Jump to content
nuked

New Rules for NSW cyclists

Recommended Posts

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=937191969706546&set=gm.10153814357753151&type=3

 

Seen these popping up around the place lately, passed three this morning on a 40k ride

 

related post: son away at Uni rang up the other month to lament that he had got booked for no helmet - I laughed at him and told he he was an idiot (turns out his mother did as well when he turned to her for sympathy - and help with the $118 fine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the basic argument people who cycle made pa week or more ago.

"I have a right to be on the road, I am a legal road user"

"roads are there to share"

"Why don't they do something"

 

 

Now after new laws introduced, to help for our safety and also to bring us more into line with every other road user.

The basic argument is now :-

"Why should I"

"That's unfair...."

 

 

 

Suck it up and grow up.

We (as cyclists) got what we have been calling for for many many years.

A law to give us more space.

Equal rights on the road, this means the same penalties for doing wrong.

 

If we want to ride the roads, then we are traffic and follow the same rules as every other vehicle, be it a motorcycle, car, bus or truck.

 

For people going on about what about pedestrians etc. they are not road users. A pedestrian can cross roads but as I understand it it's an offense to walk on the road if there is a footpath or nature strip along side.

 

 

The new laws won't make it magically safer, it will still be hazardous on the roads but if it makes some people think that little bit more at least that's a little better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorists don't have to have ID but cyclists do. This Gay guy is more worried about cyclists then national security.

 

I've looked to the northern sky, the world is going to end. Not today though as it's daylight saving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have number plates on our bikes too after all we're just another vehicle.

 

Where would you put a plate that is big enough to have letters/ numbers big enough to identify us from a distance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For people going on about what about pedestrians etc. they are not road users. A pedestrian can cross roads but as I understand it it's an offense to walk on the road if there is a footpath or nature strip along side.

 

 

Cyclists are not road users either, they are somewhere between a tolerated nuisance and a forgotten afterthought.

 

Two stories...

 

When a low hanging branch over the road side cycle lane on the Great Western Highway caused a cyclist to crash earlier this year, he went to hospital in an ambulance and the Police took his broken bike to the Police station. 20 minutes later another cyclist hit the same low hanging branch and ended up in intensive care, he still suffers from the injuries and will do so for the rest of his life.

 

The Police left the branch there. Would they have left that branch if it was a danger to cars?

 

One section of the same Highway was totally resurfaced 2 years ago, the car lanes were widened and the 30cm of hard shoulder was reduced to 5cm forcing cyclist to ride on the road in an official "black spot". The authorities improved the safety for motorists at the expense of cyclists.

 

I don't really give to shites what fines and rules they want to blab on about and I personally never called for any of it but to claim that Cyclists are in anyway respected enough to get the same fines and scrutiny as other motor vehicles is a bit rich IMO.

 

I still think the ID requirement is draconian and leaves 13-17 year old people in limbo and the fines should be less than for cars, trucks and motorcycles because cyclists are most certainly not treated equal to them in anyway shape or form by the authorities let alone other road users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you roll through a red light at 5 am on an empty road you could cop a $425 fine?

 

Sounds reasonable.

Same as for cars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where would you put a plate that is big enough to have letters/ numbers big enough to identify us from a distance?

I think a barcode tattooed on the back of our neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AA7, I don't agree with freedom of helmets on bike paths. I smashed my collarbone in a couple of places and 6 ribs on a bike path. The helmet saved my noggin. I crashed by myself.

 

Not wearing a helmet wouldn't become compulsory if helmet laws were repealed.

 

Biggest sources of head injuries are drivers and passengers in motor vehicle accidents and elderly people falling over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the basic argument people who cycle made pa week or more ago.

"I have a right to be on the road, I am a legal road user"

"roads are there to share"

"Why don't they do something"

 

 

Now after new laws introduced, to help for our safety and also to bring us more into line with every other road user.

The basic argument is now :-

"Why should I"

"That's unfair...."

 

 

 

Suck it up and grow up.

We (as cyclists) got what we have been calling for for many many years.

A law to give us more space.

Equal rights on the road, this means the same penalties for doing wrong.

 

If we want to ride the roads, then we are traffic and follow the same rules as every other vehicle, be it a motorcycle, car, bus or truck.

 

For people going on about what about pedestrians etc. they are not road users. A pedestrian can cross roads but as I understand it it's an offense to walk on the road if there is a footpath or nature strip along side.

 

 

The new laws won't make it magically safer, it will still be hazardous on the roads but if it makes some people think that little bit more at least that's a little better.

 

Exactly how does compulsory carry and production of offical state produced photo ID help with cycling safety?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For people going on about what about pedestrians etc. they are not road users. A pedestrian can cross roads but as I understand it it's an offense to walk on the road if there is a footpath or nature strip along side.

 

 

Rule 238 you speak off.... Regardless of that and there is a heap of contradicting stuff, like turning left and having to give way to a pedestrian crossing the road,

 

If they cross roads they are a road user, wether jay walking, at a shared zone on a crossing or at lights. If they park a car and put foot on the road, they are a pedestrian. If they close the harbour bridge and run the blackmores over it, they are all pedestrians and road users.

 

Pedestrians use roads, always have. Tracks/ paths/ roads were first used by pedestrians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In DC in summer the police would descend on Dupont and downtown and ticket jaywalkers, runners who ran when the walk signal was red got done.

 

One guy was there jogging on the spot while he got his ticket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still not dealing with pedestrians jaywalking, they regularly run red lights

Blitzes in all the East Coast Capitals this year. Sydney police have issued over 8,000 tickets in 24 months, and 16,000 official cautions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blitzes in all the East Coast Capitals this year. Sydney police have issued over 8,000 tickets in 24 months, and 16,000 official cautions.

I wonder how they issued tickets to people who weren't carrying any ID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly how does compulsory carry and production of offical state produced photo ID help with cycling safety?

FFS it's not ask about cycling safety it's about bringing cyclists into line work other road users. You can ignore that all you want Alex, but it's a fact. You don't like it obviously but I don't like lots of things .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS it's not ask about cycling safety it's about bringing cyclists into line work other road users. You can ignore that all you want Alex, but it's a fact. You don't like it obviously but I don't like lots of things

How does it bring cyclists into line with other road users, Horse drivers appear not to need this ID and neither do pedestrians when walking on the road in the absence of a path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never lived in London and have no intention of ever doing so. But when it comes to cycling, I'm glad I live here and seriously consider whether road riding is something I want to do when I return to Oz, especially with Flipper to consider.

 

I have no idea how it works here, or why. We have more people, less space, narrower roads and cars parked everywhere. Yet somehow riding a bike is inherently safer than in Oz. Accidents happen here of course but the outright malice and hostility doesn't seem to occur with anything like the same regularity.

 

Bicycle advocate groups have quite a voice here ( along with ramblers, kayakers and left handed potters against global warming!)

 

I actually think that riding in London is safer than riding in Australia. The traffic moves a lot slower, but there is more accommodation for cyclists and cars are more forgiving. You have to be aware of your capabilities and your surroundings, but that is true of being in charge of any form of transport.

 

The only time that you generally see deaths on bikes here is when you have people who are inexperienced doing stupid things (headphones, no helmets, undertaking trucks at intersections, running reds etc).

 

I always carry ID (roadid on the arm in case I get hit by a bus and license in case I get pulled) and am not shy about showing it if I am asked to by an authorised officer. I think this is just good common sense!

 

Also, it is - in my opinion - incumbent on all road users to display absolute tolerance and adherence to the rules, if we want to be taken seriously. That means no red lights, no hanging onto cars etc and showing everyone else how it is to be done.

 

We can either bitch about it, or do something about it!

 

Just my 2p worth.

 

Merry Christmas.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS it's not ask about cycling safety it's about bringing cyclists into line work other road users. You can ignore that all you want Alex, but it's a fact. You don't like it obviously but I don't like lots of things .

 

If it's not for safety, then for what purpose?

 

We are the only state or nation on the planet that is seeking to regulate cycling in such a manner. It's legitimising the social attitudes in this country that cycling is a problem, rather than a solution to the congestion and infrastructure ills, especially in Sydney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Paris, they've made it legal for cyclists to treat red lights as a stop sign in certain common scenarios.

 

The research has shown this to be a safer and more functional outcome for all road users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Paris, they've made it legal for cyclists to treat red lights as a stop sign in certain common scenarios.

 

The research has shown this to be a safer and more functional outcome for all road users.

 

Research... you mean they made decisions based on real evidence? What is this madness?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Paris, they've made it legal for cyclists to treat red lights as a stop sign in certain common scenarios.

 

The research has shown this to be a safer and more functional outcome for all road users.

Yet based on your take of the new laws being introduced here, you could spin that as saying it is legitimising the fact that cyclists are a nuisance on the road and slow the traffic down, so for them to get out of a car's way it is ok to put them in danger by allowing them to jump a red light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research probably says (I haven't looked) the higher the penalty the less likely you are to commit an offence like running a red light, therefore making it safer for everyone using the roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In sensible nations most left or right turns depending on where you are you can turn against the red light as long as you come to a halt and it is safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In sensible nations most left or right turns depending on where you are you can turn against the red light as long as you come to a halt and it is safe

 

We have some trial periods for that at some intersections in Brisbane.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have some trial periods for that at some intersections in Brisbane.

And you don't need any winter cycling kit, Brisbane looks good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when they bought in laws to wear seat belts and the outcry was massive. Now you are a dickhead if you dont wear them.

 

People even produced shirts with a seatbelt stripe on them so they could avoid wearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new rules don't bother me - I have to carry a licence fishing (in NZ it is $150 for the new non-resident licence which is the most expensive one - it lasts the whole season, but typically I only use it for 5-7 days) and there are sensible rules to stick to there as well.

 

Might also buy the Mrs some type of camera to use while riding alone after one incident she had which will now be clearly prosecutable under the laws......if she does not divorce me first for buying her a SufferFest setup for Xmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kidding aren't you, southside is boganville

 

I'm in the trendy eastside, all good here.

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?

Being Anglo-Saxon does not preclude a person from being Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being Anglo-Saxon does not preclude a person from being Muslim.

Correct. So relating back, being a cyclist doesn't preclude you being a licenced vehicle driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a barcode tattooed on the back of our neck.

Mine is under my left foot - Buzz Lightyear style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's about safety, but not for anyone under 17

Did the law state it was about safety? You are required to have a number plate on your car and that does not make it any safer to drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the law state it was about safety? You are required to have a number plate on your car and that does not make it any safer to drive.

Ok so WTF is it about other than placating conservative radio listeners that something about the scourge of evil cyclists..

 

"New South Wales director of the Centre for Road Safety Transport Bernard Carlton said the move was considered an important safety measure"

 

In practical terms it will make sure that you can positively identify a cyclist who breaks the road rules, ensuring payment.

 

It will enable the notification to family of serious injury in the event of an accident.

Edited by BarryBevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the law state it was about safety? You are required to have a number plate on your car and that does not make it any safer to drive.

 

Cars are required to be registered, and those who operate them are required to be licensed. Those are entirely reasonable requirements given the clearly serious potential for harm to others that driving a motor vehicle represents (which is why for example compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance exists - it's a clear necessity).

 

I would suggest it most certainly does make driving safer to ensure the vehicles on the road meet a minimum safety standard and that the people operating them have a minimum level of competence and knowledge to do so. The potential for harm to others is large if such standards were not in place and reasonably enforced.

 

Death and injury from use of motor vehicles are orders of magnitude higher than for cycling. Deaths to others resulting from cycling barely register. It's very rare.

 

Meanwhile, so far in 2015, 19 cyclists have been killed in a incident involving a vehicle. It was 35 in 2014, and 39 in 2013.

 

Pedestrians fare worse, the numbers of deaths this year Nov YTD: 152, in 2014: 151, and 2013: 158. Almost all involve motor vehicles. No bike riders. It has happened in the past, but is quite rare.

 

This year 739 motor vehicle drivers and passengers have died but none were killed from being hit by a cyclist or a pedestrian.

 

The disparity in actual and potential for harm to others between driving, cycling and walking is huge. They are in completely different orbits. That's why we don't require a license or registration to walk or ride a bike, and that such activity can be undertaken by anybody, of any age.

 

 

There are several other activities or items for which a licence or registration to own/operate is required, e.g. for firearm ownership, or to serve alcohol for profit, operate a motor boat and so on. Those are entirely reasonable considering the significant potential for harm and there is generally a minimum age restriction as well for such activities.

 

 

Bicycles do not require registration, nor is a licence required to ride them. That is also entirely reasonable and is akin to not requiring registration or license to walk, ride a skateboard, surf, go to church, shop and so on. All activities that humans of all ages can and do freely participate in and which cause little to no harm to wider society by remaining unregulated.

 

The purpose of a driver's licence is to establish that the driver of a vehicle is in fact licensed to do so. No such requirement is applicable to riding a bike. If it did, then why on earth are we permitting people under the legal license age ride bikes? The low potential for harm to self and others is why.

 

If an activity is deemed quite OK for people aged under 18 to participate in, indeed it's encouraged and they can do so freely, then how can it possibly be logically consistent to require a mandatory state issued photo ID to ride a bike once you turn 18? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

One can reasonably ID themselves by various means without need for a mandatory state issued photo ID. But as soon as the carrying of state issued ID becomes mandatory, then it is in effect a licence to ride a bicycle, and it will be an offence not to have said licence on person. If that is against the law, then stopping and checking bicycle riders for their "licence" for no other reason than to check they have one will happen.

 

It'll become one of those activities where, for once, people will claim to be under age.

  • Like 3

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...