Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

josip

I'm always grateful that the Gardai tend to police things on a case by case basis rather than the Australian letter of the law approach.

Also, it's much easier to fine for not having a helmet coz you either have it or you don't. The passing distance thing is too subjective and most police forces would shy away from trying to enforce it

Cookie_Monster

tomasrojo wrote: »

As predicted, the police in NSW have turned out to be a lot more interested in collecting fines off cyclists than enforcing the no-close-passes law.
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.ie/2016/05/things-are-going-to-get-worse-before.html

nice little earner for very little effort though... :rolleyes:

catbear

josip wrote: »

I'm always grateful that the Gardai tend to police things on a case by case basis rather than the Australian letter of the law approach.

Also, it's much easier to fine for not having a helmet coz you either have it or you don't. The passing distance thing is too subjective and most police forces would shy away from trying to enforce it

Have you seen the way some australian motorists drive? It's like they were thought to accelerate first and then look at the road. It was always dumbfounding to see the shocked expression an aussie motorist has when they don't understand that something other than a motor vechicle can legally be on the road.

Roadhawk

It looks like Australia needed to introduce further safety measures to protect cyclists. I think its a great idea that each cyclists is issued with an ID or license for identification reasons. That way they can be held accountable for their actions.


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/23/cycling-accidents-rising-in-australia

check_six

Roadhawk wrote: »

It looks like Australia needed to introduce further safety measures to protect cyclists.

By 'safety measures' do you mean 'introduce more punitive fines and encourage the police to target cyclists exclusively to discourage them from taking to the road at all'?
The number of cyclists is reducing due to this and the number of injuries is increasing in a predictable pattern. I don't think this is a great result.

micar

Roadhawk wrote: »

It looks like Australia needed to introduce further safety measures to protect cyclists. I think its a great idea that each cyclists is issued with an ID or license for identification reasons. That way they can be held accountable for their actions.


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/23/cycling-accidents-rising-in-australia

I have my drivers license with me all the time!!!

Is this sufficient enough for you?

What about pedestrians?

check_six

Here's a quick list of some of the fines available for cyclists in Aus (I'd love to know the difference between riding furiously, riding negligently, and riding recklessly. Could you do all three at once?):

BICYCLES
Rule 119 Bicycle rider on left of roundabout not give way to vehicle 2 $106
Rule 141 (2) Cyclist pass/overtake left of left turning vehicle 2 $106
Rule 151 (1) Ride bicycle more than 2 abreast on road 2 $106
Rule 151 (2) Ride bicycle more than 2 abreast in marked lane 2 $106
Rule 151 (4) Ride bicycle more than 1.5m from another 2 $106
Rule 245 (a) Not sit astride bicycle rider's seat 2 $106
Rule 245 (b) Not ride bicycle with hand on bars 2 $106
Rule 245 (c) Ride bicycle in incorrect position 2 $106
Rule 245-1 (1)(a) Ride bicycle negligently 6 $425
Rule 245-1 (1)(b) Ride bicycle furiously 6 $425
Rule 245-1 (1)(c) Ride bicycle recklessly 6 $425
Rule 246 (1) Carry more persons on bicycle than permitted 2 $106
Rule 246 (2) Passenger on bicycle not sit on passenger seat 2 $106
Rule 246 (3) Ride bicycle with passenger not seated on passenger seat 2 $106
Rule 247 (1) Not ride in bicycle lane 2 $106
Rule 247A Rider not enter bicycle storage area correctly 2 $106
Rule 247B (1)(a) Enter bicycle storage area not give way to vehicle 2 $106
Rule 247B (1)(b) Enter bicycle storage area not give way to vehicle (lights) 2 $106
Rule 247B (1)(c) Enter bicycle storage area not give way to vehicle (arrows) 2 $106
Rule 247B (2) In bicycle storage area not give way to vehicle (multi-lane) 2 $106
Rule 248 (1) Bicycle rider cross road on children's/pedestrian crossing 2 $106
Rule 248 (2) Bicycle rider cross road on marked foot crossing 2 $106
Rule 249 Ride bicycle on pedestrian part of separated footpath 2 $106
Rule 250 (1) Ride bicycle on footpath (12 yrs or older) 2 $106
Rule 250 (2) Bicycle not keep left (shared/foot path) 2 $106
Rule 250 (2)(b) Bicycle not give way (shared/foot path) 2 $106
Rule 251 Bicycle not ride to left of oncoming bicycle on path 2 $106
Rule 252 (1) Disobey no bicycles sign/road marking 2 $106
Rule 253 Bicycle rider moving into path of driver/pedestrian 2 $106
Rule 254 (1) Ride on bicycle that is being towed 5 $319
Rule 254 (2) Hold onto moving vehicle while riding bicycle 5 $319
Rule 255 Ride bicycle too close to rear of motor vehicle 2 $106
Rule 256 (1) Rider not wear bicycle helmet/fitted/fastened 5 $319
Rule 256 (2) Passenger not wear bicycle helmet/fitted/fastened 5 $319
Rule 257 (1) Tow bicycle trailer with person in/on trailer 2 $106
Rule 258 (a) Ride bicycle without working brake 2 $106
Rule 258 (b) Ride bicycle without working warning device 2 $106
Rule 259 (a) Ride bicycle without visible front white light 2 $106
Rule 259 (b) Ride bicycle without visible rear red light 2 $106
Rule 259 (c) Ride bicycle without visible red reflector 2 $106
Rule 260 (1) Proceed before allowed (red bicycle crossing light showing) 2 $106
Rule 261 (1) Proceed before allowed (yellow bicycle crossing light showing) 2 $106
Rule 262 (1) Not cross intersection safely (bicycle crossing lights) 2 $106
Rule 262 (2) Not finish crossing road safely (bicycle crossing lights) 2 $106

ThisRegard

Ride bicycle furiously, that's just brilliant.

What if I have a row just before leaving home and cycle very angrily down the street, furious you may say, is that included?

check_six

That top one:
Rule 119 Bicycle rider on left of roundabout not give way to vehicle 2 $106

That's for negotiating roundabouts. You may stay in the left lane to go all the way around to take a right turn (I'd be reluctant to stick the edge myself). However, if you get in the way of cars coming up behind you trying to exit the roundabout before you, it's a trip to large-cash-fine town for you (also a good chance of a trip to A+E too).

Fian

Rule 253 Bicycle rider moving into path of driver/pedestrian 2 $106

That one is a recipe for disaster if e.g. bike gets rear ended by a car. For the car driver It would be worth pleading in your defense to a subsequent lawsuit that the cyclist was acting unlawfully in moving into your path.

But the one that must take the biscuit:

Rule 151 (4) Ride bicycle more than 1.5m from another 2 $106

Literally all the time you are on a bike you are more than 1.5m from another bike/cyclist. As I sit here I am currently more than 1.5m from several (remaining) cyclists in Australia right now.

josip

Rule 245 (a) Not sit astride bicycle rider's seat 2 $106
So no getting out of the saddle?!?

Rule 151 (4) Ride bicycle more than 1.5m from another 2 $106
WTF does this mean? Another what, bicyle?
Do banana benders and gum suckers have to go around in groups?

Eamonnator

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ride bicycle furiously, that's just brilliant.

What if I have a row just before leaving home and cycle very angrily down the street, furious you may say, is that included?

Sounds like your man from Pulp Fiction.

Roadhawk

micar wrote: »

I have my drivers license with me all the time!!!

Is this sufficient enough for you?

What about pedestrians?

Im sure you are one of few but fair play.

...What exactly about pedestrians? they are not using a vehicle so wouldnt apply.

check_six

Fian wrote: »

But the one that must take the biscuit:

Rule 151 (4) Ride bicycle more than 1.5m from another 2 $106

Literally all the time you are on a bike you are more than 1.5m from another bike/cyclist. As I sit here I am currently more than 1.5m from several (remaining) cyclists in Australia right now.

Yeah, that's confusing. It's to do with riding two abreast. If you are two abreast and more than 1.5m apart you get fined. Of course, if you are going past at more than 60kph, you will get fined if the gap is less than 1.5m. It's a fine line to tread!

I like this one:
Rule 255 Ride bicycle too close to rear of motor vehicle 2 $106

Specifics are that if you are within 2m of the rear of another vehicle for more than 200m you get fined.

Roadhawk

check_six wrote: »

By 'safety measures' do you mean 'introduce more punitive fines and encourage the police to target cyclists exclusively to discourage them from taking to the road at all'?
The number of cyclists is reducing due to this and the number of injuries is increasing in a predictable pattern. I don't think this is a great result.

Pretty much but without the dramatic addition. The cyclists would not be a "target" for police if they werent breaking the law.

I have heard of this theory where the higher the number of cyclists directly equals a higher safety rating for cyclists. My understanding of this is that this only applies due to the number of cyclists interacting with other vehicles and then the drivers becoming more aware of cyclists. If this is the case why does Ireland have many segregated cycle lanes which prevents this interaction?...food for thought?

rubadub

Roadhawk wrote: »

...What exactly about pedestrians? they are not using a vehicle so wouldnt apply.

I don't see what having a vehicle has to do with it. The RSA says the 2 groups of roadusers at most risk are pedestrians and cyclists.

Roadhawk wrote: »

That way they can be held accountable for their actions.

Pedestrians are by far the most reckless roadusers I come across, hands down. It is very rare to hear of them being prosecuted for illegal crossing of the road, I have only heard of one single case here. Why on earth would you dismiss them since they are not "using a vehicle", I am guessing since you simply have no reasonable reply, a very common trick.

Its an easy cop out to say "oh they are not roadusers" which is a moot point, just as saying they have no vehicle seems a cop out. It's as sad & pathetic as discussions on drugs where people refuse to include alcohol as being a drug, either since they point blank say "it's not a drug" or "it's legal". Fingers in the ears going la, la, la, utterly shameful.

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

I don't see what having a vehicle has to do with it. The RSA says the 2 groups of roadusers at most risk are pedestrians and cyclists.

They're wrong. Motorcyclists are much more at risk, whether you measure KSIs per km, or per hour of travel.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Pretty much but without the dramatic addition. The cyclists would not be a "target" for police if they werent breaking the law.

The NSW police fined a cyclist for doing a track stand, and they've fined a woman wheeling a bike for not having a bell. They fined another woman for not having her straps tight enough on her helmet. These are all scenarios where no action is justified because no law has actually been broken, or a quiet word of advice would suffice.

They're targeting cyclists because Australia has a deeply antagonistic attitude towards cycling. I'm not sure where it came from, but they're among the most ambivalent nations on climate change too. (I can hazard a guess that that's partly down to their huge coal deposits.)

magicbastarder

rubadub wrote: »

Pedestrians are by far the most reckless roadusers I come across, hands down. It is very rare to hear of them being prosecuted for illegal crossing of the road, I have only heard of one single case here.

we don't have the crime of jaywalking as many people understand it though - i.e. it's not illegal to cross a road, unless you're within i think 10m of a red pedestrian light.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

we don't have the crime of jaywalking as many people understand it though - i.e. it's not illegal to cross a road, unless you're within i think 10m of a red pedestrian light.

A friend of mine went to court for it. Crossed diagonally at a pedestrian crossing (I guess she didn't use the crossing itself, which was very near her). She was quite drunk after celebrating getting her Ph.D. in Zoology. The judge let her off and told her to think of her little furry animals in future. She is a parasitologist.

Pinch Flat

tomasrojo wrote: »

They're targeting cyclists because Australia has a deeply antagonistic attitude towards cycling. I'm not sure where it came from, but they're among the most ambivalent nations on climate change too. (I can hazard a guess that that's partly down to their huge coal deposits.)

I've never been to Australia, but I'm surprised to see the issues they have with cycling - I always thought of Australia as an outdoors type place. Anyone I know that's worked there has said their pretty fanatical about sport - to the extent you'll stand out if you're not in decent shape. And also recycling - more so than we are. But maybe that depends on the city / area.

The motoring attitude I'm reading about there seems to be similar to the US - I know they like their big cars there as well, which would suggest the ambivalence towards the impact this has on the environment .Again surprising and perhaps contradictory given how protective they are of their flora and fauna.

tomasrojo

t

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I've never been to Australia, but I'm surprised to see the issues they have with cycling - I always thought of Australia as an outdoors type place. Anyone I know that's worked there has said their pretty fanatical about sport - to the extent you'll stand out if you're not in decent shape. And also recycling - more so than we are. But maybe that depends on the city / area.

The motoring attitude I'm reading about there seems to be similar to the US - I know they like their big cars there as well, which would suggest the ambivalence towards the impact this has on the environment .Again surprising and perhaps contradictory given how protective they are of their flora and fauna.

I think they really have a problem with utility cycling, which is not a sport. Recreational cyclists seem to get a lot of punishment passes and abuse as well though.

I'm working off second-hand or third-hand accounts, as I've never been to Australia. The tenor of the reports is pretty uniform, however.

The governments there aren't that protective of their flora and fauna either. They've effectively written off the Great Barrier Reef. They did nothing meaningful to save it.

They also are vying with the United States for most obese nation, which also surprised me when I heard it.

josip

They're very outdoorsy and sporty, especially if you drive there in a V8 Commodore.

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

A friend of mine went to court for it. Crossed diagonally at a pedestrian crossing (I guess she didn't use the crossing itself, which was very near her). She was quite drunk after celebrating getting her Ph.D. in Zoology. The judge let her off and told her to think of her little furry animals in future. She is a parasitologist.

The laws mention crossing diagonally at a junction where it's pedestrian green all the way around is only permitted if there is a sign specifically permitting diagonal crossing. Otherwise you must go, umm, orthogonal(?).

Just in case anyone else thought Australia was just all sunburn, Skippy, and spiders here's the list of things you've gotta think of while just going walkabout:

PEDESTRIANS
Rule 228 Travel past no pedestrians sign 1 $71
Rule 229 Disobey road access sign 1 $71
Rule 230 (1)(a) Not cross road by shortest safe route 1 $71
Rule 230 (1)(b) Stay on road longer than necessary to cross 1 $71
Rule 231 (1)&(2)(a) Cross when pedestrian lights not green 1 $71
Rule 231 (1)&(3)(a) Not cross quickly to safety area (pedestrian lights) 1 $71
Rule 231 (1)&(3)(b) Not cross quickly to nearest side (pedestrian lights) 1 $71
Rule 231 (1)&(4) Not stay in safety area at pedestrian lights 1 $71
Rule 232 (1) Cross against traffic light (no pedestrian lights) 1 $71
Rule 233 (1) Cross road before tram stops 1 $71
Rule 233 (2)(a) Not cross by shortest safest route after getting off tram 1 $71
Rule 233 (2)(b) Stay on road after getting off tram 1 $71
Rule 234 (1) Pedestrian not cross part/road at crossing 1 $71
Rule 234 (2) Stay on crossing longer than necessary 1 $71
Rule 235 (1)(a) Not use pedestrian facility at level crossing 1 $71
Rule 235 (1)(b) Not cross within 20m of level crossing 1 $71
Rule 235 (2)(a) Cross level crossing contrary to warning lights/bells 1 $71
Rule 235 (2)(b) Cross level crossing with gate/boom/barrier operating 1 $71
Rule 235 (2)(c) Cross level crossing when tram/train on/entering crossing 1 $71
Rule 235 (2)(d) Cross level crossing when approaching tram/train seen/heard 1 $71
Rule 235 (2)(e) Cross level crossing when crossing/road beyond blocked 1 $71
Rule 235 (2A)(a) Not finish crossing without delay if warning lights/bells start 1 $71
Rule 235 (2A)(b) Not finish crossing without delay if gate/boom starts to close 1 $71
Rule 235 (2A)(c) Not finish crossing without delay if train or tram approaches 1 $71
Rule 235A (2) Cross if a pedestrian level crossing has red pedestrian light 1 $71
Rule 235A (3) Not finish crossing without delay if red pedestrian light appears 1 $71
Rule 236 (1) Pedestrian move into driver's path 1 $71
Rule 236 (2) Pedestrian obstruct driver's/other pedestrian's path 1 $71
Rule 236 (4)(a) Stand on/move onto road to solicit contributions etc from occupant of vehicle 1 $71
Rule 236 (4)(b) Stand on/move onto road to hitchhike 1 $71
Rule 236 (4)(c) Stand on/move onto road to display an advertisement 1 $71
Rule 236 (4)(d) Stand on/move onto road to sell or offer articles for sale 1 $71
Rule 236 (4)(e) Stand on/move onto road to wash/clean/offer to wash/clean windscreen of vehicle 1 $71
Rule 236 (5) Driver/passenger in/on vehicle buy/offer to buy article/service from person on road 1 $71
Rule 237 (1) Get on/into moving vehicle 1 $71
Rule 238 (1) Pedestrian not travel on footpath/nature strip 1 $71
Rule 238 (2)(a) Pedestrian not keep to side of road 1 $71
Rule 238 (2)(ab) Pedestrian travel on road not face approaching traffic 1 $71
Rule 238 (2)(b) Travel on road beside more than 1 other pedestrian/vehicle 1 $71
Rule 239 (1) Pedestrian on bicycle path/separated footpath 1 $71
Rule 239 (3) Not keep out of path of bicycle/pedestrian 1 $71

tomasrojo

check_six wrote: »

Rule 238 (2)(ab) Pedestrian travel on road not face approaching traffic 1 $71

I hope this rule is more nuanced than this. Walking around a blind corner towards oncoming traffic is actually a very bad idea, though otherwise walking towards oncoming traffic is the better option where there are no sidewalks.

catbear

Rule 236 (2) Pedestrian obstruct driver's/other pedestrian's path 1 $71

FFS.
Ireland: "oops sorry Guard" "no problem, have a good day" "thanks guard"

Australia "oops, sorry officer" "Sorry is not going to cut it sunny, you bumped into me on the path which hindered me from my predetermined trajectory. That will be a $71 fine"

Zero regrets about leaving Australia. It's a prison in denial where everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

ThisRegard

catbear wrote: »

It's a prison in denial where everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

Looking at all the stuff you can get punished for that have been posted here, you do wonder if when it stopped being a penal colony they just lazily migrated prison rules to the general laws, seeing as the public were probably just all ex cons at the time anyway.

catbear

ThisRegard wrote: »

Looking at all the stuff you can get punished for that have been posted here, you do wonder if when it stopped being a penal colony they just lazily migrated prison rules to the general laws, seeing as the public were probably just all ex cons at the time anyway.

I met a lady who told me that even when she was growing up in her wheat belt town in the 70s, what job you got depended on if you were descended from a prisoner or a warden. The last prison colony there was in the 1860s I think.

Oddly enough though while all the usual official clerical jobs fell to warden offspring, the police rolls were actually mostly filled by convict descendants.

I think the job of clearing aboriginals off their native land was considered dirty work suitable only for the convict class. At one stage I read that something like 80% of the WA police force was clearing land for 2% of the settler farmers in the whole state!

stoneill

A bit of scaremongering going on?

The NSW rules are not draconian - very similar to our rules, except perhaps the manditory wearing of bicycle helmets which has been suggested here from time to time.

Irish legislation is clear on bicycle equipment (lighting, reflectors, bell etc) and on the use of bicycles (obey the rules of the road).

Enforcement of the rules is different - NSW police do not have the power of discretion, if you are caught, you are fined.
Garda do have the power of discretion, if you are caught you can be let off with a telling off.

Chips Lovell

Or a spanking