Jump to content
Peter

Looks like I’ll never pay rego for a pushbike.

Recommended Posts

Indeed a good response but you can't fix stupid.

I used to have the argument in the UK whenever people talk about "paying road tax" on bikes... Pointing out that "Road Tax" was abolished by Winston Churchill and what they are talking about is Vehicle Excise Duty which is waived on low polluting vehicles... undeniable, objective facts... but it makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crazy thing is you could go to most of these peoples houses and they would own a bike of some form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peter said:

The crazy thing is you could go to most of these peoples houses and they would own a bike of some form.

Ha ha, that’s different though, they just ride them on holidays down the middle of the road, half cut with no helmet and wearing thongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The new guy said:

Ha ha, that’s different though, they just ride them on holidays down the middle of the road, half cut with no helmet and wearing thongs.

Or to work at the factory when they've lost their licence for DD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, monkie said:

Indeed a good response but you can't fix stupid.

I used to have the argument in the UK whenever people talk about "paying road tax" on bikes... Pointing out that "Road Tax" was abolished by Winston Churchill and what they are talking about is Vehicle Excise Duty which is waived on low polluting vehicles... undeniable, objective facts... but it makes no difference.

Very very few qualify for exemption now. (Since March 2017)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FatPom said:

Very very few qualify for exemption now. (Since March 2017)

But bikes would surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, monkie said:

But bikes would surely?

oh yeah for sure, and horses :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good response overall. But I really dislike the comments around roads being paid from general taxation. But they then say that many bike riders also own cars which pay rego. This is a silly argument as it is paid from general taxation or not. It also opens the argument around those that own multiple cars or cars and motorbikes having to paying multiple rego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ashley_s said:

Good response overall. But I really dislike the comments around roads being paid from general taxation. But they then say that many bike riders also own cars which pay rego. This is a silly argument as it is paid from general taxation or not. It also opens the argument around those that own multiple cars or cars and motorbikes having to paying multiple rego.

This is something that does annoy me. Why do I have to pay rego on my scooter and on my car! I can only drive one at a time. The same with the rego on my trailer and caravan which are only on the road for a few hours a year.

My suggestion would be to move the cost of 3rd party insurance (which is 90% of the registration cost) to your drivers licence. After all it is the driver that causes the accident not the car.

Of course if those #$%^ cyclists paid rego I wouldn't have to pay multiple rego's! 😋 (Instead I would have to pay multiply bike rego on my TT, road, mountain bikes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ironnerd said:

My suggestion would be to move the cost of 3rd party insurance (which is 90% of the registration cost) to your drivers licence. After all it is the driver that causes the accident not the car.

It kind-of makes sense, but then do I have to pay 2 lots of third-party (wife & I) for the one car? And do i have to pay the equivalent 3rd party for a truck, just because I have a truck licence and may one day need it, but haven't used it for 15 years?

It's a very messy argument either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They still need the same total amount of money to cover third-party insurance costs so either we pay for multiple vehicles or we pay significantly more once.  Potato, potato ( that phrase kind of loses it's effect when written.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system in the UK is completely different. We don't have "Rego" like over here but instead it's all seperate. So you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (commonly incorrectly known as Road Tax) to have a vehicle parked or used on a public road but it doesn't cover any kind of insurance. To drive a car you need to be insured on that vehicle the policy is (usually) linked to named drivers and to the car. In some instances you can have anybody drive the car third party and some insurance gives you the right to drive any other vehicle third party as long as that car is insured by somebody. You then need an MOT (same as one of the slips here, I forget which one) which confirms the vehicle is roadworthy. 

It basically ends up meaning that third party only insurance is very expensive for young drivers (and fully comp usually prohibitive for anybody under 21) and we also have a much bigger problem with uninsured drivers although you never have the weird situation where if somebody takes you out then you have to sue them for the damage to property unless they are committing a crime and driving uninsured. 

Having experienced both systems, neither is better than the other... so potato potarto and the grass isn't always greener :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, monkie said:

the grass isn't always greener :)

The grass is always greener in the UK coz it rains for 364 days of the year !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ironnerd said:

The grass is always greener in the UK coz it rains for 364 days of the year !

That's why the cows are happy  (but mad!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even my wife said last night when we saw this on the project, "the bike lane looked better than the road, I don't know why they wouldn't use it".

I said we don't know the area, for all we know the was a legitimate reason for avoiding it.  Also note that the cyclists asked the guy to pull over so they could discuss it and the driver refused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take was that it ‘looked’ like a share path, which is not always the safest to ride fast with kids, pets etc. but I also saw the riders and didn’t think there was any reason to be riding wide like that. That’s what pisses motorists off most - if they were single file on the white line, no one cares.

Disclaimer-I don’t know the area, so that’s based on assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically you can’t go faster than 10km per hour I believe. 

Not that anyone obeys that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclists riding legally on road observe car driver driving illegally on a bike path, using a camera, whilst threatening two road users.

He was probably driving to fast on that bike path. He did all of this while having a license and paying rego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently there's a perfectly good highway running parallel to this road that they spent millions on for cars. Why wasn't this idiot using that?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it both ways... I know that path (I rode it a few weeks ago) and there is absolutely no reason you couldn't ride on it and not the road. Also why not pull as far left as possible and let the car through instead of two abreast like dicks? 

I feel there's a bit of blame both ways on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, willie said:

Also why not pull as far left as possible and let the car through instead of two abreast like dicks? 

Depends on whether they were given the opportunity or not.

The driver may have chosen his path before the bikes even knew he was behind them, had they known they may well have had pulled single file and let him by. 

Either way this stuff does no good for the car v's cyclist debate, and the driver being fined now probably makes it worse again. The bogans get more uppity about the injustice of it all, and cycling vigilantes will get more smug, inciting more bogans

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be shocked, on a road like that, of the cyclists wouldn't have dropped to single when they realised a car was behind them.

I mean, does anyone here know anyone that would stay double on such a road?  Certainly when there's no cars.  I've ridden double on plenty of country roads, but we always drop to single for cars etc.  Even our larger groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, goughy said:

I'd be shocked, on a road like that, of the cyclists wouldn't have dropped to single when they realised a car was behind them.

I mean, does anyone here know anyone that would stay double on such a road?  Certainly when there's no cars.  I've ridden double on plenty of country roads, but we always drop to single for cars etc.  Even our larger groups.

The issue with this argument though is that more cyclists are riding with music/podcasts playing in their ears, and we are starting to see more electric cars on the road that are not going to make enough noise for people to hear over the wind/podcast until the car is right on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The issue with this argument though is that more cyclists are riding with music/podcasts playing in their ears, and we are starting to see more electric cars on the road that are not going to make enough noise for people to hear over the wind/podcast until the car is right on them.

I reckon you hear more tyre noise than engine at over 40km’hr anyway... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The issue with this argument though is that more cyclists are riding with music/podcasts playing in their ears, 

This really gives me the shits.... I spend so much time coming behind riders who are oblivious to me being there, then act put out when i go past or ring bell (pedestrian syndrome anyone..)

Not only dangerous, but they clearly dont value their hearing. i dont think most realise how loud the music has to be to hear it in external conditions and even more so when you are riding with the wind noise.. you hear how loud it is when people are in the changing rooms at work and their music is audible from 30 metres away.. 

They should contact @willie for some trekz titanium although I dont think they work that well with the wind noise either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, goughy said:

I'd be shocked, on a road like that, of the cyclists wouldn't have dropped to single when they realised a car was behind them.

I mean, does anyone here know anyone that would stay double on such a road?  Certainly when there's no cars.  I've ridden double on plenty of country roads, but we always drop to single for cars etc.  Even our larger groups.

Have you ever been down Beach road in Vic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly I'm a romantic.......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2019 at 8:59 AM, FatPom said:

oh yeah for sure, and horses :lol:

What about horse farts and poo? Or the poo bags! 🤢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MissJess said:

What about horse farts and poo? Or the poo bags! 🤢

No problem these days. :)

Image result for horse nappy bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this is and I am not condoning the riders being 2 abreast on this road (the pictures can be deceiving) it is about 800 metres of cycle path on a 8k stretch of road the rest being far more dangerous and undualating then this. Why the outcry over 800 metres when the rest of the road is far harder to overtake in a car (and a lot more dangerous) I really  don’t know. I live here and train on it and our local Tri Club do their  club group training in this road. This weekend is a training weekend do we funnel 30 plus riders onto the track to go out and back, that’s not going to work. We actually turn at the end of this cycleway and head back to the river.

Ninety percent of the time I use the path when riding this route but when I am at pace I use the road and after 20 years of riding it I have never had an issue, unfortunately social media has just made life harder for all of us around here. This guy now is the local hero and even my neighbours are putting him up on a pedestal. Sad really 😞

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the rope being?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, goughy said:

The point of the rope being?????

"Clothes lining". I've heard it being done on trails that can be legitimately used by mountain bikers, but the rabid greenies still hate it.

 Depending on how fast you are going when you hit it it can cause death. Fishing wire is the weapon of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess they're trying to stop their animals going that way?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, goughy said:

I'd be shocked, on a road like that, of the cyclists wouldn't have dropped to single when they realised a car was behind them.

I mean, does anyone here know anyone that would stay double on such a road?  Certainly when there's no cars.  I've ridden double on plenty of country roads, but we always drop to single for cars etc.  Even our larger groups.

We don't know what happened in the lead up. I reckon the douchebag in the car decided from a long way back that he was going to do what he did, so he probably didnt even come up behind them. Chances are, they would've moved to single if he had done that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AA7 said:

We don't know what happened in the lead up. I reckon the douchebag in the car decided from a long way back that he was going to do what he did, so he probably didnt even come up behind them. Chances are, they would've moved to single if he had done that. 

I have to disagree unfortunately. The majority of non-solo riders I encounter when in a car will continue to sit 2 abreast for much of the river loop despite having the opportunity to go single file, and despite the ever growing snarl of increasingly angry drivers behind them.. To me it is a courtesy/etiquette issue. Sure you are allowed to ride 2 a breast but technically you are allowed to fart in an elevator. Doesnt mean you should do it, and by doing so you are not going to win any friends...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, goughy said:

The point of the rope being?????

Put up to keep the cattle from straying, no intent by the farmers to hurt or maim cyclist at all. I posted this to illustrate why the track may not be used at times as more often than not this is in place. 

Edited by Flashgaza
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, willie said:

I reckon you hear more tyre noise than engine at over 40km’hr anyway... 

Have you ridden a bike at 40 kph since head phones were invented?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pieman said:

I have to disagree unfortunately. The majority of non-solo riders I encounter when in a car will continue to sit 2 abreast for much of the river loop despite having the opportunity to go single file, and despite the ever growing snarl of increasingly angry drivers behind them.. To me it is a courtesy/etiquette issue. Sure you are allowed to ride 2 a breast but technically you are allowed to fart in an elevator. Doesnt mean you should do it, and by doing so you are not going to win any friends...

Fair enough, but we don't know that they wouldnt have moved over if the car had been on the road behind them. 

Edited by AA7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter, there is a clear offence being committed and its by the car driver. its not the cyclist job to make sure they  are not attacked or harassed.

The guy in the car is the problem not the the bike riders.

Victims are not to blame for the actions of their attackers

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AA7 said:

Fair enough, but we don't know that they wouldnt have moved over if the car had been on the road behind them. 

No we don't and I maybe stereotyping all riders but it's based on what I see as a more and more common attitude..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pieman said:

I have to disagree unfortunately. The majority of non-solo riders I encounter when in a car will continue to sit 2 abreast for much of the river loop despite having the opportunity to go single file, and despite the ever growing snarl of increasingly angry drivers behind them.. To me it is a courtesy/etiquette issue. Sure you are allowed to ride 2 a breast but technically you are allowed to fart in an elevator. Doesnt mean you should do it, and by doing so you are not going to win any friends...

Bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AA7 said:

Fair enough, but we don't know that they wouldnt have moved over if the car had been on the road behind them. 

As I suggested, the car was on the path from a long way back. This is part of the police statement.

Screenshot_2019-01-30-21-36-00-1.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

Does it matter, there is a clear offence being committed and its by the car driver. its not the cyclist job to make sure they  are not attacked or harassed.

The guy in the car is the problem not the the bike riders.

Victims are not to blame for the actions of their attackers

Bingo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...