Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

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...

Lemming

buffalo wrote: »

This seems relevant...

Not available for me :-/

What's the synopsis?

buffalo

Lemming wrote: »

Not available for me :-/

What's the synopsis?

Certain US politicians want to introduce mandatory voter ID to 'protect democracy', despite there being nearly zero evidence of voter fraud by this mechanism*. But hey, nothing to fear, nothing to hide, right?

The clip is much funnier though.


*It just so happens that those who are disenfranchised by the 'protection of democracy' happen to be the minority groups who vote Democrat. But that part of the metaphor doesn't really work for cycling.

Chips Lovell

In fairness, all cyclists are flaming pinkos.

Unknown Soldier

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

I was exaggerating, but compliance with rules is important, apparently. You deciding it is minor is irrelevant. What do you consider a major one?

gadetra wrote: »

<snip> 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. ,snip>

I can't see a cyclist not cycling because of this. Maybe my brain works differently. How does this work in someones head? Logically?

"Oh I think Ill go for a cycle, no ... wait! There are issues...I might get a fine, becuase I don't conform.."

"never cycles again..."

What?

Jawgap wrote: »

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



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





my favourite......

You brought a lot to the table.

Well done.

I've asked my cat to put together an appropriate response but she just looked at me with her "I'll put it on the list" or what could be her "Why does this slave human keep speaking to me in a high pitched ladyboy voice"

How does she even know what a ladyboy would sound like?!

That aside, society puts those lovely laws in place so we can all get along together (it's not that complicated) occasionally it goes pear shaped but in general everyone conforms anyways, so if they have decided to do this in Aus'land, fairplay.

Maybe it is not Anti-cyclist, maybe they have a problem with cyclist breaking red lights etc.

As mentioned previously, I wouldn't have any issues with these "laws"

I comply already. Only because I value my life.

It would seems people who don't comply have problems with them and try and find "saving carbon footprint" arguments to back themselves up.

We can't get to pick and chose the "laws" etc that suit us (cyclists). There is that whole pain in the ass "greater good" thing.

And it is always about the LOWEST common denominator.

Beasty

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I can't see a cyclist not cycling because of this. Maybe my brain works differently. How does this work in someones head? Logically?

It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting. It's helps build an anti-cycling sentiment, encouraging the likes of George Hook to have continual digs. That results in some people who may otherwise be encouraged to start thinking they don't want to be associated with "that crowd"

Unknown Soldier

Beasty wrote: »

It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting. It's helps build an anti-cycling sentiment, encouraging the likes of George Hook to have continual digs. That results in some people who may otherwise be encouraged to start thinking they don't want to be associated with "that crowd"

Why?

Some questions.

"It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting."

Why?

No really... why? if I was starting cycling I wouldn't know any of this.
Why would anyone starting off?

Google? really? I'm not getting that. I didn't google when I started cycling. I just "did"



"It's helps build an anti-cycling sentiment, encouraging the likes of George Hook to have continual digs. That results in some people who may otherwise be encouraged to start thinking they don't want to be associated with "that crowd"

Why?

You have an issue with George Hook?

That what you brought to the table?

Is that it?

Really?

He hates cyclists, that is no reason to make this countries laws.

So...


eh...

Jawgap

It would certainly discourage casual cycling and it'd be goodbye to Dublin Bikes.

Hasn't Melbourne's Bike Scheme declined in usage

Cookie_Monster

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I was exaggerating, but compliance with rules is important, apparently.

even if the rules are stupid and pointless?

I can't see a cyclist not cycling because of this. Maybe my brain works differently. How does this work in someones head? Logically?
"Oh I think Ill go for a cycle, no ... wait! There are issues...I might get a fine, becuase I don't conform.."
"never cycles again..."
What?

having to wear a helmet puts lots of people off, particularly when there are no benefits in doing so.
the excessive punishment likely if people happen to forget to wear will put people off.
having to break a light because the pressure sensor is not set-up to properly accommodate all road users and risking a huge fine will put a lot of people off.
having to get some form of ID so their 5 year old can go out cycling with them will put a lot of people off and they'll never even teach their kids.
kids won't cycle to school for same as above and another whole generation will miss out on cycling

I've asked my cat to put together an appropriate response but she just looked at me with her "I'll put it on the list" or what could be her "Why does this slave human keep speaking to me in a high pitched ladyboy voice"
How does she even know what a ladyboy would sound like?!

great contribution :rolleyes:

That aside, society puts those lovely laws in place so we can all get along together (it's not that complicated) occasionally it goes pear shaped but in general everyone conforms anyways, so if they have decided to do this in Aus'land, fairplay.

despite every other country in the world (apart from NZ) considering it a bad idea.

Maybe it is not Anti-cyclist, maybe they have a problem with cyclist breaking red lights etc.

maybe they do but education and enforcement is the key not massively disproportionate fines and draconian ID requirements.

As mentioned previously, I wouldn't have any issues with these "laws"

why, because you don't cycle?

We can't get to pick and chose the "laws" etc that suit us (cyclists). There is that whole pain in the ass "greater good" thing.

the greater good is being blatantly ignored though. Country after country and study after study shows helmet laws reduce cycling which in turn decreases overall national health and increases traffic. How can these laws possibly be in the greater good?

And it is always about the LOWEST common denominator.

Yep, protecting the roads for motorists at all costs. No different to the absurd high vis drive the RSA plug for cyclist and pedestrians etc. All designed to make it less appealing to be on the roads and hidden under the guise of H&S

eeeee

I know for a fact there are plenty of young women and men who would be a whole lot less keen to cycle if they ahd to wear a helmet for self conscious and/or 'cool' reasons. Plenty. For a start.

It also instils the idea of danger in people's heads, of cycling as a perilous task you can't get wrong or confused about because you'll get A BIG FINE. People who already cycle will continue to do, I agree with that alright, but as said it will most definitely put some off who don't already cycle. Proportional fines are fine, and I bet even if you put huge fines on RLJ-ing you will get the exact same level of compliance you already do, given the effort put in implementation. I don't believe helmets should be mandatory, although I wear one myself, and mandatory ID goes against every single one of my principles on and off the bike! The last two further remove the casual ease and convenience of cycling, which is one of its major advantages in getting people to do it.

tomasrojo

ID-checking laws, like stop-and-search laws, frequently end up being used to harass minorities. So I assume some who currently cycle in NSW will stop cycling because they get fed up being asked for ID all the time.

ID-checking laws (and stop-and-search laws) can be just and justified, but for cycling, it's just stupid. It's not an especially dangerous activity to others, and it isn't an activity associated with anything but the most minor forms of law-breaking.

Here's some example of using bike-related laws to harrass poor urban African-Americans from Florida:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/how-riding-your-bike-can-land-you-in-trouble-with-the-cops---if-youre-black/2225966

Especially vindictive:

One woman was walking her bike home after cooking for an elderly neighbor. She said she was balancing a plate of fish and grits in one hand when an officer flagged her down and issued her a $51 ticket for not having a light. With late fees, it has since ballooned to $90. She doesn't have the money to pay.