Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
- Tornado
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:25 am
- Location: Mandurah WA
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby Tornado » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 pm
2015 Specialized Tarmac
2012 Avanti Giro3
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:05 pm
Yes, I know that we can couple a blinking and non-blinking to satisfy the rules. But the rules are predicated on a simple single front light, where they just specify one over the other when the cyclist is able to work out himself which is the more appropriate in the circumstance.
An idiot rule that none of us pay attention to and are better off as a result.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21325
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby g-boaf » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:15 am
And no bells or debates about dinging or not. 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.
- VRE
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
- Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby VRE » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:31 am
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.
I think this thread is only presenting part of the picture, though. It's not just some bicycle regulations that are stupid and pointless, but some motor vehicle regulations, too. 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?
- HiChris
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:14 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby HiChris » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:39 am
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby human909 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:16 am
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?
Whether in the car or on the bike or on foot. I adhere only to the rules that are sensible and only at the times in which they are sensible. In practice that is vast majority of the time in the car and a smaller majority on the bike and almost a minority of the time on foot. Funnily enough I have had ZERO at fault collisions and only a couple minor collisions (somebody running into the back of my car).
- VRE
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
- Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby VRE » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:38 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby TDC » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:44 pm
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.
- TimW
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:37 pm
- Location: Near the M7C
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby TimW » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:52 pm
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.
- hannos
- Posts: 4109
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:18 am
- Location: Sydney
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby hannos » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:54 pm
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.
Well said.
-
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby TTar » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:20 pm
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.
I expect your taking out all your frustrations with your campagnolo oddities on this thread. Sad, really.
- TimW
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:37 pm
- Location: Near the M7C
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby TimW » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:42 pm
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.
ps, the Record EPS is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttt
Mate don't take it personal or get nasty, the forum has rules and regs, that are neither stupid or pointless apparently
edit.................post edited heaps
-
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby TTar » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:26 pm
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
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby human909 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:34 pm
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.
Anyway. I'll leave you to your choices.
- chuckchunder
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:18 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby chuckchunder » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:43 pm
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
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby Mulger bill » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:50 pm
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
London Boy 29/12/2011
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:28 pm
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
I recall that the colour restrictions were legislated out a around last year. All from recollection though.
- chuckchunder
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:18 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby chuckchunder » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:41 am
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.......
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10579
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby find_bruce » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:09 am
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.
I am a collector of unintended consequences & this is going straight to the pool room.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.......
-
- Posts: 12170
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby jasonc » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:25 pm
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.......
EDIT: similar rule just says "astride" in qld. damn it.
- Ross
- Posts: 5742
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby Ross » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:11 pm
-
- Posts: 1299
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:28 pm
- Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby Ken Ho » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:14 pm
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.
Indeed. And it should be left to the discretion as to which group they are in at any point in time.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless
Postby human909 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:39 pm
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.
The utility/commuter cyclists is simply the cyclist who is getting from A to B.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.