Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

Cookie_Monster

Not content with already draconian helmet laws they're planning to make cyclists carry ID and more than quadruple fines for non helmet wearing and running red lights

The penalty for cycling without a helmet more than quadruples to A$319 ($NZ344), stiffer than many speeding fines for drivers, and riders jumping a red light will get a A$425 (NZ$458) fine. Adult riders will have to carry identification, or face a A$106 (NZ$114) penalty from March 2017.

Now, I don't condone RLJ at all but the fine is completely out of kilter with the offence and A$320 for no helmet:eek::eek:

but never fear, they're using the "think about the children" defence:

"If one cyclist chooses to now wear a helmet because of the new penalties, we consider that a win for cyclist safety," Carlon said in an email.

But some people at least realise it'll achieve nothing:

Sydney commuter wrote:

"We're probably going to become the worst state in the world in terms of how we treat cyclists -- if we're not already,"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11594102

timmy_mallet

Australia's biggest drivers group, the National Roads & Motorists' Association, denied tougher penalties will put people off cycling. Riders who jump red lights wind up drivers -- as well as law-abiding cyclists -- and should pay bigger fines, said Peter Khoury, a spokesman for the Sydney-based motoring group.

Wind up drivers!! Ha! An emotion. Don't get the drivers emotional, they are liable to injure you, because how else would a rational human being act when someone pedaling their way around the place breaks a minor traffic law?!

It's frustrating and illogical that laws like this are seemingly passed on emotion and feeling rather than any evidence that they will achieve what they the intend to. Suspect as Australia has a bit more of macho culture than Europe that it might be a cause.

Leroy42

The counter argument is that by making the fines so extreme they are making sure that the risk simply isn't worth it and that it changes the culture.

The plan, I assume, is that in 10 years the wearing of helmets and the adhering to traffic signals becomes the norm much like wearing seatbelts is today as opposed to the attitude that existed to seatbelts when I was a kid.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

The counter argument is that by making the fines so extreme they are making sure that the risk simply isn't worth it and that it changes the culture.

There's a stat in that article somewhere that shows it's having the opposite affect, cycle journeys are decreasing and there's miles off meeting targets for the number of journeys taken by bike.

timmy_mallet

Leroy42 wrote: »

The counter argument is that by making the fines so extreme they are making sure that the risk simply isn't worth it and that it changes the culture.

That's fine, but can they prove that of all the injuries they reference, that wearing a helmet in those incidents would have prevented an injury?

The TV ad here with the surgeon taking about not wearing a seatbelt and the effects works, but there are similarly surgeons (am sure we've all seen the info) who say wearing a helmet does nothing.

(PS. I'd never not wear a helmet meself. The high speed stuff, I know I'm in trouble, it's the low speed falls that worry me more. Maybe therein lies the whatever...)

Pinch Flat

Wasn't that the same state that came up with this lovely helmet?

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/australian-designer-floats-concept-helmet-licence-plate-144489

They do seem to have a particular hatred of cyclists from what I can see in that part of the world - never been, but some of the stories I've read online and had recounted by friends and colleagues that have lived / worked there are eye opening.

hardCopy

Every time I read about cycling laws in Australia I feel a bit sick. Our RSA has long admired and modelled itself on it's Aussie counterparts. No doubt we'll see similar proposals from them here citing the "success" of such laws in Aus before too long.

Andy Magic

God that sounds like an awful place to live

buffalo

Leroy42 wrote: »

The plan, I assume, is that in 10 years the wearing of helmets and the adhering to traffic signals becomes the norm much like wearing seatbelts is today as opposed to the attitude that existed to seatbelts when I was a kid.

The plan, I assume, is that in 10 years time, nobody cycles anywhere.

timmy_mallet

buffalo wrote: »

The plan, I assume, is that in 10 years time, nobody cycles anywhere.

Correct. 0 cyclist deaths then. Pat on the back for the legislators.

NiallBoo

Leroy42 wrote: »

The plan, I assume, is that in 10 years the wearing of helmets and the adhering to traffic signals becomes the norm much like wearing seatbelts is today as opposed to the attitude that existed to seatbelts when I was a kid.

Seat belts were proven to be effective...

Pinch Flat

NiallBoo wrote: »

Seat belts were proven to be effective...

But yet not worn by over 30% of people killed in RTA.s Wonder if the Aussies have better compliance?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/over-a-third-of-drivers-killed-weren-t-wearing-seat-belts-1.2317174

Daroxtar

For a country founded by convicts they sure do love their Law

galwaycyclist

hardCopy wrote: »

Every time I read about cycling laws in Australia I feel a bit sick. Our RSA has long admired and modelled itself on it's Aussie counterparts. No doubt we'll see similar proposals from them here citing the "success" of such laws in Aus before too long.

This is indeed a problem. The RSA and their predecessors the NSC seemed to studiously ignore the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany and at the same time worship Australia.

If Australia is your model then hostility to people outside cars is part of the package.

Unknown Soldier

As someone who wears a helmet and doesn't break red lights, I don't have an issue with any of this.

We need more of this, and cameras taking pic of license plates in bus lanes.

I'd even advocate a 500 euro fine for parking on double yellow lines.

We don't want people doing that stuff... right? As society has decided.

or is it super more complicated than I can imagine?

micar

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

As someone who wears a helmet and doesn't break red lights, I don't have an issue with any of this.

We need more of this, and cameras taking pic of license plates in bus lanes.

I'd even advocate a 500 euro fine for parking on double yellow lines.

We don't want people doing that stuff... right? As society has decided.

or is it super more complicated than I can imagine?

+1

I also always wear a helmet and stop at the lights.

The fines are very excessive but would force people to a) buy a helmet and b) stop at red light.

Elemonator

I can see where they are coming from. It is a warm country so I'd imagine cycling is pretty popular. Although 320 dollars is extortionate for not wearing a helmet, I'd imagine Joe Public would be annoyed with the cost to the taxpayer for the health system. I do FULLY support the fine for breaking red lights. The amount of times I've nearly been turned into a human pancake by cyclists in Dublin City Centre is beyond laughing about.

odyssey06

Why shouldn't cyclists have to carry ID? Drivers have to carry ID. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

As for the level of the fines, are they maximum amounts or automatic amounts? How do they compare to breaking red light in a car?

The helmet one seems OTT, but it's the logical conclusion of a society that feels it is entitled to legislate how people conduct their lives even when the only (not even proven) risk is to themselves - all in the name of public health care. I wouldn't assume it reflects a war on cycling, but on personal choice.

micar

Elemonator wrote: »

The amount of times I've nearly been turned into a human pancake by cyclists in Dublin City Centre is beyond laughing about.

Well, the amount of times I've nearly been turned into a human pancake by motorists in Dublin City Centre is beyond laughing about.

Elemonator

micar wrote: »

Well, the amount of times I've nearly been turned into a human pancake by motorists in Dublin City Centre is beyond laughing about.

True, it's the same for most of us I'd imagine. No need to turn this into an us versus them debate. I was just stating the facts. I'm a cyclist myself after all.

Lemming

Elemonator wrote: »

No need to turn this into an us versus them debate.

But you just did ...

tomasrojo

I always stop at lights and never wear a helmet. Am I 50% virtuous?

I'm not in favour of disproportionate fines for either. AUS$0.01 is an excessive fine for the latter.

ThisRegard

Taken out of context the fines may seem reasonable, but when you compare them to the fines for motoring offences I don't think it is.

tomasrojo

I assume everyone concedes that it is possible to have excessive fines for offences?

In the suite of new rules, only one targets motorists. Drivers who fail to leave a gap of at least a meter when they overtake a cyclist face a A$319 fine -- less than a cyclist gets for skipping a red light.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-21/cough-up-cyclists-sydney-fines-soar-in-world-s-toughest-regime

I think that several motoring offences that endanger cyclists have lower penalties than the penalties for red-light jumping or not wearing a helmet. Which is obviously disproportionate. But even if they're not, they're wildly higher than the penalties in other jurisdictions.

These penalties are designed so that cycling is suppressed. I can't see any other rationale behind them.

The ID business in particular is ludicrous. If you don't have a driver's licence, you have to get a special ID card -- no using student cards or work ID or anything like that. So there goes casual cycling, or just trying cycling out for a few days to see whether it might suit you to cycle to work. You have to make a commitment to it, which means you're only left with enthusiasts. Which isn't enough people. Maybe 1% of the population.

Unknown Soldier

tomasrojo wrote: »

I assume everyone concedes that it is possible to have excessive fines for offences?<Snip>

No.

I advocate even higher fines to achieve what is meant to be objectives, complete compliance.

Pity ass'ed fines don't cut it IMHO.

They are just there to get revenue tbh, or don't you see that.

Niby'ism is a high factor though.

Death penalty to anyone who parks on Double yellow lines.

I'd imagine complete compliance tbh.

Why are there not cameras on bus lanes taking photos of people breaking the law? Just issuing out fines..


Why?

tomasrojo

Fair enough. I'd rather not live in a society where people are executed for minor parking offences, but I guess compliance with minor rules is really important.

check_six

What's the word to describe an actual situation, like these new laws in Australia, which is so ludicrous and counter-sense that it is impossible to tell whether it is a parody or not?

Leroy42

check_six wrote: »

What's the word to describe an actual situation, like these new laws in Australia, which is so ludicrous and counter-sense that it is impossible to tell whether it is a parody or not?

Election Manifesto

hardCopy

micar wrote: »

+1

I also always wear a helmet and stop at the lights.

The fines are very excessive but would force people to a) buy a helmet and b) stop at red light.

Why would we ever want to force anybody to wear a helmet?

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why shouldn't cyclists have to carry ID? Drivers have to carry ID. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

As for the level of the fines, are they maximum amounts or automatic amounts? How do they compare to breaking red light in a car?

The helmet one seems OTT, but it's the logical conclusion of a society that feels it is entitled to legislate how people conduct their lives even when the only (not even proven) risk is to themselves - all in the name of public health care. I wouldn't assume it reflects a war on cycling, but on personal choice.

Drivers don't have to carry ID, despite attempts to introduce mandatory carrying of ID. If you don't have it you bring it a garda station within 10 days.

Regulation of motorists should always be far more stringent than of cyclists for several reasons:
-Cars kill people
-Private motoring is a drain on society

The number one safety concern for all regulatory authorities should be to increase the number of people cycling. The first question that should be asked before any new regulation is introduced should be "will this increase the number of cyclists on our road?" if the answer is no it should go no further.

Mandatory IDs, mandatory helmets, mandatory hi-viz, mandatory insurance, mandatory bicycle registration, mandatory training all fail this test and should never be given any serious consideration.

Minimum passing distances, secure bicycle storage, segregated well designed cycle lanes (that maintain priority for cyclists on the major route at junctions), left turn on red for cyclists, contra flow cycling on one way streets, removal of VAT on bikes and locks, allowing repeat BikeToWork purchases to replace stolen bikes, low urban speed limits can all help to encourage cycling and should be prioritised for debate and or legislation in the next dail.

PaulieC

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why shouldn't cyclists have to carry ID? Drivers have to carry ID.

Drivers have to carry a licence. Different thing altogether.

esforum

tomasrojo wrote: »

I always stop at lights and never wear a helmet. Am I 50% virtuous?.

Why do you not wear a helmet?

hardCopy wrote: »

Drivers don't have to carry ID, despite attempts to introduce mandatory carrying of ID. If you don't have it you bring it a garda station within 10 days.

Its an offence not to have your license with you and be able to produce it on demand. The ten days is additional

In regards ID for cyclists, cars have reg plates and are required to be registered. Register bicycles or carry ID. I do not have a problem with either

hardCopy

esforum wrote: »

Its an offence not to have your license with you and be able to produce it on demand. The ten days is additional

On paper it is. In practice nothing changed when that offense was added, has anyone ever been prosecuted for not being able to produce it?

I've been stopped without my licence, as have friends, family and colleagues. All have been asked to present it to a local station within 10 days. Which is exactly what happened before.

esforum wrote: »

In regards ID for cyclists, cars have reg plates and are required to be registered. Register bicycles or carry ID. I do not have a problem with either

The damage that could be done by thousands of unidentifiable cars on our streets is immeasurable, any damage currently being done by thousands of unidentifiable cyclists is practically inconsequential. If we ever get to a point where hundreds of people are being killed every year by bikes then we can revisit the debate.

What harm that presently occurs would registration prevent?

Would preventing this harm outweigh the cost to society and our health service that it would cause by reducing the number of cyclists?

Registration of cars and motorists has no bearing on this issue because they are not comparable. One kills people, one doesn't.

eeeee

I wear a helmet most of the time and I don't break red lights. I think excessive fines are indefensible for anything, never mind soimething that can help with one of the biggest issues currently and about to majorly assail our health service (obesity and the effects of sedentry lifestyles). It's anti-cyclist leglisation pure and simple. As another poster pointed out, it's not going to encourage people to get out on their bikes. It will further add congestion to city streets, with the attendant implication for carbon emissions etc. and consquently also help to kill and maim even more people than cars already do.

No matter how punative you make the fines you will always get people who will break the rules, there is no legislation that works anywhere in the world to prevent that, not even in places where the death penalty in in place. What you can do is encourage people to do something that benefits them personally, as a society and the environment. Which is pretty much the opposite of excessive fines for cycling and mandatory ID, registration and high-viz etc.

I do think fines/penalty systems need to be in place, but they need to be proportinate, appropriate and balanced.

rollingscone

esforum wrote: »

Why do you not wear a helmet?



Its an offence not to have your license with you and be able to produce it on demand. The ten days is additional

In regards ID for cyclists, cars have reg plates and are required to be registered. Register bicycles or carry ID. I do not have a problem with either

Helmets are modestly effective at low velocity hitting your head, in other words not really likely to make a difference tipping around town.

To have the evidence for this repeated ad nauseum see the Helmet discussion mega thread. And make sure you wear a helmet before doing so.

Cars are ton+ heavy machinery that kill and maim with alarming regularity, but let's apply your logic and have the same requirements for driving and flying an airliner.

odyssey06

hardCopy wrote: »

The damage that could be done by thousands of unidentifiable cars on our streets is immeasurable, any damage currently being done by thousands of unidentifiable cyclists is practically inconsequential. If we ever get to a point where hundreds of people are being killed every year by bikes then we can revisit the debate.

What harm that presently occurs would registration prevent?

Would preventing this harm outweigh the cost to society and our health service that it would cause by reducing the number of cyclists?

Registration of cars and motorists has no bearing on this issue because they are not comparable. One kills people, one doesn't.

You have to have a licence for a dog. Did dogs cause hundreds of deaths last year?
I'm not even talking about a licence, but a form of ID that likely most people already possess in other capacities - driving licence, student ID, public services card, garda ID etc
If we're going to have on the spot fines for cyclists, it is consistent that they be expected to carry ID and can be held accountable for their actions.

If you think unidentifiable drivers would lead to more reckless behaviour on the roads, then the logical conclusion is that having high and growing numbers of unidentifiable cyclists has the same effect - even if the impact of that behaviour is not as severe, it has consequences. And reckless behaviour by cyclists can lead to negative consequences for those cyclists and pedestrians.

Why would expecting cyclists to carry a common form of ID lead to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists?

Chips Lovell

Do you have any evidence that the Guards are having problems identifying cyclists? If it isn't a problem, why waste taxpayers' money creating a solution?

Jawgap

this was on twitter a couple of days ago.....



.....some of the observations were pretty much on the money....

I'd say the police are a greater risk to cost society with that fat.

Haha! 3 tubby men telling a fit woman she’s doing it wrong. They can get in the van.

my favourite......

"Man desperate for exercise lectures fit lady on safety risks"

thank God they're armed. I mean, you never know...

Carawaystick

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why shouldn't cyclists have to carry ID? Drivers have to carry ID. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

Motorists have to carry licenses to show they are qualified to use the dangerous machinery they drive which could kill other people or themselves.

Cyclists cause no(statistically insignificant) deaths or injuries to other people or property. From reading newspaper reports of violent assaults, people walking cause more danger to others.

odyssey06 wrote: »

The helmet one seems OTT, but it's the logical conclusion of a society that feels it is entitled to legislate how people conduct their lives even when the only (not even proven) risk is to themselves - all in the name of public health care. I wouldn't assume it reflects a war on cycling, but on personal choice.

It might be a better public healthcare idea to eradicate Trachoma from the only developed country to have people suffering this....

odyssey06

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that the Guards are having problems identifying cyclists? If it isn't a problem, why waste taxpayers' money creating a solution?

I don't see any need for an outlay of taxpayers' money, other than the costs of introducing the legislation that cyclists should carry identification.

There is already sufficient concern about cyclists giving false information that
an amendment to the Road Traffic Act is deemed necessary:

http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/21/cyclists-who-mislead-gardai-on-identification-will-risk-arrest/

"Motorists who refused to give their name, address and date of birth, or who gives what a garda believes to be false or misleading information, are currently subject to arrest and a court fine of up to €2,000 — this section of the Road Traffic Act is to be extended to users of bicycles as part of the Road Traffic Bill 2016."

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't see any need for an outlay of taxpayers' money, other than the costs of introducing the legislation that cyclists should carry identification.

There is already sufficient concern about cyclists giving false information that
an amendment to the Road Traffic Act is deemed necessary:

http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/21/cyclists-who-mislead-gardai-on-identification-will-risk-arrest/

"Motorists who refused to give their name, address and date of birth, or who gives what a garda believes to be false or misleading information, are currently subject to arrest and a court fine of up to €2,000 — this section of the Road Traffic Act is to be extended to users of bicycles as part of the Road Traffic Bill 2016."

Of course there is an outlay - if a Guard is checking cyclists he/she is not doing something else.

If the cyclist doesn't comply (which a minority won't) then it means the Guard spending time processing a prosecution and attending court - again time that is 'lost' from other policing.

And to what advantage? If a Garda unit/shift has say 8 hours to spending on RTA enforcement will society really benefit if any of that is spent on enforcement against cyclists? Compared to, say, making sure bus lanes are kept free or pinging a few people for using their mobile phones or monitoring /enforcing the HGV ban?

Chips Lovell

That's a no then, I take it?

Perhaps we should be required to carry identification when going to the pub? Lest we get get a bit rowdy and the cops need to identify us to charge us with public order offences, public urination etc.?

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course there is an outlay - if a Guard is checking cyclists he/she is not doing something else.

Guards are already stopping cyclists for breaking the rules of the road and issuing on the spot fines. This expedites that process instead of time being wasted by people giving false names.
With all we know of the Guards, I wouldn't expect to see roadblocks randomly stopping cyclists just for ID.

esforum

rollingscone wrote: »

t let's apply your logic and have the same requirements for driving and flying an airliner.

I believe pilots require ID and licenses already

Carawaystick

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would expecting cyclists to carry a common form of ID lead to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists?

Because most people start cycling when they are small children, and expecting children not to forget or loose id is daft.

If you stop children cycling, you get a significant reduction in the numbers of cyclists.

hardCopy

odyssey06 wrote: »

You have to have a licence for a dog. Did dogs cause hundreds of deaths last year?

No, but county pounds need to be funded.

odyssey06 wrote: »

I'm not even talking about a licence, but a form of ID that likely most people already possess in other capacities - driving licence, student ID, public services card, garda ID etc

Kids don't generally carry age cards. Of all groups these are the main group we should be encouraging to cycle. Little (obese) Johnny can't find his ID, never mind mammy will give you a lift.

odyssey06 wrote: »

If we're going to have on the spot fines for cyclists, it is consistent that they be expected to carry ID and can be held accountable for their actions.

What actions do cyclists need to be held accountable for and why?

odyssey06 wrote: »

If you think unidentifiable drivers would lead to more reckless behaviour on the roads, then the logical conclusion is that having high and growing numbers of unidentifiable cyclists has the same effect - even if the impact of that behaviour is not as severe, it has consequences. And reckless behaviour by cyclists can lead to negative consequences for those cyclists and pedestrians.

What consequences? Maybe list them in order of importance.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would expecting cyclists to carry a common form of ID lead to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists?

Because people just won't bother. There are enough excuses not to cycle, lets not create new ones. Especially when there is no problem waiting to be fixed.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

Guards are already stopping cyclists for breaking the rules of the road and issuing on the spot fines. This expedites that process instead of time being wasted by people giving false names.
With all we know of the Guards, I wouldn't expect to see roadblocks randomly stopping cyclists just for ID.

Yeah not many though and only as part of occasional blitzes to keep the numbers up (so de brudder tells me).

Also I have to admit that since the FCNs for RLJing came in I've probably started jumping lights I probably would've stopped at before - it's simple arithmetic. I know exactly how much I have to pay if I get caught, and I know how much time it saves me on my commute (about 10 minutes) and I know the probability of being caught is low - set that against the hourly rate my firm charges for my time and bingo! It makes sense to jump the odd light........the threat of a half day in Dolphin House is gone

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah not many though and only as part of occasional blitzes to keep the numbers up (so de brudder tells me).
Also I have to admit that since the FCNs for RLJing came in I've probably started jumping lights I probably would've stopped at before - it's simple arithmetic. I know exactly how much I have to pay if I get caught, and I know how much time it saves me on my commute (about 10 minutes) and I know the probability of being caught is low - set that against the hourly rate my firm charges for my time and bingo! It makes sense to jump the odd light........the threat of a half day in Dolphin House is gone

Well whatever you do, if stopped for an offence, don't delay things with a false name, just mea culpa it ... the guard can confiscate your bike which would no doubt play havoc with the hours

ThisRegard

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would expecting cyclists to carry a common form of ID lead to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists?

How many school kids do you know with a form of ID, other than say a passport?

Darkglasses

Any obstacle to people cycling should really have a big benefit - I don't see it in this case.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well whatever you do, if stopped for an offence, don't delay things with a false name, just mea culpa it ... the guard can confiscate your bike which would no doubt play havoc with the hours

I know. I'm pretty aware of the law around cycling, but thanks.

Actually, if I'm ever stopped my first question will be if they know a certain inspector or a certain sergeant...;)

....if that doesn't work I'll show my id, if I have it on me, take my medicine and get on with it. No point in wasting my time and their time.

buffalo

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would expecting cyclists to carry a common form of ID lead to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists?

This seems relevant...