markz
100 TW
Governments can never do anything simple and easy!
How do police test compliance of ebike (Australia)
- Thread starter SaladFish
- Start date
Governments can never do anything simple and easy!
It may vary state to state, but the wording I've seen for the EN 15194 category is that the onus for compliance testing is placed on the manufacturer, who then adds a compliance plate that states it meets that standard. It's assuming that ebikes will be sold via retail channels as complete bikes, all certified. That probably leaves the 250W conversion kit bikes as illegal, and doesn't address the issue of fake compliance plates, or bikes that are modified to no longer meet the standards. I'd guess that so long as they aren't presenting a big problem it will all fly under the radar.
SaladFish
10 W
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 71
whatever said:
I went to the police station and they said they confiscate the ebike to be tested and returned if it passes the dyno test. How frequently the police can confiscate your ebike for testing was not determined. It would suck if you were going to work and the police decided you had to lose your job for being repeatedly late due to ebike confiscating.
Jestronix said:
Registration and insurance costs money while bicycle commuting saves money. Taxing someone that saves the government money is counter productive so it won't happen. At least not unless the motoring lobby gains too much power.
It is an interesting quirk that it is possible to go 40km per hour with 200w motor without pedaling with the right aerodynamics but the 250w motor is limited to 25km per hour.
Saladfish said:
Could you elaborate on how cyclists save the government money? I would have thought lost revenue from taxing fuel, GST tax on repairs and parts along with stamp duty. Rego and gst on insurance etc would be income for the government ? Cost of cycle paths and maintenance etc
As a cyclist i save $5 a day in fuel and wear and tear, plus we didn't buy a second car as I cycle. So there's huge savings even if I paid $80 a year rego and $100 insurance on a pushbike I'm truck loads ahead. Government wins? Insurance wins? I win as I can ride a proper ebike with out all the regs and am forced to stay safe via fear of speeding tickets.
Not sure how many cyclists actually save money though on $5000 carbon frames and all the go fast marketing hype.
Also I'm still confused as to who is liable on a non ebike accident, between a jogger and a bike or bike to bike.
DRMousseau
100 W
I really dread the thought of future VATs, road taxes, reg fees, ins and whatever else can be levied on bikes and e-bikes, not to mention the costs of "necessary" and "required" extras for whatever "reason".
I've noticed for decades now, that no new law is passed or even considered unless it is profitable. Of course they're always promoted on a pretense of being for safety, or protection, or preservation of rights, or jus for our own good. But the underlying purpose is jus profit and revenues.
We have speed limits and no passing zones for autos,.... and yet we need more regs for e-bikes??? Because,... why????
oh ya,... to limit the crazy drivers, I mean riders. surrrrrrre. Like that works.
I've noticed for decades now, that no new law is passed or even considered unless it is profitable. Of course they're always promoted on a pretense of being for safety, or protection, or preservation of rights, or jus for our own good. But the underlying purpose is jus profit and revenues.
We have speed limits and no passing zones for autos,.... and yet we need more regs for e-bikes??? Because,... why????
oh ya,... to limit the crazy drivers, I mean riders. surrrrrrre. Like that works.
markz
100 TW
Because the government can't do anything right.
Thats why.
Thats why.
markz
100 TW
Medical Marijuana Home Grow Licenses and home insurance.
This is the Canadian government at work. Countless cases, this was on the news tonight. AUS is no different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oOhJ4oJ9vM
This is the Canadian government at work. Countless cases, this was on the news tonight. AUS is no different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oOhJ4oJ9vM
SaladFish
10 W
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 71
Jestronix said:
Treatment for heart disease, diabetes, cancer and mental health issues are expensive, pervasive and mitigating them through regular exercise is cost effective for the government. Even ebikes promote exercise as some fat ass lazy Australian might just leave the v8 at home and lose 50kg fat if the electric motor makes it easier for them to get started cycling to work. After losing 50kg that person might go on to live a few decades longer if they are not killed by some mobile phone using car driver.
The fuel excise just like cigarette tax and alcohol tax is not free money for the government. Petrol vehicles while convenient are also polluters that harm human health through air and noise pollution. Not to mention motor vehicular crashes. Furthermore the space wasted by car parking and costs of maintaining extensive and expanding road infrastructure is exorbitant.
It would be smart to incentivize workers that commute by bicycle or ebike especially where traffic congestion is worst (city). If bicycle commuting saves money, time and is fun and not fatal then people will use it and live healthier lives. Healthy costs the government less than unhealthy.
DRMousseau
100 W
Your kiddin', right???
By such reasoning, bicycles should be freely dispensed by government,... free of registration costs, tire excises, sales tax, inspection fees, even repair costs!!! "We want you healthy! Costs less and you'll be more productive!"
Oh,... maybe a slight tax on e-bike batteries and motors. "We want you healthy! And you'll be healthier if you don't use a motor!" And,... oh heck, skip the free bike!!! Costs ya know,... jus walk!!! Better for environment, and better for you! Maybe a sales tax on shoes,... big deal, right???
The business of government,... IS BUSINESS!!! It has to profitable,... or shut down and close. LoL!
"....for decades now,... no new law is passed or even considered unless it is profitable. Of course they're always promoted on a pretense of being for safety, or protection, or preservation of rights, or jus for our own good. But the underlying purpose is jus profit and revenues."
Compliance costs are profitable, as are laws and penalties, excise taxes and fees... oh, and they will keep everybody "safer", protected, and don't forget your rights and those of pedestrians and motorists,.... for your own good, and everyone's good, of course. UGH!!!!
By such reasoning, bicycles should be freely dispensed by government,... free of registration costs, tire excises, sales tax, inspection fees, even repair costs!!! "We want you healthy! Costs less and you'll be more productive!"
Oh,... maybe a slight tax on e-bike batteries and motors. "We want you healthy! And you'll be healthier if you don't use a motor!" And,... oh heck, skip the free bike!!! Costs ya know,... jus walk!!! Better for environment, and better for you! Maybe a sales tax on shoes,... big deal, right???
The business of government,... IS BUSINESS!!! It has to profitable,... or shut down and close. LoL!
"....for decades now,... no new law is passed or even considered unless it is profitable. Of course they're always promoted on a pretense of being for safety, or protection, or preservation of rights, or jus for our own good. But the underlying purpose is jus profit and revenues."
Compliance costs are profitable, as are laws and penalties, excise taxes and fees... oh, and they will keep everybody "safer", protected, and don't forget your rights and those of pedestrians and motorists,.... for your own good, and everyone's good, of course. UGH!!!!
SaladFish
10 W
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 71
DRMousseau said:
No.
If it can be determined that a bicycle will prevent someone charging the government $50,000 for heart surgery then yes, a $1,000 bicycle saves the government $49,000. It is more complicated then that but a cost analysis is done and surprise, surprise healthy people are cheaper and more productive than diseased people.
In Australia there is a "goods and services tax" GST which applies to most purchases except necessities like bread and milk.
The government is made of people that have their own agenda. Their agenda may be to secure a lucrative post political career with a mining company or bank that bribed them to pass laws. Their agenda maybe more benevolent also. But yes paying their bills would be preferable for some voters but not others especially when corruption is involved.
ElectricSprocket
10 mW
DRMousseau said:
That theory doesn't stack up too well, you are assuming politicians personally benefit from the profit of government. They don't, their concern is getting elected, and there are times where fee increases in government owned monopolies (like power in the old days) were vetoed by parliament for fear of voter backlash. (Which is why I'm against privatisation of monopolies, but thats another topic..).
For whatever reason, state governments around Australia (they control the infrastructure) have been pro cyclist, and indications are they are embracing ebikes. I suspect they are following what the public want, cycling is very popular and users and parents (lets not forget them) want safety, which means separation of bicycle and auto traffic.
The issue state governments are grappling with are the overpowered "frankenbikes" as shown by this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-06/electric-bikes-pose-safety-risk-expert-says/7224270
I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe its been shown before.
BTW, it appears that government transport ministers and police commissioners from around Australia have all seen those stupid youtube vids of guys tearing up the bike paths on Stealth bikes (70+ kmh). Looks like the high powered ebike set are their own worst enemies. Good luck with that.
Technology will come along, as I've stated in another thread, which will enable the cops to weed out the illegal ebikes pretty easily anyway.
markz
100 TW
Its the reverse, that's why the deficit is so high, thats why your wrong.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Kneelb4ZOD
1 W
It's another day and politicians are still scumbags, and people who tear down walking paths at 70kmh ruin the fun for everyone. Let's put a 5hp limit on automobiles instead, they seem to be the ones killing everyone else.
Next up compulsory helmets in doors, never know could slip on wet tiles. It would save lives and some douche could make a graph.
Safety vs freedom, I loved riding as a kid with no helmet laws, I had freedom to hurt myself
wasnt there some study about neck injuries and helmets?
Safety vs freedom, I loved riding as a kid with no helmet laws, I had freedom to hurt myself
wasnt there some study about neck injuries and helmets?DRMousseau
100 W
Jestronix said:Next up compulsory helmets in doors, never know could slip on wet tiles. It would save lives and some douche could make a graph.
Safety vs freedom, I loved riding as a kid with no helmet laws, I had freedom to hurt myself
Helmets and seatbelts have been a controversial issue for my entire life (65+yrs)!!! Both are examples of jus "HOW" such laws get passed, and "WHY". And as I noted before,... for the last 50yrs or so, "No new law is passed or even considered, unless it is profitable for government and/or the corporations that greatly influence government, while under the pretense of being for our own good,... to protect us, others, and our rights and freedoms!"
"BUT THEY ARE PROVEN TO SAVE LIVES AND PREVENT or REDUCE INJURIES!!!" (uh,... relative to???)
It has taken years of propaganda to instill this gross misconception as "an established fact".
example,- Place both motorists in/on vehicles and park them in a driveway???? Place both motorists in/on vehicles and slam them 120mph into a solid 20'x20'x20' steel reinforced concrete block??? mmmm,.... helmets and seatbelts save lives and prevent injuries in parked vehicles! Hey, we're protected, and penalties of non-compliance,... profitable!
It might surprise you know that numerous laws require helmets to pass an impact test of under 20mph!!! (https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pdf/ESV/esv16/98S10P29.PDF) Other requirements of helmet restraint, is to retain the head inside helmet for ID purposes. Penalties of non-compliance,... profitable, but we're protected!!! Let's not neglect corporate profits for an item to be required of 100% ALL motorcyclists by a law they support and sponsor!!!
SEATBELTS,... whose greatest sponsors and supporters are "first responder", are intended solely to retain the body within the vehicle 100% or as near so as possible. This not only establishes responsibility of driver (initially required only of drivers) but also establishes passengers from others involved (i.e.. pedestrians or passengers of other involved vehicles). AND provides an accurate accounting without having to scour the countryside, trees, and roadside within distances of up to 1/2mile or MORE, around the scene of incident! A huge cost savings to "first responders" and communities. When "lap-belts" were found to be hazardous, shoulder-straps became the new standard of "protection". Penalties of non-compliant materials and installation,.... profitable! Penalties for non-compliant seatbelt use,.... also profitable, but we're protected!!!
After a friend had scrambled his trailbike and launched himself 50' into the air, I asked for his helmet and requested that he again performed the same feat. "WITHOUT A HELMET??? ARE YOU NUTS!!!" Apparently,... a helmet gives you invulnerability and special abilities, not unlike "Superman"??? I really had no idea.
Seatbelts??? Come on,.... seatbelts are not enough!!! We need helmets too, a HANS devise, full roll bar/cage protection, SAFER barriers on our roads and highways, and,..... oh wait, I forgot that "profitable" issue, and the true intended purpose of seatbelts. I guess we don't actually need more,.. I have no idea, really.
E-bike compliance??? SURE,... if it's profitable! That would mean, "we're "protected"!!!!!
kdog
10 kW
DRM
Got any evidence to support your jaded ramblings? I'm a paramedic and see too often the result of no seat belt in an MVA. the unrestrained body does very poorly being flung around the interior of a car, and if you are ejected then it's usually fatal. The restrained person can still be injured no doubt, but that life threatening impact is often avoided....But I guess my evidence is only annecdotal... Get with the times buster. Car/rd tech/safety has vastly improved Aus rd stats over the past 30 yrs
Got any evidence to support your jaded ramblings? I'm a paramedic and see too often the result of no seat belt in an MVA. the unrestrained body does very poorly being flung around the interior of a car, and if you are ejected then it's usually fatal. The restrained person can still be injured no doubt, but that life threatening impact is often avoided....But I guess my evidence is only annecdotal... Get with the times buster. Car/rd tech/safety has vastly improved Aus rd stats over the past 30 yrs
Sunder
10 MW
I can't believe you're even dignifying his ramblings by asking him for proof. That one is even more ludicrous than the theory that the brace position is designed to kill everyone instantly, because it's cheaper to pay out one wrongful death per passenger, than support a plane full of paraplegics for life.
Kneelb4ZOD
1 W
A helmet has saved my life before. I was riding on the sidewalk at a good speed coming up to a corner intersection, I had to veer off to the side to avoid someone unexpectedly. I can't remember if my front wheel hit the brick wall or locked up from panic braking, but I was sent flying over the front of my bicycle and impacted the brick wall head first like a missile at a perfect right angle. Cracked the helmet and not my head.
DRMousseau
100 W
kdog said:
Car/rd tech/safety HAS vastly improved,... but falls far short of what is necessary to TRUELY reduce and prevent fatalities and injuries. No doubt there IS an incidental reduction of injuries and death due to seatbelt use,.... so why not add full-face helmet use and increase that incidental reduction? And why not require a 5-point belt instead of 3pt lap/shoulder restraint? It's proven to be MUCH safer! What about head and neck restraints? And why are motorcycles, e-bikes, and bicycles even allowed???? They have no restraint at all!!!!
Kneelb4ZOD said:
I too have endured the joy of "flying" from a bicycle,... fully 8' high and 27' distant!!!! No helmet, no wall, but the concrete was no less softer upon impact. I limped my damage bike home and skipped out work for the day. I've also endured various motorcycle collisions,... including that of "picking up" an "unexpected" running deer at over 50mph!!! Dead deer,... collected up motorcycle and continued to work. Never has my helmet been a factor in any incident, even when rendered unconscious in one head-on collision (although nearly busted my jaw!).
In every case,.... excessive speed, carelessness, thoughtlessness, and inconsideration were to blame,and I certainly knew better. The increases in MVAs, injuries and death are proportional to the same,.... speed, carelessness, thoughtlessness, and inconsideration. The much lower incident of death and serious injuries 50yrs ago,.... was NOT due to seatbelt or helmet use! And the proportion of such serious injuries and death per incident,... wasn't much different than today. Slow down and drive with care,.... heck, care still isn't enough!!! Cause the moment you're careless, thoughtless, or inconsiderate,.... someone is gonna be seriously hurt!!!
ElectricSprocket
10 mW
Ya know.. car seatbelts and bicycle helmets are quite different matters. The mandatory law for seat belts had no impact on car sales and the use of them, while the same for bike helmets pretty well killed cycling in Australia in the early 90's. The thing is many cyclists, self included, wore a helmet before it was mandatory. It's why I consider it a useless law. The high risk group were guys like me, riding fast, one or two hundred km a week in all traffic. The majority pottering around on the sidewalk are low risk, they don't need a helmet. And they almost dissappeared. Casual women riders did dissappear. Presently there are 20% more cyclists on the roads than in 1993, but the population is 60% larger - so cycling helmets laws were a sport and recreation killer.
Same can't be said for seatbelts, the figures on that are spectacular. Almost 3 times the people died in cars in 1970 than last year, and there were half as many cars back then. Goes to show what a slaughter it was on the roads in the 60's.
Same can't be said for seatbelts, the figures on that are spectacular. Almost 3 times the people died in cars in 1970 than last year, and there were half as many cars back then. Goes to show what a slaughter it was on the roads in the 60's.
DRMousseau said:
Well you're wrong on the accident rates (all down to greater car and highway safety and improved medical care), but otherwise good advice.
You may never have needed or benefited from a helmet or seatbelt (good for you!) but they do work for the general population and the statistics prove it.
DRMousseau
100 W
Seatbelt and helmets ARE very different matters and issues. Helmets were always available to those who desired them long before laws of mandatory compliance. Cars too, were equipped with seatbelts long before those same laws were effected. It would surprise many to know that American built cars were NOT the first to offer restraints as standard equipment. BUT the States WERE the first to eventually mandate that all cars built and/or sold in the country MUST be compliantly equipped with restraints. It was several years before various states eventually mandated their use in some manner, and found such forced compliance to be "profitable". Many would be surprised to know there are EXCEPTIONS in their state to their mandated use. This seems to be a bit contrary to the "purpose" of such laws,... wouldn't you think??? And I'm gonna ignore the "medical" exceptions,.... let's ask WHY there are exceptions for many "high-risk" or "vulnerable" vehicle operators!! Look closely and you find many instances of exceptions for postal carriers, registered farm vehicles, paper route carriers, utility workers, garbage pickup, municipal workers,.... and older vehicles not originally equipped with restraints. Or are such laws of compliance directed at a greater majority for some other purpose???
Mandatory helmet compliance,... a useless law??? Not if it's profitable,.... or serves a purpose of "discouragement" to ones rights and freedoms. MANY, TOO MANY, of these recent laws for many years (including that of the OP of this topic) have become known now, as "PREDATORY LAWS", and are established for primary intents of profit, revenue, and other purposes!!! They are promoted on garnered propaganda based on "INCIDENTAL" benefits of safety, etc., and even on the unfounded preservation of rights and freedoms!!! ON THE CONTRARY, many such laws being broadly directed at a greater majority, allow for abuses of presumptive profiling, escalations of offense, and assumptions of guilt.... seems today, EVERYONES guilty, until you prove your innocence. Well, if you can afford to or are given any opportunity to do so.
It's insane that speeding laws have various levels or degrees of penalties!!! You exceeded the maximum posted limit,... 5over or 55over is speeding, plain and simple!!!! Oh,... and let's add a degree of careless driving or reckless driving on top of that,.... or maybe a warning to pay closer, more thoughtful attention. UGH!!!!
NOW,... explain why e-bikes SHOULD be regulated to comply with laws of 250W, or 500W or 750W??? Why should they be regulated to 15 or 20mph or whatever???? Can a bicyclist not go faster either??? Such laws were contrived purely to make a criminal of basically responsible law abiding folks like you and I!!!! SO WHAT if my bike is 1500W, capable of 40mph,..... I still will not pass within 2metres of ANY pedestrian while on a bicycle!!!! Nor will I pass or approach ANY pedestrian at a speed greater than a brisk walk, unless I am at a safe distance to do so!!!! I extend similar courtesies to other bicyclists, e-bikers, and motorists! I may be compliant of every existing traffic law of safety and operation. Yet I am a criminal,... simply because of "predatory" law that has nothing to do with safety or the preservation of our rights and freedoms. Oh btw,.... I MAY be less targeted by such laws because of my age or appearance, but I'm still a criminal by a "predatory" law!
Oh,.... my last moving violation was about 5 years back or so. A failure to comply with the seatbelt mandate. Had my old truck been jus 10yrs older,.... I would have been exempted. GUILTY!!! $80 plus costs,... see the bailiff, pay out front!!!! (should of had farm plates I guess, lol! Good thing no one was hurt or I had endangered anyone! sheesh!)
Mandatory helmet compliance,... a useless law??? Not if it's profitable,.... or serves a purpose of "discouragement" to ones rights and freedoms. MANY, TOO MANY, of these recent laws for many years (including that of the OP of this topic) have become known now, as "PREDATORY LAWS", and are established for primary intents of profit, revenue, and other purposes!!! They are promoted on garnered propaganda based on "INCIDENTAL" benefits of safety, etc., and even on the unfounded preservation of rights and freedoms!!! ON THE CONTRARY, many such laws being broadly directed at a greater majority, allow for abuses of presumptive profiling, escalations of offense, and assumptions of guilt.... seems today, EVERYONES guilty, until you prove your innocence. Well, if you can afford to or are given any opportunity to do so.
It's insane that speeding laws have various levels or degrees of penalties!!! You exceeded the maximum posted limit,... 5over or 55over is speeding, plain and simple!!!! Oh,... and let's add a degree of careless driving or reckless driving on top of that,.... or maybe a warning to pay closer, more thoughtful attention. UGH!!!!
NOW,... explain why e-bikes SHOULD be regulated to comply with laws of 250W, or 500W or 750W??? Why should they be regulated to 15 or 20mph or whatever???? Can a bicyclist not go faster either??? Such laws were contrived purely to make a criminal of basically responsible law abiding folks like you and I!!!! SO WHAT if my bike is 1500W, capable of 40mph,..... I still will not pass within 2metres of ANY pedestrian while on a bicycle!!!! Nor will I pass or approach ANY pedestrian at a speed greater than a brisk walk, unless I am at a safe distance to do so!!!! I extend similar courtesies to other bicyclists, e-bikers, and motorists! I may be compliant of every existing traffic law of safety and operation. Yet I am a criminal,... simply because of "predatory" law that has nothing to do with safety or the preservation of our rights and freedoms. Oh btw,.... I MAY be less targeted by such laws because of my age or appearance, but I'm still a criminal by a "predatory" law!
Oh,.... my last moving violation was about 5 years back or so. A failure to comply with the seatbelt mandate. Had my old truck been jus 10yrs older,.... I would have been exempted. GUILTY!!! $80 plus costs,... see the bailiff, pay out front!!!! (should of had farm plates I guess, lol! Good thing no one was hurt or I had endangered anyone! sheesh!)
Similar threads
