Mark Maccar alleged to have kicked pedestrian after running overher

I'm interested to know whether ppl here have had to put that instruction
into practice, and what the outcome was. Canberra has roos in bloody plague
proportions - some "Roo Handling" suggestions might be a lifesaver. The
little buggers (and some of them aren't so little!) are everywhere...

betty

 

Respectfully disagree

I found a track school (as opposed to a track day) improved some things a
lot - having someone with XXX years experience watch you, explain,
demonstrate and then practice until you got it right was really helpful,
especially for a very ordinary rider.

And the I found the skills do transfer across to the road, at least at kindy
or L1 level.

I suspect you may be right as the levels get higher though; gonna keep at
the track over time so we'll see.

Take care - Andrew

 

The only time I tried the tip was coming home, at night, riding a Kwaka
GT750. I had just come round a 90% bend, and heading up a bit of a hill,
so I was doing maybe 60 kph, in second or third gear...don't actually
remember the gear.

A large, and, of course, black, dog shot out from the shadows, right in
front of me, very close. I skipped around the braking, and just nailed
the throttle. There was a bit of a thump, then a head shake from the
bike. I think I hit the dog with the front wheel, then a glancing blow
with the left hand engine protector bar.

I stopped, but there was no sign of the dog. <shrug>

FWIW, the theory is that the bike is less likely to fall over if it is
heading straight, and under throttle.

So, as they say, "Worked for me!"

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Feel free.

Yup. I totally agree that Level 1 is useful for pretty much all riders.

L2 was, to me, a great disappointment. Perhaps it was good for would be
racers. Too much track stuff for my taste.

I haven't done L3 & 4, but they are definitely aimed at track riding.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 04 May 2009 07:51:18 +1000

The L2 I went on was shambolically organised, and poorly taught. I
was very unhappy.

Zebee

 

Yes, I noticed.

I,too, was underwhelmed.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Rubbish. There is no such thing as "negligence" on the part of
pedestrians, only licensed road users.

If you hit a pedestrian, that means you were not driving/riding
safely. You are required to stop in time to avoid any collision with
anything. People who have trouble doing this are driving/riding at
unsafespeeds.

 

Rubbish. There is no such thing as "negligence" on the part of
pedestrians, only licensed road users.

If you hit a pedestrian, that means you were not driving/riding
safely. You are required to stop in time to avoid any collision with
anything. People who have trouble doing this are driving/riding at
unsafespeeds.

The thing that is rubbish here is that statement. You sir are a wanker.

Pedestrians who are drunk are negligent
Pedestrians who wear Ipods and blindly step away from the footpath into the
path of oncoming vehicles are negligent
Pedestrians who cross the road anywhere without exercising due care are
negligent

Being a pedestrian doesn't indemnify you from any responsibility.

People often hit pedestrians and are not charged as the pedestrian is
deemed, in that situation, to be wholly in the wrong.

I personally know of a truck driver who ran over and killed a pedestrian and
was never even charged, with anything. Made a mess of his life for a while
though.

Please think before you post such rubbish

Oh maybe you are trolling, if so you got me

Capt. A. L.

 

When I hit the wallaby on Corin Dam Road on Christmas Day that was
exactly what I did - brake very, very hard, washing off speed until a
collision was inevitable, then release the brakes and power up to
stabilise the bike. The resulting head shake after the collision was
scary but I'm convinced if I'd still been on the brakes when we hit I
would have sent the more unstable bike skating down the road, with me
after it.

Mind you, nobody taught me that, and I doubt you would do it just
because you were shown the technique on a Stay Upright course.

Apparently there are a couple of sites in the ACT where Defence wouldn't
object if you used the roos for target practice on your motorcycle, if
you really want to perfect the technique.

 

Ditto the L4 re-run I did errm 6 months ago (I forget), very unhappy.

JL
Whereas when I did L2-4 the first time back in umm 2002 I think, they
were pretty good

 

Am I right in thinking the uniform reactions here were to the California
Superbike people (alternating between Eastern Creek and Phillip Island)?

The L2 group when I did my L1 was huge and it was raining buckets all day.
Apart from the weather didn't pick up on too many festering mutinies in the
pits between sessions.

Was thinking of riding down to the Island to do L2 sometime soon; the
consensus here seems not to favour L2 and up?

Best, Andrew

 

Formerly Australian Superbike School now known as California SBK school
- Steve Brouggy etc

I got value out of 2 and 3, others have stated they didn't.

I got no value out of L4 the second time, the first was OK - the second
time was a huge set of bad customer experiences one on top of the other.

JL

 

are you serious?

 

I like the basis of the decision making!

I am not, however, convinced of the "swerve around it" bit of the plan.

I think I'd rather use up whatever traction may be available with braking.

The last-gasp throttle business might not be worth trying if the animal
is extremely large, such as a coo.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Indeed. Bonus tenderised koala for lunch.

coo: A genetically engineered cow mixed with roo?

 

No.

Coo, as in:-

As Ah wis walkin doon the road, Ah met a coo...a bull bigod!
As Ah wis walkin up the stair, Ah met a man who wisnae there.
He wisnae there again the day, Ah wish the hell he'd go away.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Why not? It's an entirely valid viewpoint. You are never wholly in the
right. You never have the right of way. You are required to ride in a
safe manner. You are required to avoid killing people, be they on
foot, in cars, or on bicycles. I think what causes a great number of
accidents is the firm belief thhat you have right of way and the other
person must give way to you. Non-contributary circumstance is very
rare.

Theo

 

Why not? It's an entirely valid viewpoint. You are never wholly in the
right. You never have the right of way. You are required to ride in a
safe manner. You are required to avoid killing people, be they on
foot, in cars, or on bicycles. I think what causes a great number of
accidents is the firm belief thhat you have right of way and the other
person must give way to you. Non-contributary circumstance is very
rare.

Theo

Why no, why not ? Because the statement " There is no such thing as
negligence on the part of pedestrians, only licenced road users" is absurd.

arthur.fonzzare was responding to the whole of the post, not the second
paragraph in isolation, that's why not.

Capt. A. L.

 

Mark maccar has brown skin it was on the videos

 

I apologise profusely for offending your sense of pedantry. Did you
ask Arthur which part he was responding to or did you just assume what
you wanted to infer?

Theo