Jerk Cyclist

JC said :

tim_c said :

Are you sure they’re weight activated? I had a few problems with some lights previously and reported some intersections to Canberra Connect. I had a very helpful chap call me about it (he also cycled) and following his suggestions, I now stop on the sensors (look for the patched grooves) – it works better if you stop along the patched grooves that are parallel to your direction of travel which means your bike is along the sensor (rather than across it). Failing that, you can also try riding circles over the sensors since they are actually induction loops which means they are triggered by the movement of metal (rather than just the presence of metal). Since following these suggestions, I’ve never had any further problems – even on my aluminium framed bike with alloy wheels.

There are no weight sensors. All are induction loops that require a bit of metal to pass over the top, how much metal depends upon how sensitively tuned they are. Some loops you can see, some, especially newly resurfaced intersections are below the top layer of asphalt and hence are not visible.

Though do agree with what he was saying that we could do with less of the turn signals in this town. Not every intersection needs them on 24/7.

Fair enough on the wight sensors. All I know is that sitting at the light on my bike with no other cars around doesn’t trigger the light to change. I don’t ride on that road too often, but next time ill have a try following tim_c’s suggestions and seeing if I can get the lights to change.

It’s a shame a few cyclists give the whole group a bad name in the same way a few bad drivers give all drivers a bad name.

tim_c said :

Robertson said :

tim_c said :

Robertson said :

“Are you a cop” seems like a perfectly reasonable response. He doesn’t believe in your rules. He is not licenced to cycle on the road. His conveyance is not registered to be cycled on the road. This means there has been virtually no effort made by the state to ensure that he becomes aware of any rights and responsibilities he might have.
In fact, the state’s failure to take steps to impose any kind of limits to his cycling behaviour seems like tacit approval for him to make up his own rules, as he has done.

Try jay-walking your unlicensed, unregistered shoes across a busy intersection in the CBD of Melbourne then.

I’ve been puzzling about this one overnight.

What’s your point?

You seemed to suggest because the cyclist has no licence and no registration that no one can fine him for breaking the law.

No I didn’t.
I suggested that being unlicensed and unregistered and knowing that nobody would try to apply the law to him, he therefore has no reason to think the rules do apply to him.

Maybe the AFP are cultivating this kind of casual disregard for the law in the knowledge it invariably escalates from petty offences to serious crime, thus justifying an application for increased funding?

Cyclist on Cyclist violence next…

How can it get any better for us unrepentant car drivers?

Robertson said :

tim_c said :

Robertson said :

“Are you a cop” seems like a perfectly reasonable response. He doesn’t believe in your rules. He is not licenced to cycle on the road. His conveyance is not registered to be cycled on the road. This means there has been virtually no effort made by the state to ensure that he becomes aware of any rights and responsibilities he might have.
In fact, the state’s failure to take steps to impose any kind of limits to his cycling behaviour seems like tacit approval for him to make up his own rules, as he has done.

Try jay-walking your unlicensed, unregistered shoes across a busy intersection in the CBD of Melbourne then.

I’ve been puzzling about this one overnight.

What’s your point?

You seemed to suggest because the cyclist has no licence and no registration that no one can fine him for breaking the law. Technically it is possible, though very unlikely in Canberra. It is quite common for Vic Police to stand around busy intersections in Melbourne’s CBD and fine pedestrians for walking across against a red signal – the absence of pedestrian licence or registration doesn’t mean they can simply disobey the laws and not get fined – nor does the suggestion that the only person they are endangering is themselves.

For the record, I regularly cycle to/from work (and I drive sometimes too) and I often wish the police would get out there and reign in some of the people (on bikes as well as in cars) who think the road rules only apply to everybody else. Despite what junglespank might think, a few cyclists running through red-lights gives a lot of motorists more reason to resent cyclists and not want to share the roads with them.

Robertson said :

Tooks said :

nazasaurus said :

Good to see manners and decorum have disappeared and it’s now ok to call a complete stranger who isn’t actually harming you or others a f%^khead to their face… wow.

Manners like riding through a red light and smartarse “are you a cop?” comments are okay though? He was a f?!khead. Let’s call a spade a spade.

How did cyclist no.2 (the non-control-freak one) show bad manners? He went through a red light. Nobody’s ever made him get training before getting on a bicycle, and no cop’s ever bothered getting off his fat donut-eating arse to actually enforce any road rules that can’t be done with a camera, so why would the cyclist think he needed to respect any of them?

As for “are you a cop” – what’s wrong with that? If cyclist no1 (the control-freak one) wants to enforce road rules, he can put on a uniform and do the job. Otherwise he should probably mind his own bloody business.

Police don’t enforce any road rules with cameras because they have nothing to do with cameras. Going through a red light is bad manners. Smart arse comment also equals bad manners. And yes, cyclist one probably should mind his own business.

Tooks said :

nazasaurus said :

Good to see manners and decorum have disappeared and it’s now ok to call a complete stranger who isn’t actually harming you or others a f%^khead to their face… wow.

Manners like riding through a red light and smartarse “are you a cop?” comments are okay though? He was a f?!khead. Let’s call a spade a spade.

How did cyclist no.2 (the non-control-freak one) show bad manners? He went through a red light. Nobody’s ever made him get training before getting on a bicycle, and no cop’s ever bothered getting off his fat donut-eating arse to actually enforce any road rules that can’t be done with a camera, so why would the cyclist think he needed to respect any of them?

As for “are you a cop” – what’s wrong with that? If cyclist no1 (the control-freak one) wants to enforce road rules, he can put on a uniform and do the job. Otherwise he should probably mind his own bloody business.

tim_c said :

Robertson said :

“Are you a cop” seems like a perfectly reasonable response. He doesn’t believe in your rules. He is not licenced to cycle on the road. His conveyance is not registered to be cycled on the road. This means there has been virtually no effort made by the state to ensure that he becomes aware of any rights and responsibilities he might have.
In fact, the state’s failure to take steps to impose any kind of limits to his cycling behaviour seems like tacit approval for him to make up his own rules, as he has done.

Try jay-walking your unlicensed, unregistered shoes across a busy intersection in the CBD of Melbourne then.

I’ve been puzzling about this one overnight.

What’s your point?

nazasaurus said :

Good to see manners and decorum have disappeared and it’s now ok to call a complete stranger who isn’t actually harming you or others a f%^khead to their face… wow.

Manners like riding through a red light and smartarse “are you a cop?” comments are okay though? He was a f?!khead. Let’s call a spade a spade.

junglespank said :

nazasaurus said :

Good to see manners and decorum have disappeared and it’s now ok to call a complete stranger who isn’t actually harming you or others a f%^khead to their face… wow.

agree. jerk 1 should minds its own business but was out to release aggression. jerk 2 happend to be the target. “are you a cop” probably won the unnecessary and provocative exchange. but what if by distracting jerk 2, jerk 1 had caused an accident? jerk 2’s safety was not a consideration, only jerk 1’s image. a feeble bleat “what about the rest of us?” isnt convincing – who asked jerk 1 to go on a crusade?

Really?

We cant win can we?

So, he is not a cop but he was trying to do a civic duty by having a go at the guy. Just maybe, he will stop at the next intersection………