"Peter Jason" wrote in message
news:g004d8$2dsd$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "The Raven" wrote in message
> news:48237d72$0$30462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Lu R" wrote in message
>> news:4822ff8a$0$30466$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "F Murtz" wrote in message
>>> news:4822f5d3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then
>>>> suddenly brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the
>>>> damage to his car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
>>>
>>> Considering the car was in a bicycle lane I think the drivers .ed
>>> dont you?
>> Cars are allowed in bicycle lanes under certain conditions. If bicycle
>> lanes are solely for the use of bicycle riders they should be paying
>> registration fees etc.
>
>
> They should be paying rego & 3rd party fees anyway, assuming they will be
> injured on the roads. Why should these candy-coloured pests be any
> different from other road users?
**They are no different to other road users. Drivers should avoid hitting
them.
>
> Were all the 20 cyclists in the bike lane? Not bloody likely. Indeed they
> often ride two abreast, overflowing the bike lane, to talk to each other.
**Unlikely, in this case. The bike lane is generously large.
>
> The incident probably went like this:
>
> 1/ Some of the 20 cyclists overflowed the bike lane, so causing
> obstruction to motorists.
**Wrong. Cyclists are entitled to use the road, UNLESS they are specifically
disallowed from doing so (on a motorway, for instance). YOU are precisely
what is wrong with many road users. Cyclists are road users and need to be
treated as such.
>
> 2/ A motorist became enraged, as well he might.
**And that motorist should be stripped of his or her right to drive.
>
> 3/ Motorist taught them a lesson.
>
> Way to go!!
**.wit. You are demented.
Trevor Wilson
|