Police target South Australian cyclists

[TimC]

On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote
>
>>> I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public
>>> asset to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are
>>> suggesting here. As I don't own a car I will look forward to the tax
>>> rebate I will get from the gov't as I will no longer be contributing
>>> to roads.
>
>> Your family company will be required to pay for it.
>
> Not a problem.
>
>> Which will come out of your wages.
>
> We will pass the costs on to you, our customers, the same as all companies
> do with their costs.

Except the airline industry, where they pass on the increasing costs
in the form of a non-transparent non-advertised "tax". I personally
don't understand why they don't have a "staff tax", since staff are
the biggest cost to airlines -- bigger even than fuel.

But anyway, presumably in the market place, those that could minimise
their usage of vehicles would charge the least, and get the most
business. Nothing is a free lunch - you pay for your petrol usage one
way or the other.

--
TimC
"Nature is pretty" -- CmdrTaco

 

[Kim Hawtin]

TimC wrote:
> Theo wrote
>> I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?
>
> Heh. I do sometimes. I'm more inclined to keep control of my vehicle
> though, given conditions on the roads around here, than to strictly
> obey the law (recalling of course, that it is not required to indicate
> left on a bicycle, only right, and that the way our brakes are
> arranged, I'd much rather be braking with my right hand than
> indicating right).

this is why i move my front brake to the left hand side of the bars on
my fixie.

cheers,

kim

 

[Resound]

"scotty72" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Cars are registered.
>
> Having a plate or sticker etc on the back doesn't prevent law breaking.
>
> As we've pointed out, most motorists break some law every day (about
> 90% speed through school zones) and many speed through orange/red
> lights.
>
> Obviously, you are so anti bike that you want to dream up a way to get
> cyclists off the road. BINGO, force them into the licence / rego
> bureaucracy. Force them to bolt on a heavy (on road bikes - grams count)
> plate.
>
> As you know, many will say stuff that.
>
> You get your NRMA fueled wish of - get the cyclists of MY roads.
>
> Selfish. Communist. You see others onto a good thing and you wanna ban
> it.
>

So what you're saying is that Theo can't wait to have himself taken off the
road. Yeah I can see that. Or did you (yet again) miss the bit where Theo
pointed out that he cycles as much as he drives? You must have gotten some
of the froth from your mouth in your eyes.

 

[Resound]

"scotty72" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Brendo Wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 9:03 am, scotty72 <scotty72.331...@no-
>> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> > Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> >
>> > > What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why
>> not?
>> > > Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
>> > > available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per
>> cyclist
>> > > what are the reasons not to do it?
>> >
>> > > ZebeeBecause I can't see why lazy motorists who are simply cranky
>> that others
>> >
>> > have found a better way want to destroy that better way for everyone
>> > else. Simple envy - and crankiness.
>>
>> I don't think that motorists who are knobs are that way out of
>> jealousy, or envy. I just think they're knobs. The fact that you're on
>> a bike means 1) you're an easy target, and 2) you and them often meet.
>> Would they be tools if they were walking and you were running? Yes,
>> Would they be tools if they were in a HSV Commodore and you were
>> driving the new matchbox car by TATA? Yes. By shouting something anti
>> bike-ish it makes it a little more legitimate than just being a
>> ******.
>>
>> BrendoGood points
>
> The average propensity for knobishness mulitplies once s/he gets in
> control of a motor vehicle.


[citation needed]

 

[scotty72]

I am conatantly amused by the varied spelling of hyppocrite. Your's wasn't
too bad.

...and I am constantly amused by the various spellings of constantly. I'm not surprised that you were so busy throwing stones that you forgot about your own, glass house.

> You ask, can we do without cars. Prob no. But we could try.
>
> No-one needs a car. People base their lifestyle choices around them
> but they could do without them. I've reduced my useage (in kms) by
> about 75%. I'm not yet unable to live.
>
> Factories. How much produce / product / stock is moved by car anyway.
> Maybe in WA it's different, but in the east, we have trucks.

I was suggesting that people will need to live close by where they live.
Hence a factory in your suburb.

Apparently, you've not heard of the fab new omnibusses that traverse our towns and cities - some even have trains. I am suggesting that if you have to live the semi-rural lifestyle on the acre block - you ought to be a little inconvenienced about getting about.

> I'll ask you, can we do without bicycles? I doubt it.

We managed pretty well until about 1880. We got cars at about the same time.

hmmm. So let's get rid of 'em both.

> We are fat enough, unhealthy enough. and polluted enough as a country
> already and your grand solution for this is to ban the healthiest,
> cleanest from of transport (apart from walking) there is. What was
> that you said about Logic 101 at the local TAFE?

You idiot. I am a cyclist. I cycle daily. I have never advocated banning
bicycles. I just don't consider they should be exempt from the rules of the
road.

Idiot? Do you feel better now?

I too don't think anyone should be exempt. But not every category of vehicle should (or can) follow the same rules. Bicycles have different rules.

> Wanna see a cyclist indicate. Follow me. I do it as the law requires.
> That is Turning. We don't have to for stopping as it is dangerous -
> so I don't

You don't have to indicate to stop? I didn't know that. I thought you only
didn't need to indicate to turn left.

It may be different in WA. But here, no need to indicate left or to stop. It is a bit hard to use a hand brake to stop when your hand is in the air.

So if a policeman should stop you, you and your bike will be compliant with
the law? Two orange reflectors on each wheel and each pedal. Red reflector
on the back, white reflector on the front, and an efficient bell? Great! and
good for you. I think mine is missing a couple of those items.

Once again, if only you knew your facts.

A bicycle that is designed for racing need not carry bells, or reflectors (but must have lights at night). If you're on a MTB etc. then you'd need all that. I am on a proper bike.

Theo

 

[cfsmtb]

[citation needed]

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/projects/distraction.html

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/projects/0090.html

That's a relatively tiny example of published articles dealing with driver behaviour, although just can't seen to find the same amount of research about negative outcomes resulting from bicycle rider behaviour.

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-12, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> A bicycle that is designed for racing need not carry bells, or
> reflectors (but must have lights at night). If you're on a MTB etc. then
> you'd need all that. I am on a proper bike.

cite?

--
TimC
>Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function.
You're saying cats are the opposite of bijectiveness? -- ST in RHOD

 

[cfsmtb]

On 2008-01-12, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> A bicycle that is designed for racing need not carry bells, or
> reflectors (but must have lights at night). If you're on a MTB etc. then
> you'd need all that. I am on a proper bike.

cite?

Don't be silly Tim, you should realise the difference between when a bicycle is intended for utility purposes, as opposed for club racing in a crit or similar.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:44:52 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> TimC Wrote:
>> On 2008-01-12, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> > A bicycle that is designed for racing need not carry bells, or
>> > reflectors (but must have lights at night). If you're on a MTB etc.
>> then
>> > you'd need all that. I am on a proper bike.
>>
>> cite?
>>
>>
>
> Don't be silly Tim, you should realise the difference between when a
> bicycle is intended for utility purposes, as opposed for club racing in
> a crit or similar.


So a bike not being used in a sanctioned event does not have to obey
the law because it can be used in a certain kind of sanctioned event?
Why not?

Or are you and scotty72 saying that the law itself makes the
distinction? I'd find that surprising, so yes please quote chapter
and verse.

Zebee

 

[cfsmtb]

waffle snipped

If you're going to keep wasting bandwidth with putting childish insecurities on public display, put them to better use and stop ignoring the challenge mentioned here. Are you capable of it?

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/msg/660a0ffc37d36d3a

f people feel so strongly about the issue then either take that **** or
get off the pot. Draft a detailed submission with full costing &
pricing, submit it or make representations to the relevant authorities
or make a parliamentary submission to get the scheme included in either
fed/state government budgetary allocations. Otherwise it's just another
round of internerd waffle with no connection to reality.

 

[Resound]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> TimC Wrote:
>> On 2008-01-12, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> > A bicycle that is designed for racing need not carry bells, or
>> > reflectors (but must have lights at night). If you're on a MTB etc.
>> then
>> > you'd need all that. I am on a proper bike.
>>
>> cite?
>>
>>
>
> Don't be silly Tim, you should realise the difference between when a
> bicycle is intended for utility purposes, as opposed for club racing in
> a crit or similar.

Sure but if a bike which is used for racing is being ridden not within a
sanctioned event, then it still has to comply with the rules of the road
just as a racing car would have to comply with roadworthy requirements if
driven on a public road outside of a sanctioned event.

 

[Resound]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Resound Wrote:
>>
>>
>> [citation needed]
>
> http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/projects/distraction.html
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/
>
> http://www.aic.gov.au/research/projects/0090.html
>
> That's a relatively tiny example of published articles dealing with
> driver behaviour, although just can't seen to find the same amount of
> research about negative outcomes resulting from bicycle rider behaviour.
>

There's plenty of material there on driver behaviour. There's nothing there
that I could find which suggested that any given individual was less prone
to being a prat outside a car than they were inside a car though. That was
what I was questioning.

 

[cfsmtb]

Sure but if a bike which is used for racing is being ridden not within a
sanctioned event, then it still has to comply with the rules of the road
just as a racing car would have to comply with roadworthy requirements if
driven on a public road outside of a sanctioned event.

That's exactly what I meant - sanctioned events. Just returned from a amazing four hour sanctioned event (otherwise known as the 2008 Open Road Cycling Championships) with thousands of spectators, hundreds of road cyclists, well scheduled shuttle buses, support vehicles, police support in vehicles & on bicycles. Even though I'm not a roadie, making the time to get along to such a quality cycling event was well worth a day out of the city. Oh dear, yet another non-sequitur in this thread.

 

[Resound]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Resound Wrote:
>>
>> Sure but if a bike which is used for racing is being ridden not within
>> a
>> sanctioned event, then it still has to comply with the rules of the
>> road
>> just as a racing car would have to comply with roadworthy requirements
>> if
>> driven on a public road outside of a sanctioned event.
>
> That's exactly what I meant - sanctioned events. Just returned from a
> amazing four hour sanctioned event (otherwise known as the 2008 Open
> Road Cycling Championships) with thousands of spectators, hundreds of
> road cyclists, well scheduled shuttle buses, support vehicles, police
> support in vehicles & on bicycles. Even though I'm not a roadie, making
> the time to get along to such a quality cycling event was well worth a
> day out of the city. Oh dear, yet another non-sequitur in this thread.
>
Sure but the original point was that even if the bike is intended to be
ridden in crits or other closed races, it still has to comply with all road
rules when being ridden outside of that event so the intended function of
the bike is irrelevant when it's being used for general vehicular cycling.

 

[cfsmtb]

Sure but the original point was that even if the bike is intended to be
ridden in crits or other closed races, it still has to comply with all road
rules when being ridden outside of that event so the intended function of
the bike is irrelevant when it's being used for general vehicular cycling.

Ditto, numerous discussions here & elsewhere, for example, about riding to the track or crit and ensuring the bike is legal for street use. That's not rocket science knowing how to discern the difference.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:58:48 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Resound Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sure but the original point was that even if the bike is intended to
>> be
>> ridden in crits or other closed races, it still has to comply with all
>> road
>> rules when being ridden outside of that event so the intended function
>> of
>> the bike is irrelevant when it's being used for general vehicular
>> cycling.
>
> Ditto, numerous discussions here & elsewhere, for example, about riding
> to the track or crit and ensuring the bike is legal for street use.
> That's not rocket science knowing how to discern the difference.

Exactly. But scotty72 said that MTBs are required to have things that
roadbikes are not, nothing whatsoever about sanctioned events.

You appeared to agree with him, which surprised me.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:34:37 +1100
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There's plenty of material there on driver behaviour. There's nothing there
> that I could find which suggested that any given individual was less prone
> to being a prat outside a car than they were inside a car though. That was
> what I was questioning.

I have no cites, just a vague recollection, but I seem to recall a
number that said the feeling of enclosure/armour combined with the
feeling of territory would mean some people became much more of a
prat. That they were originally a little bit prat-like but became
much more so when in a car.

I agree there's nothing to say someone changes from being non-prat to
prat, but there does seem to be a prat-magnification effect. MIght
just be that the effective zone is larger - that the pratness is more
obvious to more people.

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> So it's worth ignoring the law-breakers because of the health
>> advantages?
>>
>> I rode a bike when they were licenced. I didn't know anyone who
>> didn't ride
>> because of the licence fee. Next question.

> Here's one for you. How much does red light running cost insurance
> companies? Not a guess, some quantifialbe data.
>
> Surely if it's that bad a problem there must be some data around on
> what a burden to society it is? I mean red light running is
> quantifiable so if red light running is a bigger problem with cyclists
> there must be some data?
>
> No?
>
> Well for the record the NRMA put out a press release in 2005
> collisions at traffic lights cost 66 million dollars in 2004. Top of
> the list of common causes, according to the NRMA who as we all know
> hate motorists, is running red lights. Granted there's no indication
> that any kind of precedence is present in the list.
>
> So come on Theo, there's my question. How much does traffic light
> bingles involving cyclists cost each year? How much of that can be
> attributed to running red lights?

I have no idea. Is it important? Is it the question being asked here?
Supposing there is no cost (aside from that incident on Beach road) does
that mean we should ignore the law? Can we go from there to "it's OK for
cyclists and motorists to run reds if they don't hit anyone"? Should all
laws be obeyed regardless of the financial impact they have on society?

It's important because money is why cars are required to pay rego.

Bikes were here before cars. Before cars, we didn't have traffic lights and a road toll that was so insignificant it didn't register.

Then cars came along and they proved to be quite popular. Unfortunately they also killed and seriously injured a lot of people. The victims demand compenstation and society agrees and compensates them.

Problem is that cars are so cheap that offenders rarely had the funds to cover the compendation, so society decided that as there's a proven risk insurance is mandatory. That is the only reason we have registration.

Cyclists don't cost others money. There are isolated examples but nowhere near enough for cyclists to be considered a burden which requires insuring against. Something to do with cycling being the most benign form of transport there is, including walking. That's why cyclists don't pay rego.

Law enforcement is an unrelated topic. Regos got nothing to do with it.

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-13, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:34:37 +1100
> Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> There's plenty of material there on driver behaviour. There's nothing there
>> that I could find which suggested that any given individual was less prone
>> to being a prat outside a car than they were inside a car though. That was
>> what I was questioning.
>
> I have no cites, just a vague recollection, but I seem to recall a
> number that said the feeling of enclosure/armour combined with the
> feeling of territory would mean some people became much more of a
> prat. That they were originally a little bit prat-like but became
> much more so when in a car.
>
> I agree there's nothing to say someone changes from being non-prat to
> prat, but there does seem to be a prat-magnification effect. MIght
> just be that the effective zone is larger - that the pratness is more
> obvious to more people.

I wish there were a quantitative prat-o-meter. Connect it to an
interlock alongside the alcohol interlock, and don't allow someone who
is too pratish today, to drive.

--
TimC
Bus error -- driver executed.

 

[cfsmtb]

I wish there were a quantitative prat-o-meter. Connect it to an
interlock alongside the alcohol interlock, and don't allow someone who
is too pratish today, to drive..

In extreme cases a Alcohol ignition lock can be used, but wouldn't it be grand if there was something more intuitive available? Something like a Kit HDD LED setup on the dash that informs the prospective driver (and everyone else to a radius of 100m) that the individual is a complete fktard and should not be in charge of a moving vehicle, shopping trolley or teapot.

Reckon that idea got merit, better than folks who relentlessly lecture everyone else and run away when shenanigans get called on them.