parking fines

[weg]

Are you talking about front number plates ??

Anything to identify them. Number plates on their back will do.

Yes bikes pay a ridiculous amount of registration in proportion to the very little wear and tear they do to roads.

I was thinking more of third party injury insurance even though they still use the roads, have bike lanes created and maintained, etc.

The closest I got to hitting a bide rider was when one cut across my path and forced me onto the other side of the road.

Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic because it could have otherwise been nasty.

So in that situation had I been injured I would not have been covered, whereas a bike rider would be.

pinkboy, it was a legitimate question.

 

[wylie]

I was thinking more of third party injury insurance even though they still use the roads, have bike lanes created and maintained, etc.

The closest I got to hitting a bide rider was when one cut across my path and forced me onto the other side of the road.

Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic because it could have otherwise been nasty.

So in that situation had I been injured I would not have been covered, whereas a bike rider would be.

pinkboy, it was a legitimate question.

Why would you not have been covered in that situation? If the bike rider had no cover for whatever reason, your own insurer would have covered you, wouldn't they?

 

[weg]

Why would you not have been covered in that situation? If the bike rider had no cover for whatever reason, your own insurer would have covered you, wouldn't they?

Your motor vehicle registration covers injury to the other person. The other cars registration covers yours.

This is how it works in SA (apparently they are looking at changing this soon because people injured in crashes are often unable to get any compensation because too many people drive unregistered).

In that case you would probably sue privately, but I'd say many of the unregistered wouldn't have much in the first place to bother suing.

 

[wylie]

I always thought my own insurer would look after me, and chase the driver of the other vehicle?

I have always told my kids to ensure they never drink and drive, never let their registration or insurance lapse and I use the scenario to demonstrate - "What if you hit a person and badly damage or kill them. If you are drunk, uninsured or unregistered, you will be sued and lose everything you have".

But I always thought the insurance of the person they hit would pay out, and then the insurer would pursue the driver at fault?

If that is not the case, then we all are taking a huge risk every time we get behind the wheel as we have NO control over anybody else on the road and have no clue whether they are licenced, insured or if their vehicle is registered.

What a scary thought. I'd love to hear whether I'm right or if indeed, we are taking a huge risk just being on the road, even if we have done the right thing and are registered, insured and licenced?

BrettC... where are you?

 

[weg]

It could just be SA.

Like I said a proposal has been put forward that there be some changes, not just to the point I made but other changes to.

 

[pinkboy]

pinkboy, it was a legitimate question.

One only needs to do a google search on the debate but the gist of the arguement is:

How do you implement registration of a bike?

Do you register the cyclist, or the bike?

What if the cyclist owns more than 1 bike, say 3 or 6 like I do?

What about bikes that do not go on the road?

If you charged by weight, a 6kg bike weighs nothing compared to a 2 ton car. Will $1.50 registration satisfy you, if it were to follow the sliding scale as vehicles follow?

How much road damage does a bike contribute to ailing roads?

Do you think cyclists not own cars as well? Multiple cars possibly.

If you put financial burden on cyclists, cycling numbers may decline, putting further pressure on the roads as they become road users, increasing further cars and traffic on roads.

Generally cyclists are not obese or smokers, so they generally prolong the use of neccesary health care later in life (as opposed to smokers and obese sedentry type people who would not dream of ever cycling anywhere and will happily drive 200m to get their cigs and chocolate milk).

A vehicle/cyclist collision generally ends up with the cyclist worse off, so stupidity on the cyclist part is generally a riskier calculated risk.

Cyclists are more vigilent drivers when they are in a vehicle, with the skills taught to look ahead and read traffic, and advert danger, and look out for cyclists a lot more.

Motorists who have come across poor cyclist behaviour hold a grudge and taint all cyclist with the same brush. It is racism. A poor cyclist behaviour in the morning may irritate the motorist, and then that afternoon they go out and throw a projectile from a vehicle at a cyclist - ever been hit by a full coke can at 140km/hr (100km/hr car, + 40km cyclist travelling other way) for no reason other than being a 'cyclist'?

Motorists as well as cyclist should know the road rules when it comes to the rights of a cyclist.

Need I go on? Yes I must:

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/blogs/on-your-bike/why-cyclists-should-never-pay-rego-20120614-20bk6.html

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/02/06/should-bicycles-be-registered-2/

Now Im not defending that the cyclist ran a red light in front of you, but it is a risky, but highly calculated practice, in the most practical sense. Running a red light because the cyclist cannot trigger the lights in the early hours of the morning would be probably the most common form of law breaking by a cyclist. Does a cyclist wait 45min for a car to trigger off the lights? I guess you could argue they could get off their bike, trigger the pedestrian button, but not all major intersections have these on major highways etc. So how do you see the problem fixed?

Simply put, there is no definative answer to the debate. The costs to implement would far outweigh the practicality of enforcing such a huge plethora of limiting factors listed above and beyond a couple of quick articles found in 2 sec on a google search.

pinkboy....remember you are not stuck in traffic - YOU ARE TRAFFIC!

 

[wylie]

... and here we go

Just two things.. the cyclist who ran the red light Weg described (I assume) saw the vehicle already at the lights, and Weg's vehicle will have triggered the light, so the cyclist wasn't making a calculated judgement in this case, was he?

I'll leave the rest of the can of worms and sweeping generalisations for others .

 

[weg]

You make some good points, BUT it's still sounds like a case of one set of rules for one and another set of rules for the other, whichever way you look at it.

It sounds to me like you want to be treated like you have as much right to be on the road as anyone else but without the responsibility of insurance (does registration cover roads and maintenance btw, anyone?) and ID (for when you do break road rules).

 

[pinkboy]

... and here we go

Just two things.. the cyclist who ran the red light Weg described (I assume) saw the vehicle already at the lights, and Weg's vehicle will have triggered the light, so the cyclist wasn't making a calculated judgement in this case, was he?

I'll leave the rest of the can of worms and sweeping generalisations for others .

No, thats why I didnt want to defend that cyclists actions, as Weg clearly explained that he ran the red light right in front of a car. But how often, as a road user do you see these types of incidents....honestly honestly? Once a year??? The cyclist probably does this scenario 52 times a year. They will come unstuck one day. Nothing like being hit by a car to shake you up into doing the right theng.....that is is you survive!


Sweeping generalisations or not, they do form part of the arguement that blurs the line between being able to feasibly implement such an ardous task.


pinkboy

 

[TingTong]

One only needs to do a google search on the debate but the gist of the arguement is:

How do you implement registration of a bike?

Do you register the cyclist, or the bike?

What if the cyclist owns more than 1 bike, say 3 or 6 like I do?

What about bikes that do not go on the road?

If you charged by weight, a 6kg bike weighs nothing compared to a 2 ton car. Will $1.50 registration satisfy you, if it were to follow the sliding scale as vehicles follow?

How much road damage does a bike contribute to ailing roads?

Do you think cyclists not own cars as well? Multiple cars possibly.

If you put financial burden on cyclists, cycling numbers may decline, putting further pressure on the roads as they become road users, increasing further cars and traffic on roads.

Generally cyclists are not obese or smokers, so they generally prolong the use of neccesary health care later in life (as opposed to smokers and obese sedentry type people who would not dream of ever cycling anywhere and will happily drive 200m to get their cigs and chocolate milk).

A vehicle/cyclist collision generally ends up with the cyclist worse off, so stupidity on the cyclist part is generally a riskier calculated risk.

Cyclists are more vigilent drivers when they are in a vehicle, with the skills taught to look ahead and read traffic, and advert danger, and look out for cyclists a lot more.

Motorists who have come across poor cyclist behaviour hold a grudge and taint all cyclist with the same brush. It is racism. A poor cyclist behaviour in the morning may irritate the motorist, and then that afternoon they go out and throw a projectile from a vehicle at a cyclist - ever been hit by a full coke can at 140km/hr (100km/hr car, + 40km cyclist travelling other way) for no reason other than being a 'cyclist'?

Motorists as well as cyclist should know the road rules when it comes to the rights of a cyclist.

Need I go on? Yes I must:

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/blogs/on-your-bike/why-cyclists-should-never-pay-rego-20120614-20bk6.html

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/02/06/should-bicycles-be-registered-2/

Now Im not defending that the cyclist ran a red light in front of you, but it is a risky, but highly calculated practice, in the most practical sense. Running a red light because the cyclist cannot trigger the lights in the early hours of the morning would be probably the most common form of law breaking by a cyclist. Does a cyclist wait 45min for a car to trigger off the lights? I guess you could argue they could get off their bike, trigger the pedestrian button, but not all major intersections have these on major highways etc. So how do you see the problem fixed?

Simply put, there is no definative answer to the debate. The costs to implement would far outweigh the practicality of enforcing such a huge plethora of limiting factors listed above and beyond a couple of quick articles found in 2 sec on a google search.

pinkboy....remember you are not stuck in traffic - YOU ARE TRAFFIC!

Most of what you write also pertains to motorcyclists but we still have to pay registration so I think cyclists should also contribute.

 

[pieman]

Cycling should be encouraged at all costs. Perhaps they should be paid to ride a bike rather than the other way around with a charge for registration. An additional cost on rta charges of say $20 should then be allocated to all cyclists if they ride to work. Think of the dough that would be saved on the care for people with lifestyle diseases and the reduction in road use, not to mention the reduction of unburnt hydrocarbons etc.
Now there's one out of the box.

 

[weg]

... and here we go

Just two things.. the cyclist who ran the red light Weg described (I assume) saw the vehicle already at the lights, and Weg's vehicle will have triggered the light, so the cyclist wasn't making a calculated judgement in this case, was he?

I'll leave the rest of the can of worms and sweeping generalisations for others .

No one actually triggered the light. The lights changed red I stopped and 2 or 3 seconds later a bike went through the red light.

Crazy really because vision was not that great.

Not saying all cyclist do this or they're better or worse drivers/riders, but it highlights that small and light vehicles are still on the road and at risk of accident and injury to themselves and others.

They also benefit from car drivers insurance, where as drivers don't.

Also had I gone through the red light I would have been pinged, but not so the cyclist.

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander .

 

[pinkboy]

You make some good points, BUT it's still sounds like a case of one set of rules for one and another set of rules for the other, whichever way you look at it.

This is the point that each motorist and cyclist is trying to make, but stubbornly wont give up or see the point of view of the other. I will say though, a cyclist in the arguement more often than not, will be a motorist as well - little can be said the same for a motorist trying to argue their point across without ever having tried to ride a bike on the roads.

It sounds to me like you want to be treated like you have as much right to be on the road as anyone else but without the responsibility of insurance (does registration cover roads and maintenance btw, anyone?) and ID (for when you do break road rules).

Argued above, how do you ensure everyone is insured when you cant control that? If a pedestrian walks across the road, they automatically become a 'road user', and if you hit them, even if they are in the wrong.....whos responsibility is it to insure?

99% of cyclist are only fighting for respect and courtesy on the roads, nothing more. Again its the 1%ers who much the cause up. The same can be said for motorists.



pinkboy

 

[pinkboy]

Most of what you write also pertains to motorcyclists but we still have to pay registration so I think cyclists should also contribute.

Then I would counter argue that as a motorcyclist on the road you would be a motorist.

If I run (which I frequently do) on the shoulder of the road, against the traffic, should I be made to register my Asics?

pinkboy

 

[weg]

99% of cyclist are only fighting for respect and courtesy on the roads, nothing more. Again its the 1%ers who much the cause up. The same can be said for motorists.

But don't you think they'd get MORE respect and courtesy if they were treated like all other road users .

It could appear to some that cyclists are single out as a special type of road user by not being treated equally.

Just saying...

pinkboy

pinkboy

----------------------------------

 

[Aaron_C]

Ah....cyclists...try living in a city that was designed for cars, being retro-fitted to accommodate the 0.00005% of traffic that uses the road.

 

[geoffw]

I have been a cyclist- just riding to work in Sydney traffic, many years ago, so I have been on that side of the cars.

I live in Canberra which caters extremely well for cyclists- and in fact the bike network is probably well under utilised. (It becomes even more evident when one crosses the border, where Queanbeyan has nothing, and in parts is dangerous to cyclists. Walking Canberra Ave from Queanbeyan is scary).

Which is why it surprises me that so many cyclists frequently disobey road rules. This is not just waiting for lights to change- there seems to be a disregard for red lights. If there's no traffic coming the other way they will just cross. Or ride on the wrong side of the road.

It's disappointing to me that in roads where there is a custom bike path running parallel to the road, many cyclists choose to ride on the road. In one extreme case, two cyclists chose to ride in the middle of a road where there was a bike path- in a double line area where I could not overtake.

 

[pinkboy]

But don't you think they'd get MORE respect and courtesy if they were treated like all other road users .

It could appear to some that cyclists are single out as a special type of road user by not being treated equally.

Just saying...

When the questions 'So how do you see the problem fixed?' is answered with fully justifiable answers to every arguement put forward by myself and every other cyclist.

Say we were treated equally on the sliding scale of registration by weight etc, and had to pay the $1.50 - do you think cyclist would be fully respected on the roads?


pinkboy

 

[Ideo]

It's disappointing to me that in roads where there is a custom bike path running parallel to the road, many cyclists choose to ride on the road. In one extreme case, two cyclists chose to ride in the middle of a road where there was a bike path- in a double line area where I could not overtake.

That's the only time I get annoyed at cyclists on the road.

Otherwise, live and let live.

 

[geoffw]

What about the rules in a supermarket car park? As far as I can figure, just from observation, these are the rules:

1. If I am driving past parked cars, I must give way to a car coming out of a park.
2. If I am coming out of a car park, I must give way to cars driving past.
3. If I am a pedestrian, I must always give way to cars, even when on a marked pedestrian crossing
4. If I am driving, I must always give way to pedestrians, no matter whether on a pedestrian crossing or not
5. No consideration should ever be given to a car trying to exit a parking position where they are blind, by being parked next to a much larger car- except for using the horn.