YOU’RE standing at a city pedestrian crossing, with cars backed up on either side of the lights. Your “walk” light goes green and you step off the kerb.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Look! Picture: John Grainger.

Suddenly a blurred object zaps past you, missing you by millimetres. As it dissolves into the traffic, leaving you shaken and furious, you get a vague impression of two wheels and a figure wearing a helmet.

And there isn’t a thing you can do about it, other than shake your fist and shout redundant expletives at the long-vanished perpetrator.

It’s not his or her fault that you didn’t end up in a heap in the gutter, or in hospital – but it’s not worth calling the police, because cyclists cannot be traced and they know it.

This is an extreme case, of course. Most push-bikers are good and responsible citizens who obey the traffic rules but many city cyclists, like drivers, are in a perpetual hurry. Unlike drivers, though, they are able to flout one-way signs and run red lights with only the slimmest chance of getting caught. They ride two or three abreast, preventing cars from passing. They mount the footpath, weaving in and out of hapless pedestrians. Then they disappear, leaving us fuming and impotent. It shouldn’t be allowed – so how to punish the culprits?

A bike registration and taxation scheme has often been proposed but never seriously considered by government. The South Australian transport department, lobbied hard to introduce legislation recently, said: “The administration costs of introducing and operating a registration scheme for cyclists would far outweigh the benefits.”

Bicycle SA, in contrast, believes that cyclists should actually get a tax rebate. “Why should a cyclist pay for registration or have another barrier put up to stop them from riding when they’re actually saving the economy?” said a spokesman for the lobby group. “Nationally the current rate of cycling is saving $150 million in health costs, $64 million in congestion costs and $10 million in greenhouse emission costs.”

That last point alone is virtually unanswerable. As a nation, we cannot be seen to be discouraging what is essentially a healthy and environmentally-friendly form of transport. Registration might help to catch a small proportion of villains but why use a ruinously expensive sledgehammer to smash a few nuts? It would make far more sense to prevent anti-social behaviour in the first place.

It’s quite possible many cyclists don’t even realise how potentially dangerous their behaviour is. Before we can legally drive a car, we have to take lessons. It’s the same with motorbikes – you’re not let loose on the roads until you’ve passed a stringent test. But what happens when we want to ride a pedal-bike for the first time?

Mum and Dad make sure our training wheels are fixed on properly and we hop up on the saddle before zooming off, yelling “Wheeeeee! Look at me!”

For we never make the official transition from child to adult rider. As youngsters, the road – or footpath – belongs to us and our parents are there to watch out for danger. But from that cathartic day when the training wheels come off, the bikes simply get bigger and faster. And that’s where the real problem lies – not with lack of accountability but lack of education.

So let’s put the brake on those vengeful, if natural, thoughts of tax and registration, and accept that it will never happen. Apart from the practical difficulties and cost, most cyclists are also car drivers and pay their taxes accordingly, so yet another tax won’t help. Anyway, registration of motorised vehicles is far from a panacea for all the ills of the road. There are plenty of users in all categories – trucks, cars, motorbikes – who break the rules with impunity, even if you do manage to take down their rego.

Prevention is far more effective than punishment, and education has to be the route to travel. The only body to provide nationally standardised training, AustCycle (www.austcycle.com.au), like AustSwim, is a network of franchisee providers who employ accredited teachers. AustCycle’s NSW pilot scheme last year was so successful it is to be extended Australia-wide. Additionally, every state and territory runs proficiency courses at all levels but all these schemes are voluntary.

It’s hard to see how cycle education can be made compulsory without coming back to the administrative problems but incentives could work: for example, vouchers for free or subsidised courses with each geared bike sold. This would be accompanied by a campaign to persuade adult riders that however outstanding a child cyclist they were, there is still plenty for them to learn.

Until this happens, too many of them will continue to deserve the “Lycra lout” label as they whizz off down the road – or footpath – with their inner four-year-old still yelling: “Wheeeeee! Look

84 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • iansand says:

      07:18am | 13/01/10

      Nonsense.  The vast majority of adult bike riders also have drivers’ licences.  They have the education.  Those who break the rules know the rules, and choose to flout them.

    • Mulga Bill says:

      07:21am | 13/01/10

      I’m reluctant to give this article much attention, but before the tirades start, please remember there are hoon car drivers who run lights - and they may well kill you.

      And also please remember that virtually every single adult cyclist you see is a car-owning licensed driver, who pays rates and taxes like everyone else. Road rules apply to everyone.

      Oh and you handful of cyclists who can’t be arsed to do the right thing - thanks to you,  all the rest of us law-abiding skilled cyclists get the extra “free advice”, every time we’re out awheel on the road, whatever we wear. Ta *very* much.

    • Edward Mallett says:

      07:40am | 13/01/10

      For education to work, don’t we have to assume that those cyclists don’t know how to ride safely?  Of course they do.  At least we are less dangerous than the bad car drivers.

      (I drive 300km+ per week - so am a cyclist.)

      Also, note - it is legal to ride 2 abreast and\or occupy a full left hand lane on a multi-lane road.  It is also legal to ride on footpaths (these are in QLD).  IT is the general common sense of riding safely that some cyclists need to learn and this is not a classroom test.

    • Eliza says:

      08:32am | 13/01/10

      Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast. And studies have shown that when we ride prominently in a shared road space it is safer for everyone concerned. However, I will concede that some cyclists’ behaviour is appalling. As a cycle commuter I see other riders doing things every day that horrify me, but what we need is more care and consideration from cyclists AND drivers - not more attempts to apportion blame.

    • Chris says:

      08:35am | 13/01/10

      I just don’t see the point of this article, apart from the fact you spend most of it shaking your “vengeful” fist at “obnoxious” cyclists. 

      The morale of the story at the end appears to be “prevention is better than cure”.  In this regard, I agree (i.e. you will always have the odd courier and skate-board helmet type breaking the law, as you will for the plentify car louts out there, its the law of percentages). 

      But then you gotta ask yourself:
      (a) who has the most capacity to cause death;
      (b) who has the most capacity to cause property destruction;
      (c) who uses up the most State resources in governance, policing and hospital;
      (d) who is more likely to cause traffic jams and add to environmental pollution,

      then it becomes pretty friggin clear who’s got the case of sour grapes.

    • H of SA says:

      09:01am | 13/01/10

      I have to say, while I didn’t intially buy into the anti-cyclist thing - I have found them to be the least considerate of all road users, the most undpredictable and the most rude. What is it about 2 wheels being pedalled that make people decide that social responsibility no longer applies to them?

    • Super D says:

      09:04am | 13/01/10

      The only possible solution is for occasional blitzes on cyclists that result in their bikes being impounded for a week or so.  This blitz could be on city cyclists or even commuter routes.

    • cclambie says:

      09:06am | 13/01/10

      I agree with you that there is a small handful of cyclists that need some education, sure, but really a stern warning from someone of authority would probably set them back on track.  As @iansand and @Mulga Bill have said most adult cyclists know the rules, and choose to break them.
      I am one of them.
      I ride on the footpath in Vic, where I believe it is illegal, as it is safer.  If I have a choice of riding between cars doing 40-60km per hour with no bike lane, or a 3m wide footpath, I will choose the footpath.  I have a bell, and ring it a lot.
      Pedestrians don’t have much credibility here really.  Walking out without looking into traffic, walking across tram stops with moving traffic, etc.
      Maybe educating Pedestrians to pay more attention to their surrounds would also help.
      I often think Pedestrians need a lesson in how to walk! Often when walking I find myself caught behind large groups, or people walking zigzag across the street, or similar, let alone riding up behind them with Bell ringing on a shared footpath (I ride very slowly on a non shared footpath)
      To sum up Safer well planned roads with lower speed limits will see cyclists pay attention to the rules more.
      Pedestrians that pay attention to their surrounds, like listening to the bell that is ringing and taking a step to the left would also help.
      You can’t blame a few bad cyclists, or their lack of decency.  One way streets are often the fastest way to get somewhere. 
      Lets take off the car parks off and make them two way for bicycles (planning).

    • Andy says:

      09:07am | 13/01/10

      It is simple: See a hoon rider on the pedestrian strip, clothesline him as he zooms past. Then walk away. Would be as legal as them being on the footpath and those Sea Shepherd guys.

    • Jade says:

      09:10am | 13/01/10

      When I ride my bike, I ride on the footpath (I’m in QLD), I don’t ride on the road cause I know how much of a pain in the ass it is to dodge cyclists and how dangerous I find it driving past them.

    • Peter says:

      09:12am | 13/01/10

      I love it when cyclists get on their high horses.

      For all the “car louts” out there, it’s a rare occurence to see them ignore red lights and speed through pedestrians walking across a street at a crossing. This appalling behaviour is solely the domain of the lycra brigade.

      I also use public transport and my trips are much slower with amateur cyclists out for a lazy cycle to work in bus lanes. If you can’t maintain a decent speed and keep to the left then get of the bike.

    • Lord Blackadder says:

      09:53am | 13/01/10

      For every cyclist out there that flouts the rules, there are ten pedestrians who are even worse. I regularly ride along William Street during peak hour in the clearly designated BICYCLE lane. Not PEDESTRIAN lane, BICYCLE lane. Yet I have lost count of the number of pedestrians who treat the clearly designated BICYCLE lane as a second footpath, thereby forcing cyclists into traffic, because the selfish evolutionary throwbacks ignore bells, shouting and approaching fluoro-clad bike riders. Let us also remember the pedestrians who cross the road willy nilly, ignore the little red man, hog shared footpaths and walk out from between parked cars without looking. A recent police blitz in Melbourne found that the largest group of road law breakers were… pedestrians.
      Yes, there are moronic cyclists. I can assure you that they are in the minority. Yes, there needs to be education. One suggestion would to be to issue a common rule and courtesy book with every bike purchased. But it is a bit rich to blame cyclists for all of road society’s woes. A twit on two feet wearing an iPod is more dangerous than a car or bike any day.

    • cclambie says:

      10:08am | 13/01/10

      @Lord Blackadder so true!!!!

    • mikk says:

      10:36am | 13/01/10

      Cant win can we? If you ride on the road your a nuisance holding up traffic and if you ride on the footpath to be safe youre a menace to walkers.
      I regularly cross just before the lights go green (or even earlier if it is safe) so as to get out of an intersection asap. Whats would you prefer? Me occasionally jumping the gun or waiting and holding turning vehicles up and putting myself at extra risk?
      Drivers regularly break the speed limit and think nothing of it.  Why do they have such a bee in their bonnet if a cyclist breaks a few rules that dont effect them?
      Look to the mote in thine own eye car drivers. Spewing youre fumes over the rest of us. Speeding,  talking on their mobiles and fighting with the kids.
      There are even idiots who deliberately drive as close as possible to intimidate the hated cyclists and this type of article emboldens and encourages them further. 
      More bike paths please. Less road rage. Less bloody cars.

    • Manfred says:

      10:41am | 13/01/10

      Yes, motorists and pedestrians are far from perfect, but when they dangerously break the law it is possible to nab them.

      Bikes should be registered and carry numberplates, the same as motorcycles.  There’s no reason why sociopath bikers should be allowed to break all the traffic laws, threaten pedestrian safety and abuse car drivers who move off on the green light and thus cut off the lycra idiot still coming across on the red (happened again yesterday).

      And talk of education is a red herring which would achieve nothing except allow the lunatic minority to continue as they are.  It seems that the cowboy clique typically comprises some of the most experienced riders, and they are not going to listen to anyone telling them what to do (except a set of flashing red and blue lights if the rider can be identified).

    • Matt says:

      10:49am | 13/01/10

      I am one of those cyclists who commute on a bike every day.

      I regularly run red lights, ride on one way streets and very occasionally the pavement.

      But I do these things in a controlled manner, I am not going to run a red when I am likely to get hit, same with one way streets and I am very unlikely to ride on a pavement when the foot traffic is likely to slow me more than the vehicular traffic.

      I don’t feel that the way I ride is dangerous to other road users, pedestrians or myself.

      Let the tirade commence….

    • AFR says:

      10:56am | 13/01/10

      Manfred, should we also force pedestrians to register as well? They also break plenty of rules. Or can I assume you have never ever jaywalked?

    • Manfred says:

      11:12am | 13/01/10

      @AFR 11:56, if you had read the first part of my post your question would have been answered.  Pedestrians and motorists breaking the law can be identified and caught, but the lycra lot are usually able to get away with it and escape the result of their actions.  They, and you, are probably well aware of this.

    • tim fiddes says:

      11:25am | 13/01/10

      are cyclists allowed to
      1. ride @ night with no lights
      2. ride the wrong way down 1-way streets
      3. never wear a helmet
      4. ride through red lights

    • H of SA says:

      11:37am | 13/01/10

      Interesting isn’t it? Some people come on hear and voice their suspicion that cyclist regularly break the law, and then we have 4 or 5 of them come one here and confirm that yes, they do regularly break the law. Why? because in their opinion its “safer” to do so.

      Guess what guys, in a society where everybody feels they know better than the law and live by their own individual “smarter” rules - society is actually less cohesive and less safe. Yes the road rules in Australia are less than perfect - but at least because they are policed and are usually followed t we have a measure of predictability which helps avoid crashes.

      Predictability on the road keeps you alive, cyclists - you are adults you ought to know this already.

      People accuse cyclists of blatent disregard for the law. Now we have many in response on this very thread coming on and admitting they have blatant disregard for the law. Yet cyclists complain of the disrespect with which they are treated! Reality is stranger than fiction.

      I think I will copy and paste this thread and send it onto the next cylce club president I hear advocating for better treatment of cylcists.

      Guess what cyclists, if you want to be treated with respect by society - you may just find it necessary to treat society with respect.

      A BASIC of that is to have some regard for the law. Its near unbeliavable that adults would not know this already.

    • johnno says:

      11:38am | 13/01/10

      This article is absolute rubbish and completely irresponsible.

      It is articles like this that encourage car drivers to spit on pushbike riders and in some cases attack them.

      If your going to perpetuate this rubbish please quote the statistics on how many pushbike riders are killed by cars versus how many people are killed by cycle riders.

    • Mickey says:

      11:40am | 13/01/10

      Matt, so what you are saying is that you follow the laws unless it doesnt suit you? This is the attitude that infuriates people. By what right do you have to selectively follow laws? You dont feel it is dangerous? Are you serious?? What if we all only followed the rules we felt were necessary?

    • James says:

      11:47am | 13/01/10

      Before continuing, and in the interests of full disclosure, I am a bicycle commuter, living in Canberra, and I also use public transport occasionally.  I do not own a car, or a driver’s license, but I have been known to be a pedestrian from time to time.

      In my humble opinion, drawn from my short experience of this world, the problem is not cyclists, pedestrians, or drivers, but all three.  Some people just get really annoyed by travel.  I can recite many instances where drivers have sworn at me for daring to cross at a pedestrian crossing while on foot; or cyclists who call me and my daughter nasty names because they had to move a little while we cross at pedestrian crossing.  Or pedestrians, usually pushing prams, who walk right in the middle of the path rather than moving across just a little bit, forcing other pedestrians and cyclists onto the grass.  My working theory is simple, but effective: some people are selfish bastards.  Furthermore, their selfish bastardry is seemingly heightened by having to go from point A to point B.  Anything that makes them upwards of 5 seconds later in arriving at point B is an excuse to vent their rage at the world on whatever innocent person is nearby, or is causing their 5 second delay.

      The cure: chill out, people.  You will be slightly later, it is not the end of the world.  Try and relax, just a little - you’ll live longer.

    • Super D says:

      11:50am | 13/01/10

      @AFR

      During my time in London where the pavements are a lot more crowded than in Sydney my mates and I were strong advocates of a pedestrian license of some sort.  The people who just suddenly stop in the middle of a crowded footbath or at the top of an escalator were our priority targets for re-education.

      @ Matt - you sound like a decent, thinking guy.  However our laws are always targetted at the lowest common denominator.  If for example everyone was thoughtful and considerate we wouldn’t need to have noise laws to stop people cranking their stereos at 3:00am.  99.9999999% of people will never have their activities curtailed by such a law.  Our statute books are full of laws that could come under the generic heading of “don’t be a f^ckwit”.  Unfortunately we will never effectively legislate the use of common sense.

    • Joe Stephens says:

      12:01pm | 13/01/10

      Why is this not a topic where we can blame our government? People aren’t responsible.. the government is!! I mean, if our roads had a bicycle lane, then a bus lane, a few car lanes, a slow car lane, a fast car lane… then we wouldn’t have a problem would we!

    • KJ says:

      12:03pm | 13/01/10

      Matt so what you are saying is use common sense, sounds about right to me.

    • smclennan@lycos.com says:

      12:12pm | 13/01/10

      Why is there such a strong correlation between male cyclists aged 30+ and baldness?

    • Lucy says:

      12:40pm | 13/01/10

      I’m with James. 

      Last night I was yelled at by a group of young men in a souped up car because I dared to cross at the green pedestrian lights when they wanted to turn left. 

      People just need to calm down and chill out.  It’s not just the cyclists, the car drivers or the pedestrians - it’s all three.  We move in different ways, at different speeds with different movement habits; and this is bound to cause friction if one person disrupts the pattern a little. 

      But let’s face it too, the system isn’t perfect and this contributes to the friction.  Perhaps if we had free bike riding lessons for adults and more dedicated bike lanes, we’d have less crashes; perhaps if we didn’t have long waiting times at pedestrian crossings directly across from the main transport centres, fully exposed to the icy winter weather (I’m thinking the bus mall in Hobart), we’d have less jaywalkers; and maybe if young teenage boys could stop peer pressuring each other into speeding and yelling at pedestrians, we’d get less high speed crashes.

    • Brendan says:

      01:20pm | 13/01/10

      smclennan - how do you know they are bald?  Don’t they have helmets on?  They should all at least do that.

    • Betelnut says:

      01:27pm | 13/01/10

      What a pointless topic…

      99% of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians know all the road rules, and willingly break them.  We all live in glass houses and we all break the road rules, all the time by jaywalking, low level speeding, lack of indicating, lack of headchecks, not wearing helmets, riding on the footpath, double parking whilst mum run into a shop, talking on phones… ad nauseum…

      A lot of funny sentiments pointing out other people’s trangressions whilst excusing your own.

      The problem is far from a lack of education (although more frequent public education campaigns have their place). We need to get away from the car vs bike vs ped arguments, which are quite frankly, terminally boring and realise some people are just selfish peanuts, whilst the rest of us need to learn to get along.  Cars, bicycles and peds are not going extinct any time soon so why not everyone relax a little and enjoy your travels a little more..

    • Chris says:

      01:29pm | 13/01/10

      The first and only rule cyclists should worry about is not getting killed by some bogan in a commodore, if they have to block off a lane of traffic or ride on the footpath to do it then so be it.

      And you might like to know that in the Netherlands the motorist is always at fault by default, no investigation necessary, that’s the way it should be here to.

    • smclennan@lycos.com says:

      02:09pm | 13/01/10

      @Brendan

      when they take over a cafe the helmets usually come off.  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one who’s not going bald.  Maybe it’s from wearing the helmets

    • stabfish says:

      02:15pm | 13/01/10

      @ James 12:47pm | 13/01/10

      Spot on mate.  Everyone on the road is too impatient with anything that slows them down or gets in their way.

    • papachango says:

      03:16pm | 13/01/10

      I do try to obay all road rules when cycling, but where it is a choice between putting my life at risk and breaking a minor road rule it is a no-brainer. So occasionally I do ride slowly on a footpath even though my 12th birthday was a long time ago.

      In general I think the proportion of obnoxious, rule-breaking and dangerous cyclists is about the same as for the driver and pedestrian population, but no-ones talking about needing a licence to walk on the streets.

    • mikk says:

      03:50pm | 13/01/10

      The laws you lot accuse us cyclists of breaking were made for cars not bicycles and they are not appropriate.
      The laws pertaining to cyclists need to be changed to reflect the safest way to ride.  2 abreast on a major road is just insane. Cyclists should not be allowed on roads where they will disrupt car traffic. Cyclists should be allowed on footpaths but must stay at a safe speed to stop if pedestrians (or cars) suddenly appear from driveways etc.  Red traffic lights should be treated as stop signs for cyclists.  If it is safe then they can be passed at red. Traffic lights are for cars and regulating congestion. Cycles and if they stop or not are irrelevant to that purpose. 

      The number of pedestrians hurt by cyclists compared to cyclists hurt by cars shows where the problem is and it isnt old ladies being mowed down by rampaging pushie riders.

    • stephen says:

      04:17pm | 13/01/10

      Something I’ve learnt about cycling : when you ride up to, say, traffic light which are maybe 200 yards ahead and the traffic is passing you, and the traffic is slowing for that red light, dont keep riding past stopped cars to get up to the lights. When the traffic stops, so do you , and stay to the left.
      Cars, when they start up, do not want to pass you 3 or 4 times, especially if there are further sets of lights ahead.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      04:44pm | 13/01/10

      @ Stephen, that act of consideration goes a VERY long way in my book. I don’t mind accommodating a cyclist in the left lane and the minor delay in getting past, but to have to do it multimple times because they sneak up the left at lights is a MAJOR PITA!

      Well said.

    • Surly Dave says:

      07:25pm | 13/01/10

      I’m a cyclist who rides around 6000km a year, a motorcyclists and a driver. I see plenty of dickheads in cars, on foot and on bikes. I always make a point of yelling after the cyclists who misbehave because they give us all a bad name.

      Most motorists are very considerate. Thanks folks.

      To the person who suggested otherwise, it’s not acceptable for any road user to run a red light whether in a car or on a bike, just as it’s not acceptable to drive a little bit drunk. Smarten yourself up.

    • Joe says:

      09:30pm | 13/01/10

      Take this simple advice: watch where you walking in a built up area, and don’t try to morally prohibit things because you just do not understand them.

    • Tom says:

      09:51pm | 13/01/10

      Peter, just tell me how many people were killed by bicycles in Australia last year…The “car louts” on the other hand, can and do kill a lot of people. Perhaps it isn’t speeding through pedestrians, but it is drink driving, speeding, talking on a mobile, just generally not paying sufficient attention etc etc.

      I do deliveries in a van, and average about 200km a day through Sydney. On my list of things that annoy me, cyclists are down at about number 247. For every cyclist that annoys you whilst you are out for a drive, count the number of car/truck/taxi drivers that cut you off, tailgate you, drive well below the posted speed limit, and you will soon realise that the cyclist ‘problem’ is all but non existent. With the vast majority of them, by the time you can count to 5 you will be past them anyway.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:02pm | 13/01/10

      The problem is stephen from 05:17pm on 13/01/10 (and Diamantina Dick), there’s a lot of narrow-minded whingeing motorists on here bleating about how cyclists don’t obey the law. The law clearly states that cyclists have the legal right to ride up to the front of the queue at a red light, on the left. So what’s it to be motorists? Do you just want cyclists to obey the laws that suit you and ignore the rest?

    • Claire Struthers says:

      06:07am | 14/01/10

      Thanks to everyone who’s contributed. Some great points made but nothing changes my belief that incentivising adult cycle education is the sensible route. Perhaps putting up traffic signs in urban areas might also help, stating unequivocally, for starters, that footpath riding is illegal unless you are under 12 and is punishable by a fine. At least then the rogues wouldn’t be able to claim ignorance when caught!

      Otherwise, I’m in full agreement with those making the point that everyone needs to chill out, but unfortunately that’s hard to do in heavy traffic when you’re desperate to get to your destination. And as cities grow ever more congested, this can only get worse.

      (By the way, the last two words of the article have vanished ... it should read “Look at me!”)

    • Mulga Bill says:

      07:37am | 14/01/10

      “Nothing changes my belief”. Uh huh. Great. We’d never have guessed.

      Typical Punch author, then. Here’s a thought.

      Borrow a bike, helmet and sensible cycling clothes (gasp! yes, brightly coloured lycra). Get a bit of practice on suburban streets, and then…take to the road for a month. Then you may have a point of view worth listening to.

      Yesterday arvo, on a dual carriageway 4-lane main road with cycle lane shoulders, I still got screamed at unprintably by a brain-dead coot in a car.

      In a car going the other way.  Yep. From the *other* carriageway. Separated from me in my lane by what, 50 meters of kerb & grass?  Your column contributes to that attitude. Thanks *very* much. See you on the road.

    • Postscript says:

      08:06am | 14/01/10

      Postscript
      The author is plainly ignorant of the fact that rules for riding on paths, trails and shared zones vary from State to State.

      The author is also clearly ignorant of the fact that Driver handbooks issued State traffic authorities to learner drivers already cover road use & cyclists, and already either quote rules for cyclists or point to where rules & safety hints can be seen.

      Finally,  Owners Manuals supplied with new cycles include, among a whole lot of other blindingly obvious trivia, a page or two on safe riding.

      Warning signs? How many more warning signs do you want?  “Warning! Uninformed comment may be dangerous”.

      See ya on the road.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:07am | 14/01/10

      Pedestrian accidents account for a major percentage of the overall tally - and most of them are the fault of pedestrians not paying attention. 

      Clearly, according to her own admission (first paragraph), Claire Struthers is an accident waiting to happen. Anyone prone to crossing the road without first making sure it’s safe to do so is a bloody idiot - the “walk” light is merely an indication that it’s your turn to cross, NOT that it’s definitely safe to do so (how’s an automated electronic signal supposed to know that?).

      How are we supposed to give any credence at all to the opinion of someone capable of displaying such reckless ignorance?

    • Betelnut says:

      10:33am | 14/01/10

      “that’s hard to do in heavy traffic when you’re desperate to get to your destination”

      You have highlighted the exact problem.  The people driving who road rage at frustrated by cyclists slowing them up are “desperate to get to your destination”. The cyclists running red lights are “desperate to get to your destination”.  The pedestrians jay-walking are “desperate to get to your destination”.

      Selfish attitudes are the problem, not cars/bikes/peds who seem to co-exist just fine 99% of the time.  More education targetting cyclists does nothing to address the impatient and infantile behviour exhibited by a small percentage of all commuting people.  Neither do more signs for that matter.

    • Claire Struthers says:

      02:59pm | 14/01/10

      My opening par was a hypothetical, Charles Kelly - I have seen that scenario happen many times but not to me, although thanks for your concern about my safety.

      Sounds to me as though you are admitting running red lights yourself and feeling ever so slightly guilty about it ... as well you should.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:22am | 15/01/10

      You can spin it any way you like Claire Struthers, but the fact remains that the picture you painted is one of a dangerously irresponsible PEDESTRIAN. And the fact remains that you introduced this pathetic scenario as a means of supporting your feeble argument - completely ignorant of the fact that it does nothing of the sort. Anyone prone to crossing the road without first making sure it’s safe to do so is a bloody idiot - and an intelligent person would be aware that if an accident was to occur as a result of this reckless disregard for safety, the injured party would only have THEMSELF to blame. You, however, appear completely incapable of comprehending such a simple premise - choosing instead to introduce this blatantly irresponsible act as an example of acceptable behaviour, clearly illustrating your personal attitude towards such matters. So as I said, how are we supposed to give any credence at all to the opinion of someone capable of displaying such reckless ignorance?

      Hell yeah I go through red lights - but NO, I don’t feel “ever so slightly guilty about it” ... as well I SHOULDN’T. This is because unlike you and the rest of the narrow-minded whingers posting here, I possess something known as COMMON SENSE. I go through red lights in situations where it enhances my safety, and benefits the motorists with whom I share the road.

      It’s simple - I can obey all the rules and hold up traffic, or I can use my common sense in an attempt to minimise my imposition on those around me. As a cyclist I can legally ride at a snail’s pace up a hill in a bus lane, completely blocking the path of any buses behind me - OR I can illegally jump up onto the footpath when I hear a bus approaching me from behind, and courteously let them pass. As a cyclist I can legally ride to the front of a queue of cars at a red light, and when that red light turns green I can legally impede the progress of all motorists behind me as I clip into my pedals and slowly but surely resume my journey, legally taking up as much of the lane as I deem appropriate in ensuring my safety - OR I can illegally go through the red light when I see it is safe to do so, and be far enough ahead of the line of traffic behind me to ensure that by the time the light turns green and they catch up with me, I have picked up enough speed to enable them to pass me in a MUCH SAFER AND EASIER MANNER.

      Many cyclists break the law with the sole objective of enhancing not only their own journey, but that of all those around them. Evidently many people simply lack the intelligence and insight required to realise this.

    • James says:

      09:54am | 15/01/10

      To prove that my theory is true, here comes Charles Kelly.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of impatience and selfishness I am talking about.  If everyone went through red lights as you do, Charles, we would have chaos on the roads.  You act as though you are doing the world a service, when all you are really about is advancing your own selfish interests.  Far from lacking intelligence and insight, Charles, most of us actually have the intelligence and insight to see that you are simply engaging in self-justificatory behaviour to mitigate the societal effects of your blatant law-breaking.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:42am | 15/01/10

      Really James? If I wanted to walk across the road at an intersection where there were traffic lights, I would not wait for a “walk” signal if i could see quite clearly with my own eyes that there were no vehicles approaching from either direction. That’s called using COMMON SENSE - something which you are clearly unfamiliar with. If that’s “blatant law-breaking” then so be it - I’ll take than ANY day over being an incompetent mindless sheep. Many laws are in place simply to protect people and society from those who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Evidently you fall into that category.

      You ride a bicycle in Canberra, do not own a car, do not have driver’s license, yet you genuinely think you’re qualified to comment on this matter? Could you possibly be more deluded? Pathetic.

    • James says:

      10:54am | 15/01/10

      Ah yes, the most rational response is a stream of insults.  You said that you happily run red lights in traffic in your post.  That is not crossing the road in no traffic, my friend; it is a whole different kettle of fish.  It is you who is deluded, dressing up your selfishness as being in the interests of society.  That is pathetic, being too deluded to understand your own selfish motivations, and pretending you are doing it for the greater good.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:54am | 15/01/10

      Typo corrections - it should read “I’ll take that ANY day” and “do not have a driver’s license”. My apologies - next time I’ll proof read before posting.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:36am | 15/01/10

      Wrong AGAIN James - it’s exactly the same thing. I DID NOT say I “happily run red lights in traffic” - I said I “go through the red light when I see it is safe to do so”, which is exactly the same as crossing a road on foot against a “don’t walk” signal “when I see it is safe to do so”. I’m not at all surprised you’re incapable of comprehending this simple fact.

      “A stream of insults”? By their very nature, YOUR posts are grossly insulting to anyone in possession of even a modicum of common sense and intelligence. If it’s “selfishness” to break road laws “in situations where it enhances my safety, and benefits the motorists with whom I share the road” then colour me selfish - I’ll take that ANY day over being an incompetent mindless sheep who’s completely incapable of intelligent lateral thought.

    • H of SA says:

      01:33pm | 15/01/10

      I mentioned earlier in this thread a sense of greater rudeness amongst cyclists than other road users. The amount of venom and insults in the posts from cyclists toward the author and other posters hardly does anything to errode this belief.

      Really, whether your a respecful cyclist or not - can you honestly read the angry remarks from some cyclists in this thread and say its not possible to understand the why other road users don’t feel cyclists are respectful?

    • James says:

      01:34pm | 15/01/10

      Has it ever occurred to you Charles that your judgment is not perfect in all matters?  That perhaps, sometimes, you might misjudge a situation, and get it wrong?  These are rhetorical questions, as I know that you have not, and make this clear in your posts (I am right, if you disagree you are a sheep, seems to be your attitude).  That is exactly why we have road rules, to prevent people taking the rules of the road into their own hands and making stupid mistakes that could be avoided by simply obeying the law.  If (as you say) is it stupid of Clare to assume that in crossing the road when the little green man flashes she is doing the right thing and should be safe, the only reason it would not is because of people like you, who think that they are too clever for the laws, and thus sit above them.  Lefties like you might not see any use for laws and such, but some among us do.  And we would appreciate it if you allow the laws and elected representatives of this country to decide what is okay, and what is not, and not self-confessed selfish types like yourself.  I apologise if I took your “hell yeah” to running red lights as meaning you happily do it.  Furthermore, how else could you do it to advance the interests of other road users unless it was in traffic?  I am entirely capable of intelligent lateral thought, I just choose not to apply it in circumstances where I might get myself or others killed, as there are already laws in place to provide for my safety on the road.  Again, as I have said, if we all acted like you, our roads would be much more dangerous.  My final point on this is to say you have completely proven my theory.  Your aggressive attitude and clear impatience with dissenting viewpoints speak of a fundamental need to chill out and relax a little, and speak volumes about how you would behave on the road.  Thank you.

      On another note, CAPITALISATION does NOT enhance your ARGUMENTS, it just makes you seem RUDE and CONDESCENDING.  So by all means, if you want to argue in such a fashion, go ahead.  Just leave the real debate to the adults, who can act civilly towards one another.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:57pm | 15/01/10

      An honest answer James - have you EVER in your life crossed a road against a “don’t walk” signal, or jaywalked in any manner whatsoever? Well, have you? As far as I’m concerned, if you haven’t you’re an incompetent mindless sheep who’s completely incapable of intelligent lateral thought - and if you have, by YOUR definition you’re a selfish “blatant law-breaker”, and by mine you’re a pathetic self-righteous hypocrite. Pick one.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:04pm | 15/01/10

      It’s called fighting back H of SA, heard of it? I’m personally SICK TO DEATH of the blatantly ignorant, abusive and downright dangerous attitudes of many motorists towards cyclists, and I’ve HAD ENOUGH.  Don’t like it, bad luck - do something about the motorists, and cyclists will respond in kind. THEY started it, and it’s ABOUT TIME cyclists reacted and stood up for themselves.

    • James says:

      02:22pm | 15/01/10

      Charles, if you cannot see the difference between a pedestrian on an empty road, and a cyclist ignoring road rules in traffic, it is not worth debating with you.  And no, I do not cross against a don’t walk signal, as where I live it can be quite dangerous, and not worth the risk, and in any case I am a deeply patient man, who is happy to wait a few seconds or minutes.  Conversely, I always cross at pedestrian crossings with only the barest of looks, and often get cyclists (perhaps just like you) abusing me for exercising my right of way.  Perhaps one day a cyclist (like you) might decide not to obey the road rules to teach me a lesson, who knows?  I might indeed be an “incompetent mindless sheep” in your books, but I must say that your point of view is not one that matters to me in the least, as you are a rude, aggressive, obnoxious, and blinkered individual with no concept of empathy.  As H of SA has said, by responding so aggressively and insultingly to anyone who thinks differently, you have shown why the obnoxious cyclists give the rest of us a bad name.  By entrenching the anti-cyclist attitudes held by many motorists, you do us all a great disservice.  That is, at least if you are as aggressive on the road as you are in these posts.

    • James says:

      02:23pm | 15/01/10

      Here’s a new concept for you Charles - the “moral high ground”.  Try it some time, it feels better than stooping to the level of those you clearly despise so much.

    • H of SA says:

      03:14pm | 15/01/10

      An eye for an eye until we’re all blind eh Charles?

    • AJ of Here says:

      04:42pm | 16/01/10

      Charles, thank you for affirming that the next time I see a cyclist on the pedestrian path, I should clothesline him. You are right. Time for war.

      Moron.

    • Chris says:

      09:56am | 17/01/10

      Before all you anti-cycling car enthusiasts get all high and mighty about cyclists breaking road laws, ask yourself how does this article look now that the official 2009 statistics on drivers have come out via the Fed Government?  Stupid, is the first word to come to mind.  For example:
      25% of car drivers believe its acceptable to speed when safe;
      16% have fallen asleep at the wheel, and 43% more than once;
      61% use mobile phones during driving.

      SHOCK HORROR, car drivers offend too!

      Its no wonder there were 1509 fatalities caused by road crashes in 2009.  How many fatalities caused by bike crashes, hmm? My guess is probably 0 in 2009.  Isn’t funny the car driving group like to berate and educate the cyclist, when it is car drivers who in fact kill people.

      Articles like these chastising cyclists are plain stupid.  If you want to talk about people breaking the law on roads, let’s focus on the group that has the greatest capacity to cause damage?  Let’s tackle the bigger problem first.

    • Mulga Bill says:

      02:50pm | 17/01/10

      As Charles and James were indulging in their little private bikebitch-fest, what have the rest of us been doing?

      Out and about on the road, I bet, by bike, car, bus, and foot, ignoring or avoiding the hoons and primadonnas while giving a friendly wave,  grin, or g’dayee to other road-users who’ve just spontaneously done something kind, sensible or friendly, for no reason but just because.

      Chris, road fatalities is a difficult topic. We tend to jump at the actual numbers, when car or bike use and ownership are growing all the time. It’d make more sense to look at fatalities as some sort of rate: per 100,000 population, or per million vehicle kilometres, say. 

      For bikes and pedestrians the actual raw numbers are rather low so the readily available information is pretty summary

      “Since the 1990s, cyclist deaths in road crashes have constituted on average between 2 and 3 per cent of the total deaths in road crashes in Australia. In the 1990s, the number of cyclist deaths ranged from 40 to 80 per year. In the 2000s so far (2000 to 2005), the range has been from 26 to 46 per year.

      The most common type of crash in which cyclists were fatally injured was the cyclist being hit from behind by a motor vehicle travelling in the same lane in the same direction. Cyclists riding on rural roads are particularly at risk of being run over from behind.

      From 1996 to 2004, there were at least 58 cases where a cyclist was run over by a motor vehicle coming from behind. This kind of crash occurred in urban as well as in rural areas but 38 cases occurred on rural roads, most during the day.

      The next most common crash type was the cyclist riding from the footway into an intersection or onto a road and being hit by an oncoming motor vehicle.”
      http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2006/death_cyclists_road.aspx

      In 2007, 41 cyclists died in road accidents,  27 in 2008.  For pedestrians,  204 died in road accidents in 2007 and 193 in 2009, from http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/rsr_04.aspx
      The number of fatal accidents where cyclists hit pedestrians is too low for the data to show, though from recall there was one pedestrian fatality last year, and there have been instances of cyclist fatalities. The pattern and rate of cyclist deaths changed markedly when it became compulsory to wear a helmet in the early 90s. 

      I don’t aim to be the boldest cyclist on the road, just the oldest. Riding, I’m highly visible, signal very clearly, and obey the road rules when on the road.  Being human, I make mistakes sometimes but over some 50 years of riding and driving, I’ve never injured another person (driving or riding), and -bar the odd scraped knee- only injured myself once (riding). So far.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      07:48pm | 17/01/10

      H of SA, the reason many inbred simpletons pick on cyclists isn’t really because they’re “the least considerate of all road users, the most undpredictable and the most rude” as some blinkered morons assume - that criticism is clearly based largely on motorists’ ignorance regarding the road laws pertaining to cyclists. The REAL reason is because cyclists are seen as an easy target and the roads are full of spineless cowards. These idiots assume that they’re untouchable because they’re surrounded by a big hunk of metal and cyclists aren’t - and any cyclist who decides to show them otherwise has my full support. There have been times when motorists have decided to entertain themselves by childishly bullying me on the road, and I’ve used whatever means necessary to catch them further up the road - and they’ve always ended up coming off second best. I learned long ago that the police couldn’t care less when incidents of cyclist bullying are reported, so as far as I’m concerned there’s little option but to take matters into our own hands. These pathetic cowards need to be reminded that they’re personally accountable for their actions, and your “until we’re all blind” drivel promotes exactly the opposite.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:12am | 18/01/10

      Just as I expected James, you avoided directly answering my question. I already knew the answer though. Deny it all you want, but at some stage in your life you’ve broken the road rules - so according to your own definition you’re a a selfish “blatant law-breaker”, and by mine you’re a pathetic self-righteous hypocrite. However that’s only the tip of the iceberg in terms of your hypocrisy.

      I’m not at all surprised you “can recite many instances where drivers have sworn” at you for arrogantly storming across pedestrian crossings before you’ve ensured they’re aware of your presence, simply because you feel entitled to do so. You think motorists need to “chill out” instead of (appropriately) reacting angrily to you thoughtlessly “excercising your right” to act exactly like one of the “selfish bastards” you’re so eager to hypocritically comdemn. Clearly your delusional ignorance knows no bounds. Personally I think they’d be doing the world a favour if they were a little slower to react to your reckless behaviour, and avoided their brake pedals altogether.

      Yeah yeah, you say you never “cross against a don’t walk signal” - well, at least not when anybody’s looking so as to avoid publicly compromising the holier-than-though image you have of yourself. Then again, maybe you’re actually telling the truth, considering what devices of this kind are needed for - to protect those who are intellectually incapable of rationally thinking for themselves from dangerously making their own decisions. More evolved people, on the other hand, are prone to put more faith in their own instincts than an automated electronic signal emitted from an inanimate object. Then again, now that I’ve gained more insight into your ever so delicate sensibilities, I am willing to concede that it’s probably advisable for you personally to strictly avoid taking such elementary matters into your own hands.

      I can see it now - the “deeply patient man” indignantly scowling in smug self-righteousness as a steady stream of “blatant law-breakers” walk across a completely empty road. Of course your petty condemnation wouldn’t bother them - they’re all too busy sniggering at the pathetic loser frozen in fear at the prospect of what would betide him should he ever actually dare to think for himself, and cross against a “don’t walk” signal.

      Clearly it’s impossible to reason with anyone so monumentally ignorant that they genuinely believe there’s a massive difference between crossing an empty road on foot contrary to an automated electronic signal emitted from an inanimate object, and crossing an empty road on a bicycle contrary to an automated electronic signal emitted from an inanimate object. Either you’ve deliberately chosen to ignore what I’ve actually written and twisted my words to suit your petty agenda, or you’re borderline illiterate. Perhaps some remedial reading and comprehension lessons may be in order?

      You and your kind make me sick - because YOU are the reason Australian society is subjected to the cotton-wool enveloped nanny state in which we now live. A pompous, self-absorbed meddler such as yourself may need his hand held by small-minded bureaucrats while you struggle with the overwhelming complexities of what most of us consider to be simple straightforward tasks, but many people DON’T! I don’t know whether to despise you or pity you.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:23am | 18/01/10

      As for you AJ of Here, the cowardly surprise attacks you propose reflect the attitudes of many ignorant inbred cyclist haters on the road today. Completely incapable of intelligent rational thought, you have little choice but to act like a mindless thug. No big news there.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:38am | 18/01/10

      Mulga Bill, the pedestrian/cyclist accident last year resulting in the death of the pedestrian cannot be counted in any list of “fatal accidents where cyclists hit pedestrians”, because it was solely the pedestrian’s fault. The pedestrian effectively “hit” the cyclist. Although strongly supported by Claire Struthers and James as an acceptable action, rational intelligent people are aware that carelessly barging directly into the path of a fast moving object is extremely reckless and irresponsible behaviour - and in this instance natural selection came into play, and the pedestrian died as a result of their own foolishness.

    • James says:

      10:34am | 18/01/10

      Still at it Charles, I see.  Pouring scorn and vitriol at anyone with a different point of view may be considered a valid way of constructing an argument amongst your group of acquaintances, but as I said earlier as long as you feel the need to behave in such a childish manner, it is not worth engaging with you on your opinions.  It seems to me that when you say “reasoning”, you really mean forcing your own point of view down everyone’s throat, and then abusing those who disagree.  That, sir, is the archetypal aggressive cyclist, and you have done us all a great disservice by presenting such an obnoxious, insulting stereotype for all the anti-cyclists to latch on to as proof of their own positions.  The reason it is impossible for you to “reason” with me is that you clearly do not understand that “reasoning” does not involve browbeating or insulting a person into submission.  Indeed, that is the opposite of reason.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:01am | 18/01/10

      Are you REALLY so deluded James, that you’re completely oblivious to your overwhelmingly ignorant hypocrisy??? Whereas I have addressed varied aspects of the many dubious points you have made, yet again you’re left with little recourse but to force your self-righteous objections to my style of argument down my throat. My arguments are statements of fact - you simply choose to view them as “abuse” because clearly you have great difficulty handling the TRUTH.

      Clearly there’s no room on the “moral high ground” for anyone else, with you narcissistically claiming it all as your sovereign property.

      Bloody pathetic - grow up.

    • Mulga Bill says:

      11:06am | 18/01/10

      Two questions remain to be asked of Charles Kelly

      1. To which cycling organisations does he belong

      2.  How many people does he usually ride with?

    • James says:

      11:15am | 18/01/10

      Facts, hey?  Let me quote: “inbred simpletons”, “pompous, self-absorbed meddler”, “pathetic, self-righteous hypocrite”, and the list goes on.  And all because I pointed out that you were acting in the aggressive way characteristic of so many road/footpath users.  I am aware of my own shortcomings and hypocrisy.  Are you aware of yours?  Or do you go through this world convinced that you are a pillar of common sense and rationality, and that we could all learn how to be better people by copying your style of interaction? 

      I still maintain my central position, that regardless of my own actions, some people are aggressive, rude and impatient when traveling, and that we can find examples from drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.  Has anything you have said negated that, Charles?  Conversely, has anything you have said gone someway towards proving that?

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:26am | 18/01/10

      You quote: “inbred simpletons”, “pompous, self-absorbed meddler”, “pathetic, self-righteous hypocrite” - so yes James, clearly from the evidence displayed here, these observations are FACTS.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:32am | 18/01/10

      I raced bicycles for quite a few years Mulga Bill, at which point I was a member of the relevant organisations. I have no need to belong to any cycling organisations these days.

      I’ve ridden in larger bunches on the road, smaller bunches off-road, by myself when commuting, and pretty much everything else in between - with the exception of that pathetic “critical mass” farce.

      Your point?

    • James says:

      12:12pm | 18/01/10

      Likewise, Charles, based on observations on this thread, some road users - cyclists like yourself even - are aggressive and uptight, and in need of some relaxation.  What exactly was your problem with my central thesis again?

      And where is your evidence that I am inbred?  This just sounds like a plain old insult to me.  An attempt to undermine me personally due to the lack of any actual argument or evidence on your part.

    • Mulga Bill says:

      12:40pm | 18/01/10

      Kelly -as expected - is not a member of any cycling organisation. In other words, he is riding uninsured - normally comes with membership. 

      If Kelly trashes his bike. tough - his cost.  But if he trashes your bike, or runs into your car, rotsa ruck. He’s not covered. 

      With his attitude, he is a menace to himself and to anyone he still rides with - though he’s couched that in the past tense, note. With his attitude, an expensive lesson on the road is only a matter of time.

      Done here. No need to stick a fork in this one - its done to a turn.

      PS James, put your handbag away, the time for your person-to-person hissy fit is past.

    • James says:

      12:51pm | 18/01/10

      Hi Bill,

      “Handbag”?  Ouch.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:35pm | 18/01/10

      Where exactly did I take issue with your “central thesis” James?

      Where exactly did I personally refer to you as “inbred” James?

      Once again, either you’ve deliberately chosen to ignore what I’ve actually written and twisted my words to suit your petty agenda, or you’re borderline illiterate. Either way, it’s evident my observation that “perhaps some remedial reading and comprehension lessons may be in order” for you was alarmingly accurate.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:05pm | 18/01/10

      Get your hand off it Mulga Bill.

      The majority of people currently cycling on public roads are NOT members of any cycling organisation - and I personally have no intention to give a single cent to support any of the recumbent-riding lefty freaks at bicycle NSW.

      I ride safely. My expensive bikes are insured. The people I tend to ride with these days are much more prone to taking risks than me, but only when we’re riding off-road - that’s fine by me, as the majority of them are far better riders than I could ever hope to be. Portraying me as “a menace” on the road is nothing more than evidence of your ill-informed bias and eagerness to ignore the facts in jumping to any ignorant conclusion you can find to support your petty agenda. Wake up to yourself.

    • AJ of Here says:

      11:30am | 19/01/10

      Oh, you want a FAIR WAR now, Charles. Sorry, kid. It ain’t happening. Anyone advocating a “fair” war is a sociopath sadist who likes nothing more than seeing humans suffer. It is no accident that it is a strident slogan by the Leftards of the world.

      You want a war, Charles. You’ve got it.

      Oh, and you are a moron for not seeing the irony in my previous post. Either that or an angry little man, like our dear Prime Minister.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      03:37pm | 19/01/10

      Where did I say anything about wanting a “fair war” AJ of Here? Do you often hallucinate? Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Or are you simply illiterate?

      I merely characterised your pathetic attitude as that of a mindless ignorant inbred thug who is completely incapable of intelligent rational thought. Once again, it’s evident my observation was alarmingly accurate.

    • AJ of Here says:

      08:24pm | 19/01/10

      All that talk about ambushes is not trying to get a fair war started, Charles? Oh my, what WERE you after? Perhaps you will be less inclined to call for war the next time, now that you realise that there are people out there willing to fight back against your kind of demagougery. Or is it another case of “I can call for violence, but you can’t” so typical of the rapid Left?

    • Charles Kelly says:

      04:17pm | 20/01/10

      Your asinine response is entirely predictable “AJ of Here”. Once again you have proven that my previous observation was alarmingly accurate. Clearly, to expect any better from you would be futile.

    • AJ of Here says:

      04:36pm | 20/01/10

      Ah, yes, the ceaseless ad hominem attacks with no substance to advance the debate. So typical of the Leftards, especially the greenies. Tsk tsk tsk. You might as well have Godwinned the thread, Charles. How pathetic. Next time you call for a war, my dear Charles, you might want to think on the consequences first.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:11pm | 20/01/10

      Go back and actually read what I wrote AJ of Here. Then read it again, s l o w l y - just to make sure. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll see where it was your delusional ignorance has led you astray. It’s clearly there for all to see, but I’m sure as hell not going to spoon-feed you. Think you can manage that sweetie? (I won’t be holding my breath)

      Of course you’re perfectly welcome to ignore me completely, and simply continue digging this embarrassingly huge hole for yourself. Nevertheless, I’d strongly suggest you consider joining James at some remedial reading and comprehension lessons.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

David Penberthy

Wine fans: our Punch profile on the excellent Ray Beckwith, the 100 year old chemist who helped make Penfolds great http://t.co/ftFHu2oy

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter