Cyclist Safety - Submissions to the Victorian Government

warrwych wrote:
Ritcho - I totally agree. Had an interesting encounter a few mths back
where I was passed by an older ford sedan (getting into the theme of car
= personality type ;-)) with a guy being held by the lower legs so he
could hand out the rear passenger window
?


sorry .. that should be hang out .. not hand out (wouldnt have minde
one of those ;-)


-

Now, where can I store one of these on my bike??

and if youre reading this, write to that email address too:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/adenholla...Road_Rage_1.wm


-

flyingdutch wrote:
Now, where can I store one of these on my bike???
and if youre reading this, write to that email address too
http://home.iprimus.com.au/adenholla...oad_Rage_1.wmv


You'd need a tandem... :


-

warrwych wrote:
[snip story of young louts]
In this case, they managed to keep the car at would have been called a
"safe distance' ;-). Just not the bodies in the car.... Unfortunately in
this case, a bunch of young guys killing time on a Sunday afternoon in a
small country town - how do you change mentality in those situations????


Aha! Maybe not violating rule 144, but they violated rule 268 concernin
travel in a vehicle. The relevant subsections are (3) and (4

-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Rule 268: How persons must travel in or on a motor vehicle ..
(3) A person must not travel in or on a motor vehicle with any part o
the person’s body outside a window or door of the vehicle, unles
the person is the driver of the vehicle and is giving a hand signal
(a) for changing direction to the right in accordance with rule 50; o
(b) for stopping or slowing in accordance with rule 55. Offenc
provision
(4) The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus) must not drive with
passenger if any part of the passenger’s body is outside a window o
door of the vehicle. Offence provision
------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Those pesky louts

Ritc


-

"amirm" wrote in message

Unkey Munkey wrote:
In my experience, tradesmen in hotted up utes (XR8 falcons or SS
commodores) seem to have a predisposition towards road rage
against cyclists, especially overtaking too close. I also saw
some statistics that this is the most common type of vehicle
driven by men who visit brothels. Is there a link between the two?

Sorry cfsmtb, this thread was almost killed instantly by this tasty
topic. Gotta add some input here

One way of analysing these observations, and relating them, could be:

- those ute drivers visit brothels frequently
- those ute drivers drive passed bikes with close distance

therefore, visiting brothel and passing by a rider at close distance
would have the same effect on ute drivers.

Actually, what it means is that bike riders who don't want ute drivers
passing them too closely should stop riding past so many brothels, eh?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

This thread originally took off calmly, then a flukey gust lifted it's little wings and made it flutter off to strange places....reading through this has been a seriously surreal experience....:


-

Yeah, Except 'a safe distance' is defined as ' I didn't hit them' :-(

ritcho wrote in message ...
cfsmtb wrote:
From the Audax list, please read,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please read the two messages below.
It regards the acceptance of submissions to the Victorian Government
the safety of cyclists on the road.
[snip]



I don't know about making changes - rule 144 of the Australian Road
rules seems to be the relevant one for overtaking any vehicle,
including bicycles.

---------------------------------------------------------
144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking A driver overtaking a
vehicle:
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision
with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and
(b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the
vehicle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past
the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the
path of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------

I'd be quite happy for people to simply follow the rule. In other words,
I don't think that changing the rule will help very much if drivers
ignore it anyway. I'd rather spend more effort in convincing motorists
(and cyclists) to just observe the rules as they already are!

Ritch



--

Megan Webb wrote:
Yeah, Except 'a safe distance' is defined as ' I didn't hit them' :-(
r


or in my case - bugger I missed!! lolo


-