|
ID laws are apparently only for adults. It seems like an oversight that this is even legal, it's bad enough that you even have to carry ID while driving.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
open24hours posted:ID laws are apparently only for adults. It seems like an oversight that this is even legal, it's bad enough that you even have to carry ID while driving. Not trolling here, but why is having to carry ID bad? I'm legitimately curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:Not trolling here, but why is having to carry ID bad? I'm legitimately curious. It's problematic for people who don't have *approved* ID. Just like with voter ID laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Makes sense for driving sinc eyou will have a drivers license to be legally allowed to drive. But you don't need a license to cycle, so you could conceivably not own a photo ID.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:Not trolling here, but why is having to carry ID bad? I'm legitimately curious. For the same reason it would be bad if you had to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt. ID laws are just a way for police to harass people and go on fishing trips when they don't like the looks of someone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
I don't like the photo ID part of the law but the upped fines for going through red lights and crossings and the like are great. Hopefully they actually get applied at some point since the amount of cyclists I see going straight through those is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Makes sense for driving sinc eyou will have a drivers license to be legally allowed to drive. But you don't need a license to cycle, so you could conceivably not own a photo ID. Yeah, the biggest problem group with every type of photo ID, it seems, are people who don't have a driver's license. Getting properly workable photo ID outside of a driver's license can be a loving task, especially if you need to shoot for a Proof of Age card and aren't tremendously well-grounded in the sorts of thigns they ask for. Annoyingly, the easiest way to get a Proof of Age card is to have a driver's license, but if you have a driver's license you don't need it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
open24hours posted:For the same reason it would be bad if you had to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt. ID laws are just a way for police to harass people and go on fishing trips when they don't like the looks of someone. dulux_colour_chart.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
iajanus posted:I don't like the photo ID part of the law but the upped fines for going through red lights and crossings and the like are great. Hopefully they actually get applied at some point since the amount of cyclists I see going straight through those is ridiculous. It doesn't stop drivers from doing it at all and sure as poo poo doesn't get enforced there. It's about making life difficult for cyclists and not for any safety purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:It doesn't stop drivers from doing it at all and sure as poo poo doesn't get enforced there. It's about making life difficult for cyclists and not for any safety purpose. That doesn't seem to parse for me, can you please explain your post? I'm reasonably certain I've observed drivers being pulled over for going through red lights and the like, and although it's not a perfect system it's hard not to argue it's a safety feature. Why shouldn't cyclists be required to obey road rules, and how is this attempting to make their lives difficult (ignoring the ID part at the moment, which clearly is stupid at best).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
The ID requirement is dumb as hell but we gotta stop the brown people so v0v
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:It doesn't stop drivers from doing it at all and sure as poo poo doesn't get enforced there. It's about making life difficult for cyclists and not for any safety purpose. Where do you live that laws against running a red light or not stopping for pedestrians at a crossing are not enforced?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Lid posted:helmet bike chat I will never understand some peoples antagonism towards cyclists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
iajanus posted:That doesn't seem to parse for me, can you please explain your post? I'm reasonably certain I've observed drivers being pulled over for going through red lights and the like, and although it's not a perfect system it's hard not to argue it's a safety feature. Why shouldn't cyclists be required to obey road rules, and how is this attempting to make their lives difficult (ignoring the ID part at the moment, which clearly is stupid at best). Cyclists are already required to obey road rules all of this is just to punish cyclists and make it less appealing / more of a hassle. If they gave a poo poo about making things safer for road users then they'd ensure that existing rules are enforced and add rules in to provide cyclists with much stronger protection from their biggest danger which is cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Where do you live that laws against running a red light or not stopping for pedestrians at a crossing are not enforced? Sydney, I've nearly been hit by police at pedestrian crossings and they still just do the 'lol sorry didn't see you' wave and gently caress right off. As for red lights, given how cavalier people are around them the rules aren't enforced anywhere near enough to make people give a poo poo about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Why not just make it four THOUSAND dollars and then nobody will ever think about doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
I've actually been hit by cyclist at a traffic light in Brisbane, whilst I started crossing the road at the lights the cyclist just came out of the traffic and hit me. He was like "oh sorry mate" and then just kept riding
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:Cyclists are already required to obey road rules all of this is just to punish cyclists and make it less appealing / more of a hassle. If they gave a poo poo about making things safer for road users then they'd ensure that existing rules are enforced and add rules in to provide cyclists with much stronger protection from their biggest danger which is cars. Cyclists are already required to obey road rules but (from my limited experience) there are a number of them that appear to not care about doing so. As such, the punishment appears not to be effective in being a deterrent. It would be nicer if the rules we have were enforced against cyclists more, but in the meantime this would seem to be a decent stopgap to "encourage" cyclists to obey the law. We should definitely be doing as much as we can to help protect cyclists from cars, but in the meantime we are actually capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time and can do this too. We should definitely be trying to enforce the rules against other road-users, too, and I'd be fine if there was a fine hike on those sorts of of offences against them too since these are the kinds of infringements that can extremely easily turn deadly (as opposed to parking fines and the like which generally harm nobody, at least not physically). Are you seriously saying that by making it expensive for cyclists to run red lights it'll be unappealing to ride your bike or a massive hassle? Really?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Motor vehicle driver training is seriously lacking WRT how to actually deal with cyclists on the road. Having John Shitdick driving and getting mad about the people who don't "pay rego or nuthin but they hog the road" isn't actually helping at all. Also better road design with actual bike lanes would help aswell
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
First Dog:
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
iajanus posted:Cyclists are already required to obey road rules but (from my limited experience) there are a number of them that appear to not care about doing so. As such, the punishment appears not to be effective in being a deterrent. It would be nicer if the rules we have were enforced against cyclists more, but in the meantime this would seem to be a decent stopgap to "encourage" cyclists to obey the law. We should definitely be doing as much as we can to help protect cyclists from cars, but in the meantime we are actually capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time and can do this too. We should definitely be trying to enforce the rules against other road-users, too, and I'd be fine if there was a fine hike on those sorts of of offences against them too since these are the kinds of infringements that can extremely easily turn deadly (as opposed to parking fines and the like which generally harm nobody, at least not physically). So close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
open24hours posted:So close. Yes? The current fine is hilariously low and wouldn't make most people blink. This is actually something we are allowed to rectify. More enforcement is also critical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
This government has also been ripping up bike paths left right and centre. This is nothing but another punitive step in the interest of making sure no one rides bikes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Yes. The goal is to make riding a bike slightly more annoying and thus make you just go "ugh gently caress this I'll just drive". Like helmets. edit: here's a cool article (from a British point of view) about why almost everyone would rather cycling didn't take off https://medium.com/@lastwheel/peddling-bullshit-d187631e3ede#.a6t6v58kl
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
I've had to visit Sydney quite a bit and I cant even envision myself driving, much less cycling in that city's nightmare traffic
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
lol just lol if you live anywhere outside a 10km radius from the city of sydney and use a bike as a primary form of transport. it was never intended and should never be trusted unless you dont value you life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Sydney: not intended to be lived in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
So in a shocking turn of events the government is recommending that weekend penalty rates be cut for retail workers. FOAD, you bastards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
The listing isn't up any more, does anyone know if someone paid 90K for that weed hat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:So in a shocking turn of events the government is recommending that weekend penalty rates be cut for retail workers. Hospitality, isn't it? Still hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
For those who are against raising the fines for cyclists running red lights / failing to stop at pedestrian crossings to match the monetary value for committing the same offense in a car, can you please tell me why? So far I've seen two reasons: 1) The rules aren't enforced anyway, so why bother (??? lol) 2) It's a disincentive for cycling Both of which do not parse for me. I am a cyclist who commutes 90 km a week. I see no problem with cyclists facing the same penalties for breaking traffic rules as those in cars. However, ID laws can gently caress off. Helmet laws, well, I don't care either way. If removing helmet laws gets more people on bikes, then great. However, I will always wear a helmet because I'm not an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
my stepdads beer posted:Hospitality, isn't it? Still hosed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-21/productivity-commission-recommends-changes-to-penalty-rates/7045624 quote:Penalty rates: Productivity Commission recommends changes to weekend pay for entertainment, hospitality and retail workers By political reporter Stephanie Anderson Updated about an hour ago So typical Tory small target strategy. Strip Entertainment, Hospitality and Retail workers of their rights because who the gently caress cares about those tossers. Two tiered IR landscapes are the utter death of egalitarianism. This is the thin edge of a very loving nasty wedge. -/- Here's a piece on our tax dilema from Ian Verrender. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-21/verrender-how-our-tax-take-has-been-royally-scrooged/7044470 -/- Speaking of the ALP (Well if I don't nobody will). What ever happened to darling of the left Doug Cameron? He's a shadow minister but I haven't heard squat from him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Paracetamol posted:For those who are against raising the fines for cyclists running red lights / failing to stop at pedestrian crossings to match the monetary value for committing the same offense in a car, can you please tell me why? It should be a much heavier punishment for breaking road rules in a car because you cause more harm in a car. We should be discouraging car travel and encouraging cycling, for all the reasons you probably already know. If you aren't an idiot why don't you know this already? (I am being deliberately antagonistic because helmets don't make enough a difference either way so that isn't a good enough justification)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
asio posted:It should be a much heavier punishment for breaking road rules in a car because you cause more harm in a car. Should they also scale by the weight and type of your car, and what pedestrian safety instruments it has?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
hooman posted:Should they also scale by the weight and type of your car, and what pedestrian safety instruments it has? Yes because there is a smaller chance of death if you get hit by a ford than a holden
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
asio posted:Yes because there is a smaller chance of death if you get hit by a ford than a holden There's a substantial difference in your chance of death if you get hit by a sedan and a 4wd though. EDIT for data: "Compared with cars, the RR of killing a pedestrian per vehicle mile was 7.97 (95% CI 6.33 to 10.04) for buses; 1.93 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.86) for motorcycles; 1.45 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.55) for light trucks, and 0.96 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.18) for heavy trucks." EDIT2: From here: http://cyclinguphill.com/safe-cycling-stats-cycle-casualties/ Seems like there are more casualties on bikes than on cars per mile used so cycling penalties should be higher, and pedestrian penalties super high.  Or maybe we accept that all the people operating under the same road rules should have the sames fines for breaking those rules. Rather than trying to rate things by dangerousness? hooman fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
asio posted:It should be a much heavier punishment for breaking road rules in a car because you cause more harm in a car. Thank you for giving me a decent reason. Sure, if you hit something/someone on a bike you will do less harm than someone in a car. But it's not just about what you can do, it's also the harm that may arise as a direct result of your actions - a cyclist running a red light can cause plenty of harm indirectly by causing other people to crash to avoid you. I have had at least two good crashes where a helmet has saved me from hitting my head. I can't remember the details of the study, but below a certain speed I thought helmets do make a difference? hooman posted:Should they also scale by the weight and type of your car, and what pedestrian safety instruments it has? That was also a question in the back of my mind. Edit: What's RR? Paracetamol fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
hooman posted:There's a substantial difference in your chance of death if you get hit by a sedan and a 4wd though. Ok well I'm stumped now, you've got me confused. Let me get back to you tomorrow after I've stood in front of some moving traffic to see which hurts more. The number bicycle adovcacy groups use is the likelihood of getting hit in the first place. The safe number is 40km/h. Faster than that and the chance of suffering severe injury/death rises to almost 100% past 60km/h. The question of which kind of vehicle hurts more is so unimportant no one taking action on this issue really cares. It's like asking if you'd rather be eaten by ants or lions; uh, neither?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Paracetamol posted:Thank you for giving me a decent reason. Sure, if you hit something/someone on a bike you will do less harm than someone in a car. But it's not just about what you can do, it's also the harm that may arise as a direct result of your actions - a cyclist running a red light can cause plenty of harm indirectly by causing other people to crash to avoid you. Relative Risks. Should probably include the link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730245/
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
I wonder if distance is the best measure to compare car and motorcycle deaths to walking and cycling. Time traveling might be better, walking and cycling are slow so you spend more time exposed to risk per kilometre traveled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:40
|
|