policing bikes

The feds have put heaps of pressure on the states to adopt uniform "federal"
road rules... but yes; I s'pose they didn't actually MAKE those rules...
Clem

 

Mike Doyle wrote;

You are omitting the "and then pull in front of another vehicle" bit.
Clem

 

I want red light cameras in every traffic light. Make them a

Here HERE! Finally some logic!

Nathan

 

"kiwipete" wrote

Whaddayamean "OUR".

Theo

 

there is no one answer as every situation is different, generally I think
its wrong if others have to take some action because of your actions. and
there is little chance of coming off and taking a few down with you.

I haven't been to any bike accidents on duty which is good.

and yes, there are a fair few anti biker cops, my traffic teacher ex
motorcycle cop, told me that he fined a biker who had come of after hitting
some gravel in the middle of the road, because he knew it was there and hit
it too fast today and fell off. not what id do personally. how ever there
are some cases were we are expected to take some action, I can not get away
with saying, nup he's a biker so I will just ignore it.

and im in country New South Wales, were the roads are strait, and everything
else is expensive, how ever if you want an 8l v8 ford f250 they have a dozen
new ones of them in the car lot, gives you an example of what ppl drive
around here.

stay upright
that copper dog

 

Don't really want to get drawn into this.
No doubt if we were to sit down and have a quiet beer
or whatever, we would probably agree more than disagree on most contentious
issues. Further we could support our views with lots of anecdotes.
However, I believe in the principle of the separation
of powers, and I don't agree with the idea of lobby
groups trying to influence the administration of the law.
If there is seen that there is a need for change, then that
should be pursued through the political process.
There will obviously be a variety of reasons why a
policeman will act in a given manner at any time; a
lobbyist must be an optimist to think that they are
likely to have a significant influence on that conduct.
There has been considerable discussion on lane-
splitting; there are established laws relating to that -
if possible, they should be enforced if violated.
One could go on.... hands of the police - tackle the
politicians and the intellectuals who influence the
former. Probably impossible but we have got enough
corruption as it is.
Rockit

 

OK, I'll spell it out, and you tell me where I went wrong.

In reponse to some loony who wanted no policing at all, you used a little
irony (although I suspect it was a tad sarcartic for my taste) and said "No
rules is best huh!"

You did not intend this statement should reflect your opinion. You were not
being misleading. You were using ironic agreement to highlight the
absurdity of the position taken by said loony. (So far so good?)

What you meant (and communicated quite effectively) was "No rules would be a
bad idea."

Then Zebee responded with "Hey! Works in Chechnya and the Congo and
Liberia!"

This comment was made in support of your intended meaning, by amplifying the
irony through the use of supporting examples drawn from what might be
referred to as 'loser' countries.
(still with me?)

You came back with "yep... just look at their place on the world stage!"
Now indicating the status of the nations Zebee had chosen to use as
exemplars of low level law enforcement was not in the least necessary. Every
other reader (with the possible exception of Boxer, who can be excused
because of his disability) understood precisely what Zebee had meant. But
you had to leap in and point out the bleeding obvious.

Your respons made it look like you had either mistaken the intent of Zebees
post, or you felt it was so obscure that it was necessary for you to explain
it to the rest of us. Both possibilities fit the words used.

This led to my "Whoosh", a fairly common means of indicationg that someone
has missed the point.

The reference to "tautology" was a means of suggesting that it was not
really novel to suggest that KP has missed the point.

Does that help?

Moike

 

<chuckle>

Moike

 

Whoosh again

 

haven't you see Gorillas in the midst?

--
KiwiPete's philosophy as quoted
"Do you want a medal for being pedantic... you knew exactly what I meant...
and if you didn't you are an idiot!"

Actually this is a good thread... and poses a very interesting point... so
perhaps you should stay out of it and let us adults get on with it...

I won't respond to you on this thread... I don't want to pull the tone down
and give you another pedestal...

 

I'd have to disagree based on the fact that practically every cop in a car who
has ever stopped me when I've been on the bike has claimed to have at least 10
years more road riding experience than me.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

I don't get it. What's wrong with pulling in front of another vehicle,
provided you don't delay that vehicle at all? My moral objection to
queue-jumping is that you cause someone else to be disadvantaged. If you're
going to take off slowly, don't do it. If you take off quickly, what's wrong
with it?

If I'm out riding with a couple of mates, we'll usually split to the front,
then move across in front of the other vehicles into adjacent lanes - that
way we can all move off quickly when the lights change and we don't delay
the rest of the traffic.

There's nothing more annoying than someone who splits to the front, knowing
you're following him/her, then stays smack-bang between the two front cars,
leaving you in no-man's-land. It's only happened to me a couple of times,
but I still think it's far more annoying (and dangerous) than moving to the
front of the traffic then moving over to let other people do the same.

 

what??? did kiwipete actually spell pedestal right?

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

Maybe Brisbane is different to Melbourne. It must be an expectation of
Melbourne drivers that bike riders will use their size and manoeuvrability
advantageously because it is very rare that I ever get the feeling that a
driver is not happy with my lane splitting.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

He spelt 'pedicure' wrong ...

-----sharks

 

andrewh wrote in message ...

Plenty; you are moving in front of that road user and taking away their
freedom. They were there before you but they now have to wait for you.
It doesn't matter if you take off at lightspeed (which 95% of the pricks I
see DON'T) you are still removing their freedom.
I suggest you sit in the passenger seat and observe some drivers if you
don't think you're unnecessarily pissing them off.
~

Why? Are you special? Do you deserve treatment better than all the other
road users?
~

Don't go up the middle if you think it's dangerous.
Clem

 

So what do you do after lane splitting? Lane split to the traffic
light, and sit between two cars? Do you then stay between the two cars
as all three off you take off? Unless you stay lane splitting for the
rest of your journey, never moving back into a lane, you will be moving
in front of other vehicles.

I don't wanna split hairs...I just am finding it hard to visualise lane
splitting without ever moving in front of someone else. I thought the
point of lane splitting was to get ahead of people.

Mike (confused)

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:45:33 +1000

If I read you corectly, the reason it isn't fine is that you are
blocking the other, and so if you don't take off fast enough there is a
problem?

Wouldn't not taking off fast enough while you are between cars be more
of a problem? And isn't it asking the drivers to predict which lane you
will eventually choose, plus requiring them to be absolutely straight in
their takeoff so they don't hit you?

So aren't you making life more difficult for them?

Zebee

 

Amazing! Apart from a few commas, it looks just like a Corks post.
Standardised Police training?

It is more coherent.

Theo

 

but when you lane split anywhere, you will rejoin the traffic queue at
some point. Either at the lights, or withing 100 meters or so the other
side. Either way, you are always pulling in front of someone.

Mike