were it reincarnated now would probably receive the same breathless analysis as the Internet Party – because it appeals to ‘disenfranchised yoof’.
But...they weren't even funny when I was a yoof. Maybe when my parents were yoofs that joke might have been fresh. Dotcom is at least a new joke. I'd vote for fat German internet freedom pirates over Monty Python Scottish monarchs any day (if that were the only choice).
Not that I would actually vote for either in reality. Didn't Dotcom give heaps of money to that utter fuxor John Banks?
I doubt a WOF would be anywhere near $150, it's only $30 for my car. Maybe you're thinking of the fine for not having one. Registration could be anything at all, though, since it's an arbitrary tax. I hate the whole thought of it, the idea of some parko dick sneaking around looking for bikes to bust for not paying their taxes, and cops wasting their time on it, giving them one more reason to stop people who are just going about their business, and fuck them around if they don't like the look of them.
a chain drive are in the law directly,
No shaft drives allowed?? Harsh! Or antiquated, more likely.
I suspect that it rapidly becomes unwieldy and unmanageable when applied to even a moderately-sized population.
I'm sure it could be done. It just seems like overkill until there is actually a serious problem with poorly maintained bikes on the road. Police can and do enforce the basic safety laws of wearing helmets and running at night with lights already. Going to the lengths of designing a testing system, with stipulations of all the bike metrics that must be satisfied, is a solution looking for a problem, IMHO. Let's get people on the bikes first before we start thinking up more ways to take bikes off people.
All the above doesn’t mean all old helmets will be perfect, it’s possible there will be cracks and flaws you can’t see. But the difference in safety between a new helmet and an old (second-hand) one is likely to be negligible.
If you could provide any evidence for that, I’d buy it. Bike helmets are pretty weak devices. However, the point still stands that there is no compulsion of any kind with other vehicles to couple the sale of a vehicle with a safety device standard, and I don’t think it’s at all practical to do so for bicycles. What is a bicycle anyway? It’s only got about 20 separate parts, any combination of which can be offered for sale, and they can be used for any purpose too. You might just be buying a bike for the stylish frame, and intending to replace every other part. Or you could be making a modern art masterpiece out of it.
It should not be impossible to sell a piece of shit old bicycle in a garage sale just because you haven’t got a helmet to give away with it. If you made such a law it could be circumvented in 1 minute by selling the bike as dismantled parts, and an assembly service. It is not on a seller of a vehicle to ensure the safety of a buyer in the goods they sell, except in so far as not to tell outright lies about the condition. This idea is hopelessly unrealistic about what the bicycle market is actually like.
Yet Davis is full of cyclists because the city is designed to allow cyclists safe and convenient routes. It’s also flat.
Yes, those would be the reasons, I’d expect. Bicycle registration is also probably a good idea in a place where bike theft is a massive problem, although an opt-in makes more sense to me. Also, they seem to have a big bicycle abandonment issue (I suggest that students finishing their studies would often leave a valueless bike behind*), which probably leads to people stealing and using unmaintained bicycles. Even seeing an unmaintained one gives police an excuse to check if it’s stolen. Davis is rather a special case, quite hard to compare it to a city 25 times it’s size like Auckland is.
*ETA About half of the population of Davis is students.
To protect the tree trunk from damage caused by huge volumes of urine? That's my guess.
I am not sure about much safer you are.
Completely anecdotally I can say that since I got much brighter lights, both front and rear, I’ve noticed vehicles giving me a wider berth and drivers noticing me from greater distances (when they are ahead and possibly going to pull out in front). I think that from behind they really just don’t want to be too close because it is a bit dazzling.
If you have ever navigated a boat at night, you would realise how confusing lights can be when you have no spatial clues.
Which is why they give you a wider berth, just as you would at sea if you saw a bunch of lights on a possibly intersecting path. You turn to make your adjustment early, so that both vessels know which side they will pass on. But that’s something anyone with boat management qualifications would know. Unfortunately in NZ there is nothing mandatory about that for small (but powerful) vessels.
By being a mobile disco, all they can see is a pile of flashing lights that give no spatial information.
If the lights are white, they’re coming toward you, and red if they’re going the same way. It’s the same as for motor vehicles (conveniently). Some people break this pattern, adorning their bike with color around the frame and lights on the wheels, but I’m yet to see evidence that it made them less safe. The most common excuse for hitting a cyclist was that they were not seen, rather than that they were confused by the color of the lights emanating from the Christmas tree that they smashed into.
You can’t sell a car without working lights, but you can sell a bike in that condition.
Can I put this “must have a helmet at sale” idea to bed by saying that statement is utterly false. You can sell a car in any condition whatsoever. You can sell it as a smashed up pile of junk if you like, and many people do this every day. A WOF is not compulsory for a sale. It is only compulsory if the vehicle is being driven on a public road, and is required before you can get the vehicle re-registered.
Furthermore, if you’ve done any research into helmets at all you’ll know that the number one piece of advice is to never, never, never buy a second hand helmet. It’s the most important safety equipment you will wear and you want to know that it is in good condition. Quite aside from the fact that head sizes vary a lot, as do style and comfort preferences, and budgets, I sure don’t want to have to pay extra for an old bike because the seller has to give me a shitty old helmet in the deal.
I can see the point of the idea, but I don’t think it’s a good one.
The idea of a WOF for bicycles is interesting, but I don’t think it would fly. It would make cycling considerably more costly, and they’d be giving tickets to children all the time. Way to kill cycling off.
Better education on safe cycling is a good idea though, to encourage more people to keep their bikes in good nick. Not sure what form that would take.
I assume the Waterview extension will also include more cycle lanes beside the motorway onwards towards Helensville.
Considering the money going into that intersection, I bloody hope the cycleway gets some look in. Ideally, since they're remodeling the entire thing, the cycleway would continue beside the motorway all the way past Pt Chev without having to go up the hill (but that should still be possible), and then cross Carrington Rd, weave through a suburban street, before reconnecting at Chamberlain Park Golf Course. Currently, if I'm trying to keep pace, I end up riding along a footpath, waiting for the ideal moment to jump the berm and kerb, before crossing the road diagonally between traffic. If the traffic is heavy, I'll drive past the entrance street and use the pedestrian crossing. Coming in the other direction, one has to pull a right hand turn across busy Carrington Rd, then ride past the entrance to the cycleway because it is blocked by metal bars, and then execute a 180 degree turn up the very narrow footpath, followed immediately by a sharp 90 with a metal bar in the middle of it, all on a heavily loaded pedestrian footpath into Unitec. That part ain't a cycleway, it's a bad footpath.
If it's that effect it would be the crepuscular one, surely - this was in the direction of the Sun. But yes, that's highly plausible, of course rays seen from below will appear straight. Thanks Ian.
ETA: So it's "technically" shadows from the earth, if you count clouds as being from the earth :-)