Police target South Australian cyclists

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:01:44 +1100
scotty72 wrote:

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
k
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?

The problem is, I presume (not being a copper, and especially not
being those coppers) to do with reliability of evidence, and a
time/expense calculation.

I have no idea how they work out either. How much should they trust a
video nowadays for example?

The cost/time bit is harder still. I would prefer they *did* crack
down on the small stuff because no one does big stuff without doing
small stuff first, but more importantly for a vulnerable road user the
small stuff can be big.

But if they don't crack down on all, how to decide who to crack down
on, if no one is hurt? How much potential for hurt and how to
calculate that?


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


Well it doesn't raise money per se, as the rego system is subsidised


The only bit that makes money is the insurance part in NSW. No idea
if TAC makes money.

Seems ot me though that the rego system is working fine. What you
found was that the police system wasn't.

I've seen other anecdotes of reports made that were followed up. So
was yours the norm or the exception?


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.

No you haven't. You may have demonstrated that some police are less
than helpful, you have demonstrated nothing about rego per se.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:


No you haven't. You may have demonstrated that some police are less
than helpful, you have demonstrated nothing about rego per se.

ZebeeThe whole argument for bicycle rego is all about making us accountable
for our alleged transgressions. Not the efficiencies of the rego system.

When very few reports are followed up - and as you said, even if you
have video evidence, its authenticity might be questioned? What is the
point of being able to identify the cyclist?

Scotty


--
scotty72

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:27:01 +1100
scotty72 wrote:

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:


No you haven't. You may have demonstrated that some police are less
than helpful, you have demonstrated nothing about rego per se.

ZebeeThe whole argument for bicycle rego is all about making us accountable
for our alleged transgressions. Not the efficiencies of the rego system.

When very few reports are followed up - and as you said, even if you
have video evidence, its authenticity might be questioned? What is the
point of being able to identify the cyclist?


Going to depend on who does the ID isn't it? And what for?

What you said was "rego no good for cars". So should they be
registered? If not, how will you ID the one that hits you? Should a
ped not be able to ID the bike that hits them, or another cyclist ID
them?

I think ID's a good idea, I dunno if it's a practical one. RFID chips
would work for some things better than plates would, plates would work
better than chips for others.

They managed to have a setup that works for cars, I think with enough
will it could be done for bikes. How much will is there? No idea.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

Going to depend on who does the ID isn't it? And what for?

Which is exactly my point. It is only very serious incidents that are
likely to be followed up. EG. A vehicle used in a bank robbery (unlike
to use a bicycle as a getaway car) or hit and run (very uncommon and, if
a ped is killed by a bicycle - it is very unlikely the rider will be
simply able to ride off anyhow)

What you said was "rego no good for cars". So should they be
registered? If not, how will you ID the one that hits you? Should a
ped not be able to ID the bike that hits them, or another cyclist ID
them?
Yes, motor vehicles should be registered because they are heavy,
capable of huge speed and able to cause major damage - which need to be
ID'd for the follow-up that will undoubtedly happen when a serious
incident occurs. It is unlikely that a cyclist is going to be involved
in a fatal hit/run.

I think ID's a good idea, I dunno if it's a practical one. RFID chips
would work for some things better than plates would, plates would work
better than chips for others.
Maybe we could tattoo barcodes or implant the chips we put in dogs at
birth. Give our lives over to Big Brother completely - wont life then be
just grand.

They managed to have a setup that works for cars, I think with enough
will it could be done for bikes. How much will is there? No idea.
A number plate is heavy. It needs to be so it can be bolted on and be
relatively durable, resistant to theft, not easy to counterfiet, big
enough to be read at a distance etc. All of this make a number plate
silly on a light weight, human powered vehicle.

Another question.

Why are motorbikes not identifiable from the front?

You may say due to safety. I say it's to allow motorcyclists to do
wheelies and not be so easily identified


--
scotty72

scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

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. :-)

I 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.

So you're going to explain to some copper that you're ignorant of the law?
:-)

Theo

John Tserkezis wrote:
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.

But they are a requirement on motor vehicles.

"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.

I think the front light is for the safety, so that others can see you. I
think the law goes something like 'visible from...' not what you can see.

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. :-)

Agreed, I knew all this already. I was responding to Scotty who wanted the
'letter' of the law to apply to motorists and assured me that his bicycle
complied with the 'letter'. It obviously doesn't.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

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. :-)

I 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.

So you're going to explain to some copper that you're ignorant of the
law?
:-)

TheoWhy not? I'm not a lawyer.

Scotty


--
scotty72

EuanB wrote:

It's important because money is why cars are required to pay rego.

Bikes were here before cars. Before cars, we didn't have traffic
lights and a road toll that was so insignificant it didn't register.

Then cars came along and they proved to be quite popular.
Unfortunately they also killed and seriously injured a lot of people.
The victims demand compenstation and society agrees and compensates
them.

Problem is that cars are so cheap that offenders rarely had the funds
to cover the compendation, so society decided that as there's a proven
risk insurance is mandatory. That is the only reason we have
registration.

Cyclists don't cost others money. There are isolated examples but
nowhere near enough for cyclists to be considered a burden which
requires insuring against. Something to do with cycling being the
most benign form of transport there is, including walking. That's why
cyclists don't pay rego.

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

Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor vehicles.
Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law enforcement.

Theo

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

No checks at all in WA unless you're bringing the vehicle from
interstate. Does no checks really mean unroadworthy? Does age mean
unroadworthy? Does low value mean unroadworthy? I can't see the
association myself.

Low value means not likely to have any money spent on it to keep it
roadworthy should things start to go wrong with it - like having an
indicator lamp covering being smashed.

I know of a lot off older, low-value cars that their owner look after with
great zeal and, knowing they are an easy target for the coppers, are kept in
excellent road-worthy shape.

I still can't see that low-value automatically = unsafe.

Theo

scotty72 wrote:

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.

Constable Plod is wrong, unless they have changed the law in the last
few decades.