Daleo

Is there room in the body of the BOV to drill a bypass port? You could start small (say 2mm) and go up from there?

Do you have a source for the o-ring that seals the 2 halves? I stripped mine to blast & coat, but re-used everything as the seals & dust boots were perfect. The seal kits don't contain the sandwich o-ring do they?

I've spoken to them over the phone; they seem like decent guys. Where do you live? Are they sending them to you? Perhaps some kind of inspection & postage scenario could be arranged if you're worried?

Exactly Alex; it isn't going to happen. Cyclists can't possibly pay for it; nor should they have to. It is beholden on our Govt's to furnish transport infrastructure; be it publicly funded (through taxes) or privately funded (by developers when designing & building new suburbs). This happens with schools, railway lines, parks , and yes; even roads. The interesting thing is; cycling infrastructure is orders of magnitude cheaper per metre built, than the equivalent infrastructure for motor vehicles, so maybe it's something Govt should be looking at more seriously. The current "It's too hard to start now" attitude around cycling infrastructure is self perpetuating as well. Of course it's hard; it's going to get even harder if we don't start engineering in far more of it. And then, over time it becomes easier; because it becomes a requirement when any development occurs. It could be mandated by Govt, just like efficient design in houses/buildings. We do have to work with what we have; but we also need a massive change in attitudes from drivers. The 1 metre trial happening in QLD currently is exactly the sort of thing we need to see rolled out across the country. In addition to fines for drivers; there was a realignment of fine values with regard to cyclists. This brought all cycling fines in line with the equivalent fine value for motorists. The reality is; the supposedly vast numbers of cyclists breaking these laws doesn't appear to be backed up by statistics. If the supposed millions of cyclists running red lights was a reality; surely massive numbers would be being hit & either killed or seriously injured by the cars they are going in front of. What we do see (and I've posted this before, but the bike haters don't seem to notice); is that in accidents where cyclists are seriously injured or killed; 80% of the time it is the licensed driver who has hit them who is at fault. This has to change, and license plates & rego won't do it. Bikes are allowed on our roads, and whether people agree or not; is irrelevant. We need to take more care when they are around.

Ok; I was under the impression that some fairly large areas that had previously been used for parking, and a fair few public squares were made off limits to cars. When the rules changed; motorists were locked out of these areas literally overnight. They also had the same harbingers of disaster saying it would be the end of city life & transport as they knew it; but their society evolved with the rules. In Australia, there are an alarming number of people who shouldn't be permitted outside their homes unsupervised; let alone driving cars.

No one is denying that a small percentage of riders do the wrong thing; but so do car drivers. The principle difference between cyclists hitting cars, and cars hitting cyclists is; If your hit by an errant cyclist in your car you are extremely unlikely to die. If an inattentive driver hits you on a bike; you are quite likely to be severely and permanently injured or be killed. The numbers of cyclists hit and killed/severely injured far outstrips the numbers of motorists being severely injured/killed by cyclists. The rehabilitation costs to the community when cyclists are injured are huge. Yet the only solution anyone want to look at is making life harder for cyclists; heaven forbid motorists might have to change their attitudes. ​ The cycling haters constantly bang on about bike running red lights (justifying the identification nonsense), whilst completely ignoring the fact that the same small percentage of drivers do exactly the same thing; even though they are completely identifiable. Licensing riders, and registering bikes isn't going to stop cyclists getting mowed down by inattentive, selfish motorists; nor will it stop the small percentage from putting themselves at risk unnecessarily. This is why Duncan Gay raised this whole pot of bullshit in the first place. A couple of weeks ago, an idiot woman who sent 50 text messages drove off the road; hit a cyclist & broke his back. Then she sat in her car 200 metres up the street, and didn't even check to see if he was alive. How would a license and a registration plate have stopped this from occurring? The plate must have some pretty bloody amazing powers. What this may serve to do; is prompt cyclists to demand a far better set of rules to protect them if they are going to be paying for the "right" to do something they can already do, quite legally.

Fark, me either; there's years of work to get that one sorted. So your fellow car drivers and their intolerance? They don't want to hear it; because it doesn't suit the argument.

Probably more productive to have less shit drivers; everyone wins then.

Thanks for doing exactly what you are supposed to do when encountering a vulnerable road user. Did it really take 10 minutes to get back up to speed? Or was it maybe a fair bit less than that; like maybe 30 seconds? Why have we arrived at a point; where applying the brakes to avoid running a cyclist off the road, has become the option of last resort? It's hard, I get it. But trust me; his family will appreciate it when he arrives home safe; just like yours does when you arrive home safe.

The thing is; the countries that now have exceptionally safe cycling drew a line in the sand, where they decided that human lives were worth more than people being able to drive their cars with impunity. Amsterdam had a massive spike in the number of children who were killed whilst riding bicycles; the law was changed due to massive public pressure and cars were banned from city centres completely. They also have laws that assume anyone who hits a cyclist whilst driving a car is AUTOMATICALLY at fault. This doesn't result in cyclists riding bezerk and blaming drivers; it simply results in far less bikes getting hit by cars and riders being injured/killed. Drivers MUST respect the safe passing distances around cyclists, because they know they have a responsibility to make conditions safe for vulnerable road users to move about. It can happen; we just have to decide what is more important. "Just because one has the legal right to be a stupid inconsiderate arsehole that doesn't have to give a fark how ones own actions effect others doesn't mean it is morally right and then expect those effected people by ones actions not to get pissed at them" This comment encapsulates EXACTLY what cyclists think about inconsiderate arseholes in cars, Mick. The difference is; when a cyclist gets pissed at a driver; the driver doesn't die. You are making my argument for me.

Yes, why read any of the reasoned responses, before regurgitating all the usual bike hating bullshit. Bikes holding up traffic? That is the best one I've ever heard; because once you get past the pesky cyclists you continued to your destination completely unabated, without having to stop; even once. Or did you have to stop behind another group of cars going 5 km/h and this allowed the cyclists to catch up. You're not "held up in traffic"; you ARE traffic. OMG Birds; I can't believe I marginalised you like that; what were you saying about tandems being gay? Tandem unicycle, Hipster level: Expert.

The Honda Gold Wing is already fitted with an airbag system, and there are several wearable airbag systems (integrated into bike jackets) on the market. The wearable airbags are utilised by MotoGP and WSBK riders and are quite effective these sense inertia & have gyro's integrated. Not cheap though. There are simpler ones that use a tether to the motorcycle; & if you tear away the tether; the system assumes you left the bike at a fair rate of knots, and inflates a neck collar, and back & chest protection. Most riders are not fatally injured by impact to the ground, but as they make high speed contact with the external surfaces of motor vehicles, or as they are crushed & torn by the vehicle going over them. Avoiding impact with a cyclists in the first place is a far better action plan than placing the onus on a cyclist to wear hot, restrictive clothing with armour & explosive charges; just so they can survive an impact they should never have been exposed to.

Great minds, and all that.

The demerit points you accrue are removed 3 years after the date you were convicted of the offence. This means either from your court date, or the date you paid the fine.

Yeah, gotcha; that section is very different. This is where the infrastructure is the issue; rather than just taking the easy option & deeming the road too dangerous for cyclists. Imagine if the road was wide enough for a full sized breakdown lane; or even a dedicated bike lane? The question then becomes "who pays?". Perhaps our legislators and heaven forbid; the general public SHOULD be asking is; "Why should cyclists pay with their bodies, and lives?" There is far more than just a financial benefit to making cycling safer, and blaming the victims & putting obstacles in the way of cycling is not the answer. This year, in NSW there has been a 100% increase in rider fatalities; given 80% of accidents where riders seriously or fatally injured have been found to be caused by drivers, something HAS to change. Why are we demanding the victims are the ones who need to change?

Dead right. Plenty of car drivers out there could benefit from this too.

99% of riders do put their own safety first; and judging by the bile some people a spitting about hurting errant riders, it's a bloody good thing they do. When I first started riding motorbikes, I was given a great piece of advice; "Ride as if everyone on the road is out to kill you; because most of them are". It doesn't stop me from riding though. Why is "Riding the white line on Mulgoa Rd" somewhere cyclists shouldn't be? Mulgoa Rd is a straight, smooth, well lit, 60km/h DUAL CARRIAGEWAY with a centre island! It's exactly the kind of road cyclists should be using; in fact, it's one I use regularly. It would be easy to see a rider as you are approaching from behind; as ANY CONSIDERATE driver would be indicating left, moving safely into the right hand lane, and according the rider the respect and safe passing distance they need by LEAVING HIS LANE to pass; rather than squeezing past within his lane, in direct contravention to the law. "Where riders shouldn't be" sounds a lot to me like "Where it annoys me". Now we're back at intolerance towards other road users.

What right do you think you have to determine how other people decide to travel or spend their time? Actually, just because they have the right; is EXACTLY why those vehicles are allowed to be there. The speed limit is exactly bloody that; the MAXIMUM speed you are permitted to travel, not the bloody minimum. As road users; we have a responsibility not only to ourselves, but for ALL other road users. Especially to those more vulnerable than ourselves. You talk about road rage being caused by inconsiderate selfish people; yet your own disdain for cyclists and their lawful RIGHT TO BE ON THE ROAD is incredible. It doesn't matter what your own personal OPINION is of cyclists and their right to use our roads; they are fully entitled to be there. As a licensed driver, you MUST abide by the laws that allow them to be there. The only reason it becomes unsafe for riders to be on roads is because the drivers are driving TOO CLOSE to them. It may be road design, but a lot of the time it is not. Riders are frequently hit whilst riding in the breakdown lane; whose fault is that? They don't just magically go under the wheels of a car when they're riding along! As I said yesterday; A study done by Adelaide University showed that in 80% of accidents where riders were killed; the licensed driver was AT FAULT. 80% is a massive over representation in any set of statistics. Maybe we need to look at who is allowed on the road if 8 out of 10 riders killed on our roads is killed by a driver doing the wrong thing.

Some light reading for the bike haters. http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/blogs/on-your-bike/duncan-gays-call-to-license-cyclists-is-not-the-answer-to-road-safety-issues-20140502-37mda.html#ixzz30XNJh9eO http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/as-duncan-gay-considers-cycling-licences-bike-lanes-shown-to-be-highly-effective-20140502-zr3ff.html

You're right; it is an offence to ride a pushbike on the footpath unless you are under 12, or are riding with a child under 12. You're also supposed to dismount to cross intersections on bike paths. Realistically; they should have a bloke waving a flag walking in front of them. That would solve tonnes of issues. Either that; or more licenses.

Give every man and woman of voting age 3 chainsaws, and an unlimited supply of 2 stroke fuel; then send them for mandatory juggling lessons. Problem solved. According to a study done by university of Adelaide; 80% of accidents in Australia, where the cyclist was killed; it was the fault of the licensed driver. How will licensing for riders/registration plates change this? We need to change our focus.