Excellent Cyclist Laws in Australia

On Friday, 29 January 2016 15:00:31 UTC, John T wrote:
"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote

I just love the way that ****tards like you spout ****e and then get all
offended when someone points it out to you.

So you're all in favour of cyclists riding on pavements and ignoring traffic
lights and not using lights at night?

Just Google "cyclist kills predestrian" if you don't think there's a
problem.

Here are FOUR YEARS worth of pedestrians killed by cyclists in ONE event.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oxing-Day.html

Alycidon wrote:
On Friday, 29 January 2016 15:00:31 UTC, John T wrote:
"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote

I just love the way that ****tards like you spout ****e and then get all
offended when someone points it out to you.

So you're all in favour of cyclists riding on pavements and ignoring traffic
lights and not using lights at night?

Just Google "cyclist kills predestrian" if you don't think there's a
problem.

Here are FOUR YEARS worth of pedestrians killed by cyclists in ONE event.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oxing-Day.html

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14116575.Cars_have_killed_45_000_Britons_in_the_21 st_century__bicycles_less_than_10/

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

In uk.rec.cycling Nick wrote:
On 29/01/2016 11:19, John T wrote:
"John Smith" wrote

Yeah, 'cos when you see all that carnage caused by cyclists, I mean,
what's
the government up to, eh?

You ****ing tool.

Just love your capacity for reasoned discussion.


Well he does appear to have a point.

Indeed.

It's very difficult to penetrate the inherent prejudice. In the UK,
probably the majority of psychopaths truly believe that paying VED gives
them the right to use the road. It doesn't. But even when this is pointed
out to them, their response is usually that 'VED' is just road tax 'after a
name change'.

And the problem with ****s is that, well .. they're ****s. And because
they're ****s, they don't know that they're ****s. Some of them even
believe that they're intelligent and that their debate is subtle, eloquent
and effective. Nugent is one such ****.

Go and watch Twitter for examples of this. It's fascinating.

****1: 'fackin' #cyclists don't pay nuffink towards #roadtax'
Cyclist: 'That's because there is no such thing'
****1: 'yeah, cos you don't pay it, innit?'
Cyclist: 'No one pays it. It doesn't exist'
****1: 'What do I pay £205 a year for, then?'
Cyclist: 'That's #VED. It is based on #emissions'
****1: 'I told ye! An' you don't pay it!'
Cyclist: '**** this. #blocked'
****2: 'U showed him m8 well done. #audicars'

I recall a conversation with a mate. To be charitable, this gentleman is
somewhat intellectually challenged. His rhetoric could be excused by the
amount of Australian white that we consumed that night, but he comes out
with similar **** when he's as sober as a judge.

We were sitting watching news of yet another bombing by Islam.

'****ing religion!' exclaimed my mate.

'Not religion,' I replied. 'One religion'.

'Are you denying that Islam is a religion?' he replied [1].

'Well, no, I'm not denying it...' I said.

'Well, then. There you go'.

But because he's a bit thick, I can't really say to him, '**** off, you
thick ****'.

Lack of intelligence can be a strength, because we live in such a PC,
'everyone wins' world, that when you point out their crass ****ing
intelligence, the response is usually some whine about how you're 'not
nice', or that you're not engaging in 'reasoned debate'.

[1] at this time, I still considered Islam to be a religion - this was in
1997 or so
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 29/01/2016 11:50, Nick wrote:
On 29/01/2016 11:19, John T wrote:
"John Smith" wrote

Yeah, 'cos when you see all that carnage caused by cyclists, I mean,
what's
the government up to, eh?

You ****ing tool.

Just love your capacity for reasoned discussion.


Well he does appear to have a point.

Does he?

What is it?

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:39:18 -0000, burfordTjustice
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:55:33 +0000
Judith wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-2...rry-id/7123360


From March 2016, riding without an ID will result in a $106 fine.

Not wearing a helmet or holding onto a moving car will cost $319

Running a red light will incur a $425 penalty.


How very sensible.

Sorry - I must go - I have a letter to write to my MP.


First all cars should be banned. No reasonable person
needs their own car. Think of all the deaths..

Then work on getting workable cyclists laws.

PDFTT

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

On 29/01/2016 15:37, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Nick wrote:
On 29/01/2016 11:19, John T wrote:
"John Smith" wrote

Yeah, 'cos when you see all that carnage caused by cyclists, I mean,
what's
the government up to, eh?

You ****ing tool.

Just love your capacity for reasoned discussion.


Well he does appear to have a point.

Indeed.

It's very difficult to penetrate the inherent prejudice. In the UK,
probably the majority of psychopaths truly believe that paying VED gives
them the right to use the road. It doesn't. But even when this is pointed
out to them, their response is usually that 'VED' is just road tax 'after a
name change'.

And the problem with ****s is that, well .. they're ****s. And because
they're ****s, they don't know that they're ****s. Some of them even
believe that they're intelligent and that their debate is subtle, eloquent
and effective. Nugent is one such ****.

Go and watch Twitter for examples of this. It's fascinating.

****1: 'fackin' #cyclists don't pay nuffink towards #roadtax'
Cyclist: 'That's because there is no such thing'
****1: 'yeah, cos you don't pay it, innit?'
Cyclist: 'No one pays it. It doesn't exist'
****1: 'What do I pay £205 a year for, then?'
Cyclist: 'That's #VED. It is based on #emissions'
****1: 'I told ye! An' you don't pay it!'
Cyclist: '**** this. #blocked'
****2: 'U showed him m8 well done. #audicars'

I recall a conversation with a mate. To be charitable, this gentleman is
somewhat intellectually challenged. His rhetoric could be excused by the
amount of Australian white that we consumed that night, but he comes out
with similar **** when he's as sober as a judge.

We were sitting watching news of yet another bombing by Islam.

'****ing religion!' exclaimed my mate.

'Not religion,' I replied. 'One religion'.

'Are you denying that Islam is a religion?' he replied [1].

'Well, no, I'm not denying it...' I said.

'Well, then. There you go'.

But because he's a bit thick, I can't really say to him, '**** off, you
thick ****'.

Lack of intelligence can be a strength, because we live in such a PC,
'everyone wins' world, that when you point out their crass ****ing
intelligence, the response is usually some whine about how you're 'not
nice', or that you're not engaging in 'reasoned debate'.

[1] at this time, I still considered Islam to be a religion - this was in
1997 or so

Surely you could get help from whatever health system you have over there?

You shouldn't have to suffer like that.

On 29/01/2016 07:55, Judith wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-2...rry-id/7123360


From March 2016, riding without an ID will result in a $106 fine.

What're they gonna do - stop *every* cyclist to check?!


Not wearing a helmet or holding onto a moving car will cost $319

The way the above is phrased suggests they will be fined for *not*
holding onto a moving car.



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

burfordTjustice wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:55:33 +0000
Judith wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-2...rry-id/7123360


From March 2016, riding without an ID will result in a $106 fine.

Not wearing a helmet or holding onto a moving car will cost $319

Running a red light will incur a $425 penalty.


How very sensible.

Sorry - I must go - I have a letter to write to my MP.


First all cars should be banned. No reasonable person
needs their own car. Think of all the deaths..

If you mean that no reasonable person needs a car (removed own)
it is an indication of some sort of mental problem you have,in this day
and age the worlds people could not exist with today's level of
amenities and population with out them.


Then work on getting workable cyclists laws.

On 30/01/2016 04:54, F Murtz wrote:
burfordTjustice wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:55:33 +0000
Judith wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-2...rry-id/7123360



From March 2016, riding without an ID will result in a $106 fine.

Not wearing a helmet or holding onto a moving car will cost $319

Running a red light will incur a $425 penalty.


How very sensible.

Sorry - I must go - I have a letter to write to my MP.


First all cars should be banned. No reasonable person
needs their own car. Think of all the deaths..

If you mean that no reasonable person needs a car (removed own)
it is an indication of some sort of mental problem you have,in this day
and age the worlds people could not exist with today's level of
amenities and population with out them.

It seem strange to deliberately edit a post to get a version that you
consider nonsensical and then point out your edited version is nonsensical.

Nick wrote:
On 30/01/2016 04:54, F Murtz wrote:
burfordTjustice wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:55:33 +0000
Judith wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-2...rry-id/7123360




From March 2016, riding without an ID will result in a $106 fine.

Not wearing a helmet or holding onto a moving car will cost $319

Running a red light will incur a $425 penalty.


How very sensible.

Sorry - I must go - I have a letter to write to my MP.


First all cars should be banned. No reasonable person
needs their own car. Think of all the deaths..

If you mean that no reasonable person needs a car (removed own)
it is an indication of some sort of mental problem you have,in this day
and age the worlds people could not exist with today's level of
amenities and population with out them.

It seem strange to deliberately edit a post to get a version that you
consider nonsensical and then point out your edited version is nonsensical.

????