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

[John Doe]

"Bristan" <daed> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
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.

<snip>

> 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

You are not judging apples with apples here. Cars in use have a value... towbars and bikeracks that
are NOT in use do not.

We are talking about devices that are not being used not ones that are. Of course cars/trucks/busses
are dangerous. It is a risk we take because basically the way our economy has gone makes it a
necessity. It is a managed risk that we constantly are trying to improve due to safety enhancements.
Cycling is a risk... Cars or not you can still have accidents on a bike.

The gist of the thread is whether it is right to just leave implements attached to a vehicle that
are NOT in use. Most likely for a very large portion of the time to be removed. If I only use my
bike rack 5% of the time my car is being used is it right to leave it on there just so I can save 10
minutes of my valuable time to remove it and put it in the boot or garage?

Please find once in this entire thread where anyone has said that Towbars or Bike racks should be
banned. Just because they have a bike or trailer or whatever attached does not make them any less
risky. It is more risky than just having the car there but if they are in use then society accepts
that risk. What is being said is for the 95% they are not in use for them to be removed to reduce
the risk. Maybe by improving the designs it reduces the risk enough to have the laws repealed.

This doesnt just go for cars and bikes but for all walks of life. In our workplaces... when we see a
slip or trip hazard and it does not need to be there we get it cleaned up - i mean you could say
only an idiot would slip so that should not be a law but if their is no need for the slip or trip
hazard to be their then we do our best to protect people (including me).

Its all about risk reduction not risk removal. I would be one of those vocal groups if we did not
have any laws to remove unecessary risks.

 

[Bristan]

"John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:rMa%[email protected]...
> "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> You are not judging apples with apples here. Cars in use have a value... towbars and bikeracks
> that are NOT in use do not.

That is your opinion. Others might think that there is a value in leaving them attached.

> We are talking about devices that are not being used not ones that are.
Of
> course cars/trucks/busses are dangerous. It is a risk we take because basically the way our
> economy has gone makes it a necessity. It is a managed risk that we constantly are trying to
> improve due to safety enhancements. Cycling is a risk... Cars or not you can still have
accidents
> on a bike.

Again , your opinion. You are making a value judgement on cars etc based on your own needs/wants.

I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles.. That is
my opinion and that is the whole point. Some people see a value in leaving the bike racks on and it
is only the weight of numbers for /against and not any intrinsic danger that will decide wether the
thing is banned or not. I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities to
protect a few for the inconvenience or annoyance for many.
PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.

 

[John Doe]

"Bristan" <daed> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:rMa%b.76443$Wa.16050@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > You are not judging apples with apples here. Cars in use have a value... towbars and bikeracks
> > that are NOT in use do not.
>
> That is your opinion. Others might think that there is a value in leaving them attached.
>
>
> > We are talking about devices that are not being used not ones that are.
> Of
> > course cars/trucks/busses are dangerous. It is a risk we take because basically the way our
> > economy has gone makes it a necessity. It is a managed risk that we constantly are trying to
> > improve due to safety enhancements. Cycling is a risk... Cars or not you can still have
> accidents
> > on a bike.
>
> Again , your opinion. You are making a value judgement on cars etc based
on
> your own needs/wants.
>
> I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles.. That is
> my opinion and that is the whole point. Some people see a value in leaving the bike racks on and
> it is only the weight
of
> numbers for /against and not any intrinsic danger that will decide wether the thing is banned or
> not. I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities to protect a few for the
> inconvenience or annoyance for many.
> PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.
>
>

Oh Bristan I have missed you. Give me one reason other than laziness or as a weapon that you would
want a bike rack on your car when not in use.

 

[MarkLee]

In article <[email protected]>, "Bristan" <daed> says...
...Snippety snip...
>
> I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles.. That is
> my opinion and that is the whole point.

Where would you put them? What will we eat? wear? How will we transport building materials, exports,
new bicycles? I hate them but they're vital to our society.

...snip...
> I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities to protect a few for the
> inconvenience or annoyance for many.

Yes and no.

> PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.

I agree here!! But my first priority is "helmets for pedestrians - in or out of doors" followed by
"compulsory helmet-wearing by all shower- takers". Maybe we can get onto banning stairs, ladders,
(wet) tile floors, etc when that's all in place.

--
Mark Lee

 

[John Smith]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:MPG.1aa917d4a06c216d989696@news-server...
> > I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles.. That
> > is my opinion and that is the whole point.
>
> Where would you put them? What will we eat? wear? How will we transport building materials,
> exports, new bicycles? I hate them but they're vital to our society.

All the (mostly) women who now drive SUVs for no purpose (other than feeling powerful and important
or affluent ??) could be encouraged to also haul produce and goods since there is nothing else
occupying the space in thei petrol hungry beasts ;-)

Speak of new and dangerous trends - SUVs for the sake of SUVs. Can't see through them nor over them
from a mere car. They peer over bikies heads. Never had a problem with the mud-caked 4WD for those
frequenting the bush, but these trendy new things are getting out of hand. Ever see a BMW or Lexus
or MB SUV seriously off road? Dangerous for bikes and cars as well. Obviously my opinion.

>
> ...snip...
> > I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities to protect a few for the
> > inconvenience or annoyance for many.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> > PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.
>
> I agree here!! But my first priority is "helmets for pedestrians - in or out of doors" followed by
> "compulsory helmet-wearing by all shower- takers". Maybe we can get onto banning stairs, ladders,
> (wet) tile floors, etc when that's all in place.

in the USA all motor mowers have either a deadman handle or blade brake clutch. some years ago two
of "our" best brilliant humans (yanks!) decided to trim their hedge with a running motor mower. one
dropped his side and the other got tore up. He sued the manufacturer because there was no warning a
running motor mower could be dangerous when used in such hand-held duty off the ground, and won big
time. Since that time all USA mowers have an extra $50-100 part. the outcomes of human stupidity
transcend mere inconvenience to ridicuolous economic detriment to the masses.

 

[John Doe]

"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa917d4a06c216d989696@news-server...
> > > I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and
those
> > > large b-doubles.. That is my opinion and that is the whole point.
> >
> > Where would you put them? What will we eat? wear? How will we transport building materials,
> > exports, new bicycles? I hate them but they're vital to our society.
>
> All the (mostly) women who now drive SUVs for no purpose (other than
feeling powerful
> and important or affluent ??) could be encouraged to also haul produce and
goods since
> there is nothing else occupying the space in thei petrol hungry beasts ;-)

Crikey, I understand if you are a yank but SUV? They are 4WD here. Next thing you will be saying Zee
instead of Zed. . I hate them too but oh know we are going to start a war within a war here.

>
> Speak of new and dangerous trends - SUVs for the sake of SUVs. Can't see
through
> them nor over them from a mere car. They peer over bikies heads. Never
had a problem
> with the mud-caked 4WD for those frequenting the bush, but these trendy
new things are
> getting out of hand. Ever see a BMW or Lexus or MB SUV seriously off
road?
> Dangerous for bikes and cars as well. Obviously my opinion.

Of course same as the argument with empty bike racks. I dont hate them if they are used for their
purpose. I had to laugh recently. I was riding in my friends uncomfortable 4WD and she was *****ing
about a transit van in front of us. She was saying they should be banned off the road as you cannot
see around them. What a laugh. This van was obviously only being used for its purpose of
transporting goods.

<lots of snipping here... sorry>

> in the USA all motor mowers have either a deadman handle or blade brake clutch. some years ago two
> of "our" best brilliant humans (yanks!)
decided to trim
> their hedge with a running motor mower. one dropped his side and the
other got
> tore up. He sued the manufacturer because there was no warning a running motor mower could be
> dangerous when used in such hand-held duty off the
ground,
> and won big time. Since that time all USA mowers have an extra $50-100 part. the outcomes of human
> stupidity transcend mere inconvenience to
ridicuolous
> economic detriment to the masses.

I can understand the economic detriment but I must say once I start mowing I only let go when I need
to change area in which case I stop the mower and empty the catcher anyway. I dont have a littered
lawn though so I dont have to move anything out of the way. I suppose if you were mowing a large
rock infested area this might be a bother. My hedgetrimmers have a dual switch (both hands
required). Much to my annoyance because sometimes I would like to swing one arm across although I
probably should always hold it with both hands so I suppose its protecting me from my potential
stupidity. These things would do some REAL damage if you accidentally touched your body with them.

 

[John Doe]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa917d4a06c216d989696@news-server...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bristan" <daed> says...
> ...Snippety snip...
> >
> > I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles.. That
> > is my opinion and that is the whole point.
>
> Where would you put them? What will we eat? wear? How will we transport building materials,
> exports, new bicycles? I hate them but they're vital to our society.
>

You could never accuse Bristan of any deep thought especially when it comes to thinking of others.
He is good at thinking about himself (No1) though. I am surprised he has even graced us underlings
with his superior mind.

> ...snip...
> > I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities to protect a few for the
> > inconvenience or annoyance for many.
>
> Yes and no.

Agree yes and no. There are times where we are totally banned from doing things due to the stupid
actions of a few. Noone here has suggested that something should be totally banned. Only to think of
others when you are not actually using the device. Bike racks are more dangerous than not whether
you have a bike on them or not. We are allowed to use them which is good but we have only argued
that when not in use they should be stowed safely. Bristan seems to think there is an appropriate
reason for an empty bike rack to be driven around on the back of a car. I am just waiting for a list
of them - or even one. However he has probably gone off elsewhere to sprout his wisdom.

>
> > PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.
>
> I agree here!! But my first priority is "helmets for pedestrians - in or out of doors" followed by
> "compulsory helmet-wearing by all shower- takers". Maybe we can get onto banning stairs, ladders,
> (wet) tile floors, etc when that's all in place.

lol. Nice one. Although wet tile floors anywhere but your own home would already be banned via
liability and workcover obligations. Hope you havnt started a helmet war here Mark.

>
> --
> Mark Lee

 

[John Doe]

"Bristan" <daed> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:rMa%b.76443$Wa.16050@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > You are not judging apples with apples here. Cars in use have a value... towbars and bikeracks
> > that are NOT in use do not.
>
> That is your opinion. Others might think that there is a value in leaving them attached.
>
>
> > We are talking about devices that are not being used not ones that are.
> Of
> > course cars/trucks/busses are dangerous. It is a risk we take because basically the way our
> > economy has gone makes it a necessity. It is a managed risk that we constantly are trying to
> > improve due to safety enhancements. Cycling is a risk... Cars or not you can still have
> accidents
> > on a bike.
>
> Again , your opinion. You are making a value judgement on cars etc based
on
> your own needs/wants.
>
> I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles..

Trucks are not driven around empty unless necessary (ie returning from a delivery)

> That is my opinion and that is the whole point.

That well be so but you are comparing something that is in use to something that is not.

> Some people see a value in leaving the bike racks on and it is only the weight
of
> numbers for /against and not any intrinsic danger that will decide wether the thing is
> banned or not.

What value? One reason that can not be attributed to laziness.

> I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities to protect a few for the
> inconvenience or annoyance for many.

never said I wanted to ban them - didnt see anyone here say they wanted to ban them.

> PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.

Nothing to do with something not in use.

 

[John Smith]

"John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:TJv%[email protected]...
>
> "John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > All the (mostly) women who now drive SUVs for no purpose (other than
> feeling powerful
> > and important or affluent ??) could be encouraged to also haul produce and
> goods since
> > there is nothing else occupying the space in thei petrol hungry beasts ;-)
>
> Crikey, I understand if you are a yank but SUV? They are 4WD here. Next thing you will be
> saying Zee instead of Zed. . I hate them too but oh know we are going to start a war within
> a war here.
>

4WD = (preferably) mud caked Land Rover, Nissan Patrol, Toyota Land Cruiser, (preferably) with roo
bars and snorkels, inferring off road use (especially with mud caking <g>)

SUV = Lexus, BMW, MB, and the increasing multitudes of 4WD not designed for off road.

One 4WD manufacturer refused a warranty claim because the sand in the oil pan was caused by driving
it off-road. That was an SUV for sure.

 

[John Doe]

"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TJv%[email protected]...
> >
> > "John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > All the (mostly) women who now drive SUVs for no purpose (other than
> > feeling powerful
> > > and important or affluent ??) could be encouraged to also haul produce
and
> > goods since
> > > there is nothing else occupying the space in thei petrol hungry beasts
;-)
> >
> > Crikey, I understand if you are a yank but SUV? They are 4WD here.
Next
> > thing you will be saying Zee instead of Zed. . I hate them too but
oh
> > know we are going to start a war within a war here.
> >
>
> 4WD = (preferably) mud caked Land Rover, Nissan Patrol, Toyota Land
Cruiser, (preferably)
> with roo bars and snorkels, inferring off road use
(especially with mud caking <g>)
>
> SUV = Lexus, BMW, MB, and the increasing multitudes of 4WD not designed
for
> off road.
>
> One 4WD manufacturer refused a warranty claim because the sand in the oil
pan was
> caused by driving it off-road. That was an SUV for sure.
>

oh. thanks for clearing that up. I travel to the US a bit for work and they never advertise 4WD as
such. Everything is SUV even things like LR Discovery etc.

 

[Bristan]

"John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:j7u%[email protected]...
>
> "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:rMa%b.76443$Wa.16050@news-
> > server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > You are not judging apples with apples here. Cars in use have a
value...
> > > towbars and bikeracks that are NOT in use do not.
> >
> > That is your opinion. Others might think that there is a value in
leaving
> > them attached.
> >
> >
> > > We are talking about devices that are not being used not ones that
are.
> > Of
> > > course cars/trucks/busses are dangerous. It is a risk we take because basically the way our
> > > economy has gone makes it a necessity. It is a managed risk that we constantly are trying to
> > > improve due to safety enhancements. Cycling is a risk... Cars or not you can still have
> > accidents
> > > on a bike.
> >
> > Again , your opinion. You are making a value judgement on cars etc based
> on
> > your own needs/wants.
> >
> > I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and those large b-doubles.. That
> > is my opinion and that is the whole point. Some people see a value in leaving the bike racks on
> > and it is only the
weight
> of
> > numbers for /against and not any intrinsic danger that will decide
wether
> > the thing is banned or not. I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities
> > to protect a few for the inconvenience or annoyance for many.
> > PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.
> >
> >
>
> Oh Bristan I have missed you.

Geez you take this too seriously, (like a few others), if that is the case.

Give me one reason other than laziness or as
> a weapon that you would want a bike rack on your car when not in use.
>
I take my rack off, however I can understand why people would want it on, or take dogs on the beach,
or use fireworks, or even have a gun etc. etc. etc. Just because you defend a view does not
neccessarily mean you hold it. That is the basis of preudice and bias.

 

[John Doe]

"Bristan" <daed> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:j7u%b.77744$Wa.71014@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:rMa%b.76443$Wa.16050@news-
> > > server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > "Bristan" <daed> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > You are not judging apples with apples here. Cars in use have a
> value...
> > > > towbars and bikeracks that are NOT in use do not.
> > >
> > > That is your opinion. Others might think that there is a value in
> leaving
> > > them attached.
> > >
> > >
> > > > We are talking about devices that are not being used not ones that
> are.
> > > Of
> > > > course cars/trucks/busses are dangerous. It is a risk we take
because
> > > > basically the way our economy has gone makes it a necessity. It is
a
> > > > managed risk that we constantly are trying to improve due to safety enhancements. Cycling is
> > > > a risk... Cars or not you can still have
> > > accidents
> > > > on a bike.
> > >
> > > Again , your opinion. You are making a value judgement on cars etc
based
> > on
> > > your own needs/wants.
> > >
> > > I would ban all large trucks from the roads, especially semi's and
those
> > > large b-doubles.. That is my opinion and that is the whole point. Some people see a value in
> > > leaving the bike racks on and it is only the
> weight
> > of
> > > numbers for /against and not any intrinsic danger that will decide
> wether
> > > the thing is banned or not. I think that as a nation we are too ready to ban things/activities
> > > to protect a few for the inconvenience or annoyance for many.
> > > PS: why don't car drivers wear helmets? It would save many more head injuries than cyclists.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Oh Bristan I have missed you.
>
> Geez you take this too seriously, (like a few others), if that is the
case.

Nope. Just missed you tis all.

>
> Give me one reason other than laziness or as
> > a weapon that you would want a bike rack on your car when not in use.
> >
> I take my rack off, however I can understand why people would want it on,
or
> take dogs on the beach, or use fireworks, or even have a gun etc. etc.
etc.
> Just because you defend a view does not neccessarily mean you hold it. That is the basis of
> preudice and bias.
>
>

Still havnt given me one reason why.