Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

Dude, You should see the reaction I get when I stay behind the pedestrian crossing line when the light is green, and the opposite side is stationary... Fingers, vloeking, JMSP this, whitey that... And then the okes on the perpendicular (entry road) just block the intersection anyway....

I wouldn't willingly ride on their roads. If you think OUR drivers are bad... Sjoe. They take chances like a seasoned taxi / golden arrow bus driver...

He's wrong, unless the law has changed that significantly. RObin Carlisle proposed a ban on lane splitting in Cape Town, but there was so much backlash it was shelved... But then, this oke interviewed is head of Metro. Not exactly a guy that has jurisdiction on TRAFFIC offences. Nor is it his area of expertise. To quote another source: So what does the law state about Lane-Splitting? Contrary to popular belief Lane-Splitting is actually legal in South-Africa, says Howard Dembovsky the National Chairman of Justice Project South Africa. Article 298 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 1999, allows a motorcycle to pass another vehicle in the same lane, either to the right or the left of the other vehicle, subject to certain provisions. Article 309 reiterates this, with the proviso that more than one motorcycle may not pass another vehicle at the same time.

yeah. 100%. But in this case it was certainly a factor...

If we're talking 5 to 10 horses, yeah - you'd be right. But when all the cars are of similar weight, 180 horses is a HUGE disadvantage. Remember, that's a 20% difference in power, and with these turbocharged & ERS driven engines the torque is on demand at relatively low revs - which means that coming out of corners WITHOUT that ERS system means that the car is at an extreme disadvantage - there is pronounced turbo lag (no pre-charging through the ERS) and a loss of power throughout the rev range - resulting in slower times...

Broken hand and it looks like the roasties go all the way to the tendons in 2 places... not cool!!!

Agreed with Steve here. Although I have to say - driving a car with 180bhp less than your competitors is a HELLUVA disadvantage, and no driver would be able to withstand that sort of disadvantage in a race where that power is available for 33 seconds per lap. That's a 20% power loss for Vettel right there. That's the effective disadvantage he had, and I can guarantee they'll be studying Ricciardo's car intently to determine the differences between them in order to make it work. May also be that they were trying 2 different setups and Daniel happened to get the one that worked on the day. Either way, though, Rosberg deserved the win. Complete and total domination from the start. Brilliant car, and a VERY good driver. Daniel also had a great drive in what critics have claimed to be a grossly inferior car from a power-plant perspective...

Yeha, hard to tell without actually properly looking at the wood... But still - in today's world, teak would be a helluva lot less than Oregon Pine..

If that's true, then well yeah. FIA need to answer a few questions!

you'd have to ride something else to be able to tell...seriously

Yeah. Really feel for the oke. I mean it's such a stupid thing to be disqualified on given how it could have been and should have been avoided and controlled by the team. He must be supremely gutted

Garrotte and a multi tool right there, mate. You win...

Sure hope so.. you'd pay a pretty penny for those floors nowadays. Especially in oregon pine

Coffee mug.... and a baby monitor

Nope. In terms of engines lasting the whole way, we still had the same number of Renault powered cars finishing the race. The disqualification doesn't change that. He finished the full race distance and was disqualified after the fact. He crossed the finish line. His removal from the podium doesn't change that, as he'll still be listed albeit with a "dq" next to his name

Nah. An apology would have been dishonest on my part. But yes. For the language used, I apologise. For the sentiment regarding those that shoot stops and reds, my ire remains.

Thanks. And technically not defamation - you admitted to breaking a law, and proceeded to pass a gross generalisation in your attempt to paint cyclists as a law breaking bunch (in addition to calling those posts that tried to offer sensible reason in an attempt to dissuade the OP from further breaking the law and endangering other road users as "sanctimonious bs") - which is generally accepted as not a clever thing to do - ie: dumb. I did not attempt to defame you, merely point out that your thought patterns were not that clever in this instance. This will be my final post on this matter, as it is clear that the OP is not willing to accept any counter argument or take cognisance of her / his effect on the safety of fellow road users, and the negative light that her / his actions on the road further cast on us as cyclists.

What a Dumbass. I'll be the first to say that your generalisation doesn't apply to me, nor the people I ride with.

And there we go. The ultimate admission. You're a law disdaining citizen and nothing anyone can say shall change your point of view, regardless of whether what you're doing is legal, logical or responsible (clue here: it's none of the above in this case) as you continue to justify your own actions through platitudes and arrogance. Good day. May you one day realise that you are in fact wrong, and not hurt anyone else in the process.

Ag no man... That's squarely in red bull technicians court. No way that should have been possible given the ease with which they'd have been able to get that sorted

Erm, no. Incorrect. You ARE allowed to cycle in the yellow lane. The law makes allowance for it under the right of slower road users to move into the yellow lane in order to let faster vehicles (this classification as a vehicle is the important one) pass when it is safe to do so. It does come with a few provisos though. It must be a single lane (single or dual direction) road and you must have proper visibility and it must be safe to do so. Point is that as a cyclist, yiu are permitted to use the yellow lane on order to let faster vehicles pass. As the driver of a vehicle, you are obliged to follow the law of the road as it applies to you. Stopping at red lights and stop streets is neither stupid or dangerous. Skipping them, regardless of the speed at which you do it, is. It's actually quite simple, really. Either use the road as a logical, law abiding citizen (and that means following the laws themselves) or don't use the road at all. As a human being, you have logical thought patterns and powers of deduction, along with the ability to make a choice. You are choosing to put not only yourself, but ME, as a fellow road user and cyclist, in danger, from your arrogant and selfish actions. The sad thing is that if you are knocked over as a result of jumping a light, regardless of who was at fault, there will be someone else loving with the consequences of killing someone. And the fact that you continue to attempt your justification of this act infers that you are in fact okay with that.

Yep yep! As for the rules - it's their race. Their rules. Your duty to follow them

So then never ever ever look at Intense

See above...

Brilliant racing from Magnusson and Bottas! Rosberg also giving a flawless performance