Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

You bicycle riders, bike riders and motorists will from now on, have to give way to me as I "raise my hand and point to my horse" at full gallop under me...

download_zps2beb6715.jpg

Or lead my own funeral cortege...

JapaneseHearse_zps95922537.jpg

since I trust that you will have read...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/design/the-ten-road-rules-you-never-knew-you-were-breaking/story-fnjwucvh-1226796995159

RTA issued serial numbers at time of registration, like a cars VIN number to match the plate. Like a motorist, your responsible for your plates. Some sort of third party insurance is a great idea. There is a good chance that if there is an accident brtween car and bike, some emergency service will be called, making it easier for the insurance companies to work out who is at fault. Tbh I don't see too many cyclists breaking the law around my way, just getting in the bloody way, but hopefully it can go towards funding long overdue road widenings including sectioned off, with a tiny kerb, cycle lanes. More the issue is really groups riding side by side at 40 in an 80 zone and such. Just dangerous for everyone.

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

  On 10/05/2014 at 10:48 PM, Terry_GT-R34 said:

You bicycle riders, bike riders and motorists will from now on, have to give way to me as I "raise my hand and point to my horse" at full gallop under me...

download_zps2beb6715.jpg

Or lead my own funeral cortege...

JapaneseHearse_zps95922537.jpg

since I trust that you will have read...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/design/the-ten-road-rules-you-never-knew-you-were-breaking/story-fnjwucvh-1226796995159

I like this idea, because tentpegging pedestrians walking on the wrong side of the foot path could be considered very therapeutic lol

  On 11/05/2014 at 10:13 PM, TREGTR said:

I like this idea, because tentpegging pedestrians walking on the wrong side of the foot path could be considered very therapeutic lol

or just harold scruby

after all, he apparently speaks for all of them (though self-appointed)

  On 11/05/2014 at 11:29 PM, cpd said:

or just harold scruby

after all, he apparently speaks for all of them (though self-appointed)

ped council of aus harold lol. I heard from a highly disreputable and completely fictional source that one such joust left the stick up...

  On 13/05/2014 at 9:16 AM, TREGTR said:

Dale without dancing a defamatory dance. The guy may be closely associated with Nobby's.

Lol; touché.

I can't stand the guy; he's the full tinfoil hat, that one.

I didn't read any of the thread. But my biggest issue with the whole debate is that many people that argue for plates on bikes due to law breaking, just don't know what is and isn't illegal for a cyclist to do.

Did you know? - If a cyclist stops at a red light, they are then allowed to proceed as long as it is safer than it would be to stay at the lights.

It is also 100% legal for a cyclist to lane split to the front of traffic lights. - This is stupid IMO, You shouldn't allow the slowest of traffic to the front of a queue. and make traffic pull around them at every set of lights down Victoria road.

As a whole:

Cyclist are often really the dumbest of the dumb. Just because you are allowed to do it, doesn't mean you should. 1/2 the time they are being selfish and outright stupid

Don't ride down Parramatta road. its dumb

Dont ride through gallstone at 6pm on a Tuesday night. It's dumb

Dont ride 2 or 4 abreast down any single lane road.. EVER. It's selfish

Dont ride up the left hand side of a bus, IT'S JUST f**kIN DUMB... (3 people were killed in as many weeks recently doing exactly this in NSW)

Cyclist's are putting themselves and their foam helmet up against tonnes of rolling steal, they will never win. It's not a fight anyone should be getting into. They need to take their own safety into their own hands and not put themselves into these situation.

Yes, Car drivers are f**kin stupid too, but they will beat you 100% of the time.

I cycle myself, I will often ride 10-20% further distances just to not ride on a busy traffic road. I know car drivers are dream boats, I am one. So on my bike i avoid that situation, just like i avoid dark alleys at night.

I do really wonder what some cyclist are thinking sometimes.

An interesting byproduct since the mandated minimum passing distances in Queensland;
Rather than inflaming hostilities between riders & drivers; NEWLY introduced bicycle laws have changed motorists' behaviour towards their two-wheeled friends for the better, according to the Bundaberg Road Policing Unit.

http://m.news-mail.com.au/news/rules-bring-road-users-together-in-good-way/2270616/

It's reassuring when a good idea creates positive change.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...