PB12IN wrote:At the 1.20 mark is he complianing that someone is out running their dog off a bike? This is a bad thing now?
Well I know it's illegal in NSW and for good reason.
Latest Reviews and Articles
Postby biker jk » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:27 pm
PB12IN wrote:At the 1.20 mark is he complianing that someone is out running their dog off a bike? This is a bad thing now?
Postby fatdudeonabike » Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:22 pm
Aushiker wrote:
No harm done and I didn't have to brake but really unnecessary and inconsiderate driving.
Andrew
Postby GeoffInBrisbane » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:18 pm
Postby herzog » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:43 am
Postby lump_a_charcoal » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:56 am
herzog wrote:There's close passes, and then there's really close passes:
Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.
Postby jasonc » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:00 am
lump_a_charcoal wrote:Wow!![]()
I reckon he would have been hit if the Suzuki factory gave it one more coat of paint.
Postby jules21 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:40 pm
Postby herzog » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:51 pm
jules21 wrote:holy showtime, i don't reckon he saw you at all![]()
i'd send that to the cops.
Postby Mulger bill » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:56 pm
herzog wrote:Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.
Postby jules21 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:01 pm
Mulger bill wrote:herzog wrote:Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.
Quoted for truth!
Postby Mulger bill » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:04 pm
Postby fatdudeonabike » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:10 pm
Postby Toolish » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:17 pm
jules21 wrote:Mulger bill wrote:herzog wrote:Also an excellent example of why you should take the lane.
Quoted for truth!
while i generally agree, i reckon in that case it would have meant getting hit. it only works when the driver sees you! (which you can only assume they will)
Postby skull » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:18 pm
Postby lump_a_charcoal » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:01 pm
Postby biker jk » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:50 pm
Postby lump_a_charcoal » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:57 pm
Postby herzog » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:02 pm
lump_a_charcoal wrote:Regarding public shaming, is there anywhere, apart from here, to shame bad drivers, or is it a law suit waiting to happen?
Postby warthog1 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:52 pm
Postby Aushiker » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:28 pm
fatdudeonabike wrote:of course, i'm still getting the bike set up perfect - so combine idiot driver with a brand new bike (with brand new breaks) and with an idiot noob rider who didn't have his brakes in the right place to begin with, and who grabbed them too hard...
over the handlebars. splat on the road. hole in my leg, torn quadricep.
hasn't discouraged me though, i'm still really keen to get back on the bike... i'll just make sure i have lights and am wearing brighter clothes next time...
Postby London Boy » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:12 pm
lump_a_charcoal wrote:Regarding public shaming, is there anywhere, apart from here, to shame bad drivers, or is it a law suit waiting to happen?
Postby Biffidus » Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:40 am
London Boy wrote:Truth is an absolute defence to a defamation suit. The video would seem to cover it, at least if the video is the 'communication' which gives rise to the suit.
Postby Kenzo » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 pm
Postby jasonc » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:02 pm
Kenzo wrote:Traffic code (or whatever it's called) says no to handheld mobile use or texting ... but is it a 'criminal act'?
Postby jules21 » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:10 pm
Kenzo wrote:Traffic code (or whatever it's called) says no to handheld mobile use or texting ... but is it a 'criminal act'?
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.