Is it Illegal to keep my Bike Carrier Attached to the car

[stu]

> If you want to stop people walking into towbar, you are going to have to
> make them totally illegal.
No. you only have to leave the goose neck attached to the car when there is
no trailer
Which BTW l think it already is(but l could be wrong)
stu

 

[stu]

hmmmm lets try that again.
No. you only have to make it illegal to leave the goose neck attached to the
car when there is
no trailer. Which BTW I think it already is(but l could be wrong)
stu

 

[John Doe]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...snip.....
> >
> > Walk into a towbar or, worse still, a bike rack on a parked car and see
> > how you like that. Okay, so you should be watching where you're going
> > but what's the point in making smoother cars "safer" for hitting
> > pedestrians and cyclists if we're going to stick iron bars and sharp
> > steel plates (at eye level) on them.
>
> Again, you are confusing a car driving into someone, with someone
> walking into a towbar.
>
> If you want to stop people walking into towbar, you are going to have to
> make them totally illegal. This is feasible as people will then stop
> buying useless cars and buy a ute, van or something similar.

Keep digging. You might get out of the hole you have put yourself in
eventually.

 

[Terry Collins]

stu wrote:
>
> hmmmm lets try that again.
> No. you only have to make it illegal to leave the goose neck attached to the
> car when there is
> no trailer. Which BTW I think it already is(but l could be wrong)

Well, if that is so, then it is (almost) universally ignored.
Plus, it is only feasible with one make of "goosneck" (Hayman - Reesse)
that I am aware of. Everything else bolts to the subframe.

Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.

 

[Dave@fnq]

"Bazza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have an old car which I use to get my bike to bike tracks, and trails.
>
> Today I fitted a bike carrier to the towbar.
> My question is, is it illegal to leave it on the car all the time, as
> getting the Towball off each time cheezes me off big time.
> I have moved the number plate, so thats not a problem.
>
> But I was wondering if someone walked into it at night or something.
>
> Cheers, Bazz



Found this reference on the Pedestrian Council of Australia's web site;
The Australian Design Rule 42.9.1 states:

"No vehicle shall be equipped with any object or fitting, not technically
essential which protrudes from any part of the vehicle so that it is likely
to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person".

www.walk.com.au/pedcouncil/Issues_designrule4291.html

Dave

 

[stu]

> Well, if that is so, then it is (almost) universally ignored.
like a lot of laws (if it is a law)
>Plus, it is only feasible with one make of "goosneck" (Hayman - Reesse)
> that I am aware of. Everything else bolts to the subframe.
nope sorry
They have a goose neck that bolts to the rest of the "tow bar", which is
then bolts to the subframe. (at least all the ones l have ever seen do)
but yes, like you say they are not removed very often
the problem with the goose necks is that they can be very hard to see at
night and damn they hurt when you walk into them.
stu

 

[stu]

> The nremoving the towball is being lobbied by the insurance companies
> to improve bottom lines as a hge amount of claims involve towballs
> going thru radiators, etc causing more damage than the car was
> designed to wear
and where does the money the insurance company is trying to save come from?

 

[bjay]

Do you kind of wish you never asked this question?

"Bazza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have an old car which I use to get my bike to bike tracks, and trails.
>
> Today I fitted a bike carrier to the towbar.
> My question is, is it illegal to leave it on the car all the time, as
> getting the Towball off each time cheezes me off big time.
> I have moved the number plate, so thats not a problem.
>
> But I was wondering if someone walked into it at night or something.
>
> Cheers, Bazz
>
>

 

[Andrei Souprounovich]

In answer to your question (in the case of Victoria):

Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations 1999
S.R. No. 120/1999
Version incorporating amendments as at 15 December 2002

105. Definitions
bicycle carrier means a device that can be attached to the rear of a motor
vehicle to enable one or more bicycles to be carried by the vehicle, but
does not include a trailer;
605. Vehicles must not be driven with an empty bicycle carrier attached
A person must not drive on a road a motor vehicle that has an empty bicycle
carrier attached to the rear of the vehicle.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.

Andrei

"Bazza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have an old car which I use to get my bike to bike tracks, and trails.
>
> Today I fitted a bike carrier to the towbar.
> My question is, is it illegal to leave it on the car all the time, as
> getting the Towball off each time cheezes me off big time.
> I have moved the number plate, so thats not a problem.
>
> But I was wondering if someone walked into it at night or something.
>
> Cheers, Bazz

 

[Andrei Souprounovich]

P.S. The infringement notice code is 2146 and it's a $50 on-the-spot fine.

 

[John Doe]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stu wrote:
> >
> > hmmmm lets try that again.
> > No. you only have to make it illegal to leave the goose neck attached to
the
> > car when there is
> > no trailer. Which BTW I think it already is(but l could be wrong)
>
> Well, if that is so, then it is (almost) universally ignored.
> Plus, it is only feasible with one make of "goosneck" (Hayman - Reesse)
> that I am aware of. Everything else bolts to the subframe.
>
> Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.

They have kept you alive this long. Maybe if they hadnt we wouldnt have to
put up with your lack of commonsense today.

 

[John Doe]

"bjay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C%[email protected]...
> Do you kind of wish you never asked this question?
>

He got his answer in spades and has moved on. He is probably not interested
in the debate of the world vs Tezza (aka Jesus the perfect)

 

[[email protected]]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>
> Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.
>
Which ones would they be?
Have you never banged a shin on a towbar? Are you always on the lookout
for the sharp edge of a bike carrier? Do you believe bullbars should be
on city 4wd's where the best they can do is make the attached vehicle
"invincible" in carparks and lethal to pedestrians and cyclists. There
should be laws to stop "idiots" festooning their vehicles with
unneccessary dangerous hard protruberances.
I've had my car backed into 4 times by towbar-equipped vehicles - is the
towbar a substitute for a rearview mirror? I've banged my shin on a few
towbars - so has my son. A friend's father hates Volvos due to a similar
more memorable walking accident over 30 years ago. I've had a near-miss
with a bike beak - when you're watching for traffic, crossing a road, you
can overlook an inconspicuous but sharp beak.
--
Mark Lee

 

[Terry Collins]

stu wrote:

....snip.....

> the problem with the goose necks is that they can be very hard to see at
> night and damn they hurt when you walk into them.

Agreed.

 

[Terry Collins]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> >
> > Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.
> >
> Which ones would they be?
> Have you never banged a shin on a towbar? Are you always on the lookout
> for the sharp edge of a bike carrier? Do you believe bullbars should be
> on city 4wd's where the best they can do is make the attached vehicle
> "invincible" in carparks and lethal to pedestrians and cyclists. There
> should be laws to stop "idiots" festooning their vehicles with
> unneccessary dangerous hard protruberances.
> I've had my car backed into 4 times by towbar-equipped vehicles - is the
> towbar a substitute for a rearview mirror? I've banged my shin on a few
> towbars - so has my son. A friend's father hates Volvos due to a similar
> more memorable walking accident over 30 years ago. I've had a near-miss
> with a bike beak - when you're watching for traffic, crossing a road, you
> can overlook an inconspicuous but sharp beak.

I rest my case. You support is accepted.

 

[Terry Collins]

John Doe wrote:

....snip......

> > Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.
>
> They have kept you alive this long. Maybe if they hadnt we wouldnt have to
> put up with your lack of commonsense today.

Useless ****ing laws have had nothing to do with it.
It those ****ing useless laws were what kept me alive so long, how come
some many bicyclists are murdered each year and all we ever see is tut
and wrist slap (suspended).

 

[Peter Cremasco]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:19:26 +1100, Terry Collins <[email protected]>
wrote:

>stu wrote:
>>
>> hmmmm lets try that again.
>> No. you only have to make it illegal to leave the goose neck attached to the
>> car when there is
>> no trailer. Which BTW I think it already is(but l could be wrong)
>
>Well, if that is so, then it is (almost) universally ignored.
>Plus, it is only feasible with one make of "goosneck" (Hayman - Reesse)
>that I am aware of. Everything else bolts to the subframe.

I have to unbolt mine whenever I'm not using a trailer, and re-attach it
whenever I want to tow something.

That's the order I got from the local constabulary - or wear a fine
(can't remember if it was $140 or $240 now)

>Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.

Around about the same time they stop making idiots - and seeing as one
is born every minute and most of them live.........

---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

 

[John Doe]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stu wrote:
>
> ...snip.....
>
> > the problem with the goose necks is that they can be very hard to see at
> > night and damn they hurt when you walk into them.
>
> Agreed.

You wouldnt walk into one because you never make mistakes. If you walked
into them then under your reasoning you would be a "fool" and an "idiot" not
worth protecting.

 

[John Doe]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Doe wrote:
>
> ...snip......
>
> > > Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.
> >
> > They have kept you alive this long. Maybe if they hadnt we wouldnt have
to
> > put up with your lack of commonsense today.
>
> Useless ****ing laws have had nothing to do with it.
> It those ****ing useless laws were what kept me alive so long, how come
> some many bicyclists are murdered each year and all we ever see is tut
> and wrist slap (suspended).

Always interesting when the strongest part of someones argument is swearing.

I thought you were arguing that it could only be the person that is injured
or killed persons fault. You never seem to accept nor respond to the fact
that an innocent party could be killed from the negligence of others. You
seem to be always concentrating on that only a negligent driver of car would
be injured from a bicycle rack. If it was their fault for not being
absolutely perfect then their punishment should be whatever luck shall
befall them. You think the law on bicycle racks is a "useless xxxx law"
because the only person that could be injured by them are "idiots and fools"
who deserve what they get and should not be allowed to propogate.

Now all of a sudden you switch to cyclists being murdered? This is purely
an attempt to change the subject to something that people will agree with
you on (althouth very few are killed with intent... many manslaughter
though).

If you want to see countries that dont have such "useless xxxx laws" then
you should visit under developed countries. They don't have the laws that
protect people from human error nor police the ones they do. Should have a
look at how many "foolish and idiot" children die. How many "foolish and
idiot" parents get killed on the job leaving children without parents or a
way to support themselves from moral means. Maybe the idiots children have
it coming to them as well.

 

[Bristan]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stu wrote:
> >
> > hmmmm lets try that again.
> > No. you only have to make it illegal to leave the goose neck attached to
the
> > car when there is
> > no trailer. Which BTW I think it already is(but l could be wrong)
>
> Well, if that is so, then it is (almost) universally ignored.
> Plus, it is only feasible with one make of "goosneck" (Hayman - Reesse)
> that I am aware of. Everything else bolts to the subframe.
>
> Seriously, when do we stop making laws to suit idiots.

I agree today that , particularly in Australia, the first reaction is to
bring in a law to ban something because someone or other has a problem.
Life is dangerous. We all have to take risks every day. If every thing or
activity which could hurt someone who made a mistake was banned then we
would spend our lives in a cocoon.
It is a matter of balance. You have to weigh up wether the injury to a few
people due to tow bars etc is worth the inconvenience that those with the
bars have to go through in removing, replacing them. It usually depends on
numbers of people affected or how vocal some pressure group is wether the
thing gets banned or not.
Seeing the number of people killed or injured on the roads by idiot driving,
using the argument that fools should be protected from themselves by a
blanket ban on the activity, then we should ban cars......It is not going to
happen.
Bristan