Following my earlier grumble about a somewhat anti-cyclist letter in Royalauto, a response was printed this month as follows:
Bike Sub-standards
Stan Miller (RA Feb) has a valid point when he refers to some bicycles being ridden in an "unroadworthy" state (I've seen some awful bikes). However, I would like to bring to his attention that an Australian Standard for bicycles is already in place, although it is lacking in some areas. It covers, among other things, the need for such items as front and rear brakes, bells and reflectors. However it only deals with the fact that these things must be in place when the bicycle is sold new. Once an individual purchases that bike, they are free to remove these 'safety items' and pedal on their merry way. One area where the Australian Standard is severely lacking is that it allows bicycles to be sold unassembled (boxed). What good is having a bell and reflectors if the bicycle is assembled by a rank amateur at home?
G— (bike shop owner), B—
Frankly, I can not believe that this is the best response Royalauto received to the original letter. I know for a fact that it's not the only response they received!
G—'s letter is correct but misleading. I believe it is true to say that the Australian Standard only covers bicycles at the time of sale. Indeed, how else could it be otherwise? And just as car owners are allowed to adapt and modify their vehicles as they see fit, so are bicycle owners. However, just like car owners, if bicycle owners want to take their modified vehicles on the road they are subject to the road rules - not the Australian Standards. This is a spurious complaint because coverage of owner-modified products simply isn't the purpose of the Australian Standard.
And as I've pointed out previously, the road rules require that a bicycle has at least one effective brake and a bell (or similar warning device); reflectors and lights being required at night and in conditions where vision is reduced. Bicycle owners are not "free to remove these 'safety items' and pedal on their merry way" if their merry way includes the public roads.
Incidentally I find that crack both insulting and disrespectful of his own customer base. It's a comment that (perhaps inadvertently) supports the highly inaccurate view that cyclists are just a bunch of ratbags who habitually flout the road laws. Unfortunately, G—'s position as "bike shop owner" gives these remarks more gravitas than they deserve.
It's also worrying that a bicycle shop owner could peddle such inaccurate information. One wonders how he advises his customers!
G—'s agenda becomes clearer in the final sentences that rail against sale of unassembled bikes. Personally, I wouldn't buy a bicycle anywhere other than at a specialist bike shop. A few weeks ago Spinopsys reported on the Parents vs Wal-Mart case, mentioning in passing that
it's another good example of why IBD's are still the best place to buy a bicycle. Go see your local guy, he's forgotten more about bicycles than any big box retailer will ever know.
Quite right. By the same token I respect the right of the consumer to make purchases any way that is legal. However this isn't G—'s point: he seems stuck on the matter of removing things like bells and reflectors, and that's a simple matter regardless of where a bike has been purchased. So it seems highly irrelevant and rather self-serving of G— (as a bike shop owner) to bring up the issue of boxed bikes in the discussion on general roadworthiness.
As for Royalauto, let's not forget Stan Miller's main argument was that "there is not a roadworthy bicycle in Australia today". I'm not inclined to suspect conspiracy but when G—'s rather ham-fisted and inaccurate response doesn't adequately address that ludicrous claim, it seems a curious letter to publish.
Comments
Nah, not petty at all. Just right.
I think G— spends a bit too much time worrying about big box retailers selling bikes in boxes. Why? Because I'm willing to bet he does a lot of business at the family end and is feeling sales pressure from them.
It's a common refrain from retailers who will not lift their buisness away from those mass retailers only to complain about the competition.
The solution? Stop selling on price race downhill and start selling on service and points of difference something that has value to customers.
Nuts to you.
Given the long time taken to consider his response, G— is clearly a master of brevity! Anyway, I can't raise anywhere near the 'outrage' over this topic that I appear to have mustered some eight years ago. Nor do I bear G— any particular ill will or wish to harm a small business operator, so I've obscured his name and regional Victorian location in this archival item.
As far as I recall, my intention in poking holes in G—'s arguments was primarily to highlight how unsuitable this was as the only follow-up letter to be published in Royalauto.