Dave on TV

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

:::OT warning:: missing....

Were they deliberately blocking traffic??... fair enough if they were simply
being 'part' of the traffic to prove a point.. but it looked like they were
there just to p**s people off... Critical Mass on motorbikes... just what
the world needs..

flame on..
GPL

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

:::OT warning:: missing....

Were they deliberately blocking traffic??... fair enough if they were simply
being 'part' of the traffic to prove a point.. but it looked like they were
there just to p**s people off... Critical Mass on motorbikes... just what
the world needs..

flame on..
GPL

GPLama said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

:::OT warning:: missing....

Were they deliberately blocking traffic??... fair enough if they were simply
being 'part' of the traffic to prove a point.. but it looked like they were
there just to p**s people off... Critical Mass on motorbikes... just what
the world needs..

flame on..
GPL

200 motorcyclists riding exactly as the proposed laws require. Riding
as fast as circumstances permit. Doing everything according to the law,
just not lane splitting.

The same number of motorcyclists that that road absorbs every rush hour
without a problem. Most of em normal commuter traffic that would travel
that route anyway.

Just showing that the new laws will increase congestion, be more
dangeous for bikes and apparently increase road rage.

Dave

GPLama said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

:::OT warning:: missing....

Were they deliberately blocking traffic??... fair enough if they were simply
being 'part' of the traffic to prove a point.. but it looked like they were
there just to p**s people off... Critical Mass on motorbikes... just what
the world needs..

flame on..
GPL

200 motorcyclists riding exactly as the proposed laws require. Riding
as fast as circumstances permit. Doing everything according to the law,
just not lane splitting.

The same number of motorcyclists that that road absorbs every rush hour
without a problem. Most of em normal commuter traffic that would travel
that route anyway.

Just showing that the new laws will increase congestion, be more
dangeous for bikes and apparently increase road rage.

Dave

dave said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

mraa.org.aulane splitting.wmvOpen ↗

I spotted stealth kat! 🙂

dave said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

mraa.org.aulane splitting.wmvOpen ↗

I spotted stealth kat! 🙂

From todays Rage:

Rethink on Games traffic plan
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rethink-on-games-traffic-plan/2006/01/27/1138319450932.html

As you'll read in the article, the continued short sighted priorities still are cars, cars, cars, cars, cars. For those of us present at Novembers BV AGM, Harry Barber did concede that an excellent opportunity for CG mass bike parking had been lost. Due to safety concerns from State gov & authorities. Funny that. Can't larger quantities of pool cleaner and fertilizer be concealed in a smogbox?

I'll concur with Daves POV, this nanny state legislation will duly increase congestion and hazardous riding conditions for motorcyclists. Motos getting attention now, cyclists are probably currently being scrutinised by gov pod dwellers, ahem, bureaucrats.

From todays Rage:

Rethink on Games traffic plan
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rethink-on-games-traffic-plan/2006/01/27/1138319450932.html

As you'll read in the article, the continued short sighted priorities still are cars, cars, cars, cars, cars. For those of us present at Novembers BV AGM, Harry Barber did concede that an excellent opportunity for CG mass bike parking had been lost. Due to safety concerns from State gov & authorities. Funny that. Can't larger quantities of pool cleaner and fertilizer be concealed in a smogbox?

I'll concur with Daves POV, this nanny state legislation will duly increase congestion and hazardous riding conditions for motorcyclists. Motos getting attention now, cyclists are probably currently being scrutinised by gov pod dwellers, ahem, bureaucrats.

SuzieB said:

dave said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

I spotted stealth kat! 🙂

Damm 🙂

SuzieB said:

dave said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

I spotted stealth kat! 🙂

Damm 🙂

cfsmtb said:

From todays Rage:

Rethink on Games traffic plan
http://tinyurl.com/9ehkv

As you'll read in the article, the continued short sighted priorities
still are cars, cars, cars, cars, cars. For those of us present at
Novembers BV AGM, Harry Barber did concede that an excellent
opportunity for CG mass bike parking had been lost. Due to safety
concerns from State gov & authorities. Funny that. Can't larger
quantities of pool cleaner and fertilizer be concealed in a smogbox?

I'll concur with Daves POV, this nanny state legislation will duly
increase congestion and hazardous riding conditions for motorcyclists.
Motos getting attention now, cyclists are probably currently being
scrutinised by gov pod dwellers, ahem, bureaucrats.

Read the VACC submission Chris. WHile in common with every one of the
200 odd comments there it is strongly against this legislation it makes
the point that its logic must apply equally to bicycles. If you read
the actually proposal it obviously must.

http://www.ntc.gov.au/RFCCommentsView.aspx?page=A023124034004500204

Dave

cfsmtb said:

From todays Rage:

Rethink on Games traffic plan
http://tinyurl.com/9ehkv

As you'll read in the article, the continued short sighted priorities
still are cars, cars, cars, cars, cars. For those of us present at
Novembers BV AGM, Harry Barber did concede that an excellent
opportunity for CG mass bike parking had been lost. Due to safety
concerns from State gov & authorities. Funny that. Can't larger
quantities of pool cleaner and fertilizer be concealed in a smogbox?

I'll concur with Daves POV, this nanny state legislation will duly
increase congestion and hazardous riding conditions for motorcyclists.
Motos getting attention now, cyclists are probably currently being
scrutinised by gov pod dwellers, ahem, bureaucrats.

Read the VACC submission Chris. WHile in common with every one of the
200 odd comments there it is strongly against this legislation it makes
the point that its logic must apply equally to bicycles. If you read
the actually proposal it obviously must.

http://www.ntc.gov.au/RFCCommentsView.aspx?page=A023124034004500204

Dave

If I seem to be harping on this lanesplitting stuff too much I
apologise. Its becouse I think its such an important issue. Its not
just that it will get motorcyclists killed (and it absolutely will) Its
not just that it will extend to bicycles eventually (and it most likely
wil) Its that it is so important that we as cyclists or motorcyclists
are the experts. We must have the lions share of input into the things
that effect us. And yet our opinion is not sought at all when it should
be absolutely integral to the task,

I feel so strongly about this that I will be getting back into
motorcycle politics (and you think other politics is rough... ha). So
as I said I apologise. But for Gods (insert deity of choice ) sake
listen to the message.

Any way my submision to the NTC

I am writing to comment on the NTC, proposed legislation (New rule 151A)
to ban lane splitting and filtering by motorcyclists. This proposed
legislation purports to improve road safety. I write as a road user and
one time professional driver with nearly 30 years of riding,, driving
and cycling experience throughout the world.

The NTC proposal cites no actual evidence in its claim that lane
splitting is inheritably dangerous and this claim flies in the face of
several well known studies.(of which ‘the Hurt report’ is probably the
definitive one). It is also at odds with many other jurisdictions that
are specifically encouraging filtering.

Anecdotally all motorcyclists learn in their first few weeks on the road
that filtering is safer. I will not repeat these arguments as nearly
200 other comments on this site already state them. Permit me to say
that agreement amongst motorcyclists and especially amongst experienced
motorcyclists on this point is as near total as makes no difference.
Yet either the motorcyclists involved with this report hold differing
opinions or, as seems more likely, no motorcyclists were involved.

This last beggars belief. That legislation affecting the lives of many
thousands of motorcyclists should be passed without motorcyclists being
involved at all stages of the process is surely indefensible. That
anyone involved in such work shouldn’t have a motorcycle truck and
arguably taxi licence is strange. Passing expert opinion surely
requires experts. I would like to know the licences held and the
experience of the people involved in drafting this proposal.

One of the more obvious flaws with the report is its singling out of
motorcycles (and presumably by extension bicycles who must be considered
more at risk from low speed sideswipes purely because they are less well
protected in terms of clothing and helmets) is that it allows multitrack
vehicles to overtake single track vehicles in the same lane but
specifically removes that right from single track vehicles. To put it
differently the proposed legislation (New rule 151A) will allow the
driver least able to judge the width of their vehicle (and with the
least likelihood of serious injury), free reign to overtake while
removing that right from those at risk who have an accurate appreciation
of the widths of their vehicle. Most of us have been overtaken by a
car who came within inches only further on to come across that same car
refusing to overtake a parked car because they were unsure they had
sufficient room when they had more space than during the overtaking move.

This report appears to pre-judge any opinions contrary to those
expressed in the draft amendment as coming from a “cult” community of
recalcitrant riders. This is insulting. I object strongly to being
labelled a member of a cult. It shows a lack of understanding of
motorcyclists that’s goes to reinforce the perception of readers that no
motorcyclists were involved. And it attempts to prejudge and subvert
the democratic process by its dismissive language.

If this legislation is passed the great majority of motorcyclists will
just ignore it and ride in the manner they feel safest. Some will of
course obey. Some will just use the car more. Congestion will increase
significantly. And someone obeying the rules will undoubtedly be rear
ended and killed. One hopes that when this occurs these 200 comments
wind up on the coroners desk

If I seem to be harping on this lanesplitting stuff too much I
apologise. Its becouse I think its such an important issue. Its not
just that it will get motorcyclists killed (and it absolutely will) Its
not just that it will extend to bicycles eventually (and it most likely
wil) Its that it is so important that we as cyclists or motorcyclists
are the experts. We must have the lions share of input into the things
that effect us. And yet our opinion is not sought at all when it should
be absolutely integral to the task,

I feel so strongly about this that I will be getting back into
motorcycle politics (and you think other politics is rough... ha). So
as I said I apologise. But for Gods (insert deity of choice ) sake
listen to the message.

Any way my submision to the NTC

I am writing to comment on the NTC, proposed legislation (New rule 151A)
to ban lane splitting and filtering by motorcyclists. This proposed
legislation purports to improve road safety. I write as a road user and
one time professional driver with nearly 30 years of riding,, driving
and cycling experience throughout the world.

The NTC proposal cites no actual evidence in its claim that lane
splitting is inheritably dangerous and this claim flies in the face of
several well known studies.(of which ‘the Hurt report’ is probably the
definitive one). It is also at odds with many other jurisdictions that
are specifically encouraging filtering.

Anecdotally all motorcyclists learn in their first few weeks on the road
that filtering is safer. I will not repeat these arguments as nearly
200 other comments on this site already state them. Permit me to say
that agreement amongst motorcyclists and especially amongst experienced
motorcyclists on this point is as near total as makes no difference.
Yet either the motorcyclists involved with this report hold differing
opinions or, as seems more likely, no motorcyclists were involved.

This last beggars belief. That legislation affecting the lives of many
thousands of motorcyclists should be passed without motorcyclists being
involved at all stages of the process is surely indefensible. That
anyone involved in such work shouldn’t have a motorcycle truck and
arguably taxi licence is strange. Passing expert opinion surely
requires experts. I would like to know the licences held and the
experience of the people involved in drafting this proposal.

One of the more obvious flaws with the report is its singling out of
motorcycles (and presumably by extension bicycles who must be considered
more at risk from low speed sideswipes purely because they are less well
protected in terms of clothing and helmets) is that it allows multitrack
vehicles to overtake single track vehicles in the same lane but
specifically removes that right from single track vehicles. To put it
differently the proposed legislation (New rule 151A) will allow the
driver least able to judge the width of their vehicle (and with the
least likelihood of serious injury), free reign to overtake while
removing that right from those at risk who have an accurate appreciation
of the widths of their vehicle. Most of us have been overtaken by a
car who came within inches only further on to come across that same car
refusing to overtake a parked car because they were unsure they had
sufficient room when they had more space than during the overtaking move.

This report appears to pre-judge any opinions contrary to those
expressed in the draft amendment as coming from a “cult” community of
recalcitrant riders. This is insulting. I object strongly to being
labelled a member of a cult. It shows a lack of understanding of
motorcyclists that’s goes to reinforce the perception of readers that no
motorcyclists were involved. And it attempts to prejudge and subvert
the democratic process by its dismissive language.

If this legislation is passed the great majority of motorcyclists will
just ignore it and ride in the manner they feel safest. Some will of
course obey. Some will just use the car more. Congestion will increase
significantly. And someone obeying the rules will undoubtedly be rear
ended and killed. One hopes that when this occurs these 200 comments
wind up on the coroners desk

One of my best mates is a motorcyclist (and cyclist) and from the discussions I have had with him, I think your opposition to this change is completely understandable and needed.

One of my best mates is a motorcyclist (and cyclist) and from the discussions I have had with him, I think your opposition to this change is completely understandable and needed.

SuzieB said:

dave said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

I spotted stealth kat! 🙂

How did you spot it? It blends in so easily with it's surroundings ;-)

Nice job.

--
BrettS

SuzieB said:

dave said:

And a cast of thousands (well a few hundred)

http://www.mraa.org.au/downloads/lane_splitting.wmv

I spotted stealth kat! 🙂

How did you spot it? It blends in so easily with it's surroundings ;-)

Nice job.

--
BrettS