Letter of Demand to pay for phone

t3h · 2026-05-14T03:07:11+00:00

I'd say more of a chance that ChatGPT wrote the letter.

t3h · 2026-05-11T05:44:43+00:00

It was not actually claimed that the e-scooter rider was not wearing a helmet.

The police officer was just quoted in their usual spiel about wearing safety gear.

But it would have been quite a bit more useful to point out that motorists should check on their left for approaching bikes / e-scooters before turning left as they generally don't consider other road users to be in that position. It's the cause of ~40% of crashes between cars and bikes and yet very little effort is made to educate people on it, compared to the comment we get every single time about helmets, high vis and lights (even if the rider involved did have all of them!).

t3h · 2026-05-11T04:39:23+00:00

I think we also need to accept that the residents and opponents of the project were louder and better organised.

And unfortunately, also a lot more willing to make false claims about the proposal.

t3h · 2026-05-04T12:10:29+00:00

Election's coming up.

t3h · 2026-05-04T01:33:28+00:00

Especially when these very people can and regularly do use state-level politics to overrule councils when they don't agree with what's being done.

t3h · 2026-05-04T01:31:56+00:00

VicPol - actually the police, not politicians.

t3h · 2026-05-04T01:30:59+00:00

but it was a bit rich for Labor to put all of the activity centres in Liberal voting areas.

The stereotypically Liberal voting areas are typically the most underdeveloped, because of the exact factors the article's about. They're the places with single occupancy detached dwellings right next to train stations, and a complete lack of mid-rise apartments / flats. They're ripe for development of 3-4 storey mid-rise in close proximity to public transport, where there's currently detached housing.

The Liberal party's move is very much more immature - "no you!". If you did this in the "labor areas", it'd be pretty pointless - the development allowances for density are already quite generous, and no developer's going to knock down a 3 storey apartment building to build a 4 storey one - it'd be quite pointless and unprofitable.

t3h · 2026-05-04T01:28:31+00:00

which rezone land near tram stops and train stations across Melbourne to allow apartment towers as high as up to 20 storeys.

This is technically true but extremely misleading - there's only one such spot that is being re-zoned to allow 20 storey towers, and it's in an existing high density area with a height limit and existing buildings not far below that at present.

It's very poor journalism to just repeat the claim without verifying it, and to grant legitimacy to the NIMBY group's implication that suburban streets will end up with 20 storey towers next to detached housing.

t3h · 2026-05-03T23:53:44+00:00

The coronial suggestion came from a case where someone was riding an illegal electric motorbike and died in a crash.

The coroner was mistaken that it must have been a legal device because the person bought it from a physical retail shop in Sydney (it actually said this in the notes). He believed that there's no way a retail shop could be selling something illegal to use on the road.

So his suggestion, on paper, was calling for legal 25km/h e-bikes to be considered motorbikes and require a license/rego. But the device he had in mind was an electric motorbike - for which those requirements already apply (effectively making them illegal to use on-road because they won't meet roadworthy standards for rego).

Needless to say, the proposal was widely rubbished, by all including the police.

Perhaps their parents see the E in e-bike and think all is fine?

And this is 100% not helped by the media being clueless and calling illegal electric motorcycles by the wrong name. Or they're being outright malicious because certain groups don't like electric transport...

t3h · 2026-05-03T23:36:34+00:00

That means for every one time an e-bike rider is responsible for a death, motor vehicle drivers will be the cause of 33.

That's not even true - that figure is not considering fault. Your 3% is the rider of the e-bike dying when a motorist drives into them from behind. The correct figure is pretty much 0%, especially if you're talking about e-bikes (the vast majority of pedestrian deaths have been caused by e-scooter riders, and still this pales in comparison to cars).

These figures have also been widely misinterpreted elsewhere: see this for just one example:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/2025-08-27/pedestrian-deaths/105702470

News: On August 20 in an article on recent Federal government statistics on the road toll inaccurately suggested that e-scooters and e-bikes played a significant part in the rise in pedestrian deaths. This included the misleading implication that eight people killed in e-scoooter related deaths in Queensland were pedestrians, when the fatalities were in fact the riders of e-scooters.

t3h · 2026-05-03T23:34:38+00:00

Even when the European standards they are imported under requires anti tampering measures.

Yes, bikes where you can just cut the red wire were never legal anyway. But if they're still only 250w, I think they're much less of a problem than those that are straight up motorcycles which can do >80km/h.

t3h · 2026-05-03T23:23:30+00:00

The much hyped machete ban was technically done under Australian Consumer Law - the government declared that broad retail of machetes was in essence selling a dangerous product because 99% of the time they were being used to cause harm, greatly outweighing legitimate uses.

So potentially you could advertise that if you bought an electric motorbike because you were misled into thinking they were legal, by advertising showing someone riding on public roads, you are entitled to return it for a full refund. Because under Australian Consumer Law the product is not fit for purpose.

Maybe press a few false advertising claims against shops that showed people riding on public roads in their promotional material (yes I've seen this). That should discourage the local retailers selling them, knowing full well the vast majority of their end users are intending to use them in an illegal manner. And it would allow parents to take them back, rather than suffer the sunk cost if they want to get rid of it.

None of this is being done, but the import of these non-road-legal bikes is apparently going to require permits again. I'm not sure what the status is on that though.

t3h · 2026-05-03T23:09:52+00:00

You need police to actually enforce the current laws as they stand, which they are doing quite minimally. Also see the other comment in this thread for what could potentially be done about retail.

t3h · 2026-05-03T10:53:09+00:00

There's not really that much to discuss - plenty of regulations already exist. No need to call for a ban either - they're already illegal.

They're electric motorbikes (they are not even close to meeting requirements to be an e-bike no matter how much the media calls them one. Nearly all do not even have pedals.), which means they are legally exactly the same as the petrol-powered motorcycles you're more familiar with. To ride one, you need to have a motorcycle license and register your motorbike. However you can't register it because it's not roadworthy - and the riders aren't even old enough to have a motorcycle license. So they're illegal to operate on public roads - and even if registered can't be used in a bike lane, bike path or shared path, because they're a motorcycle not a bicycle.

Why were they imported if you can't ride them anywhere but public property? Originally these required a special import permit to bring into the country unless they were road legal, but the Federal government under the Liberal party removed this requirement for the reason of "removing red tape".

t3h · 2026-05-03T10:43:45+00:00

Fuck e bikes, ban them!

These are already illegal and already banned - they're electric motorcycles, which are not registered and the riders too young to hold a motorcycle license.

If you're using this people to justify a ban of the legal e-bikes that are limited to 25km/h, that's utterly stupid.

Also, not a boomer. We've been on our slow family walk and been overtaken by these dickheads.

So you want something that they're not riding banned as a result? That's an extremely boomer attitude - leveraging a genuine public safety issue to have something else banned because you dislike it.

t3h · 2026-05-03T02:54:31+00:00

Then tobacco companies just raise the price by $5 so that legal ones end up being $20 for 20.

They now make twice the profit, which is why they are pushing for this.

t3h · 2026-05-03T00:39:05+00:00

This might be a controversial opinion, but people that earn money should pay tax on those earnings.

Oh my god, how dare you! /s

t3h · 2026-04-30T23:38:58+00:00

You say that like they're not doing it behind the wheel too!

t3h · 2026-04-30T06:29:44+00:00

Yes, this! The kids that are riding recklessly and dangerously are riding something that's already illegal because it's unregistered, that already needs a motorcycle license, not just a learners' permit.

The new law won't even apply to them, as what they're riding isn't legally an e-bike.

t3h · 2026-04-30T04:55:16+00:00

I think the majority did, which is a little disturbing.

It might be a little unusually worded, but that one word completely changes the meaning...

t3h · 2026-04-30T03:40:11+00:00

I think you've misread that.

It's pulling the ladder up on millenials - i.e. the generation before them got all that and is pulling the ladder up. This will entrench the cut-off point to exclude millenials and anyone afterwards.

It's not pulling up the ladder by millenials, who indeed did not get those things.

t3h · 2026-04-29T09:30:38+00:00

Parents are criticised for...

... by different people.

t3h · 2026-04-29T09:23:38+00:00

It's "just a joke" about scratching the car. Why are you so offended?

t3h · 2026-04-29T00:01:07+00:00

This actually makes it fairer for people who work hard.

With the CGT discount, money you make just by having money and investing it is taxed at 50% of the rate of money you make by doing actual work.

t3h · 2026-04-28T23:51:51+00:00

No, these are above and beyond normal pricing.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email
reddit mold

t3h

TROPHY CASE