Thread: New Qld Bike Laws

Originally Posted by rustynail

There is nothing wrong with the introduction of new subject matter.

Indeed. My only complaint is when it is used to try and shore up a weak argument.

Originally Posted by rustynail

Yet despite all this, you want to ride your bike

Now you're getting it!

As I said from the outset, I am at pains to NOT get into a debate about whether bikes should be on the road or not. All I'm trying to do is to follow people's logic.

Originally Posted by silentC

Indeed. My only complaint is when it is used to try and shore up a weak argument.


Now you're getting it!

As I said from the outset, I am at pains to NOT get into a debate about whether bikes should be on the road or not. All I'm trying to do is to follow people's logic.

And I am having just as much trouble following yours.
A weak argument is one fortified by fictitious figures and percentages, in the vain hope of making the perpetrator sound as if they know what they're talking about.

I'm not making the argument, you are!

Let's summarise shall we.

You expressed the opinion that cyclists need to be familiar with the road rules and that licensing those who don't already have a drivers license would aid that. The departed Doug extended your argument by suggesting that licensing would prevent people who otherwise would not qualify for a drivers license from taking to a push bike. You agreed.

My point was that the people you are talking about there are, in my opinion, very much a minority when we are talking about the kind of cyclists that you and several others are whinging about. The overwhelming majority of that group, I am certain, are adults who already have 'competency' in the form of a drivers license.

I don't think I need numbers to make that point. If you disagree, well I suppose that's your prerogative. But if you think that most of these cyclists do not have a drivers license and are not already familiar with the road rules then I think you are misguided.

Therefore your insistence that licensing cyclists who don't already have a drivers license (your stipulation, not mine) will help prevent the type of behaviour that you have complained about in this thread is based on a weak premise.

That's as clear as I can put it. Maybe try reading what I wrote instead of latching on to some pedantic point in it and we might get somewhere.

I think this is enough of a "Oooh ah " thread already, with out either latching onto anything more in each others posts.

Now what does Glenn McGrath have to do with it?

Originally Posted by silentC

I'm not making the argument, you are!

Let's summarise shall we.

You expressed the opinion that cyclists need to be familiar with the road rules and that licensing those who don't already have a drivers license would aid that. The departed Doug extended your argument by suggesting that licensing would prevent people who otherwise would not qualify for a drivers license from taking to a push bike. You agreed.

My point was that the people you are talking about there are, in my opinion, very much a minority when we are talking about the kind of cyclists that you and several others are whinging about. The overwhelming majority of that group, I am certain, are adults who already have 'competency' in the form of a drivers license.

I don't think I need numbers to make that point. If you disagree, well I suppose that's your prerogative. But if you think that most of these cyclists do not have a drivers license and are not already familiar with the road rules then I think you are misguided.

Therefore your insistence that licensing cyclists who don't already have a drivers license (your stipulation, not mine) will help prevent the type of behaviour that you have complained about in this thread is based on a weak premise.

That's as clear as I can put it. Maybe try reading what I wrote instead of latching on to some pedantic point in it and we might get somewhere.

Your last paragraph I will take as your autobiography.

Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys.