What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:52 pm
I don't know the stats but I'm guessing that greyhound racing fans and those receiving employment is something like the same % of people as those who are passionate about riding bicycles in NSW
My feeling here is that the govt is quite happy to impose a blanket ban on the interests of a sector of the community where there are insufficient voting power to make a difference and if it was a more significant sector of the community, rugby league fans for example, then it would of worked thru the problems until a solution was found.
So where does cycling come into this NSW equation? I'm seeing that we have insufficient numbers to be able to exert political pressure to get things improved and have to do our best to win over those not interested in cycling. And we need to work with the govt to keep them happy, so they are happy to fun important cycling infrastructure projects, which without we won't see the growth in cycling in NSW to a point where we are of interest to the politicians
-
- Posts: 6179
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
- Location: Mill Park
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby fat and old » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:55 pm
On a sorta related point....I have noted that the naysayers have claimed that this will drive dog racing underground That's as likely as cycling being driven underground. We can ride up our secret roads to the secret 50 hectare dog track, and watch in infra red
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby eldavo » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:10 pm
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby warthog1 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:30 pm
Nationally or state-wide we are effectively powerless.
Any infrastructure comes from local council.
For legally articulate people on here is there any possiblity of exerting pressure through the failure to provide safe infrastructure in the event of injury?
We are forced to ride on the road due to lack of alternative infrastructure and where there has been infrastructure there are instances (in NSW at least) of it being removed.
Governments aren't providing a safe environment through lack of infrastructure and lack of enforcement or education around unsafe road behaviour
Is there a case to answer?
Could an injured cyclist heavily sue the government on grounds of negligence or similar?
I suspect not.
If there was something that would encourage me to join a cycling advocacy organisation that we would be it. A preparedness to be adversarial in the courts were it in any way possible.
I don't see us being an electoral force outside of a handful of inner city seats anytime soon. I am highly cynical of the motives of governments on both ends of the political spectrum. The only take action when forced to, or when there is an electoral reward for them.
The first motive of all governments is to stay in power, it is daylight to the second.
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby Gerry.M » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:45 pm
Funny you should mention USA - there are only 5 states over there where Greyhound racing is still legal - many have stopped it in the last 20 years or so. If this does hold up in NSW, I wouldn't be that surprised if other states try the same thing eventually.eldavo wrote:When something like this happens, think one hand moving, what's the other one doing. Magic trick about ethical choices. Or shock doctrine from the USA of Australian states.
http://www.grey2kusa.org/action/states.html
-
- Posts: 6179
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
- Location: Mill Park
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby fat and old » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:46 pm
I've often wondered why a group hasn't approached one of the ambulance chasing companies (S&G or M.B.) to try a case out. Maybe they have, and it's a non starter?warthog1 wrote:I
If there was something that would encourage me to join a cycling advocacy organisation that we would be it. A preparedness to be adversarial in the courts were it in any way possible.
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby eldavo » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:53 pm
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby warthog1 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:14 pm
Yeah I'm clueless with regard to law. There are others on here who aren't.fat and old wrote:I've often wondered why a group hasn't approached one of the ambulance chasing companies (S&G or M.B.) to try a case out. Maybe they have, and it's a non starter?warthog1 wrote:I
If there was something that would encourage me to join a cycling advocacy organisation that we would be it. A preparedness to be adversarial in the courts were it in any way possible.
I'm sure they'll confirm its a pipedream momentarily.
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby wombatK » Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:50 pm
So imagine the hue and cry if the Baird governments standards were applied to them.
If the times mean we have moved on for an industry, should we leave it to the mercy of market forces and just say "tough luck" to those whose livelihoods is destroyed ? Think of the taxi industry and uber, and you can see a clear double standard.
At the very least, the greyhound industry deserved a fairer and more reasonable transition out of business. Government should buy out the 80% (or indeed all that can't be successfully prosecuted for criminal acts), and compensate them for their loss of livelihood. And also provide a fund to rehome, feed and maintain the dogs now in the industry in an environment acceptable to the animal libbers (for the next 10 to 15 years the dogs might live).
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
-
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby BJL » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:36 pm
I'd say that most industries have a portion who flout the law. VW anyone? The difference is that animals aren't being treated cruelly in the industries you have compared greyhounds to and you're trying to justify the cruel treatment of animals by saying it provides jobs and creates wealth. Why should the government (I mean taxpayer), pay out this industry? Most of them would have known what was going on and have had years, if not decades to clean up their act but instead chose to turn a blind eye. Screw them. They deserve what they get. In fact, nothing short of shooting the lot of them is good enough for me.wombatK wrote:It's not hard to think of industries where 20% or more of them flout the law. Some examples: hoteliers & responsible service of alcohol, petrol station operators and minimum wage standards (7-11 is just the tip of the iceberg), real estate agents and gazumping.
So imagine the hue and cry if the Baird governments standards were applied to them.
If the times mean we have moved on for an industry, should we leave it to the mercy of market forces and just say "tough luck" to those whose livelihoods is destroyed ? Think of the taxi industry and uber, and you can see a clear double standard.
At the very least, the greyhound industry deserved a fairer and more reasonable transition out of business. Government should buy out the 80% (or indeed all that can't be successfully prosecuted for criminal acts), and compensate them for their loss of livelihood. And also provide a fund to rehome, feed and maintain the dogs now in the industry in an environment acceptable to the animal libbers (for the next 10 to 15 years the dogs might live).
And also tell me, why should the government (I mean taxpayer) have to care for the dogs? The people who bred the dogs should be forced to care for them. They keep saying they love them so much and treat them like 'royalty', and then in the same paragraph say they'll be forced to dump them or commit 'genocide'. Nope, not one word about taking responsibility for their own actions. Not one.
Same thing happened in Victoria when the government was looking at banning jumps racing. One arsehole told the media if jumps racing was banned, he'd send a horse's head to Spring St. Well, that's really loving your animals isn't it? How about he cut off his own head and have that sent to Spring St?
And finally, maybe I'll start up a tiger racing industry. Help tigers avoid extinction by breeding hundreds of them. I'll use live baiting as a means to train them. Guess what the bait will be? And when you ban my tiger racing industry, I'll just let the whole lot loose and demand compensation for my irresponsible actions.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby Mulger bill » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:16 pm
So your response to one form of cruelty is the shooting of an entire demographic?BJL wrote:I'd say that most industries have a portion who flout the law. VW anyone? The difference is that animals aren't being treated cruelly in the industries you have compared greyhounds to and you're trying to justify the cruel treatment of animals by saying it provides jobs and creates wealth. Why should the government (I mean taxpayer), pay out this industry? Most of them would have known what was going on and have had years, if not decades to clean up their act but instead chose to turn a blind eye. Screw them. They deserve what they get. In fact, nothing short of shooting the lot of them is good enough for me.wombatK wrote:It's not hard to think of industries where 20% or more of them flout the law. Some examples: hoteliers & responsible service of alcohol, petrol station operators and minimum wage standards (7-11 is just the tip of the iceberg), real estate agents and gazumping.
So imagine the hue and cry if the Baird governments standards were applied to them.
If the times mean we have moved on for an industry, should we leave it to the mercy of market forces and just say "tough luck" to those whose livelihoods is destroyed ? Think of the taxi industry and uber, and you can see a clear double standard.
At the very least, the greyhound industry deserved a fairer and more reasonable transition out of business. Government should buy out the 80% (or indeed all that can't be successfully prosecuted for criminal acts), and compensate them for their loss of livelihood. And also provide a fund to rehome, feed and maintain the dogs now in the industry in an environment acceptable to the animal libbers (for the next 10 to 15 years the dogs might live).
And also tell me, why should the government (I mean taxpayer) have to care for the dogs? The people who bred the dogs should be forced to care for them. They keep saying they love them so much and treat them like 'royalty', and then in the same paragraph say they'll be forced to dump them or commit 'genocide'. Nope, not one word about taking responsibility for their own actions. Not one.
Same thing happened in Victoria when the government was looking at banning jumps racing. One arsehole told the media if jumps racing was banned, he'd send a horse's head to Spring St. Well, that's really loving your animals isn't it? How about he cut off his own head and have that sent to Spring St?
And finally, maybe I'll start up a tiger racing industry. Help tigers avoid extinction by breeding hundreds of them. I'll use live baiting as a means to train them. Guess what the bait will be? And when you ban my tiger racing industry, I'll just let the whole lot loose and demand compensation for my irresponsible actions.
Seek help
London Boy 29/12/2011
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby Mulger bill » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:20 pm
Absolutely. I smell smokescreen.eldavo wrote:When something like this happens, think one hand moving, what's the other one doing. Magic trick about ethical choices. Or shock doctrine from the USA of Australian states.
Go home Stay home?
Massive WestConnex cost overruns?
Landsnatch of ex dog tracks by developer mates?
How much press did the closure of much of NSWs mental health service blue chip sites garner?
London Boy 29/12/2011
- redsonic
- Posts: 1772
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:08 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby redsonic » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:33 pm
My take on why the commissioner recommended ending the industry is that Greyhound Racing NSW has had numerous warnings and opportunities to reform, but hasn't done so. Resistance has come not just from the governing body, but from the entrenched culture and tradition which allowed the cruelty to occur. Something approaching 70% of pups born each year end up dead before they reach 5 years of age, and the industry has not provided any convincing solution to this "wastage". Live baiting has always gone on, and the commissioner thinks the greyhound "code of silence" means it always will.
The Commissioner believes that greyhound racing has lost its "social licence" to operate. In other words, the majority of the public are appalled at the death rate and cruelty being perpetrated so people can gamble on the sport. I think that there were plenty of grounds to ban the sport and am pleased (and surprised) that Mike Baird has done so.
I really can't see too many parallels with cycling here; just a thorough investigation of cruel and illegal behaviour and a decision to ban the sport because it showed no sign of cleaning itself up (despite lots of warnings it needed to). The inquiry seems to indicate that the industry culture is so insular and tradition bound that it doesn't even get the issues the public are horrified about.
As BJL said, no one is forcing greyhound owners to get rid of their "beloved" dogs. If they really want to see their dogs run, they can even participate in the pet dog sport of lure coursing. I have little to no sympathy towards the industry and can't see how the issues raised even remotely concern the cycling industry.
- StevOz
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:37 pm
- Location: Dunsborough, WA.
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby StevOz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:59 pm
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:41 pm
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby warthog1 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:00 pm
You'd expect it was covered otherwise there'd be any number of scenarios open for litigation.
Perhaps an accident on the stretch of road where separated infrastructure has been removed?
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby wombatK » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:13 pm
Could it be that you just aren't prepared to look hard enough ?redsonic wrote:I have little to no sympathy towards the industry and can't see how the issues raised even remotely concern the cycling industry.
The greyhound industry is an "out-group" - it's not the sport of kings, but rather much more one of working class people and hobby trainers. They are the "vulnerable road users" of the animal training world. 80% of them are being punished for the behavior of 20% of them.
Of course, it couldn't ever happen to cyclists could it ? We'd never all be punished with ridiculously increased fines on account of a small percentage of cyclists who might break red-light running, helmet laws or other road rules.
That couldn't have been the same government prepared to attack the greyhound industry, could it have been ? The same government couldn't escalate its attack on the cyling out-group with compulsory registration etc.,, could it ?
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:44 pm
You voted for the Animal Justice Party ???eldavo wrote:The irony is that hasn't extended culturally from captive animal pets to captive factory farm animals, and overconsumption of animal products is a lifestyle factor in diseases that kill more US citizens annually than in any single war they have waged.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby eldavo » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:12 am
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby eldavo » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:03 am
Interesting point here about the culture of respect and care for vulnerable road users despite lack of infrastructure or Police enforcing bells and cyclist ID.warthog1 wrote:I agree with your analogy as far as electoral power goes.
Nationally or state-wide we are effectively powerless.
Any infrastructure comes from local council.
For legally articulate people on here is there any possiblity of exerting pressure through the failure to provide safe infrastructure in the event of injury?
We are forced to ride on the road due to lack of alternative infrastructure and where there has been infrastructure there are instances (in NSW at least) of it being removed.
Governments aren't providing a safe environment through lack of infrastructure and lack of enforcement or education around unsafe road behaviour
Is there a case to answer?
Could an injured cyclist heavily sue the government on grounds of negligence or similar?
I suspect not.
If there was something that would encourage me to join a cycling advocacy organisation that we would be it. A preparedness to be adversarial in the courts were it in any way possible.
I don't see us being an electoral force outside of a handful of inner city seats anytime soon. I am highly cynical of the motives of governments on both ends of the political spectrum. The only take action when forced to, or when there is an electoral reward for them.
The first motive of all governments is to stay in power, it is daylight to the second.
https://www.facebook.com/Cycle.Org.Au/p ... 8447639128
Cycle on FB wrote:#LateNightPost - Stephen Mitchell is an ex-Director of Cycle. He no longer writes for us, but he always sends in interesting stories. He recently went to Vietnam for a holiday. He sent back several images he called "Proof of life". It is interesting that him and his wife felt no need to protect themselves in what most people would try to call a back world country, yet they seem to value the life of people on bikes so much more.
He posted.
Rode on bike paths and the road.
No helmet......did not die.
Despite the heavy traffic at times, and the narrow roads, motorists gave 1m and changed lanes to pass.
Drivers in a developing country seem to do it easier than those at home.
I actually think that our push for infrastructure is somewhat misguided since being here. There are few bikeways, bike lanes, BAZ, sharrows, footpaths or anything else. What they seem to have is an abundance of respect. The roads are here to share whether you are in a motor vehicle, on a bicycle or even on foot.
Australia is a developed country? Only if you want to look at it from the POV of wealth and material items. From the POV of community and respect for all road users Australia remains Third World And seems to be regressing.
- redsonic
- Posts: 1772
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:08 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby redsonic » Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:49 am
My point is that there was a very thorough royal commission looking in to the greyhound industry. The so-called 80% of good people were prepared to turn a blind eye to cruelty in their industry (live baiting), and to kill more than half the dogs they bred. There was no good evidence that their governing body was going to change. The decision to ban it was based on that. Greyhound racing has been declared cruel and banned in many countries throughout the world. I think it is paranoid to suggest that there will be a royal commission into the cycling industry. You guys in NSW have certainly been picked on by Duncan Grey and co, but I think you are drawing a very long bow here. Perhaps paranoid is not too strong a word.wombatK wrote:Could it be that you just aren't prepared to look hard enough ?redsonic wrote:I have little to no sympathy towards the industry and can't see how the issues raised even remotely concern the cycling industry.
The greyhound industry is an "out-group" - it's not the sport of kings, but rather much more one of working class people and hobby trainers. They are the "vulnerable road users" of the animal training world. 80% of them are being punished for the behavior of 20% of them.
...
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby wombatK » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:15 am
At no point has anyone (and certainly not me) suggested there will be a royal commission into cycling.redsonic wrote: My point is that there was a very thorough royal commission looking in to the greyhound industry.
So your point arises from some fiction your mind is creating.
The Special Commission (it was not a Royal Commission) offered the government a large
set of alternative recommendations to banning the industry, and it was a political choice that the government has made to ban the industry.
Just as it has made political decisions very unfavourable to cyclists. What the decision means for
cyclists is that this government will happily trample on the rights of out-groups, and that should be
a concern for cyclists.
As much you want to make it about greyhounds and/or animals, it's not --- it's about out-groups and
what rights they ought to expect.
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby warthog1 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:20 pm
Yeah how do we go about changing our driving culture here?eldavo wrote:
Interesting point here about the culture of respect and care for vulnerable road users despite lack of infrastructure or Police enforcing bells and cyclist ID.
https://www.facebook.com/Cycle.Org.Au/p ... 8447639128Cycle on FB wrote:#LateNightPost - Stephen Mitchell is an ex-Director of Cycle. He no longer writes for us, but he always sends in interesting stories. He recently went to Vietnam for a holiday. He sent back several images he called "Proof of life". It is interesting that him and his wife felt no need to protect themselves in what most people would try to call a back world country, yet they seem to value the life of people on bikes so much more.
He posted.
Rode on bike paths and the road.
No helmet......did not die.
Despite the heavy traffic at times, and the narrow roads, motorists gave 1m and changed lanes to pass.
Drivers in a developing country seem to do it easier than those at home.
I actually think that our push for infrastructure is somewhat misguided since being here. There are few bikeways, bike lanes, BAZ, sharrows, footpaths or anything else. What they seem to have is an abundance of respect. The roads are here to share whether you are in a motor vehicle, on a bicycle or even on foot.
Australia is a developed country? Only if you want to look at it from the POV of wealth and material items. From the POV of community and respect for all road users Australia remains Third World And seems to be regressing.
As that post identifies it is a huge part of the problem we face here.
I think it is deeply ingrained in our societal attitudes.
We look after number1 first and foremost and in the minds of many compliance with the law is all we need to do to satisfy any obligation to others. This is deeply ingrained with our compliance over courtesy mentality on the roads.
I can't see that changing anytime soon.
The best we can hope for is a set of laws and penalties promoting safe behaviour around vulnerable road users.
We don't have any electoral pull to force this so health and safety grounds are our best shot I reckon.
We are valid road users and we have the right to do so safely
There is nothing being done to provide and promote that safety. In NSW they have removed some infrastructure that provided this. The approach appears to be remove us from the roads.
I don't really have any knowledge on the subject. I'm interested to hear thoughts though.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:00 pm
People who's sole transport method is driving make up a significant portion of the voting public and the slur campaign against cyclists has infested the notion that cyclists cause traffic congestion in a significant portion of the voting public
-
- Posts: 6179
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
- Location: Mill Park
Re: What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling
Postby fat and old » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:36 pm
If the so called trainers are the vulnerable road users what are the dogs?wombatK wrote: Could it be that you just aren't prepared to look hard enough ?
The greyhound industry is an "out-group" - it's not the sport of kings, but rather much more one of working class people and hobby trainers. They are the "vulnerable road users" of the animal training world. 80% of them are being punished for the behavior of 20% of them.
Of course, it couldn't ever happen to cyclists could it ? We'd never all be punished with ridiculously increased fines on account of a small percentage of cyclists who might break red-light running, helmet laws or other road rules.
That couldn't have been the same government prepared to attack the greyhound industry, could it have been ?
No offence, but what a ridiculous analogy. Sometimes the victim mentality goes to far.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: antigee
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.