On 18/01/2011 7:25 PM, Ken & Stace wrote:
"Zebee wrote in message
...
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:12:46 +1100
Ken& wrote:


I would complain if the speed limit was 80KMH and the truck is sitting on 30
and there was room for me to get past if the truck just moved over a bit.

You will note that the speed limit is the MAXIMIMUM permissible.

I could be wrong but I believe that there is no MINIMUM speed. My
understanding is that it is for the courts told decide if the speed of
any vehicle is appropriate for the prevailing conditions.

If not, what *are* you saying about "people in their cars"? are you
saying that drivers on airport drive are not capable of changing
lanes?

No I'm saying it's a heavy traffic area and if a driver gets caught behind a
slower vehicle they may take risks to get around said slow vehicle,
especially if the slow vehicle is taking up a full lane when, just by moving
over to the left a bit, the driver could get past.
I say people in their cars the same as I would say "a person on a bike" .

And if the person in the slower vehicle decides that it is NOT safe to
move over for your convenience what then?

I can't work out what the problem is.

I don't see the point of "It's legal for me to do something therefore I'm
gonna do it and stuff the rest of you" The federal police wouldn't have got
involved if all was rosy. What was the traffic situation? Geoff has not
enlightened us on that.

The AFP officer claimed that I was holding up traffic. I was unable to
verify his staetment as I was too busy watching road conditions in front
of me at that immediate moment.

Approximately 3 minutes prior to being stopped I did look behind me to
ascertain that it was safe to move into the flow of traffic from the
road shoulder and there was significant traffic flow.

A bit of consideration for others doesn't hurt. I'm sorry if I have misread
Geoff's attitude, but going by the "mantra" I think not. It may be legal,
but it is not safe for either Geoff or the people in the cars around him.

Again, I thiank you for acknowleding teh legality of my actions.

I do take issue with the matter of "consideration". Consideration works
both ways. I undertake to commandeer a road vehicle in the safest way I
can think of and I ask no less of other road users.

My mantra is good for me and in the event of any misfortune befalling
me, good for my estate.


If someone is late for a flight, are they jsutified in doing 110kmh in
a 70 zone?

No you can never justify 110 in a 70 zone, You put the speed the driver was
doing at 110KMH. Not me. But a driver who is running late will get
frustrated and take risks they wouldn't normally take.

All road users will be at risks from such a driver - not just me.

If they are not, where is the difference between that, and the similar
time difference in waiting to change lanes on a multi lane road? 110
will get them to the flight on time, obeying the law means they miss.

Whose fault is the miss?

The person who was late for their flight , however If they hit Geoff, it's
Geoff who will come off second best.
But as you said, ther are breakdowns slow traffic and crashes that make a
person late when they may have left home on time.

Yes, I will come off second best physically but I suspect they will come
off second best in the legal stakes, so my estate WILL collect

It is also legal for me to walk past a bunch of bikies with my friends
and
tell the bikies they are as thick as two short planks, get a haircut and
get
a job, but to do this would be foolish. What would be result of my
actions?


In my experience, you will be laughed at.

They won't bother beating you up, because your disrespect isn't
important to them. You are a "citizen", and therefore irrelevant.

You know some nice bikies.

Lots of bikies are nice people.

Try another analogy eh?

Howabout this one. "If I cross at a crosswalk on a road someone might
be late for work, and I get hit, well whose fault is that? Has to be
mine because asseting the road rules in front of impatient people is
too dangerous and their impatience must override all else. Because
that's how they view the world and I must not query that because I
might get hurt doing so."

If I stand 4 metres back from the crossing and talk to friend and at the end
of the conversation suddenly run across the crossing without looking and get
hit legally the driver is at fault, but if it goes to court it may be
decided I didn't take due care.

"...suddenly run across the crossing without looking..." sounds
contributory to me but I am no lawyer.

How about this one: At Glenbrook just past the M4 the speed limit is 80KMH.
I can legally go through there at that speed anytime I want. However from
5.00pm onward, there are a large number of cars, bikes and buses turning in
and out of Ross Street and the petrol station, therefore it is prudent to
slow down to 60 at that time of the day.

Again, I point to the fact that speed limits indicate the MAXIMUM speed
permissible. My understanding is that road users need to consider the
road conditions and adjust their speeds accordingly WITHOUT exceeding
the speed limit. Thus, if road conditions are such that you can only do
10kph safely, then 10kph is all you will be able to do if you do not
want the coppers to bust your ass (assuming they are on the prowl of cos)