BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
and shouldn't bicycles have rego... The more I read these kinds of topics, the more I'm convinced of the merit of mandatory rego for bicycles, and that I should play the devils advocate by supporting it. 
I have no problems walking in my SPD shoes, so that makes them practical both on the bike and off.dagadgetman wrote:The shoes are only ridiculous when you try to use them as normal shoes, on the bike, they are excruciatingly practical.
Yes. And what is wrong with that!? Strict and mindless adherence to road rules is absurd. Recognising that intelligent and sensible breaches of the road rules isn't a travesty is important. That applies just as much to motorists as it does to cyclists.VRE wrote:However if we choose only to adhere to some road and vehicle laws, aren't we effectively saying it's OK for motorists to do the same?
What's wrong with that is that too many motorists* don't have good judgement about what's safe or not, and so I definitely don't want those motorists (in charge of a potentially very dangerous machine) thinking "cyclists pick and choose which road laws they obey, I think I will too". So the more "strict and mindless" adherence to the road laws we have, the more predictable other road users are.human909 wrote:Yes. And what is wrong with that!?VRE wrote:However if we choose only to adhere to some road and vehicle laws, aren't we effectively saying it's OK for motorists to do the same?
If you see someone behaving in an unpredictable and random manner, at least you will know who it is.VRE wrote:What's wrong with that is that too many motorists* don't have good judgement about what's safe or not, and so I definitely don't want those motorists (in charge of a potentially very dangerous machine) thinking "cyclists pick and choose which road laws they obey, I think I will too". So the more "strict and mindless" adherence to the road laws we have, the more predictable other road users are.human909 wrote:Yes. And what is wrong with that!?VRE wrote:However if we choose only to adhere to some road and vehicle laws, aren't we effectively saying it's OK for motorists to do the same?
* and cyclists too, of course.
What a cynical thing to sayTTar wrote:There should be a regulation against cynical hecklers like you and TimW.biker jk wrote:There should be a regulation against toeclips.
VRE wrote:What's wrong with that is that too many motorists* don't have good judgement about what's safe or not, and so I definitely don't want those motorists (in charge of a potentially very dangerous machine) thinking "cyclists pick and choose which road laws they obey, I think I will too". So the more "strict and mindless" adherence to the road laws we have, the more predictable other road users are.human909 wrote:Yes. And what is wrong with that!?VRE wrote:However if we choose only to adhere to some road and vehicle laws, aren't we effectively saying it's OK for motorists to do the same?
* and cyclists too, of course.
Don't choke on your popcorn, Timbo, but you won't reel me in for a second time.TimW wrote:What a cynical thing to sayTTar wrote:There should be a regulation against cynical hecklers like you and TimW.biker jk wrote:There should be a regulation against toeclips.
ohhhhhh Nasty!!!!!!!!!! Lol Ok mate, carry onThere should be a regulation against toeclips
There should be a regulation against cynical hecklers like you and TimW.
What a cynical thing to say
Don't choke on your popcorn, Timbo, but you won't reel me in for a second time.
I expect your taking out all your frustrations with your campagnolo oddities on this thread. Sad, really.
What, it hasn't failed yet!?TimW wrote:
ps, the Record EPS is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttt
See, now I can't tell if your trolling again or not.TimW wrote:
Mate don't take it personal or get nasty, the forum has rules and regs, that are neither stupid or pointless apparently
What gives you the impression that more road rule adherence will improve cyclist safety to any significant degree. It seems that most cyclists are injured in accidents that result from CARELESSNESS and not deliberate and wilful breaking of laws.VRE wrote:So the more "strict and mindless" adherence to the road laws we have, the more predictable other road users are.
changes to the regs in Aug 2011 now allow us to use only a flashing light on the front too, in WA at least (Reg 224 Road Traffic Code 2000)ColinOldnCranky wrote:A classic silly reg is the insistance that we must have a non-flashing front light. For most of us for much of the time a flashing headlight is more useful than a fixed beam, for reasons of conspicuity.
Do you still need white paint on the rear third of the back mudguard?chuckchunder wrote:changes to the regs in Aug 2011 now allow us to use only a flashing light on the front too, in WA at least (Reg 224 Road Traffic Code 2000)ColinOldnCranky wrote:A classic silly reg is the insistance that we must have a non-flashing front light. For most of us for much of the time a flashing headlight is more useful than a fixed beam, for reasons of conspicuity.
cheers
chuck
In WA I was not aware of that one. Rather it had to be either silver or black for some reason (and from memory). Whatever it was it made no sense at all.Mulger bill wrote:Do you still need white paint on the rear third of the back mudguard?chuckchunder wrote:changes to the regs in Aug 2011 now allow us to use only a flashing light on the front too, in WA at least (Reg 224 Road Traffic Code 2000)ColinOldnCranky wrote:A classic silly reg is the insistance that we must have a non-flashing front light. For most of us for much of the time a flashing headlight is more useful than a fixed beam, for reasons of conspicuity.
cheers
chuck
Yes - http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... keRegs.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;chuckchunder wrote:Pretty sure the silver/white mudguard requirement was removed at the same time. It's not there now.
chuckchunder wrote:BUT, next time I am riding up some hill and some roadie out of the saddle goes steaming passed, I shall remind said roadie of the requirements of Reg 211 (c) of the WA Road Traffic Code 2000:
"The rider of a bicycle shall............
(c) if the bicycle is equipped with a rider’s seat — ride the
bicycle seated in or on that seat."
provided of course their bicycle has a seat.......
I am a collector of unintended consequences & this is going straight to the pool room.that one is awesome. great find. wonder it if applies in other stateschuckchunder wrote:Pretty sure the silver/white mudguard requirement was removed at the same time. It's not there now.
BUT, next time I am riding up some hill and some roadie out of the saddle goes steaming passed, I shall remind said roadie of the requirements of Reg 211 (c) of the WA Road Traffic Code 2000:
"The rider of a bicycle shall............
(c) if the bicycle is equipped with a rider’s seat — ride the
bicycle seated in or on that seat."
provided of course their bicycle has a seat.......
bychosis wrote:IMO there are two types of cyclist (there are more but bear with me) that need two types of regulation.
1. The serious rider. Travels on the road at speed, wants to be part of the traffic and treated as such. Needs helmet, lights, reflectors etc but probably doesn't need a bell. Should be following road rules.
2. The recreational/cruiser rider. Doesn't like travelling on the road, travels on share paths and wants to be more like a pedestrian. Sees little reason for a helmet or other safety gear but needs to have a bell and know when to use it. Nt interested in following road rules because 'I'm not a car'
This has probably over simplified the issue, but when the law tries to take into account all types and 'encourage' safer actions we end up with a set of rules that tries to fit the middle ground and cover everyone equally.
And yet the majority of cyclists in the world and in the large cycling suburbs of Australia fit into neither.bychosis wrote:IMO there are two types of cyclist (there are more but bear with me) that need two types of regulation.
1. The serious rider. Travels on the road at speed, wants to be part of the traffic and treated as such. Needs helmet, lights, reflectors etc but probably doesn't need a bell. Should be following road rules.
2. The recreational/cruiser rider. Doesn't like travelling on the road, travels on share paths and wants to be more like a pedestrian. Sees little reason for a helmet or other safety gear but needs to have a bell and know when to use it. Nt interested in following road rules because 'I'm not a car'
This has probably over simplified the issue, but when the law tries to take into account all types and 'encourage' safer actions we end up with a set of rules that tries to fit the middle ground and cover everyone equally.