I'm not so much annoyed as disappointed.
Rules are there to protect. If they're broken, the risk becomes much greater.
A person on a bike is far more vulnerable. I would have thought they would have a far greater need to obey rules than drivers.
parking fines
- Thread starter weg
- Start date
Rules are there to protect. If they're broken, the risk becomes much greater.
A person on a bike is far more vulnerable. I would have thought they would have a far greater need to obey rules than drivers.
Well said. The only time I've ever had a run in with a cyclist was when I opened my car door at the kerb to exit the vehicle and a cyclist passed between our car and the kerb. I clipped his handlebar, ripped his glove, but no other damage.
He was in the wrong but I paid him for a new glove because I was in shock at the thought of how much more damage I could have caused had he been a split second later than he was.
He didn't say to me "You don't need to buy me a new glove because I was doing the wrong thing"
.I cannot understand the mentality of anybody who does horrible things to others, on a bike or anywhere else. It is NOT about the bike, but for me, about common courtesy, which SHOULD go both ways, and often doesn't.
I don't like to see the wrong thing done by anybody, motorist, bike riders or pedestrians.
I suppose what gets up my nose is the "holier than thou" attitude from some cyclists, like they never do anything wrong.
Nothing like riding a bike to emphasize this more than anything, and Im fully in agreeance with the above statement.
Maybe a new law to get ones licence is to do their 100hours in a car and 10hours on a bike? This would then settle a motorists arguement that cyclists should be licenced. But then again, not all cyclists ae going to be 17 and getting car licences.
So many outside influences to the arguements flaw any solution to the debate.
pinkboy
What's with the weight ratio thingy you keep raising??
For one there'd be the same admin cost regardless of the weight.
Also injury can still be serious regardless.
I think it should probably be less than a motor vehicle but $1.50?
Or how about cyclists not be covered by other drivers car insurance instead?
I think if a decision was made to treat bycicle riders like everyone else they'd be able to implement it no problems.
Geez, the government has no problems finding far trickier things to implement when they're hell bent on doing so.
And personally I don't think any of the questions you raised justify that there should be no registration
.Nor does it change the fact that you're a driver on the road like everyone else.
Any state government is reluctant to charge bike rego as the admin associated with the maintenance has been about 70$ per rego or something similar.
I have 6 bikes in the family and the same for many other peolple I know so that would be near 400$ per yeAr which I can't see any state gov introducing anytime soon.
Fwiw I'm happy to pay rego if it will shut up car drivers whining as we would all be far better off with more cyclists and less cars
I have 6 bikes in the family and the same for many other peolple I know so that would be near 400$ per yeAr which I can't see any state gov introducing anytime soon.
Fwiw I'm happy to pay rego if it will shut up car drivers whining as we would all be far better off with more cyclists and less cars
They are in South Australia ... and I agree it is wrong. Several people I know have been fined, with photographic evidence of wrong parking, problem is that the photo is taken from an angle that falsifys the truth - but how can you argue when a photo is presented?
I have a few questions, because I do not know the answers.
If a cyclist is caught drunk driving, are they fined and prohibited from cycling on the road. Is the vehicle driver's license taken away too?
If a disabled person, driving on a footpath is drunk, are they fined too?
Required to not drive on footpaths for a certain period of time?
If a cyclist is caught drunk driving, are they fined and prohibited from cycling on the road. Is the vehicle driver's license taken away too?
If a disabled person, driving on a footpath is drunk, are they fined too?
Required to not drive on footpaths for a certain period of time?
pinkboy.....best to ask a law/police type person of the legal definitions etc though.
Do you not charge a motor bike too because it's less than a car? How about a trailer?
How did you calculate the personal injury insurance cost for the bicycle? Insurance would not be $1.50, surely?
I think 'school injury insurance' was about $4, 45 years ago (for medical expenses only).
To be honest... you sound a bit like you think cyclists are 'special' and above other road users.
Not good if you want more respect and courtesy.
Stupid and reckless road users -of all kinds- don't respect anyone.
You're more vulnerable because of the nature of the vehicle, not car drivers. Motor bikes are the same.
Cars dodge bikes all the time. They're hard to see. They're given bike lanes. They don't always do the right things. They get let off paying registration unlike other road uses. They complain they're not given enough respect and courtesy.
How about we complain cyclist don't respect car drivers and argue we shoudn't pay rego?
This is probably WHY some people get narky with cyclists.
Much the same reason people get narky with some feminists, 'special' minority groups, etc., because what should be equality becomes one side and gets favoured, and all hell breaks loose if anyone questions things.
Btw, I don't lose any sleep over this, and am more than happy to share the road with bike users.
How did you calculate the personal injury insurance cost for the bicycle? Insurance would not be $1.50, surely?
I think 'school injury insurance' was about $4, 45 years ago (for medical expenses only).
To be honest... you sound a bit like you think cyclists are 'special' and above other road users
.Not good if you want more respect and courtesy.
Stupid and reckless road users -of all kinds- don't respect anyone.
You're more vulnerable because of the nature of the vehicle, not car drivers. Motor bikes are the same.
Cars dodge bikes all the time. They're hard to see. They're given bike lanes. They don't always do the right things. They get let off paying registration unlike other road uses. They complain they're not given enough respect and courtesy.
How about we complain cyclist don't respect car drivers and argue we shoudn't pay rego?
This is probably WHY some people get narky with cyclists.
Much the same reason people get narky with some feminists, 'special' minority groups, etc., because what should be equality becomes one side and gets favoured, and all hell breaks loose if anyone questions things.
Btw, I don't lose any sleep over this, and am more than happy to share the road with bike users
.Apparently they can work as many hours as they like too (more fines for the council I suppose).
One of ours gets around on weekends and evenings, and has done for years.
I think he works whenever he's outside of his house
.Do you not charge a motor bike too because it's less than a car? How about a trailer?
I believe they are charged according to some type of sliding scale. I dont know what the yardstick figue is in any given state or territory. I have a trailer registered for about $120/year that we use daily. I cant comment on motorbikes, Ive never owned or ridden one on the road before.
How did you calculate the personal injury insurance cost for the bicycle? Insurance would not be $1.50, surely?
Arbitrary figure based on 6kg as opposed to a 2 ton Landcruiser
I think 'school injury insurance' was about $4, 45 years ago (for medical expenses only).
I am 29, so only a baby, therefore Gen Y, the brat of today, or am I? I cant comment on 45 years ago, and respect that you would know that.
To be honest... you sound a bit like you think cyclists are 'special' and above other road users
I dont believe I am being that, Im simply arguing that nothing you are coming up with is a plausable solution, just as I can admit to on both sides of the equation, as a cyclist and a motorist
Not good if you want more respect and courtesy.
Stupid and reckless road users -of all kinds- don't respect anyone.
Agree, but a cyclist doesnt mow down a traffic jam like a car mows down a bunch of cyclists can and have done in the past!
You're more vulnerable because of the nature of the vehicle, not car drivers. Motor bikes are the same.
Nature of the safety of the vehicle is irrelevent to the rego debate. 5 star cars are not paying more rego than a 2 star equivilent vehicle. If every car stayed 1.5m away from a cyclist as they do to cars and motorbikes and trucks etc, then there would be less problems (as opposed to no problems). any road user is equally responsible to make a safe or unsafe act, irrespective who is in what type of vehicle
Cars dodge bikes all the time. They're hard to see. They're given bike lanes. They don't always do the right things. They get let off paying registration unlike other road uses. They complain they're not given enough respect and courtesy.
Take your blikers off for a second. Where exactly is there 200km of safe bike paths for me to use to train on on the weekends? If you drive from home to work, is there 100% bicycle path coverage? Motorists dont do the right things either would be my arguement - how many cyclists were caught in your state this year speeding compared to motorists?
How about we complain cyclist don't respect car drivers and argue we shoudn't pay rego?
Go for it - but if you cant come up with a feasable arguement to make cyclist pay rego, then I find it very hard to believe you will come up with an arguement to have motorists stop paying rego.
This is probably WHY some people get narky with cyclists.
Much the same reason people get narky with some feminists, 'special' minority groups, etc., because what should be equality becomes one side and gets favoured, and all hell breaks loose if anyone questions things.
Again, I agree. Unfortunately any minority suffers the perils of racism. Think of the world without the fighting, religious killings and lawyers!
Btw, I don't lose any sleep over this, and am more than happy to share the road with bike users
Neither do I. Not because Im not paying rego (I do pay my more than fair share with the vehicles and road equipment I own though), I only lose sleep when Granny drives up beside me knowing full well Im there and suddenly does a left hand turn throwing me down an embankment, only to speed off - probably a fat b!tch on her way to get cigs and a chocolate milk!
Weg, by no way am I having a go at you, or anyone else, at least Im trying to not be. As said, it opens up a can of worms, and good and bad points on both sides of the white line! Dont worry, I toot a cyclist doing the wrong thing. Even some people I know I sometimes half expect them to do the wrong thing on a bike, because I know their mentality. But I also know some very good, law abiding cyclists at all levels and at all cost.
pinkboy
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?
Hi Wylie
Not my area of expertise but can offer some explanation here I think.
When you are talking injuries it's not simply covered by insurance, you are essentially suing someone for things like medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with. Where insurance comes into it is to cover the insured if they are sued and a court awards a settlement against them.
So in this scenario:
If you (the driver) were injured due to the bike rider swerving in front of you, your motor vehicle CTP insurance will not cover your injuries (it is there to protect third parties, not you). You would need to lodge a civil claim against the bike rider.
If the court finds in your favour and awards a settlement, you want to hope they either have plenty of money or have home insurance which will include liability, and may cover their liability for the settlement you were awarded.
CTP insurance provides compensation for other people injured in an accident when you or the person driving your vehicle is at fault, and in certain circumstances, regardless of who was at fault.
Your CTP insurance covers:
- Your passengers.
- Other people on the road such as drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and passengers on the back of a motorcycle.
- Injuries caused through the use of a trailer.
- Children injured in a crash regardless of who was at fault.
In saying that, Suncorp, and maybe others, do have an option that can include limited cover for you as the driver at fault as well, but that’s another story.
If you had an accident involving an unregistered motor vehicle causing you injury, in Queensland (and presumably in other States) the injured person can claim for compensation against a public fund called the “nominal defendant”. The “nominated defendant” can then make a claim against the driver of the unregistered vehicle. I doubt however that this extends to claiming against riders of pushbikes.
So with what you tell your kids Wylie, the injured party would go after the driver at fault, if the vehicle was unregistered, therefore uninsured (CTP), they would claim against the “nominated defendant”, who in turn would go after the driver at fault to recover costs.
Hope this helps.
Maybe cycling is a sport which is not suitable for the road. I don't swim with the crocs. I save it for a pool. Maybe bicycles should be used on bicycle paths.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not much more to it. Maybe busy roads aren't constructed to safely cater for the hobby of cycling. Maybe it should be conducted elsewhere.
Pinkboy
If you want to stay legal at traffic lights, lay your bike down over the sensor, or stick a tiny neodemium magnet under your bike. As for the weight argument for rego - why doesn't my 200kg zzr cost a tenth of my 4x4? Wouldn't that be fair? They are nearly on par with one another.
Kathryn
The only thing you can't be charged for drink driving on is one of those old people's scooters.
If you want to stay legal at traffic lights, lay your bike down over the sensor, or stick a tiny neodemium magnet under your bike. As for the weight argument for rego - why doesn't my 200kg zzr cost a tenth of my 4x4? Wouldn't that be fair? They are nearly on par with one another.
Kathryn
The only thing you can't be charged for drink driving on is one of those old people's scooters.
I used to stamp on the pressure sensor with my foot when I pulled up at the lights and wanted them to change, dunno if it still works.
Weight has nothing to do with it. The sensor is surrounded by an electromagnetic field which is interrupted by steel.
