Blackbeard

.

And if the clown knows, does he care? We have empathy issues in SA.

Yes, but many of the drunk drivers would still appreciate, to a degree, what they have done. The fact that they flee proves that. If they were so intoxicated so as to be automatons they would in all likelihood have been to drunk to drive. They leave to avoid being tested for alcohol, placing their personal interests above those of another human being that they may have placed in mortal danger.

Apart from the issue of driving into a cyclist, what kind of person leaves the scene? Clearly the driver is unconcerned with the fact that the cyclist may need urgent assistance.

I skim read it - you did not miss much.

My initial impression was that he erred. The regs I had seen clearly stated that it was permissible, but I have not kept abreast of it as I do not ride a motor cycle. I personally have never had a problem with lane splitting. The Metro chap was interviewed for the express purpose of bringing finality to the issue. I was particularly struck by the fact that motorists were requested to report "offenders" to the authorities. The difficulty is that misinformation creates confusion and this also leads to an increase of the tensions between the various categories of road user. This impacts directly on all of us whether we think we can reason better than others or not. We may think it is safe to proceed through a red traffic light, but it may not be objectively speaking. By way of example, I discovered this weekend that my vehicle has a blind spot if I approach a T-junction set at a certain angle. (To the cyclist rocking the ironic van dyke facial thatch - my profuse apologies again. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. We both got a fright and parted amicably). My reasoning was therefore impaired by factors that I had not accounted for, despite my best efforts at the time. Traffic rules are there to give all road users a reasonable expectation regarding the conduct of others. The system is not infallible, merely the best in the circumstances until amended with proper communication to all road users.

I was also under the impression that lane splitting by motor cyclists was permitted, but during a Talk Radio interview with Kieno Kummings this morning the ranking officer of the Cape Town Metro Police categorically stated that it was illegal. He claimed that the rule was not being enforced due to difficulties occasioned by the volumes of traffic. He further requested motorists to record the license plates of offending motor cyclists and forward these on to the Metro Police. It appears that tension between motorists and motor cyclists is peaking. Its getting hot out there on the roads.

I was seeded according to these criteria.

"Blister in the sun" - Violent Femmes.

Can you please provide an address for delivery?

Double post.

I have a few Santini jackets. They really fit the bill.

Yes. And it provides us with a convenient analogy to filter previously expressed views through.

The SAPS are loosing public support daily. This type of incident is not isolated and stems from a lack of leadership.

Yes.

When all the statements of witnesses and the parties involved have been taken, the State Prosecutor may decide to charge the driver and/or occupants of the van criminally if it appears that he/they acted in a manner which may have been unlawful. All the events leading up to the assault caught on camera will be investigated.

Hey, that's not nice.

I am not selling anything. In plainer English: What the cyclists did in the clip was wrong (my first point). They have been criminally charged. What happened prior to the video clip will emerge fully at the trial - this is the appropriate time to consider all the issues. (my second point) Speculation is useless and divisive (my third point). I don't recall making any comment that would logically lead to your statement: "if your choice is to see this whole incident being what was filmed on a passer-by's cellphone as the entirity (sic)....". I fail to understand how you can argue this when by your own admission your ramblings are pure speculation.

I believe that the suggestion is to ride through the area as if its a "neutral" area, not that cyclists should not use it. Oops. Sorry, I may have misunderstood the context of the question.

Biased much? Short precis: Cyclists wearing MC2 kit unlawfully attack the occupant of a stationery vehicle. It is recorded by 3rd party and it goes viral sparking unchecked vitriol against the club and cyclists in general. Apologists contend we need to know the facts and what happened before the assault. Others argue that what happened before does not justify violence. While what happened before creates context it does not affect the unacceptable and unlawful nature of the act. Apologists insist that we need to know the FACTS and then proceed to speculate wildly to justify the MC2 riders involved while insisting that they do not condone the act (the "its wrong but he's my buddy view"). The MC2 riders are arrested and charged criminally. PPA kicks them out of the Argus and suspends them pending an enquiry.

Ditto speculation.

No.

Its really a non-issue. Lets not make it one.

Apart from the expletive, the rest is unclear. I don't think it is necessary to make any more of it than he was rightly appalled by their behaviour. His motivation for recording and posting the event does not affect the culpability of the cyclists involved.

Future sponsorship may be affected if this issue is not dealt with by MC2. David Bellairs alluded to PPA sponsorship yesterday while interviewed by Maythem on Cape Talk.