obscured numberplate

[il padrone]

It won't go in the back seat? Or in the rear with the seats folded down?

[Ozkaban]

Might, but then the kids might object too

As two of them are under 7, the back is loaded with booster/child seats...

[il padrone]

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.

[Ozkaban]

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.

Of course, you're absolutely right there.

I checked the NSW road rules handbook and came across this guide:
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/ ... vsi_10.pdf

Where it says:
"Remove or reposition the bicycle rack when not in use so that it is not a hazard to other vehicles and pedestrians."

I think I could successfully argue that folding the base up and the top down would satisfy the above. I guess that applies to NSW, no idea about other states.

[Riggsbie]

My dilemma is that I have a different car every 5-6 months (last year I had 4 different cars) so I think it's unreasonable to be expected to buy a second trailer/rack plate.....

I have the pleasure of working for Ford so they pay us badly but give us lease cars....

I usually colour print a facsimile of my current number plate and cable tie it to my Thule bike rack......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[RonK]

Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...

[gcouyant]

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.

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.

A good tip on the illumination is a little strap on LED lamp like a little Knog brand aimed at the licence plate. In this for example it's strapped to the pedal.



Dead easy.

Do be cautious about leaving an empty carrier on the car (regardless of whether the carrier is folded up or not) because that is being policed and has been policed for over thirty years. Some people keep an eye out for a small children's bicycle left out on hard rubbish and strap that onto the carrier. It's really only an issue if you have to drive somewhere with the carrier installed to pick bicycles up or drop off.

Something like this pretty little pink bike is perfect, though a 12" model even easier.



Especially if it has tassells fitted!

[find_bruce]

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

You are right about NSW, but it seems in SA this is encouraged

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.

[im_no_pro]

Not only SA, same applies for Vic IIRC.

[im_no_pro]

Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...

From the link:

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.

All I have to say is wow.

[wombatK]

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 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.

If motoring authorities were seriously concerned about rear end collision injury, flat-top trucks would
have mandatory bars to prevent cars and motorcycles going under the tray (back and sides).

Elderly ladies can even more likely crack their heads on truck trays, or car nudge bars etc.,.

It's just more evidence of the motoring regulatory bodies anti-cycling disposition.

[wellington_street]

Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...

From the link:

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.

All I have to say is wow.

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.

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.

The rack could break the windscreen and injure the occupants. Time to take the tin foil hat off.

[gcouyant]

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.

[il padrone]

Elderly ladies can even more likely crack their heads on truck trays, or car nudge bars etc.,.

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.


How on earth does a little old lady crack her head on a nudge bar

[gorilla monsoon]

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.

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.

[wombatK]

The rack could break the windscreen and injure the occupants.

Not before more than 1/2 the front end of the car has been crumpled, and by the time youve done
that, the windscreen is already broken.

The bicycles could well ride up horizontally above the bonnet during the collision, and pieces
of a bicycle attached to a rack are probably a big risk of snapping and spearing into front seat
passengers. The size of an adult bicycle could mean the broken bits of bicycle would intrude
into the cabin well before any of the short length of rack that's more firmly attached to the
front vehicle.

Truck trays etc.,. are well known for decapitating front seat car passengers - yet there is no
law to address that. Similarly, it's perfectly legal to carry ladders, pipes or beams of timber
that protrude behind the vehicle - as long as they are flagged properly. That too should be
illegal if protecting vehicle occupants is the reason behind the law on bicycle racks.

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.

Cheers

[il padrone]

The rack could break the windscreen and injure the occupants.

Not before more than 1/2 the front end of the car has been crumpled, and by the time youve done
that, the windscreen is already broken.

Not with all cars

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.

Now I think you need one of these hats

[wombatK]

Not with all cars

That's not a car - that's a van. Without any kind a bicycle rack, you're in lots
more trouble with any kind of collision. ...

Wanna 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.

from Dog & Lemon Guide - Van Safety

Thankfully, the cab-over-engine design you've illustrated is disappearing from the new vehicle market because
they can't meet more stringent passenger protection standards.

The bonnetted van designs replacing them are going to perform pretty similarly to most cars, so I'll stand by
my earlier comments.

Cheers

[il padrone]

M-o-t-o-r v-e-h-i-c-l-e then.

Despite the lamenting over the safety performance of vans I managed to own and drive one for some 6 years in the 80s - a Mitsubishi Express 8-seater. Even got caught out in not 1 but 2 front-end collisions. Neither my fault but gladly the big bull-bar was replaced at no cost to me

I do tend to think such 'safety authorities' can overplay small differences in car 'crash-worthiness'. Performance of the driver plays a much greater role in safety.


Anyway, back OT. What ever is the problem in removing the bike rack when the vehicle is parked or driving without a bike on it ?? It has been my standard practice for the past 25+ years.

[ldrcycles]

Other obscure rules here - a read could save you money...

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!

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 .

[il padrone]

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 .

Long history in cycling. You'd be known as a 'scorcher'

[PB12IN]

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.

In fact it is illegal to drive around with a towball in with no trailer attached as it is a protrusion from the vehicle.

[WyvernRH]

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.

In fact it is illegal to drive around with a towball in with no trailer attached as it is a protrusion from the vehicle.

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.
It may be now that all new towballs have to be removable?
Cheers
Richard

[SmellyTofu]

$397 seems a bit harsh when the fine for opening a car door on a cyclist in Victoria is $352.

This just reflects the low regard for cyclists. They're expendable.

No, it shows a greater importance on being able to be identified for a happy snap speeding ticket vs whatever miscellaneous.