One Less F***ing Revhead

[Jock]

naughty Troll!
Jock
"cogcontrol" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200609/s1736510.htm
>
> I should sympathise and I guess I do a little but sorry, my
> overwhelming reaction is - One Less F***ing Revhead setting a bad
> example.
>
> CC
>
>
> --
> cogcontrol
>

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:30:37 GMT
Fractal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'd've thought it was bleeding obvious: he kept at it because he liked
>> it!
>
>>
> Or maybe he thought he was invincible, Mr Perfect as they called him. Geez,
> at 61 his reactions must have slowed a bit. Or maybe it wouldnt have helped,
> lost traction on bend, whack.

I think it's unlikely.

One thing racing teaches you is that **** happens to the best. Anyone
who has made a career of it knows that. You seem people unload in
front of you often enough, and you hear about the ones at the top.

I was very well aware of it having seen someone die in front of me,
having talked to one of the top sidecar racers in Oz after he got it a
tiny bit wrong at the Isle of Man and drove his arm into
his lung...

But if you let that stop you, you'd never race. Just like if you let
the fact that people get killed cycling stop you then you'd never
throw a leg over a bicycle.

"That's racing" is said whether it's being held up by a backmarker or
going home in the ambulance.

Most people don't think it's worth it. Those who race know it is.

>> Why does someone race in veteran cycle races? Because they want to,
>> because despite the pain it's still fun. Why does someone play rugby
>> or do marathons?
>
> Not quite so dangerous!?? Veteran cycling and marathons I can understand,
> rugby never!

Neither can I. A workmate got his ear ripped in two in a rugby scrum
by a bod out on parole after being banged up for GBH. Various bods
asked him if he would stop playing and he looked at them like they
were nuts.

>>
>> I have to assume car racing is as much fun as motorcycle racing, and
>> that's *serious* fun.
>
> Oh well if fun is all there is to it, anything goes.

If you aren't in it for the fun or the money, what are you in it for?

Very few people make money racing!

Zebee
- who now has a new set of leathers and is eyeing off
Anandale-Leichardt's sidecar days with a great deal of interest.

 

[Katharine & Paul]

Car safety has a lot to thank motor racing for.

The most obvious examples

- tyre technology.
- seat belts. Yes they were in motor racing first.

We may not like cars on many occasions, but we are all thankful for safety
advances.




"cogcontrol" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> stevebaby Wrote:
>> So..public roads should be closed to bike races too?
>> Yes or no?I am not a bike racer so am ambivalent about public roads being
>> shut for
> bike races and is not relevant to my point that racing on a public road
> makes a total mockery of all the anti speeding campaigns. It makes as
> much sense as shutting a public road for drink driving.
>
> These two factors being the biggest contributing factors to fatal
> accidents on our roads.
>
> The biggest consequence of shutting roads for bike races or triathlons
> is a few inconvienced car drivers.
>
> CC
>
>
> --
> cogcontrol
>

 

[flyingdutch]

C

- seat belts. Yes they were in motor racing first.

err, actually they were in the 'Tucker' first... 1948

http://www.tuckerclub.org/index.php

 

[dave]

dtmeister wrote:
> Fractal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>No need to trash Cogcontrol completely. Its a forum isnt it, not a place for
>>being overly respectful to our great sporting or entertainment icons who get
>
>
> This is nothing about being overly respectful. This is about not
> aligning with ratbag element who finds something positive about the
> death of a *supporter* of our cause. Just because he raced cars? Who
> better to influence his fellow petrol heads about our right to use the
> road.

Yeah exactly. THo I am happy to admit Brock was a bit of a hero of mine
and I will miss him
THere is always someone who will crawl out of the slime and have a go at
someone the minute they cannot defend themsves. I object to that.
Most people of course are absolutely great. But there is always someone.

Dave

 

[Peter Signorini]

"flyingdutch" wrote:
>
> Katharine & Paul Wrote:
>> C
>>
>> - seat belts. Yes they were in motor racing first.
>>
>>
>
> err, actually they were in the 'Tucker' first... 1948
>
> http://www.tuckerclub.org/index.php

I think you may be mistaken. The only references to passenger restraints I
could find came from a linked site:

http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1948/lit.html
Crash Board Cowl and Safety Chamber - Conventional instrument panel is
replaced by attractive sponge rubber crash board cowl. Instruments in
steering column. Under cowl is spacious safety chamber, protected by steel
bulkheads, which driver and front seat occupants can drop into, in a split
second, in case of impending collision.

Great idea! When you see a crash, drop down and go low. Sheesh! Pictures of
the interior show no evidence of seat-belts.


--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Resound]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Katharine & Paul Wrote:
>> C
>>
>> - seat belts. Yes they were in motor racing first.
>>
>>
>
> err, actually they were in the 'Tucker' first... 1948
>
> http://www.tuckerclub.org/index.php
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

Aircraft?

It was from motorsport that the idea trickled down to passenger cars though.
You can thank people like Niki Lauda and Jackie Stewart for that particular
happening.

 

[flyingdutch]

You can thank people like Niki Lauda and Jackie Stewart for that particular
happening.

Flaming scotsman are fashionable now?

 

[BT Humble]

BT Humble wrote:
> Parbs wrote:
> > cogcontrol wrote:
> > > http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200609/s1736510.htm
> > >
> > > I should sympathise and I guess I do a little but sorry, my
> > > overwhelming reaction is - One Less F***ing Revhead setting a bad
> > > example.
> > >
> > Perhaps you should read these
> >
> > http://peterbrockfoundation.com.au/home/latestnews.html
> >
> > http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/articles/2004/08/26/1093518006536.html
> >
> > http://www.woj.com.au/2006/07/06/amy-gillett-foundation-road-user-forum-report/
>
> Nice slapdown, Parbs!
>
> So Cogboy, do tell us just what it is that YOU'VE done to promote
> cycling in your community?

*silence, distant sound of crickets...*


BTH

 

[Katharine & Paul]

The story I have heard is that the Tucker was quite deliberately not fitted
with seat belts. Yanks thought seat belts were ridiculous, and to fit them
was like admitting the car was not safe.

Sounds stupid hey. .. But remember this is the nation that voted in George W
Bush and ROnald Reagan


"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Katharine & Paul Wrote:
>> C
>>
>> - seat belts. Yes they were in motor racing first.
>>
>>
>
> err, actually they were in the 'Tucker' first... 1948
>
> http://www.tuckerclub.org/index.php
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

 

[Resound]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Resound Wrote:
>>
>> You can thank people like Niki Lauda and Jackie Stewart for that
>> particular
>> happening.
>
> Flaming scotsman are fashionable now?
>
Stewart was the main one who kicked and screamed to have harnesses made
compulsory in F1 and Lauda was also a prime advocate if I remember rightly.
His flambé act at Monaco probably made him a bit more safety aware.

 

[John Henderson]

Katharine & Paul wrote:

> The story I have heard is that the Tucker was quite
> deliberately not fitted with seat belts. Yanks thought seat
> belts were ridiculous, and to fit them was like admitting the
> car was not safe.

I distinctly remember from the 60's that seat belts were made a
"civil liberties" issue in the US.

Usual story - if they were to be fitted, wearing them might
become compulsory. They went for passive air bags instead.

John

 

[vaudegiant]

Car drivers are a majority on the roads and without motorists there would not be many roads.Bike races don't inconvenience a few car drivers...they inconvenience a
lot of car drivers.Fortunately most of them tolerate the inconvenience.
All cyclists are either motorists themselves or depend in some way on motorists.

In all my years of driving, I have never been inconvenienced by a bike race.
How exactly should I show my appreciation to motorists....should I bend over? give way to them?.. perhaps I should thank them as they pass me on the road. Actually, I do make a habit of thanking drivers if they do the right thing by me, and for the mobile phoning drivers, I reserve a very generous response.


Pat

 

[Terryc]

stevebaby wrote:

>CCCar drivers are a majority on the roads and without motorists
> there would not be many roads.

That is a load of shite.
Roads exist for a purpose and that purpose is not to have somewhere to
drive your car. If you were to take away roads that existed before the
motor car, the only ones left would be subdivisions since 1900. Most of
the backbone roads existed before the motor car.



> All cyclists are either motorists themselves or depend in some way on
> motorists.

No and no. I make use ot large motor transport for my food and other
supplies, but all motor cars could disappear off the roads tomorrow and
it would have little effect on my life style.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:47:19 +1000
Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No and no. I make use ot large motor transport for my food and other
> supplies, but all motor cars could disappear off the roads tomorrow and
> it would have little effect on my life style.

Really? All your co-workers and customers ride bikes do they?

You don't use electricity (generated in plants staffed by people who
drive cars) or phones (maintained by blokes in vans)?

Zebee

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:47:19 +1000
> Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > No and no. I make use ot large motor transport for my food and other
> > supplies, but all motor cars could disappear off the roads tomorrow and
> > it would have little effect on my life style.
>
> Really? All your co-workers and customers ride bikes do they?
>
> You don't use electricity (generated in plants staffed by people who
> drive cars) or phones (maintained by blokes in vans)?
>
> Zebee

You mean no one would hassle me to not hang out in the bush,
just reading my collection of books I never got around to?
And I wouldn't get distracted by the interweb?

T

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:37:52 +1000
Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You mean no one would hassle me to not hang out in the bush,
> just reading my collection of books I never got around to?
> And I wouldn't get distracted by the interweb?
>

Sure, until you needed a new tube...

Or a bit more kero for the huricane lantern

Zebee

 

[Terryc]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:47:19 +1000
> Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>No and no. I make use ot large motor transport for my food and other
>>supplies, but all motor cars could disappear off the roads tomorrow and
>>it would have little effect on my life style.
>
>
> Really? All your co-workers and customers ride bikes do they?
>
> You don't use electricity (generated in plants staffed by people who
> drive cars) or phones (maintained by blokes in vans)?

None of these activities are dependent on a motor car.
Do I really have to explain that or do you think that humans came into
being after the motor car?

 

[Resound]

"Terryc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:45050916$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:47:19 +1000
>> Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>No and no. I make use ot large motor transport for my food and other
>>>supplies, but all motor cars could disappear off the roads tomorrow and
>>>it would have little effect on my life style.
>>
>>
>> Really? All your co-workers and customers ride bikes do they?
>>
>> You don't use electricity (generated in plants staffed by people who
>> drive cars) or phones (maintained by blokes in vans)?
>
> None of these activities are dependent on a motor car.
> Do I really have to explain that or do you think that humans came into
> being after the motor car?
>
Widely field serviced communications infrastructure certainly did. Take a
look in the back of a Telstra van and contemplate servicing say Gippsland
with that lot on an Xtracycle.

 

[Terryc]

Resound wrote:

> Widely field serviced communications infrastructure certainly did. Take a
> look in the back of a Telstra van and contemplate servicing say Gippsland
> with that lot on an Xtracycle.

Lol, you people are really stuck in the car tyre ruts. Different
situations would have different solutions.

In my experience, many service vans carry a months worth of spare parts.

Xtracycle; hmm, some peeps should visit a bicycle museum and seek how
bicycles serviced many industries around the 1900's.

I always chuckle when I read the offical NRMA roadside service history;
they rode bicycles for this and their city guides service, but NRMA
likes to skip this.