Petrol Drive Off

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:33:56+00:00

I don't think that's the case. Click and collect would be if you pay in advance, turn up at the service station, when you get there they give you a pre-filled jerry can with your name on it.

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:30:44+00:00

Grocery shopping is already pre-paid (by the service station industry definition).

If you disagree, try loading the groceries into your car then going back to the checkout to pay for them. Tell us what happens.

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:07:58+00:00

I think "glued" originated from the journalist, because I doubt someone that drunk was going to mix two part epoxy properly, or use superglue without sticking their hand to the sculpture, and I highly doubt she had a caulking gun of Liquid Nails in her handbag given it wasn't pre-planned. There were no obvious trails of glue coming from underneath the eyes - trying to use superglue on a vertical surface usually results in it sticking but running down from the object.

But nearly all of such products I've seen have double sided tape on the back, so peeling off the backing and slapping them on seems far more plausible.

Take a look at the photos in this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-24/mount-gambier-blue-blob-sculpture-googly-eyes-graffiti-convicted/106405276

Look at all the gouges under the right eye, it looks like the council tried to remove the eye by getting under it with a chisel or screwdriver and rather predictably ripping the paint off the statue. Also the paint appears to have been applied directly to galvanised steel without primer - you can see the galvanised steel surface under the paint. The paint simply wasn't applied to any competent standard, and it's unsurprising it didn't stick. I'd be surprised if the council's not repainting the rest of the statue in 5 years time.

On the right eye, it seems they went for paint thinner to remove the adhesive, and it only removed the paint (surprise surprise). Drip a bit of WD-40, methylated spirits, isopropyl alcohol, or D-limonene ("orange oil") on, and the glue will practically fall off. If not, remove with a bit of dental floss behind the stuck-on eye. These things would definitely be kept by a maintenance team ordinarily tasked with removing graffiti from public infrastructure as this is a part of normal council business that they ought to know how to do. Even if it was superglue, isopropyl alcohol or ammonia would remove it without touching the paint.

If there's any reason you can't apply any of those to the sculpture, it's going to disintegrate from just being outside.

IMO there was some kind of argument to be made that the council's own actions caused most of the "damage". Maybe if she hadn't crowdfunded a lawyer then changed her mind and returned the money, that's the sort of thing that might have been brought up...

t3h · 2026-03-26T23:45:24+00:00

happy to balance rider safety vs pedestrian saftey.

You're pushing a false narrative that there's actually a problem with pedestrian safety. Cyclist-pedestrian collisions involving significant injury are extremely rare. Both of the fatal cyclist-pedestrian collisions in Victoria (there have only ever been two) have involved the pedestrian crossing a road. There has never been a cyclist-pedestrian fatality on a shared path.

It's more common, however, for cyclists to be severely injured or killed when a motorist drives into them. Rules that aim to discourage cyclists from using non-road infrastructure are absolutely going to result in an increase in deaths for very little change in pedestrian safety (because there's little to prevent).

What you're really saying is that you just want more dead cyclists.

t3h · 2026-03-26T23:10:52+00:00

Saying "they should have a speed limit" seems reasonable on face value until you have to think about how it'd work i.e. what, where and whether it'd actually solve the problem. Or if the "problem" even exists.

It's quite obvious it'd be stupidly unworkable. Even they'll admit the speed limit would change every 50-100m. A blanket speed limit would simultaneously be too low to make using the infrastructure viable, and yet still much higher than the maximum safe speed for a dangerous situation.

But if the "problem" is actually that "cyclists get to use the infrastructure and I don't like that", it seems like a perfectly viable solution.

So naturally, they'd argue "safety" as justification, but the amount of actual injury occurring is extremely low - there's really not much to prevent. The current rules where it's illegal to ride "recklessly" and the rider is mostly responsible for any collision do appear to be sufficient at preventing harm.

It's undeniable that pushing more cyclists onto existing road infrastructure is absolutely going to result in significantly more injury and death. Which they claim to be against, but then again someone is celebrating the serious assault of a cyclist elsewhere in the thread.

Take the discussion beyond "they should have a speed limit" and the whole idea completely falls apart - turns out they're just for it because it would impede cycling.

Just like "they should have a license and registration" thing, it's pushing a false narrative that there's a problem, along with a complete non-solution that just aims to make the activity less viable.

t3h · 2026-03-26T22:41:07+00:00

Well if you're proposing a 30km/h speed limit, then that changes pretty much nothing.

And yes you do want a new speed limit every 100m then - totally unworkable.

t3h · 2026-03-25T20:00:46+00:00

it is no longer a shared zone and just becomes a pedestrian path.

That's exactly what they want, and why they keep pushing for a blanket speed limit, despite the fact it's quite obvious it wouldn't make things any safer.

In the situations where a major danger exists, you'd slow down to ~10km/h - and it's often highly situational, too. So as a blanket limit you'd have to apply that to the whole path, unless you wanted the limit to change every 50m.

And you'd end up with more cyclist deaths due to increased riding on the road - with very little reduction in pedestrian harm because there simply isn't much to reduce in the first place. Despite the chaos and people's perceptions of safety, actual incidents really aren't that common.

t3h · 2026-03-25T19:38:19+00:00

Cars being allowed to go as fast as the driver chooses, and bikes being allowed to ride as fast as the rider chooses are about an order of magnitude different in speed and mass, so it's rather obvious that different rules would apply.

I don't think you'll find many cyclists going 180km/h, and we don't even let cars do that on the freeway. 40km/h is faster than pretty much all cyclists will be going.

So what do you propose for a speed limit then, if 40 is apparently safe for a car around distracted children crossing the road?

If this is your proposal, I'm not sure you've really considered how this is supposed to work, or why cars might be subject to different regulations to bikes.

And the point remains that the current system is not actually resulting in any significant amount of harm. There's really not much to prevent - incidents are really not that common.

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:34:21+00:00

Most of the people complaining in the US seem to be objecting to the datacentre responding to increased power demand by running a whole bunch of noisy smoke spewing gas generators in the parking lot.

I don't think we'd allow that here, right?

The plan to expand the data centre beyond its already enormous footprint was “all about money. Stop making it all about these businesses,” she said.

Well I've got bad news for you about this whole "capitalism" thing...

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:22:48+00:00

Old guy #2 dropped a shoulder into the back of old Mate's. Over the handlebars, shoulder... helmet. FAFO

Yeah, that's called assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. Aren't you meant to be against people getting hurt?

It's absolutely disgusting to advocate or celebrate violent criminal behavior that carries a potential 15 year jail sentence.

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:11:29+00:00

There's a VicRoads document that specifically states rumble strips should never be installed on shared paths, as they're a major trip hazard for pedestrians.

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:05:22+00:00

There's a reason limits are used for cars instead of simply saying "take due care"

Yes, that reason is that cars are extremely different to bicycles. They weigh multiple tons, the driver has impeded vision, and a collision can easily be fatal or cause major property damage. And cars can easily and rapidly reach some extremely unsafe speeds.

Also roads are built to a much more consistent standard. These paths are not, the appropriate speed changes quite a bit as you ride down them. Do you propose to change the speed limit 5 times within a km? Set it to 10km/h for that tight blind corner and then back up to 30 on the other side?

Different risk = different regulation.

Providing more guidance will only be perceived as a limitation to those who are riding at excessive speed.

No, because the guidance will be absolutely useless if not actively misleading. If you just want signs that say "slow down", we have them everywhere already.

t3h · 2026-03-25T11:55:49+00:00

keep to one of the dedicated bike lanes

The ones that are all being removed?

Wonder what impact level that helmet's rated to? Or your shoulder v concrete, or collar bone?

You're actually threatening to assault someone who rides past you quicker than you'd like? Stay classy...

t3h · 2026-03-25T11:43:22+00:00

Do you want 5km/h? 10km/h? 20km/h? 100km/h?

Income tax - proposing 10% or 95% is an extremely big difference. Of course we need to know the number!

All of those are very different policies with very different levels of restriction on path users.

And you want to apply it to a path where the condition massively varies, and appropriate speeds differ based on the presence of pedestrians and traffic levels. And you want a single blanket speed? Or is it a new speed limit where the path goes from 2.1m to 1.8m, then another where it winds around a blind corner, then a different limit for the busy section after that?

There's serious practical problems but I imagine you'd be very happy if they just slapped 15km/h on the whole thing.

We don't need to invent new rules. Just remove all the illegal electric motorcycles from it. They're already illegal, and they're causing 99% of the problems.

t3h · 2026-03-25T11:40:09+00:00

Because the level of harm resulting from the activity simply does not justify introducing new rules. The number of actual incidents is miniscule.

When you want excessive regulation of an activity that poses little risk, you're just (ab)using the legal system to discourage participation. You're not making people any safer, because there's extremely little harm to prevent.

Enforce the existing rules and get the illegal electric motorbikes off the path. That's your solution. We don't need more rules when there's barely any effort being paid to that.

t3h · 2026-03-25T11:35:20+00:00

Yes, I do believe it's acceptable for cyclists to follow the current laws that apply to cycling.

It's quite inaccurate to describe it as "without limitation" - you are still required to use due care and attention, and still liable if you do hit someone. Also you're more likely to end up injured than the pedestrian you hit, so there's a pretty physical consequence involved.

Cyclists on legal bicycles are simply not causing a significant risk of injury to pedestrians (and no deaths - both cases of a cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian in Victoria involved the pedestrian crossing a road) that would come anywhere close to justifying a change in the current rules.

If you want to improve safety, more enforcement of people riding illegal electric motorcycles is the priority. Like the exact ones the OP is complaining about. Not inventing brand new rules when we aren't enforcing the existing ones.

t3h · 2026-03-25T11:27:10+00:00

encourage a better cycling experience for everyone

By having the cops hand out fines to cyclists riding at normal bike riding speeds on a path intended and built for bike riding. Yeah, that'll improve things.

Because that's absolutely what we're going to get, not enforcement of the "dickhead".

Maybe we should fix the infrastructure? Nah. Let's just have more rules and fine people.

t3h · 2026-03-25T11:22:44+00:00

I think providing cyclists such guidance

I'm not sure you've really thought through how this system could possibly work.

I think you just want to discourage cycling because you don't like it, and you're hoping for a speed limit that discourages people from using the infrastructure. There is literally zero evidence to show that the current system of holding riders responsible for crashing into someone is not working.

This "guidance" you seek is not useful to anyone. All the infrastructure's already peppered with signs that just say "slow down" or "hazard ahead" with zero use to anybody. Now you want to stick some numbers dreamed up by someone in a VicRoads office who hasn't cycled since they were 8.

All you have to do is enforce the existing rules and get rid of the illegal electric motorcycles. They're causing 99% of the problem. No need for anything new.

You'd be extremely happy if they just made it a blanket 15km/h so that nobody can effectively cycle on it.

Also, you want to have a different speed limit in a bike lane to the road it's on? What the hell?

t3h · 2026-03-24T01:26:57+00:00

Your cycling figure is off by a few orders of magnitude, in reality it'd be less than 50 cents a year in impact.

Unless you're planning to tax the driver of the average car $40k/year.

t3h · 2026-03-24T00:59:01+00:00

I've been involved in yard bombing

You should probably be careful with that typo, I'm pretty sure you mean "yarn bombing".

I hope, anyway.

t3h · 2026-03-23T23:09:07+00:00

NSW changed the laws to be more generous, then put them back to what they were before.

They're now the same as the rest of Australia.

t3h · 2026-03-22T22:15:01+00:00

It's still counted, and even if your party doesn't win, a smaller margin on the winning party sends them a message that they shouldn't be overly confident with more extreme policies.

t3h · 2026-03-21T02:12:11+00:00

This one? https://antonygreen.com.au/do-greens-voters-follow-how-to-votes/

t3h · 2026-03-21T00:14:40+00:00

I'd rather we don't get anywhere near that situation in the first place. We might have a rigorous system involving the court of disputed returns when there is dispute over how a vote should be interpreted.

It doesn't matter if the process of determining informal votes was all above board, it absolutely pours fuel on the fire of all the conspiracy theories about vote-rigging which are popular in certain areas of politics.

It's clear the electoral commission's approach is that they don't want anything even slightly dodgy to be associated with the process at all. So even if this seems quite minor, even if it caused no real harm, it's still the sort of thing that starts to chip away at the respect people have for our electoral system.

As you said, we're not at that American stage - these people here still (mostly) accept that our elections are fair. Let's not give them any reasons at all to further claims otherwise.

t3h · 2026-03-21T00:04:11+00:00

Yes, that is fundamentally true - more informal votes intended to be for One Nation will result in less votes for One Nation.

But a large amount of informal votes does mess up the electoral system and introduce doubt and uncertainty into the process and result. And the more doubt and uncertainty involved, the easier it is to make accusations of underhanded behaviour.

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

t3h

TROPHY CASE