creation of the offence "culpable cycling"

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:43:26 +1100
Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I could simply change the address to my zip one,
>
> If zip gives you self set up, multiple email addresses, just set up a
> munged or dated one for usenet. Throw it away when the spam gets too much.

Nah, I have a bayesian filter that is very well trained on that
address.

I stopped using it when zip stopped having a shell server and I didn't
have a permanent IP so I couldn't use my own shell server.

ISP webmail is unusable because of spam, gmail's spam filter is very
good so I use gmail for an address I can get to from anywhere.

Finding a machine with ssh where I can safely attach the thumb drive
with my ssh key is harder...

Zebee

 

[AndrewJ]

On Mar 7, 10:07 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2008-03-07, AndrewJ (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:42 pm, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.35v...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> >> AndrewJ Wrote:
>
> >> > For what it's worth I'm not a troll. I'm not going to extol the
> >> > virtues of gmail,
> >> > as I'm also a google shareholder. I don't use my work email as I don't
> >> > want
> >> > to spend all weekend working replying to emails
>
> >> > (Yes, it does <look> like a troll, but I can post the x-ray of my arm
> >> > if you want )
>
> >> And I've heard you being interviewed on Jon Faines show (ABC 774) about
> >> the incident mentioned above, so you're obviously *not* a troll.
>
> > Yup. I like to think that the publicity might have helped to push this
> > along, but whatever.
>
> > I've gone from "I'm not sure if I'll ride again" to "when I ride
> > again". So I'm making progress
>
> Onya. For what it's worth, I knew you weren't a troll
>
> I'm a little unsure as to why the offence is not amalgamated into the
> culpable driving offence (I don't have the text of the culpable
> driving offence at hand -- maybe it really can't fit). I believe I've
> only ever heard "culpable driving" used in conjunction with "causing
> injury|death" (this may be an artifact of a reporting bias in the
> media - you don't hear about offences that don't result in injury -
> because then you'd have 6502 stories on the news per night).
>
> As such, this may not be a dangerous move -- culpable cycling causing
> death *should* be quite a punishable offence, as long as it truly is
> culpable (and we are yet to see whether that guy truly was stepping
> off a stationary tram or whether he was darting across the road
> between trams, illegally jaywalking). But if it were ever to be used
> for something stupid being done (running a red light), that didn't
> then go onto create significant damage and/or injury, I'd be very
> worried. As much as people will say otherwise, breaking the law on a
> bicycle very rarely has the impact that breaking the law in a car has
> often enough. Doing something stupid on a bicycle is not as damaging
> as doing something stupid in a car, and so doesn't have cause to
> invoke as great a punitive/corrective wrath from society.
>
> --
> TimC> cat ~/.signature
>
> Passing cosmic ray (core dumped)


Yes, consider how many people are injured by encounters with bicycles
every year, compared with encounters with cars. It's nowhere near the
magnitude of the problem. But still it should not be possible to get
away
with (for example) running a red light through a pedestrian crossing
and
knocking a pedestrian to the ground with serious injuries. (Not in
reference
to any current case, I don't know the details sufficient to comment on
those).