Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....

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.

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561736" data-time="1456796828">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Now you are being obtuse
 
I definitely care if I am safer on the roads, you may not.
 
Surely that is the aim of all road laws... to make people safer? 
 
My stat is not meaningless at all. We are talking about the current situation... not a hypothetical world in which there are zero cyclists

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561737" data-time="1456797108">
<div>
Now you are being obtuse
 
I definitely care if I am safer on the roads, you may not.
 
Surely that is the aim of all road laws... to make people safer? 
 
My stat is not meaningless at all. We are talking about the current situation... not a hypothetical world in which there are zero cyclists
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
Crossed wires? You seem to suggest helmet regulation will drive cyclists off the road and I said who cares as this is safety we are talking about.

SammyC

This guy makes the point better than me on why I believe the laws are silly.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.executivestyle.com.au/latest-nsw-cycling-safety-launch-misses-the-mark-glzzv2#ixzz3wWw2Wt2E'>http://www.executivestyle.com.au/latest-nsw-cycling-safety-launch-misses-the-mark-glzzv2#ixzz3wWw2Wt2E</a>
 
This bit particularly

<strong>The hidden impact</strong>

One concern is that this law might impact the people who are the least committed of riders â€“ or can least afford to pay for the error. 
Sports and commuter cyclists are seen as the predominant bike riders in Australia, but it's easy to forget the unheralded, unrepresented utility riders, especially those on low incomes. 
And increased participation is a crucial element of cycling safety â€“ not through creating more enthusiasts, but by encouraging more people who will never view themselves as "cyclists" to get on a bike. 
On Tuesday, Anthony Albanese penned an article for Fairfax Media about <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.smh.com.au/comment/pedal-power-better-facilities-for-cyclists-will-help-in-the-fight-against-congestion-20151229-glw5zc.html'>the benefits of cycling as a way to reduce congestion</a>. 
"Smart governments should be doing everything they can to identify impediments to greater use of bicycles," wrote Labor's federal opposition spokesman on transport.
How does this square with new, unheard-of cycling regulations?

<strong>An expensive ride</strong>

Meanwhile, consider a coastal resident cycling to the beach for a swim in the near future.
To avoid a section of busy road, he rolls onto the footpath â€“ permitted in Queensland, the Northern Territory, the ACT, Tasmania and South Australia (which lifted the ban two months ago) â€“ but illegal in NSW.
He's wearing a broad-brimmed hat to keep off the sun, rather than a helmet - a legal choice in almost 99 per cent of the world's nations, and even in the Northern Territory when you ride on footpaths or bike lanes. That fine will be an astonishing $319, up from $71.
When stopped by a police officer, it turns out he's not carrying ID, for fear of losing it on the beach. Another $106.
All up, he could be liable for some $500 in fines for rolling a few blocks to the beach on a bike.

taniwharugby

In my previous life I did some auditing of an Insurers motorcycle book; and >70% of the time, the motorcyclist was at fault in accidents.
 
So despite all the protesting (when new ACC levies came in) that cars are the biggest fault in accidents, evidence is contrary, I know we are talking cyclists here, but it isn't a huge leap IMO.

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561738" data-time="1456797205">
<div>
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
Crossed wires? You seem to suggest helmet regulation will drive cyclists off the road and I said who cares as this is safety we are talking about.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No evidence of increased safety through mandatory helmet laws I believe?

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561741" data-time="1456797367">
<div>
No evidence of increased safety through mandatory helmet laws I believe?
</div>
</blockquote>
no evidence of increased safety or no evidence of increased injury as result of accidents, I expect there is likely to be a bit of a difference between the outcome of accidents with and without helmets?

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561739" data-time="1456797253">
<div>
This guy makes the point better than me on why I believe the laws are silly.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.executivestyle.com.au/latest-nsw-cycling-safety-launch-misses-the-mark-glzzv2#ixzz3wWw2Wt2E'>http://www.executivestyle.com.au/latest-nsw-cycling-safety-launch-misses-the-mark-glzzv2#ixzz3wWw2Wt2E</a>
 
This bit particularly
The hidden impact
One concern is that this law might impact the people who are the least committed of riders â€“ or can least afford to pay for the error. 
Sports and commuter cyclists are seen as the predominant bike riders in Australia, but it's easy to forget the unheralded, unrepresented utility riders, especially those on low incomes. 
And increased participation is a crucial element of cycling safety â€“ not through creating more enthusiasts, but by encouraging more people who will never view themselves as "cyclists" to get on a bike. 
On Tuesday, Anthony Albanese penned an article for Fairfax Media about <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.smh.com.au/comment/pedal-power-better-facilities-for-cyclists-will-help-in-the-fight-against-congestion-20151229-glw5zc.html'>the benefits of cycling as a way to reduce congestion</a>. 
"Smart governments should be doing everything they can to identify impediments to greater use of bicycles," wrote Labor's federal opposition spokesman on transport.
How does this square with new, unheard-of cycling regulations? 
An expensive ride
Meanwhile, consider a coastal resident cycling to the beach for a swim in the near future.
To avoid a section of busy road, he rolls onto the footpath â€“ permitted in Queensland, the Northern Territory, the ACT, Tasmania and South Australia (which lifted the ban two months ago) â€“ but illegal in NSW.
He's wearing a broad-brimmed hat to keep off the sun, rather than a helmet - a legal choice in almost 99 per cent of the world's nations, and even in the Northern Territory when you ride on footpaths or bike lanes. That fine will be an astonishing $319, up from $71.
When stopped by a police officer, it turns out he's not carrying ID, for fear of losing it on the beach. Another $106.
All up, he could be liable for some $500 in fines for rolling a few blocks to the beach on a bike.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Here's a tip for not only this idiot but anyone who can't afford to pay fines...
 
 
DON'T BREAK THE RULES!!
 
 
So basically we are at
 
Don't break the rules and carry ya wallet.....?
 
I bet the majoirty of cyclists do this. Even those daft looking pistonwristedgibbons at cafes on the weekend and their wallets to by their half caf soy mocha's

The Silver Fern

Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....