Police target South Australian cyclists

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:10:46 +1100
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Law enforcement is an unrelated topic. Regos got nothing to do with
> it.

How should law enforcement affect cyclist behaviour?

Is it required, or is it enough that cyclists don't cause many
fatalities?

Are there any laws needed for cyclists at all? If there are, how are
they to be enforced given the difficulty of identifying cyclists and
the ease of them getting away?

I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
hits someone doing something stupid.

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:

>> 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.

It appears that Scotty72 has admitted that his road-bike is not compliant
with the law and he is breaking the law every time he ventures out of his
driveway.

Theo

 

[John Tserkezis]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
> laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
> latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
> cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
> light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
> hits someone doing something stupid.

Sometimes you have no choice. In Perth, reflectors are required on your
pedals. The effectively bans almost all cleats (all the ones that I own
anyway) at night.
Since I don't know of anyone who changes their pedals between day & night,
that's an effective outright ban.

And there's that minor thing about handlebars not being X centimetres above
the height of the seat, outright banning "dragster" style bikes.




I was assured by an ex cop that those things were never enforced. Then why
are they there?




Now, excuse me, I'm going to drive my Ox-drawn manure cart through Pitt St,
and see what they want to say about it. It's within my bloody legal right to
do it, so I will. But not with the racing strips on the side, that's not legal.

Have I taken my meds yet? Oh, that probably explains it then.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:22:23 +1100
John Tserkezis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
>> laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
>> latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
>> cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
>> light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
>> hits someone doing something stupid.
>
> Sometimes you have no choice. In Perth, reflectors are required on your
> pedals. The effectively bans almost all cleats (all the ones that I own
> anyway) at night.
> Since I don't know of anyone who changes their pedals between day & night,
> that's an effective outright ban.
>

I think Perth is the only state that didn't ratify the Australian Road
Rules? The ARR only want lights at night and a rear reflector.

pedal reflectors are good things, but putting them on a 'bent is a bit
useless So I'd be breaking that law in WA too.

A moving reflecting surface is an excellent "look at me" but shouldn't
be necessary if you have lights on. The bods who ride without lights
tend to be the ones who don't mess with different pedals, reflectors
have helped me on bike paths and back roads before now, meaning I can
see the ones in black on the black bike without lights....

So I'm with the Oz Road Rules on this - that suitable lights are
important at night. Having pedal reflectors as a requirement for
bikes sold is trickier - good because it will mean a number of the
no-lights brigade would be somewhat visible, bad in that it means the
bikes boughtby people who *do* change pedals must be sold with
wasteful pedals that are never used.

As to "never enforced"... it's usually because it's too hard.
Although they can be used as a way to enforce the rule against
"Deliberate Stupidity in a Public Place". I'm not at all fond of
selectively enforced laws, although that's what "don't prosecute red
light running cyclists" is of course....

Zebee

 

[scotty72]

Are there any laws needed for cyclists at all? If there are, how are
they to be enforced given the difficulty of identifying cyclists and
the ease of them getting away?

And how do you think that putting a label on the back of a push bike will assist with law enforcement.

Didn't you see the video of all those motor vehicles doing dumb things (a random 15 mins at a quiet intersection)? Didn't stop them breaking the law. I doubt the cops are beating down their doors as I type as they were so easily identified. Many (incl) myself have turned up at plod stations with video of wrong doing (in my case an idiot running me off a round-a-bout) only to have them shrug their ploddish shoulders.

I've another video (no yet youtubed) of me driving down the M4. I set the cruise control at the limit +5 km/h (naughty I know but, I wanted to be sure my speedo wasn't under-reporting - my GPS (x2) confirms my car speedo is about 3% slow). This video shows my speedo and the torrent of cars and motorbikes screaming past.

There was one exception, when we went under the Cumberland Hwy, everyone slowed down for about 200 metres past the speed camera.

See, those rego plates are SOOOO good at helping law enforcement.

SCotty

 

[scotty72]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:

>> 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.

It appears that Scotty72 has admitted that his road-bike is not compliant
with the law and he is breaking the law every time he ventures out of his
driveway.

Theo

I blame it on the bike shop who sold me the bike that way.

Perhaps it is not the law, but I got that misunderstanding (if it is) from a Hwy Patrol plod who told me that road - racing bikes were not required to have a bell or reflectors - which they never come with anyway.

Scotty

 

[scotty72]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:22:23 +1100
John Tserkezis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
>> laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
>> latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
>> cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
>> light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
>> hits someone doing something stupid.
>
> Sometimes you have no choice. In Perth, reflectors are required on your
> pedals. The effectively bans almost all cleats (all the ones that I own
> anyway) at night.
> Since I don't know of anyone who changes their pedals between day & night,
> that's an effective outright ban.
>

I think Perth is the only state that didn't ratify the Australian Road
Rules? The ARR only want lights at night and a rear reflector.

Hang on!

We should congratulate Perth on its elevation to state-hood.

So, what is the new Capital of Western Australia?

pedal reflectors are good things, but putting them on a 'bent is a bit useless So I'd be breaking that law in WA too.

My cleats don't have reflectors but, my road shoes have reflective strips on the heel. Will the WA (I mean Perth) police throw me in gaol?

As to "never enforced"... it's usually because it's too hard.
Although they can be used as a way to enforce the rule against
"Deliberate Stupidity in a Public Place". I'm not at all fond of
selectively enforced laws, although that's what "don't prosecute red
light running cyclists" is of course....

Or becuase even the cops can see the stupidity of the law.

My MTB bike does have a tinky little bell that tinkerbell would love. So that would be legal even though it would be difficult to hear from over 5 paces.

However, my proper bike has a far louder, more effective warning device - me yelling "passing" or "OI!". And apparently that is illegal.

See, even cops can apply common sense.

Scotty

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:21:51 +1100
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Are there any laws needed for cyclists at all? If there are, how are
>> they to be enforced given the difficulty of identifying cyclists and
>> the ease of them getting away?
>>
>> And how do you think that putting a label on the back of a push bike
> will assist with law enforcement.

There's three parts to enforcement.

The illegal act has to be seen to be committed.

The commitor has to be located and brought in.

There has to be enough evidence.

Identification is part 2. If the bicycle can be stopped at the time -
and that's not easy if it doesn't want to be - then the ID is a
problem that's been solved, but if the bike does a runner then having
some kind of visible unique ID is important.

Doesn't always work with cars - obscured, stolen, so on. But works
often enough.

It also helps with part 1. WHich is how cameras do it. I am not fond
of cameras as enforcement tools, but they exist.

They also help with part 3.

If the cops are not able to manage part 1 because they aren't there,
or part 2 because they aren't able to chase or find, or get a good
look at a plate, or whatever, that's unfortunate. Doesn't mean it
isn't a good idea.

Whether it is a good idea for bicycles, that's tricky. And emotional.
And a lot about what your idea of the social contract is.

Zebee

 

[John Tserkezis]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I think Perth is the only state that didn't ratify the Australian Road
> Rules?

As far as I'm aware, the other states (other than NSW) are in the process of
changing over, I doubt everyone except WA has completely moved over at this
time though.

> The ARR only want lights at night and a rear reflector.

Quoting ARR Oct 1999:

"259 Riding at night
The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather
conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays:
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200
metres from the front of the bicycle; and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200
metres from the rear of the bicycle; and
(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 metres from the
rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s headlight
on low-beam."

What I really don't get, is the requirement for part (C). I would have
thought the active lighting in part (B) would make a reflector redundant.

> pedal reflectors are good things, but putting them on a 'bent is a bit
> useless So I'd be breaking that law in WA too.

Technically

> A moving reflecting surface is an excellent "look at me" but shouldn't
> be necessary if you have lights on. The bods who ride without lights
> tend to be the ones who don't mess with different pedals, reflectors
> have helped me on bike paths and back roads before now, meaning I can
> see the ones in black on the black bike without lights....

Did I mention orange spoke reflectors are required in WA too?

> So I'm with the Oz Road Rules on this - that suitable lights are
> important at night.

"Suitable", yes. Legal, all bets are off. Legal rear active lighting is ok
IMO, however, the "legal" front light is simply not enough to do the job. I
have a 12W halogen, and I use that as a guide as absolute minimum. I ride in
dark areas sometimes, and really don't hesitate to get the speed up where I can.

> Having pedal reflectors as a requirement for
> bikes sold is trickier - good because it will mean a number of the
> no-lights brigade would be somewhat visible, bad in that it means the
> bikes boughtby people who *do* change pedals must be sold with
> wasteful pedals that are never used.

I would imagine that statistically, pedal changers are few and far between.

> As to "never enforced"... it's usually because it's too hard.
> Although they can be used as a way to enforce the rule against
> "Deliberate Stupidity in a Public Place". I'm not at all fond of
> selectively enforced laws, although that's what "don't prosecute red
> light running cyclists" is of course....

Jaywalking is one that's prominent. In that the ONLY time anyone gets
booked for it, it also appears front page of the next day's paper. This law
is so disused, that it actively gets sought out to be revoked by the media if
anyone tries to enforce it.

I think we should encourage the same for those pesky pedal reflectors.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[scotty72]

There's three parts to enforcement.

The illegal act has to be seen to be committed.

The commitor has to be located and brought in.

There has to be enough evidence.

Fair enough

But, my video satisfied part one (it was seen) and it certainly satisfied three (there is video evidence). It is part two where your argument falls down.

What do you reckon would happen if I took that video to the local hwy patrol? They would probably scratch their heads and wonder why I am bothering?

Every time I go out I either see another car do something illegal (often dangerous or dumb) but the few times I've tried to report it, zero.

Classic example.

I was a passenger in a car travelling past Olympic Park on the M4.

We approached a Subaru Liberty (from memory).

We noticed that the two kids in the back were
a) unrestrained
b) watching a DVD on those in-car headrest screens

More importantly, the driver was also watching the DVD on a screen strapped to his sun-visor.

Having a camera, I videoed the car (got the plate), and was able to get motion of the kids jumping around and the driver watching the screen.

After, I rang Auburn (Flemmington) plods and asked how I could get the video to them. Weren't interested. "Call the Hwy patrol, was her only suggestion"

Got onto the Hwy Patrol. "You need to go to Auburn Police Stn"

Got to the station, "This sort of thing is handled by the Police Assistance Line"

Bottom line, I was being given the run-around.

So, what is the point of a rego label (other than raising money)?

Identification is part 2. If the bicycle can be stopped at the time -
and that's not easy if it doesn't want to be - then the ID is a
problem that's been solved, but if the bike does a runner then having
some kind of visible unique ID is important.

The cops wont be remotely interested. Yes, if a gross criminal act was involved (eg. hit and run) they would follow it up (how likely is that in a bicycle?) but, for a traffic matter....

Doesn't always work with cars - obscured, stolen, so on. But works
often enough.

I'm sure I've just demonstrated how it is, in fact, useless.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:01:44 +1100
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>>
>> There's three parts to enforcement.
>>
>> The illegal act has to be seen to be committed.
>>
>> The commitor has to be located and brought in.
>>
>> There has to be enough evidence. Fair enough
k
> What do you reckon would happen if I took that video to the local hwy
> patrol? They would probably scratch their heads and wonder why I am
> bothering?

The problem is, I presume (not being a copper, and especially not
being those coppers) to do with reliability of evidence, and a
time/expense calculation.

I have no idea how they work out either. How much should they trust a
video nowadays for example?

The cost/time bit is harder still. I would prefer they *did* crack
down on the small stuff because no one does big stuff without doing
small stuff first, but more importantly for a vulnerable road user the
small stuff can be big.

But if they don't crack down on all, how to decide who to crack down
on, if no one is hurt? How much potential for hurt and how to
calculate that?

>
> So, what is the point of a rego label (other than raising money)?
>

Well it doesn't raise money per se, as the rego system is subsidised


The only bit that makes money is the insurance part in NSW. No idea
if TAC makes money.

Seems ot me though that the rego system is working fine. What you
found was that the police system wasn't.

I've seen other anecdotes of reports made that were followed up. So
was yours the norm or the exception?

>
>> Doesn't always work with cars - obscured, stolen, so on. But works
>> often enough. I'm sure I've just demonstrated how it is, in fact, useless.

No you haven't. You may have demonstrated that some police are less
than helpful, you have demonstrated nothing about rego per se.

Zebee

 

[scotty72]

No you haven't. You may have demonstrated that some police are less
than helpful, you have demonstrated nothing about rego per se.

Zebee

The whole argument for bicycle rego is all about making us accountable for our alleged transgressions. Not the efficiencies of the rego system.

When very few reports are followed up - and as you said, even if you have video evidence, its authenticity might be questioned? What is the point of being able to identify the cyclist?

Scotty

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:27:01 +1100
scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>>
>> No you haven't. You may have demonstrated that some police are less
>> than helpful, you have demonstrated nothing about rego per se.
>>
>> ZebeeThe whole argument for bicycle rego is all about making us accountable
> for our alleged transgressions. Not the efficiencies of the rego system.
>
> When very few reports are followed up - and as you said, even if you
> have video evidence, its authenticity might be questioned? What is the
> point of being able to identify the cyclist?
>

Going to depend on who does the ID isn't it? And what for?

What you said was "rego no good for cars". So should they be
registered? If not, how will you ID the one that hits you? Should a
ped not be able to ID the bike that hits them, or another cyclist ID
them?

I think ID's a good idea, I dunno if it's a practical one. RFID chips
would work for some things better than plates would, plates would work
better than chips for others.

They managed to have a setup that works for cars, I think with enough
will it could be done for bikes. How much will is there? No idea.

Zebee

 

[scotty72]

Going to depend on who does the ID isn't it? And what for?

Which is exactly my point. It is only very serious incidents that are likely to be followed up. EG. A vehicle used in a bank robbery (unlike to use a bicycle as a getaway car) or hit and run (very uncommon and, if a ped is killed by a bicycle - it is very unlikely the rider will be simply able to ride off anyhow)

What you said was "rego no good for cars". So should they be
registered? If not, how will you ID the one that hits you? Should a
ped not be able to ID the bike that hits them, or another cyclist ID
them?

Yes, motor vehicles should be registered because they are heavy, capable of huge speed and able to cause major damage - which need to be ID'd for the follow-up that will undoubtedly happen when a serious incident occurs. It is unlikely that a cyclist is going to be involved in a fatal hit/run.

I think ID's a good idea, I dunno if it's a practical one. RFID chips
would work for some things better than plates would, plates would work
better than chips for others.

Maybe we could tattoo barcodes or implant the chips we put in dogs at birth. Give our lives over to Big Brother completely - wont life then be just grand.

They managed to have a setup that works for cars, I think with enough
will it could be done for bikes. How much will is there? No idea.

A number plate is heavy. It needs to be so it can be bolted on and be relatively durable, resistant to theft, not easy to counterfiet, big enough to be read at a distance etc. All of this make a number plate silly on a light weight, human powered vehicle.

Another question.

Why are motorbikes not identifiable from the front?

You may say due to safety. I say it's to allow motorcyclists to do wheelies and not be so easily identified

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> It appears that Scotty72 has admitted that his road-bike is not
>> compliant
>> with the law and he is breaking the law every time he ventures out of
>> his driveway.

> I blame it on the bike shop who sold me the bike that way.
>
> Perhaps it is not the law, but I got that misunderstanding (if it is)
> from a Hwy Patrol plod who told me that road - racing bikes were not
> required to have a bell or reflectors - which they never come with
> anyway.

So you're going to explain to some copper that you're ignorant of the law?


Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

John Tserkezis wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I think Perth is the only state that didn't ratify the Australian
>> Road Rules?
>
> As far as I'm aware, the other states (other than NSW) are in the
> process of changing over, I doubt everyone except WA has completely
> moved over at this time though.
>
>> The ARR only want lights at night and a rear reflector.
>
> Quoting ARR Oct 1999:
>
> "259 Riding at night
> The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather
> conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the
> rider, displays: (a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly
> visible for at least 200 metres from the front of the bicycle; and
> (b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at
> least 200 metres from the rear of the bicycle; and
> (c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 metres
> from the rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s
> headlight on low-beam."
>
> What I really don't get, is the requirement for part (C). I would
> have thought the active lighting in part (B) would make a reflector
> redundant.

But they are a requirement on motor vehicles.

> "Suitable", yes. Legal, all bets are off. Legal rear active
> lighting is ok IMO, however, the "legal" front light is simply not
> enough to do the job. I have a 12W halogen, and I use that as a guide as
> absolute minimum. I
> ride in dark areas sometimes, and really don't hesitate to get the
> speed up where I can.

I think the front light is for the safety, so that others can see you. I
think the law goes something like 'visible from...' not what you can see.

> Jaywalking is one that's prominent. In that the ONLY time anyone
> gets booked for it, it also appears front page of the next day's paper.
> This law is so disused, that it actively gets sought out to be revoked by
> the
> media if anyone tries to enforce it.
>
> I think we should encourage the same for those pesky pedal
> reflectors.

Agreed, I knew all this already. I was responding to Scotty who wanted the
'letter' of the law to apply to motorists and assured me that his bicycle
complied with the 'letter'. It obviously doesn't.

Theo

 

[scotty72]

scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> It appears that Scotty72 has admitted that his road-bike is not
>> compliant
>> with the law and he is breaking the law every time he ventures out of
>> his driveway.

> I blame it on the bike shop who sold me the bike that way.
>
> Perhaps it is not the law, but I got that misunderstanding (if it is)
> from a Hwy Patrol plod who told me that road - racing bikes were not
> required to have a bell or reflectors - which they never come with
> anyway.

So you're going to explain to some copper that you're ignorant of the law?


Theo

Why not? I'm not a lawyer.

Scotty

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> 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.

Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor vehicles.
Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law enforcement.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> No checks at all in WA unless you're bringing the vehicle from
>> interstate. Does no checks really mean unroadworthy? Does age mean
>> unroadworthy? Does low value mean unroadworthy? I can't see the
>> association myself.

> Low value means not likely to have any money spent on it to keep it
> roadworthy should things start to go wrong with it - like having an
> indicator lamp covering being smashed.

I know of a lot off older, low-value cars that their owner look after with
great zeal and, knowing they are an easy target for the coppers, are kept in
excellent road-worthy shape.

I still can't see that low-value automatically = unsafe.

Theo

 

[Terryc]

scotty72 wrote:

> Perhaps it is not the law, but I got that misunderstanding (if it is)
> from a Hwy Patrol plod who told me that road - racing bikes were not
> required to have a bell or reflectors - which they never come with
> anyway.

Constable Plod is wrong, unless they have changed the law in the last
few decades.