Police, David Campbell need some perspective: Road rage incident

David wrote:
In article ,
B J Foster wrote:

http://media.smh.com.au/national/bre...know-this-man-
816174.html

It seems clear that the rider was illegally in a transit lane.

Looking at the video, it also seems clear that the rider was nearly
squashed by the bus.

From the comments by the Police and the Transport minister, are we to
assume that bus drivers can squash cyclists found riding in a transit lane?

Perspective, anyone?

This doesn't seem to be a case of road rage, but rather a bus driver
being taught a lesson.

And since when is that legal?

Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in
the bus lane is no excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by
a bus.

He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.

David - who has seen many many bus driver act like they own the road

And I've seen many cyclists who think they do. As well as thinking they own
footpaths, etc.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU ****pot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, ****ed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical ****head and pompous ****wit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

"SHUT THE **** UP YOU DUMB ****!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.

"I don't care what you ****ers think!"
- KRudd the KRude at his finest again.

"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott

"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSC Massive ****wit"

David wrote:

Because the bike rider was not supposed to be in the bus lane is no
excuse for putting him in danger of being run down by a bus.

He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.


** That is just so blatantly false.




..... Phil

"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF" ." wrote in
message ...

He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.

There's some fallacious logic here. He put himself in a situation that was
contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a
base jumper, say, does). He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence
was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on
the 'sin scale' to jaywalking. He expected other road users would treat his
health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting
the road laws. Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by
driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be
seriously injured or killed. While the odds of that might be remote, these
sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate
feel fearful and anxious. It's not surprising that someone who feels their
life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the
culprit.

In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced
in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme
distress.

"Claude"

In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was
inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the
cyclist extreme distress.


** Better go read the news stories.

The cyclist earlier damaged the bus, breaking mirrors etc.

No excuse for his engaging in predatory driving of course.



.... Phil

On Oct 29, 2:44*pm, "Claude" wrote:
"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF" ." wrote in
. com...

He put himself in danger. Nobody else did.

There's some fallacious logic here. *He put himself in a situation that was
contrary to the law, but he did not choose to put himself in danger (like a
base jumper, say, does). *

Possibly he unwittingly put himself in danger. However, just as
possibly (given his attitude) he took the risk.

He simply took an unlawful shortcut - his offence
was very minor, maybe a fine of a few hundred bucks at most, equivalent on
the 'sin scale' to jaywalking. *

An offense against the road and traffic act that carries a minor fine
but an offense of lack of common sense that might carry a penalty of
death by the law of the universe. He may as well be riding on a
railway track: it would be safer.


He expected other road users would treat his
health and welfare with extreme care, notwithstanding that he was flouting
the road laws.

The bus had to cross into the oncomming traffic and did so as much as
it could without wasting several minutes.

The options we
1 Let dozens of bus passengers arrive late for the sake of one or two
commited cyclists.
2 Move to the verge of the oncomming lane and thus risk the lives of
oncomming motorists and the health of the passengers.


Some drivers on the other hand choose to bully cyclists by
driving too close and increasing the probability that the cyclist might be
seriously injured or killed.

Its not a case of bullying in most instances. There simply isn't a
choice.

I know sever cases of young female pedestrians killed by adult
cyclists smashing into them on footpaths. They're all over some inner
city footpaths (King street Newtown). Hint cyclists don't respect
pedestrians in their haste either. A problem that is getting worse.

Cylists have become some of the most obnoxious and self centered
people on the road.

They just don't get that they live in a densely populated city not a
provincial European ctown. A cyclist on an inappropriate road during
peak hour can hold up dozens of motorists and cause a ripple effect,
so much for them saving road space and fuel.







While the odds of that might be remote, these
sorts of drivers certainly succeed in making the cyclists they intimidate
feel fearful and anxious. *It's not surprising that someone who feels their
life has been exposed to extreme danger would get very very aggro toward the
culprit.


Cylists are often paraoid and tense (for good reason given the idiocy
of their expectations) Having done long cycle rides through the Royal
National park I know what is like and always give them a wide birth.
I've STILL gotten the finger even after crossing all the way to the
opposit side of the road presumably because I've accelerated briskly
(so that I can get back quickly without lingering in the wrong side)


In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was inconvenienced
in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the cyclist extreme
distress.

The bus was inconvenienced and motorists were endangered. This is
the CBD of Sydney not some cul de sac subburb where there is no though
traffic. Its a Hilly city not suitable for most people to ride a bike
either.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Claude"

In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was
inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the
cyclist extreme distress.


** Better go read the news stories.

The cyclist earlier damaged the bus, breaking mirrors etc.



That was the cyclist retaliating *after* he felt he had been treated badly.
What I'm saying is that there was no inconvenience to the bus at the time of
their first encounter that might explain whatever aggression the cyclist
evidently believed was directed at him by the driver. The bus appears to
simply have gone around the cyclist without slowing significantly. Of
course had the bus been forced to slow that would not justify aggressive
behaviour, but it might explain why the bus driver behaved badly (as the
cyclist appears to think he did). As it is, I'm forced to the interim
conclusion that *probably* what happened is that the bus driver drove
aggressively (at least in the opinion of the cyclist) simply because he
didn't like the idea of the cyclist being where he wasn't supposed to be.

Claude wrote:

I'm forced to the interim conclusion that
*probably* what happened is that the bus driver drove aggressively
(at least in the opinion of the cyclist) simply because he didn't
like the idea of the cyclist being where he wasn't supposed to be.

Forced to that interim conclusion, eh? Without knowing anything about the
bus driver's story or the bike-rider's story. I'll bet you are shock jock
fodder.

"Claude"
"Phil Allison"
In this particular case, it does not appear that the bus was
inconvenienced in any way, albeit it seems at a price of causing the
cyclist extreme distress.


** Better go read the news stories.

The cyclist earlier damaged the bus, breaking mirrors etc.


That was the cyclist retaliating *after* he felt he had been treated
badly.


** Which totally contradicts your claim above.


What I'm saying is that there was no inconvenience to the bus at the time
of their first encounter


** You never said anything like that previously.


The bus appears to simply have gone around the cyclist without slowing
significantly.


** What video are YOU seeing???

The bus had been deliberately damaged just prior to the incident in the
video.

You have not got the tiniest comprehension of the matter.




..... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
"Claude"


You have not got the tiniest comprehension of the matter.




.... Phil


He's just following your lead.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:27:07 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


You have not got the tiniest comprehension of the matter.

And when was your arse last on a bicycle seat in Sydney traffic?

I have never seen any bicycle rider get agro because a motor vehicle
overtook them in the correct manner.