E-bike rules in Australia will soon change with possible ban on sale of bikes faster than 25km/h : australia

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Where I live in USA, 25kph is equivalent to 18mph, and almost fast enough to match typical car speeds on neighborhood roads. But I wouldn't want to go much faster because unlike bikes, scooters are inherently unstable.

I don't ride a bike much any more bc of back pain, bit I do use a scooter with no pedal assist, and even at 500W it slows to about 10 mph going up 15° hills right outside my front door.

I'm no engineer, but in the cold weather, the scooter is even less powerful.

I like being able to avoid using a car for most trips, but I could not do that with a bike bc of the pain, and 250 W cannot get me up hills w/o pedal assist.

In hindsight I should have testridden more scooters and foynd one with ergonomics that allowed riding it more like a kick scooter. My current one has the battery under the deck which is great for center of gravity, but makes it dangerous to kick-push.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm gonna assume you meant 15% hills? 15° isn't very much!

Anyway, the regulations around PMDs are different from ebikes. There aren't power requirements, I believe, only speed ones. But it's not an area I know much about because I've never really cared much about it.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thanks! I am not sure how hills are measured! I just know the one right around me is between 15 and 20, and causes the scooter to slow from 18.6 mph top speed down to 10 or so.

Don't use this info to calculate my weight lol.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was wrong in my previous comment, because I accidentally used a calculator that did percentages wrong (it converted percentages of a circle, but in measuring grade, percent is rise over run (or height over width, if you imagine it as a right-angled triangle—you can take the tangent of the angle to get the grade). So 100% would be 45°.

So 15° is actually just under 27%.

The steepest hill in my city is 31%, so that's not outside the realm of possibility. But it is very, very extreme. Heck, even 15% is an extremely steep climb. An extremely steep popular climb near me averages out to less than 9%. It gets decent stretches which probably average to 12%, and those are exhausting to get up.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Hmm well my hill is not close to a 9% grade, itis less steep than that. There are some popular cycling training hills near me and it is less steep than that. I suppose I could calculate the slope from rise/run but I will just say it is a moderately steep Hill the kind you might walk up as a kid but as an adult you can downshift on a bike.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

250 watts just isn't enough. It can help you carry a load or it can help you up a hill, but not both. I wouldn't even bother with an ebike at that wattage. 500 (like in NSW) is a much more sensible maximum.

It's especially true given that wattage isn't the real issue. Top speed is the issue and that can be capped independent of wattage.

[–] Greddan@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sweden here. Never had a problem with 250W with cargo on my RadRunner. Not even in heavy snow. You know you're supposed to pedal them too right?

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can drop the sarcasm. My roadbike has 15,000km on it. My ebike doesn't even have a throttle. The only way to move it is to peddle.

But I live in a sub tropical region. It doesn't snow here, and temperatures have been hitting 35C this week, before we have even hit summer!

When I used to commute to work on my roadbike, it was a workout. I'd get there covered in sweat, and feeling good.

But I don't use my ebike for workouts. I use it for daily life because I don't own a car. And if every time I need to carry a load, it turns in to a workout and requires a change of clothes, then it's no longer suitable for day to day life, and instead, becomes a workout tool. But I've already got one of those, and it's not why I bought an ebike.

[–] vas@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

As a person who lives in the Netherlands where hills are not a problem and heat is not a problem, it's hard for me to understand the need for more than ~250W. I mean, I use all 600W when I want to get somewhere super-fast or after a traffic light, but it's a luxury and I'd survive just fine with 250W.

That being said, when it's hot and/or there are hills.. I think I understand you. I'd definitely prefer to see a person on a 500W bike than a person on a got-knows-how-much-W car. I wouldn't consider you a risk if you occupy the bike lane, if your electric support stops at 25km/h.

And from a third perspective, I do see the temptation to limit wattage to avoid the problem of "fat bikes" (as is observed in the last years in the Netherlands). Those bikes just rig the speed limiter, which is harder to reason about than motor power. But not really sure it's that relevant to AU at the moment. I think I'd support a higher Wattage cap overall, up to 500W and 200%-300% pedaling multiplier all seem fine to me.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Those bikes just rig the speed limiter

Yeah, it's a huge problem in Australia. Mostly they have an unlock code in the electronic controller that lets you simply over-ride the speed limit. Some stores sell it already over-ridden, or just tell you how to do it.

But the other side of things is that Australia is a heavily car focused country, and whether they're speed limited or not, whether they're driven dangerously or not, they're still far less lethal than cars, far less polluting than cars and far less wasteful than cars.

Making ebikes unappealing to people will just ensure none of that changes.

And the European standards are probably relevant in Europe, but they're too conservative to increase ebike uptake here in Australia (or at least in Queensland, where I live). My state alone is 40 times the size of the Netherlands. And the city I live in has a comparable population to Amsterdam, but it's spread over an area 6 times the physical size, with hills and a subtropical environment. We actually have pretty good cycling infrastructure as far as Australian cities go, but it's nothing like what you have. So lots of our trips either need to be on the road, or on the footpath, and a 250W bike with a load going up a hill just isn't safe on the road...

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah I think NSW's approach is pretty good. As you say, 250 W is a bit limited with heavy loads up hills. To put this into perspective, on my analogue bike, up one of the steepest hills I've ever climbed in Brisbane, I do about 400–500 W for about 20 seconds. Ebikes are all required to be pedal-assist, so let's assume a baseline of 100 W from the cyclist's legs (about what a casual cyclist who just wants to cruise along would do), plus the 250 W maximum output. That's 20 seconds where they're having to pedal extra hard, even if their total load (including bike, rider, and water) is comfortably under 90 kg. Make that a serious cargo bike (++kg) loaded with shopping, sports equipment, or kids (+++kg) and you're likely going to end up putting out more power with your legs than I do on my analogue bike even after you account for your motor assistance.

NSW also has a rule requiring the motors to smoothly taper their power. So at the 12 km/h I climb this particular hill at, you might get 400 W of assistance, but if you're getting up to 22 km/h it might be just 100 W[^1]. Basically, it naturally self-corrects for any risk that might be associated with higher power at higher speeds. EN15194, otoh, is 250 W flat. It allows peaking above that amount for a short time, but from what I can tell it's not clear how long that time is, or how it works in practice on compliant bikes.

A counterpoint to this take would be: the hill I'm describing is extremely steep, and chosen in part because it's steep. I'd go a different, easier route, if I wasn't on a training ride. And 90% of the time, most utility cyclists will have options that avoid climbs that steep. And also that perhaps it's not unreasonable to expect ebike users to put out more effort on hills than they do on the flat. Personally I find both of these arguments convincing enough if used against even higher power limits, but not convincing enough for me to oppose 500 W. Especially since I'm also in favour of increasing the speed cap from 25 km/h to 30 or 32 km/h (20 mph), since that's the speed I feel I can comfortably reach without too much effort on the flat, on an analogue bike.

[^1]: I made no attempt to actually do the maths on this. And I'm not sure if it's meant to be a linear drop-off or if some curve is applied anyway.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

See, that sounds absolutely perfect. Like you, I'd prefer 30 to 25, but whatever, that's not a hill I need to die on. 25 does the job just fine too.

And I love the fact that the wattage reduces as your speed amps up, because that means you get the most power when you need it, when carrying loads, hitting hills etc.

I'd be quite ok with Australia adopting NSWs standards, because at that point, my ebike is still a viable alternative to car.

But at 250W it's not.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I think I take a slightly softer position than you do, because in my view 250 W is a viable alternative to a car the majority of the time. It becomes a problem on very steep hills when carrying heavy loads, but most people are not doing that very often, and a better cycling network buildout (which is always my first priority) would reduce the need for it even further, if people had safe convenient routes around hills that didn't force them up and over unless either they want to take the shorter, harder route, or their destination is actually on the hill.

But I do still ultimately agree with you. Ideal world, we'd change it to allow them. It's more accessible to more people, and I cannot see much disadvantage, if the speed regulators work correctly.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bullshit. I've got a 250w pedelec and I've pulled large loads - 20/30kg - uphill in a headwind. I literally got my bike converted to a pedelec due to knee injuries and I'm managing that shit regularly.

is it effortless? No. But that's not the point of a friggin' ebike. It's not a car or a moped. It's a pushy with assistance.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm old enough to be past my physical prime, and I don't own a car. I use my ebike for everything. 250W is fine when your goal is exercise, or commuting, or the odd load here and there, but it just doesn't cut it for every day use.

Before I owned my ebike, I had a regular road bike that I did 15,000km on. But the only time it got used is when I was commuting or "going for a ride". It was completely useless as a tool in my daily life. My ebike though sees regular use for things that most people would use a car for, and things that a road bike just couldn't do.

I have absolutely no problem with bikes being capped at 25km. And I have zero problem with taking away throttles above 6km/h too. I don't want speed. I want something I can use to remain car free

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

but it doesn't cut it for every day use

Can you explain why? Sure, it's less than 500 W and there will necessarily be situations where it's not enough. But how would you know it's insufficient for every day use without trying? If it were, say, 99% as effective it would (probably) be fine, no?

Unless of course you have experience with a 250 W ebike but (from your comments) it looks like you only ever had a single 500 W ebike. Is it possible to limit it to 250 W and seeing how much it changes?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you explain why?

Look at the comparison I did elsewhere in the thread. One hill I know of and have climbed many times, going up at just 12 km/h, I'm putting out over 500 W at some points. And that's on a carbon analogue bike, as a lighter-than-average dude, carrying nothing more than a bottle of water. I'm out of the saddle, working my arse off to get up that hill.

As a cycling advocate, that's unacceptably difficult. Great for when cycling for fun or fitness, but as an advocate, I do not want people to have to exert themselves that much just to get around. I try to set a baseline effort of 100 W, but up to 200 W for brief periods is not unreasonable. 250 W (plus a 250 W motor) when climbing up a hill even with the lightest possible load, which would easily become 500+ W (plus the 250 W motor) on the way home from shopping or transporting kids to their cricket training, is not reasonable. I want cycling to be accessible to as many people as possible. It has the potential to be a far more accessible form of transport than driving is, if our network design and laws allow it to be. A Dutch-style network is by far the most important thing and would work for 80%+ of potential cyclists, 60%ish of the time.

But to get that last 20% of cyclists 100% of the time, laws designed for the famously flat Netherlands are not necessarily appropriate. And that could include allowing up to 500 W motors. Especially with the NSW law, which states the power must be

progressively reduced as the bicycle’s speed increases beyond 6km/h.

So (assuming it's linear), at 16 km/h you'd be getting about 250 W of assistance, maximum. At 20 km/h you're down to 132 W, and at 23 km/h it's just 52 W. To do that 12 km/h up the hill I was talking about, you'd get about 340 W of assistance, or go down to 10 km/h and get 390 W, plus 1–200 W from your legs, which should be enough to get an older or less physically capable cyclist up the hill with their shopping or (grand)kids.

[–] stib@aus.social 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

@Zagorath
If the bike is speed limited and the power tapers off with speed, why have a power cap at all? More power just means that they get up to speed quicker, which is a good thing in traffic, particularly when loaded up.
I go quite a bit faster (on the flat) on my acoustic bike, are they proposing a ban on me pedaling too hard?
@yetAnotherUser

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Power cap is still useful to limit acceleration to safe levels and to minimise the level of danger if the motor gets de-regulated.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, my current bike has a power scale setting. Adjusting the pedal assist directly adjusts the max power output. And at the 250W level, I work up a sweat whenever I push it.

Which, again, is fine, if the bike is just for exercise or commuting. But it stops it from being a viable car replacement.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I used mine in part to move house, as well as regularly dragging reno supplies, groceries and my own fat arse. I am regularly using it to haul. Extremely regularly. And in no way a fit person or spring chicken myself

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I run. I cycle. My road bike has 15,000km on it. But I can't do the things I need to do on a 250W ebike easily enough for it to replace a car in my daily life.

I could do all of the things you're talking about if my goal was to give myself a workout, but when the goal is to use it instead of a car, 250W doesn't cut it, because I'd be dripping in sweat and worn out half the time.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

it's not supposed to be a car. I don't know why you think it is.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You don't need to be condescending to get your point across. We're having a discussion and disagreeing. The first sentence would have got your point across just fine.

In any case, I know it's not a car. But at the moment, my ebike means I don't need a car. I want a bike that lets me get through life without having to own a car. A 250W would mean that I'd have to call taxis and ubers more often. I couldn't just carry shopping, or garden supplies etc home, without it becoming a sweat inducing workout.

I mean, I could do those things, but at 250W, I'm putting in a lot of the power myself. And I've already got my exercise covered. I don't need to be changing clothes and taking a shower every time I ride up a hill on my bike.

[–] Nbard@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

They really didn't come across as condescending at all IMO. You're complaiing about legal e-bikes not doing specific tasks you want them to, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that your expectations may be misaimed.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know in what world any comment ending with "I don't know why you think it is" could be read as anything but condescending.

You’re complaiing [sic] about legal e-bikes not doing specific tasks you want them to

Yes, she is. So am I. Because I want cycling to be accessible to everybody. Because of the massively lower cost of a bike compared to a car, and the massively lower risk of them, they have the inherent power to be much more accessible to a lot more people. Building better infrastructure is the most important part of that and we mustn't lose sight of that fact, but the laws governing how you ride are also relevant. In this case, ebike laws. EN15194 comes out of famously flat parts of the European peninsula. Hills are not as much of a factor there as they are here. For most people, most of the time, that's still sufficient.

But something as basic as being allowed to use your bike to go grocery shopping, or if somebody wanted to do something like Martin Broer in the UK and run a small tradie business out of an electric bakfiets, should be a legal option. In Dutton Park and Highgate Hill in Brisbane's inner south, or around Everton Park/Arana Hills in the northwest, that's just not going to work very well if you're not allowed any more than 250 W on your motor. Heck, even the lesser but still noticeable hills of St Lucia/Toowong/Indooroopilly might be a struggle if you're carrying a bunch of stuff.

If there's any task that forms part of people's daily lives that a bike can't do, I'm going to ask "why not?" and wonder if it would be appropriate to change things so that they can. In this case, the solution is obvious and simple.

[–] Nbard@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It really reads like you're going to the hardware store for orange juice.

If a bike isn't doing what you need / want it to, then the answer is not a bike.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Please explain what you think the appropriate solution is, then, and why it's better than mine.

[–] Nbard@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well OP is saying that legal ebikes will be insufficiently powerful for what they need. They don't have a car, so assuming they don't want one they could look at a moped, a motorbike, scooter bikes, all of which will provide more power and be street legal.

I'm in Victoria, where we're already limited to 250w and have been the entire time, so I'm seeing a lot of arguments against bike regulations fall flat on their face.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well OP is saying that legal ebikes will be insufficiently powerful for what they need

Right. And they're saying that although 250 W is insufficient, 500 W would not be. And that 500 W would be perfectly safe because you're still not going to get crazy high acceleration, and it's a separate issue from the max speed (which is capped by law regardless of the power).

And then you're saying "250 W isn't enough for you therefore ebikes are not good enough for you, therefore there's no reason to be arguing in favour of 500 W." It's begging the question.

[–] Nbard@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's not accurate at all The 500w have only been legal briefly due to a loophole. They were never meant to be so.

So to posit your position back at your - a 500w bike won't do what I need, why can't I have a 1000w?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The 500w have only been legal briefly due to a loophole. They were never meant to be so

Got a source on that? All NSW's pages describing the law, which presumably had to be specifically written describing the intent of the law, said 500 W.

a 500w bike won’t do what I need

What is it that you need? If you can make a good case I might be convinced. So far, nothing I've thought of fits the bill, since 500 W + a bit of leg power is enough to be able to get up hills while carrying heavy loads, as far as I can tell.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What if they need to have 500W e-bikes off the road for some reason?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What's "some reason"? I'm primarily concerned with letting people get about their cities to go places. To get to work or school, to do their shopping, to ride the kids to their cricket club, etc. With cycling for its own sake, I am far less concerned about making ebikes relevant. Whether that's mountain, road, or gravel biking.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I don't know what reason they could possibly have, tbh.

I imagine that car drivers see the people on bikes and scooters, and just get mad.

They'll say it is for safety or whatever, and I do think people on bikes and scooters underestimate how scary it feels to be a pedestrian and have a bike pass by closely, but if you keep asking questions, it seems like they just want cars to predominate and are threatened by non-cars.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

They're not expectations. They're how I would like to see things work, because of how I use a bike. There's literally no reason for this to be anything other than a conversation.

There's nothing to "misaim"

[–] Grail@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're banning it based on wattage? That's ridiculous. That means a 50kg person can go three times as fast as a 150kg person.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, no. For starters, you're forgetting that gravity it's probably the only force acting on a bike that's linear with speed. And even it technically isn't linear—just close enough to be a good approximation over human scales. But air resistance goes with the square of speed. i.e., to double your speed requires quadrupling the power.

More importantly though, there's also a speed cap. EN15194 has a hard cap of 25 km/h. It can provide up to 250 W of assistance if you're doing 24.9 km/h, but the motor must cut out entirely and be no help at 25.1 km/h. It also must be pedal assist, meaning it can only provide power while you are also providing power through your legs. The exception is up to 6 km/h it is allowed to assist with a button or throttle, sometimes called "walk mode".

The NSW law is a 500 W cap at present, but the law specifically calls out that it must "progressively reduce as the bicycle's speed increases beyond 6km/h", in addition to cutting off at 25 km/h, and the pedal-assist requirement.

[–] Grail@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I still think the wattage cap should be increased for fat people and tradies, who both need to carry heavy loads.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, I won't disagree with you there. You can check elsewhere in the thread if you want to see more details, but in summary: the specific combination of heavy loads and steep hills (take away either one, and 250 W is easily sufficient) do make a 500 W limit more necessary.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's not max output of 250w. It's a motor rated for 250w, which often means peaks of 400w or more.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

FFS..300km/hr from a car, no proeblms, 25 km/hr o a pushie, literally armageddon

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago

The real problem that's not being explicitly talked about here is unregistered electric motorbikes being sold (often to children) as "ebikes". Vehicles that don't have pedals, or have only vestigial pedals, and are reaching speeds well over 25 km/h (often fast enough to keep up with cars in traffic) without any pedalling. Morrison's Government changed the rules to allow importing of these electric motorbikes, and there have been multiple deaths in SEQ over the past few months as a result. The change to ban the import and sale of these vehicles is absolutely a good one. Even if you think, as I do, that EN15194 is a bit too strict.

Also, as much as I am a vocal supporter of !fuckcars@lemmy.world and related movements, it's not exactly the same comparison. Ebikes can be ridden on bike paths, shared paths, and (except in 2 states) footpaths with pedestrians. They require zero licensing, and are often ridden by children. Quite different from driving a car, on roads (where a speed limit does apply), after qualifying for a driver's licence.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

With a motorcycle licensed rider and ADR compliance, sure. But not kids on toys.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

You can still go over 25. It just means the motor cuts out when you hit that speed. It's still a frickin' bike, you can still absolutely go over 25, just have to haul your arse yourself.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

We need to roll back much of the the vehicularisation of cycling that empowers risk seekers, predominantly men, to ride invisibly amongst massive trucks and deters everyone else. That means building out more separated infrastructure for old people, children, families and risk averse cyclists who don't want to live out the rest of their lives with severe brain injuries sustained when the driver of a motor vehicle has a momentary lapse of attention.

We can't have high powered electric motor bikes amongst human powered bikes on separated infrastructure. If they want to kill themselves riding amongst cars, just class them as motor bikes and upgrade their brakes and helmets and let them do 300km/h on the roads. Their organ donations are much appreciated.

25km/h is fine for mixing with other traffic not protected by steel boxes and airbags. It might even be too much for some older cyclists. You might need more power than 250W for a heavily laden cargo bike going up a hill but those things also have the potential do more damage if they hit someone so perhaps they should just use gearing and take their time.

First we decide to provide safe cycling infrastructure independent of the roads and cars so we aren't fighting over who gets what. Then we decide what is compatible with that infrastructure. I think we need to be more accepting of risk on mixed bike/pedestrian paths and less accepting of risk on mixed bike/motor vehicle roads. The pedestrian lobby kills cyclists. But not sure exactly where the balance lies. Some states don't even let cyclists on foot paths. Insane and irresponsible.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago

A mandatory import approval through the federal government providing evidence a bike met the definition of an e-bike was removed in 2021, and replaced with an optional advisory notice.

So, the Morrison government is responsible for starting this whole thing by allowing people to import vehicles that are dangerous and illegal to actually ride.

However, a communiqué released on Friday reveals federal, state and territory transport ministers have agreed to reinstate reference to the European standard, EN15194, into the Road Vehicle Standards (Classes of Vehicles that are not Road Vehicles) Determination by the end of the year.

Thankfully, that loophole is being restricted. The vehicles already in the country are a problem, but at least no more will be entering.

In all states except NSW, currently EN15194 is used for what's road-legal, except NSW, where 500 W is allowed. But

“NSW will rapidly move to harmonise with that standard and with other states’ approach,” he said.

They're going to be moving to a more standardised approach.

Personally, I think NSW's 500 W might not be unreasonable, considering their laws also require the amount of power put out to smoothly decrease as you get above 6 km/h, whereas EN15194 is 250 W, flat, until you hit 25 km/h. Having more power might be especially useful for people with cargo bikes who need to go up steep hills with their shopping, sport gear, or kids.

Australia

Before you post:

Rules

Banner Photo

Recommended and Related Communities

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

Moderation