Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby Tornado » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 pm

Both my bicycles were sold to me without a bell. Not sure either of them are deemed as "Designed for competition". Although I guess I'm always competing against myself.
Image

2012 Avanti Giro 3
2003 GT Palomar
User avatar
Tornado
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:25 am
Location: Mandurah WA

by BNA » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:05 pm

BNA
 

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:05 pm

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.

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.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby g-boaf » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:15 am

Just sell your bikes and drive a car. No toe clips or shoes with cleats needed.

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. :twisted:
User avatar
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby VRE » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:31 am

dagadgetman wrote:The shoes are only ridiculous when you try to use them as normal shoes, on the bike, they are excruciatingly practical.

I have no problems walking in my SPD shoes, so that makes them practical both on the bike and off.

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?
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby dungee » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:39 am

My penny farthing has no bell, brakes, lights or reflectors but I would never dare ride it without a helmet... Ahh a world without regulations. Imagine the chaos.
Image
User avatar
dungee
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby human909 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:16 am

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?


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. :idea:

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).
human909
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby VRE » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:38 pm

human909 wrote:
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?


Yes. And what is wrong with that!?

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.

* and cyclists too, of course.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby TDC » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:44 pm

VRE wrote:
human909 wrote:
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?


Yes. And what is wrong with that!?

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.

* and cyclists too, of course.


If you see someone behaving in an unpredictable and random manner, at least you will know who it is.
TDC
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:37 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby TimW » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:52 pm

TTar wrote:
biker jk wrote:There should be a regulation against toeclips.


There should be a regulation against cynical hecklers like you and TimW.



What a cynical thing to say 8)
Image
User avatar
TimW
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:37 pm
Location: Near the M7C

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby hannos » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:54 pm

VRE wrote:
human909 wrote:
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?


Yes. And what is wrong with that!?

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.

* and cyclists too, of course.



Well said.
2010 BMC SLC01
Image
User avatar
hannos
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby TTar » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:20 pm

TimW wrote:
TTar wrote:
biker jk wrote:There should be a regulation against toeclips.


There should be a regulation against cynical hecklers like you and TimW.



What a cynical thing to say 8)


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.
Sent from my fortified compound
TTar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby TimW » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:42 pm

There should be a regulation against toeclips

There should be a regulation against cynical hecklers like you and TimW.



What a cynical thing to say 8)

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.

ohhhhhh Nasty!!!!!!!!!! Lol Ok mate, carry on :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

ps, the Record EPS is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttt :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Mate don't take it personal or get nasty, the forum has rules and regs, that are neither stupid or pointless apparently :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

edit.................post edited heaps :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
TimW
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:37 pm
Location: Near the M7C

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby TTar » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:26 pm

TimW wrote:
ps, the Record EPS is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttt :mrgreen: :mrgreen:



What, it hasn't failed yet!?

TimW wrote:
Mate don't take it personal or get nasty, the forum has rules and regs, that are neither stupid or pointless apparently :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


See, now I can't tell if your trolling again or not. :?
Sent from my fortified compound
TTar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby human909 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:34 pm

VRE wrote:So the more "strict and mindless" adherence to the road laws we have, the more predictable other road users are.


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.

Anyway. I'll leave you to your choices. :mrgreen:
human909
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby chuckchunder » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:43 pm

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.


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)

cheers
chuck
Her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you
User avatar
chuckchunder
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:18 am

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:50 pm

chuckchunder wrote:
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.


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)

cheers
chuck

Do you still need white paint on the rear third of the back mudguard?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25815
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:28 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
chuckchunder wrote:
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.


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)

cheers
chuck

Do you still need white paint on the rear third of the back mudguard?

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.

I recall that the colour restrictions were legislated out a around last year. All from recollection though.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby chuckchunder » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:41 am

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.......
Her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you
User avatar
chuckchunder
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:18 am

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby find_bruce » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:09 am

chuckchunder wrote:Pretty sure the silver/white mudguard requirement was removed at the same time. It's not there now.

Yes - http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... keRegs.pdf
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.......

:mrgreen: I am a collector of unintended consequences & this is going straight to the pool room.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby jasonc » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:25 pm

chuckchunder 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.......


that one is awesome. great find. wonder it if applies in other states
EDIT: similar rule just says "astride" in qld. damn it.
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby Ross » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:11 pm

Stupid Cycling Australia rule that you can't buy a 1 or 3 race licence if you have previously had a full year licence.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Bicycle regulations are stupid and pointless

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:39 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.


And yet the majority of cyclists in the world and in the large cycling suburbs of Australia fit into neither.

The utility/commuter cyclists is simply the cyclist who is getting from A to B. :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit