Daleo

Really? He seems so rational, & normal on TV...

I started reading & thought; "I recognise that wheel!" Lol. Looking at it now; you take for granted what it looked like when you first bought it. Such a big change. Now do my car; please?

Seems people have been calling for registration of bicycles for a while now; we might finally have politicians stupid enough, and so consumed with self interest, to finally to get it off the ground. Keep up the fail; The Hon. Duncan Gay Read the date at the bottom... Bicycle Legislation. The bicycle has almost got into politics (says the S. M. Herald). The Legislative Assembly on Tuesday refused leave to introduce a bill to provide for the registration of bicycles. The House is to be commended on rejecting the question, if only as showing that it is not disposed to encourage fussy legislation. Why should bicycles be registered ? There is an overt and a covert reason. Ostensibly the object is to ensure the identification of any cyclist who may injure a pedestrian ; but behind thin praiseworthy regard for public safety lurks private interest. So many people find themselves affected by the present fashion of cycling that they have a very hearty ill will to the offending vehicle. They would like to tax it out of use, if they dared to make such a proposition ; but they know that no public body would, save under actual compulsion, propose such a thing. Failing prohibition they are not unwilling to harass the cyclist. They ask for continuous bells, for reducing pace to a funeral march, for compelling the cyclist to wear distinguishing numbers, or for requiring him to register his machine. In this spirit certain municipal authorities appear to question whether the rider of a bicycle has any right in the public thoroughfares. Some aldermen, for instance, complain of the damage done to their macadamised streets by pneumatic tires, but cyclists themselves are understood to complain the other way. Suppose it is admitted that for purposes of public control bicycles ought to be registered, is it the affair of Parliament, to give its attention to the matter, or is it not rather the province of the municipal bodies and the police to prevent the abuse of bicycling? It is satisfactory to find Parliament sensible of its own dignity. - Western Star (Qld) September 16 1896

Anything that hits hipsters in the pocket is ok by me.

Nay, I shall be astride the toddlers balance bike. Yea verily; it has newfangled yellow plastic wheels, and an ooga horn.

Sorry Alex.

Great event; thoroughly enjoyed it. Theo did a great job hosting, and provided excellent information and insight. Was great to see everyone, and great that the weather held off. Thanks to everyone involved in putting the event together.

Bicycle jousting is the best solution this thread has produced. Nice work Luke! Brb, off to get a broomstick. It wasn't saying that cars expend no energy to get moving from a standstill, just that the driver isn't the one physically getting the car moving again; unlike the bicycle.

Here's an interesting article from the US about the "Idaho Stop". http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride It proposes some constructive solutions for getting bicycles off high traffic thoroughfares, which would be a win for both sides of the argument. Not trying to inflame the situation, but there is some useful info in there, and the rule (or a version of it under a different name) has been in use in states across the US with fewer negative outcomes than the status quo.

Very nice; fills those guards. Lol @ saving the planet.

Tomorrow is too far away!

I've been using an external crank bearing setup for years now, definitely the way to go for GTR owners.

How do we pick up repeated DUI offenders in cars? They don't hand themselves in; visual policing catches them. Why wouldn't this apply to bikes? It's not like the police send you a ticket in the mail for driving erratically; they pull you over. That shouldn't be too difficult given the maximum speed of a bicycle And if you're a repeat offender, why didn't you stop after the last time? Licensing & registration hasn't stopped habitual drink drivers and unlicensed drivers getting behind the wheel. Taking their licenses has proven to be extremely ineffective as a deterrent. This is a far more dangerous situation than a hypothetical unlicensed bike rider. What are the stats surrounding your argument for drinking & cycling? How many people are being caught, and how many of those are people who have been banned from driving for the same offence? As you are no doubt aware; you don't need a drivers license to buy a car. Are there that many millions escaping from the public revenue from bikes speeding? Really? And given on most roads with speed cameras; if you were by some miracle actually able to break the speed limit, the camera isn't focussed on the breakdown lane; which is where drivers want cyclists to ride. The cost is exactly the point. Some people may not have the financial means, and this is why they cycle. What about families with multiple children? If you lose your car license, do you lose your cycling license? Then what do you do? I don't understand this evolution of the argument. We seem to now be moving down the path of punitively punishing everyone who owns a bike because of the selfish actions of a very small group of people in the community. And these people will continue to do what they want because they don't care.

I wholly agree with the rego/CTP being tied to the driver; not the car. It's a blindingly obvious, and logical way to do it; then you can guarantee all drivers have cover. You can only ever drive one vehicle at a time, but somehow, I can't see the insurance industry ever letting go of that little cash cow. I don't think we're ever going to agree on bicycle access, especially once you start legislating licensing, and fees. If you're going to pay a fee, you will have to accept that bike riders must be allowed to use all of the road network they are paying for; not just the bits that suit drivers.

Read this if you want an insight into the logic behind bike hating. http://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/chris-hoy-cycling-and-the-borg/ 1; The "Credible facts" in the debate are the ones I've quoted that indicate in 4 out of 5 incidents where cyclists are either seriously injured or killed; the fault lay with the driver that hit them. The study was done by Adelaide Uni; if you really want; I'll find a full copy of it for you. That's 80%. 2; It's been done in many countries, yet never achieves the supposed aims of the process. The usual end result is the abandonment of the scheme. 3; So your argument seems to basically be; I pay therefore everyone else should have to pay? I own 3 registered motor vehicles, and I'm already a licensed rider/driver ; I already pay! I have to abide by the same road rules when push biking (and I do); what would be the difference in my bicycle license? 4; My attitude doesn't need to change; I ride a bike safely & courteously, and I do a lot of kilometres. I don't hold cars up, and I don't swerve around to be an arsehole. Let me tell you why. I have a missus & 2 kids at home, and I want to get home safe. I've had bottles & cans thrown at me by weak arse little f**king pansies who then speed off with impunity. Then when you catch them at a set of lights; they nearly piss their little Spiderman undies. I've had a car drive into a intersection where I had right of way, and I went straight into the front quarter, over the bonnet and onto the road on the other side. Elbow, knee and ankle ground down to the bone and stitches in my ear where the aerial sliced through it. Did the driver stop to see if I was okay, or even to berate me for damaging their car? Like f**k they did. They raced off like a f**king coward and ran home to mummy. None of the good people who DID stop to help me up, and gather up the pieces of my smashed bike, were able to identify the car. But that car had a number plate and the driver was presumably licensed. Didn't make one f**king iota of difference. My brother (who is a national level MTB racer) was clipped by a car & run off the road at 60km/h as he commuted to work and missed hitting a telegraph pole by centimetres. It could easily have killed him. Yet I don't think every driver is a f**king retard with an axe to grind against cyclists. There are far more observant courteous drivers who are prepared to give riders space on the road.Perhaps they are riders, perhaps their kids or partners ride bikes; I don't know. Perhaps they just don't want the death of a cyclist on their conscience, when all they have to do is exercise some patience, or maybe go past a little further away. 5; We do have to wear PPE. You have to wear (in NSW at least) a standards approved helmet at all times. Even motorcyclists don't have to wear a mandatory full face helmet & full leathers. At night, you have to have forward facing lights & a rear red light. If you don't; you can be fined. If you speed; you can be fined If you drink; you can be fined. If you met me out on the road, I'd be the guy that moved over & waved you through when there was space; I'd be the guy who gave you a wave when you didn't pull out from a side street when I was passing by. I'd be the guy who gave you a wave & maybe had a quick chat at the traffic lights while we waited. I'm not the arsehole you seem to be painting me; I just want people to understand what can happen if you accidentally clip a cyclist, or squeeze one; just because a mate of a mate said he knew a bloke whose dog once saw a cyclist do some bloody terrible thing out on the road. We are guys/girls just like you; we love cars, we love driving, we attend club events, we have families,and without the lycra (which I don't wear; I prefer baggies) you'd never know. We just like getting around on a cheap, readily available, and completely legal form of transport. So the next time you guys joke (tongue in cheek) about throwing spark plugs at cyclists, or being an arsehole because some "homo" on a forum offended your sensibilities; and now you're cut up rough, Imagine someone doing the same to your brother, or your missus, or your kids. It's all fun & games, until someone with far less intelligence than you goes out & does what you said you might do; because their tiny little mind is filled with righteous indignation. A Professor at the University of QLD was killed in a hit & run accident over the ANZAC long weekend, whilst participating in an amateur cycle race. The culprit has gone to ground like the snivelling coward they are. He is one of several already this year. I'm sure his family would be reassured by your attitude, and I'm sure his life would've been saved had he been in possession of a numberplate and a cycling license. Cyclists are not all perfect; I'm not pretending they are, even Duncan Gay estimates it is "less than 1% are rogues" yet everyone is losing their minds. When 1% of car "enthusiasts" cause trouble, we distance ourselves from them, saying it's unfair to judge all of us for the actions of a few morons. When it comes to cyclists; everyone is sharpening the pitchforks against the boogeyman, that is a bloke on a freakin' pushbike. Don't you see the double standard here? 80% of all cycling deaths & serious injury are the fault of the licensed driver. THIS is what we should be trying to change, not making cyclist pay for the "right' to ride.

Read the article above the picture. Give me just one rational reason why a vehicle that doesn't use any fuel; should have to pay fuel excise? Bicycles are ALREADY recognised as vehicles, and are ALREADY entitled to equal share on the roads. This is already law. What is so difficult to understand about that? Yours is the attitude of entitlement that needs to change.

This pretty much encapsulates the argument I've been trying to get across for the last week or so. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/hendrie-bike-licences-a-kneejerk-reaction/5436498 Licensing cyclists would do nothing to save lives or solve the infrastructure deficit. It would simply be a disincentive to a transport mode enjoying serious growth, writes Doug Hendrie. Here we go. In the wake of solid reporting on the spike in driver aggression against cyclists comes the backlash. Those 48 cyclists killed last year - squashed by trucks or sideswiped by SUV drivers - well, they must be to blame. What we need, according to NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay and the mayor of Bayside Council in Melbourne, are licences for cyclists. That's right. We definitely do not need lane separation, not stronger penalties for maiming cyclists, and definitely not the enforced one metre passing distance just introduced in Queensland. What we need in Melbourne and Sydney is to get those lycra-clad hoons under control. Make them sit licence tests. Make them pay a fee to be on the roads. Force bikes to have licence plates. Ban the law-breakers. Only then will the roads be safe for good, ordinary car drivers once more. Only then will drivers have the freedom to drive fast into the next traffic jam. I've tried to be generous with such policy kite-flying. If you squint, you can almost see it as well meaning, a response to the spate of car-bike crashes and cyclist deaths. Cyclists might well support such a plan if it would lead to the creation of better infrastructure and improved safety. I would be in favour of that. But plans to license cyclists aren't about safety for those riders. They're about bringing down thebanhammer on a noisy minority. They're about harvesting votes from the aggrieved drivers of Australia, who would much prefer to blame cyclists for their slow commute rather than, say, the actual cause - growing cities, low-density sprawl and sub-par public transport. It is a classically Australian response to a problem. Here's the populist logic: drivers are annoyed at bikes for costing them 10 seconds and forcing them to change lanes. There are more drivers than cyclists. The political answer is clear: smack down the minority and ride high on a brief popularity surge from good ordinary car users. Four wheels good, two wheels bad. Minister Gay all but admits as much: "It is a very small section of cyclists that don't do the right thing," he told 2UE in Sydney. "It would be probably under 1 per cent." In the internet age, I realise that facts are unpopular and outrage is king, but, alas, facts are all I have to draw on. Here they are: In four out of five serious collisions between cyclists and drivers, the car driver was to blame. Most cyclists are also drivers. That means they're already licensed and already pay, in a number of ways, towards the upkeep of roads. Cycle lanes are cheap, requiring paint, or, for full separation, cement dividers. And as for the licensing scheme itself - how, exactly, would it work? Would kids sit tests? Would every bike be licensed? The cost of introducing and administering a licensing system would almost certainly outweigh the income derived from the scheme. As Bicycle Network Victoria spokesman Garry Brennan notes, bike registration has been abandoned in almost every place in the world that has trialled it. If the aim of these proposals is to tackle the red-light running, aggro, middle-aged men in lycra, the solution is far simpler: police the hotspots known for bad cyclist behaviour. I've seen it work in Melbourne, with red-light runners nabbed by cops on bikes. No need for a licence. Why does it matter? A recent editorial in the Australian claims urban cyclists are a "menace" and that "our cities are dominated by cars because they are sprawling. We have no equivalent of Amsterdam and should stop pretending we do." But this is wrong. Increasingly, Australia's major cities are becoming denser and cycle lanes are farmore efficient movers of people than a ton of car carrying 80 kilos of human. In our inner cities, at least, cycling is vastly superior - a cheap way of maximising existing road space. As urban development consultant Alan Davies observed last year, the social benefits of cycling "very likely exceed their financial cost". Forcing cyclists to sit tests and pay registration would be a major disincentive to a transport mode enjoying serious growth. Licensing cyclists is a classic Australian kneejerk reaction and legislation at its worst. It will do precisely nothing to solve the infrastructure deficit. It will discourage people from switching from car to bike. And it will do nothing to save cyclist lives. The only winners would be the outraged drivers who blame the dead for daring to ride on their roads, and Australia's talkback hosts, for whom supposedly entitled minorities are their daily meat.

Good luck with this Jason; many hands make light work with this sort of thing. There are a few guys who have spent a lot of time & money developing solutions for these cars; it would be great to see what some new blood can uncover. Cheers, Dale.

It's a beautiful car in the flesh, and the Spoolin12, the original owner is a professional motoring photographer. Bang for buck; this car is possibly one of the comprehensive packages anyone has done. The car went for an absolute song, compared to the money invested; is the new owner on the forum at all?

I hadn't noticed OP was Vic based, so my comments are clearly not correct, as they're based on my experience in NSW. Apologies for the misleading info.

If it can happen in a city as "Locked in" to it's current street architecture as London; it can happen here. It just requires people who WANT conditions to be safer for cyclists. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article4078649.ece Cyclists are to be given more space at dangerous junctions and cycle-only filters at traffic lights as part of a raft of measures to make roads safer. Road markings, street signage and traffic lights are to be overhauled to improve safety for cyclists and decrease clutter that can confuse both motorists and cyclists, the Government has announced. Low-level traffic light signals are to be introduced so that cyclists can see changing lights more clearly and councils will also be able to fit cyclist-only filters at traffic lights to give cyclists a “head start” on other traffic. Cycle boxes at traffic lights, designed to protect cyclists at dangerous junctions, are set to be enlarged, with 7.5 meter deep zones to be introduced. Dangerous cycle lanes that force cyclists to ride in the gutter at traffic lights – taking them through the blind-spots of lorries and other vehicles – are to be scrapped. A technicality currently means that cyclists can only enter cycle boxes via these lanes, but this is to be changed under new measures to come into force next year. Safety campaigners have welcomed the moves, but criticised the Government for failing to create a significant annual budget for cycling, which would allow local councils to build networks of safe cycle routes. The measures will be introduced in an update to the road regulations in March next year. Some have already been trialled by Transport for London. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, wrote to the Department for Transport (DfT) last year to ask for the changes to be brought forward, but they will still only come into force in 2015. The DfT has also announced plans to cut the number of road signs. There are currently more than 4.6 million signs on Britain’s roads, an increase from two million in 1993, described yesterday as “unnecessary clutter” by Robert Goodwill, the roads minister. New road markings to help guide cyclists across junctions are also to be introduced, including “elephant’s footprints” - white squares to indicate the safest route. Many of the new measures echo demands in The Times’s Cities Fit for Cycling campaign, which calls on the Government to revolutionise Britain’s roads to reduce conflict between motorists and cyclists. Groups like the AA and British Cycling have joined The Times in calling for an annual budget of at least £600 million per year for cycle provision to be included in party manifestos for the 2015 elections. Experts have said this would help the Government reap billions of pounds in benefits each year by reducing NHS costs on tackling obesity, decreasing congestion, alleviating overcrowding on public transport and tackling pollution. Chris Peck, policy co-ordinator at the CTC cycling charity, said: “All of these things are small, simple changes which will make it easier for local authorities to improve facilities for cycling. “But it will still take political will at a local level to provided adequate space for cycling. The Government must also provide the cash.”

A Melbourne council has been lampooned by cycling advocates and the RACV after petitioning for new laws requiring bicycles to be registered and cyclists to be licensed. The Bayside City Council will ask the Municipal Association of Victoria to lobby the government for a major overall of cycling regulations. The borough is home to a popular weekend 17-kilometre run for cyclists, along Beach Road. The council says if cyclists were forced to get a licence or register their bikes, the police and the public could more easily identify cyclists who fail to adhere to the road rules. Its petition also calls for education programs to increase the awareness of the vulnerability of bicycle riders. The proposal has been ravaged by the transport lobby, which says the reforms would be a huge and unnecessary cost for the state. Bicycle Network Victoria spokesman Garry Brennan said the push to have bikes registered had long been a “dead duck”. He said almost every place in the world that had sought to implement the policy had later abandoned it. “It’s too expensive and provides no benefits for the community,” he said. “If you say there is a problem with people leaving the scene of an accident, the problem is with motorists. ” Mr Brennan said Bayside Council had a history of being anti-cycling, resisting for many years a successful move to introduce morning no-stopping zones for cars on Beach Road. He said local council had consistently voted against it until the Labor government gave them the money for it. Bayside mayor Laurence Evans said the council’s motion to the MAV was prompted by a number of crashes between cyclists, in which one of the cyclists had left the scene. He said in one of these cases his friend was left with multiple injuries. But Cr Evans conceded the motion probably needed reworking, because the council was unsure what was the best way to address the “issue” of law-breaking cyclists. He said the council “loved” people riding through the municipality. “What we’re really doing is asking the government to look into the issue because it’s not just our problem.” Bayside resident, Tom Quirk, 20, said registration of bicycles or the licensing of cyclists was "terrible idea". Mr Quirk has worked at Omara, a popular bike shop on Beach Road, for four years and said a licence process would “definitely” discourage people from riding. "They should be trying to encourage people to get out and stay healthy," he said. "A lot of people get a bike to commute because it is cheaper, but now it’s not going to be cheaper, it’s going to be expensive as well.” RACV’s road and traffic manager, Dave Jones, said the peak motoring group did not support bike registrations or licences. Because cycling is enjoyed by people of all ages, he said it would be more practical to invest in road education and training rather than implement a licence system.

KYB is OEM for the Stagea.

Including his vagina, apparently.