more bike bashing ?
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Yamaha design flaw
Next: Got some spare coin?
From: theo on 23 Nov 2009 21:16 On Nov 23, 5:14 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > theo wrote: > > In WA moped officially means > > > Moped > > A motorcycle that has a propelling engine having a piston > > displacement not exceeding 50 cc and which is designed so as to be > > capable of a speed not exceeding 60 kilometres per hour. > > > Licence Class R-N Minimum age 16. My 15 yo grandson has a learners > > permit for this class at the moment. He will be able to get his > > licence next May when he turns 16. Meanwhile he can ride around on L's > > as long as his mum or dad are with him. > > 60?!!? > Most of the states limit it to a less workable 50. The above definition was cut and pasted from the Dept of Transport website. However, intro models like the V-Moto Milan can't do 60. Theo
From: theo on 23 Nov 2009 21:23 On Nov 24, 9:37 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > [sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers > and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the > one we would get if no licensing were required. I take that to be a > given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for > riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those > roads). In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964. There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year. Theo Who was once cautioned for riding an unlicensed bicycle and went and paid the 2/6 next day.
From: Pietro on 23 Nov 2009 21:40 "Diogenes" <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> wrote in message news:efdmg5tnovfddv0hkqnd9bhun7150nb3ac(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:35:38 GMT, Andrew > <amckNOSPAM3047(a)telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote: <snip> > Hence my question to Zebee (to which he, although he is a great bloke, > has not yet replied.) Maybe that is because you directed your question to alx - who has in fact replied... P HTH HAND
From: Diogenes on 23 Nov 2009 21:40 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo <theodoreb(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >On Nov 24, 9:37�am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >> [sigh] �D'oh... OK, here we go: �I posit that the licensing of drivers >> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the >> one we would get if no licensing were required. �I take that to be a >> given. �Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for >> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those >> roads). >In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964. >There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden >increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year. I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. By licensing the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road rules knowledge and riding skills testable items. Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the introduction of such licensing. It follows therefore that no impact on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension of such licensing. Your innunedo is that of an imbecile. Keep it up. ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: theo on 23 Nov 2009 21:46
On Nov 24, 10:40 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo > > <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > >On Nov 24, 9:37 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > >> [sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers > >> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the > >> one we would get if no licensing were required. I take that to be a > >> given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for > >> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those > >> roads). > >In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964. > >There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden > >increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year. > > I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. By licensing > the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road > rules knowledge and riding skills testable items. > > Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the > introduction of such licensing. It follows therefore that no impact > on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension > of such licensing. So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced? Theo |