Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:24 pmPage 1 of 4
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:24 pmRe: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:29 pmReminds me of chinese whispers.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:31 pmI wonder if Warney yelled out "Dont you know who I am?"
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:37 pmI read the tweets this morning and was thinking this cyclist was going to have to go public.
Warney's story sounds ridiculous.
Warney's story sounds ridiculous.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:29 pmBoth equal to blame.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:32 pmI want to know this.
How the hell did the rider recognise the bloke as Shane Warne?
How the hell did the rider recognise the bloke as Shane Warne?
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:34 pmBooney wrote:I want to know this.
How the hell did the rider recognise the bloke as Shane Warne?
Liz Hurley was hanging off his.....
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:40 pmOf course, the cyclist is the sweet innocent little angel here 
Once again, another case of three stories here: Warnies, the cyclists, and the truth
Once again, another case of three stories here: Warnies, the cyclists, and the truth
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:47 pmBy no means am I the type who automatically takes the side of cyclists - having had more than enough experiences with cyclists riding 3-4 abreast on roads, and then when trying to pass, they swing wider and shout abuse, among many, many other things that I won't go over again here - but in this one, I tend to believe the cyclist's version a bit more, simply due to number of witnesses quite prepared to put their name to things, and photographic evidence.
The problem, unfortunately, is that there is a percentage of cyclists who believe they are in the Tour Down Under, and this gives them the right to completely ignore all road rules, until such time as they believe they are "wronged". This percentage tarnishes a vast majority who do the right thing, do share the road and do use it properly, and therefore, deserve the same courtesy.
The problem, unfortunately, is that there is a percentage of cyclists who believe they are in the Tour Down Under, and this gives them the right to completely ignore all road rules, until such time as they believe they are "wronged". This percentage tarnishes a vast majority who do the right thing, do share the road and do use it properly, and therefore, deserve the same courtesy.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:57 pmSimply the are are dickhead cyclists and dickhead drivers
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:01 pmDutchy wrote:Simply the are are dickheads
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:04 pmDutchy wrote:Simply the are are dickhead cyclists and dickhead drivers
Correct, but the dickhead cyclists forget they have a far greater chance of becoming a statistic, then the dickhead drivers.....
I get more annoyed with Motor Bikes, and Scooter riders. You know the ones. They wear shorts and a tank top, no gloves, maybe thongs too, they ride in between cars clipping the odd rearview mirror too.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:12 pmIve started cycling in the last 12 months and yes there are plenty of dickhead cyclists, but its very hard not to react to a driver that nearly runs over you.
Although I dont understand how some cyclists ride 3-4 a breast down some roads, personally I prefer single file and stay as far left as possible. One argument is cuyclists use up the road so cars are forced to overtake them like any other vehicle, but I take the view I would much rather be sideswipped by a car than hit full on from behind*.
Although I dont understand how some cyclists ride 3-4 a breast down some roads, personally I prefer single file and stay as far left as possible. One argument is cuyclists use up the road so cars are forced to overtake them like any other vehicle, but I take the view I would much rather be sideswipped by a car than hit full on from behind*.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:25 pmI never trust cyclists. Any bloke who goes out in public in ultra tight lycra and shaves his legs has to be a bit dodgey
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:38 pmDutchy wrote:Ive started cycling in the last 12 months and yes there are plenty of dickhead cyclists, but its very hard not to react to a driver that nearly runs over you.
Although I dont understand how some cyclists ride 3-4 a breast down some roads, personally I prefer single file and stay as far left as possible. One argument is cuyclists use up the road so cars are forced to overtake them like any other vehicle, but I take the view I would much rather be sideswipped by a car than hit full on from behind*.
Agree on both counts
The difference between a badly behaving driver and a badly behaving cyclist is about 1.5 tonnes so I tend to sympathise more with the cyclist given the driver may lose at best maybe 30 seconds of their lifes if they have to slow down to turn or pass.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:15 pmmy 2c....
cyclists dont pay for any maintenance etc of the roads through rego fuel excises etc so why are they on MY road...
also have an issue with cycists and scooter riders being able to ride on major arterial routes with no training or licenses, scooters especially.
why do you need a license for a motorbike (besides to look cool) but not a scooter.
cyclists dont pay for any maintenance etc of the roads through rego fuel excises etc so why are they on MY road...
also have an issue with cycists and scooter riders being able to ride on major arterial routes with no training or licenses, scooters especially.
why do you need a license for a motorbike (besides to look cool) but not a scooter.
Re: Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:23 pmBIG SEXY wrote:my 2c....
cyclists dont pay for any maintenance etc of the roads through rego fuel excises etc so why are they on MY road...
also have an issue with cycists and scooter riders being able to ride on major arterial routes with no training or licenses, scooters especially.
why do you need a license for a motorbike (besides to look cool) but not a scooter.
Dumb argument. Majority of cyclists probably have a vehicle at home. Scooters need car licence as well.
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:25 pmAs someone who witnesses cyclists on St Kilda Road every day my sympathy is with Warne (and I can't stand the cashed up bogan).
Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:32 pmyou do need a licence for a scooter. most scooters require a motorbike licence as well, however if the scooter is 50cc or under in engine capacity and acnnot do more than 50km/h under the power of its own motor (ie downhill doesnt count) then it can be ridden on a car licence (not learners)
thats why most of the small scooters go slower than the rest of the traffic, they actually arent physicaly able to go faster. the exception was made years ago (not sure why) and it has never been changed.
on the maintenance side of things, before anyone states that cyclists do no damage to the roads, neither do light vehicles (sedans, hatches, utes etc). unless doing a burnout (which can actually damage the bitumen surface) light vehicles contribute basically no damage to the road network. heavy vehicles (semi's, B doubles etc) certainly do, but the biggest cause of deterioriation to the road network is mother nature.
unfortunately as the government hasnt found a way to charge her for it, the rest of us have to cover the cost, even though we dont actually contribute to the problem. knowing this, i dont see the problem with cyclists paying a nominal, once off fee to acquire a "number plate" for their bikes, it would then remove the argument from "drivers" that they dont pay their way.
thats why most of the small scooters go slower than the rest of the traffic, they actually arent physicaly able to go faster. the exception was made years ago (not sure why) and it has never been changed.
on the maintenance side of things, before anyone states that cyclists do no damage to the roads, neither do light vehicles (sedans, hatches, utes etc). unless doing a burnout (which can actually damage the bitumen surface) light vehicles contribute basically no damage to the road network. heavy vehicles (semi's, B doubles etc) certainly do, but the biggest cause of deterioriation to the road network is mother nature.
unfortunately as the government hasnt found a way to charge her for it, the rest of us have to cover the cost, even though we dont actually contribute to the problem. knowing this, i dont see the problem with cyclists paying a nominal, once off fee to acquire a "number plate" for their bikes, it would then remove the argument from "drivers" that they dont pay their way.
Re: Re: Warnie's Bike Incident - the other side of the story
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:39 pmheater31 wrote:BIG SEXY wrote:my 2c....
cyclists dont pay for any maintenance etc of the roads through rego fuel excises etc so why are they on MY road...
also have an issue with cycists and scooter riders being able to ride on major arterial routes with no training or licenses, scooters especially.
why do you need a license for a motorbike (besides to look cool) but not a scooter.
Dumb argument. Majority of cyclists probably have a vehicle at home. Scooters need car licence as well.
Yes, they likely own a car anyway so they do pay. They are also likely paying lots of various state and federal taxes including GST and income tax so I wouldn't call them freeloaders in the system.
That said, I don't mind a nominal license fee as Tipper suggested. How you police it is the issue. No point creating a tiny tax revenue just on the principle of it and then needing to use up all the revenue by paying inspectors or policie to monitor compliance with the system.