Excellent Cyclist Laws in Australia

On 30/01/2016 13:11, 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.

Not strange at all and not a distinction worth bothering about.

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

....is not sufficiently different in meaning from...

"First all cars should be banned. No reasonable person
needs a car. Think of all the deaths.." to warrant your criticism.

burfordTjustice was not criticising vehicle *ownership* patterns, even
if it looked, to a short-sighted reader, that that might be what he was
saying.

He was criticising unrestricted car *use*.

Car use is only of proper and acceptable utility to the user if the
vehicle is available to that user all the time. There are several quite
different ownership patterns already existent which provide that.

(a) The driver might own the vehicle outright or be buying it with the
help of a finance package.

(b) He might be provided with a car as a part of his employment package
(whether or not the car is strictly needed for the job to be done).

(c) The vehicle might even be leased via one of these increasingly
popular deals where there is still a significant sum to be paid at the
end of the lease period (if the lessee wishes to actually own it at that
stage).

IOW, the exact proprietoral relationship between the vehicle and its
user is not important and cannot be what bTj was exercised about. He
simply has a screw loose about people having access to, and use of, a
car at all. And of course, he isn't the only one.

JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2016 13:11, 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.

Not strange at all and not a distinction worth bothering about.

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

...is not sufficiently different in meaning from...

"First all cars should be banned. No reasonable person
needs a car. Think of all the deaths.." to warrant your criticism.

burfordTjustice was not criticising vehicle *ownership* patterns, even
if it looked, to a short-sighted reader, that that might be what he was
saying.

He was criticising unrestricted car *use*.

Car use is only of proper and acceptable utility to the user if the
vehicle is available to that user all the time. There are several quite
different ownership patterns already existent which provide that.

(a) The driver might own the vehicle outright or be buying it with the
help of a finance package.

(b) He might be provided with a car as a part of his employment package
(whether or not the car is strictly needed for the job to be done).

(c) The vehicle might even be leased via one of these increasingly
popular deals where there is still a significant sum to be paid at the
end of the lease period (if the lessee wishes to actually own it at that
stage).

IOW, the exact proprietoral relationship between the vehicle and its
user is not important and cannot be what bTj was exercised about. He
simply has a screw loose about people having access to, and use of, a
car at all. And of course, he isn't the only one.

What got my goat is that he says that any car owner, user, is not a
reasonable person which is a nonsense.Does he mean that a car user for
instance should not sit on a jury?
If you had a scale for reasonable persons Mr burfordTjustice would be at
the far left end.
there is a large number of people for which a car is a necessity in
this day and age.
It may not have been in the days of the horse and cart