red750 Posted November 13 Posted November 13 The Bruce Highway strikes again. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14074373/Bruce-Highway-closed-directions-following-horror-crash-killed-two.html?ito=social-facebook 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 13 Posted November 13 (edited) The car driver had to brake to let the car on the right hand lane get in front so enough time lapse to check, especially if the bike was seen coming at a rate of knots. If the car driver saw the rider coming up at speed, spidey senses should have been tingling for a quick mirror check before. May have been a blind spot or purely focusing on the lane immediately before the car on the right... we have all done it (not necessarily with a bike filtering at the time) Can't really make out the second one but also filtering way too fast Edited November 13 by Jerry_Atrick 1
willedoo Posted November 13 Posted November 13 Is filtering way too fast a new way of saying speeding. 1
spacesailor Posted November 13 Posted November 13 (edited) If that biker wasn't breaking the speed limit .there would not have been any problems. I have said it before. Too many , that do not obey our laws . spacesailor Edited November 13 by spacesailor
old man emu Posted November 13 Posted November 13 6 minutes ago, spacesailor said: If that biker wasn't breaking the speed limit It is not apparent from the video at what speed the 4-wheeled vehicles were travelling. All one can say is that the bike was travelling appreciably faster. What I saw was that the vehicle in front of the vehicle the bike ran into had its brake lights on, and that the lane ahead was not clear. From that, I deduce that the bike rider had not read the situation in the lane. The bike rider clearly saw the indicator of the car changing lanes and the bike rider altered course to avoid a collision with it. With attention focused on that manoeuvre, the bike rider failed to see the situation in the lane he moved into. It's hard to decide on the offence the rider committed. "Driving at a speed dangerous to the public" might be stretching it in these circumstances since the "public" were at low risk from a collision with the bike. "Travel too close to avoid a collision" doesn't seem to fit because the essence of that offence involves travelling close over an appreciable difference. I know I'd be having a blue with my Traffic Sergeant, but honestly, I'd be telling the bike rider he was an f-wit and to sort things out with the other bloke's insurance company. But then, I used my common sense when deciding whether to prosecute or not. I feel that if I had put this before a Court, it would have been dismissed. 1
facthunter Posted November 13 Posted November 13 The onus is on t he person changing lanes to make sure it's safe. Nev 2
old man emu Posted November 14 Posted November 14 At the relative speed the bike was travelling, it is quite possible that it was not in the sight of the driver of the lane-changer, possibly obscured by the car from which the video was being taken. When enforcing the law you have to take into account all the circumstances and apply common sense. It can't be Justice if one acts like an AI powered machine. 1
Marty_d Posted November 14 Posted November 14 Just saw on the news that the "duct taped banana" artwork will be sold by Sotheby's and is expected to fetch up to $2.2m. (For those who haven't seen it, this "artwork" is a banana taped to the gallery wall). I'm thinking of selling forgeries in DIY form - a banana and a roll of duct tape. Only $10,000 per kit, postage included. Any takers? 1 2
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 14 Posted November 14 https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-banana It's official... the world has gone completely bananas 2
willedoo Posted November 14 Posted November 14 This beer can artwork got thrown in the bin. The banana jogged the memory of reading about this one last month. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/08/beer-can-artwork-lam-museum-thrown-out-all-the-good-times-we-spent-together 1
old man emu Posted November 14 Posted November 14 I'm not a person who understands the meaning of Installation Art, if that was what it was, but after having read the title of the work, I actually got a message from it. Two mates, out on the piss and one has passed out. It's a memory of the "good times" they had together, and how those good times ended up. I think that works such as these really need a title or explanatory note so that viewers can understand what the artist is trying to communicate. 1
Marty_d Posted November 14 Posted November 14 I don't know much about art, but I suspect that if it needs an explanatory note then it's not very good. 1 1
willedoo Posted November 14 Posted November 14 Then there's performance art which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. One so called artist (in New York I think it was) dropped his duds and laid a bit of cable on stage and we're supposed to believe it's art. What's worse than the performance artist is the clowns who sit in the audience and applaud the nonsense. 1 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 14 Posted November 14 I have to admit, I don't get art outside of the traditional types.. In year 10, a school excursion took us to the art gallery in Melbourme, where people were fawning over a bigh white canvas painted white. Apparently the gallery paid big bucks for it. My response was, WTF? 1 2
Marty_d Posted November 14 Posted November 14 It's like that performance where the whole orchestra gets ready then sits there NOT playing for 10 minutes. Jeez, I can write that music. In fact I'm doing it right now. 3
onetrack Posted November 14 Posted November 14 (edited) We went to the Guggenheim Museum and a "famed" artist was putting on a display of his "art". He was regularly firing big cans of red paint at a white wall with a homemade cannon. Of course, the dribbles and runs of paint down the wall, were his "artistic expression". What a load of crap. And art idiots fawn over this kind of stuff. The fact that they pay huge money for this stuff, shows too much money is in the wrong hands. Edited November 14 by onetrack
spacesailor Posted November 14 Posted November 14 Pro Hart ' spaghetti dragonfly ' was good . It had ' colour ' texture ' imagination ' and it moved me . His son , did the same . but . not close to good. Oh Mr Hart what a mess. Is on Facebook. Just a carpet cleaning advert . spacesailor 1 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 14 Posted November 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, Marty_d said: It's like that performance where the whole orchestra gets ready then sits there NOT playing for 10 minutes. Jeez, I can write that music. In fact I'm doing it right now. Reminds me, years ago when I was in the guppie set... A few of us took out a Mel Symphony Orchestra season ticket or some such thing.. Went to the first Friday night performance. I am wrestless at the best of times and after a hard week at work,settled in with my glass of chateua de p155. The orchestra played for about 3 hours with an inermission. I can't remember what it was, but think of a run over cat laying and whining for three hours until it finally died.. that was what it was like. I was fidgeting in the seat the whole time.. At the (finally) end, whe the lights were on and we finally stood up, the lady next to me (no idea who she was) was in tears. I figured she was really into her music and said something like - "Ahh.. that was quite moving.." her response was "it was bloody you who was moving - all the way through - ruined it for me." I didn't respond, but at that point, I was thinking she needed to get a life is she would normally have enjoyed that carp. That was th eonly concerrt I went to on that season ticket. Edited November 14 by Jerry_Atrick 1 1 1
willedoo Posted November 14 Posted November 14 1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said: I was fidgeting in the seat the whole time.. At the (finally) end, whe the lights were on and we finally stood up, the lady next to me (no idea who she was) was in tears. I figured she was really into her music and said something like - "Ahh.. that was quite moving.." her response was "it was bloody you who was moving - all the way through - ruined it for me." That must have been a traumatic experience Jerry. No wonder you took up listening to Billy Joel. 1 2
old man emu Posted November 14 Posted November 14 I have my radio tuned to ABC Classical mainly for background noise, but the presenters don't talk crap when they speak. Unfortunately, their playlist seems to concentrate on the Baroque period when stringed instruments ruled and wind instruments were not as developed or varied as they are now. I really dislike the screechiness of stringed instruments, including the harpsichord and piano. I also dislike choral music and opera. What's the point of people singing if you can't understand the language or the pitch is too high for your aged ears? As for sopranos, I always think that they have just been given a prod in the bum with the tip of the Third Spear Carrier from the Left's spear. 1
facthunter Posted November 14 Posted November 14 Screechy Piano? Squeeky saxophones more likely. IF you're getting cranky listen to JAZZ. Its soothing. Nev 1
old man emu Posted November 14 Posted November 14 15 minutes ago, facthunter said: IF you're getting cranky listen to JAZZ. Which variety? Unfortunately I can only get ABC on my radio. It's either ABC Classical of ABC RN or ABC Local. The latter two are all talk, usually about uninteresting topics. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now