T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-05-09, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Someones got to put a restraining order on Roozendaal:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4cy4ns
>
> Tidy piece of work there Eric, what a useful example to add to the
> discussion.
I calmed down from this outburst:
http://tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com/126453.html
to write something far less scathing:
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:50:24 +1000 (EST)
From: MeMeMe
To: [email protected]
Subject: car and bicycle use in peak hour traffic
Honourable Eric Roozendaal,
I would have thought 1.1 people on average in the average 5 person vehicle
(hint: for every 10 cars that means that at least 9 of those cars only
have 1 occupants -- the driver), during peak hour, was not conducive to
peak hour traffic.
May I remind you that you are the minister for *roads* and not minister
for cars, and that bicycle riders often like to use the roads to get to
places such as work? I would suggest you remember this before you almost
condone assault in the media on the basis of us causing a slight delay (if
indeed we do. Given how I kept on overtaking the same vehicle this
morning in Melbourne traffic, I doubt we do slow anyone down) to other
road users.
If I were you, I would be trying to discourage these 1 person vehicles via
congestion charges. It's not a vote winner, but an innovative, far
thinking minister instead of a populist minister, would be a welcome
relief.
Tim Connors
<name and address>
--
TimC
The first time, it's a KLUDGE!
The second, a trick.
Later, it's a well-established technique! -- Mike Broido, Intermetrics
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Someones got to put a restraining order on Roozendaal:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4cy4ns
>
> Tidy piece of work there Eric, what a useful example to add to the
> discussion.
I calmed down from this outburst:
http://tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com/126453.html
to write something far less scathing:
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:50:24 +1000 (EST)
From: MeMeMe
To: [email protected]
Subject: car and bicycle use in peak hour traffic
Honourable Eric Roozendaal,
I would have thought 1.1 people on average in the average 5 person vehicle
(hint: for every 10 cars that means that at least 9 of those cars only
have 1 occupants -- the driver), during peak hour, was not conducive to
peak hour traffic.
May I remind you that you are the minister for *roads* and not minister
for cars, and that bicycle riders often like to use the roads to get to
places such as work? I would suggest you remember this before you almost
condone assault in the media on the basis of us causing a slight delay (if
indeed we do. Given how I kept on overtaking the same vehicle this
morning in Melbourne traffic, I doubt we do slow anyone down) to other
road users.
If I were you, I would be trying to discourage these 1 person vehicles via
congestion charges. It's not a vote winner, but an innovative, far
thinking minister instead of a populist minister, would be a welcome
relief.
Tim Connors
<name and address>
--
TimC
The first time, it's a KLUDGE!
The second, a trick.
Later, it's a well-established technique! -- Mike Broido, Intermetrics
T
terryc
Guest
On Fri, 09 May 2008 03:55:00 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Because many of them will only have seen small portions of it - head down,
> not at the front or where the driver was supposed to have swerved - and
> with the publicity their recollections could end up being unconvincing
> if a decent defence counsel hammers on that enough.
Maybe a problem if the police call them as witness in criminal matters,but
it they/any pursue civil claim for damages, then there isno "cross
examination"
> Unless the ones at the head of the pack were really not looking where
> they were going, and so had some 15-20 seconds of inattention. Which is
> presumably what the defence will say - that the head-down bum-up riders
> were only looking at the bit of tarmac in front of them.
The goose has already said that some went around him, then a few hit him.
Need to keep him talking as he might just end up self-inflicted.
> Because many of them will only have seen small portions of it - head down,
> not at the front or where the driver was supposed to have swerved - and
> with the publicity their recollections could end up being unconvincing
> if a decent defence counsel hammers on that enough.
Maybe a problem if the police call them as witness in criminal matters,but
it they/any pursue civil claim for damages, then there isno "cross
examination"
> Unless the ones at the head of the pack were really not looking where
> they were going, and so had some 15-20 seconds of inattention. Which is
> presumably what the defence will say - that the head-down bum-up riders
> were only looking at the bit of tarmac in front of them.
The goose has already said that some went around him, then a few hit him.
Need to keep him talking as he might just end up self-inflicted.
T
terryc
Guest
On Fri, 09 May 2008 04:27:18 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> They have to convince non-cyclists, not cyclists.
If it goes to that sort of level of charge.
> Hence needing someone not involved to say "this is what I saw".
If anyone else on the scene actually witnessed the incident as it occurred
and didn't actually start noticing stuff after the accident.
> Preferably someone who can testify to what seems to be the two important
> things - the behaviour of the car before the driver pulled over, and the
> length of time he was stopped before the pack hit.
Bit of pipe dreaming here isn't it. An alleged action that went on for
some time on a busy road and would have moved a bit. Which could have
safely kept their eyes on the pack for that length of time and had the
clear view.
>
> Zebee
> They have to convince non-cyclists, not cyclists.
If it goes to that sort of level of charge.
> Hence needing someone not involved to say "this is what I saw".
If anyone else on the scene actually witnessed the incident as it occurred
and didn't actually start noticing stuff after the accident.
> Preferably someone who can testify to what seems to be the two important
> things - the behaviour of the car before the driver pulled over, and the
> length of time he was stopped before the pack hit.
Bit of pipe dreaming here isn't it. An alleged action that went on for
some time on a busy road and would have moved a bit. Which could have
safely kept their eyes on the pack for that length of time and had the
clear view.
>
> Zebee
Yeah Right said:
no, he should have his license removed for life and be forced to travel the roads on a bike.
R
Richard Sherratt
Guest
On Fri, 09 May 2008 02:17:51 GMT, TimC
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2008-05-09, EuanB (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>> Duncan Wrote:
>>> btw: I find it astounding that the police have taken more than a day
>>> to talk to this lunatic. They have the rego, why didn't they scoot
>>> around there asap and have a quiet word?
>> All registration tells the police is who owns the car and the
>> residential address.
>>
>> It doesn't tell the police where that person happens to be at a point
>> in time.
>>
>> Further the incident has already happened, priority for police
>> resources would porbably have been given to inicidents where the police
>> can make a difference, leaving after the fact policing till quieter
>> times, which is sensible.
>
>Except that it has been reported that this guy is already known to
>police, which means he is already suspected of having offended in the
>past, and will offend again. As such, I would have guessed he would
>be one of their highest priority cases. Because he knows he is known
>(and a description of him has been plastered all over the newspapers),
>you can bet he's gone "missing". So we just have to wait for him to
>turn up in Kalgoolie...
>
>And for his sake, he better be hoping someone isn't going to rip out
>his gonads through his throat, when he is found.
I predict he'll get off, if he's ever brought to trial. If a texting
driver can hit a cyclist in a bike lane at 100km/h, shed a few tears
at her trial and be let off with a slap on the wrist (it helps to be
blonde, I guess), or a drunk woman with several priors can drive
through a training bunch killing a cyclist, what hope do we have that
someone will get any penalty when nobody was killed.
Best remedy: sue the ******* for the damage to the bikes, the
potential loss of earnings, pain and suffering, etc. Take his assets.
Of course, that will only make him more aggressive towards cyclists
and the next bunch might not be so lucky.
--
Regards.
Richard.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2008-05-09, EuanB (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>> Duncan Wrote:
>>> btw: I find it astounding that the police have taken more than a day
>>> to talk to this lunatic. They have the rego, why didn't they scoot
>>> around there asap and have a quiet word?
>> All registration tells the police is who owns the car and the
>> residential address.
>>
>> It doesn't tell the police where that person happens to be at a point
>> in time.
>>
>> Further the incident has already happened, priority for police
>> resources would porbably have been given to inicidents where the police
>> can make a difference, leaving after the fact policing till quieter
>> times, which is sensible.
>
>Except that it has been reported that this guy is already known to
>police, which means he is already suspected of having offended in the
>past, and will offend again. As such, I would have guessed he would
>be one of their highest priority cases. Because he knows he is known
>(and a description of him has been plastered all over the newspapers),
>you can bet he's gone "missing". So we just have to wait for him to
>turn up in Kalgoolie...
>
>And for his sake, he better be hoping someone isn't going to rip out
>his gonads through his throat, when he is found.
I predict he'll get off, if he's ever brought to trial. If a texting
driver can hit a cyclist in a bike lane at 100km/h, shed a few tears
at her trial and be let off with a slap on the wrist (it helps to be
blonde, I guess), or a drunk woman with several priors can drive
through a training bunch killing a cyclist, what hope do we have that
someone will get any penalty when nobody was killed.
Best remedy: sue the ******* for the damage to the bikes, the
potential loss of earnings, pain and suffering, etc. Take his assets.
Of course, that will only make him more aggressive towards cyclists
and the next bunch might not be so lucky.
--
Regards.
Richard.
cfsmtb said:
The simple fact is that the NRMA, Evans in particular, hate all non car users and this hatred is particularly aimed at cyclist. As can be seen by his organisations numerous attacks against us and the conclusions of various 'studies' that the organisation quotes, but can never back up with actual data.
Events like this unfortunately give him more opportunity to attack us and wont let the facts of the event get in the way. Calling the time that the riders were on the road as 'peak hour' is a bit rich considering they were going the opposite direction of 99% of the traffic on a three lane road.
jcjordan said:
A online petition has been created for NRMA members.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19181.html
Details from site: NRMA, stop attacking cyclists or we will cancel our membership
Category: Roads & Transport
Region: Australia
Target: Sydney
Description/History:
The NRMA is vocal in their opposition of the development of cycling infrastructure in Sydney and is opposing the use of existing roads by cyclists in Sydney during Peak hours.
Despite the increasing congestion, high fuel prices and climate change, the NRMA continues to attack cycling as an alternative method of personal transport for commuters and recreational users.
Cyclists have every right to use the States roads. Cyclists, as a legitimate road user group, are growing in number in direct proportion to the increasing fuel prices. Clearly, MORE cycling infrastructure is required, not more car lanes.
Most cyclists are also car owners. A great many of these car owning cyclists are NRMA members and IAG customers. I would ask these people to reconsider their position on contributing money to an association that opposes theirs, and their communities' cycling needs.
P
Patrick Turner
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
>
> jcjordan Wrote:
> > The simple fact is that the NRMA, Evans in particular, hate all non car
> > users and this hatred is particularly aimed at cyclist. As can be seen
> > by his organisations numerous attacks against us and the conclusions of
> > various 'studies' that the organisation quotes, but can never back up
> > with actual data.
> >
> > Events like this unfortunately give him more opportunity to attack us
> > and wont let the facts of the event get in the way. Calling the time
> > that the riders were on the road as 'peak hour' is a bit rich
> > considering they were going the opposite direction of 99% of the traffic
> > on a three lane road.
>
> A online petition has been created for NRMA members.
> http://www.gopetition.com/online/19181.html
>
> Details from site: NRMA, stop attacking cyclists or we will cancel our
> membership
>
> Category: Roads & Transport
> Region: Australia
> Target: Sydney
> Description/History:
> The NRMA is vocal in their opposition of the development of cycling
> infrastructure in Sydney and is opposing the use of existing roads by
> cyclists in Sydney during Peak hours.
>
> Despite the increasing congestion, high fuel prices and climate change,
> the NRMA continues to attack cycling as an alternative method of
> personal transport for commuters and recreational users.
>
> Cyclists have every right to use the States roads. Cyclists, as a
> legitimate road user group, are growing in number in direct proportion
> to the increasing fuel prices. Clearly, MORE cycling infrastructure is
> required, not more car lanes.
>
> Most cyclists are also car owners. A great many of these car owning
> cyclists are NRMA members and IAG customers. I would ask these people to
> reconsider their position on contributing money to an association that
> opposes theirs, and their communities' cycling needs.
>
> --
> cfsmtb
I'm a car owner, '86 Ford Laser, and a keen cyclist.
The trouble with democracy is that it isn't understood for what it is.
Its all very well for us cyclists to bleat about our rights, but
for me at least ANY discussion of rights also must be accompanied by
what duties of care are involved and attatched.
In a society where everyone claims a right for this and that, and nobody
spells out their willingness for duty of care to others, you have
anarchy, not democracy.
For example, although its law that cyclists are entitled to ride two
abreast
on roads, I damn well won't, too much risk to life, unless I am well out
on very lonely
country roads, and there i go single file if I am with others when I
hear a car coming up behind me
and there is no cycle lane.
So the argy bargy will always exist between cyclists and motorists
because
the motorists claim the cyclists don't practice duty of care, by holding
up car drivers
on the road, and getting in their way, running red lights, and forcing
car drivers to take risky evasive action
in tenuous situations.
Cyclists claim motorists are a bunch of Toads who antagonise cyclists.
Its been the same now ever since our great grandfather's rode old penny
farthings.
Lots of wrong on BOTH sides, from what I witness every day.
I hate driving a car on Sydney's roads, and cycling is an unpleasant
experience.
I don't ever see a future there for safe cycling.
Does anyone think the NSW State Government will spend a billion bucks
just
to please a tiny minority crew of mainly wingeing young men who insist
on riding bikes?
I don't think so.
So like it or hate it, the fact is that NOTHING MUCH will ever happen to
improve the
lot of the tiny cycling minority, such as dedicated cycle ways all
around Sydney
allowing good separation of motorists and cyclists.
And unless the cycleways or cycle paths are MORE convenient and smooth
surfaced than nearby roads.
many cyclists just won't use them, and motorists get the ***** when they
see cyclists
riding on the road where there is a cycle path which is empty of traffic
running right alongside the road.
All that expense for nothing they moan.
One could say cyclists should get down on their knees each evening and
pray to God or Allah
or the Snake Serpent that petrol will rise to $10.00 per litre in 6
months, and that
speed limits on roads within 30km radious of Sydney CBD be reduced to
30kph, and that
anyone within 20km radius of CBD must have a City Entry Certificate, CEC
which
is bought for $200 each month.
That ought to reduce traffic to densities about the same as 1950, but
the roads can ALL have a cycle lane both sides.
Pigs will be available for porcine flight before such draconian measures
are implemented.
Apart from the tiny minority of mainly young men ppl who ride much at
all,
trying to get the rest of the population onto bikes is like trying to
teach elephants to dance a polka.
People just ain't willing to bike it any more than they'd like to go
back
to horse and buggy days.
We all know that prayer doesn't work, and pigs don't fly,
and that Sydney looks set to just get a whole lot worser and bloody
worser.
I could see this in 1972, and I voted with my feet.
When I was young, I rode a motorcycle for most of my twenties.
Don't ask me how I survived with so many drunks on the road back then i
don't know.
By 26, I was SO GLAD to leave Sydney, a huge dump of a place which was
grossly dysfunctional in 1,001 different ways.
No apologies, but that's how I saw it. People were dominated by chasing
money and
traffic. Sydney is an alienating environment where hardly anyone I ever
knew there
knew how to be happy, and how not to worry.
I discovered Canberra, where someone actually bothered to plan a place
that grated less
on an ordinary human.
Then I discovered its cycle paths, also a result of planning them in
as a matter of course during suburban developments.
Even Canberra is slowly and surely being Chatswood-ised, or
Paramatta-ised,
and that's all **** where its happening; progress and growth, like
cancer to me.
But fortunately the town dysplanning muckeration is not universal,
and I can be in paddocks where cows and sheep graze peacefully
within 5 minutes of leaving home on a bicycle from my house in Watson
which is 6km out of
Canberra CDB, 'Civic', as its known.
Patrick Turner.
>
> jcjordan Wrote:
> > The simple fact is that the NRMA, Evans in particular, hate all non car
> > users and this hatred is particularly aimed at cyclist. As can be seen
> > by his organisations numerous attacks against us and the conclusions of
> > various 'studies' that the organisation quotes, but can never back up
> > with actual data.
> >
> > Events like this unfortunately give him more opportunity to attack us
> > and wont let the facts of the event get in the way. Calling the time
> > that the riders were on the road as 'peak hour' is a bit rich
> > considering they were going the opposite direction of 99% of the traffic
> > on a three lane road.
>
> A online petition has been created for NRMA members.
> http://www.gopetition.com/online/19181.html
>
> Details from site: NRMA, stop attacking cyclists or we will cancel our
> membership
>
> Category: Roads & Transport
> Region: Australia
> Target: Sydney
> Description/History:
> The NRMA is vocal in their opposition of the development of cycling
> infrastructure in Sydney and is opposing the use of existing roads by
> cyclists in Sydney during Peak hours.
>
> Despite the increasing congestion, high fuel prices and climate change,
> the NRMA continues to attack cycling as an alternative method of
> personal transport for commuters and recreational users.
>
> Cyclists have every right to use the States roads. Cyclists, as a
> legitimate road user group, are growing in number in direct proportion
> to the increasing fuel prices. Clearly, MORE cycling infrastructure is
> required, not more car lanes.
>
> Most cyclists are also car owners. A great many of these car owning
> cyclists are NRMA members and IAG customers. I would ask these people to
> reconsider their position on contributing money to an association that
> opposes theirs, and their communities' cycling needs.
>
> --
> cfsmtb
I'm a car owner, '86 Ford Laser, and a keen cyclist.
The trouble with democracy is that it isn't understood for what it is.
Its all very well for us cyclists to bleat about our rights, but
for me at least ANY discussion of rights also must be accompanied by
what duties of care are involved and attatched.
In a society where everyone claims a right for this and that, and nobody
spells out their willingness for duty of care to others, you have
anarchy, not democracy.
For example, although its law that cyclists are entitled to ride two
abreast
on roads, I damn well won't, too much risk to life, unless I am well out
on very lonely
country roads, and there i go single file if I am with others when I
hear a car coming up behind me
and there is no cycle lane.
So the argy bargy will always exist between cyclists and motorists
because
the motorists claim the cyclists don't practice duty of care, by holding
up car drivers
on the road, and getting in their way, running red lights, and forcing
car drivers to take risky evasive action
in tenuous situations.
Cyclists claim motorists are a bunch of Toads who antagonise cyclists.
Its been the same now ever since our great grandfather's rode old penny
farthings.
Lots of wrong on BOTH sides, from what I witness every day.
I hate driving a car on Sydney's roads, and cycling is an unpleasant
experience.
I don't ever see a future there for safe cycling.
Does anyone think the NSW State Government will spend a billion bucks
just
to please a tiny minority crew of mainly wingeing young men who insist
on riding bikes?
I don't think so.
So like it or hate it, the fact is that NOTHING MUCH will ever happen to
improve the
lot of the tiny cycling minority, such as dedicated cycle ways all
around Sydney
allowing good separation of motorists and cyclists.
And unless the cycleways or cycle paths are MORE convenient and smooth
surfaced than nearby roads.
many cyclists just won't use them, and motorists get the ***** when they
see cyclists
riding on the road where there is a cycle path which is empty of traffic
running right alongside the road.
All that expense for nothing they moan.
One could say cyclists should get down on their knees each evening and
pray to God or Allah
or the Snake Serpent that petrol will rise to $10.00 per litre in 6
months, and that
speed limits on roads within 30km radious of Sydney CBD be reduced to
30kph, and that
anyone within 20km radius of CBD must have a City Entry Certificate, CEC
which
is bought for $200 each month.
That ought to reduce traffic to densities about the same as 1950, but
the roads can ALL have a cycle lane both sides.
Pigs will be available for porcine flight before such draconian measures
are implemented.
Apart from the tiny minority of mainly young men ppl who ride much at
all,
trying to get the rest of the population onto bikes is like trying to
teach elephants to dance a polka.
People just ain't willing to bike it any more than they'd like to go
back
to horse and buggy days.
We all know that prayer doesn't work, and pigs don't fly,
and that Sydney looks set to just get a whole lot worser and bloody
worser.
I could see this in 1972, and I voted with my feet.
When I was young, I rode a motorcycle for most of my twenties.
Don't ask me how I survived with so many drunks on the road back then i
don't know.
By 26, I was SO GLAD to leave Sydney, a huge dump of a place which was
grossly dysfunctional in 1,001 different ways.
No apologies, but that's how I saw it. People were dominated by chasing
money and
traffic. Sydney is an alienating environment where hardly anyone I ever
knew there
knew how to be happy, and how not to worry.
I discovered Canberra, where someone actually bothered to plan a place
that grated less
on an ordinary human.
Then I discovered its cycle paths, also a result of planning them in
as a matter of course during suburban developments.
Even Canberra is slowly and surely being Chatswood-ised, or
Paramatta-ised,
and that's all **** where its happening; progress and growth, like
cancer to me.
But fortunately the town dysplanning muckeration is not universal,
and I can be in paddocks where cows and sheep graze peacefully
within 5 minutes of leaving home on a bicycle from my house in Watson
which is 6km out of
Canberra CDB, 'Civic', as its known.
Patrick Turner.
D
Donga
Guest
On May 9, 1:05 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 8 May 2008 20:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 9, 12:44 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I'd say the semi trailer driver would be a useful independent witness.
>
> >> Zebee
>
> > I'd say the 6-15 cyclists, all sentient beings, would be sufficient
> > for the average magistrate.
>
> AS people involved, their evidence is not as trustworthy as those who
> are not.
>
> Not because they would deliberately lie, but because eyewitness
> evidence is inherently difficult, involved (meaning shook up, angry)
> witnesses are more so, witnesses who have ivolvement with others and
> therefore may have had their recollection tainted by stories are also
> difficult. There's a lot of research on that latter, in that most
> people remember a memory not an incident, and that memory can be
> changed by what others say.
>
> Zebee
>
> Zebee
Is that a legal opinion? My son was assaulted and the offender was
convicted on the basis of my son's testimony, plus the three other
bogans in the car with the offender. None too independent. Even rape
convictions can be secured on the basis of the testimony of the raped
person these days.
Donga
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 8 May 2008 20:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 9, 12:44 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I'd say the semi trailer driver would be a useful independent witness.
>
> >> Zebee
>
> > I'd say the 6-15 cyclists, all sentient beings, would be sufficient
> > for the average magistrate.
>
> AS people involved, their evidence is not as trustworthy as those who
> are not.
>
> Not because they would deliberately lie, but because eyewitness
> evidence is inherently difficult, involved (meaning shook up, angry)
> witnesses are more so, witnesses who have ivolvement with others and
> therefore may have had their recollection tainted by stories are also
> difficult. There's a lot of research on that latter, in that most
> people remember a memory not an incident, and that memory can be
> changed by what others say.
>
> Zebee
>
> Zebee
Is that a legal opinion? My son was assaulted and the offender was
convicted on the basis of my son's testimony, plus the three other
bogans in the car with the offender. None too independent. Even rape
convictions can be secured on the basis of the testimony of the raped
person these days.
Donga
D
Donga
Guest
On May 9, 1:09 pm, terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:56:06 -0700, Donga wrote:
> > the police can be quite good at shaking (metaphorically) the driver's
> > identify out of an owner who is less legally aware.
>
> Do you meant that the owner isn't automatically liable unless they
> nominate another person?
I mean that police would not be so silly as to say "please tell us,
but you do not have to, who was driving if not you". The imagination
will readily provide ways this could be done.
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:56:06 -0700, Donga wrote:
> > the police can be quite good at shaking (metaphorically) the driver's
> > identify out of an owner who is less legally aware.
>
> Do you meant that the owner isn't automatically liable unless they
> nominate another person?
I mean that police would not be so silly as to say "please tell us,
but you do not have to, who was driving if not you". The imagination
will readily provide ways this could be done.
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 10 May 2008 23:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is that a legal opinion? My son was assaulted and the offender was
> convicted on the basis of my son's testimony, plus the three other
> bogans in the car with the offender. None too independent. Even rape
> convictions can be secured on the basis of the testimony of the raped
> person these days.
>
I didn't say that involved witnesses were disbelieved. I said that
uninvolved were better.
Zebee
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is that a legal opinion? My son was assaulted and the offender was
> convicted on the basis of my son's testimony, plus the three other
> bogans in the car with the offender. None too independent. Even rape
> convictions can be secured on the basis of the testimony of the raped
> person these days.
>
I didn't say that involved witnesses were disbelieved. I said that
uninvolved were better.
Zebee
A
Adrian Tritschler
Guest
Patrick Turner <[email protected]> writes:
> cfsmtb wrote:
>> jcjordan Wrote:
>> > The simple fact is that the NRMA, Evans in particular, hate all
>> > non car users and this hatred is particularly aimed at cyclist.
...snip..
>> A online petition has been created for NRMA members.
>> http://www.gopetition.com/online/19181.html
...snip..
>> -- cfsmtb
> I'm a car owner, '86 Ford Laser, and a keen cyclist.
...snip..
> Lots of wrong on BOTH sides, from what I witness every day.
Sure is, the great Aussie road users have pretty much the same attitude
to each other whether they are on bikes or in cars.
> I hate driving a car on Sydney's roads, and cycling is an unpleasant
...snip..
> I discovered Canberra, where someone actually bothered to plan a place
> that grated less on an ordinary human. Then I discovered its cycle
> paths, also a result of planning them in as a matter of course during
> suburban developments.
I really have to take exception with that; I grew up in Canberra, spent
some 20 years riding bikes to primary school, high school, university
and various places of work and found that its layout is designed for
speedy *car* transport, lots of roads with high average speeds -- hardly
what you want for riding. After-the-fact "cycle paths" were then put
in, twisting and winding this way and that through the parkland and
verges, crossing and recrossing the roads where at every intersection
you can be damn sure that the people on the cycle path give way to "real
traffic."
Yes, its better/easier to ride around Canberra than Sydney, but Canberra
was designed spread out with lots of roads because "in the future,
everyone will have a car!" -- it certainly wasn't designed for cycling.
Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, regardless of the infrastructure, the
people you have to deal with are the problem, and *that* is the problem
that the governments and the cycling bodies refuse to deal with. More
painted lines and more bike paths doesn't mean less f'wits trying to run
me down everytime a bike lane ends, every time a bike path wasn't built
to duplicate the road I want to ride along.
> Even Canberra is slowly and surely being Chatswood-ised, or
> Paramatta-ised, and that's all **** where its happening; progress and
> growth, like cancer to me.
>
> But fortunately the town dysplanning muckeration is not universal, and
> I can be in paddocks where cows and sheep graze peacefully within 5
> minutes of leaving home on a bicycle from my house in Watson which is
> 6km out of Canberra CDB, 'Civic', as its known.
>
> Patrick Turner.
Adrian
> cfsmtb wrote:
>> jcjordan Wrote:
>> > The simple fact is that the NRMA, Evans in particular, hate all
>> > non car users and this hatred is particularly aimed at cyclist.
...snip..
>> A online petition has been created for NRMA members.
>> http://www.gopetition.com/online/19181.html
...snip..
>> -- cfsmtb
> I'm a car owner, '86 Ford Laser, and a keen cyclist.
...snip..
> Lots of wrong on BOTH sides, from what I witness every day.
Sure is, the great Aussie road users have pretty much the same attitude
to each other whether they are on bikes or in cars.
> I hate driving a car on Sydney's roads, and cycling is an unpleasant
...snip..
> I discovered Canberra, where someone actually bothered to plan a place
> that grated less on an ordinary human. Then I discovered its cycle
> paths, also a result of planning them in as a matter of course during
> suburban developments.
I really have to take exception with that; I grew up in Canberra, spent
some 20 years riding bikes to primary school, high school, university
and various places of work and found that its layout is designed for
speedy *car* transport, lots of roads with high average speeds -- hardly
what you want for riding. After-the-fact "cycle paths" were then put
in, twisting and winding this way and that through the parkland and
verges, crossing and recrossing the roads where at every intersection
you can be damn sure that the people on the cycle path give way to "real
traffic."
Yes, its better/easier to ride around Canberra than Sydney, but Canberra
was designed spread out with lots of roads because "in the future,
everyone will have a car!" -- it certainly wasn't designed for cycling.
Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, regardless of the infrastructure, the
people you have to deal with are the problem, and *that* is the problem
that the governments and the cycling bodies refuse to deal with. More
painted lines and more bike paths doesn't mean less f'wits trying to run
me down everytime a bike lane ends, every time a bike path wasn't built
to duplicate the road I want to ride along.
> Even Canberra is slowly and surely being Chatswood-ised, or
> Paramatta-ised, and that's all **** where its happening; progress and
> growth, like cancer to me.
>
> But fortunately the town dysplanning muckeration is not universal, and
> I can be in paddocks where cows and sheep graze peacefully within 5
> minutes of leaving home on a bicycle from my house in Watson which is
> 6km out of Canberra CDB, 'Civic', as its known.
>
> Patrick Turner.
Adrian
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 12 May 2008 11:22:07 GMT
Adrian Tritschler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, regardless of the infrastructure, the
> people you have to deal with are the problem, and *that* is the problem
> that the governments and the cycling bodies refuse to deal with. More
I think it is more a case of can't deal with.
People is people. They are closed source, you can't change the
programming easily or cheaply.
IN order to change the way people in general think and act you have to
change the circumstances they find themselves in. Change the rewards and
perceived rewards for acting, change the social and legal penalties,
increase the chance of being caught and the chance of any penalty
(social or legal) applying.
Sounds easy if you say it quickly...
Australia needs to change car dependence. It needs to stop having one
huge city per state and have many smaller ones, preferably not in the
major water catchment and good soil areas. That's not going to
happen...
SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what will
change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
fun.
(My money's on more use of electric vehicles and other power sources
so the car-dependent culture can stay. Imagine the fun of dealing
with silent cars.)
Personal fast easy transport over long distances (long being more than
5km) is way too good to give up easily.
Zebee
Adrian Tritschler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, regardless of the infrastructure, the
> people you have to deal with are the problem, and *that* is the problem
> that the governments and the cycling bodies refuse to deal with. More
I think it is more a case of can't deal with.
People is people. They are closed source, you can't change the
programming easily or cheaply.
IN order to change the way people in general think and act you have to
change the circumstances they find themselves in. Change the rewards and
perceived rewards for acting, change the social and legal penalties,
increase the chance of being caught and the chance of any penalty
(social or legal) applying.
Sounds easy if you say it quickly...
Australia needs to change car dependence. It needs to stop having one
huge city per state and have many smaller ones, preferably not in the
major water catchment and good soil areas. That's not going to
happen...
SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what will
change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
fun.
(My money's on more use of electric vehicles and other power sources
so the car-dependent culture can stay. Imagine the fun of dealing
with silent cars.)
Personal fast easy transport over long distances (long being more than
5km) is way too good to give up easily.
Zebee
G
G-S
Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what will
> change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
> fun.
>
Electric car manufacture will be expensive without cheap crude oil and
natural gas I suspect.
But you're right... it's not going to be easy or pretty.
G-S
>
> SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what will
> change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
> fun.
>
Electric car manufacture will be expensive without cheap crude oil and
natural gas I suspect.
But you're right... it's not going to be easy or pretty.
G-S
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 06:54:07 +1000
G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what will
>> change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
>> fun.
>>
>
> Electric car manufacture will be expensive without cheap crude oil and
> natural gas I suspect.
All manufacture will be. There will be a lot of work done on making
currently unviable coal and oil fields viable and a lot done on
industrial power generation using other things.
The various processes will become more efficient and so will the end
product. How long it will take these efficiencies to get to the huge
new markets of Africa and India and China is unknown.
My mother has been pondering an electric bicycle. She notes that she
can't ride an electric bicycle on the footpath, but can drive one of
those Gofer things. An electric vehicle that can help keep her fitter
and more mobile is less attractive than a motorised chair because it's
less convenient.
WHere have we heard that before?
Zebee
G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what will
>> change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
>> fun.
>>
>
> Electric car manufacture will be expensive without cheap crude oil and
> natural gas I suspect.
All manufacture will be. There will be a lot of work done on making
currently unviable coal and oil fields viable and a lot done on
industrial power generation using other things.
The various processes will become more efficient and so will the end
product. How long it will take these efficiencies to get to the huge
new markets of Africa and India and China is unknown.
My mother has been pondering an electric bicycle. She notes that she
can't ride an electric bicycle on the footpath, but can drive one of
those Gofer things. An electric vehicle that can help keep her fitter
and more mobile is less attractive than a motorised chair because it's
less convenient.
WHere have we heard that before?
Zebee
G
G-S
Guest
jcjordan wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 06:54:07 +1000
>> G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what
>> will
>>>> change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
>>>> fun.
>>>>
>>> Electric car manufacture will be expensive without cheap crude oil
>> and
>>> natural gas I suspect.
>> All manufacture will be. There will be a lot of work done on making
>> currently unviable coal and oil fields viable and a lot done on
>> industrial power generation using other things.
>>
>> The various processes will become more efficient and so will the end
>> product. How long it will take these efficiencies to get to the huge
>> new markets of Africa and India and China is unknown.
>>
>> My mother has been pondering an electric bicycle. She notes that she
>> can't ride an electric bicycle on the footpath, but can drive one of
>> those Gofer things. An electric vehicle that can help keep her fitter
>> and more mobile is less attractive than a motorised chair because it's
>> less convenient.
>>
>> WHere have we heard that before?
>>
>> Zebee
>
> Canada is already doing this by exploring the tar fields in the
> northern territories
>
There is strong evidence that the amount of energy expended by the
Canadians in mining the tar fields and creating petroleum products
actually is greater than the amount of energy released by the final
petroleum products.
That means they are in effect cross subsidizing it with other sources of
energy (say natural gas), in order to get petrol and diesel.
G-S
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 06:54:07 +1000
>> G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> SOmething has to change given oil and water, but I can't see what
>> will
>>>> change. It won't be planned, and it won't be pretty and it won't be
>>>> fun.
>>>>
>>> Electric car manufacture will be expensive without cheap crude oil
>> and
>>> natural gas I suspect.
>> All manufacture will be. There will be a lot of work done on making
>> currently unviable coal and oil fields viable and a lot done on
>> industrial power generation using other things.
>>
>> The various processes will become more efficient and so will the end
>> product. How long it will take these efficiencies to get to the huge
>> new markets of Africa and India and China is unknown.
>>
>> My mother has been pondering an electric bicycle. She notes that she
>> can't ride an electric bicycle on the footpath, but can drive one of
>> those Gofer things. An electric vehicle that can help keep her fitter
>> and more mobile is less attractive than a motorised chair because it's
>> less convenient.
>>
>> WHere have we heard that before?
>>
>> Zebee
>
> Canada is already doing this by exploring the tar fields in the
> northern territories
>
There is strong evidence that the amount of energy expended by the
Canadians in mining the tar fields and creating petroleum products
actually is greater than the amount of energy released by the final
petroleum products.
That means they are in effect cross subsidizing it with other sources of
energy (say natural gas), in order to get petrol and diesel.
G-S
