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