Why don't Roadies have bells on their bikes

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by 40ish, Oct 26, 2004.

  1. RV

    RV Guest

    On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:15:49 +0800, "bjay"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >>>> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>>> magistrate will accept.
    >>>> Nor should they.
    >>>
    >>>Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother
    >>>looking
    >>>before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident.

    >>
    >> Irrelevant
    >> The law is the same law for all of us
    >> Failure to brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if
    >> you are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car.
    >> End of story.

    >
    >
    >Hmmm, it seems that you are never quite going to grasp the concept of
    >accepting responsibility for your own actions. Ah well, I tried.
    >


    Seems you are never going to grass the_law.
     


  2. RV

    RV Guest

    On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:35:55 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:

    >RV wrote:
    >> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:31:13 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>bjay wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>>>>magistrate will accept.
    >>>>>Nor should they.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother looking
    >>>>before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident. What would
    >>>>happen if he had stepped out giving no time for the cyclist to brake? What
    >>>>I am saying is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions
    >>>>rather than expecting others to make allowances for them and then blaming
    >>>>the other person for their own stupidity if something does go wrong.
    >>>>Stepping out into the road without looking is just a plain stupid thing to
    >>>>do.
    >>>>
    >>>>bjay
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Yeah. I cannot say how much I despise the attitude..."I didnt see the
    >>>'bike' 'truck', 'semi' , ' train' and obviously therefore it was the
    >>>'roads', 'intersection', 'level crossings fault.
    >>>
    >>>He not only didn't look... he didnt listen.. in fact he showed the
    >>>spatial awareness of a light pole. And nearly the same intelligence.
    >>>
    >>>These people IMHO are always going to have an accident. And if they
    >>>live it is only cos they are in the bigger vehicle.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Irrelevant
    >> The rider of the bicycle broke the law by noit braking to avoid the
    >> ped.
    >> Any excuse is simply a denial of guilt and doesn't excuse the offence.
    >>
    >>

    >Wanker
    >
    >Crossing a road without due care and attention ... is actually an
    >offence ya dope.
    >
    >And the law requires yout to avoid an accident.. Where the fuck does it
    >say brake?
    >
    >And I aint making any excuse, I am calling the guy an idiot. My care
    >factor about his life is non existant. When I read in the news tonight
    >about him getting cleaned up on a level crossing I will spare him zero
    >sympathy...
    >


    Foolish assumptions and complete ignorance of the_law.

    >I will watch to see if the train driver gets charged.


    If a train driver takes no action to avoid the person, does not brake
    or attempt to stop the train, he would certainly be charged with a
    serious indictable offence..
     
  3. In aus.bicycle on Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:22:14 +1000
    Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Doesn't the law state to give way to pedestrians at all time? Then the
    > fact that they were committing a crime does not absolve you of blame.
    >


    I think you will find it doesn't quite state that.

    What it says is that you have a duty to do all you can to avoid a crash.

    The law quite understands that someone else might do something stupid
    and/or illegal. They'll get taken legal notice of in another trial.
    But that they did wrong isn't a reason for you to do wrong.

    If you were behaving legally, and couldn't reasonably avoid the crash,
    then that's one thing. But legally includes "keeping a proper lookout"
    amongst other things.

    Zebee
     
  4. In aus.bicycle on Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:22:14 +1000
    Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Doesn't the law state to give way to pedestrians at all time? Then the
    > fact that they were committing a crime does not absolve you of blame.
    >


    I think you will find it doesn't quite state that.

    What it says is that you have a duty to do all you can to avoid a crash.

    The law quite understands that someone else might do something stupid
    and/or illegal. They'll get taken legal notice of in another trial.
    But that they did wrong isn't a reason for you to do wrong.

    If you were behaving legally, and couldn't reasonably avoid the crash,
    then that's one thing. But legally includes "keeping a proper lookout"
    amongst other things.

    Zebee
     
  5. >>>>> "bjay" == bjay <[email protected]> writes:

    >>>> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>>> magistrate will accept. Nor should they.
    >>> Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't
    >>> bother looking before stepping off the curb. He initiated this
    >>> incident.

    >> Irrelevant The law is the same law for all of us Failure to
    >> brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if you
    >> are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car. End of story.



    bjay> Hmmm, it seems that you are never quite going to grasp the
    bjay> concept of accepting responsibility for your own actions. Ah
    bjay> well, I tried.

    Seems to me he grasps the concept just fine. Cyclist does not take
    action to avoid a crash, he's at fault regardless of who first broke the
    law first.

    Sometimes it's what we fail to do that counts.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  6. >>>>> "bjay" == bjay <[email protected]> writes:

    >>>> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>>> magistrate will accept. Nor should they.
    >>> Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't
    >>> bother looking before stepping off the curb. He initiated this
    >>> incident.

    >> Irrelevant The law is the same law for all of us Failure to
    >> brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if you
    >> are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car. End of story.



    bjay> Hmmm, it seems that you are never quite going to grasp the
    bjay> concept of accepting responsibility for your own actions. Ah
    bjay> well, I tried.

    Seems to me he grasps the concept just fine. Cyclist does not take
    action to avoid a crash, he's at fault regardless of who first broke the
    law first.

    Sometimes it's what we fail to do that counts.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  7. >>>>> "dave" == dave <[email protected]> writes:

    dave> Crossing a road without due care and attention ... is actually
    dave> an offence ya dope.

    Haven't seen anyone argue otherwise.

    dave> And the law requires yout to avoid an accident.. Where the
    dave> fuck does it say brake?

    If the only way to avoid an accident is to brake then that is the action
    that has to be taken. Only a dope wouldn't be able to grasp that.

    dave> And I aint making any excuse, I am calling the guy an
    dave> idiot. My care factor about his life is non existant. When I
    dave> read in the news tonight about him getting cleaned up on a
    dave> level crossing I will spare him zero sympathy...

    And that's more a comment on your personality than anything else.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  8. >>>>> "dave" == dave <[email protected]> writes:

    dave> Crossing a road without due care and attention ... is actually
    dave> an offence ya dope.

    Haven't seen anyone argue otherwise.

    dave> And the law requires yout to avoid an accident.. Where the
    dave> fuck does it say brake?

    If the only way to avoid an accident is to brake then that is the action
    that has to be taken. Only a dope wouldn't be able to grasp that.

    dave> And I aint making any excuse, I am calling the guy an
    dave> idiot. My care factor about his life is non existant. When I
    dave> read in the news tonight about him getting cleaned up on a
    dave> level crossing I will spare him zero sympathy...

    And that's more a comment on your personality than anything else.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  9. dave

    dave Guest

    Richard Sherratt wrote:
    > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 06:41:48 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Yesterday my training partner Ian had the nearest near miss I have ever
    >>actually seen with a pedestrian.

    >
    >
    > Is this the beer making Ian?
    >
    >
    >>This was on Station St Aspendale where
    >>fast cyclists are sooo rare :)

    >
    >
    > And where Kath and Kim would be considered sophisticated socialites.
    >
    > That's more or less where Zander T-boned a right turning P-plater a
    > couple of years ago.
    >
    > Got to be careful when you go into the badlands :)
    >
    >

    yeah its the dead Zone all right.

    I can;t believe he stayed up.. This being Ian we r talking about... Was
    a great effort at dodging even by Lance standards... For Ian.. a sheer
    flash of brilliance.

    Dave
     
  10. dave

    dave Guest

    RV wrote:
    > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:31:13 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>bjay wrote:
    >>
    >>>>There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>>>magistrate will accept.
    >>>>Nor should they.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother looking
    >>>before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident. What would
    >>>happen if he had stepped out giving no time for the cyclist to brake? What
    >>>I am saying is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions
    >>>rather than expecting others to make allowances for them and then blaming
    >>>the other person for their own stupidity if something does go wrong.
    >>>Stepping out into the road without looking is just a plain stupid thing to
    >>>do.
    >>>
    >>>bjay
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>Yeah. I cannot say how much I despise the attitude..."I didnt see the
    >>'bike' 'truck', 'semi' , ' train' and obviously therefore it was the
    >>'roads', 'intersection', 'level crossings fault.
    >>
    >>He not only didn't look... he didnt listen.. in fact he showed the
    >>spatial awareness of a light pole. And nearly the same intelligence.
    >>
    >>These people IMHO are always going to have an accident. And if they
    >>live it is only cos they are in the bigger vehicle.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Irrelevant
    > The rider of the bicycle broke the law by noit braking to avoid the
    > ped.
    > Any excuse is simply a denial of guilt and doesn't excuse the offence.
    >
    >

    Wanker

    Crossing a road without due care and attention ... is actually an
    offence ya dope.

    And the law requires yout to avoid an accident.. Where the fuck does it
    say brake?

    And I aint making any excuse, I am calling the guy an idiot. My care
    factor about his life is non existant. When I read in the news tonight
    about him getting cleaned up on a level crossing I will spare him zero
    sympathy...

    I will watch to see if the train driver gets charged.

    Dave
     
  11. stu

    stu Guest

    > Oh no I have to have a go here. What a f**** stupid thing to say.
    > Woth me on his arse Ian moved as much as 3 metres to dodge the moron.

    hmmm tail-gating, your problem not the peds.
    anyone ever been booked for that on a bike???
     
Loading...
Loading...