Police have launched a safety 'blitz' on cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
Police target South Australian cyclists
- Thread starter deejbah
- Start date
deejbah said:
Nice level playing field in SA, as obviously SAPOL hasn't remembered a few things that occured in the last four years.
http://www.woj.com.au/?s=Eugene+McGee
B
BT Humble
Guest
deejbah wrote:
> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on cyclists
> failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists killed in
> accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a motor vehicle as
> a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
road rules every day?
I know that the red light runners irritate me.
BTH
> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on cyclists
> failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists killed in
> accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a motor vehicle as
> a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
road rules every day?
I know that the red light runners irritate me.
BTH
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:32:15 -0800 (PST)
BT Humble <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
> road rules every day?
>
> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
And a lot of cyclists too.
Cyclists do it because they can. There are various ways of justifying
it, all of which are flimsy at best, but people will do the most
amazing things to justify their own selfishness.
Problem is... well it is herding cats isn't it?
How can it be stopped? The only way is to make the risk not worth the
reward. And that means identifying cyclists so they can be caught in
the same way registered vehicles are. Which is rather a difficult
job.
Not just working out how to fit a registration label that can be read
by both machines and people, but what to do about a bicycle that
doesn't have one. Hard to chase, hard to catch.
Public campaigns won't work because those who run red lights are quite
certain they are perfectly justified to do so. Whether they use the
"no harm" excuse or the "sustainable transport should have different
rules" excuse or the "safer than being in traffic" excuse, they are
certain that their convenience is more important than any rule. So a
campaign saying they shouldn't is going to have as much effect as a
campaign saying speeding drivers have small dicks if that campaign
isn't backed up by cameras and fines.
Work out how to register cyclists, work out how to catch unregistered
ones that do a runner, work out how to manage child cyclists in that
regime, then bicycles will become part of the transport network.
(I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
to fund, surely!)
Zebee
BT Humble <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
> road rules every day?
>
> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
And a lot of cyclists too.
Cyclists do it because they can. There are various ways of justifying
it, all of which are flimsy at best, but people will do the most
amazing things to justify their own selfishness.
Problem is... well it is herding cats isn't it?
How can it be stopped? The only way is to make the risk not worth the
reward. And that means identifying cyclists so they can be caught in
the same way registered vehicles are. Which is rather a difficult
job.
Not just working out how to fit a registration label that can be read
by both machines and people, but what to do about a bicycle that
doesn't have one. Hard to chase, hard to catch.
Public campaigns won't work because those who run red lights are quite
certain they are perfectly justified to do so. Whether they use the
"no harm" excuse or the "sustainable transport should have different
rules" excuse or the "safer than being in traffic" excuse, they are
certain that their convenience is more important than any rule. So a
campaign saying they shouldn't is going to have as much effect as a
campaign saying speeding drivers have small dicks if that campaign
isn't backed up by cameras and fines.
Work out how to register cyclists, work out how to catch unregistered
ones that do a runner, work out how to manage child cyclists in that
regime, then bicycles will become part of the transport network.
(I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
to fund, surely!)
Zebee
A
Adrian
Guest
BT Humble <[email protected]> writes:
> deejbah wrote:
>> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
>> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on
>> cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists
>> killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a
>> motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
> road rules every day?
Car commuters see cyclists "brazenly" breaking road rules every day yet
fail to far larger numbers of car commuters breaking road rules every
day.
An unfortunate fact of life for any minority, your faults get seen and
you have to be squeaky clean. People always see members of the "other
tribe" do the wrong thing and overlook members of their tribe doing the
exact same thing.
> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
They irritate me too, I see about a dozen a day at one intersection in
particular. Oh, they're all people driving cars, trucks and buses. I'm
lucky if I see two bikes a day in my ride to work.
> BTH
Adrian
> deejbah wrote:
>> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
>> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on
>> cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists
>> killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a
>> motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
> road rules every day?
Car commuters see cyclists "brazenly" breaking road rules every day yet
fail to far larger numbers of car commuters breaking road rules every
day.
An unfortunate fact of life for any minority, your faults get seen and
you have to be squeaky clean. People always see members of the "other
tribe" do the wrong thing and overlook members of their tribe doing the
exact same thing.
> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
They irritate me too, I see about a dozen a day at one intersection in
particular. Oh, they're all people driving cars, trucks and buses. I'm
lucky if I see two bikes a day in my ride to work.
> BTH
Adrian
E
Elmo
Guest
Adrian wrote:
> BT Humble <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> deejbah wrote:
>>> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
>>> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on
>>> cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists
>>> killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a
>>> motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
>
>> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
>> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
>> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
>> road rules every day?
>
> Car commuters see cyclists "brazenly" breaking road rules every day yet
> fail to far larger numbers of car commuters breaking road rules every
> day.
"Car commuters"? Which ones? Aren't you stereotyping car drivers? Is it
every car driver or just a very small minority? You're basing your
opinions on car commuters with the same generalization that you accuse
"car commuters" of making. If you have a thousand cars go past you and
then have a two "near misses" do you say all car commuters are bad
drivers or just the "very small minority", the 1/500th. If you want to
be righteous then first you have to be right, otherwise you end up like
George Bush, using torture and illegal imprisonment to fight people that
do exactly the same thing.
Elmo
>
> An unfortunate fact of life for any minority, your faults get seen and
> you have to be squeaky clean. People always see members of the "other
> tribe" do the wrong thing and overlook members of their tribe doing the
> exact same thing.
>
>> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
>
> They irritate me too, I see about a dozen a day at one intersection in
> particular. Oh, they're all people driving cars, trucks and buses. I'm
> lucky if I see two bikes a day in my ride to work.
>
>> BTH
> Adrian
> BT Humble <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> deejbah wrote:
>>> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
>>> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on
>>> cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists
>>> killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a
>>> motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
>
>> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
>> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
>> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
>> road rules every day?
>
> Car commuters see cyclists "brazenly" breaking road rules every day yet
> fail to far larger numbers of car commuters breaking road rules every
> day.
"Car commuters"? Which ones? Aren't you stereotyping car drivers? Is it
every car driver or just a very small minority? You're basing your
opinions on car commuters with the same generalization that you accuse
"car commuters" of making. If you have a thousand cars go past you and
then have a two "near misses" do you say all car commuters are bad
drivers or just the "very small minority", the 1/500th. If you want to
be righteous then first you have to be right, otherwise you end up like
George Bush, using torture and illegal imprisonment to fight people that
do exactly the same thing.
Elmo
>
> An unfortunate fact of life for any minority, your faults get seen and
> you have to be squeaky clean. People always see members of the "other
> tribe" do the wrong thing and overlook members of their tribe doing the
> exact same thing.
>
>> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
>
> They irritate me too, I see about a dozen a day at one intersection in
> particular. Oh, they're all people driving cars, trucks and buses. I'm
> lucky if I see two bikes a day in my ride to work.
>
>> BTH
> Adrian
B
BT Humble
Guest
Elmo wrote:
> ...If you want to
> be righteous then first you have to be right, otherwise you end up like
> George Bush, using torture and illegal imprisonment to fight people that
> do exactly the same thing.
Is that a version of Godwin's Law[1] for the new millenium? ;-)
BTH
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> ...If you want to
> be righteous then first you have to be right, otherwise you end up like
> George Bush, using torture and illegal imprisonment to fight people that
> do exactly the same thing.
Is that a version of Godwin's Law[1] for the new millenium? ;-)
BTH
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
E
Elmo
Guest
BT Humble wrote:
> Elmo wrote:
>> ...If you want to
>> be righteous then first you have to be right, otherwise you end up like
>> George Bush, using torture and illegal imprisonment to fight people that
>> do exactly the same thing.
>
> Is that a version of Godwin's Law[1] for the new millenium? ;-)
>
>
> BTH
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Err..
Sort of.
Reading your Wiki link gives me the impression that things like swear
words should be saved for special occasions, otherwise if you hit your
thumb with a hammer you won't have any especially bad words to exclaim,
the swear words have been debased. The point I was making in my posting
was that you can't fight stereotyping with stereotyping if you want to
keep the high moral ground.
> Elmo wrote:
>> ...If you want to
>> be righteous then first you have to be right, otherwise you end up like
>> George Bush, using torture and illegal imprisonment to fight people that
>> do exactly the same thing.
>
> Is that a version of Godwin's Law[1] for the new millenium? ;-)
>
>
> BTH
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Err..
Sort of.
Reading your Wiki link gives me the impression that things like swear
words should be saved for special occasions, otherwise if you hit your
thumb with a hammer you won't have any especially bad words to exclaim,
the swear words have been debased. The point I was making in my posting
was that you can't fight stereotyping with stereotyping if you want to
keep the high moral ground.
Elmo said:
Riding home 11:30 Monday night on Brighton Road, an alwighty thwack on on my lower leght back. The Car turned off right, then I turned off left and then paralleled the main road. Thwack. Lower right back. The driver had circled back. Not all drivers but this driver and mates thought my being on a bicycle gave them a license.
Adelaide.
South Australia.
B
beerwolf
Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Work out how to register cyclists, work out how to catch unregistered
> ones that do a runner, work out how to manage child cyclists in that
> regime, then bicycles will become part of the transport network.
>
> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
> to fund, surely!)
Are you serious? (I suspect not). I can think of at least a dozen
social ills, any one of which could be attacked by similar
zero tolerance overkill and with a better payoff. Red light runners
irritate me too, but the actual real harm they do is only likely to
be to themselves.
--
beerwolf
> Work out how to register cyclists, work out how to catch unregistered
> ones that do a runner, work out how to manage child cyclists in that
> regime, then bicycles will become part of the transport network.
>
> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
> to fund, surely!)
Are you serious? (I suspect not). I can think of at least a dozen
social ills, any one of which could be attacked by similar
zero tolerance overkill and with a better payoff. Red light runners
irritate me too, but the actual real harm they do is only likely to
be to themselves.
--
beerwolf
beerwolf said:
Harsh observation, but probably has some validity to it.
On the subject of cycling incidents we've all probably seen some terrible bunch crashes either on the telly or in real life, but they totally pale when compared to the carnage that can occur when things go wrong and motorised vehicles & humans are involved. Any observation of the RTA and TAC daily stats will bear that up, as will terrible incidents on Florida's Interstate 4 in the US.
To paraphrase a article in yesterdays Age, I've never heard of a similar cycling mishap that involved a combination of ten accidents, involving 70 bicycles, that killed four people and injured 38 others. With five of them in critical condition, according to the authorities, with the largest of the accidents involved 43 bicycles.
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-10, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
> to fund, surely!)
Woops! I seem to have accidentally placed my bicycle in my microwave!
Sorry officer!
--
TimC
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@# Error: Missing Carrier Signal
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
> to fund, surely!)
Woops! I seem to have accidentally placed my bicycle in my microwave!
Sorry officer!
--
TimC
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@# Error: Missing Carrier Signal
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-10, Elmo (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Adrian wrote:
>> BT Humble <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> deejbah wrote:
>>>> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
>>>> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on
>>>> cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists
>>>> killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a
>>>> motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
>>
>>> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
>>> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
>>> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
>>> road rules every day?
>>
>> Car commuters see cyclists "brazenly" breaking road rules every day yet
>> fail to far larger numbers of car commuters breaking road rules every
>> day.
>
> "Car commuters"? Which ones? Aren't you stereotyping car drivers? Is it
> every car driver or just a very small minority? You're basing your
> opinions on car commuters with the same generalization that you accuse
> "car commuters" of making.
Well, it's pretty close to everyone.
Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they turn
amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red light when it
was safe for them to stop.
That's at least how many people are willing to run red lights. The
first person to stop may have stopped because
1) They were law abiding
or
2) They were so far behind the previous cars that they couldn't
possibly justify to themselves blatantly breaking through the red
light that late. If they were just a moment earlier, they would have
happily gone through the red light, but the traffic has already
started to flow in the other directions
I have been at intersections where I have counted 5 cars in one lane
go through the red. That's about 10 seconds worth, assuming they
weren't also driving dangerously through other means. The 6th car was
too slow, and the cars behind have to then of course stop. That
implies that at least 5/6th (it is a lower limit as per above) of car
drivers at that intersection are happy lawbreakers. Maybe at other
intersections, they wouldn't break the law so blatantly.
> If you have a thousand cars go past you and
> then have a two "near misses" do you say all car commuters are bad
> drivers or just the "very small minority", the 1/500th.
No, you multiply it by how many intersections and potential
interactions (outside of your field of view) are on an average
journey.
--
TimC
"How much caffeine do you consume on a daily basis?"
"Dependink on how you mean? Liquid, solid or gas? " -- Pitr/User Friendly
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Adrian wrote:
>> BT Humble <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> deejbah wrote:
>>>> Police have 'launched a safety 'blitz''
>>>> (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134767.htm) on
>>>> cyclists failing to obey road rules, using the number of cyclists
>>>> killed in accidents deemed the responsiblity of someone driving a
>>>> motor vehicle as a bizarre justification for the 'crackdown'.
>>
>>> Fair point. However, doesn't it make it much more difficult for our
>>> various cycling lobby groups to claim the tactically valuable Moral
>>> High Ground when car commuters get to see cyclists brazenly breaking
>>> road rules every day?
>>
>> Car commuters see cyclists "brazenly" breaking road rules every day yet
>> fail to far larger numbers of car commuters breaking road rules every
>> day.
>
> "Car commuters"? Which ones? Aren't you stereotyping car drivers? Is it
> every car driver or just a very small minority? You're basing your
> opinions on car commuters with the same generalization that you accuse
> "car commuters" of making.
Well, it's pretty close to everyone.
Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they turn
amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red light when it
was safe for them to stop.
That's at least how many people are willing to run red lights. The
first person to stop may have stopped because
1) They were law abiding
or
2) They were so far behind the previous cars that they couldn't
possibly justify to themselves blatantly breaking through the red
light that late. If they were just a moment earlier, they would have
happily gone through the red light, but the traffic has already
started to flow in the other directions
I have been at intersections where I have counted 5 cars in one lane
go through the red. That's about 10 seconds worth, assuming they
weren't also driving dangerously through other means. The 6th car was
too slow, and the cars behind have to then of course stop. That
implies that at least 5/6th (it is a lower limit as per above) of car
drivers at that intersection are happy lawbreakers. Maybe at other
intersections, they wouldn't break the law so blatantly.
> If you have a thousand cars go past you and
> then have a two "near misses" do you say all car commuters are bad
> drivers or just the "very small minority", the 1/500th.
No, you multiply it by how many intersections and potential
interactions (outside of your field of view) are on an average
journey.
--
TimC
"How much caffeine do you consume on a daily basis?"
"Dependink on how you mean? Liquid, solid or gas? " -- Pitr/User Friendly
J
John Henderson
Guest
TimC wrote:
> Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as
> they turn amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and
> red light when it was safe for them to stop.
And count how many cars won't stop for pedestrians when crossing
footpaths, while entering or leaving service stations for
example.
John
> Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as
> they turn amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and
> red light when it was safe for them to stop.
And count how many cars won't stop for pedestrians when crossing
footpaths, while entering or leaving service stations for
example.
John
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:13:01 +1100
aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> and then paralleled the main road. Thwack. Lower right back. The driver
> had circled back. Not all drivers but this driver and mates thought my
> being on a bicycle gave them a license.
This man and mates.
THe car is incidental except it meant they were near you, and to some
extent the feeling of safety probably dictated the expression of their
arseholeness.
But they are arseholes, that's the point. It's not "car driver".
Don't get hung up on the transport, there are several million drivers
of cars who don't do that.
But some cyclists get hung up on the few who do, and so perpetuate a silly
stereotype.
As an exercise, count for me over the next week the number of cars
that pass you and the driver *doesn't* do anything bad to you.
Zebee
aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> and then paralleled the main road. Thwack. Lower right back. The driver
> had circled back. Not all drivers but this driver and mates thought my
> being on a bicycle gave them a license.
This man and mates.
THe car is incidental except it meant they were near you, and to some
extent the feeling of safety probably dictated the expression of their
arseholeness.
But they are arseholes, that's the point. It's not "car driver".
Don't get hung up on the transport, there are several million drivers
of cars who don't do that.
But some cyclists get hung up on the few who do, and so perpetuate a silly
stereotype.
As an exercise, count for me over the next week the number of cars
that pass you and the driver *doesn't* do anything bad to you.
Zebee
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:56:14 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they turn
> amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red light when it
> was safe for them to stop.
On my motorcycle commute yesterday, at 6 sets of lights, none.
Next?
It happens a lot in Adelaide with right turns. Usually because 3
people are queued in the intersection and they all turn on the amber
and red, then 2 more, then there's a moment's gap, then the other side
turns greeen.
Lots less in Sydney because the red/green gap is far shorter.
Stand at an intersection used by bicycles. Count the number of red
light runners as a percentage of bicycles. Count the number of red
lights runners as percentage of cars.
Zebee
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they turn
> amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red light when it
> was safe for them to stop.
On my motorcycle commute yesterday, at 6 sets of lights, none.
Next?
It happens a lot in Adelaide with right turns. Usually because 3
people are queued in the intersection and they all turn on the amber
and red, then 2 more, then there's a moment's gap, then the other side
turns greeen.
Lots less in Sydney because the red/green gap is far shorter.
Stand at an intersection used by bicycles. Count the number of red
light runners as a percentage of bicycles. Count the number of red
lights runners as percentage of cars.
Zebee
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:20:05 GMT
beerwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
>> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
>> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
>> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
>> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
>> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
>> to fund, surely!)
>
> Are you serious? (I suspect not). I can think of at least a dozen
Not really. However it does have to be thought about.
> social ills, any one of which could be attacked by similar
> zero tolerance overkill and with a better payoff. Red light runners
> irritate me too, but the actual real harm they do is only likely to
> be to themselves.
Well I can see that world peace is a better thing to strive for than
road safety for cyclists, so obviously no one should bother about road
safety for cyclists.
What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist
what are the reasons not to do it?
Zebee
beerwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
>> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
>> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
>> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
>> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
>> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
>> to fund, surely!)
>
> Are you serious? (I suspect not). I can think of at least a dozen
Not really. However it does have to be thought about.
> social ills, any one of which could be attacked by similar
> zero tolerance overkill and with a better payoff. Red light runners
> irritate me too, but the actual real harm they do is only likely to
> be to themselves.
Well I can see that world peace is a better thing to strive for than
road safety for cyclists, so obviously no one should bother about road
safety for cyclists.
What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist
what are the reasons not to do it?
Zebee
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:48:00 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-10, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
>> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
>> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
>> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
>> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
>> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
>> to fund, surely!)
>
> Woops! I seem to have accidentally placed my bicycle in my microwave!
> Sorry officer!
"Bad luck Sir, that will be a $500 fine for riding with an inoperative
chip, you'll get the bicycle back when you pay the fine and the $100
impoundment fee. You can pay now by credit card to avoid the impoundment
fee. Oh, you can't carrying a spare tyre? You'll have to carry it
home, remember you can't take it on the train."
Zebee
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-10, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
>> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
>> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
>> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
>> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
>> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
>> to fund, surely!)
>
> Woops! I seem to have accidentally placed my bicycle in my microwave!
> Sorry officer!
"Bad luck Sir, that will be a $500 fine for riding with an inoperative
chip, you'll get the bicycle back when you pay the fine and the $100
impoundment fee. You can pay now by credit card to avoid the impoundment
fee. Oh, you can't carrying a spare tyre? You'll have to carry it
home, remember you can't take it on the train."
Zebee
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> BT Humble <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
> Cyclists do it because they can. There are various ways of justifying
> it, all of which are flimsy at best, but people will do the most
> amazing things to justify their own selfishness.
>
> Problem is... well it is herding cats isn't it?
Shotgun works.
> How can it be stopped? The only way is to make the risk not worth the
> reward.
<snip>
> Work out how to register cyclists, work out how to catch unregistered
> ones that do a runner, work out how to manage child cyclists in that
> regime, then bicycles will become part of the transport network.
>
> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
> to fund, surely!)
Here ya go. Tag them?
http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
Theo
> BT Humble <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I know that the red light runners irritate me.
> Cyclists do it because they can. There are various ways of justifying
> it, all of which are flimsy at best, but people will do the most
> amazing things to justify their own selfishness.
>
> Problem is... well it is herding cats isn't it?
Shotgun works.
> How can it be stopped? The only way is to make the risk not worth the
> reward.
<snip>
> Work out how to register cyclists, work out how to catch unregistered
> ones that do a runner, work out how to manage child cyclists in that
> regime, then bicycles will become part of the transport network.
>
> (I wonder if RFID chips could work, with cops and parking cops
> equipped with hand held scanners, and a backpack full of locks. A
> bike without a chip gets locked up and the truck comes by later to
> impound it. Plainclothes spotters at intersections with readers walk
> out, scan the bike, and slash the tyres to stop the owner riding off
> then lock the bike... Only cost each rider a couple of hundred a year
> to fund, surely!)
Here ya go. Tag them?
http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
Theo
P
PeteSig
Guest
"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
> Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
> available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist
> what are the reasons not to do it?
Because we would see a drop in cycling by.. ooh.. say 50-70% at that 'road
safety fee'. And an overall reduction in road safety with more cars on the
roads and fewer cyclists about (oops, sorry people on bikes)
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
> Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
> available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist
> what are the reasons not to do it?
Because we would see a drop in cycling by.. ooh.. say 50-70% at that 'road
safety fee'. And an overall reduction in road safety with more cars on the
roads and fewer cyclists about (oops, sorry people on bikes)
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
