Scully proves he's an idiot......

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1111-i7wf.html

Apparently Scully works for Evans and peck. google their web site and
explain in English what they do!!!!

Stomper wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1111-i7wf.html


--
Remove norubbish to reply

Jack Russell wrote:

Apparently Scully works for Evans and peck. google their web site and
explain in English what they do!!!!

Stomper wrote:
http://fat.ly/lfr3t


Aren't you glad this pig-ignorant bogan isn't minister any more? Yes, I
read it and was suitably disgusted. Same old fallacies and outright
garbage. One cyclist on the road, ANY road, is one less land barge,
reducing congestion, pollution, accidents and everything else. Any
statement to the contrary is so much bulls--- from cretins, usually with a
vested interest to boot.

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

On Nov 11, 9:45*pm, Jack Russell wrote:
Apparently Scully works for Evans and peck. google their web site and
explain in English what they do!!!!

Stomper wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...have-the-same-...

--
Remove norubbish to reply


Yes, love that lycra!

http://www.evanspeck.com/Pages/socia...nsibility.html

"Stomper" wrote in message
...
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1111-i7wf.html

I have read that article several times trying to understand Scully's POV.

One assertion that Scully makes is that he rejects the notion that cyclist
have a "right to be on the road". From my reading, it appears that such a
rejection is, in large, based on safety issues related to cycling. I do not
see how this is different from safety issues related to horse-drawn
carriages, motorbikes, cars, trucks, etc. A safey issue is a safety issue
and needs to be addressed, not only at the micro level, but also within the
totality of the "big picture".

It seems that one of Scully's attempts to address some of cycling safety
issues within the "big picture" was to provide the infrastructure required
for cyclists and belated though it maybe, kudos to him for having done so.
(There you go, Carl me mate - a pat on the back finally )

As pointed out, albeit obliquely some some of the comments, if one was to
take the Scully approach, than similar infrastructure should be individually
provided for horse drawn carriages, motorcycles, cars, buses, trucks, etc.
Even a half-baked, wanna-be Transport Minister like me can see that this is
sheer folly and simply unworkable.

Perhaps, Scully's own words provide the answer - "Government with its
regulatory powers is the only way a safe playing field can be set for all
who wish to use our roads." Thus, if we all obey the road rules - she'll be
apples, mate

If you need more evidence, the Evans and Peck site has a white paper
around further extension to Sydney motorways. So not only does the
company have a financial interest in keeping bicycles off roads (it
makes the motorway cheaper to build) but they have no concept of social
good. For example it says that the ability to control vehicle speeds on
motorways is described as a negative for motorists. They just don't get it.

Geoff Lock wrote:
"Stomper" wrote in message
...
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1111-i7wf.html

I have read that article several times trying to understand Scully's POV.

One assertion that Scully makes is that he rejects the notion that cyclist
have a "right to be on the road". From my reading, it appears that such a
rejection is, in large, based on safety issues related to cycling. I do not
see how this is different from safety issues related to horse-drawn
carriages, motorbikes, cars, trucks, etc. A safey issue is a safety issue
and needs to be addressed, not only at the micro level, but also within the
totality of the "big picture".

It seems that one of Scully's attempts to address some of cycling safety
issues within the "big picture" was to provide the infrastructure required
for cyclists and belated though it maybe, kudos to him for having done so.
(There you go, Carl me mate - a pat on the back finally )

As pointed out, albeit obliquely some some of the comments, if one was to
take the Scully approach, than similar infrastructure should be individually
provided for horse drawn carriages, motorcycles, cars, buses, trucks, etc.
Even a half-baked, wanna-be Transport Minister like me can see that this is
sheer folly and simply unworkable.

Perhaps, Scully's own words provide the answer - "Government with its
regulatory powers is the only way a safe playing field can be set for all
who wish to use our roads." Thus, if we all obey the road rules - she'll be
apples, mate