Re: obscured numberplate
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:53 am
It won't go in the back seat? Or in the rear with the seats folded down?
BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
Of course, you're absolutely right there.il padrone wrote:I guess ultimately it is your obligation to meet the legal requirements (or take the consequences). You may need a different rack, a different car or have to leave the kids at home. We all make such choices.
A trailer was another option someone mentioned, or even get a roof rack.
Dead right and good advice with the additional infringement notice on displaying a non-authorised licence plate Ron. In SA for example it's a $420 fine for obscuring any part of the licence plate plus an additional $600 fine if you also display a non authorised plate for a grand total of over $1k fine. You must either move the vehicle licence plate or purchase and display an authorised bike rack plate.RonK wrote:BTW, don't be tempted to make your own - that is a more serious offence than having you plate obscured (in Qld at least).
It's also a good idea to attach a white led lamp to illuminate it if you are driving at night.
You are right about NSW, but it seems in SA this is encouragedWyvernRH wrote:It only has to be 'obscured' in the opinion of the police officer, If you haven't got a rack plate then one day a copper looking for an easy pinch will get you.
Don't try moving the car plate onto the rack or the old colour printed copy of the plate, this is still illegal (in NSW at least)
If the bikes are 'covering' any of your lights or indicators they can do you for that too.
Cheers
Richard
When attaching a bicycle rack to the rear of a vehicle, you can either:
* display a bicycle rack number plate on the rack or
* take the rear number plate off the motor vehicle and attach it to the bicycle rack.
From the link:RonK wrote:Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...
All I have to say is wow.The dubious honour of the weirdest road rule belongs to NSW.
Splashing a bus passenger with mud after driving through a puddle can cost you $165. Oddly enough, splashing a pedestrian with water is OK. It’s the bus and the mud that seem to be most offensive in the eyes of NSW law.
I very much doubt that a bicycle or two on the rack will absorb any significant amount of impact -il padrone wrote: I believe this is to avoid more severe damage and possible personal injury occurring in any nose to tail collision. I did believe it was also illegal to park the vehicle with a bike rack attached due to the risk of injury by people unwittingly walking into it. I can relate to this more and would not like to cause some elderly lady to crack her head on my bike rack.
I think the wording is aimed at people waiting at bus stops. It was probably introduced in response to some problem incidents of a specific nature.im_no_pro wrote:From the link:RonK wrote:Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...
All I have to say is wow.The dubious honour of the weirdest road rule belongs to NSW.
Splashing a bus passenger with mud after driving through a puddle can cost you $165. Oddly enough, splashing a pedestrian with water is OK. It’s the bus and the mud that seem to be most offensive in the eyes of NSW law.
The rack could break the windscreen and injure the occupants. Time to take the tin foil hat off.wombatK wrote:I very much doubt that a bicycle or two on the rack will absorb any significant amount of impact -
the injury outcome is likely to be the same as without bicycles. 2000 kg of car v's 20 kg of bicycle - its a no-contest.
People generally know the dimensions of a car, they often know the dimensions of a truck. They are not expecting an extra 0.5 - 1 m of steel tubing sticking out at around head-height, and when looking out for other traffic, kids or shopping trolleys, may make mistakes. It is a simple and easy error to make. I have seen people do it. Personally I'd rather not be the cause of it. Just my approach.wombatK wrote:Elderly ladies can even more likely crack their heads on truck trays, or car nudge bars etc.,.
Yeah, think I'd rather take my chances landing against a flat surface than being speared by a protruding pedal or smacking my noggin into the horizontal(ish) top section of a bike carrier. But that's just me.gcouyant wrote:Regardless of the intent of this regulation, there are tangible safety benefits to the rider who accidentally runs into the rear of a vehicle with a bicycle carrier fitted. A full compliment of bicycles on the carrier presents a wide surface area to absorb energy from the impact and assist in deflecting the torso away from the rear face of the vehicle.
The difference may be a bit of time to catch your breath from being winded and looking for a tooth or two that may now be missing instead of a hospital visit with a cracked sternum or worse. In the case of low platform carriers these make the body pivot about the knee and accelerates the head into the rear of the car. With bikes loaded, the torso decelerates more slowly and is encouraged to slide up and over the car. If I were to be involved in such an accident I would very much prefer to plunge into a carrier full of bicycles instead of a bare one with little opportunity to cushion the impact.
Not before more than 1/2 the front end of the car has been crumpled, and by the time youve donewellington_street wrote:The rack could break the windscreen and injure the occupants.
Not with all carswombatK wrote:Not before more than 1/2 the front end of the car has been crumpled, and by the time youve donewellington_street wrote:The rack could break the windscreen and injure the occupants.
that, the windscreen is already broken.
Now I think you need one of these hatswombatK wrote:The road safety experts aren't interested in tackling other more serious threats - only
want to take on the cyclists racks because it's an easy win that makes them feel like they're
doing something. And will bring joy to some desperate traffic plod who's short on his quota for the
month.
That's not a car - that's a van. Without any kind a bicycle rack, you're in lotsil padrone wrote: Not with all cars
from Dog & Lemon Guide - Van SafetyWanna die young? Buy an old van. There are often just a few millimetres of steel
between you and the car in front, and in a head-on collision, chances are you’re dog tucker.
The smallest vans are the worst. According to Australian accident researchers,
the driver of a ’82-90 Suzuki Carry van has a dreadfully high chance of serious i
njury – in fact, you are several times more likely to die driving the Suzuki van
than you would driving the average car. The same applies to early Mitsubishi
passenger vans.
After reading through that i'm shaking my head, hundreds of dollars in fines for not displaying p plates, not keeping in the left lane etc etc, but driving without lights at night is only $99?! I would have thought that would be a MUCH more serious offence!RonK wrote:Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...
Long history in cycling. You'd be known as a 'scorcher'ldrcycles wrote:Another kind of interesting though is the offence of riding a bicycle 'furiously or recklessly'. 'Furiously' sounds like all the lycra warriors (myself included) should watch out .
In fact it is illegal to drive around with a towball in with no trailer attached as it is a protrusion from the vehicle.wellington_street wrote:Another thing you might want to be wary of is that it is illegal to have an empty bike rack on the back of your vehicle while driving. If it isn't being used to carry bikes then it must be taken off.
Ah, that's a tricky one (at least in NSW). If the towbar tab is a permanent fixture then you are OK. If it is removable you may be deemed to have not to have 'made every effort to ensure safety' Ask me how I know? An insurance company tried to pass-on costs when someone rear-ended my Subaru Ute but as it was an old car the tab was permanently part of the towbar so they got the bums rush.PB12IN wrote:In fact it is illegal to drive around with a towball in with no trailer attached as it is a protrusion from the vehicle.wellington_street wrote:Another thing you might want to be wary of is that it is illegal to have an empty bike rack on the back of your vehicle while driving. If it isn't being used to carry bikes then it must be taken off.
No, it shows a greater importance on being able to be identified for a happy snap speeding ticket vs whatever miscellaneous.biker jk wrote:This just reflects the low regard for cyclists. They're expendable.birdbrain wrote:$397 seems a bit harsh when the fine for opening a car door on a cyclist in Victoria is $352.