Sub-standard response

Following up on my earlier grumble about a somewhat anti-cyclist letter in the February issue of Royalauto, a response was printed in the March issue (not available in the online version) 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. Jackson (bike shop owner), Bairnsdale

Frankly, I can not believe that this is the best response Royalauto received to the original letter. (And I know for a fact that it’s not the only response they received…)

Misleading

Jackson’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?

Just as car owners are allowed to adapt and modify their vehicles as they see fit, so are bicycle owners. And 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 Standards.

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.

Crack

Incidentally I find that crack both insulting and disrespectful of Jackson’s 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, Jackson’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!

Red herring

Jackson’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. On the subject, in reporting on the Parents vs Wal-Mart case a few weeks ago, Spinopsys mentioned 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.

But I also respect the right of the consumer to make purchases any (legal) way they choose. However this isn’t Jackson’s point: he seems stuck on the inadequacy of the Australian Standard which is something of a sideshow in the roadworthiness debate. All bikes that are sold new must comply with the Australian Standard – end of story. But it’s the question of how they are maintained in accordance with the road rules that is far more important.

And on the matter of removing safety equipment like bells and reflectors that’s a simple matter regardless of where a bike has been purchased. So it seems highly irrelevant and rather self-serving of Jackson (as a bike shop owner) to bring up the issue of boxed bikes in the general discussion on bicycle roadworthiness.

Missing the point

Incidentally, I’m not at all peeved that Royalauto didn’t print my response (in fact, I’m rather pleased they didn’t) but I am concerned that they may be missing the point. Let’s not forget that Stan Miller’s main claim was that “there is not a roadworthy bicycle in Australia today!” and Jackson’s rather ham-fisted and inaccurate response doesn’t go anywhere near addressing that ludicrous statement.

Momentary self-doubt

Am I being petty about this?

More on related topics

• Fun above the fold
• Lift your game Bicycle NSW!
• Number plates for bikes? Yeah, good one Ken.
• Some bikes are unroadworthy
• “All bikes are unroadworthy”