Printable View
Ah, so now the conspiracy against cyclists extends to the entire Police force as well? I'm sure that's why he left the scene then, didn't want those biased Coppers asking him uncomfortable questions about why he smashed the mirror off someone's car - I get it now. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
Oh good grief, good old black-and-white thinking comes out again. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Homestar
You do understand about the fact that evidence existing of many uncaring police officers doesn't negate the existence of those that do indeed care deeply about justice for everyone? That the average cyclist's experience with the police might possibly indicate a systemic problem with their general indifference to justice? That police resources might be biased towards the wealthier classes?
Signing on as a police officer doesn't automatically make you a saint, neither does it automatically make you a crook. After all, the police force simply reflects our mainstream society of predominately conservative thinking. There is no longer a selection pressure to have a majority of old fashioned police officers who care about justice for all, including those they see as a lower class. ;)
I don't inhabit the mind of the mirror smashing bloke but I can at least imagine where he's coming from. He may indeed be a complete tosser but there is precedence for his act of desperation. Deal with the problem from both sides of the argument please, not just from a lofty pedestal of police infallibility. It's a shallow argument.
Bwaa ha ha....not this thread, it's gunna go longer, harder and in more circles than the Defender vs Disco thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco Muppet
I know right...Now we're moving on to the real issue; police as a weapon of class warfare....
:rolleyes:
Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app
Of course it's supposition, that was my point. There is an article which leads everyone to lay 100% blame on the other party based on 50% of the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
The cyclist did himself a real disservice by losing his cool because as soon as he actually damaged the woman's car, he effectively committed the greater offense of wilful damage. But no, he wouldn't lose his license for the action as demerit points only apply to licensed motoring offenses (at least in Qld). Since a license is not required to ride a bicycle, then you cannot receive demerit points on your drivers' license for cycling offenses in the same way a horse rider cannot lose demerit points.
BTW, the article you linked to relates to the idea of courts deciding to suspend peoples' drivers licenses for road rage which could then be expanded to apply to a range of non-motoring offenses. The idea is not targeted at cycling, but could apply to our mate in the article even if he was walking due to road rage.
Perhaps it should.Quote:
Originally Posted by solmanic
To use the road car drivers and truck drivers must be licensed. Why not cyclists?
Fair is fair. The law should be applied to all road users equally.
Oh, in the national road rules, they are. A cyclist can accrue points on their car license. Sadly, they don't require a license to ride a bike. Perhaps they should.
So if you lose your car licence,you can't ride the pushy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
That would be a PITA for many:(
AFAIK if a cyclist, or any other motorists runs up your arse when you tap the brakes it's their fault?:twisted:
trick questionQuote:
Originally Posted by frantic
it's always the cyclist fault.
Back in the 1960s, I think it was possible to lose your car licence and then get yourself a motorcycle licence. I doubt that would still be allowed.
My mate lost his car licence and for a short time tried using a push bike, but a couple of issues persuaded him to get a motorcycle licence instead.
The first problem was that he lived near the top of the south hill in Armidale and he found he was forever having to walk down the hill to retrieve his bike. It seems his friends were quite happy to "borrow" his bike to ride down to the main street, but were reluctant to ride the bike back up the hill.
The second problem was that he was given a severe talking to by the local police for "riding his bike furiously". He was riding home from church at the time. :)
As this incident occurred about half a century ago, I thought my recollection of the offence might have been faulty, so I had a look at the following site.
http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com...uted-offences/
It seems that it is indeed an offence to drive furiously, ride a pushbike furiously and in England it is even an offence to ride a horse furiously if you injure someone.
Even more bizarrely, this year in England, a pensioner has actually been found guilty of a 167 year old offence and one rarely prosecuted these days.
She was riding through the Surry countryside, ?furiously?, and it was reported to police by witnesses who were incensed at her refusal to slow down as she neared others and the fact that she was yelling at her horse. The 65 year old pleaded guilty to the charges and got a fine.
The relevant section of the Road Transport Act is here.
ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 2013 - SECT 117 Negligent, furious or reckless driving
So all you cyclists who ride "furiously", you have been warned. :p:p:p