Motorists and ped's can both be fined similar (5 figure) amounts for failing to obey level crossing signals...sumgy wrote:Yes it is.human909 wrote:HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?sumgy wrote:Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.
You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?
Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.
RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
- The 2nd Womble
- Posts: 3058
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
- Location: Brisbane
- Contact:
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby The 2nd Womble » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:16 am
Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:19 am
I want other road users to respect the safety of each other. Vulnerable road users are more at risk so extra caution is necessary around the most vulnerable.sumgy wrote:You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?
There is no pretending here. No asking for special treatment. But it would be stupid to claim that cars are the same as cyclists. They are not and our laws and laws across the globe recognise this.human909 wrote:Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:29 am
You pretty much ignored my comment about the higher standard expected from trucks and buses, didn't you? You're not listening, and if you aren't listening, you won't get it.sumgy wrote:Yes it is.human909 wrote:HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?sumgy wrote:Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.
You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?
Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.
The laws are not set up to be equal. They are set out to regulate the more dangerous road users more heavily. Trucks are inspected differently to cars. Bus drivers require more licencing than a car driver. Pedestrians are not even required to have a licence to use the road, despite regulations covering their road use. I understand it's hard to change a view, but your view is not reflective of the road rules as they stand. There is little wonder there is war, when some people don't even understand the reason there is a fight.
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby sumgy » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:45 am
I am talking about rules and fines.
The rules are the rules and the fines should be the fines.
I agree with vulnerable users being protected.
I do not agree that because you are a bike you should have any special rights to run red lights etc.
Stop talking about this non-existent war.
You are no better than Commercial media.
And it is not possible to listen to typed comments on a forum.
Get over your pompous, my opinion is greater than yours line too XPlora.
It does nothing to make me think your opinion is any more valid than mine.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:05 am
I don't believe bikes should have special rights to run red lights either. Nor is anybody else arguing this. You are arguing with ghosts on this one.sumgy wrote:I do not agree that because you are a bike you should have any special rights to run red lights etc.
However I personally will continue to break laws while on the bicycle some occasions if nobody is harmed, endangered or inconvenienced. I'll be especially likely to do this if the the laws are patently absurd and unreasonable or endanger my safety. I posted two examples earlier where my daily commute on cycle routes effectively forces me to break laws.
Seriously. Drop this notion that all traffic laws must be obeyed at all times notion. This is neither necessary, realistic, nor even conducive towards safe roads.
-
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:58 pm
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby jcjordan » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:10 am
you are actully incorrect in your statement. the current copyright lawas allow for limited personal recording off TV and have done so since they were amended in the 90'shuman909 wrote:
Stop being hypocritical. EVERYBODY picks and chooses what laws we will abide by. Have you ever recorded TV onto a VHS? Have you ever started cross when there was a red man flashing? If people pick and choose in a sensible and safe manner then I no objections.jcjordan wrote:We can not just pick and choose what laws we will abide by and expect others to feel the same, except this judgement or not to decide to break a law which we want followed.
If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer. It is generally when a car (or pedestrian) breaks the law that I find myself in danger on the road.Xplora wrote:It's not about picking and choosing the laws to obey. It is about recognising the rationale behind the laws, and making sensible decisions in light of that. I don't need lawabiding car drivers, I need safe drivers who won't put my life at risk
Precisely.
If we want them to obey the law why should be not then expected of us to do the same?
Fine we are not cars or pedestrians, using that anology is why drivers and pedestrians want to see us off of the spaces in which they think that we dont belong.jcjordan wrote:HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?sumgy wrote:Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.
If we expect to be treated as vehicles on the road then we are obliged to follow the rules. Yes there are rules out there which are different for specific types of vehicles due to mass, size or usage and cyclists currently benefit from a number of these (bike lanes are a great example). While there are a few others which I would love to see changed until they are I am obliged to show respect to them regardless of the inconvenience as I expect from other users.
As mentioned above in the case for equal fines and demerits for cyclists, something in which I whole heartily agree with, we use the space so we should be treated the same under the rules.
If as a group we go around acting like the above the rules they why should we not expect others to do the same?
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:16 am
My point is simply that all vehicles are not created equal, so they are regulated differently. All PEOPLE are equal, and deserve their right to use public property like a road to be respected. Adherence to road rules ala sumgy or ala human909 will not change the fact that people are equal on the road, and their choice of vehicle entitles them to nothing except consideration, respect and safety. Which is pretty reasonable, would you agree? We have to separate these two points - vehicles are not people. The vehicle is entitled to nothing. If the person driving cannot understand that they are the problem on the road, and not the cyclist, well it's unsurprising there is a perception of war.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:29 am
I am aware of the 2006 ammendments that allowed time shifting. I did mention VHS for a reason. But that is besides the point. You have broken many laws yourself, everybody does.jcjordan wrote:you are actully incorrect in your statement. the current copyright lawas allow for limited personal recording off TV and have done so since they were amended in the 90's
Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.jcjordan wrote:If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer.
Hey. You are the one going on about obeying the law. I personally couldn't care less about motorists or cyclists breaking the law in harmless situations.jcjordan wrote:If we want them to obey the law why should be not then expected of us to do the same?
False. Your premise does not lead to your conclusion.jcjordan wrote:If we expect to be treated as vehicles on the road then we are obliged to follow the rules.
Again, flawed logic. Furthermore we aren't treated under the same rules because doing so would be absurd. The only thing that equal fines and demerits for cyclists accomplishes is to further hurt cyclists. BV argued for that in Victoria but it accomplished nothing apart from a few more blitzed cyclists getting over the top fines.jcjordan wrote:As mentioned above in the case for equal fines and demerits for cyclists, something in which I whole heartily agree with, we use the space so we should be treated the same under the rules.
If you want to ride around following every letter of the law the great. I'm not going to. Next time I ride past that cyclists dismount sign I will ignore it just like EVERY other cyclist. Please, I would love to see you dismount and push your bike along the road next simply to satisfy your need to follow rules.
- FuzzyDropbear
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:55 pm
- Location: Ballarat, VIC
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby FuzzyDropbear » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:35 am
When it comes to fines, I believe that a fine for anyone running a red light should be equitable. Yes, if a bike runs a red they risk dying. But what is really the difference between a bike running a red and a car? I understand that some lights may not be triggered by a bicycle, so there's a reason to contact the relevant authority and notify them. If it's really an issue. Dismount, walk to pedestrian light, hit the button and wait for the lights to change that way (I know that drivers do not have to do this but that's no excuse to break the rules, but possibly a good inclusion into the rules, if the lights aren't triggered, cyclists are allowed to proceed with caution). I do understand the reasoning behind the arguments that Xplora has pointed out and believe they also have merit, but at the end of the day it doesn't bother me cause I'm not going to run a red But I think we also must agree that it doesn't matter how much the fine is, it's not going to stop the idiots among us, just as losing your licence and big fines doesn't deter all motorists from breaking the road rules.
Actually, I've just had a look at the current fines in Victoria and they're pretty steep, $361 for going through a red light, $180 for not having lights, $144 for failure to give right turning signal...
I dunno, at the end of the day, everyone has different opinions based on different situations. But when I'm on the bike, which is pretty much every day, I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere, I can ride across from one side of my 'city' to the other in 30mins, so stopping at lights etc. doesn't worry me.
Maybe trauma isn't the word, but there would be a great deal of stress placed on an individual if they ran over and killed someone through no fault of their own (this is in a situation where a cyclist runs a red) when they were merely following the road rules and proceeding through the intersection on a green signal. I believe that's what JC was alluding to.human909 wrote:Mental trauma?jcjordan wrote:Considering I have seen rider punch a red light which causes them neatly bowl over a pedestrian. Let's also consider the mental trauma on a driver who has to break hard because a rider jumps out without warning.
If a cyclist running a red light nearly bowls over a pedestrian then we can agreed that that is not acceptable road behaviour.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:52 am
I too believe in equitable fines. And for that very reason believe the fines for motorists should be much greater than the fines for cyclists and pedestrians. As far as I am concerned, equitable treatment and fair treatment should mean that the "punishment fits the crime".FuzzyDropbear wrote:When it comes to fines, I believe that a fine for anyone running a red light should be equitable.
So increasing the fine from $100 to $300 is going to more of a deterrent than being killed?human909 wrote:Maybe trauma isn't the word, but there would be a great deal of stress placed on an individual if they ran over and killed someone through no fault of their own (this is in a situation where a cyclist runs a red) when they were merely following the road rules and proceeding through the intersection on a green signal. I believe that's what JC was alluding to.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:03 pm
Once you understand the purpose of the light, then it makes it much much much easier to consider what an appropriate penalty would be. Larger and heavier vehicles, due to physics, create a more serious risk to the green light traffic. We must continually assume that green light traffic is incapable of preventing the accident because they will carry too much speed through the intersection. A bike poses very little risk when running a red, therefore the penalty is low compared to a car or truck. If there IS contact, who is hurt the most? Is it the car? Do the walker and cyclist share similar fates if there is contact between them?
The penalties reflect the fact that motor vehicles normally inflict much more damage to others than they suffer. I do agree that hitting a red running cyclist is going be traumatic for the driver, but it is not nearly as traumatic as the injury felt by the rider. If this cannot be understood, then the "war" will continue. Too many drivers fail to understand that they are passing the risk of their vehicle use onto the rest of the community while taking very little responsibility for it. My bike doesn't pass risk onto everyone else. It tends to stay with me. Our infringement system reflects this - although I think it is not nearly punitive enough for motor vehicles in collisions with more vulnerable road users.
I've almost had shouting matches with my wife about refusing to buy a Prado for our growing family. A 4WD is an absolute death trap around toddlers, especially in a down sloping driveway. How can I safely reverse that car out of the garage every day without handcuffing every kids under 12 to a safe place?? How can I assert a position like I do here, when I wouldn't apply it to myself? This "second level" of thinking is sadly missing from Australians in general. Morality must follow with action.
- FuzzyDropbear
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:55 pm
- Location: Ballarat, VIC
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby FuzzyDropbear » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:20 pm
If someone wants to run a red light, nothing will stop them. So what does it matter if the fine becomes extreme? Possibly that it'll stop 99% of people doing it and hopefully stop that one or two accidents where someone collides and kills a cyclist. I really don't care if someone wants to run a red light and kill themselves, couldn't give a stuff actually. However, I do care about the impact that would have if it were my missus that was driving the car, the impact on the driver in that instance is what I care about and if making a harsher fine stops a percentage of people from doing it, then that's good. I also believe, as I said earlier, in a clause where if the light isn't triggered by a bicycle, the cyclist can proceed to enter the intersection with caution, as long as it's safe to do so and they're not interrupting traffic. It's the innocent party that I would like represented in this instance and it's the cyclist that's caused the innocent party anguish unnecessarily.human909 wrote:I too believe in equitable fines. And for that very reason believe the fines for motorists should be much greater than the fines for cyclists and pedestrians. As far as I am concerned, equitable treatment and fair treatment should mean that the "punishment fits the crime".FuzzyDropbear wrote:When it comes to fines, I believe that a fine for anyone running a red light should be equitable.
So increasing the fine from $100 to $300 is going to more of a deterrent than being killed?human909 wrote:Maybe trauma isn't the word, but there would be a great deal of stress placed on an individual if they ran over and killed someone through no fault of their own (this is in a situation where a cyclist runs a red) when they were merely following the road rules and proceeding through the intersection on a green signal. I believe that's what JC was alluding to.
Well, no the fine is already $361 in Vic, so increasing it from $100 to $300 isn't really an argument. But I do see your point; how high do you have to raise it to capture that extra %1 of idiots who won't do the right thing. At the end of the day, as I said, it doesn't really bother me because I won't run a red, however, that clause above regarding a non-triggering traffic light is warranted.
I'm not sure if this is commonplace knowledge, but not many people in my office are aware they can be fined for riding without lights. This is getting a bit OT, but to me, it's highlighted a point where education of road rules and responsibilities lies on both sides of the fence. I think for our Ride to Work day, I may give people a quick list of the fines you can get and the responsibilities of cyclists on the roads.
Yep I agree and I'll also agree that fines still do not stop people from losing their licence, or driving safer to stop them from losing their licence when they've already had demerit points.Xplora wrote: Too many drivers fail to understand that they are passing the risk of their vehicle use onto the rest of the community while taking very little responsibility for it. My bike doesn't pass risk onto everyone else. It tends to stay with me. Our infringement system reflects this - although I think it is not nearly punitive enough for motor vehicles in collisions with more vulnerable road users.
I've just had a look again, and it's only $253 for a driver failing to give way. I see your point, I should've looked this up before Yep a fair system should at least have this as equal to the bicycle which is $289. It's also $361 for drivers going through a red light, but yeah, still doesn't stop people eh?
- twizzle
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
- Location: Highlands of Wales.
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby twizzle » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:49 pm
Care to provide some examples where the laws are insufficient?human909 wrote:Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.jcjordan wrote:If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer.
I see many accidents - all of which have been the result of failing to obey a road rule or negligence (ie., losing control by not driving to the conditions).
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:03 pm
You must not collide with another vehicle... or must take care to avoid collision, or something like that. Richard Pollett found out that this clearly wasn't a big enough "buffer" for a reasonable road user. It makes the difference between a mistake, and an obvious attempt to cause harm to the cyclist. ALL laws must be considered in relation to their enforcement. Punishment after the fact is pointless when it comes to death. You have to be able to punish foreseeable acts of negligence.
Hmm I wonder if the same penalties for tailgating could be reasonable for a 1.5m law? There is nothing "wrong" with tailgating, but it's dangerous.
Fuzzy
We are indeed in a difficult situation when it comes to enforcement and punishment on the road. I'd be interested to know what other methods we have available to us... but let's get this clear. The difference between murder/manslaughter and accident on a public road is impossible for a court to determine without a motive. This is a very real problem. We can keyboard warrior away all day but we lose the simple fact that there is no real solution to some basic problems that all road users face; unless we reconsider our standard of proof regarding cameras and our tolerance for bad behaviour. If you are winding up your local footy team, and they punch you up, is that an acceptable resolution to the situation? What is reasonable agitation? Right now, this is DEFINITELY not in favour of a vulnerable road user.
- twizzle
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
- Location: Highlands of Wales.
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby twizzle » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:25 pm
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:32 pm
That is incredibly self centred and callous. I can understand some lack of sympathy towards people who through their own negligence end up dead. But suggesting that you are more concerned about the impact on those driving the car is downright atrocious.FuzzyDropbear wrote:I really don't care if someone wants to run a red light and kill themselves, couldn't give a stuff actually. However, I do care about the impact that would have if it were my missus that was driving the car, the impact on the driver in that instance is what I care about and if making a harsher fine stops a percentage of people from doing it, then that's good.
This lack of empathy towards others on the road is a bigger part of the problem than "rule breaking".
I find it disturbing you cannot think of example all by your self. Try this thread for ideas on how to ride more safely that go above and beyond simply obeying the law.twizzle wrote:Care to provide some examples where the laws are insufficient?human909 wrote:Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.
This has little to do with the previous argument. Being safe isn't just about following all the rules, it is about making sure that when others break the rules or when the unexpected happens it does not lead to an accident.twizzle wrote:I see many accidents - all of which have been the result of failing to obey a road rule or negligence (ie., losing control by not driving to the conditions).
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:06 pm
Pity that contact still happens. I assume you agree with my post then?twizzle wrote:ARR 144.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:00 pm
No. I believe in an effort to win an argument battle Twizzle would like to take the positions that if the world was perfect and all rules were obeyed then all that would require to be safe is that everyone follows rules. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and everybody doesn't follow rules. So in actual fact for those that want to behave safely must take this into account. Thus operating safely on the roads goes above and beyond following rules.Xplora wrote:Pity that contact still happens. I assume you agree with my post then?twizzle wrote:ARR 144.
Meanwhile there are countless circumstances where breaking rules creates no harm. Following rules are a means to an end. They should never be considered and end in of itself. (I'll continue to be of the opinion that going through a red signal when there is not another person within 1km is not a problem.)
-
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:58 pm
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby jcjordan » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:29 pm
While I agree that rules are not in themselves enough and a little common courtesy goes a long way in making the roads safer I disagree that breaking a rule can create no harm. First and foremost if we are in ourselves willing to break the rules with apparent justification then others have that ability as well.human909 wrote:No. I believe in an effort to win an argument battle Twizzle would like to take the positions that if the world was perfect and all rules were obeyed then all that would require to be safe is that everyone follows rules. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and everybody doesn't follow rules. So in actual fact for those that want to behave safely must take this into account. Thus operating safely on the roads goes above and beyond following rules.Xplora wrote:Pity that contact still happens. I assume you agree with my post then?twizzle wrote:ARR 144.
Meanwhile there are countless circumstances where breaking rules creates no harm. Following rules are a means to an end. They should never be considered and end in of itself. (I'll continue to be of the opinion that going through a red signal when there is not another person within 1km is not a problem.)
Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it. As a rider this puts me in the position where I am forced out into the traffic lane which can affect me. Using your logic it is justified.
So while we are willing to justify our infractions of the law, regardless of the danger to others part of the equation, then we need to accept infractions by others and loose our right to complian about that behaviour.
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
-
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:58 pm
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby jcjordan » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:36 pm
I was interested to look at the dismount sign as I have never seen them before.human909 wrote:Who is we?jcjordan wrote:If we want respect on the roads we have to show it by following the law as it stands.
I will not endanger myself or jump through absurdities simply to follow laws that aren't at all appropriate for bicycles.jcjordan wrote:It does not matter if it more convenient or 'safer' (the amount of time that I have seen that excuse on these forums for jumping a red is depressing).
Many unjust laws have been changed due to civil disobedience.jcjordan wrote:Fine if the law is wrong work on changing it, but while it's in place follow it.
I see a great deal of bogans who get uppity about same sex relationships. The problem is with the bigots not their targets.jcjordan wrote:I can see why a great deal of drivers get uppity when cyclists bounce on and off the road, roll through the pedestrian crossing red lights and push forward on thin roads where there is no bike lane
I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it. The other time was me ignoring road work signs and not dismounting and walking in the middle of the road.
As it turns out 909 you did not break the law but the person put up the sign might have. These are not legal signage under the National Road Rules (something I am becoming more and more familuar with due to a couple of illegal signs here in Canberra)
Plus from our friends at Bicycle Queensland http://www.bikeqld.org.au/wiki/%22Cycli ... nt%22_sign" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:41 pm
Yep. Others have the same justification.jcjordan wrote:While I agree that rules are not in themselves enough and a little common courtesy goes a long way in making the roads safer I disagree that breaking a rule can create no harm. First and foremost if we are in ourselves willing to break the rules with apparent justification then others have that ability as well.
I'm not sure how you figure that. A parked car is a static object. If it is parked illegally then fine it. If it isn't then don't. Sorry why were you saying that my logic justifies it?jcjordan wrote:Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it. As a rider this puts me in the position where I am forced out into the traffic lane which can affect me. Using your logic it is justified.
Speak for yourself. I only complain of behaviour that infringes on others. I don't care about motorists breaking road rules affecting nobody, any more or less than cyclists doing the same.jcjordan wrote:So while we are willing to justify our infractions of the law, regardless of the danger to others part of the equation, then we need to accept infractions by others and loose our right to complian about that behaviour.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:05 pm
Hmm..... maybe you've not been out watching drivers on the roads too much lately ???jcjordan wrote:First and foremost if we are in ourselves willing to break the rules with apparent justification then others have that ability as well.
Depending on the situation maybe unsafe, but I've just gone throgh the Victorian Road Rules on parking.... no general rule prohibiting such parking. It all depends on what, if any, parking control signs are present along the road. In my experience very often parking is allowed where there are bike lanes (eg. parking meters present) - that's why everyone bleats about them being 'door zone' lanes.jcjordan wrote:Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it. As a rider this puts me in the position where I am forced out into the traffic lane which can affect me. Using your logic it is justified.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:41 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Percrime » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:14 pm
Both face pretty much the same risk of both harm and hurting others.The 2nd Womble wrote: Motorists and ped's can both be fined similar (5 figure) amounts for failing to obey level crossing signals...
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:20 pm
You must have missed something in this post because no one is saying that all law breaking is victimless. Wisdom is required to work it out. I think the issue is that not all laws are related to ethics. There is nothing fundamentally lawful about keeping left. Yanks do the opposite. Some wrongly believe that all laws are related to ethics. Some are just standardise behaviour. Sometimes we can completely circumvent normal lawful behaviour for the benefit of others. Running reds is important to let emergency services get to their destination. Our laws have changed to adapt to the reality that the law is an ass. That is the biggest thing. All our laws have changed within the last 100 years.jcjordan wrote: While I disagree that breaking a rule can create no harm.
Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it.
So while we are willing to justify our infractions of the law, regardless of the danger to others part of the equation, then we need to accept infractions by others and loose our right to complian about that behaviour.
I think that far too many people get too worked up about obedience to the law. St Paul made it abundently clear that the law is simply to show us how we fail. Everyone makes mistakes. The courts can never adequately punish wrong when someone is hurt; is that what we need though? I am not sure it is. Respect and patience can't be legislated. Understanding what is victimless and what is not will go a long way to helping. How many times have you been razzed despite doing nothing wrong? Obeying the law isn't the perfect solution.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP
Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:31 pm
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot]
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.