Police target South Australian cyclists

TimC Wrote:

I wish there were a quantitative prat-o-meter. Connect it to an
interlock alongside the alcohol interlock, and don't allow someone who
is too pratish today, to drive..

In extreme cases a Alcohol ignition lock can be used, but wouldn't it
be grand if there was something more intuitive available? Something like
a Kit HDD LED setup on the dash that informs the prospective driver (and
everyone else to a radius of 100m) that the individual is a complete
fktard and should not be in charge of a moving vehicle, shopping trolley
or teapot.

Reckon that idea got merit, better than folks who relentlessly lecture
everyone else and run away when shenanigans get called on them.


--
cfsmtb

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:10:46 +1100
EuanB wrote:

Law enforcement is an unrelated topic. Regos got nothing to do with
it.

How should law enforcement affect cyclist behaviour?

Is it required, or is it enough that cyclists don't cause many
fatalities?

Are there any laws needed for cyclists at all? If there are, how are
they to be enforced given the difficulty of identifying cyclists and
the ease of them getting away?

I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
hits someone doing something stupid.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
cfsmtb wrote:

Ditto, numerous discussions here & elsewhere, for example, about
riding to the track or crit and ensuring the bike is legal for
street use. That's not rocket science knowing how to discern the
difference.

Exactly. But scotty72 said that MTBs are required to have things that
roadbikes are not, nothing whatsoever about sanctioned events.

You appeared to agree with him, which surprised me.

It appears that Scotty72 has admitted that his road-bike is not compliant
with the law and he is breaking the law every time he ventures out of his
driveway. :-)

Theo

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
hits someone doing something stupid.

Sometimes you have no choice. In Perth, reflectors are required on your
pedals. The effectively bans almost all cleats (all the ones that I own
anyway) at night.
Since I don't know of anyone who changes their pedals between day & night,
that's an effective outright ban.

And there's that minor thing about handlebars not being X centimetres above
the height of the seat, outright banning "dragster" style bikes.




I was assured by an ex cop that those things were never enforced. Then why
are they there?




Now, excuse me, I'm going to drive my Ox-drawn manure cart through Pitt St,
and see what they want to say about it. It's within my bloody legal right to
do it, so I will. But not with the racing strips on the side, that's not legal.

Have I taken my meds yet? Oh, that probably explains it then.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:22:23 +1100
John Tserkezis wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

I think that light and reflector laws should be enforced, and probably
laws forbidding them on enclosed freeways without shoulders. That
latter would probably not be required as the result will Darwinate the
cyclist, I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Besides, like the
light law it isn't just to protect the cyclist but the poor sod who
hits someone doing something stupid.

Sometimes you have no choice. In Perth, reflectors are required on your
pedals. The effectively bans almost all cleats (all the ones that I own
anyway) at night.
Since I don't know of anyone who changes their pedals between day & night,
that's an effective outright ban.


I think Perth is the only state that didn't ratify the Australian Road
Rules? The ARR only want lights at night and a rear reflector.

pedal reflectors are good things, but putting them on a 'bent is a bit
useless So I'd be breaking that law in WA too.

A moving reflecting surface is an excellent "look at me" but shouldn't
be necessary if you have lights on. The bods who ride without lights
tend to be the ones who don't mess with different pedals, reflectors
have helped me on bike paths and back roads before now, meaning I can
see the ones in black on the black bike without lights....

So I'm with the Oz Road Rules on this - that suitable lights are
important at night. Having pedal reflectors as a requirement for
bikes sold is trickier - good because it will mean a number of the
no-lights brigade would be somewhat visible, bad in that it means the
bikes boughtby people who *do* change pedals must be sold with
wasteful pedals that are never used.

As to "never enforced"... it's usually because it's too hard.
Although they can be used as a way to enforce the rule against
"Deliberate Stupidity in a Public Place". I'm not at all fond of
selectively enforced laws, although that's what "don't prosecute red
light running cyclists" is of course....

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:


Are there any laws needed for cyclists at all? If there are, how are
they to be enforced given the difficulty of identifying cyclists and
the ease of them getting away?

And how do you think that putting a label on the back of a push bike
will assist with law enforcement.

Didn't you see the video of all those motor vehicles doing dumb things
(a random 15 mins at a quiet intersection)? Didn't stop them breaking
the law. I doubt the cops are beating down their doors as I type as they
were so easily identified. Many (incl) myself have turned up at plod
stations with video of wrong doing (in my case an idiot running me off a
round-a-bout) only to have them shrug their ploddish shoulders.

I've another video (no yet youtubed) of me driving down the M4. I set
the cruise control at the limit +5 km/h (naughty I know but, I wanted to
be sure my speedo wasn't under-reporting - my GPS (x2) confirms my car
speedo is about 3% slow). This video shows my speedo and the torrent of
cars and motorbikes screaming past.

There was one exception, when we went under the Cumberland Hwy,
everyone slowed down for about 200 metres past the speed camera.

See, those rego plates are SOOOO good at helping law enforcement.

SCotty


--
scotty72

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
cfsmtb wrote:

Ditto, numerous discussions here & elsewhere, for example, about
riding to the track or crit and ensuring the bike is legal for
street use. That's not rocket science knowing how to discern the
difference.

Exactly. But scotty72 said that MTBs are required to have things
that
roadbikes are not, nothing whatsoever about sanctioned events.

You appeared to agree with him, which surprised me.

It appears that Scotty72 has admitted that his road-bike is not
compliant
with the law and he is breaking the law every time he ventures out of
his
driveway. :-)

TheoI blame it on the bike shop who sold me the bike that way.

Perhaps it is not the law, but I got that misunderstanding (if it is)
from a Hwy Patrol plod who told me that road - racing bikes were not
required to have a bell or reflectors - which they never come with
anyway.

Scotty


--
scotty72

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:21:51 +1100
scotty72 wrote:

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:


Are there any laws needed for cyclists at all? If there are, how are
they to be enforced given the difficulty of identifying cyclists and
the ease of them getting away?

And how do you think that putting a label on the back of a push bike
will assist with law enforcement.

There's three parts to enforcement.

The illegal act has to be seen to be committed.

The commitor has to be located and brought in.

There has to be enough evidence.

Identification is part 2. If the bicycle can be stopped at the time -
and that's not easy if it doesn't want to be - then the ID is a
problem that's been solved, but if the bike does a runner then having
some kind of visible unique ID is important.

Doesn't always work with cars - obscured, stolen, so on. But works
often enough.

It also helps with part 1. WHich is how cameras do it. I am not fond
of cameras as enforcement tools, but they exist.

They also help with part 3.

If the cops are not able to manage part 1 because they aren't there,
or part 2 because they aren't able to chase or find, or get a good
look at a plate, or whatever, that's unfortunate. Doesn't mean it
isn't a good idea.

Whether it is a good idea for bicycles, that's tricky. And emotional.
And a lot about what your idea of the social contract is.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

I think Perth is the only state that didn't ratify the Australian Road
Rules?

As far as I'm aware, the other states (other than NSW) are in the process of
changing over, I doubt everyone except WA has completely moved over at this
time though.

The ARR only want lights at night and a rear reflector.

Quoting ARR Oct 1999:

"259 Riding at night
The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather
conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays:
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200
metres from the front of the bicycle; and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200
metres from the rear of the bicycle; and
(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 metres from the
rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s headlight
on low-beam."

What I really don't get, is the requirement for part (C). I would have
thought the active lighting in part (B) would make a reflector redundant.

pedal reflectors are good things, but putting them on a 'bent is a bit
useless So I'd be breaking that law in WA too.

Technically :-)

A moving reflecting surface is an excellent "look at me" but shouldn't
be necessary if you have lights on. The bods who ride without lights
tend to be the ones who don't mess with different pedals, reflectors
have helped me on bike paths and back roads before now, meaning I can
see the ones in black on the black bike without lights....

Did I mention orange spoke reflectors are required in WA too?

So I'm with the Oz Road Rules on this - that suitable lights are
important at night.

"Suitable", yes. Legal, all bets are off. Legal rear active lighting is ok
IMO, however, the "legal" front light is simply not enough to do the job. I
have a 12W halogen, and I use that as a guide as absolute minimum. I ride in
dark areas sometimes, and really don't hesitate to get the speed up where I can.

Having pedal reflectors as a requirement for
bikes sold is trickier - good because it will mean a number of the
no-lights brigade would be somewhat visible, bad in that it means the
bikes boughtby people who *do* change pedals must be sold with
wasteful pedals that are never used.

I would imagine that statistically, pedal changers are few and far between.

As to "never enforced"... it's usually because it's too hard.
Although they can be used as a way to enforce the rule against
"Deliberate Stupidity in a Public Place". I'm not at all fond of
selectively enforced laws, although that's what "don't prosecute red
light running cyclists" is of course....

Jaywalking is one that's prominent. In that the ONLY time anyone gets
booked for it, it also appears front page of the next day's paper. This law
is so disused, that it actively gets sought out to be revoked by the media if
anyone tries to enforce it.

I think we should encourage the same for those pesky pedal reflectors. :-)
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:


There's three parts to enforcement.

The illegal act has to be seen to be committed.

The commitor has to be located and brought in.

There has to be enough evidence. Fair enough

But, my video satisfied part one (it was seen) and it certainly
satisfied three (there is video evidence). It is part two where your
argument falls down.

What do you reckon would happen if I took that video to the local hwy
patrol? They would probably scratch their heads and wonder why I am
bothering?

Every time I go out I either see another car do something illegal
(often dangerous or dumb) but the few times I've tried to report it,
zero.

Classic example.

I was a passenger in a car travelling past Olympic Park on the M4.

We approached a Subaru Liberty (from memory).

We noticed that the two kids in the back were
a) unrestrained
b) watching a DVD on those in-car headrest screens

More importantly, the driver was also watching the DVD on a screen
strapped to his sun-visor.

Having a camera, I videoed the car (got the plate), and was able to
get motion of the kids jumping around and the driver watching the
screen.

After, I rang Auburn (Flemmington) plods and asked how I could get the
video to them. Weren't interested. "Call the Hwy patrol, was her only
suggestion"

Got onto the Hwy Patrol. "You need to go to Auburn Police Stn"

Got to the station, "This sort of thing is handled by the Police
Assistance Line"

Bottom line, I was being given the run-around.

So, what is the point of a rego label (other than raising money)?

Identification is part 2. If the bicycle can be stopped at the time -
and that's not easy if it doesn't want to be - then the ID is a
problem that's been solved, but if the bike does a runner then having
some kind of visible unique ID is important.
The cops wont be remotely interested. Yes, if a gross criminal act was
involved (eg. hit and run) they would follow it up (how likely is that
in a bicycle?) but, for a traffic matter....

Doesn't always work with cars - obscured, stolen, so on. But works
often enough. I'm sure I've just demonstrated how it is, in fact, useless.


--
scotty72