On Wed, 11 May 2005 at 11:08 GMT, Resound (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Quoted message said:
another lane.) There are far too many people who need to have beaten into them the idea that indicators are for telling other people what you're ABOUT to do, not what you're ALREADY doing. The first indicator flash was when I was level with the base of their "A" pillar, which gave me just enough time
And I beleive the law states 30m is the minimum requirement for indicating *before* even starting to change lanes. Like melbourne drivers have the skill to concentrate for an entire 30m.
at the end of the day one person has right of way and one person must give way. it's not that hard and it only falls down when someone ignores their obligation to give way.
On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:40:46 +1000, sheik yerbouti <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:20:01 GMT, BrettM <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
I really hate the concept of right of way. It makes people think that they are safe to do things which their not. In an accident where a vehicle fails to give way some proportion of the blame will usually attach to the person who was hit (because they didn't avoid the accident)
yes but if we all drove and rode like that we would be a nation of pansies..
"after you.." "no after you.." "i insist..."
at the end of the day one person has right of way
No they don't. Except for the Crown, there is no such thing as "right of way".
Quoted message said:
and one person must give way. it's not that hard and it only falls down when someone ignores their obligation to give way.
It seems to be very hard for most people to realise that there is no "right of way".
Ooh, look. Someone who doesn't know the difference between right and left. The perfect person to advise us poor deluded souls on road safety.
you blame me for the posters lack of a comma? "turned right in front of me" can easily be "turned, right in front of me", or "turned right, in front of me". im not one to pick on spelling or punctuation normaly but in this case it was critical as it could be read either way.
Hah ha; I actually, literally laughed out loud at this one!! Knob
Hehehe
Actually, I think the grammar was fine, because "right" describes the turn. Otherwise it would've been "turned, right in front of me". I don't see how it could've been misread.
The follow up posts have been very entertaining, thanks all involved.
I'm guessing you're from a country where they drive on the right side of the road.
Well, Austin of course. This is the aus(tin).bicycle ng. Some people in Austin have never been outside the city limits. The rest of the world is thankful.
It's only a right in the legal sense and depends on everyone doing the "right" thing. The same applies to the right of free speech,
Err, we don't have the right of free speech in this country Marty, except for politicians, and then only when they are in Parliament.
Theo
We do when compared to some other countries. Of course there are some limitations but for the main part we can say what we like providing that it's true.
We do when compared to some other countries. Of course there are some limitations but for the main part we can say what we like providing that it's true.
Nope, not in NSW (unless I missed the change). You also have to show that saying it when you did was in the public interest. The rich mates addition.
We do when compared to some other countries. Of course there are some limitations but for the main part we can say what we like providing that it's true.
Nope, not in NSW (unless I missed the change). You also have to show that saying it when you did was in the public interest. The rich mates addition.
"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
Marty said:
It's only a right in the legal sense and depends on everyone doing the "right" thing. The same applies to the right of free speech,
Err, we don't have the right of free speech in this country Marty, except for politicians, and then only when they are in Parliament.
Theo
That's not quite right. The High Court has actually ruled that there is a right to freedom of expression where it is not intended to harm without purpose.
They've also effectively made freedom of association available although thee are some limitations.
"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Marty said:
It's only a right in the legal sense and depends on everyone doing the "right" thing. The same applies to the right of free speech,
Err, we don't have the right of free speech in this country Marty, except for politicians, and then only when they are in Parliament.
Since 1992 decisions of the High Court have indicated that there are implied rights to free speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government, e.g. permitting political advertising during election campaigns. This is known as the 'implied freedom of political communication'. Issues arising from these decisions include defining when communication is 'political' and when the freedom should prevail over competing public interests.
