Re: Sydney Bicycle accident

George, you are one very confused puppy.

On May 15, 9:42 am, "George W. Frost" <fro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > No. Priority is for 'vehicles', which include bicycles.
>
> Not when a bicycle rider gets the first word in.

you mean they have 'right of way'? Funny that.

> >> The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over pedestrians on
the=

> >> footpath, pedestrians must keep out of their way
>
> > Illegal in NSW for bicycles to ride on footpaths (excluding kids, but
> > again, peds have right of way)
>
> Again, not here in Vic, the bicycle rider is encouraged to ride on the
> footpath
> it keeps them off the road and "safe"

Bull****.

  For someone who lives in Vic, you are pretty ignorant of the rules
down there:

Extracts from Vic road rules
" 250:
(1) The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must not ride
on a footpath.
=2E.
(3) The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must=97
=2E.
  (b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path."


> >> The bicycle rider has got almost total priority over anything and
> >> everything
> >> on the roads, cars must keep out of their way
>
> > How so? Road rules apply to cyclists, too.
>
> Not when it it refers to pack riders, according to them

  So what? Book the ****ers if they're breaking the law and they might
start complying.  Just like some motorists might start complying with
red lights, stop signs, no-talking on mobiles, etc if shown the
financial penalities involved with non compliance.

  I don't know why you're so worried about packs, anyway. The two-
abreast rule says cyclists can ride side by side, up to 1.5m apart.
ie: take up the whole lane. Logic says thet if they fail to follow
that rule (eg: ride 3-4 abreast in a lane), they will take up LESS of
the road space and you can overtake them more quickly.

> >> The bicycle rider has got the Victorian Government to back down on
its
> >> rule
> >> of no bicycles on trains during peak periods
>
> > In NSW, we have to buy an extra ticket.
>
> Victorian bicycle riders would take you to the Supreme Court if
necessary =
to
> object and claim discrimination

The vic rail decision was reversed because vic rail stopping allowing
any bicycles on trains during peak hours at all, not because they were
charged extra.

   duncan