Another moron got his letter published in the Herald Sun on saturday

They dont seem to have an online version of the letter. Suffice to say it
was typical of motorists views towards cyclists (at least those who write
letters to the editor)

Here is my reply

Dear Sir

R.Lee (6th November) is so aggrieved by the rampant hordes of lawless
cyclists taking his precious road space, and threatening serious harm to
him and his vehicle, that he endorses 'road rage' as a valid response.

His list of 'transgressions' is, frankly, laughable. It may come as a
surprise to many motorists to learn that riding two abreast is entirely
legal, as is a cyclist taking the whole lane where it is appropriate to do
so to ensure the cyclist's safety. 'Not moving off quickly at a green
light'? Is he that desperate to make it to the next set of traffic lights?
I could give an equivalent list of offences regularly perpertrated by
motorists on cyclists which occasion cyclists actual serious injury, as
opposed to the inconvenience suffered by R.Lee when a cyclist 'leans on
the side of a truck'.

Not surprisingly, R. Lee plays the financial card as a final justification
for treating cyclists as second class citizens on the roads. Have the
people who regulary trot out this excuse seriously thought about why
motorists are required to pay the charges they do? Motorists are wielding
two tonnes of metal, glass and rubber at 60-100 km/h, causing death and
injury that costs the community billions each year, and requiring
infrastructure that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build and
maintain. Does anyone seriously believe any significant proportion of
those actual and social costs are imposed by cyclists on the community to
the extent that cyclists should pay for the priviledge of sharing the road
with motorists like R.Lee?

phillip brown

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 at 09:29 GMT, Phillip Brown (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
They dont seem to have an online version of the letter. Suffice to say it
was typical of motorists views towards cyclists (at least those who write
letters to the editor)

Here is my reply

Nice one too.

I doubt you'll be published. You wrote too well.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
.-.
/v\ L I N U X
// \\ Phear the Penguin
/( )\
^^-^^

Phillip Brown Wrote:
They dont seem to have an online version of the letter. Suffice to sa
it
was typical of motorists views towards cyclists (at least those wh
write
letters to the editor)

Here is my reply

Dear Sir

R.Lee (6th November) is so aggrieved by the rampant hordes of lawless
cyclists taking his precious road space, and threatening serious har
to
him and his vehicle, that he endorses 'road rage' as a valid response.

His list of 'transgressions' is, frankly, laughable. It may come as a
surprise to many motorists to learn that riding two abreast i
entirely
legal, as is a cyclist taking the whole lane where it is appropriate t
do
so to ensure the cyclist's safety. 'Not moving off quickly at a green
light'? Is he that desperate to make it to the next set of traffi
lights?
I could give an equivalent list of offences regularly perpertrated by
motorists on cyclists which occasion cyclists actual serious injury
as
opposed to the inconvenience suffered by R.Lee when a cyclist 'lean
on
the side of a truck'.

Not surprisingly, R. Lee plays the financial card as a fina
justification
for treating cyclists as second class citizens on the roads. Have the
people who regulary trot out this excuse seriously thought about why
motorists are required to pay the charges they do? Motorists ar
wielding
two tonnes of metal, glass and rubber at 60-100 km/h, causing deat
and
injury that costs the community billions each year, and requiring
infrastructure that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build and
maintain. Does anyone seriously believe any significant proportion of
those actual and social costs are imposed by cyclists on the communit
to
the extent that cyclists should pay for the priviledge of sharing th
road
with motorists like R.Lee?

phillip brown


Unfortunately there is far too much logic and reason in the letter fo
a fine paper like the Herald Su

--
spiz

Not surprisingly, R. Lee plays the financial card as a fina
justificatio
for treating cyclists as second class citizens on the roads. Have th
people who regulary trot out this excuse seriously thought about wh
motorists are required to pay the charges they do? Motorists ar
wieldin
two tonnes of metal, glass and rubber at 60-100 km/h, causing death an
injury that costs the community billions each year, and requirin
infrastructure that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build an
maintain. Does anyone seriously believe any significant proportion o
those actual and social costs are imposed by cyclists on the communit
t
the extent that cyclists should pay for the priviledge of sharing th
roa
with motorists like R.Lee

phillip brown
Gotta love the motorist's argument of "drivers pay, cyclists don't".
pay registration for 2 vehicles. Most cyclists would pay registratio
fees for motor vehicles too. There we are, road use paid for, even if
choose to leave the car at home and travel by bike

But wait, surely registration fees don't pay for all the roa
infrastructure. Some must come out of consolidated revenue, ie taxes.
pay those too(income tax, GST including on bikes and bike accessories
etc) and most other cyclists would too. Road use paid for by tax payin
cyclists

Finally, its always fun to show the lack of logic in someone'e argumen
by taking it to its illogical conclusion: Cyclists have no right to th
road as they do not pay registration fees. Taken to its conclusion
neither do pedestrians as they are not registered. Get off the road, ge
off the footpath, Mr Toad coming through!

SteveA

--
SteveA

"SteveA" wrote in
message

[...]

But wait, surely registration fees don't pay for all the road
infrastructure.

Rego doesn't directly pay for any of it. It goes into consolidated revenue.
For example, shortly after coming to office in Victoria Kennett doubled rego
to pay off state debt. Not a cent went into road funding. It doesn't have
to and any government which says it does is at best being disingenuous.

For example, see the (Victorian) Road Safety Act 1986:

PART 2--REGISTRATION

Division 2--Registration

5. Purposes of registration

The purposes of registration are--

(a) to ensure that the design, construction and equipment of motor vehicles
and trailers which are used on a highway meet safety and environmental
standards; and
(b) to enable the use of motor vehicles and trailers on highways to be
regulated for reasons of safety, protection of the environment and law
enforcement; and
(c) to provide a method of establishing the identity of each motor vehicle
or trailer which is used on a highway and of the person who is responsible
for it.

http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/l2d/R/ACT01149/7_3.html

--

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

DRS Wrote:
"SteveA" wrote i
message

[...

But wait, surely registration fees don't pay for all the roa
infrastructure

Rego doesn't directly pay for any of it. It goes into consolidate
revenue
For example, shortly after coming to office in Victoria Kennett double
reg
to pay off state debt. Not a cent went into road funding. It doesn'
hav
to and any government which says it does is at best being disingenuous

For example, see the (Victorian) Road Safety Act 1986

PART 2--REGISTRATIO

Division 2--Registratio

5. Purposes of registratio

The purposes of registration are-

(a) to ensure that the design, construction and equipment of moto
vehicle
and trailers which are used on a highway meet safety and environmenta
standards; an
(b) to enable the use of motor vehicles and trailers on highways to b
regulated for reasons of safety, protection of the environment and la
enforcement; an
(c) to provide a method of establishing the identity of each moto
vehicl
or trailer which is used on a highway and of the person who i
responsibl
for it

http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/l2d/R/ACT01149/7_3.htm

-

A: Top-posters
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Exactly. The rego argument is similar to the 'I'm a taxpayer argument
which has been used to justify anything and everything that cannot b
justified. I used to work for a Commonwealth agency and most people
dealt with were wonderful. But there were some morons. Afte
explaining to them that we could not do anything for lack of lega
power, lack of legal jurisdiction etc the unreasonable ones, who ofte
had a frivolous or vexatious issue anyway, often resorted to "I'm
taxpayer and I demand that you deal with this for me". I got home on
night and worked out that each 'taxpayer' was entitled to exactly
minutes and 48 seconds of my time. When I had to deal with the rar
obnoxious idiot, I used to think,"3 minutes and 48 seconds, 3 minute
and 48 seconds...". I never ever mentioned it to even the mos
obnoxious person, though

Steve

--
SteveA

"Phillip Brown" wrote in message
news
They dont seem to have an online version of the letter. Suffice to say it
was typical of motorists views towards cyclists (at least those who write
letters to the editor)

Here is my reply

Dear Sir

R.Lee (6th November) is so aggrieved by the rampant hordes of lawless
cyclists taking his precious road space, and threatening serious harm to
him and his vehicle, that he endorses 'road rage' as a valid response.

His list of 'transgressions' is, frankly, laughable. It may come as a
surprise to many motorists to learn that riding two abreast is entirely
legal, as is a cyclist taking the whole lane where it is appropriate to do
so to ensure the cyclist's safety. 'Not moving off quickly at a green
light'? Is he that desperate to make it to the next set of traffic lights?
I could give an equivalent list of offences regularly perpertrated by
motorists on cyclists which occasion cyclists actual serious injury, as
opposed to the inconvenience suffered by R.Lee when a cyclist 'leans on
the side of a truck'.

Not surprisingly, R. Lee plays the financial card as a final justification
for treating cyclists as second class citizens on the roads. Have the
people who regulary trot out this excuse seriously thought about why
motorists are required to pay the charges they do? Motorists are wielding
two tonnes of metal, glass and rubber at 60-100 km/h, causing death and
injury that costs the community billions each year, and requiring
infrastructure that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build and
maintain. Does anyone seriously believe any significant proportion of
those actual and social costs are imposed by cyclists on the community to
the extent that cyclists should pay for the priviledge of sharing the road
with motorists like R.Lee?

phillip brown


Well said. Fight the power! :-)

Of course, there's a simpler way of responding to letters to the Hun
Simply type your letter writers name and suburb int
http://www.whitepages.com.au/wp/resSearch.jhtml and call them up o
visit them in person to discuss things further

--
Shabby

Shabby Wrote:
Of course, there's a simpler way of responding to letters to the Hun
Simply type your letter writers name and suburb int
http://www.whitepages.com.au/wp/resSearch.jhtml and call them up o
visit them in person to discuss things further.

Last year a friend received in the mail, a semi-literate anonymous (an
obnoxious) response to a letter he had published in The Age. If you ca
do it, so will they

--
cfsmtb

snip

Last year a friend received in the mail, a semi-literate anonymous (and
obnoxious) response to a letter he had published in The Age. If you can
do it, so will they.

Better a agro letter than Hired goons or so

James