Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I think both sides (talking globally here; not talking about people in this thread) have an arrogance that pisses each other off.

Cyclists that flaunt themselves on the road, taking liberties just to piss people off, and motorists that think the world revolves around them (ahem mums on the school run....) and nothing should ever get in their way.

Sounds to me like Daleo is a good example of a responsible cyclist, he isn't going to be the one taking up a whole lane on a single lane road, he'll wave you past when it's safe to do so. In turn, and in respect of that, I'd pass him giving him as much room as I safely can. That's all that needs to happen.

  • Like 2

I think both sides (talking globally here; not talking about people in this thread) have an arrogance that pisses each other off.

Cyclists that flaunt themselves on the road, taking liberties just to piss people off, and motorists that think the world revolves around them (ahem mums on the school run....) and nothing should ever get in their way.

Sounds to me like Daleo is a good example of a responsible cyclist, he isn't going to be the one taking up a whole lane on a single lane road, he'll wave you past when it's safe to do so. In turn, and in respect of that, I'd pass him giving him as much room as I safely can. That's all that needs to happen.

this.

and when I ride, I keep to the opposite side, so I can see on coming traffic.

I ride on the road(when no brake down/bike lanes are available), and move onto the mud/grass/gravel when a car does approach.

I want to see them coming.

that way, I can react accordingly.

I also dont wear a helmet (lets not get into that debate atm), and have never been booked for not.

but...

if I do get booked, my reaction will be taking an entire lane the entire trip.

because, thats the law....

dont ride much anymore, so doubt it will ever happen.

aaand, go...

this.

and when I ride, I keep to the opposite side, so I can see on coming traffic.

I ride on the road(when no brake down/bike lanes are available), and move onto the mud/grass/gravel when a car does approach.

I want to see them coming.

that way, I can react accordingly.

I also dont wear a helmet (lets not get into that debate atm), and have never been booked for not.

but...

if I do get booked, my reaction will be taking an entire lane the entire trip.

because, thats the law....

dont ride much anymore, so doubt it will ever happen.

aaand, go...

How is your crank bearing....?

Here's an interesting article from the US about the "Idaho Stop".
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride

It proposes some constructive solutions for getting bicycles off high traffic thoroughfares, which would be a win for both sides of the argument.

Not trying to inflame the situation, but there is some useful info in there, and the rule (or a version of it under a different name) has been in use in states across the US with fewer negative outcomes than the status quo.

Here's an interesting article from the US about the "Idaho Stop".

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride

It proposes some constructive solutions for getting bicycles off high traffic thoroughfares, which would be a win for both sides of the argument.

Not trying to inflame the situation, but there is some useful info in there, and the rule (or a version of it under a different name) has been in use in states across the US with fewer negative outcomes than the status quo.

Yeah, apparently cars are exempt from the laws of physics. Spot that line in there?

Frankly, I didn't think it was a very well written article, and it didn't sway my opinion that it is safer to have enforced stop and red lights.

If governments were serious about reducing carbon emissions, they wouldn't be installing traffic calming devices, red lights etc etc all the time. Imagine the carbon footprint of a new set of traffic lights over its lifetime?!

But that's ok, cause the government gets the cash from the fuel excise.... :/

Did you see the main point in there? Bicycles don't trigger the light circuit, so the lights will never change. I am sure many of the motorcyclists amongst us have blown a red for that very reason. I know I have had to many times over the years. Does this make me a criminal worthy of being stoned with spark plugs? Farkin wanker...

"Several states have similar "Dead Red" laws, which lets cyclists (and motorcyclists) ride through a red light if there's no traffic, if the cyclists have stopped for set periods of time, and if the light isn't changing because its sensor doesn't register bikes."

Yes, I can see that, after stopping for a set amount of time, the cyclist can proceed through the intersection. They might also be able to use that magical button on the side of most traffic lights that turns them red to allow people to cross... ;)

Anyway, thanks, when did I ever say I chuck plugs at cyclists....? I thought my posts were pretty neutral....

Wanker comment was directed at the bloke suggesting it.

Cyclists aren't allowed on the footpath, and quite often are clipped into their pedals. Magical button? It's for pedestrians. Yet again, there are no facilities for cyclists in most cases. These would need to be included in any bike rego process.

Wanker comment was directed at the bloke suggesting it.

Cyclists aren't allowed on the footpath, and quite often are clipped into their pedals. Magical button? It's for pedestrians. Yet again, there are no facilities for cyclists in most cases. These would need to be included in any bike rego process.

Carry a broom stick to push said button? :P

Then you can bash arsehole drivers who try to clip you, and also have a jousting session when you get to two lane bike paths! :D

  • Like 2

Bicycle jousting is the best solution this thread has produced.

Nice work Luke!

Brb, off to get a broomstick.

It wasn't saying that cars expend no energy to get moving from a standstill, just that the driver isn't the one physically getting the car moving again; unlike the bicycle.

Bicycle jousting is the best solution this thread has produced.

Nice work Luke!

Brb, off to get a broomstick.

It wasn't saying that cars expend no energy to get moving from a standstill, just that the driver isn't the one physically getting the car moving again; unlike the bicycle.

twasnt my idea, but I like it.

You shall be forced to mount the toddler tricycle for the first round of bicycle jousting.

Mmm K?

Nay, I shall be astride the toddlers balance bike.

Yea verily; it has newfangled yellow plastic wheels, and an ooga horn.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...