Is there any (legal?) action an interest group such as ours can take
to prevent futher such nonsense?

Phil

--- In bikers_anon@..., "Sean Hawley"
<sean_hawley@y...> wrote:
> If they were interested in saving money they would NOT have
> resurfaced large sections of near perfect bitumen, such as the
> constant radius 45kph left-hander (going up the hill).
>
> The relatively old section of resurfacing north of the Calga
> interchange illustrates the pointlessness of the resufacing, as the
> road now resembles the worse parts of the nasho (down beside the
> river).
>
> In recent times the Putty, BLoR and now the OPH have been
resurfaced
> with a surface inferior (or at best no better than) the original
> surface. In all cases the new surface has simply been layed on top
of
> the old surface so that all the old corrugations, dips, bumps etc
are
> still there but are just harder to see.
>
> Replacing a smooth road surface with coarse aggregate, results in
> reduced grip in all but the wettest condtions (less rubber to road
> surface contact).
>
> Sean
>
> --- In bikers_anon@..., Geoff <sonichedg_yahoo@s...>
> wrote:
> > Luke Burton wrote:
> > > ... at least if you're going up OPH any time soon.
> >
> > The OPH, contrary to popular believe has been like this
> > on the top half at least, since Christmas. So I had to
> > slow down a bit - big deal.
> >
> >
> > > I would like to suggest that the selection of resurfacing
> material has
> > > been made with slowing down bikes in mind.
> >
> > You're not the first. The conspiracy theories have been out
> > in force amongst the victimisation set for at least a week
> > now. If stumbling around crying "They're picking on me" helps
> > you to handle the realities of life, by all means go for it,
> > but the *reality* is that it's pretty difficult to sustain
> > an argument of malicious intent when 'incompetance' and
> > 'cost savings' are almost certainly the true reason.
> >
> >
> > G