Road raging pillocks in Perth

Theo Bekkers wrote:

We now have two cyclists in the building but no shower. I'm trying to figure
out how and where to put one in.

Shipping container with one of those plastic modules you can buy?

Sorry, it has been a while so I do not have a reference. we were looking
at installing an ensuite in the back of our very large garage,but there
were these self contained modules (just add pipes and power) that you
could push in.

On 2008-02-20, (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On Feb 20, 3:10?pm, Graeme Dods wrote:
This came up at work yesterday and I was pleasantly surprised by the
fact that everyone seemed to be of the opinion that cyclists have
every right to be on the road, and if you get delayed by them for a
wee while just chill out and live with it.

How well does their opinion when they're standing around chatting at
work reflect their behaviour when "anonymous" out there in their cars
and stuck in traffic and they perceive themselves to be held up by
some other-species cyclist?

Does it then become "you have every right to be on the road, so long
as it isn't the road I'm using or you're not holding me up at all"

I once met a cute girl who, when we started talking, revealed she
didn't mind cyclists, as long as they didn't hold her up. And she was
a country girl too, so presumably wouldn't be held up often.

Ugh. Funny how people become instantly less attractive.

--
TimC
Bugger you guys.
The babelfish is idempotent on the set above.
I'm afraid that isn't a very good pickup line either, Tim. - MaryG

On 2008-02-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
AndrewJ wrote:

The key point here is that one of the cyclists got the registration
number
of the car. Very important to train yourself to note the number first,
then start yelling.

Before the police did anything about it, the young lad presented himself at
his local police station with his dad to report the incident and his part in
it.

You've got to give him (and/or his dad) marks for that.

Him, not necessarily. We don't know.

I suspect he turned up at home with a few dents on the car, and dad
asked him what happened, and he couldn't think of a suitable lie in
time. But I display bias against this guy because I think that anyone
who's capable of deliberately aiming at a bunch of fellow human beings
probably wouldn't have the moral makeup and be the kind of person who
would show up to a police station voluntarily.

What I would love to see, despite the fact it would never happen, is
that if you know x people took part in an illegal activity, and only
some of those x present themselves to the law (and then try to
disclaim more than their share of responsibility, passing it off to
another of the members who conveniently can't be found), then those
who do present themselves get all of the penalty that ought to be
assigned to the totality.

3 people in a car run over a bunch of cyclists, with each participant
attracting 2 years in jail (and is required to restitute the victims)
if they were all sentenced, and only 1 turns up to police? He gets 6
years in jail, and pays the full compensation amount himself.

Would hopefully encourage people not to cover for their stupid mates.
Course, they'd be less likely to turn up to police at all, but you
could get around that by fooling with the prisoner's dilemma. Own up
yourself, and get off lighter. Be dobbed in, get a heavier penalty.
Fail to dob in people, get a heavier still penalty.

--
TimC
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using bottom
up development, you never solve the problem. -- John Kelly in debian-user

Travis wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:30 am, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

The Travis that initiated this thread and said
"There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
cars.

Travis"

If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended
Travisty.

Theo
Moderation? You have moderation?

Actually I think I misread your comment.

Were you saying, when you said you disagreed with me, that you
disagreed with the comments I'd made at the newspaper's site (which
was my original assumption, though not what I currently think you
meant) or that you disagreed with my comment in aus.bicycles that the
comments were full of people complaining about rampaging hordes of
cyclists travelling two abreast, which I think is what you actually
meant.

The latter.

If you read through the early comments you'll find quite a lot of
people expressing outrage that these cyclists, as well as many other
bunches of cyclists they had come across, were traveling two abreast,
many of them obviously under the mistaken impression that this is
actually illegal.

More than half of those were from cyclists. :-)

Theo

Travis wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:34 am, Travis wrote:

If that wasn't you and I have offended you, it was an unintended
Travisty.

Actually I think I misread your comment.

And besides which, I don't take offense easily. I tend to assume when
there is something offensive about what someone wrote that it was
unintentional, unless it was clearly deliberate, in which case I'm
usually more bemused than anything else about what this person's
problem is.

Life's short, I figure its best not to waste it on taking offense all
the time!

I went to a lot of trouble to use the nearly-correctly-spelt word
"Travisty", and apparently it was wasted. Oh well... :-)

Theo

On Feb 21, 5:17 pm, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

I went to a lot of trouble to use the nearly-correctly-spelt word
"Travisty", and apparently it was wasted. Oh well... :-)

Theo

Don't you just hate it when some inconsiderate jerk doesn't LOL at
your puns? Makes you feel like running him and his bike over in your
car, doesn't it Theo? ;-)

Travis

Travis wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

I went to a lot of trouble to use the nearly-correctly-spelt word
"Travisty", and apparently it was wasted. Oh well... :-)

Don't you just hate it when some inconsiderate jerk doesn't LOL at
your puns? Makes you feel like running him and his bike over in your
car, doesn't it Theo? ;-)

Or my new 4WD ute. Actually, I usually think of it as a failure on my part,
not theirs.

Theo

TimC Wrote:

Would hopefully encourage people not to cover for their stupid mates.
Course, they'd be less likely to turn up to police at all, but you
could get around that by fooling with the prisoner's dilemma. Own up
yourself, and get off lighter. Be dobbed in, get a heavier penalty.
Fail to dob in people, get a heavier still penalty.

In a logical world, the rozzers are appealing for witnesses:

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=59334
Witness call follows alleged cycle rage attack. 20th February 2008,
6:45 WST

Police are appealing for witnesses after a 19-year-old Mindarie man
allegedly drove into a group of four cyclists in Iluka early yesterday.
One of the cyclists was knocked off his bike and went over the bonnet of
the car.

Police will allege the four cyclists were riding on Marmion Avenue when
a red Mitsubishi Lancer drove up from behind and beeped its horn.

The riders approached the driver, tapping on this window at the
intersection of Burns Beach Road and the sedan then allegedly
accelerated in reverse, clipping one of the cyclists, before going
forward and allegedly striking another rider who went over the bonnet.
The car then left the scene.

A Currambine cyclist, 27, suffered a broken ankle and broken thumb.

A WA police spokeswoman said this morning that police had spoken to
some people who saw the incident at 7.40am, but more eyewitness accounts
were needed as discrepancies remained between what the driver and
witnesses were saying.

Police are yet to charge the driver. Anyone who witnessed the incident
is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.


--
cfsmtb

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

Before the police did anything about it, the young lad presented
himself at his local police station with his dad to report the
incident and his part in it.

You've got to give him (and/or his dad) marks for that.

Him, not necessarily. We don't know.

That's why I said "or his dad".

I suspect he turned up at home with a few dents on the car, and dad
asked him what happened, and he couldn't think of a suitable lie in
time. But I display bias against this guy because I think that anyone
who's capable of deliberately aiming at a bunch of fellow human beings
probably wouldn't have the moral makeup and be the kind of person who
would show up to a police station voluntarily.

We don't know that either. I suspect that the scenario may have been a
little skewed in the telling. Try this:-

Young Yobbo toots at stupid cyclists in his way to demonstrate to his mates
in the car that he actually has a dick and it is a really lbig one. (you
with me so far?) There is a red light in front of him and he stops. Cyclists
catch up, knock on his window and politely advise him that he was placing
them in great personal danger with his tooting and that they were not
breaking any laws by riding two abreast (it didn't actually say whether they
were or not). Young Yobbo is so incenced by this that he runs over several
cyclists.

I have a problem at this point. I personally very much doubt that the
cyclists were quite as polite as they said they were. I've been there and I
wasn't.

Young Yobbo puts it in reverse and backs over a cyclist. Hmm. why would he
do that? Was there perhaps one of the polite cyclists blocking him from
going forward? Backwards is generally not the quickest method of escape.
Young Yobbo stops going backwards, aware that he has hit something, and goes
forward, runs over another cyclist. Was this perhaps the cyclist that caused
him to back up in the first place? Maybe even moved in front of him to
attempt to block his escape.

Maybe you can suggest a different scenario, and maybe the real story is
something else again. We'll probably never know.

3 people in a car run over a bunch of cyclists, with each participant
attracting 2 years in jail (and is required to restitute the victims)
if they were all sentenced, and only 1 turns up to police? He gets 6
years in jail, and pays the full compensation amount himself.

You think it fair and just to punish people for what other people did?

Would hopefully encourage people not to cover for their stupid mates.
Course, they'd be less likely to turn up to police at all, but you
could get around that by fooling with the prisoner's dilemma. Own up
yourself, and get off lighter. Be dobbed in, get a heavier penalty.
Fail to dob in people, get a heavier still penalty.

Not sure I agree with you on this last bit.

Theo

Travis wrote:
No doubt we'll be hearing a lot more about this around here, but
police are currently interviewing a 19 year old who alledgedly mowed
down a group of cyclists in Perth's northern suburbs this morning,
fortunately causing only light injuries.

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=59164

There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
cars.

Travis

Apparently my reply within the discussion topic was too offensive, as it
has been removed. What do you think? My reply is below. This is the
extended version, I had to remove a few lines to fit within the 5000
character limit on TheWest:


Why is it so difficult for bicycle riders and drivers to get along in
this country? It is truly an embarrassment to see yet another series of
blog posts containing opinions along the lines of "bicycles should be
registered". No other developed countries have a registration scheme
for bikes, why can't we let this absurd idea go? If bicycles are
registered, we should also register wheel chairs, skate boards, shopping
trolleys. After all, these wheeled tools are also human powered and can
prove a danger if used inappropriately.

Those complaining about cyclists riding two abreast, have you considered
that this is a form of self preservation on the part of the cyclists,
rather than a deliberate attempt to hold motorists up? How many
cyclists have you passed, or have you seen passed at close distance
because the motorist was able to "just squeeze" past the cyclist,
instead of waiting 10 seconds for a safer opportunity to pass? Having a
vehicle quickly slip by at a distance of centimetres is an extremely
nerve racking experience for cyclists. So, many will deliberately
prevent it from happening. By riding two abreast, or riding in the
centre of a lane (both perfectly legal activities) cyclists are actively
preventing motorists from passing them at an unsafe distance. If
motorists weren't so aggressive towards cyclists and completely moved
into another lane when passing them *AS IS REQUIRED BY AUSTRALIAN LAWS*,
then cyclists could afford not to ride in such a selfish manner.

Cyclists running red lights is an unacceptable problem. As a cyclist
who commutes, a motorcycle rider and regular car driver, I can safely
say that that I see far more cyclists run red lights than car drivers.
That said, I see far more motorists exceeding speed limits, tailgating
each other, illegally passing cyclists at unsafe distances, etc, than I
see cyclists running red lights. Those who contemplate, or even
jokingly suggest running cyclists off the road when you see a rider
break a law, why don't you also contemplate, or jokingly suggest,
pulling out a gun and having a shot at any motorists you see breaking
any road laws, including family, friends, or even yourself. Severe,
beyond stupid, incredibly dangerous, as well as totally and utterly
unjustified? I agree. What's the difference between shooting at a
motorist, and deliberately driving your several tonne piece of machinery
at a person on a bicycle? I see none. Both are inherently dangerous,
and you're likely to end up getting someone seriously injured or killed.
Of course I am not suggesting you shoot a gun at anyone, I am simply
drawing what I see to be a realistic comparison.

I have a simple solution to all these issues. Cyclists and pedestrians
are the most vulnerable users of our roads, therefore, motorists should
be completely responsible for not causing injury to these road users.
Some European countries already have such laws in place. Motorists are
legally required to take into account the unpredictable manoeuvres that
cyclists and/or pedestrians may demonstrate (such as tripping over,
loosing balance, etc), and are therefore held at fault for almost all
motor vehicle vs pedestrian/cyclist collisions. The result: Motorists
slow down, give cyclists and pedestrians lots of room, making naturally
aspirated transport a far more pleasant experience. As a result of the
more pleasant experience, more people take up cycling and walking,
equalling less cars on the road, equalling a more pleasant driving
experience for those that must use motorised transport. Makes sense
doesn't it?

We live in a country whose population is embarrassingly obese, whose
city streets are becoming more and more clogged, and whose children are
hermits who prefer to stay indoors playing computer games than heading
out catch up with friends. We live in a world where melting ice caps is
becoming more and more apparent, and where petrol prices are sky
rocketing. Why is it that two forms of transport that are immediately
available to many, many people, and would aid in solving all these
problems, that is being embraced by developed countries all over the
world, is still shunned upon by so many of our population?