Jump to content
nuked

New Rules for NSW cyclists

Recommended Posts

And absolute worst case you are entitled to dismount your bike and cross as a pedestrian. There is NEVER any NEED to ride through a red light.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then get on to council or Main Roads (who-ever looks after the lights). This issue came up in an earlier thread about a set of lights at Brendale, north of Brisbane. I put in a query to Main Roads, and a couple of weeks later, the person who made the original comment on here thanked me, as they now worked.

 

The world won't magically fix itself if it doesn't know it's broken. You have to make the effort to let them know.

There is a set of lights that I regularly use that do not pick up that a bike is waiting. After reporting it to WA Main Roads 5 times I gave up.

 

Regardless of the law everyone should carry ID. I always wear a Road ID bracelet and have an old drivers licence in my pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about safety at all - it's just an attempt to appease the redneck cyclist hating minority. As FP said "Seems like the rules for cyclists are completely enforceable but the one for the motorist isn't"! Why don't they do something about drivers texting or talking on their mobile phones whilst driving? If they were serious about safety they would slap offenders with a $10,000 fine and that would stop it overnight! They won't ever do it because 1000's of fines at $300 (or whatever the going rate is) is better than a handful of 10k fines!

 

Cyclists aren't the only group being targeted ATM. Kayak/ski paddlers are being targeted for not wearing PFD's when more than 100m from shore. This rule was recently changed requiring all paddlers to wear PFD's at all times regardless of how far from shore you are. Again, selective targeting! stupid thing is rowers, and stand up paddleboards are exempt!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on chookman. Always pick on the easy target. If they want to catch people with mobile phones have a cop hop on bicycle and by oath they will catch a lot of people. They just need a go pro and get the number plate and issue the fine later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just need a go pro and get the number plate and issue the fine later.

And that increases safety how?

I just reckon cyclists whinge a lot. They want to have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. Real Gen Y attitude. All drivers / riders of vehicles have to carry ID. As for the other rules, they have always been there. Follow them

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Called being proactive - keep fining them before they kill someone or someone else. Problem is they are reactive not proactive about applying road rules.

Even with mobile phones and driving suspend their licence instead of fining them that would really put them in a predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think they're all of a sudden going to start picking on cyclists and forget about motorists?

 

I see people texting all the time but never when a copper is about.

 

And the next time you go past a Police car with the lights flashing and they have someone pulled over, maybe, just maybe they've pulled them over for running a red light, or phone use or any other LAW that has been broken.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just reckon cyclists whinge a lot. They want to have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. Real Gen Y attitude. All drivers / riders of vehicles have to carry ID. As for the other rules, they have always been there. Follow them

 

^

This is it here, nothing more needs to be said.

 

FFS people going up in arms saying cyclists are being targeted blah blah blah. Please!!!

Just carry ID like all law abiding road users do, respect the traffic rules like all law abiding road users do and enjoy your ride.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys upset about carrying ID? I never leave home without it. If anything bad happens I want something on me for identification.

 

It's not about prudent carrying of ID for emergencies (that can be anything and a personal choice).

It's the *mandatory requirement under law* to carry and produce official photo ID (i.e. a passport, a driver's licence or an official government photo ID card) to conduct activity for which no licence is required. It's an erosion of civil liberties.

Remember the Border Force farce in Melbourne a few months ago? A particular class of people going about their normal everyday activity for which no specific licence was required were going to be stopped by law enforcement personnel and asked to produce ID.

This is how it starts. It's just wrong on so many levels. Would we agree to making all, e.g., Muslims carry photo ID to attend their place of worship?

What this does is reinforce that cyclists and cycling are a problem rather than a solution to this car dominated city and that is disturbing.

What's worse is mandatory photo ID does nothing for either improving cycling safety or for encouraging cycling participation. Safe passing laws do not require an erosion of civil liberties to be introduced. I can't believe any cycling advocacy group would have agreed to it and any that did should be ashamed.

If cycling requires a licence, then put forward a decent and strong argument for that, rather than use stealth methods to create a cycling licence by proxy. We are the only western democracy in the world that treats cyclists this way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, they are in control of a vehicle on a road. All other people who are in control of a vehicle on a road need to produce their license on demand. Unless you think cyclists should require a license then any official ID is fine. Of course that part is not about safety, it's about holding people accountable when they commit an offence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What this does is reinforce that cyclists and cycling are a problem rather than a solution to this car dominated city and that is disturbing.

 

 

From someone living in 'The Bush', this seems to be your main problem. I don't know how you city folk can ride a bike on the roads. I'd be scared witless and only riding bike-paths. Sydney can't cope with the cars, let alone throwing cyclists into the mix. Cyclists and cycling are a problem for drivers in that environment IMO....as are the sheer number of vehicles of all types.

 

Was sitting at a cafe in Wahroonga a few months ago watching cyclists weaving around cars at the round-a-about near the railway crossing just fascinated by the suicidal nature of it all.

 

Have wealthy fly-fishing clients telling me what a mad-house Sydney traffic has become and how much they detest it. They'd move out here in a heart-beat if they could convince their shop-a-holic wives :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driver

 

Alex, they are in control of a vehicle on a road. All other people who are in control of a vehicle on a road need to produce their license on demand. Unless you think cyclists should require a license then any official ID is fine. Of course that part is not about safety, it's about holding people accountable when they commit an offence.

s need to be able to produce their licence to show that they are indeed licenced drivers. Cyclists don't need a licence, so why should they carry one?

 

If its about 'keeping people accountable', then you'd agree that EVERYONE should always carry ID and produce it on demand. What if someone jaywalks across a street? What if someone accidently stands on the grass in a city park? What if someone just kinda looks dodgy?

 

And, you know, if you;ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about... *good grief*

 

(Just to be clear, in case no-one gets it, I am very much against the ID provision)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which would be a tiny % of offenders. You can pick them a mile away: driving well below the limit, drifting in and out of lanes etc. As I said earlier, if it were about safety they'd increase the penalty to something like $10,000. How many would take the chance of a fine that large?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic lights:

 

No other class of road user has the traffic management system not respond to their presence. Cars, motor bikes and pedestrians are all catered for.

 

They don't have to find the lights that they can't trigger and report them to their council, or change mode of transport and become a pedestrian.

 

Make laws that make sense with the infrastructure to support. If you really want cars a metre or so away put up a serious physical barrier.

 

With the lights, do what sensible people do anyway in other nations, between 10pm and 6 am turn the lights of and make it a four way stop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

between 10pm and 6 am turn the lights of and make it a four way stop.

Do it 10 am - 6 pm to thin the herd a bit :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(Just to be clear, in case no-one gets it, I am very much against the ID provision)

I'll be clear too. I'm very much for everyone carrying ID. They do it in Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and Belgium. What's the problem? Yes, if you jaywalk a cop can ask you name and you must provide him your correct name. You can be detained for a reasonable period for that officer to verify the information you have given him.

I will give you "if your not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to worry about" it's a valid argument.

I have never in my life been asked by a police officer or any Government official for my ID outside of driving.

Well, maybe once or twice in Russia, didn't worry me then either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="BarryBevan" post="1168340" timestamp="1450760395"

 

With the lights, do what sensible people do anyway in other nations, between 10pm and 6 am turn the lights of and make it a four way stop.

 

Damn, that's a good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, they are in control of a vehicle on a road. All other people who are in control of a vehicle on a road need to produce their license on demand. Unless you think cyclists should require a license then any official ID is fine. Of course that part is not about safety, it's about holding people accountable when they commit an offence.

 

Cycling does not require a licence. Since when has not having an official government photo ID prevented Police from enforcing the law to hold someone to account?

 

It's attacking a legitimate class of the public and painting them as the problem. Should Muslims be required to carry and produce photo ID on demand? Attending a place of worship doesn't require a licence either.

 

It's very very bad policy for such a provision to be legislated. It does nothing to improve safety, and does nothing for encouraging participation. It's just another wedge to drive riders off our roads.

 

So glad I'm leaving the city soon. Will be able to ride a bike in peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, that's a good idea

The place it worked best was of all places Washington DC home to some of the worst traffic in the US. I think it is 9 to 6 or even earlier. It actually worked and everyone followed the rules.

 

for bike riders if out early no issue. If on road with cars, cars trigger, happy days. Also lots more four way stops with no lights, which is a function of the grid network. We don't seem to be able to deal with 4 way inetrsections without stupid roundabouts or too many lights, probably a function of our driver culture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there such a lack of common sense with some cyclists??? Just because a law allows you to do something or not carry something doesn't mean it is always appropriate?? A few years ago I was cycling in Adelaide on a major road to glenelg, and was clipped on the shoulder by an articulated bus. I was well within legal rights to be there. I had my inside pedal overhanging the gutter, and still got clipped. Through luck I was clipped by the rear of the bus and managed to stay on, but I thought after, what good is the ability to say 'I can legally be there and it's was his responsibility to avoid me' if I was dead?? Since that day I only ride on roads with at least 1 meter shoulder, always carry my mobile with an 'emergency' contact saved, and an old license, not because a law makes me, but because that allows me to ride safer. You simply cannot control what a driver is doing, so why not minimize the risk to yourself and be prepared in case something does happen?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a slippery slope to the:

 

well you shouldn't go to those places at that time

 

What do you expect dressed like that

 

The law is what it is, it is not the responsibility of potential victims to risk manage their choices because somebody else might break the law. Victims are not at fault.

 

There should be zero tolerance of attacks on vulnerable road users. The language being used here is exactly what is used my motoring groups, the 2GB fools etc to justify the problem in terms of what are they doing there in the first place.

 

The vast majority of problems on roads are caused by car drivers. Put effort into policing this. Other than a few examples of bad behaviour by cyclists running through vulnerbale pedestrians, all a cyclist can do is get maimed.

 

The problem is with car drivers, under resourced police and a system that seems to do anything they can to avoid putting the onus on car drivers to follow the law

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem is with car drivers, under resourced police and a system that seems to do anything they can to avoid putting the onus on car drivers to follow the law

 

In Sydney (and perhaps other capital cities) the problem is mostly with the roads and volume of traffic. Just not safe to put a push-bike in the mix IMO. Even the safest bike-aware driver could quite easily make a mistake in that mess, and if that involves a cyclist, the outcome will likely be bad. The stressful mess that Sydney roads are probably adds to driver frustration and makes them more aggressive toward cyclists.

 

Seems like putting on a seal suit and swimming along Stockton beach to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In Sydney (and perhaps other capital cities) the problem is mostly with the roads and volume of traffic. Just not safe to put a push-bike in the mix IMO. Even the safest bike-aware driver could quite easily make a mistake in that mess, and if that involves a cyclist, the outcome will likely be bad. The stressful mess that Sydney roads are probably adds to driver frustration and makes them more aggressive toward cyclists.

 

Seems like putting on a seal suit and swimming along Stockton beach to me.

I see the point, however the great whites don't have a law to follow wrt to the seals, the car drivers do and the choose to break it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic lights:

 

No other class of road user has the traffic management system not respond to their presence. Cars, motor bikes and pedestrians are all catered for.

Not entirely.

I've been at lights on a motorcycle and the lights have registered. I've sat and waited through a couple a light cycle changes until a car has come up and triggered the lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's attacking a legitimate class of the public and painting them as the problem. Should Muslims be required to carry and produce photo ID on demand? Attending a place of worship doesn't require a licence either.

 

So using your analogy, should the muslims (cyclists) require photo ID if anglo-saxons (cars) are licenced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the point, however the great whites don't have a law to follow wrt to the seals, the car drivers do and the choose to break it

 

Canberra is a city that is great for cycling, seems very safe there with the possible exception of Northbourne in peak-hour (once saw a car turn left and pick up an unfortunate female cyclist who was in the bike lane on their wing-mirror right).

 

I love great whites - my favorite critters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Canberra is a city that is great for cycling, seems very safe there with the possible exception of Northbourne in peak-hour (once saw a car turn left and pick up an unfortunate female cyclist who was in the bike lane on their wing-mirror right).

 

I love great whites - my favorite critters

The excuse used for Sydney is farcical. London and Washington have much worse traffic issues than Sydney and cyclists are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there such a lack of common sense with some cyclists??? Just because a law allows you to do something or not carry something doesn't mean it is always appropriate?? A few years ago I was cycling in Adelaide on a major road to glenelg, and was clipped on the shoulder by an articulated bus. I was well within legal rights to be there. I had my inside pedal overhanging the gutter, and still got clipped. Through luck I was clipped by the rear of the bus and managed to stay on, but I thought after, what good is the ability to say 'I can legally be there and it's was his responsibility to avoid me' if I was dead?? Since that day I only ride on roads with at least 1 meter shoulder, always carry my mobile with an 'emergency' contact saved, and an old license, not because a law makes me, but because that allows me to ride safer. You simply cannot control what a driver is doing, so why not minimize the risk to yourself and be prepared in case something does happen?

 

And what if such lovely debris free shoulders don't exist, as is the case for the majority of Sydney's streets?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, you will worry about your civil liberties when you have to be arrested in order to confirm your identity if being issued an infringement and plod only has your word as to who you are. Saves a whole lot of trouble for all concerned when ID is not an issue. Don't read into things too far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So using your analogy, should the muslims (cyclists) require photo ID if anglo-saxons (cars) are licenced?

 

Not sure I quite follow, but driving a motor vehicle requires a licence, and for good reason. As does owning a gun, also for good reason.

 

Being of a particular ethnic or religious group or sex or sexual orientation or age does not, and for good reason.

 

If cyclists should be licensed, then the law makers need to put forward some decent arguments as to why, rather than stealthily introduce a licence by proxy, and a requirement to produce photo ID when requested. I cannot think of a strong enough reason why cyclists should require a licence to cycle. And neither can any other nation on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add, what do you reckon a common mode of transport is for your drug dealing, theiving local sh1theads is? Might make your lives easier and safer if they are under the pump getting around on their Huffys without a helmet and ID. The lycra set isn't the whole cyclist community you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, you will worry about your civil liberties when you have to be arrested in order to confirm your identity if being issued an infringement and plod only has your word as to who you are. Saves a whole lot of trouble for all concerned when ID is not an issue. Don't read into things too far.

 

There is a difference between refusing to provide your identity to a Policeman who has legitimately caught you doing something wrong, and being required to produce a photo ID because you are riding a ride.

 

Police have been issuing cyclists with infringement notices for years without need for such a provision. What's suddenly changed that means this regular practice cannot continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think all of a sudden cyclists are going to be stopped when doing nothing wrong and checked if they're carrying photo ID?

 

Please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add, what do you reckon a common mode of transport is for your drug dealing, theiving local sh1theads is? Might make your lives easier and safer if they are under the pump getting around on their Huffys without a helmet and ID. The lycra set isn't the whole cyclist community you know.

 

Drug dealers walk the streets as well. OK, fair enough, everyone that walks should now be required to carry and produce on demand a govt issued photo ID. You know, for public safety and all.

 

Let's keep going... there's probably a few drug dealers who have a certain ethnic background, OK well all people of said ethnic background should now be required to carry and produce on demand a govt issued photo ID.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else are you producing it too? Of course it is to show cops. You also are required to exchange details in the event of a collision so on that basis alone there is a good argument for road users to carry ID. Anyway, my other post gives you another plausible and handy reason. Immobilising or impacting that section of cyclists alone would have benefits in your community. They are often the most visible law breakers on bikes in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Drug dealers walk the streets as well. OK, fair enough, everyone that walks should now be required to carry and produce on demand a govt issued photo ID. You know, for public safety .

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every other vehicle on the road has a means of identification of the owner, if not the driver, so why not a bicycle? We don't have to stay a metre from cars as we overtake them on the left, so they can just as rightly be indignant about the laws.

 

Watch out when you go to the country Alex. You'll have to check up on the rules regarding horses. Did you know you are legally required to slow down and stop if a rider is anywhere on the road reserve and signals you to? That includes a B-Double if they want to try to enforce their right.

 

Does it actually specify that it has to be a Govt issued ID?

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think all of a sudden cyclists are going to be stopped when doing nothing wrong and checked if they're carrying photo ID?

 

Please.

 

I have been stopped by Police when out cycling doing nothing wrong. Twice. Once was very disconcerting and threatening. He was clearly not a lover of cyclists. I most definitely was not doing anything wrong. It was just a power trip. I've also had mates get pulled up for no good reason.

 

And laughingly I had 2 Policemen pay me a home visit to issue me with a warning but they graciously decided to "let me off" and not to issue me with an infringement for hitting that infamous boomgate.

 

I was sitting on my couch, leg chopped off still in bandages, mouth agape in amazement. Nothing to do with Tony U who was on the scene to help and fantastic, and fortunately was also a witness in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to just disagree then. If you want to play on the road, with all the associated rules and obligations, I have no problem with carrying ID. Nor with being licenced for that matter. It should be road user based, not vehicle type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing to get your knickers in a twist about, but your call I guess. Ypu must get the shits at the airport LOL.

 

A poor analogy.

 

Mind you airports are a bit of PITA for me, because I have to be compulsorily scanned, patted down, and bomb and drug residue tested at every security gate I wish to pass through, simply because I have a prosthetic leg. Itself a result of a culture that doesn't give a shite about cyclist's safety.

 

The laws were changed on how that is handled a few years back.

 

In one US airport the security personnel took my leg away and I was forced to sit in public view in a glass security box without my leg for half an hour. Now days it's illegal to force an amputee to remove their prosthetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to just disagree then. If you want to play on the road, with all the associated rules and obligations, I have no problem with carrying ID. Nor with being licenced for that matter. It should be road user based, not vehicle type.

 

OK, well that rules out riders between 12 and 17 from riding their bikes. It would be illegal for them to ride on either road or footpath.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...