Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....

SammyC

bit more information here mate.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11594102'>http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11594102</a>

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561702" data-time="1456789440">NSW is legendary for corruption, maybe there was a bribe from retailers, truckers, ratepayer's groups or something.</blockquote> No, just the Roads Minister is a utter fuckstick. So glad I don't live in NSW

Hooroo

Just read NZH article.
 
Doesn't seem unfair though, does it?
 
 
Just to take one example. Running a red light should be same penalty no matter what the vehicle??

No Quarter

Driving to work in the mornings I really don't think the major issue between cyclists and motorists is dickheads, though there are plenty of them around, but that there is just not enough room on the roads for both. You can't have cyclist riding 20kmph sharing a road with vehicles that travel 50kmph. It just doesn't work and is the perfect environment for conflict. If I am stuck behind a cyclist then I feel obliged to pass him as I am clogging up traffic behind me, but it is nearly impossible to do so at a safe distance. So I pass as carefully as I can, and no doubt the cyclist thinks "that arsehole nearly knocked me off my bike!".

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561707" data-time="1456790880">
<div>
Just read NZH article.
 
Doesn't seem unfair though, does it?
 
 
Just to take one example. Running a red light should be same penalty no matter what the vehicle??
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I guess if you run a red light in a car you run the risk of not only killing yourself, but other innocent people. Whereas on a bike it's just yourself. But I agree that the penalties should be the same, as they are there to keep everyone safe including the person at fault.

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="561710" data-time="1456792022">
<div>
I guess if you run a red light in a car you run the risk of not only killing yourself, but other innocent people. Whereas on a bike it's just yourself. But I agree that the penalties should be the same, as they are there to keep everyone safe including the person at fault.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I will naturally swerve to avoid hitting a bike running a red light which may lead to crashing into someone else and killing them

Rancid Schnitzel

Most of those seem fair enough, but the ID thing is very odd. I don't have a bike, but what if I'm (God forbid) holidaying somewhere in NSW and want to take a bike ride with the family. Do I have to have a bloody ID for that?
 
I feel sorry for responsible cyclists who are made to suffer for the cock head behaviour of others. But, unfortunately that applies pretty much everywhere in society, particularly for motorists.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="561710" data-time="1456792022">
<div>
I guess if you run a red light in a car you run the risk of not only killing yourself, but other innocent people. Whereas on a bike it's just yourself. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The person who may hit you has to live with it as well. Not their fault but they'll still feel some responsibility.

SammyC

So if the issue is bringing the fines into line with drivers, then what about fining pedestrians up to the same level?
 
By Hooroo's logic, shouldn't the fine for walking a red light be the same as that of a motor vehicle running a red light? And they should all have to carry ID

Hooroo

On the roads? That's not my logic at all.
 
If pedestrians used the road rather than sidewalk for the main then yes. But they don't, they have foot paths.
 
It's basicall lining up those on like systems. In this case 'The Road'

SammyC

I was referring to Jaywalkers at red lights, are they not on the road?
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561711" data-time="1456792273">
<div>
I will naturally swerve to avoid hitting a bike running a red light which may lead to crashing into someone else and killing them
</div>
</blockquote>

Hooroo

Not for the main no, as I said above.
 
Cyclists and Cars for the main, are. 
 
Understand or being obtuse?

SammyC

OK, so when will car drivers be brought into line with truck drivers? After all they are all road users
 
BAC limit of 0.02
Log books and compulsory rest breaks
Weigh bridges and Roadside checks
 
 
I just think the whole thing is silly. I'd like to see some stats on crashes caused by cyclists running red lights, and also fatalities related to these crashes. 
 
A quick google search doesn't show many examples of this

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561725" data-time="1456795106">
<div>
I just think the whole thing is silly.
</div>
</blockquote>
Now I am being obtuse as I can't see the silly side? What is silly?
 
Cyclists should be able to ignore road rules without consequence? What determines the appropriate fine?

SammyC

My point is that if these changes reduce cycling participation (and of course they will) then they run counter to what I believe should be a policy of encouraging cycling for recreation and transport. 
The requirement to carry ID is a de facto license because without it you are riding illegally. It is a concept of licensing cyclists that runs counter to international practice. 
If it is important for adults to carry a license to ride a bicycle as a vehicle on the road, why doesn't it matter for kids? That's illogical - children are regulated to a greater not lesser extent in every other way I can think of. 
It is definitely correct that fines and requirements are proportionate to the capacity of the vehicle, hence greater penalties and licensing requirements for heavy vehicles. This is simple to understand so it should be simple to understand that bicycles have different capacities to cars. There is no need for cyclists to be "in line" with motorists - unless we accept that all motorists are in line with each other and car drivers have the requirements and penalties as truck drivers, as I've already been pointed out. 
I think that these changes are unnecessary, do not address any particular problem and run counter to NSW policy to encourage cycling. 
We need more evidence. If I was a cycling advocate in NSW I would be running counts right now to use as a base to show how cycling participation drops off or uptake stagnates in 3 months, a year, three years etc. Because the most damaging change will be the helmet fine increase, followed by the ID requirement, the best place to do it are places like Manly where there are many many helmetless and ID less riders. 
 
Manly also works well because it is Bairds electorate.

Hooroo

I think you'll find the fine for running a red is the same for a Car as it is for a semi Trailer or even road train. So I see no need to differentiate on law breaking, determined by "size of vehicle"
 
It may drop off in short term but it will only be short term as people who like to cycle to work will do so as it will always be the cheapest method, with the only difference is to "not forget your wallet"

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561731" data-time="1456796126">
<div>
I think you'll find the fine for running a red is the same for a Car as it is for a semi Trailer or even road train. So I see no need to differentiate on law breaking, determined by "size of vehicle"
 
It may drop off in short term but it will only be short term as people who like to cycle to work will do so as it will always be the cheapest method, with the only difference is to "not forget your wallet"
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Seriously mate, you liked your own post?
 
No wonder you guys had to increase the quota.

SammyC

Well I do see the need.. facts are that cars are more dangerous than bikes.
 
NZ transport released stats last year on this. In Car v Bicycle collisions the Cyclist was only at fault 23% of the time.
 
 
It's also been shown in many studies how much our compulsury helmet laws have affected numbers of cyclists on the road. So I reckon that an extra restriction is just going to magnify that effect

SammyC

Oh and why did you like your own post mate?

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561734" data-time="1456796621">
<div>
Well I do see the need.. facts are that cars are more dangerous than bikes.
 
NZ transport released stats last year on this. In Car v Bicycle collisions the Cyclist was only at fault 23% of the time.
 
 
It's also been shown in many studies how much our compulsury helmet laws have affected numbers of cyclists on the road. So I reckon that an extra restriction is just going to magnify that effect
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
But who cares if it makes everyone safer.
 
With new H&S regs coming into play, we can hardly be surpised and no area is left untouched.
 
You stat is meaningless, as 23% of the time it's the cyclists fault! 100% of the time it wouldn't have happened if cyclist wasn't on road. Another meaningless fact.
 
All you have done is whine because of change.

The Silver Fern

Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....