View Full Version : Cyclists encourage to break the law
Brisbane Council and Queensland Transport in allowing cyclists on footpath not only encourage cyclists to break the law putting pedestrians at risk but doesn't give cyclists the experience of riding on the roads.
As shown by the large of cyclists riding straight off the footpath onto the crossing at Boundary and Vulture St West End Brisbane and in turn breaking other laws as shown by the following:
2 Young Female cyclists failed to use a warning device, fail to give way to pedestrians and ended up blocking the footpath.
Around 12 noon Boundary St Suncorp Bank near Russell St West End Brisbane 10th of March 2004.
Allister
03-08-04, 11:48 PM
Hi Kenneth. Still slopping the same old trolls I see.
Chris L
03-09-04, 01:08 AM
Brisbane Council and Queensland Transport in allowing cyclists on footpath not only encourage cyclists to break the law putting pedestrians at risk but doesn't give cyclists the experience of riding on the roads.
Much as I agree that no cyclist over the age of about 12 should be on the footpath, I have to ask how is allowing something to be done legally tantamount to encouraging someone to break the law?
Hi Kenneth. Still slopping the same old trolls I see.
Hi Allister ?
How can telling the truth be "slopping the same old trolls" especially in the real world allowing cyclists to ride on the footpath is encouraging cyclists to break the law.
And I wouldn't need to "troll" the truth if cyclists didn't break the law now would I Allister ?
PS How was Lord of The Rings ?
Much as I agree that no cyclist over the age of about 12 should be on the footpath, I have to ask how is allowing something to be done legally tantamount to encouraging someone to break the law?
As shown by the large number of cyclists who instead of dismouting their bikes and then walk their bikes across the crossing.
They break the law by riding straight off the footpath onto the crossing and would this happens if Brisbane Council didn't allow cyclists to ride on the footpath ?
Especially when a mayor cycling group in the USA said in one word or another allowing cyclists on the footpath is a dangerous and stupid idea.
Allister
03-09-04, 10:56 PM
How can telling the truth be "slopping the same old trolls" especially in the real world allowing cyclists to ride on the footpath is encouraging cyclists to break the law.
Because in the five or six years since I first encountered you, your m.o. hasn't changed. Because in all that time you haven't given any indication that you've done anything to address these problems with the people who actually have the power to change it, namely the BCC and the State government. You prefer to do nothing but post to cycling forums with the same tired old complaints, and do so in a way deliberately calculated to antagonise rather than searching for common ground. All classic trolling behaviour.
Believe it or not many cyclists agree with the idea of not riding on the footpath, and you'd actually find quite a lot of support for your cause if instead of antagonising cyclists you asked for our help.
And I wouldn't need to "troll" the truth if cyclists didn't break the law now would I Allister ?
You don't need to troll at all. No-one here advocates breaking the law. If you've got a complaint with law breaking cyclists, take it up with the police. If you've got questions about cycling safety and the law, this is the place to ask. If you've got reasonable advice to offer, we'll listen, but if, as usual, you've just come here to complain, you might as well leave now.
In the meantime, get a bike, and take a look at the situation from the cyclists perspective. Come for a spin with me around the city if you really want an eye opener (on the road of course).
Chris L
03-10-04, 01:24 AM
As shown by the large number of cyclists who instead of dismouting their bikes and then walk their bikes across the crossing.
They break the law by riding straight off the footpath onto the crossing and would this happens if Brisbane Council didn't allow cyclists to ride on the footpath ?
Actually it would. I grew up in New South Wales where footpath cycling was banned to anyone over the age of twelve (still was last time I was in Tweed Heads). It still happens down there regardless. Is the NSW government/Tweed Shire Council also engaged in providing this "encouragement"? I think the real issue you should be focusing on here is law enforcement, and to be honest I'd support you in that 100%. However, a law permitting cyclists to ride on the footpath is no encouragement to break some other law - related or not.
Because in the five or six years since I first encountered you, your m.o. hasn't changed. Because in all that time you haven't given any indication that you've done anything to address these problems with the people who actually have the power to change it, namely the BCC and the State government. You prefer to do nothing but post to cycling forums with the same tired old complaints, and do so in a way deliberately calculated to antagonise rather than searching for common ground. All classic trolling behaviour.
Believe it or not many cyclists agree with the idea of not riding on the footpath, and you'd actually find quite a lot of support for your cause if instead of antagonising cyclists you asked for our help.
You don't need to troll at all. No-one here advocates breaking the law. If you've got a complaint with law breaking cyclists, take it up with the police. If you've got questions about cycling safety and the law, this is the place to ask. If you've got reasonable advice to offer, we'll listen, but if, as usual, you've just come here to complain, you might as well leave now.
In the meantime, get a bike, and take a look at the situation from the cyclists perspective. Come for a spin with me around the city if you really want an eye opener (on the road of course).
Alllister if you have actually "encountered" me especially by reading my and other people comments in other cyclists forums:
1) You would have notice I did give indication that I have done something to address these problems including emailing Brisbane Council and the State Government.
2) Some do advocate breaking the law.
And by reading your comments are you sure you are searching for common ground yourself rather then antagonise others.
Also are you sure "many cyclists agree with the idea of not riding on the footpath, and you'd actually find quite a lot of support for your cause" in other words do have proof.
Ken
PS I cannot help you if you think telling the truth is trolling.
And on this basic thanks but no thanks for the offer of "Come for a spin with me around the city if you really want an eye opener (on the road of course" as I can see what some cyclists get up to as a pedestrians and on this basic have you look take a look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist? .
Actually it would. I grew up in New South Wales where footpath cycling was banned to anyone over the age of twelve (still was last time I was in Tweed Heads). It still happens down there regardless. Is the NSW government/Tweed Shire Council also engaged in providing this "encouragement"? I think the real issue you should be focusing on here is law enforcement, and to be honest I'd support you in that 100%. However, a law permitting cyclists to ride on the footpath is no encouragement to break some other law - related or not.
Looking at how many cyclists ride straight off the footpath onto the crossing where footpath riding is allow compare to say where footpath is banned.
Isn't allowing cyclists on footpath encouraging cyclists to break the law ?
But if there was enforcement wouldn't there be cyclists saying the police are too heavy handed.
Just like some people are saying catching speeding drivers is revenue raising.
Allister
03-12-04, 12:01 AM
And on this basic thanks but no thanks for the offer of "Come for a spin with me around the city if you really want an eye opener (on the road of course" as I can see what some cyclists get up to as a pedestrians and on this basic have you look take a look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist?
Didn't think so.
Chris L
03-12-04, 02:15 AM
Looking at how many cyclists ride straight off the footpath onto the crossing where footpath riding is allow compare to say where footpath is banned.
Dude, I live in an area where footpath cycling is allowed, and I'm only about 25km from one where it is banned. I can tell you that there is absolutely no difference between the two in terms of the behaviour you describe.
Isn't allowing cyclists on footpath encouraging cyclists to break the law ?
No it isn't. Read my previous point.
But if there was enforcement wouldn't there be cyclists saying the police are too heavy handed.
There probably would. But why would that bother you? If your only concern is cyclists breaking the law at pedestrian crossings, and law enforcement solves this, why would you care if people complain? I certainly wouldn't.
Just like some people are saying catching speeding drivers is revenue raising.
Here's a suggestion. Try this one on for size. Let's abolish all the 110km/h speed limits on the Pacific Motorway because they encourage people to speed when they get off it onto the residential streets. In fact, lets make all speed limits 40km/h, just in case higher ones encourage people to break the law in the school zones.
Actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.
Chris L
03-12-04, 02:17 AM
have you look take a look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist? .
I can't speak for Allister, but I certainly have. In fact, I probably walk more km than you do -- given that it's my choice for any trip up to 5km. I still say that if people are breaking the law, merely giving them another law to break isn't going to change anything.
ngateguy
03-12-04, 11:20 AM
PS I cannot help you if you think telling the truth is trolling.
And on this basic thanks but no thanks for the offer of "Come for a spin with me around the city if you really want an eye opener (on the road of course" as I can see what some cyclists get up to as a pedestrians and on this basic have you look take a look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist? .
personally I have seen both perspectives, since I have for the most part been car free almost all my life. And based on my experiance the one that need a schooling on what is legal or not would be the SOV (single occupancy vehicles) crowd. But I think , by what you say, you would much rather be right than learn another perspective, thus making anything you say on this be based not on fact but ignorance. Try and see it from the other perspective everyone should be required to live without a car for at least one year of their life to see what it is like.
Because SOME bikers ignore the law does not mean ALL bikers , in fact if you took off your blinders and looked around you would find the a vast MAJORITY of cyclists are polite and law abiding.
Daily Commute
03-12-04, 12:17 PM
And on this basic thanks but no thanks for the offer of "Come for a spin with me around the city if you really want an eye opener (on the road of course" as I can see what some cyclists get up to as a pedestrians and on this basic have you look take a look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist?
No one is "just a cyclist."
All cyclists see traffic from the perspective of pedestrians (we do have to walk from time to time), and most of us are also drivers. On the other hand, most drivers and pedestrians don't see traffic from the perspective of cyclists. Because I walk on the sidewalks, I know not to ride on the sidewalks (or if I do, to ride very, very slowly for very, very short distances). Because I occasionally drive, I know the importance of riding predictably.
Most drivers don't understand that sometimes cyclists have to ride 6+ feet from the curb because of debris, ice or potholes. Many drivers don't understand why a cyclist would want to turn left from the left turn lane. Most drivers don't understand that bike paths are not always the best way for a cyclist to get from point A to point B.
While some cyclists are jerks, the ignorance is mostly one-sided.
Try and see it from the other perspective everyone should be required to live without a car for at least one year of their life to see what it is like.
Everyone has... they just forgot. Most people I know lived at least 16 years without a car. As far as "adult life" is concerned, I count my college years. I think if more people remember how much fun they had as a kid when all they had were their feet and their bikes then a lot more people would still be cycling today.
Everyone has... they just forgot. Most people I know lived at least 16 years without a car. As far as "adult life" is concerned, I count my college years. I think if more people remember how much fun they had as a kid when all they had were their feet and their bikes then a lot more people would still be cycling today.
All riders and drivers are pedestrians but not all drivers are riders so I think drivers should spend a mimum (spelling ?) number of hours riding an bike or even be a pedestrian instead of just walking to the vehicle when they get their licence or renew it.
No one is "just a cyclist."
All cyclists see traffic from the perspective of pedestrians (we do have to walk from time to time), and most of us are also drivers. On the other hand, most drivers and pedestrians don't see traffic from the perspective of cyclists. Because I walk on the sidewalks, I know not to ride on the sidewalks (or if I do, to ride very, very slowly for very, very short distances). Because I occasionally drive, I know the importance of riding predictably.
Most drivers don't understand that sometimes cyclists have to ride 6+ feet from the curb because of debris, ice or potholes. Many drivers don't understand why a cyclist would want to turn left from the left turn lane. Most drivers don't understand that bike paths are not always the best way for a cyclist to get from point A to point B.
While some cyclists are jerks, the ignorance is mostly one-sided.
From what I have seen of some cyclists not "All cyclists see traffic from the perspective of pedestrians".
Dude, I live in an area where footpath cycling is allowed, and I'm only about 25km from one where it is banned. I can tell you that there is absolutely no difference between the two in terms of the behaviour you describe.
No it isn't. Read my previous point.
There probably would. But why would that bother you? If your only concern is cyclists breaking the law at pedestrian crossings, and law enforcement solves this, why would you care if people complain? I certainly wouldn't.
Here's a suggestion. Try this one on for size. Let's abolish all the 110km/h speed limits on the Pacific Motorway because they encourage people to speed when they get off it onto the residential streets. In fact, lets make all speed limits 40km/h, just in case higher ones encourage people to break the law in the school zones.
Actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.
After living in Sydney where footpath cycling is banned and now living in Queensland where in certain council areas footpath riding is allow.
I can tell you there is a difference in the behaviour between the two especially where I live there is a lot more cyclists breaking the law by riding straight off the footpath into the crossing.
Compare to Sydney where I hardly saw any cyclists riding straight off the footpath.
So on this basic why don't you think there is a different in the behaviour ?
And we did have a 40km/h speed limit then cyclists would safer to ride on the roads and pedestrians would feel safer on the footpaths.
I can't speak for Allister, but I certainly have. In fact, I probably walk more km than you do -- given that it's my choice for any trip up to 5km. I still say that if people are breaking the law, merely giving them another law to break isn't going to change anything.
And another law to break you are talking about ?
As I don't think I mentioned "another law".
Didn't think so.
So Allister you "Didn't think so" that cyclists look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist?
In other words what are you "Didn't think so" about ?
PS Also I am wondering what you do to know what my MO is for the last 5 or 6 years.
Do you search every single cycling forums there is and keep all comments or just a selected few ?
Chris L
03-15-04, 02:08 AM
Compare to Sydney where I hardly saw any cyclists riding straight off the footpath.
Evidently you've not been to Sydney recently. I was there only last year (as well as Melbourne and Adelaide). I can tell you the behaviour is more common in Sydney than Brisbane.
And we did have a 40km/h speed limit then cyclists would safer to ride on the roads and pedestrians would feel safer on the footpaths.
No argument there. However, I think next time you'll drive you might feel differently.
And another law to break you are talking about ?
As I don't think I mentioned "another law".
You quite clearly stated that you want a law banning cyclists from riding on the footpath. My point was that if they are already breaking the existing law regarding pedestrian crossings, the same people will break any "new" law banning them from the footpath just as easily without some kind of enforcement. A quick read of the thread would reveal that I have now said this three times - perhaps you might consider some reading in future. Either that or, as Allister suggested, you are just trolling.
Allister
03-15-04, 04:21 PM
So Allister you "Didn't think so" that cyclists look at the situation from pedestrians perspective instead of just being a cyclist?
In other words what are you "Didn't think so" about ?
I didn't think you'd take up the offer of a ride. What are you scared of Kenneth?
PS Also I am wondering what you do to know what my MO is for the last 5 or 6 years.
Do you search every single cycling forums there is and keep all comments or just a selected few ?
Just enough to know that things haven't changed. You're still a troll.
For anyone who's interested in reading more of the same, do a search on Kenneth Vaughan on the bikeqld email list, or kwv, roadwatch, and communtiy roadwatvh (sic) on the aus.bicycles and aus.cars usenet groups. Those are the pseudnyms I'm aware of off the top of my head, there are probably others. Kenneth's easy enbough to spot under any name though. The garbled English, the fixation on the footpaths of West End in Brisbane, and the absense of all reason are a recurring theme.
I didn't think you'd take up the offer of a ride. What are you scared of Kenneth?
Just enough to know that things haven't changed. You're still a troll.
For anyone who's interested in reading more of the same, do a search on Kenneth Vaughan on the bikeqld email list, or kwv, roadwatch, and communtiy roadwatvh (sic) on the aus.bicycles and aus.cars usenet groups. Those are the pseudnyms I'm aware of off the top of my head, there are probably others. Kenneth's easy enbough to spot under any name though. The garbled English, the fixation on the footpaths of West End in Brisbane, and the absense of all reason are a recurring theme.
Read your own comments to see why I wouldn't ride with you and it seems you are the one scared of the truth especially seeing first hand cyclists riding off the footpath.
Reading your own comments Allister are you sure you are not trolling yourself and are a true cyclist and not one in name only.
PS Don't complain about other people "garbled English" when your own comments are garbled "easy enbough".
But then again picking out such things as what you considered "garbled English" then I guess this is a easy way out for you to avoided talking about the subject especially when it comes to the truth.
PPS Start reading my comments without rage and picking out what you considered faults, then you would notice there is reason.
Evidently you've not been to Sydney recently. I was there only last year (as well as Melbourne and Adelaide). I can tell you the behaviour is more common in Sydney than Brisbane.
No argument there. However, I think next time you'll drive you might feel differently.
You quite clearly stated that you want a law banning cyclists from riding on the footpath. My point was that if they are already breaking the existing law regarding pedestrian crossings, the same people will break any "new" law banning them from the footpath just as easily without some kind of enforcement. A quick read of the thread would reveal that I have now said this three times - perhaps you might consider some reading in future. Either that or, as Allister suggested, you are just trolling.
When I was in Sydney (The Inner City Area) around 12 months ago I don't recall seeing any cyclists ride off the footpath even those cyclists over 12 are banned and with cost of buying and keeping a car I am happy not driving.
So on this basic Chris do you and Allister think you need to know others before you say they have done or not done things ?
But in Brisbane I have seen a large number of cyclists ride off the footpath once in a space of 15 minutes 5 cyclists.
And as said to Allister I don't considering telling the truth trolling and how much it cost to drive
PS If you read my comments you would see I do read comments and reply regarding these comments maybe not what some people what to hear word for word but replying all the same.
I can't speak for Allister, but I certainly have. In fact, I probably walk more km than you do -- given that it's my choice for any trip up to 5km. I still say that if people are breaking the law, merely giving them another law to break isn't going to change anything.
Why would it be another law to break when it would be just a change of law ?
Also why do we have the law allowing footpath riding in some areas but not other areas and why did a cycling group in the USA said allowing cyclists to ride is a stupid and dangerous idea ?
And pushbikes would be classed as legal road vehicles so why do banned motor vehicles from the footpath and fine drivers who park on the footpaths ?
Allister,
I am still waiting for the facts to back up your comments "Believe it or not many cyclists agree with the idea of not riding on the footpath".
PS Maybe people should read your own comments especially in aus.bicycles and aus.cars to see the absense of all reason are a recurring theme in your comments.
kneighbour
03-18-04, 10:55 PM
Also are you sure "many cyclists agree with the idea of not riding on the footpath, and you'd actually find quite a lot of support for your cause" in other words do have proof.
Well, I dunno what proof you would want. But anecdotally this is a very common preference for cyclists. In our club (the BBTA), I find that slower riders tend to prefer riding on bike paths, footpaths, etc. Ths is simply to get away from cars.
Almost without exception, the faster and/or road bike riders avoid footpaths and bike paths like the plague. This usually goes to the extent that many riders will "leave" an organised ride to stay on the road while other riders in the group get off the road and use the bike paths. Me included.
Believe me, I would not use a bike path unless forced to by circumstances. I would almost never ride on a footpath - and then usually only when moving from a bike path onto the road.
Bike paths and footpaths are slow and dangerous. You might say that roads are fast and dangerous! Bu ti MUCH prefer to ride on the road than any old bike path/footpath. No competition.
PS I cannot help you if you think telling the truth is trolling.
Whenever I see this sort of statement I turn off completely. I have found that one person's view of the "truth" is not the same as virtually anyone elses'. If two people watch the same incident, they both see two completely different sets of truths.
Of course, I am not detracting from anything you say, which may or may not be correct.
Chris L
03-19-04, 03:10 AM
Why would it be another law to break when it would be just a change of law ?
Alright Kenneth, I'll explain it especially simply just for you. If cyclists are already happy to break the law riding across pedestrian crossings as you apparently think they are. What would stop them breaking a law that would ban them from riding on the footpath? If they're already riding somewhere they're not allowed to, what would stop them from riding somewhere else they wouldn't be allowed to.
As I said right at the start, the only answer to this problem is law enforcement. Again, why do you have such a problem with this?
Whenever I see this sort of statement I turn off completely. I have found that one person's view of the "truth" is not the same as virtually anyone elses'. If two people watch the same incident, they both see two completely different sets of truths.
Of course, I am not detracting from anything you say, which may or may not be correct.
A bit like the war on Iraq sorry I went there but I guess this is close to what you said above.
Alright Kenneth, I'll explain it especially simply just for you. If cyclists are already happy to break the law riding across pedestrian crossings as you apparently think they are. What would stop them breaking a law that would ban them from riding on the footpath? If they're already riding somewhere they're not allowed to, what would stop them from riding somewhere else they wouldn't be allowed to.
As I said right at the start, the only answer to this problem is law enforcement. Again, why do you have such a problem with this?
I don't think cyclists are breaking the law because I can see it first hand and I make even more simple then you try to do.
Would cyclists break the law by riding across the pedestrian crossing straight off the footpath if they were banned from riding on the footpath?
I didn't think you'd take up the offer of a ride. What are you scared of Kenneth?
Just enough to know that things haven't changed. You're still a troll.
For anyone who's interested in reading more of the same, do a search on Kenneth Vaughan on the bikeqld email list, or kwv, roadwatch, and communtiy roadwatvh (sic) on the aus.bicycles and aus.cars usenet groups. Those are the pseudnyms I'm aware of off the top of my head, there are probably others. Kenneth's easy enbough to spot under any name though. The garbled English, the fixation on the footpaths of West End in Brisbane, and the absense of all reason are a recurring theme.
The reason I am what you called "scared" is I got hit by car and went completely under the car but reading your comments do you think people wouldn't be scared to ride with someone like you.
Also knowing what someone MO and pseudnyms is over the past 5 or 6 years in different forums and newsgroups how can I be the one trolling or with the fixation on things.
PS Looking at aus.cars seeing all those Allister pseudnyms I am wondering if you use all of them with different comments ?
Alright Kenneth, I'll explain it especially simply just for you. If cyclists are already happy to break the law riding across pedestrian crossings as you apparently think they are. What would stop them breaking a law that would ban them from riding on the footpath? If they're already riding somewhere they're not allowed to, what would stop them from riding somewhere else they wouldn't be allowed to.
As I said right at the start, the only answer to this problem is law enforcement. Again, why do you have such a problem with this?
Why would it be another law to break when it would be just a change of law ?
The simple question is still there Chris L
Chris L
03-22-04, 01:16 AM
Why would it be another law to break when it would be just a change of law ?
The simple question is still there Chris L
So is the simple answer -- apparently you haven't gotten around to reading it yet:
Alright Kenneth, I'll explain it especially simply just for you. If cyclists are already happy to break the law riding across pedestrian crossings as you apparently think they are. What would stop them breaking a law that would ban them from riding on the footpath? If they're already riding somewhere they're not allowed to, what would stop them from riding somewhere else they wouldn't be allowed to.
So why do you think I have a problem with law enforcement ?
Because when I mentioned it at the start of this pointless thread, you said:
But if there was enforcement wouldn't there be cyclists saying the police are too heavy handed.
A little more time reading and a little less time trolling might have kept you off my ignore list -- as it is, you're now a member of a group containing less than 0.05% of all forum members. Also seems rather strange that someone who claims to be "too scared to ride" would spend their time frequenting a bike forum, apart from the obvious trolling purposes.
Have a nice day.
I will have to say that for a troll, he's not a very good one. A good troll should be able to exact a higher flame-to-post ratio. The fact that he has to respond to each and every message to sustain the response flux indicates that he's less effective as a troll and more of someone who has a fetish for acts of futility.
Daily Commute
03-22-04, 05:35 AM
Khuon is right, kwv is not a very effective troll, but it’s interesting to watch how easy it is to shoot down kwv’s positions. This thread is useful because it shows the weakness of shrill, anti-bike rhetoric. Thanks, kwv, for showing us the wisdom of our ways.
kmv,
Pardon my ignorance of Australian law concerning footpaths and pedestrian intersections
etc. that is not what my comments/questions are about.
My real question is, given the fervor which you champion this cause, what is the root
cause? You mentioned something about an accident and ending up underneath an
automobile, what connection is there between this and your concern.
Were you a pedestrian on a footpath and if so were you struck by a bicyclist?
I'm really interested in what got you onto this soapbox.
what is the real issue here?
Marty
Chris L
03-22-04, 08:34 PM
I will have to say that for a troll, he's not a very good one. A good troll should be able to exact a higher flame-to-post ratio. The fact that he has to respond to each and every message to sustain the response flux indicates that he's less effective as a troll and more of someone who has a fetish for acts of futility.
... and a creature who likes jumping around when prodded with a stick. :D
kmv,
Pardon my ignorance of Australian law concerning footpaths and pedestrian intersections
etc. that is not what my comments/questions are about.
My real question is, given the fervor which you champion this cause, what is the root
cause? You mentioned something about an accident and ending up underneath an
automobile, what connection is there between this and your concern.
Were you a pedestrian on a footpath and if so were you struck by a bicyclist?
I'm really interested in what got you onto this soapbox.
what is the real issue here?
Marty
Marty reading the comments and the forum title you would not only have notice what the "root cause" or the "real issue" is but that Allister asked me what I am scared of and I told him I am scared of getting back on a bike after getting hit by a car.
But then again if you think I got onto my soapbox then don't you think then just about everyone especially in this forum has got onto a soapbox including yourself.
Khuon is right, kwv is not a very effective troll, but it’s interesting to watch how easy it is to shoot down kwv’s positions. This thread is useful because it shows the weakness of shrill, anti-bike rhetoric. Thanks, kwv, for showing us the wisdom of our ways.
And the thread is useful as it is interesting to see people like you act in public when you are shot down when you are shown the truth, so you need to look harder to seek the wisdom.
PS You think that I am anti-bike rhetoric because where did I say I hate all bike riders ?
I will have to say that for a troll, he's not a very good one. A good troll should be able to exact a higher flame-to-post ratio. The fact that he has to respond to each and every message to sustain the response flux indicates that he's less effective as a troll and more of someone who has a fetish for acts of futility.
You can't blame me for replying to people when they are the ones who are writing comments.
In other words if you don't want to reply then don't write comments simple isn't.
Also if you think telling the truth is "acts of futility" then that is your problem not mine.
So is the simple answer -- apparently you haven't gotten around to reading it yet:
Because when I mentioned it at the start of this pointless thread, you said:
A little more time reading and a little less time trolling might have kept you off my ignore list -- as it is, you're now a member of a group containing less than 0.05% of all forum members. Also seems rather strange that someone who claims to be "too scared to ride" would spend their time frequenting a bike forum, apart from the obvious trolling purposes.
Have a nice day.
After reading all of your comments I decided not to put you on my ignore list as I feel everyone is allow an opinion even if I don't agree with it especially as it is not what I want to hear word for word.
Also if you do a lot more reading yourself you will see I am not trolling but discussing a real issue and on this basic if you think this a pointless thread then it is up to you if you keep on writing.
PS I will have a nice day if as the saying goes:
We agree to disagree especially when it involves the truth.
So is the simple answer -- apparently you haven't gotten around to reading it yet:
Because when I mentioned it at the start of this pointless thread, you said:
A little more time reading and a little less time trolling might have kept you off my ignore list -- as it is, you're now a member of a group containing less than 0.05% of all forum members. Also seems rather strange that someone who claims to be "too scared to ride" would spend their time frequenting a bike forum, apart from the obvious trolling purposes.
Have a nice day.
Chris L "So is the simple answer -- apparently you haven't gotten around to reading it yet:"
Yes Chris L apparently I haven't gotten around to reading it yet as you still haven't gave the simple answer to the simple question I asked.
Marty reading the comments and the forum title you would not only have notice what the "root cause" or the "real issue" is but that Allister asked me what I am scared of and I told him I am scared of getting back on a bike after getting hit by a car.
Ok, so I went back to your original post, and the title
Brisbane Council and Queensland Transport in allowing cyclists on footpath not only encourage cyclists to break the law putting pedestrians at risk but doesn't give cyclists the experience of riding on the roads.
As shown by the large of cyclists riding straight off the footpath onto the crossing at Boundary and Vulture St West End Brisbane and in turn breaking other laws as shown by the following:
2 Young Female cyclists failed to use a warning device, fail to give way to pedestrians and ended up blocking the footpath.
Around 12 noon Boundary St Suncorp Bank near Russell St West End Brisbane 10th of March 2004.
again, what is YOUR issue? not putting cyclists on the road? riding into the crossing boundary?
blocking footpaths? Suncorp Bank? I think neither of these.
If you need assistance in getting back on a bike, and that would be understandable give your
accident, you would do much better stating that here, than obfuscating the issue with
discussion of footpaths etc. One would think your problem stemmed from being struck by
a bicycle whilst a pedestrian.
But then again if you think I got onto my soapbox then don't you think then just about everyone especially in this forum has got onto a soapbox including yourself.
I don't have any arguement with the above statement, although it does do quite well to
deflect my question by focusing on "soapbox". Yes I have a soapbox, and yes I do have issues
that I both champion and feel passionate about.
So let me apologize for the soapbox comment and rephrase it.
What I am asking, what is YOUR issue? what prompted you to 1) post this on a cycling forum
(where you have to know you're going to get negative responses) 2) pick this particular topic
to champion? I ask this in all seriousness, there is neither maliciousness, nor foul intent in my
questions.
Ok, so I went back to your original post, and the title
again, what is YOUR issue? not putting cyclists on the road? riding into the crossing boundary?
blocking footpaths? Suncorp Bank? I think neither of these.
If you need assistance in getting back on a bike, and that would be understandable give your
accident, you would do much better stating that here, than obfuscating the issue with
discussion of footpaths etc. One would think your problem stemmed from being struck by
a bicycle whilst a pedestrian.
I don't have any arguement with the above statement, although it does do quite well to
deflect my question by focusing on "soapbox". Yes I have a soapbox, and yes I do have issues
that I both champion and feel passionate about.
So let me apologize for the soapbox comment and rephrase it.
What I am asking, what is YOUR issue? what prompted you to 1) post this on a cycling forum
(where you have to know you're going to get negative responses) 2) pick this particular topic
to champion? I ask this in all seriousness, there is neither maliciousness, nor foul intent in my
questions.
I welcome you for apologizing (Australian spelling ?) and thank you for it and the issue is as the forum title suggested is "Cyclists encourage to break the law" as shown by the number of cyclists who ride straight off the footpath onto the crossing and this happens many times where cyclists are allow to ride on the footpath even those some people cannot or will not accept this reality.
And another thing that would come out of this is why in certain states in Australia (and maybe the USA) are cyclists allow to ride on the footpath but in other states are not.
Also why has a cyclists group in the USA said allowing cyclists is a dangerous and stupid idea.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.