NSW - Drivers and Cyclists - New laws March 2016

[scblack]

I still find it comical how these Lycra clad loonies feel the need to don microcloth outfits advertising all manner of products that will in now way support them.
They possibly believe in their tiny little minds that they somehow resemble the actual cyclists.

Bad news....The majority of Lycra clad loonies should be charged with assulting the senses of the population or perhaps even obceen exposure of their seriously disfigured bodies.

Why not wear something that might actually have some small protective merit, so that when you fall, not if because the 2mm diameter tyres, (totally unsuitable for the goat tracks we laughingly call roads) will burst and generally result in a spectacular and very funny fall.
I also like the way the esky lids they wear disassemble themselves on impact, helmets that because of the lobbying of cyclists sick of being laughed at all the time, forced on normal human beings.

And the funniest thing of them all;
They pay several thousand dollars for these mechanical tooth pics, someone is having a real laugh at this baby.

Oh, and by the way I too ride, off the road on an old Malvern star bike.
No way Im hitting the bitumen with all the losers on the road without some serious metal around me.

Wow, there's some bitchy comments in there. Get the claws out girl! Meeoow!!

[tk421]

It must those 'unique Australian conditions. Works for millions of Europeans, Asians, Chinese and Indians

 Including the Netherlands where bike deaths are around 25% of all road fatalities? What makes Australia different?


Umm   Doesn't seem to work for some of those Europeans eh ??
You're fighting back with stats that say Australia has very low fatalities for pushies, so what is the whole argument about then ? Keep riding on the road and when you get hit, it will most likely not kill you....but it will still hurt !! 

I'm over the arguments that get trotted out every time this subject comes up. "Rego! insurance! identification! Herpy derp derp!" Especially when the facts don't support them.  My argument is no other country requires it, including those with far higher cycling participation rates ie most of Europe. Where they seem to be able to cope with out trying to kill each other. So what makes Australia so special and different that we need to do it?  It just adds another peice of legislation and cost to our adminstrative organisations? 

Then there's the hypothetical scenarios that get pulled out by both sides. So flipping obtuse and far fetched that they're unlikely to happen.

Someone wants to ride a bike? Whoppee! What's the big frikkin deal? Are we so far gone down the nanny state route that we are incapable of letting people make their own choices unless it's regulated to death?  Yes it'll hurt if they crash. Let them make that choice.

I find the whole intolerance on both sides ridiculous and pathetic. It's not that hard to be a bit polite or courteous. TBH Cyclists vs Drivers is now the Aussie equivalent to the Amercan gun control debate. The rest of the world looks looks on thinking: "What a bunch of idiots!"

TBH this whole thing

[Snapman007]

Sweet FA on both sides

Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was unknown for 93 of the 222 cyclists killed but in nearly 90 per cent of the cases where it was known, BAC was found to be zero. Only 15 of the 222 cyclists were tested for drugs and the results for 14 of these were positive – this is likely to reflect the circumstances of the 15,  rather than the drugs prevalence among the 222 it is what it is. that's over 93% of tested cyclist killed were high on drugs.

Of the 202 motor vehicle drivers involved in crashes in which a cyclist was killed, 130 were tested for alcohol and in most cases (119) BAC was found to be  zero. Most were not tested for drugs but a few tested positive.

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_annual_summaries.aspx

[scblack]

I'm over the arguments that get trotted out every time this subject comes up. "Rego! insurance! identification! Herpy derp derp!" Especially when the facts don't support them.  My argument is no other country requires it, including those with far higher cycling participation rates ie most of Europe. Where they seem to be able to cope with out trying to kill each other. So what makes Australia so special and different that we need to do it?  It just adds another peice of legislation and cost to our adminstrative organisations? 

Then there's the hypothetical scenarios that get pulled out by both sides. So flipping obtuse and far fetched that they're unlikely to happen.

Someone wants to ride a bike? Whoppee! What's the big frikkin deal? Are we so far gone down the nanny state route that we are incapable of letting people make their own choices unless it's regulated to death?  Yes it'll hurt if they crash. Let them make that choice.

I find the whole intolerance on both sides ridiculous and pathetic. It's not that hard to be a bit polite or courteous. TBH Cyclists vs Drivers is now the Aussie equivalent to the Amercan gun control debate. The rest of the world looks looks on thinking: "What a bunch of idiots!"

TBH this whole thing

You're right of course but then you will always find a few people who carry on about some things WAY too much.

I do wonder at times if there must be some psychological hang-up in the minority of people who are so militant in their attitudes to cyclists on our roads. There must be some sort of deep seated angst making them bitch and moan about it so forcefully.

I have ridden on all Sydney roads for 7+ years and over 27,000kms. I've had a few incidents, falls, shouting matches at losers - that's par for the course. Overall I would say 99.9999% of drivers and people in general are awesome to cyclists (as long as you are not stupid). But there's always some complete idiots out there who get too carried away - and that's the same in here.

[gronk]

I'm over the arguments that get trotted out
Someone wants to ride a bike? Whoppee! What's the big frikkin deal? 
: "What a bunch of idiots!"

Dunno, what's the big deal ??  You want to ride a pushy, but then complain if there are any rules attached ??  I want to drive my 4wd with no license, but if caught I face a penalty. If you run into the side of my car and I ask for ID....or money for the damage....and you attempt to ride off, am I justified in grabbing you and beating the crap out of you ??

Carry some form of ID, stop whinging, and that ID might just help you one day.....even if it's just to identify the body parts left in the grill of the Mack truck !!   

[tk421]

Dunno, what's the big deal ??  You want to ride a pushy, but then complain if there are any rules attached ??  I want to drive my 4wd with no license, but if caught I face a penalty. If you run into the side of my car and I ask for ID....or money for the damage....and you attempt to ride off, am I justified in grabbing you and beating the crap out of you ??

Carry some form of ID, stop whinging, and that ID might just help you one day.....even if it's just to identify the body parts left in the grill of the Mack truck !!   

Your scenario applies equally to another car driver hitting you.

Not arguing against rules. Arguing against unnecessary rules. Lots of people drive without ID and still get caught.  Ride a bike without ID the police can still catch you. Same as they can catch pedestrians committing crimes without ID.

Doesn't seem to hinder the cops that much.

Nor the South Australians, who only have to carry it if on L's, P's, or a driving a vehicle over 4.5 T GVM.

You don't need to carry your driving licence with you in the UK whilst driving/riding (you've 7 days to produce it if requested). Yet they seem to be able to catch road offenders.

But as you brought it up, I do carry ID, and have done long before it became mandatory so I can be identified if anything goes wrong. Same as I've got bike insurance because I've got 3 kids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tk421]

Nope. That's 92% of the 15 that were tested. Not 92% of all cyclists. You can't extrapolate to the entire cohort. You can't say 92% of all cyclists unless you test all those involved.

And that stat ignores the time drugs are present in the system. Cannabinoids can remain detectable for up to 2 weeks after use.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gronk]

it is what it is. that's over 93% of tested cyclist killed were high on drugs.

I think what he said is true......93% of TESTED cyclists killed was on drugs !!

[tk421]

it is what it is. that's over 93% of tested cyclist killed were high on drugs.

I think what he said is true......93% of TESTED cyclists killed was on drugs !!

They only tested 6% of cyclists.  They only test when they think its a contributing factor so the figure is skewed. 14/222 is only 6% of all cyclists.

16% of all cars/motorcycle fatalities involved a driver on illicit drugs. In Victoria that figure was 37%. 21% of those tested positive to THC, the active component of cannabis, or stimulant/amphetamine type drugs such as ecstasy, speed and ice.

Edit:  newsflash - some people in our society take drugs.

1/3 of 50,000 drivers tested in NSW, tested positive. The roadside tests test for the psychoactive component. So all those people were under the influence whilst driving. 

[NewieCamper]

If you run into the side of my car and I ask for ID....or money for the damage....and you attempt to ride off, am I justified in grabbing you and beating the crap out of you...

Just how often does this happen? They way people carry on about it I would think that in the 25 odd years of driving I've done I would have been hit by a cyclist a dozen times. It's just not that common

Pedestrians don't need ID in case they bang a trolley into your car, which is far far more likely to happen if you go to the local supermarket for your groceries.

So many of these arguments are" becuase it happened once to a bloke I know's stepmother's sister's uncles's brother's next door neighbour". Becuase that information is so reliable and never has any predjudice attached to it.

[gronk]

They only tested 6% of cyclists. 

Nobody said they didn't.....the bit stated was 93% of TESTED !! No "skewed" figures......the figures are there for all to see.

[tk421]

Nobody said they didn't.....the bit stated was 93% of TESTED !! No "skewed" figures......the figures are there for all to see.

YAWN.  Focus on the tiny bit of detail that suits your argument. 92% means nothing by itself.  Re-read the whole statement (author's word not mine).  Only 15 of the 222 cyclists were tested for drugs and the results for 14 of these were positive – this is likely to reflect the circumstances of the 15,  rather than the drugs prevalence among the 222.

I tracked down another review of that data from Monash - basically the testing had holes in it and the figure can't be relied on. "However there were signficant omissions in the report with no details provided on the types of drugs tested for, the number of drivers who tested postive or the types of drugs detected in cyclists and drivers."

Those cyclists were dead therefore they have to use a blood test, which picks up the results of metabolism - this can be up to 2 weeks old.  All that statement proves is that some dead people had drugs in their systems, not that they were under the influence at the time of death, nor whether they were the contributing factor. It also doesn't say what drugs they were on.

A better, less ambiguous, more complete figure, is the 2015 South Australian Study which tested almost all of their bicycle trauma deaths (27/29) and found 26% had drugs OR alcohol in their system. 

Which strangely, is similar to the 25% of motorists who die and have drugs or alcohol in their system. OMG! The percentages of bike riders affected by drugs and alcohol and die is almost the same as drivers.  Who woulda thunk it?

Its also close to the 30% of Australians who are illicit drug users.

Tell me again how mandatory Id carrying is going to stop these drunk/drug affected drivers?

[scblack]

Nobody said they didn't.....the bit stated was 93% of TESTED !! No "skewed" figures......the figures are there for all to see.

You posted this tiny little meaningless statistic AGAIN.

Why???

[gronk]

Tell me again how mandatory Id carrying is going to stop these drunk/drug affected drivers?

I didn't tell you anything  about ID and drunk drivers( that should be riders though !! ). I didn't tell you anything except point out that someone elses fact was in fact a fact !!   

[gronk]

You posted this tiny little meaningless statistic AGAIN.

Why???

If I have to explain, it might show why you haven't read all the replies..

[Bird]

Blown too much of me time
Buyin' Dinner and Wine
And me money on flowers and lollies

Only to find
That what's on me mind
Isn't on hers and she's sorry

So I've made up some lines
That save wastin' time
And keep me from blowin' me brass

I'm ever so cool
I just prop on me stool
Right next to hers and I ask

Do you **** on first dates
Does you Dad own a brewery

Could I feel Your ****
Or would you show 'em to me

Cause you've got a nice head
And you look pretty honest
So me face'll be leavin' in quart of an hour
I'd like you to be on it

You know how it feels when you first meet a sheila
And the bull*hit you gotta go through
Like callin' her up
An' tellin' her you love her
When all that you'd love is just a screw

But she wants to hold hands
And meet her old man
And sit around for hours and talk

But me new method is, you just cut through the ****
And get down to the goodies straight off

Do you **** on first dates
Does you Dad own a brewery

Could I feel Your ****
Or would you show 'em to me

Do you sleep in the nick
Do you give head very often
If we can decide your place or mine
We can **** off then

You know how it feels when you first meet a sheila
An you'd give a weeks pay to hold her

Don't sit actin' dumb
Just front her full on
and drop a few lines that I told ya

This new method of mine
Might not work every time, but then again no method will

I've been spat at and slapped
and kneed in the nackers
But then I've got a few ****s as well

Do you **** on first dates
Does you Dad own a brewery

Could I feel Your ****
Or would you show 'em to me

If the answer is no
to me questions above
Then be a good sport and give me the name
Of a girlfriend who does

[tk421]

I didn't tell you anything  about ID and drunk drivers( that should be riders though !! ). I didn't tell you anything except point out that someone elses fact was in fact a fact !!   

Facts without context are meaningless. :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scrapsD40]

I used to ride a bike wearing t-shirt, shorts and thongs, but lost interest when they made helmets madatory.
I'd steer clear of cars and trucks coz they were made so solid back then they were hard to dent. If you managed to dent them, more than likely you came out with a broken leg or arm.
Suffered many a skinned face, elbows, knees and toes, but survived.

Back then we didn't have internet forums. You'd meet your mates down near the storm drains and bitch about life
Anyone else remember those days.

[glenm64]

Boy
Just started reading this thread
Some people take getting run over far to serious.


Cheers Glen

[KingBilly]

I used to ride a bike wearing t-shirt, shorts and thongs, but lost interest when they made helmets madatory.
I'd steer clear of cars and trucks coz they were made so solid back then they were hard to dent. If you managed to dent them, more than likely you came out with a broken leg or arm.
Suffered many a skinned face, elbows, knees and toes, but survived.

Back then we didn't have internet forums. You'd meet your mates down near the storm drains and bitch about life
Anyone else remember those days.

I remember taking the skin off my ankles on the pedal crank because my wet rubber thong slipped 

KB

Whoops, before Bird jumps in, it was thong on my feet 

[Footy Shorts Shane]

And riding with only the ball of your foot in the middle of bear trap pedals, only to slip off and remove lines of skin the full length of your shin.

[scblack]

And riding with only the ball of your foot in the middle of bear trap pedals, only to slip off and remove lines of skin the full length of your shin.

My shin bones still have dents from bear trap pedals gouging the bones when I was a teenager crashing my BMX. Did not have shinnies back then for protection.

[Bad Scott]

I used to ride a bike wearing t-shirt, shorts and thongs, but lost interest when they made helmets madatory.
I'd steer clear of cars and trucks coz they were made so solid back then they were hard to dent. If you managed to dent them, more than likely you came out with a broken leg or arm.
Suffered many a skinned face, elbows, knees and toes, but survived.

Back then we didn't have internet forums. You'd meet your mates down near the storm drains and bitch about life
Anyone else remember those days.

BMX bandits with tuff rims 

[edz]

You blokes had pedals !! the bikes I got to ride  were hand me downs with only the bolts that used to hold the pedals and lucky to have a tyre at all and one unbuckled rim with all its spokes ..

[scrapsD40]

You blokes had pedals !! the bikes I got to ride  were hand me downs with only the bolts that used to hold the pedals and lucky to have a tyre at all and one unbuckled rim with all its spokes ..

and surgical tape wrapped around the tyre that had worn through to the tube.

Luxury was being able to afford those new fandangle thornproof tyre tubes, and we used to relish the annual hard rubbish collections as you could go and stock up on tyres and bits from the bikes people would throwout complete with redback spiders