for a short time or should both pairs drop back to single file. I
suspect the latter, but I don't know.

What I observed in the Sydney to the 'Gong last year was a long stream
(several km of them at a time!) of mostly single file and occasional 2
abreast riders being overtaken by bunches of 5+ abreast riders. These
bunches filled the remainder of the first lane and spilled into the second
lane with quite erratic jostling movements.

I don't think you have to be from aus.cars to understand how car drivers
could be frustrated by this. I'm sure that if the cars moved into the first
lane in a similar manner the riders would have been upset!

Brian.

PS. I did not see any "bad behaviour" from the cars at all. I think they
were very understanding - it was obviously a large event. But I, as a
cyclist, was thinking that had I been driving it would have concerned me.
 
"Brian Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
[snip]
>
> My understanding of the bike road rules is that you can ride 2 abreast. I'm
> not sure (and it is not worth me looking up for the purpose of this
> discussion) how this works when overtaking. That is, if a 2 abreast pair
> catches another 2 abreast pair can they overtake 2 abreast and thereby make
> 4 abreast for a short time or should both pairs drop back to single file. I
> suspect the latter, but I don't know.
>


In Victoria it's the former. Well, accoridng to the people I spoke to at Vic Roads.
 
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:49:23 GMT, "Brian Watson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My understanding of the bike road rules is that you can ride 2 abreast.


Nope.. It's 2 abreast per lane. So if there are 2 lanes, 4 abreast
is OK

And if a cyclist is overtaking 2 other cyclists in the same lane, the
2 abreast rule doesn't apply. Stretched loosely, overtaking could
mean intention to overtake (which in a race like the Hell Ride, that
is implied), and it could also mean slight variences in speed..

>I don't think you have to be from aus.cars to understand how car drivers
>could be frustrated by this.


Their problem.. Most of them have never read the road rules relating
to cyclists, and automatically think the rules give all rights to
motorists and that cyclists should ride in the gutter and that cars
can overtake cyclists legally without moving wholly into the next
lane..

>PS. I did not see any "bad behaviour" from the cars at all. I think they
>were very understanding - it was obviously a large event. But I, as a
>cyclist, was thinking that had I been driving it would have concerned me.


Really? You mustn't have been watching.. I saw that footage, there
were cars overtaking across a solid white line or double lines
(illegal), overtaking cyclists in the same lane (illegal), tailgating
(illegal), driving menacingly/road rage (illegal)..

Irrespective of whether they believe the cyclists are in the wrong,
they should find an alternate route, or sit behind at a safe distance
and match the speed of the ride.. I doubt the magistrate would accept
a "they were breaking the law in my opinion, so I felt it was OK for
me to break the law too" defence..

And since the media reported that the riders were doing speeds up
around 50-60km/h, that seems close enough to the speed limit, does it
not?


PC
 
"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Really? You mustn't have been watching.. I saw that footage, there
> were cars overtaking across a solid white line or double lines
> (illegal), overtaking cyclists in the same lane (illegal), tailgating


Overtaking bikes in the same lane is illegal?
They could give out 200 tickets every time
I commute for that!!
Then again, the same number would probably
get done for speeding ;-)
Are you sure? (not starting argument, just
looking for legal reference or something)

cheers!
hippy
 
"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:49:23 GMT, "Brian Watson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:


[...]

> And if a cyclist is overtaking 2 other cyclists in the same lane, the
> 2 abreast rule doesn't apply. Stretched loosely, overtaking could
> mean intention to overtake (which in a race like the Hell Ride, that
> is implied), and it could also mean slight variences in speed..
>
> >I don't think you have to be from aus.cars to understand how car drivers
> >could be frustrated by this.

>
> Their problem.. Most of them have never read the road rules relating
> to cyclists, and automatically think the rules give all rights to
> motorists and that cyclists should ride in the gutter and that cars
> can overtake cyclists legally without moving wholly into the next
> lane..


You did not read my whole post. I was talking about large groups of riders
darting in and out of the second lane, in front of cars, as they jostled for
position. This darting in and out was happening in a way that was clearly
contrary to "253 Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard.
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the
path of a driver or pedestrian."

> >PS. I did not see any "bad behaviour" from the cars at all. I think

they
> >were very understanding - it was obviously a large event. But I, as a
> >cyclist, was thinking that had I been driving it would have concerned me.

>
> Really? You mustn't have been watching.. I saw that footage, there
> were cars overtaking across a solid white line or double lines
> (illegal), overtaking cyclists in the same lane (illegal), tailgating
> (illegal), driving menacingly/road rage (illegal)..


Again, you did not read my whole post. I was talking about my experience
riding in the Sydney to the 'Gong last year.

[...]

Brian
 
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:05:37 GMT, "hippy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Really? You mustn't have been watching.. I saw that footage, there
>> were cars overtaking across a solid white line or double lines
>> (illegal), overtaking cyclists in the same lane (illegal), tailgating

>
>Overtaking bikes in the same lane is illegal?


Yes indeedy. A car must change lanes to overtake - regardless of whether
the vehicle being overtaken is a car, bike or truck.

However, this isn't the same as 'passing' a stationery vehicle parked on
the side of the road.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]
 

Similar threads