Advocacy & Safety - Another one

From the Gold Coast Bulletin:NEWS: Surfer thugs attack cyclist
25Jan02

A CYCLIST training for a triathlon was sideswiped then beaten up by two carloads of men in a daylight attack at Miami that has shocked onlookers.

His attackers then drove round the corner, parked and calmly went surfing.

Witnesses pointed out the cars to police who waited on shore for the men to return.

A 20-year old man has been charged with assault and is to appear in the Coolangatta Magistrates Court on February 14. Police said inquiries were continuing.

Darren Carson was treated at the Gold Coast Hospital for deep cuts, abrasions and shock after the brutal attack beside the Gold Coast Highway as he rode to a gym on Wednesday evening.

"How many of us have to die," he asked yesterday - a reference to top triathlete Luke Harrop, who was buried eight days ago after being the victim of an alleged hit-run driver in Robina.

A New Zealand woman, Sandra Jaye Wilde, 41, is in custody after Luke Harrop's death. She has been charged with manslaughter and dangerous driving.

The 30-year-old Burleigh Waters nursery worker spoke carefully through a swollen bottom lip and loosened teeth about the shock attack and his determination to become a triathlete.

Shortly before 5pm, Luke had stopped at traffic lights in Miami on the Gold Highway.

"I had crossed in front of a car and the driver pulled alongside me and started yelling at me about how much of the (expletive) road did I want and I told him to get stuffed," he said.

"That's all I said or did, apart from just riding and then he said, 'I'll (expletive) have you'.

"Then he drove at me and sideswiped me, so I got off the bike in Hythe Street just beside the tennis courts.

"These two carloads of guys pulled up and this driver who had been abusing me got out and ran at me like a bull at a gate.

"He punched me in the face and I went down and I can remember pulling my bike on top of me for some protection.

"But it was pulled away from me and I must have started to lose consciousness, because all I can remember was heaps more punches coming down on me."

When the men finally stopped their vicious assault on Mr Carson, they jumped back into their cars and drove off.

A man who had been playing tennis and saw the attack, followed the two vehicles in his car to nearby Miami beach.

This comes on top of what happened earlier in the month at Robina, then there was another one at Tweed Heads this morning (about which one or two politicians will be hearing from me when I've calmed down a bit, see below).

I'm not sure how much I wanna live here anymore :(

The e-mail I received about the Tweed Heads incident:


For the past few weeks, I've been hosting three Swiss cyclists. They're over here training for the upcoming cycling season.

This morning, they were cleaned up by an 82 yr old motorist who went through a give way sign and failed to stop until he had travelled 77 metres even after two of the three cyclists had gone over the bonnet of the car.

The police have told me that there is a directive from the Police
Commissioner saying that the age of this driver is a mitigating factor and that he can only be cautioned and subjected to an independent medical assessment that will determine whether or not he can retain his licence.

He will not be charged with "Driving while failing to take due care" despite the fact that he drove through a give way sign and told the police that he didn't see the cyclists.

I think some complaints to the Commissioner are in order. No-one should receive any special dispensation to drive in an unsafe manner that endangers the lives of others. This is absurd.

Two of the cyclists are in Tweed Heads Hospital now, and I'm off to hopefully pick them up at 2pm (pending the results of the x-rays).

This will be on the news and in the papers tomorrow because everyone from the media was there.

You might also be interested in the editorial from the aforemetioned newspaper today:


EDITORIAL: What The Bulletin thinks
25Jan02

IT would appear from recent tragic events and from a roadside bashing at Miami that cyclists are in grave danger whenever they travel on Gold Coast roads.

Darren Carson felt the force of antipathy or, indeed, outright rage towards cyclists in training when two carloads of men bashed him in front of start- led onlookers.

His crime? He apparently stood his ground when insulted by a driver.

It was understandable that Mr Carson made a comparison between his frightening experience and that of triathlete Luke Harrop who was killed while riding his bicycle at Robina 13 days ago.

In the wake of Luke's death, many cyclists have complained that riding on Gold Coast roads all too often is a risky business.

It is true that negotiating vehicles past training cyclists can be tricky at times, mostly because few Gold Coast roads provide an adequate shoulder onto which the cyclists can move to make room for passing cars.

But at most it is a momentary obstacle which requires drivers to be patient for just a few seconds until the cyclists can be overtaken. The inconvenience caused by cyclists is minimal.

But apparently even such a brief encounter is too much for the occasional angry driver.

Cyclists are regularly abused on the Gold Coast and put in danger by motorists who would rather sideswipe or attack them than wait a moment or two for the road to clear.

Despite what these motorists may think, cyclists are entitled to use the road as much as anyone else.

The provocative attitude towards cyclists on the Gold Coast is at odds with the attitude displayed in many other parts of Australia and indeed with most of the world's great cities.

In many Asian cities, where cycles far outnumber cars, cyclists naturally are given as much respect as any driver.

The same holds true for many European cities where cycling is a traditional form of transport.

But on the Gold Coast, where the car is king, cyclists had better watch out.

It's a dangerous mindset that simply has to change.

If it doesn't, the deaths and injuries from cycling on our roads surely will continue.


As much as I've been critical of the media generally in the past (and this newspaper in particular), on this occasion I have to give credit where credit is due. Their coverage of this might just be the catalyst for a long overdue change of attitudes. Well done!

OK, I promise I won't post any more tonight.

What a bunch of brain-dead, sick, moronic F***ing cowardly TOSSERS!! :mad:

Thank you very much for keeping us informed, Chris. I am disgusted that you have a law which makes age a "mitigating factor" in injury-causing traffic offenses. Someone's driver's license should obviously be revoked!

Is the Austrialian equivalent of AARP (American Assn. of Retired Persons, for which I now qualify merely by having turned 50 last year, even though I plan to work for another 20 years) a major political force?

There is a huge culture difference, I have never heard of this happening. In many states (not all) a percentage of the population is legally armed. That is why violent crime in Australia and the United Kingdom now far exceeds crime in these states. This is not a debate it is a fact. Self defense is illegal in Australia. If that guy would have used his bike to defend himself he would have gone to jail. What's your options, cemetary, hospital, and jail. Maybe they can pass a law making already illegal assault illegal. That plays well with voters.

Good luck and wake up!

This makes me sick and ANGRY!!! :crash: :crash: :crash:
I hope that the cyclist gets better soon.

Originally posted by diamondback
There is a huge culture difference, I have never heard of this happening. In many states (not all) a percentage of the population is legally armed. That is why violent crime in Australia and the United Kingdom now far exceeds crime in these states. This is not a debate it is a fact. Self defense is illegal in Australia. If that guy would have used his bike to defend himself he would have gone to jail. What's your options, cemetary, hospital, and jail. Maybe they can pass a law making already illegal assault illegal. That plays well with voters.

Good luck and wake up!

I'd be interested in seeing your sources.

According to International Criminal Justice Statistics, published May 3 2001 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf),

Homicide rates for the UK were 1.70 per 100,000, 1.91 per 100,000 for Australia and 6.26 for the USA. Washington DC had a rate of 50.82, with London being 2.36.

Admittedly the UK reported violent crime rate is rising, but the biggest increase is in gun offences, so I don't see how arming the population would help.

As for it being illegal to defend yourself in Australia, unless their laws are radically different to the UK's self-defense is a legitimate defence to murder or manslaughter (note: my knowledge of UK law is reasonable, I'm not an expert on international law). In the UK injuring or killing a man in self-defense may be an adequate legal defence against murder, yet use of excessive force wouldn't be.

I've no wish to see general gun ownership in the UK - If a fair percentage of the population can't be trusted with a potentially leathal four wheeled vehicle, I hate to think of that group with a portable lethal weapon.

Richard

Guns are not allowed in Washington DC except for feds and police.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F08%2F17%2Fnguns17.xml

There's one link richard, got dozens more. By the way the most dangerous places in the US practice british style gun control (DC, NY, Chicago, LA, etc..). It's not easy to get a carry license in some states and requires a realistic amount of knowledge in psychology of dispute resolution, current law, and hands on training, FBI background check, finger printing, photos, range qualification etc.. My first license with classes and everything cost me almost $400 for 2 years, subsequent 4 year renewals with classes cost me $175. But hey its worth it not to be a statistic and its good in 15 states. Scumbags on the street know who's afraid and who's an easy target and pass up people who might be armed. The real question is our we subjects(property) of the government or citizens. We answered that back in 1776.

Originally posted by diamondback
Scumbags on the street know who's afraid and who's an easy target and pass up people who might be armed. The real question is our we subjects(property) of the government or citizens. We answered that back in 1776.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this one. If those gutless scumbags feared for their lives, they would have just run over the poor guy with their cars. That would have only made things worse than they already are.

Originally posted by John E
Thank you very much for keeping us informed, Chris. I am disgusted that you have a law which makes age a "mitigating factor" in injury-causing traffic offenses. Someone's driver's license should obviously be revoked!

If anybody cares, I have found a few links that some of you might find useful. This one provides contacts for the Commissioner of Police as well as the Minister for Police and Corrective Services:
http://ird.premiers.qld.gov.au/premiers/forms/ministerialdirectory/details.cfm?Port=9

On this one, you can find the Minister for Main Roads and Transport as well as his henchmen:
http://ird.premiers.qld.gov.au/premiers/forms/ministerialdirectory/details.cfm?Port=10

Ok, now I promise to shut up!

Originally posted by diamondback
Guns are not allowed in Washington DC except for feds and police.

It is comforting to know that there is such a law on the books. I am sure that every "scumbag on the street" willingly abides by this law. After all, nobody carries a gun without the proper license and permits, right?

One question though: if guns are not allowed, does that mean that every single gun death that occurs each year in Washington, DC is caused by permit holding "feds and police"?

Chilling. Just chilling.



Originally posted by diamondback
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F08%2F17%2Fnguns17.xml

What exactly is this article telling us? The one I read said that London police are trying to reduce gun deaths, and that many weapons have been confiscated. What does that have to with your point? I fail to see how this provides evidence that "British-style gun contol" is contributing to voilent crimes.



Originally posted by diamondback
By the way the most dangerous places in the US practice british style gun control (DC, NY, Chicago, LA, etc..).

I'm going out on a limb here, but do you notice that these are also the cities with the most people? They also have some of the most rampant gang activity in the counry. At the very least, simple law of averages will tell you that the bigger the population gets, the greater the number of criminals and crimes will be.

And regardless of whether or not these cities practice "British-style gun control," I hardly think that can be quoted as a contributing factor to the crimes comitted. You seem to want us to believe that, "There is crime because there is gun control." call me crazy, but I think you have it backwards. I would be very interested to see statistics that show that crime increased significantly as a result of gun control.



Originally posted by diamondback
It's not easy to get a carry license in some states and requires a realistic amount of knowledge in psychology of dispute resolution, current law, and hands on training, FBI background check, finger printing, photos, range qualification etc.. My first license with classes and everything cost me almost $400 for 2 years, subsequent 4 year renewals with classes cost me $175.

It nice to see that you value your right to carry a firearm (which I do not deny that you have, however liberally and far from the original context that right is being taken) enough to go through that time consuming and expensive process. Again, I sleep easier knowing that each and every gang banger, petty thug, burglar, carjacker, mugger, seriel killer, and deranged drifter with a gun in his pocket has probably gone through a similar process, and fully understands the responsability that comes with gun possesion.

That is what you meant, right?



Originally posted by diamondback
But hey its worth it not to be a statistic and its good in 15 states.

Don't sell yourself short so quickly! There's always plenty of room on the accidental gun death statistic list. You can choose from shooting a loved one you thought was an intruder, child shooting a playmate while playing with the gun, or even (my personal favorite) inadvertantly shooting yourself! Nameless statistic fun for the whole family!


Originally posted by diamondback
Scumbags on the street know who's afraid and who's an easy target and pass up people who might be armed.

How exactly does a "scumbag" know who is and who is not armed? Can he see the gun in your pocket? I could carry a plastic squirt gun and get the exact same effect (it's a lot cheaper too - 50 cents at Walgreens, tops). Fear sensor? This seems a little unreliable - the Mike Tyson look-alike could be as harmless as a kitten, while the stereotypical scared little girl could be packing an uzi. You never know. Besides, if "scumbags" can smell fear, why can't I? Is there a special school where they learn this or something?



Originally posted by diamondback
The real question is our we subjects(property) of the government or citizens. We answered that back in 1776.

Sure we did. We gave 'em hell. But you know what? That's really not relevant.

I'll answer your question: we are citizens, of the country mind you, not of the government. But what does this have to do with the licensed-to-carry-a-gun-in-a-British-style-gun-conrtol-city scumbag that can smell my fear, knows whether or not I am armed, and has a deep personal desire to help me become a statistic?

I totally agree with LightBoy. Very well written. The statistics that you’re most likely to become with your argumentation, diamondback, is one of those x (forgot the figure, but it’s high) accidental deaths of the 30.000 yearly US deaths caused by guns.

Zed Nelson’s (http://www.zednelson.com) exhibition Gun Nation may be an eye-opener.

http://www.zednelson.com/scans/Gun_thumbs/Gun_04_LAfamily_T.jpg

Originally posted by diamondback
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F08%2F17%2Fnguns17.xml

There's one link richard, got dozens more. By the way the most dangerous places in the US practice british style gun control (DC, NY, Chicago, LA, etc
I'm not sure about that. According to the US DoJ's 1998 Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of Community Safety (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvpcs98.pdf) study of twelve randomly chosen cities, cities like Tucson, Madison, Savannah and Knoxville have violent victimization rates higher than Chicago, or even Washington -- though NY had the highest. [The rate is based on survey data and not crime reports -- the rationale is that not all violent victimizations or crgimes are actually reported.]

Moreover, if you look at the FBI's Uniform Crime Report statistics, I think you'll find that cities like Atlanta and Dallas, which have very liberal gun laws, tend to have higher violent crime rates than New York...

Violent Crimes* Murders*
New York 1,268.5 10.5
Atlanata 3,048.5 35.6
Dallas 1,383.8 19.4
National Avg. 634.1 7.4

[1998 FBI figures, crimes per 100,000 inhabitants]

The problem with statistics, of course, is that they can be argued a number of ways. The point that I'm tring to make, though, is that there really isn't any quantitative support to your contention that gun control somehow encourages violent crime. I think you MIGHT make an argument that gun control does not discourage violent crime in America, though I'm not sure I would find it very convincing.

You also have to keep in mind that the vast majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by people who know the victims. The threat isn't some stranger against whose predations you must protect yourself. It's your neighbours, family, friends and coworkers. I'm not sure how access to firearms would help you in such situations.

Originally posted by diamondback
The real question is our we subjects(property) of the government or citizens. We answered that back in 1776.
That is the popular myth, of course, but the truth about the American revolution is considerably more complex. Even at its most simplistic, the American Revolution was never about the repudiation of government; it was about the rejection of one government and the creation of another.

I was actually surprised on a trip to DC to find that it is illegal to buy a handgun in the DC area. Of course, you can BUY a handgun in the nieghborhing states of Virginia and Maryland, which is obviously what everyone does, considering the horrendous rate of homicide and death by handgun in DC.

Let's not turn this into a debate about gun control, shall we? I've learned that these debates are futile. Anyone who is determined to have a weapon will think of millions of reasons to justify it. However, even if you are a total gun nut, you have to realize how utterly wacko it is to carry a gun when cycling? Instead of jumping to that stage, suppose we tyry to make things BETTER for cyclists, other ways to protect them from the braindead, mouthbreathing yahoos in the aforementioned story.

I read about that earlier today. To hell with guns! Let's just lock those guys in a room with a huge mean dog, after we've smeared them with hamburger. Fortunately, at least they got one of the morons, although he'll probably get very little, if any jail time.

"It is true that negotiating vehicles past training cyclists can be tricky at times, mostly because few Gold Coast roads provide an adequate shoulder onto which the cyclists can move to make room for passing cars."

This is the problem.

Any driver should know that it is the responsibility of the passing vehicle to ensure adequate passing space.

To suggest that it is the responsibility of the vehicle in front to "move over and allow" a rearward vehicle to pass is in violation of the law. It is always the responsibility of the passing vehicle to allow three feet passing space between them and any bicyclist.

Please, correct this foolish citizen!

:confused:

(ok, so this is about intentional violence. but intentional/unintentional--violence is violence....)

Originally posted by wabbit
Fortunately, at least they got one of the morons, although he'll probably get very little, if any jail time.
Fortunately, life has a way of teaching morons...

Originally posted by Pete Clark
"It is true that negotiating vehicles past training cyclists can be tricky at times, mostly because few Gold Coast roads provide an adequate shoulder onto which the cyclists can move to make room for passing cars."

This is the problem.

Any driver should know that it is the responsibility of the passing vehicle to ensure adequate passing space.

The really scary part is that Pete seems to know more about Australian traffic laws than most of the drivers in this country. The law clearly states that the passing vehicle should leave a metre of space between itself and the passee (is 'passee a word?).

And let's be pragmatic here. Is waiting for 3 or even 30 seconds to pass a cyclist really going to ruin somebody's day? Why don't they just get up five minutes earlier?


Originally posted by wabbit
"
Fortunately, at least they got one of the morons, although he'll probably get very little, if any jail time.

This is the real problem. Unfortunately Australia's legal system is nowhere near sufficiently severe on violent crime in my view. The victim's words best summed it up: "how many more have to die?". It really is time something was done about these terrorists.

Originally posted by swekarl
Zed Nelson’s (http://www.zednelson.com) exhibition Gun Nation may be an eye-opener.

I also like Leslie Neilson's The Naked Gun

Oh, back to the original topic.

It's stories like this that make me glad to be a cyclist. It's people like this that give all motorists a bad name.

Originally posted by Allister
Oh, back to the original topic.

It's stories like this that make me glad to be a cyclist. It's people like this that give all motorists a bad name.

I suppose the thing to remember is that these incidents are still very rare, and whilst we are more vunerable than motorists, most road rage incidents involve fellow motorists.

To be fair to motorists, I've met very few true idiots, and many considerate motorists. The majority of times drivers cause a problem is through carelessness rather than malice.

Richard

I just thought I'd like to add my thoughts on this...

It seems that Diamondback feels that gun control would put him at some sort of competitive disadvantage compared to the "Scumbags" who would act in a violent manner. Perhaps we can draw a few parallels here.

Many people who drive SUVs/4WDs say that they are "safer" than ordinary cars. What they value is the feeling of protection offered by a larger, heavier vehicle, and they don't ever need to use the off-road ability (if it exists) of such a vehicle. But as we all know, this isn't really the case. What they are doing is shifting the onus onto other road users to similarly protect themselves: in fact, the roads become less safe as SUVs are harder to control and as they are heavier other road users suffer more in an accident. It is selfish, but understandable, to wish to compete with other road users in this way.

Now if there are guns in circulation, then we have a similar situation. It is easier for those who would want to abuse the privilege of ownership to obtain them, simply because they are more widely available. So although I might feel safer, society as a whole would be a more dangerous place.

I wouldn't want to drive an SUV, nor would I want to own a gun. I can understand why people might want to do either or both, but it doesn't solve the problem to do so; it adds to it.

Originally posted by Richard D
To be fair to motorists, I've met very few true idiots, and many considerate motorists. The majority of times drivers cause a problem is through carelessness rather than malice.


It became apparent to me at North Burleigh yesterday that even after all of the publicity last week, nothing has changed here on the Gold Coast. As of now, I am adopting Roughstuff's "cycling in dangerous places" approach. Eyes and ears open, mouth shut!

It's a sad state of affairs. :(

Originally posted by Richard D


I suppose the thing to remember is that these incidents are still very rare, and whilst we are more vunerable than motorists, most road rage incidents involve fellow motorists.

To be fair to motorists, I've met very few true idiots, and many considerate motorists. The majority of times drivers cause a problem is through carelessness rather than malice.

Richard

I guess the irony in my last post wasn't imediately apparent.

I was parodying the oft' heard, but nonetheless ludicrous claim that a cyclist flouting some law or other somehow gives all cyclists 'a bad name'. It is an even more ludicrous leap of logic that this then justifies even the most violent assault on any cyclist whether they are breaking the law or not.

True most motorists don't think this way, and most act reasonably on the road, but the same is true of cyclists and i get tired of hearing the idea that somehow cyclists bring this road rage on themselves.

Originally posted by ChrisF
Many people who drive SUVs/4WDs say that they are "safer" than ordinary cars. What they value is the feeling of protection offered by a larger, heavier vehicle, and they don't ever need to use the off-road ability (if it exists) of such a vehicle. But as we all know, this isn't really the case. What they are doing is shifting the onus onto other road users to similarly protect themselves: in fact, the roads become less safe as SUVs are harder to control and as they are heavier other road users suffer more in an accident. It is selfish, but understandable, to wish to compete with other road users in this way.

The protection afforded by an SUV's greater mass and "crush space" is more than offset by the danger of rollover and the more efficient transmission of deceleration forces to the occupants.

If I am ever bicycling the Gold Coast I want to go bicycling with you Diamondback. To me the gun laws are irrelevant here because it is criminal act to sideswipe someone for the purpose of doing bodily harm. If I had the choice, I take a freaking car and run over those sick bastards. The only advice I can give is move out of there now and come to San Diego and meet real people and real surfers

Hells bells. Lets just annex these boroughs of liberalism. I don’t like the idiots in Florida who don’t now how to vote and think élan deserves a shrine, I don’t want to be shot in DC or smoke crack with their mayor, The only thing good from Chicago is a hot dog and pizza because everything else is corrupt and L A Smells.

Originally posted by RetroLung
If I am ever bicycling the Gold Coast I want to go bicycling with you Diamondback. To me the gun laws are irrelevant here because it is criminal act to sideswipe someone for the purpose of doing bodily harm.

Ummm, the guy is being charged with assault, what exactly do you want?


Originally posted by RetroLung

If I had the choice, I take a freaking car and run over those sick bastards.

So would I. Unfortunately, I can't think of any place where the law works like that.


Originally posted by RetroLung

The only advice I can give is move out of there now and come to San Diego and meet real people and real surfers.

There are 400,000 people here. I don't think you can accurately generalise this small group to that number. And what exactly are "real surfers?" Are they Stan Zemanek's "dole bludgers" or something?


Originally posted by RetroLung

Hells bells. Lets just annex these boroughs of liberalism. I don’t like the idiots in Florida who don’t now how to vote and think élan deserves a shrine, I don’t want to be shot in DC or smoke crack with their mayor, The only thing good from Chicago is a hot dog and pizza because everything else is corrupt and L A Smells.

So what exactly does that lot mean? Oh, hang on, let me guess, it means we should elect a bunch of conservatives with policies aimed at the lowest common denominator in society, who are likely to ban bicycles from public roads because we are "a minority group who upsets the majority" (i.e. the motoring primate)?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't have a clue what you're trying to conclude with your final paragraph.

Originally posted by Chris L
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't have a clue what you're trying to conclude with your final paragraph.

I think this is some sort of personal, whine about whatever the heck I want, relevency be damned sort of thing.

Maybe we should ask Joe to move it to the rants section?

Well I guess if I was a bleeding hart labial I couldn't drive my mountain bike down a mountain because it impacts nature to much. Did you see my post EVERY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIKE AREA FACES CLOSURE! I guess not. We bikers have as much right to the road as anyone else but yet we are not getting it. I like to see these guys who did this prosecuted for ATTEMPTED MURDER. If they were drunk they probably would of done it.

I am sorry if the pun was offensive to you. Let me explain. I think CA has much better waves then FL. With the exception of a couple of nazi here and there, I would say we are mostly laid back and into a now and Zen kind of thing. I do believe that my surfing buddies and I would hut someone down and publicly prosecute them if they did this to one of our locals, Surfer or non-surfer. We take care of our own here. Don’t generalize me because I think owning and caring a gun is wrong. I was making a joke about locations and the people that live there and I guess that was wrong and once again I apologize if you took it the wrong way. But at least I wasn’t making judgments on individuals based on generalizations. I am not a republican, I am a free man.

Originally posted by RetroLung
Well I guess if I was a bleeding hart labial I couldn't drive my mountain bike down a mountain because it impacts nature to much. Did you see my post EVERY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIKE AREA FACES CLOSURE! I guess not.

I saw your post, and I agreed with it to a point. However, I feel the need for areas of different classification in terms of what can be done there. This doesn't relate only to impact on nature, but also relates to what people want to do.

I'll give you an example. I do a lot of bushwalking (hiking) as well as mountainbiking and other things. When I go to Lamington National Park, I do so because I want to go bushwalking. There are other areas (such as Nerang State Forest, Hinze Dam, and many around Murwillumbah) where I can go mountainbiking if I so desire.

The fact is, there are some (not all) mountain bikers who do disturb other users of an area. I don't see why they can't have their own areas to muck around in, and leave some for other people. This is not being a "bleeding heart liberal", this is merely having a different interpretation about people's rights.


Originally posted by RetroLung
We bikers have as much right to the road as anyone else but yet we are not getting it. I like to see these guys who did this prosecuted for ATTEMPTED MURDER. If they were drunk they probably would of done it.

Fair comment. Although in this country (I'm actually in Australia), they'd probably get exonerated if they were drunk.


Originally posted by RetroLung
I am sorry if the pun was offensive to you. Let me explain. ... I am not a republican, I am a free man.

I was not offended, I just didn't understand what you were talking about. In any case, the Gold Coast I refer to is not actually in Florida, it's in South Queensland on the east coast of Australia.

Good Point. I just don't class myself in one group. I tend to be left on some issues and right on others. Free thought I would say. Some days I feel like rideing on the road and some days I ride on the moutain.