Road raging pillocks in Perth

Theo Bekkers

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> Before the police did anything about it, the young lad presented
>> himself at his local police station with his dad to report the
>> incident and his part in it.
>>
>> You've got to give him (and/or his dad) marks for that.

> Him, not necessarily. We don't know.

That's why I said "or his dad".

> I suspect he turned up at home with a few dents on the car, and dad
> asked him what happened, and he couldn't think of a suitable lie in
> time. But I display bias against this guy because I think that anyone
> who's capable of deliberately aiming at a bunch of fellow human beings
> probably wouldn't have the moral makeup and be the kind of person who
> would show up to a police station voluntarily.

We don't know that either. I suspect that the scenario may have been a
little skewed in the telling. Try this:-

Young Yobbo toots at stupid cyclists in his way to demonstrate to his mates
in the car that he actually has a dick and it is a really lbig one. (you
with me so far?) There is a red light in front of him and he stops. Cyclists
catch up, knock on his window and politely advise him that he was placing
them in great personal danger with his tooting and that they were not
breaking any laws by riding two abreast (it didn't actually say whether they
were or not). Young Yobbo is so incenced by this that he runs over several
cyclists.

I have a problem at this point. I personally very much doubt that the
cyclists were quite as polite as they said they were. I've been there and I
wasn't.

Young Yobbo puts it in reverse and backs over a cyclist. Hmm. why would he
do that? Was there perhaps one of the polite cyclists blocking him from
going forward? Backwards is generally not the quickest method of escape.
Young Yobbo stops going backwards, aware that he has hit something, and goes
forward, runs over another cyclist. Was this perhaps the cyclist that caused
him to back up in the first place? Maybe even moved in front of him to
attempt to block his escape.

Maybe you can suggest a different scenario, and maybe the real story is
something else again. We'll probably never know.

> 3 people in a car run over a bunch of cyclists, with each participant
> attracting 2 years in jail (and is required to restitute the victims)
> if they were all sentenced, and only 1 turns up to police? He gets 6
> years in jail, and pays the full compensation amount himself.

You think it fair and just to punish people for what other people did?

> Would hopefully encourage people not to cover for their stupid mates.
> Course, they'd be less likely to turn up to police at all, but you
> could get around that by fooling with the prisoner's dilemma. Own up
> yourself, and get off lighter. Be dobbed in, get a heavier penalty.
> Fail to dob in people, get a heavier still penalty.

Not sure I agree with you on this last bit.

Theo

Sir Lex

Travis wrote:
> No doubt we'll be hearing a lot more about this around here, but
> police are currently interviewing a 19 year old who alledgedly mowed
> down a group of cyclists in Perth's northern suburbs this morning,
> fortunately causing only light injuries.
>
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.a...ContentID=59164
>
> There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
> usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
> riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
> cars.
>
> Travis

Apparently my reply within the discussion topic was too offensive, as it
has been removed. What do you think? My reply is below. This is the
extended version, I had to remove a few lines to fit within the 5000
character limit on TheWest:


Why is it so difficult for bicycle riders and drivers to get along in
this country? It is truly an embarrassment to see yet another series of
blog posts containing opinions along the lines of "bicycles should be
registered". No other developed countries have a registration scheme
for bikes, why can't we let this absurd idea go? If bicycles are
registered, we should also register wheel chairs, skate boards, shopping
trolleys. After all, these wheeled tools are also human powered and can
prove a danger if used inappropriately.

Those complaining about cyclists riding two abreast, have you considered
that this is a form of self preservation on the part of the cyclists,
rather than a deliberate attempt to hold motorists up? How many
cyclists have you passed, or have you seen passed at close distance
because the motorist was able to "just squeeze" past the cyclist,
instead of waiting 10 seconds for a safer opportunity to pass? Having a
vehicle quickly slip by at a distance of centimetres is an extremely
nerve racking experience for cyclists. So, many will deliberately
prevent it from happening. By riding two abreast, or riding in the
centre of a lane (both perfectly legal activities) cyclists are actively
preventing motorists from passing them at an unsafe distance. If
motorists weren't so aggressive towards cyclists and completely moved
into another lane when passing them *AS IS REQUIRED BY AUSTRALIAN LAWS*,
then cyclists could afford not to ride in such a selfish manner.

Cyclists running red lights is an unacceptable problem. As a cyclist
who commutes, a motorcycle rider and regular car driver, I can safely
say that that I see far more cyclists run red lights than car drivers.
That said, I see far more motorists exceeding speed limits, tailgating
each other, illegally passing cyclists at unsafe distances, etc, than I
see cyclists running red lights. Those who contemplate, or even
jokingly suggest running cyclists off the road when you see a rider
break a law, why don't you also contemplate, or jokingly suggest,
pulling out a gun and having a shot at any motorists you see breaking
any road laws, including family, friends, or even yourself. Severe,
beyond stupid, incredibly dangerous, as well as totally and utterly
unjustified? I agree. What's the difference between shooting at a
motorist, and deliberately driving your several tonne piece of machinery
at a person on a bicycle? I see none. Both are inherently dangerous,
and you're likely to end up getting someone seriously injured or killed.
Of course I am not suggesting you shoot a gun at anyone, I am simply
drawing what I see to be a realistic comparison.

I have a simple solution to all these issues. Cyclists and pedestrians
are the most vulnerable users of our roads, therefore, motorists should
be completely responsible for not causing injury to these road users.
Some European countries already have such laws in place. Motorists are
legally required to take into account the unpredictable manoeuvres that
cyclists and/or pedestrians may demonstrate (such as tripping over,
loosing balance, etc), and are therefore held at fault for almost all
motor vehicle vs pedestrian/cyclist collisions. The result: Motorists
slow down, give cyclists and pedestrians lots of room, making naturally
aspirated transport a far more pleasant experience. As a result of the
more pleasant experience, more people take up cycling and walking,
equalling less cars on the road, equalling a more pleasant driving
experience for those that must use motorised transport. Makes sense
doesn't it?

We live in a country whose population is embarrassingly obese, whose
city streets are becoming more and more clogged, and whose children are
hermits who prefer to stay indoors playing computer games than heading
out catch up with friends. We live in a world where melting ice caps is
becoming more and more apparent, and where petrol prices are sky
rocketing. Why is it that two forms of transport that are immediately
available to many, many people, and would aid in solving all these
problems, that is being embraced by developed countries all over the
world, is still shunned upon by so many of our population?

percrime

TimC wrote:
> On 2008-02-20, Adrian.Tritschler@gmail.com (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> On Feb 20, 3:10?pm, Graeme Dods <GraemeD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This came up at work yesterday and I was pleasantly surprised by the
>>> fact that everyone seemed to be of the opinion that cyclists have
>>> every right to be on the road, and if you get delayed by them for a
>>> wee while just chill out and live with it.
>> How well does their opinion when they're standing around chatting at
>> work reflect their behaviour when "anonymous" out there in their cars
>> and stuck in traffic and they perceive themselves to be held up by
>> some other-species cyclist?
>>
>> Does it then become "you have every right to be on the road, so long
>> as it isn't the road I'm using or you're not holding me up at all"
>
> I once met a cute girl who, when we started talking, revealed she
> didn't mind cyclists, as long as they didn't hold her up. And she was
> a country girl too, so presumably wouldn't be held up often.
>
> Ugh. Funny how people become instantly less attractive.
>

Noticed that myself.

TimC

On 2008-02-25, Sir Lex (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Apparently my reply within the discussion topic was too offensive, as it
> has been removed. What do you think? My reply is below. This is the
> extended version, I had to remove a few lines to fit within the 5000
> character limit on TheWest:

<snip>

Why? Because it doesn't fit in with "Is your News Limited"'s agenda.

--
TimC
My cats are forbidden from walking on my computer keyboard on the desk
when I'm asdfjjhhkl;ljfd.;oier' puyykmm4hbdm9lo9j USING IT. --unknown

PeteSig

"Sir Lex" wrote:
>
> Apparently my reply within the discussion topic was too offensive, as it
> has been removed. What do you think? My reply is below. This is the
> extended version, I had to remove a few lines to fit within the 5000
> character limit on TheWest:
>
>
> Why is it so difficult for bicycle riders and drivers to get along in this
> country? It is truly an embarrassment to see yet another series of blog
> posts containing opinions along the lines of "bicycles should be
> registered". No other developed countries have a registration scheme for
> bikes, why can't we let this absurd idea go?....

<snip(regretfully)>

> We live in a country whose population is embarrassingly obese, whose city
> streets are becoming more and more clogged, and whose children are hermits
> who prefer to stay indoors playing computer games than heading out catch
> up with friends. We live in a world where melting ice caps is becoming
> more and more apparent, and where petrol prices are sky rocketing. Why is
> it that two forms of transport that are immediately available to many,
> many people, and would aid in solving all these problems, that is being
> embraced by developed countries all over the world, is still shunned upon
> by so many of our population?

You have hit the nail on the head, of course. We can all see it, even many
car drivers. But so few are prepared to make the changes that are needed.
This is the role ofr some serious government encouragement a la the European
approach, eg the Netherlands
http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/...ntry.php?id=167

Your letter should be bottled as compulsory reading for every political
leader!


--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Theo Bekkers

PeteSig wrote:

> You have hit the nail on the head, of course. We can all see it, even
> many car drivers. But so few are prepared to make the changes that
> are needed. This is the role ofr some serious government
> encouragement a la the European approach, eg the Netherlands
> http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/...ntry.php?id=167
>
> Your letter should be bottled as compulsory reading for every
> political leader!

Interesting line from your url
"Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle owners,
using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of bike lanes and
trails"

That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle infrastructure
would sir like to buy? :-)

The flatness of the countryside makes it possible for everyone to cycle, and
even a bakkie can carry huge loads on level ground. As the article says
(remembering it originates from the US) the narrow streets and close
distances due to high population density makes everything within bicycle
reach. When I was a kid in Holland (I left in 1953 aged 10) everyone rode,
and there were few cars. There was a huge bicycle infrastructure even then,
with cycle lanes on both sides of every street that was likely to carry even
a moderate amount of motor traffic.

Theo

PeteSig

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

> Interesting line from your url
> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle owners,
> using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of bike lanes
> and trails"
>
> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle infrastructure
> would sir like to buy? :-)
>
> The flatness of the countryside makes it possible for everyone to cycle,
> and even a bakkie can carry huge loads on level ground. As the article
> says (remembering it originates from the US) the narrow streets and close
> distances due to high population density makes everything within bicycle
> reach. When I was a kid in Holland (I left in 1953 aged 10) everyone rode,
> and there were few cars. There was a huge bicycle infrastructure even
> then, with cycle lanes on both sides of every street that was likely to
> carry even a moderate amount of motor traffic.

Yes, I was looking for another on-line document I had read, from some Dutch
transport planners, but can't find it.

They made it very clear (supported with graphs of data) that the Dutch
cycling use was declining rapidly during the 50s, 60s and early 70s, with a
mirror image increase in cyclist road deaths. The rise of the Dutch auto
culture was brought to a halt by the 1973 oil shock, and since then their
attitude to cars, cities and people has changed dramatically. Cycle use has
climbed steadily (not quite to the levels of the early 50s when you were
there, Theo, but about 3-4 times more than it was in the early 70s) and
there has been a corresponding decline in cycle deaths. And guess what? All
without the need to resort to helmet compulsion.

This document set out very clearly the whole range of traffic, legal and
social changes that have been used to change Dutch transport preferences and
keep their cities far more sustainable and human-friendly. Start with the
presumption that all drivers of motor vehicles must legally atke action to
avoid collisions with cyclists and pedestrians, add the heay taxes and
charges on ownershi and use of motor vehicles in cities, town planning
controls to ensure cities are kept to a high density, closure of streets for
human powered transport etc, etc.....

It's a lot more than simply a flat landscape. Oh and by the way, both parts
of Perth and Melbourne's northern, southern and western suburbs have a
relatively flat terrian, much like Amsterdam!

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Graeme Dods

On Feb 26, 9:57 pm, "PeteSig" <pete...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> It's a lot more than simply a flat landscape. Oh and by the way, both parts
> of Perth and Melbourne's northern, southern and western suburbs have a
> relatively flat terrian, much like Amsterdam!

From my few trips to the Netherlands, I would say Perth is positively
mountainous in comparison. On my one brief cycle ride there I was
happy to be given (by the hotel where I was staying) a typical Dutch
"sit up and beg" bike as it was perfect for the terrain. However I did
find a couple of flaws; one in the design of the bike and one in the
design of the Netherlands. First, you may need a lower gear than the
standard 3 speed offers if riding into the wind, and second, the place
is so flat that when the wind picks up there's nowhere to hide!

The cycle paths were fairly good, but at each junction (and even on
the outskirts of a small place like Veldhoven there were a lot of
them) you were supposed to track back up the side road and wait at the
crossing. This lengthened and slowed the journey by a fair bit. In the
end I rode on the road and just joined in with the cars, it was much
less hassle.

Graeme

Theo Bekkers

Graeme Dods wrote:

> From my few trips to the Netherlands, I would say Perth is positively
> mountainous in comparison. On my one brief cycle ride there I was
> happy to be given (by the hotel where I was staying) a typical Dutch
> "sit up and beg" bike as it was perfect for the terrain. However I did
> find a couple of flaws; one in the design of the bike and one in the
> design of the Netherlands. First, you may need a lower gear than the
> standard 3 speed offers if riding into the wind, and second, the place
> is so flat that when the wind picks up there's nowhere to hide!

How do you think they powered all those windmills? :-)

> The cycle paths were fairly good, but at each junction (and even on
> the outskirts of a small place like Veldhoven there were a lot of
> them)

Snap! My grandfather lived in Veldhoven, my father was born there, and my
aunt still lives in the same house.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

PeteSig wrote:

> Yes, I was looking for another on-line document I had read, from some
> Dutch transport planners, but can't find it.
>
> They made it very clear (supported with graphs of data) that the Dutch
> cycling use was declining rapidly during the 50s, 60s and early 70s,
> with a mirror image increase in cyclist road deaths. The rise of the
> Dutch auto culture was brought to a halt by the 1973 oil shock, and
> since then their attitude to cars, cities and people has changed
> dramatically. Cycle use has climbed steadily (not quite to the levels
> of the early 50s when you were there, Theo, but about 3-4 times more
> than it was in the early 70s) and there has been a corresponding
> decline in cycle deaths. And guess what? All without the need to
> resort to helmet compulsion.

What? It's not helmets that save lives?

> It's a lot more than simply a flat landscape. Oh and by the way, both
> parts of Perth and Melbourne's northern, southern and western suburbs
> have a relatively flat terrian, much like Amsterdam!

No way is that true of Perth Pete. Unless you're following the river or the
coast, Perth is mountainous compared to Amsterdam.

Fairly flat where my son lives in Cranbourne Vic.

Theo

lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com

On Feb 26, 10:59 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> PeteSig wrote:
> > You have hit the nail on the head, of course. We can all see it, even
> > many car drivers. But so few are prepared to make the changes that
> > are needed. This is the role ofr some serious government
> > encouragement a la the European approach, eg the Netherlands
> >http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/...ntry.php?id=167
>
> > Your letter should be bottled as compulsory reading for every
> > political leader!
>
> Interesting line from your url
> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle owners,
> using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of bike lanes and
> trails"
>
> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle infrastructure
> would sir like to buy? :-)

Just hit everyone in the same manner that they do for the roads, no
need to single out cyclists. Perhaps it would encourage more people
to cycle since they've already paid for it. Although my tax pays for
a shitload of roadworks in Shitney and I feel no desire to drive down
there and get my moneys worth, so maybe not.

Theo Bekkers

lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Interesting line from your url
>> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle
>> owners, using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of
>> bike lanes and trails"
>>
>> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
>> infrastructure would sir like to buy? :-)

> Just hit everyone in the same manner that they do for the roads, no
> need to single out cyclists. Perhaps it would encourage more people
> to cycle since they've already paid for it. Although my tax pays for
> a shitload of roadworks in Shitney and I feel no desire to drive down
> there and get my moneys worth, so maybe not.

Oh no, the Dutch are held up as a shining example of a country who obviously
got bicycling right. I think we need to 'heavily tax bicycle owners' to get
the bicycle infrastructure we need. :-)

Theo

lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com

On Feb 27, 9:31 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> Interesting line from your url
> >> "Between 1924 and 1940, the Dutch government heavily taxed bicycle
> >> owners, using the money to build what is now a nationwide network of
> >> bike lanes and trails"
>
> >> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
> >> infrastructure would sir like to buy? :-)
> > Just hit everyone in the same manner that they do for the roads, no
> > need to single out cyclists. Perhaps it would encourage more people
> > to cycle since they've already paid for it. Although my tax pays for
> > a shitload of roadworks in Shitney and I feel no desire to drive down
> > there and get my moneys worth, so maybe not.
>
> Oh no, the Dutch are held up as a shining example of a country who obviously
> got bicycling right. I think we need to 'heavily tax bicycle owners' to get
> the bicycle infrastructure we need. :-)
>
> Theo


I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
thanks :-)

Theo Bekkers

lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com wrote:

> I know the point you're making here, but I'm taxed heavily enough
> thanks :-)

I negotiated a serious payrise recently and I'm retiring next year. So i'm
putting all of the payrise, which would have been taxed at 40.5c in the $
into Super, where it is taxed at 15c in the $. I get it back next year with
no additional taxes to pay. That will save me $19,000 in taxes in 18 months.

And no, I don't want to invest it in bicycle infrastructure for you either.
:-)

Theo