Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Cyclists dismount

Jazz 5 February 2014 62

Ride to Rule

Jellyware sent this in with an interesting question – is following the rules as an act of civil disobedience?

What do you think?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
62 Responses to Cyclists dismount
Filter
Order
NoImRight NoImRight 9:07 am 12 Feb 14

KB1971 said :

NoImRight said :

KB1971 said :

NoImRight said :

KB1971 said :

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

So by that logic if I see a group of kids spray painting graffiti that then justifies me smashing letterboxes?

Like always there is always someone who takes a comment out of context with a stupidly extreme example. This is one reason RA has a bad name.

What I am saying is that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. All facets of society take liberty with road rules but there is a certain set who say its only cyclist who do it. Some road rules are completely redundant, hence why you dont get booked for them.

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

I dont see where I asked what were criminal offences. I also dont see how its out of context. My impression of your post was “drivers do dumb stuff so you cant complain when cyclists do dumb stuff”. Therefore my example wasnt “extreme” (and really graffiti is extreme to you?). Its a logical progression. If you dont have a reasonable way to justify it just having a spray at me wont make your response suddenly reasonable. Instead you could perhaps have just included your second paragraph. Much less whiny that way too 😉

Sigh……I’m done with these stupid arguments with unreasonable people like yourself who troll just for the fun of it.

See ya, have a nice life. I am going to go ride across the pedestrian crossings because it pisses you all off.

Your failure to present a cogent argument to explain your “logic” doesnt somehow become my fault and doesnt make me “unreasonable”. In any case your white flag is accepted.

IrishPete IrishPete 10:56 pm 11 Feb 14

BenMac said :

IrishPete said :

KB1971 said :

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

It’s true that many traffic offences are victimless, but they are offences because they carry the risk of serious consequences (i.e. creating a victim).

IP

Traffic offences do have a victim.

Her name is Regina.

Our Head of State? (Lights fuse, sits back and waits…)

IP

Aeek Aeek 10:39 pm 11 Feb 14

NoImRight said :

I dont see where I asked what were criminal offences. I also dont see how its out of context. My impression of your post was “drivers do dumb stuff so you cant complain when cyclists do dumb stuff”. Therefore my example wasnt “extreme” (and really graffiti is extreme to you?).

Extreme? my context is this:

Take care riding on the Cotter Uriarra Loop. A silver ford falcon, ACT plate, has been reported as being involved in multiple incidents of road rage/intimidation of cyclists. In one incident, the vehicle allegedly swerved into a group of five riders, causing them to crash and then fled the scene. The vehicle has also allegedly been involved in incidents of intimidation towards cyclists on Northbourne Ave and in Turner and Lyneham. The vehicle is often towing a box trailer with a cage fitted.

Hopefully this clown doesn’t maim or kill someone.

KB1971 KB1971 10:36 pm 11 Feb 14

NoImRight said :

KB1971 said :

NoImRight said :

KB1971 said :

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

So by that logic if I see a group of kids spray painting graffiti that then justifies me smashing letterboxes?

Like always there is always someone who takes a comment out of context with a stupidly extreme example. This is one reason RA has a bad name.

What I am saying is that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. All facets of society take liberty with road rules but there is a certain set who say its only cyclist who do it. Some road rules are completely redundant, hence why you dont get booked for them.

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

I dont see where I asked what were criminal offences. I also dont see how its out of context. My impression of your post was “drivers do dumb stuff so you cant complain when cyclists do dumb stuff”. Therefore my example wasnt “extreme” (and really graffiti is extreme to you?). Its a logical progression. If you dont have a reasonable way to justify it just having a spray at me wont make your response suddenly reasonable. Instead you could perhaps have just included your second paragraph. Much less whiny that way too 😉

Sigh……I’m done with these stupid arguments with unreasonable people like yourself who troll just for the fun of it.

See ya, have a nice life. I am going to go ride across the pedestrian crossings because it pisses you all off.

BenMac BenMac 6:17 pm 11 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

KB1971 said :

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

It’s true that many traffic offences are victimless, but they are offences because they carry the risk of serious consequences (i.e. creating a victim).

IP

Traffic offences do have a victim.

Her name is Regina.

NoImRight NoImRight 4:52 pm 11 Feb 14

KB1971 said :

NoImRight said :

KB1971 said :

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

So by that logic if I see a group of kids spray painting graffiti that then justifies me smashing letterboxes?

Like always there is always someone who takes a comment out of context with a stupidly extreme example. This is one reason RA has a bad name.

What I am saying is that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. All facets of society take liberty with road rules but there is a certain set who say its only cyclist who do it. Some road rules are completely redundant, hence why you dont get booked for them.

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

I dont see where I asked what were criminal offences. I also dont see how its out of context. My impression of your post was “drivers do dumb stuff so you cant complain when cyclists do dumb stuff”. Therefore my example wasnt “extreme” (and really graffiti is extreme to you?). Its a logical progression. If you dont have a reasonable way to justify it just having a spray at me wont make your response suddenly reasonable. Instead you could perhaps have just included your second paragraph. Much less whiny that way too 😉

IrishPete IrishPete 3:41 pm 11 Feb 14

KB1971 said :

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

The pedant Kraken in me has been awoken.

There isn’t really a good definition of “a criminal offence”. No doubt a lawyer will come up with one for us, but then another lawyer will come up with another definition.

Don’t bother looking in the ACT Crimes Act, because there are lots of other very bad offences scattered around in other Acts.

It’s true that many traffic offences are victimless, but they are offences because they carry the risk of serious consequences (i.e. creating a victim).

IP

KB1971 KB1971 2:24 pm 11 Feb 14

NoImRight said :

KB1971 said :

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

So by that logic if I see a group of kids spray painting graffiti that then justifies me smashing letterboxes?

Like always there is always someone who takes a comment out of context with a stupidly extreme example. This is one reason RA has a bad name.

What I am saying is that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. All facets of society take liberty with road rules but there is a certain set who say its only cyclist who do it. Some road rules are completely redundant, hence why you dont get booked for them.

In answer to your question? No, very few road rules are criminal offences such as spray paint vandalism and smashing letterboxes…………

NoImRight NoImRight 10:19 am 11 Feb 14

KB1971 said :

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

So by that logic if I see a group of kids spray painting graffiti that then justifies me smashing letterboxes?

KB1971 KB1971 8:03 am 11 Feb 14

Here is a cracking movie for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpig9Wc44XY&feature=youtu.be&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ddpig9Wc44XY%26feature%3Dyoutu.be&app=desktop

How the bloke in the troopy isnt cleaned up by the Volvo truck is beyond me!

BenMac BenMac 9:36 pm 10 Feb 14

Aeek said :

Mordd said :

Just FYI, if you are young or homeless, and stopped without ID, you will be transported to the nearest station for fingerprint identification / held until you can establish your identity to their satisfaction.

Seems like an abuse of power, or at least an ignorance of the law. There is no legal requirement to carry identification.

Read Section 211 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Then, read Section 212 (1)(b)(i).

I suggest carrying ID.

KB1971 KB1971 8:03 pm 09 Feb 14

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

Antagonist Antagonist 7:34 pm 09 Feb 14

tuco said :

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Um, that example would be in Idaho. The Idaho stop. It’s a thing now.

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Your example does not show how maintaining momentum is safer. Nice arm waving.

IrishPete IrishPete 2:25 pm 08 Feb 14

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Was “if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe” not clear enough? If I failed to see a police officer, then I didn’t look properly and I deserve the infringement notice.

If you’ve already decided that my claim is bulldust, what purpose is there to me providing an example?

But in case someone out there is keeping an open mind – anywhere where the distance you can see in each direction (but particularly the lane you are turning into) is less than the distance you need to accelerate to the likely speed of traffic in that lane (traffic you can’t see yet). Strictly speaking that’s probably a poorly placed stop sign, but there are plenty of them. In my hatchback that does 0-100 in about 8.5 seconds, there aren’t many of those situations. In my 4wd that does 0-100 in about 60 seconds on the flat, if I’m lucky, there are rather a lot more.

I also often overtake faster than the speed limit, for the same reason – breaking the law in that scenario is safer than sticking to it. I prefer to minimise my time on the wrong side of the road, and it doesn’t matter how much someone shouts that it is illegal, I will continue to do the safer of the two options.

tuco tuco 1:55 pm 08 Feb 14

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Um, that example would be in Idaho. The Idaho stop. It’s a thing now.

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:31 pm 08 Feb 14

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

lol @ there actually being police on canberras roads

Antagonist Antagonist 10:20 am 08 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Antagonist Antagonist 10:15 am 08 Feb 14

Aeek said :

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

The same planet on which cyclists need to be reminded to dismount when using a crossing.

miz miz 8:47 am 08 Feb 14

Aeek said :

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

I’m glad that someone posted that rather clever sign up. While it shouldn’t be necessary it appears bike helmets do something to people’s brains.

*sigh” I miss the days when bike riding meant riding with the wind in your hair, without being obsessed about your PB. And people knew what ‘pedestrian crossing’ meant.

Maya123 Maya123 1:19 am 08 Feb 14

Aeek said :

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

The driver exiting a car park and honking when they had to stop for passing traffic on the path (people walking and cycling) across the car park entrance. This has happened to me. Cars leaving a car park must give way, but this rude driver appeared not to know this. Signs are needed for ignorant people like that.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site