Remove this Banner Ad

Post your ride...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Freakie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

firstly, i don't believe i "abused" anyone. in fact i know i didn't.

as i said in my first post, i only know for sure in the ACT. i'm happy to to be corrected if this isn't the case elsewhere.

but i still don't understand why anyone would be removing safety implements. sure, pimp it out all you want - but not at the expense of safety. we aren't always directly in front of, or behind cars. it's why we have reflectors facing 4 different directions in the first place.
 
nobbyiscool said:
i understand that man - but to be really frank, removing safety implements that are required by law does not make you cool. and telling other people that they should do the same is irresponsible.

if anyone is riding a bike simply for the image, they're a dickhead.

but i've seen enough of you on the cycling forum to know that this isn't what motivates you to ride.

so, i understand that you have to love your bike - but why do you care whether your bike looks "cool" or not? don't you just want it to be as safe as possible, and to meet legal requirements?

i love cycling. i love meeting cyclists. but we are NOT a 'cool' people. we wear lycra that's too small for us. we go on pack rides on the weekend and for the last 20kms we pretend we're riding the tour de france. we leave sweaty arse marks in coffee shops. some of us (including me) are particularly uncool when there's 100+, lycra clad kilos on top of the bike.

no, "cool" should never be a consideration in how your bike looks. SAFETY should be your primary concern.

in addition to that, upholding the image of law abiding cyclists is far more important the upholding the image of looking 'cool' - cos while the rest of us are carrying on about law-ignoring drivers, you're making the rest of us look bad by flouting road laws yourself.


so to all those who have posted a picture of a bike without the mandatory bell and reflectors - your bike doesn't look cool. it looks shit. you're making me look bad by association because you're ignoring legal requirements, and for some reason you value image over safety.
Click to expand...

Probably shouldn't attack someones credibility with out the ammo to back it up... You are right about the bell but wrong about the wheel reflectors.

ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 224
224 . Lights and other equipment on bicycles

(1) A person shall not ride a bicycle during the hours of darkness, 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 m from the front of the bicycle;

(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 m from the rear of the bicycle; and

(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 m from the rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s headlight on low-beam.

Modified penalty: 2 PU

(2) A person shall not ride a bicycle that does not have —

(a) at least one effective brake; and

(b) a bell, horn, or similar warning device, in working order.
Modified penalty: 2 PU

ROAD TRAFFIC (BICYCLES) REGULATIONS 2002 - REG 7
7 . Bell

A bicycle must have a bell or other effective warning device fixed in a convenient position.

11 . Reflector

(1) A bicycle must have affixed at all times a reflector that will effectively reflect red light when illuminated by the headlight of a vehicle approaching from the rear and that reflector must —

(a) comply with the requirements specified in rule 102(1)(a) and (2) of the Vehicle Standards and have a reflective area of not less than the area of a circle of 38 mm diameter;

(b) be mounted on the rear part of the bicycle at a height that is not less than 330 mm nor more than 1 m; and

(c) be mounted vertically and facing to the rear in such a manner that the light reflected from the headlight of a vehicle approaching from the rear is clearly visible to the driver of that vehicle.

(2) The reflector required by subregulation (1) may be in the form of a reflecting lens fitted to the rear lamp.

(3) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have affixed, to each wheel, 2 yellow side reflectors complying with the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 1927-1998 ( Pedal Bicycles — Safety Requirements ) and Australian Standard AS 2142-1978 ( Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles ).

(4) If a bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, it must have affixed, to both sides of each pedal, yellow pedal reflectors complying with the requirements for reflectors in Australian Standard AS 2142-1978 ( Specification for Reflectors for Pedal Bicycles ).

(5) A bicycle must not have affixed a reflector capable of reflecting red light in the forward direction.
Click to expand...
 
nobbyiscool said:
firstly, i don't believe i "abused" anyone. in fact i know i didn't.

as i said in my first post, i only know for sure in the ACT. i'm happy to to be corrected if this isn't the case elsewhere.

but i still don't understand why anyone would be removing safety implements. sure, pimp it out all you want - but not at the expense of safety. we aren't always directly in front of, or behind cars. it's why we have reflectors facing 4 different directions in the first place.
Click to expand...

You certainly have an inflammatory tone, i would say calling someones bike "shit" and saying we're "making you look bad" are mildly abusive, as i said, i don't really mind and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, i was more saying that if you want to be the safety crusader and get people on board with your message i personally think you are going about it the wrong way but whatever mate, do what you feel is right.

7 . Bell

A bicycle must have a bell or other effective warning device fixed in a convenient position.

Freakie do you think you could argue that your voice is an "effective warning device" ;)?
 
"A bicycle must be fitted with reflectors that comply with Australian Standard AS 2142,
Reflectors for pedal bicycles.
Is the bicycle fitted with:
• at least one rear red reflector;
• at least one yellow reflector to each wheel and visible from each side;
• yellow reflectors on the front and rear sides of the pedals; and
• at least one white front reflector?"


If a car runs into you, their liability is absolutely reduced because your bike doesn't meet the Australian standard. Any lawyer worth their salt will recognise this in a minute.

so once again Freakie - the question you haven't answered. why on Earth would you remove a safety implemented that is mandatory under Australian standards in an effort to make you/your book look 'cool'?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

nobbyiscool said:
question - why do people keep suggesting that reflectors and bells be removed?

i know in the ACT these are required by law to ride on the road. i'd imagine it'd be the same everywhere.

beyond that, i can't understand why anyone would be so stupid as to remove safety components. (yes, i had a crash recently)
Click to expand...

Out of the 2 road bikes I have purchased neither came with wheel reflectors (victoria). I have a bell on the one I ride but it's absolutely useless when I'm waiting at the lights behind a car who is not concentrating and not noticed the lights changed green 30 seconds ago.
 
i don't quite understand the point of that comment. everyone in this thread knows that a bell isn't supposed to get the attention of cars.

can anyone say with certainty whether a standard = law? i'm not 100% sure

i know that in the building industry that standard = law if you choose to become accredited to the standard. but you don't really have a choice - you won't get a building license to build anything other than residential housing if you aren't accredited.
 
The why do you consider it so stupid to remove safety components that don't do anything to increase your safety whilst riding on a road?
 
because we aren't always directly in front of cars, we go around corners and we go through intersections where cars are side on to us. and because if you ever ride in the ACT, you're breaking the law by not having them, and you're making all of us look bad. we're all aware that "cyclists" all get tarred with the same brush,

to me this is just so obvious. I didn't write that safety standard that I posted or the state laws that mandate them...

even if it only decreases your chance of a crash by 0.5%, i don't understand why you would want to increase risk, or breach the safety standards for bicycles in Australia.

I'm being spoken to like I'm the crazy one here - but I'm the only one posting here that thinks its more important to be safe than to be " cool". maybe if you're a teenager - but for a mature adult who needs to be able to go home ever night to their families, PLEASE tell me why image is more important than safety.

and don't tell me the don't increase safety. theyre mandated by the safety standards for a reason, and regardless of how small the benefit is, there is obviously a benefit to them.
 
Pretty sure this is almost a personal attack but hey.

did a bit more research on Bicycle laws in my state and wheel reflectors are NOT mandatory. This is from the vicroads website.

Riding at night
Riding at night is illegal unless the bicycle or the rider has a white light (flashing or steady) on the front, a red light (flashing or steady) at the back and a red reflector at the back.
Click to expand...

I flashing red/white light is FAR more visible in a bike than any reflector and I would highly recommend veryone has on on their bike for twilight/dark hours, if you can afford them AYUPS are the best (IMO). I understand your point about safety, but your getting all hysterical over a very minor part of the bike and according to (at least the law in my state) something that is not illegal. The way you went about it hasn't won you many fans, perhaps use a little more tact and respect next time?
 
I'd be going back to the bike shop - regardless of the debate as to whether they're a legal requirement, they're supposed to have them at the point of sale to be consistent with the Australian standards.

freakie, it is not a personal attack to challenge someone. that you've taken it that way is on you, not me.

you still haven't answered the question as to why you would remove them, and why you consider image more important than safety - and why you're telling others that image is more important. regardless of how much safety they actually add, and regardless of whether u have lights or not, removing them is introducing an unnecessary risk

of course lights are better - but once again, we aren't always right in front of the car that needs to see us
 
I mostly stick to bike paths and racing. My bike has every non essential part removed to decrease weight and increase aerodynamics. Too many of my mates have ended up in grave situations on roads. As for night riding....
 

Remove this Banner Ad

KnobHead said:
Triathlon bicycles, say $2000 - $3500, anyone got any ideas? Fuji? Giant? etc

(Happy to look at a "new" 2 - 3 year old model if anyone knows anything)
Click to expand...

Where i got my bike from the other day had some new Fuji tri bikes as well as some 2012 Kestrel models all within or below your budget. What state/rough suburbs are you in?
 
KnobHead said:
Melbourne based. How do u find the Fuji?
Click to expand...

Unreal, I absolutely love it. The store I went to was called Cycling Obsession in Seaford, Matt the owner does tris himself (doing the Melbourne ironman in March) can't recommend the store or Matt highly enough, he was great to deal with and the store might be small but had a decent range and some good deals. Give it a look for sure.
 
phantom13 said:
Unreal, I absolutely love it. The store I went to was called Cycling Obsession in Seaford, Matt the owner does tris himself (doing the Melbourne ironman in March) can't recommend the store or Matt highly enough, he was great to deal with and the store might be small but had a decent range and some good deals. Give it a look for sure.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phantom, much appreciated.

will check it out
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

KnobHead said:
Triathlon bicycles, say $2000 - $3500, anyone got any ideas? Fuji? Giant? etc

(Happy to look at a "new" 2 - 3 year old model if anyone knows anything)
Click to expand...
even Felt. Give it a month or 2 and a few heroes will be selling a newish bike after realising they are not cut out for triathlons after all. Steals to be had
 
032_zps917684f3.jpg.html
#mce_temp_url#
javascript:void(0);
 
took her out yesterday on a very windy day of hill climbs. going down was great fun until the cross breeze picked up the whole front wheel. 57km/h wheelie = no fun
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom