|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australian Federal Police said | white sands | Australia | 2 | December 8th 06 05:10 AM |
Australian Federal Police said | white sands | Techniques | 1 | December 8th 06 04:01 AM |
Australian Federal Police said | volksie | Techniques | 3 | September 16th 05 06:55 PM |
Australian Federal Police said | volksie | Australia | 3 | September 16th 05 06:55 PM |
Australian Federal Police | flyingdutch | Australia | 0 | September 8th 04 12:34 AM |