Although the laws have existed for a while and additional changes are coming soon, police made an example of law-breakers recently.
Just a warning that you might want to get that bell for your bike :)
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/26/cyclists…
the laws in relation to cycling specifically (not the road rules) are often senseless/impractical in many cases are applied arbitrarily.
eg. you can get fined $70 in victoria for having your helmet on but the strap not secured tightly enough…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/cyclist-fined-for…
…now how many people are aware of that particular law and what is the exact definition of 'securely attached'? in that case it was up to the discretion of the officer issuing the fine…is that a fair law?
eg. you can get fined $70 in victoria for having your helmet on but the strap not secured tightly enough…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/cyclist-fined-for…
…now how many people are aware of that particular law and what is the exact definition of 'securely attached'? in that case it was up to the discretion of the officer issuing the fine…is that a fair law?
No its not fair at all
For Motorcyclists its $298 in NSW https://netrider.net.au/threads/298-fine-for-helmet-strap-no…
And $330 in QLD http://motorbikewriter.com/fined-330-for-loose-motorcycle-he…
Bicyclists should pay the same fine as its the same roads and the same offence.
…that rider was pinged on a share path in a park…
@franco cozzo: Was he required by law to wear a helmet fastened in the correct manner and was he doing that?
I already do all the right things (except for the bell, I ripped them off my bikes when i bought them along with the reflectors and threw them in the bin). I dont even live in NSW so I wont have a problem but it does make me angry that a bunch of laws that will damage cycling and wont have any impact on safety are being introduced. Be careful what you wish for, if it was mandatory helmets and IDs for pedestrians would you be saying the same?
Is the 1 metre rule enough to make it safe these days to not use the footpath? I'd rather not hold up the traffic where the footpath is sufficiently wide. What is stopping someone from protesting, riding slowly, and jamming the bus lane?
Two abreast in the city going slowly will bring the CBD to a crawl.
Yeah. That is also my concern — I sometimes ride on the footpath because I simply have no choice — when the cars are parked on the left side and the road leaves virtually only a half meter between me and a potential opening door and even less than half a meter with cars moving to my right.
An example of a road that's too narrow, causing you to hold up the traffic if you ride on either side of the road
http://imgur.com/fbyl801
I've already struck an opening door once. So I wonder if cops will go lenient in cases like this.
What suburb is that? looks so familiar just can't seem to work it out
EDIT: Figured it out! Lidcombe!
Have you struck any pedestrians,while riding on the footpath? I had this one guy on a bike knock me over and just continue pedalling like nothing had happened.
No way I would ever ride in the danger area of a car door. But after just returning from Sydney and seeing the limited amount of room left for a car let alone a cyclist it's a very hard problem to deal with. It was scary to see bike lanes painted in door opening area. I feel very lucky I have roads to ride on that do not require me to do this.
I think they reality is that as cyclists grow in numbers then cars will just have to wait and get used to it. This is what is happening in London where cyclists are about to outnumber motorists.
It's mostly down to bad planning and design. Bike lanes are kind of an afterthought and are usually not factored when designing the width of roads in most places, so you end up with a lot of so called "pinch" points where riders feel very vulnerable being flanked by moving traffic on one side and parked cars on the other.
The CBD is already at a crawl, bikes will decrease congestion.
They should be making it legal to ride on footpaths.
This is also my main concern. Riding on the footpath should be allowed as long as there is minimal pedestrian activity. Hell, even cap the speed limit for cyclists on the footpaths to 15km/h. Most cyclists don't even travel that fast on the footpaths. Even if we do run into a pedestrian, both parties won't get seriously injured. On the other hand, a cyclist getting into a collision with a vehicle travelling at 60km/h can cause life threatening injuries.
I'm pretty sure the majority of the 1,500 cyclist hospitalisations mentioned in the article comes from bike collisions with cars rather than with pedestrians. NSW police has no concern for riders safety, they're overpolicing and would rather stick with the new toys that the government has provided them with. Politicians have no idea the dangers cyclists face in Sydney's roads since they're too busy getting chauffeured with taxpayers dollars. I'd rather be safe than dead at this point in time.
The majority of bicycle collisions are from car colliding with bike, not the other way around.
I hate the idiots who ride 2 or more abreast (yes, I have seen this in 80km/h zones). Those imbeciles are a danger to themselves and other road users.
Still, I plan on cycling eventually and don't like all cyclists getting thrown into the same category as the bad apples (of which there is a sizeable minority in my experiences).
I often ride in groups of 30-60 cyclists 2 abreast on 80km/hr roads, normally twice a week or so, it is not uncommon, everyone I know that rides a bike does it. If you ever do one of the big charity bike rides like 'Around the Bay' etc it is virtually unavoidable. Normally we choose the roads/ride carefully so that the road is either a very quiet rural road or a road with several lanes so that motorists could take the other lane when passing. We still get people though that, despite having an empty lane to their right choose to pass us at high speed. Getting killed being hit from behind is one of my great fears with cycling but unfortunately it probably comes with the territory and is unavoidable.
I hope, just hope, that you do that on weekends and outside of any rush hour…
Tip…be in the middle of those 60 riders for a better chance of survival ;)
Try a small stretch on the Princes Highway in peak hour morning traffic when everyone is going to work. Two riders have to hold hands or they cannot do the smart and sensible thing and ride single file?
Absolute nuisance some of them. The only solution is slow down to a crawl or swerve into another lane.
@Kayeff Sea: patience…is also a driving skill. not to mention road attitude towards other users.
…they ride 2 a breast because theyre entitled to and its safer as impatient drivers will often cut it too close to the rider
Crappy article tbh.
fines actually dished out
hardly unfair.
It should be legal to ride not the footpath.
helmets do diddly squat for rider safety.
most of the rider fined for disovpbeying traffic control lights were for crossing where a cycleway crosses a road but they haven't installed a bike lantern at the lights, so people were riding across the road on a green man light when they should be allowed to ride across on a green bike but one hadn't been installed yet.
Hardly fair.
Agree. Europe has it right, no helmets and ride on the footpath. Probably don't have as many idiots walking around with their head in their phones.
It should be legal to ride not the footpath.
While I agree (in certain circumstances) it's still illegal.
helmets do diddly squat for rider safety.
Reduces severity of injury. And considering the astronomical cost of rehabilitation - i'm all for it.
most of the rider fined for disovpbeying traffic control lights …
Have you got a google map view of this place?
A couple of years ago I fell off my road bike going round a roundabout in the rain. I landed on my back and my head slammed into the road. It broke the helmet and I had to replace it.
I could not have replaced my head.
In Queensland we can ride bikes on the footpath, but it has its own problems.
I feel it is dangerous to ride at speed on a foot path! I have done it before of course but some area i wont risk it people jumping out of no where!
@Davo1111 Agree. Let's switch it around:
210 to motorists for not wearing seatbelts.
80 to motorists for driving on the footpath.
103 to motorists for disobeying traffic control lights.
And noone bats an eyelid.
Tell a cyclist they've done something wrong and are accountable for it and oooooh it's the end of the world!
@DrDollar, mostly agreed. I ride a bike (I also used to race road bikes) but I also drive a car, the two are very different. You get hit in your car in a low speed collision and you are okay, turn that around and getting hit on the bike is almost certainly broken bones even at 30km/hr. I just want to get to work alive when I ride my bike in.
Car and truck drivers need to be more aware of how much damage they can do to a cyclist if they hit them. I can't tell you how many semi's have nearly killed me after coming too close and the air sucks your bike towards the semi, it's terrifying.
Agreed 100% that cyclist need to be accountable, and I think the new laws are a direction in the right step but far from enough on both sides.
I feel safe driving to work in my car, on my bike I still get daily 'o shite' moments where I've narrowly avoided a trip to the hospital from some doosh in a car not paying attention.
In all fairness, cyclists shouldn't be sharing the road with high-speed heavy vehicles or slower-moving pedestrians. They also can't be expected to cycle at regular speeds when there's no clearance from driveways, pedestrian exits and opening car doors. Frankly, beyond flattening the entirety of Australia and starting again I don't know if a safe solution can ever be reached.
The main difference between riding a bike or car is the sense of vulnerability at low-speeds. In one day recently I was almost struck twice. First I was riding in a bike lane and a driver quickly swung their door open all the way. Then riding down a road with right of way, a driver that was stopped at a stop-sign failed to see me (despite my slowing down and assuming eye contact was made) and launched out just as I was about to enter the intersection. One of the first thing cyclists should be taught is to never move ahead of a left-turning vehicle - even if the green man is there at a traffic light (though I sometimes dismount early and become a pedestrian since it's often the only safe way to cross a busy intersection). Some of these situations are discussed here: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/modify-the-roading-system-…
If any nanny-state rules should be enforced, they should be focused on increasing visibility of cyclists. I don't recall what I was wearing that day but it wasn't enough. I wasn't wearing my usual yellow fluoro-vest that I normally wear even in the middle of the day. In either case I don't think my bell would have helped and it would have sacrificed my quick-thinking actions. As cars become more technologically advanced I think detection systems with auditory, visual and tactile feedback might come into play (I suppose all cars will have what's akin to a missile detection system), but in the meantime I think science should validate which cues are most effective at creating visibility under different road and lighting conditions (Always-on red lights? Yellow or orange fluoro?).
There are situation where traffic control lights shouldn't necessarily apply to cyclists in bike lanes but following them can of course reduce risk under some circumstances. A bike going straight on a T-intersection should yield at a red-light but could cautiously continue after assessing the pedestrian and traffic situation ahead and the space for any turning circles from entering cars. The absence of physical barriers of course means the cyclist is never really safe. And perhaps the odd motorist may sense a moving object ahead and start moving without paying proper attention to traffic lights.
Regardless of the effectiveness of helmets in preventing brain injuries, they can be useful for reducing cuts and abrasions (from personal experience). Maybe in 20 years they'll find the body goes into survival mode quicker with a few scrapes but in the meantime minimising blood loss, scalp and face injuries can be a good thing.
I disagree with you here. There are lots of places all over the world where cyclists and cars mix very well. Probably the best example is the Netherlands. The problem here is the attitude of drivers, which isn't helped by the fact that many very poor drivers push their bad habits onto their children, as they are somehow allowed to teach them how to drive.
It's an attitude problem. People are always in a rush, there's too much aggression in society, especially on the roads.
I would actually use the Netherlands as an example where 99.9% safe still isn't considered "safe" enough. There has been quite a push to separate cars completely from bikes in the Netherlands, where almost half the cycling deaths involve a collision with a car (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/11/fewer_road_dea…). But I agree with your overall point.
When I was camping in Utrecht and wandered to the city centre, one of the first things I noticed were an absence of cars OR bikes. They've lived with pedestrianised streets for years and Sydbey's CBD is only now willing to give it a go. There's no doubt Australia has an attitude problem which extends beyond road rage. I'd wager a drunk guy in Australia is much more interested in what another guy is "looking at" than in most European countries. Maybe it's the heat…
I'm new to bike riding. Bought a road bike and my ride to work is 20km each way (I do only a few trips a week). I could ride to work on the road which is only 12km but I DO NOT HAVE A DEATH WISH, so instead I stick to the bike path which basically takes me on a tour of sydney. It is NOT safe for me to ride on the road. I'm new, I'm slow and I'm still learning how to ride basically. So what the hell am I meant to do when there are parts of my route which have no bike path? Keeping in mind that I'm already on an epic detour to take the one and only bike path to the city. The only common sense thing for me to do is ride on the footpath for those small sections where there's no path. It's not as if I'm zooming on the path running pedestrians over. I'm going slow, I give pedestrians way and I ride safe. Forcing a beginner like me to ride on sydney's busiest streets at peak hour is just stupid.
When I'm closer to home in the suburbs and I'm riding in quiet streets, I do ride on the road to try and practice. I tell you what, it is petrifying! I've skydived, bunjee jumped, swam with sharks, blablabla and nothing is scarier than entrusting my life to douchebag drivers. Without fail everytime they've sped right past me, not giving a crap that one clip and im gonski.
I really don't understand what goes on in their minds. How is someone meant to go from completely new/beginner to "you need expert skills and expert speed to ride on Parramatta Road or George Street in Sydney at peak hour traffic"
People not wearing helmets or riding through red lights is one thing, and go ahead and fine them. But I just think this "no footpath" business is absolutely wrong. And keep in mind, that experienced riders don't really want to ride on the footpath anyway because it's slow AF, so they'd rather be on the road anyway. If you're seeing someone on the footpath it's most likely because, like me, they are not yet skilled enough to compete with real cars.
For a real adrenaline rush try cycling on highways with trucks whooshing past at over 100 km/hr. Makes motorcycling in SE Asia feel relatively safe in comparison. Some nice examples of not-so-inviting Australian "bike lanes" in this link -https://idonotdespair.com/2014/07/03/cycling-on-freeways-and-major-highways-in-australia-cycling-for-extremists/
My favourite all-too-common experience is the "bike lane ends here" sign. They should instead say "You're on your own from here, kiddo! Muahahahaha!"
People banned (or voted to ban) cycles on footpaths because there is a perceived sense of danger when a bicyclist suddenly whooshes past you. Imagine you're walking to work, engrossed in texting on your phone when suddenly a bike moving at nearly 35kms moves towards you. You are shocked out of your skin and drop your phone, while the rider speeds away without so much as an apology.
Most likely you will jump on OZbargain that night and then make a post complaining about some 'lycra wearing bastards' who should stay off the footpaths.
Pedestrians who don't ride would probably much prefer that footpaths be for walking only and not fast-moving vehicles of any type. (oh, and these people would be in for a shock if they were to visit places like Vietnam where the traffic does not stop for pedestrians)
Motorists on the other hand would just rather cyclists stay off the road because they slow down traffic in the CBD :(
You can't please everyone. If you value your life, or you have no confidence or skill in riding a bike in a congested area, unmount your bike and just walk, or take the public transport.
Getting surprised on a footpath because you've got your head phones in (so you can't hear anything else), looking at your phone with your head down in the middle of the path is hardly shocking. You're likely to get hit by a reversing car, a small kid on a scooter, another person or pretty much any other moving object if you aren't paying attention.
"Imagine you're walking to work, engrossed in texting on your phone" I can just picture wile coyote doing that on an acme phone and walking off a cliff, you might as well stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes as you walk around, same effect!
That's rubbish - it's definitely possible to see things in your periphery while using a phone, just not behind you. If someone is cycling towards you from behind, there's no real way of telling that they're there, except if you happen to look behind you, or if the cyclist rings their bell. Guess what - at least some of the 64 cautions were for not having a bell.
@franco cozzo: You don't need complete situational awareness to avoid other pedestrians or reversing cars.
In any case, even if someone wasn't on their phone, they don't have eyes in the back of their head.
@Nightshade: Most of the time I find people who get a fright when they are passed by a cyclist is because they have their head phones in and turned up. Doesn't matter how many times you ring your bell or shout out 'passing on the right', they don't hear you. Road bikes are pretty quiet but they do make noise.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the new laws, I think they are a great first step. There's still so much more that needs to be done on both sides.
Very difficult to go 35km/hr on a footpath, most people would only be doing 20-25km/hr. Also people going that fast are on the road because there are too many hazards on the footpaths - i.e. driveways, cars, bins, people, animals.
Couldn't agree more @kingmw
Even with a completely empty footpath it's pretty dicey on a road bike with the uneven path and random debris.
People who haven't ridden a road bike probably don't realise that they don't ride very well off road, uneven paths included. Sand/loose dirt on a road bike is certain death ;)
Should also point out that cyclists hating trucks and other heavy vehicles speeding past on roads is similar to pedestrians hating cyclists speeding past on footpaths.
@bs0 kind of comparing apples and oranges. Yes it is similar in concept but it is far more dangerous on the bike. If you hit a pedestrian, sure it's gonna hurt and you might break bones maybe even spend a few weeks in hospital, but get sucked under the wheels of a huge b-double and I think they'll be scraping your remains from the road including your mangled I'd card.
Cyclists are human, they are also pedestrians sometimes too. I've been startled by a bike before whilst running. I can't say that I feared for my life, it was more that something was there that I didn't expect.
Getting nearly hit by a b-double is a very unique experience. Trying not to get sucked under the wheels when it comes inches from you is absolutely terrifying. If it hasn't happened to you personally you really don't know what it's like at all. I'd rather someone run at me with a chainsaw, at least I have a chance at running away.
To be clear, when I say truck I do not mean those small panam delivery trucks, I mean the bigger b-doubles. They have a huge affect on the air as they go past, in exactly the same way a train sucks people towards it on a platform. If you want to feel what is like, try standing on the other side of the line close to the edge at a train station when a train goes past, same diff, you'll probably die if you get too close.
And this is exactly why bicycles should not be allowed on the road with cars and trucks…
The speed and weight differentials are too great and being a cyclist amongst all the heavy metal is a huge risk.
I ride a motorcycle and there's no way I'm having a truck travel behind me.. as soon as I see one on my a55, I'm out of there - whether it's taking off with speed, changing lanes, or placing another car between myself and the truck.
I can't say that I feared for my life, it was more that something was there that I didn't expect.
If someone receiving a single punch in the face and falling over hitting their head on the footpath can die, I don't see how being hit by a cyclist could be much different.
About bloody time. As a pedestrian, I nearly got killed on Frome Road (Adelaide), when one of those lycra bastards decided to run a red when the pedestrian green light was on. Luckily I turned my head to check if not I would have died since he was coming at me at 40km/hr.
As a motorist in surry hills (NSW), seeing them zig zag across peak city traffic, when cars are constantly slow stopping and going, makes my heart skip a beat. They squeeze between cars and in front of cars, it's definitely less than a metre there.
Bring on the regulations!
If you would have died from the impact, I suspect the rider would have probably died too. (No, you both probably would have needed some hospital treatment though)
Get out of your car in Surry hills peak traffic, you'll get there quicker.
Just because you didn't see the cyclist breaking the law does not mean they didn't see you. You got scared, yes,because you were surprised. There is a very high chance there was no way they would ever have hit you, because cyclists are humans who pay attention to their surroundings instead of mindlessly following green arrows like drones. This was a reply to cronut. Think I pressed the wrong button.
yes, true, he must've seen him but the guy shouldn't have run the red light in the first place…
@iSamurai: not sure you realize how wasteful of time traffic lights are. Roundabouts are far more time efficient.
I believe the law is 1m/1.5m for cars "passing" a cyclist and not the other way around….
I'm talking about cars caught in a traffic jam, and cyclists just going in-between and in front of cars to beat the traffic. Are there no rules for cyclists to maintain a distance between cars? They should be at least a 1m away because the ones I've experienced are just 50cm away when zipping through slow moving traffic.
It's so dangerous for motorists when cyclists don't obey the road rules who suddenly cut in front of cars. Motorists shouldn't have to constantly check their blinds spots for bikes when moving in forward (STRAIGHT) moving traffic.
The rules for cyclist in that situation are the same as the rules for cars, ie. when it is safe to do so and giving way to any traffic already in the lane. There's no minimum distance and no special rules for cyclists either.
I believe the term is lane filtering and it is legal in NSW and many other states and should apply to cycles as well.
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcycl…
@dazweeja: Spot on. Why on earth would anyone expect a cyclist to sit behind cars in a jam.
Motorcyclists do the same, though many of them are potential organ donors, the way they ride.
Just to reiterate what's been said, it's been legal for a while for bicycles to 'filter' past stopped traffic. Emphasis on the "Stopped" part.
That said, if you're filtering and the light goes green, you have to cut back into traffic (in front of a car) else be caught up in moving traffic. Still, legal.
As a cyclist who has a bell, a rear reflector for night riding and also stops for stop signs and red lights…fine away. They make it hard for the rest of us who do the right thing.
People yell at me on the road not because I am doing the right things, it's because some dick did the wrong thing and fueled their prejudice.
I don't know why Sydney drivers shout at us. The ones that shout usually have no cause to do so. I break the law a lot, but the screamers are usually p platers or young groups of boys just being jerks, not people angry at something I've done illegal or wrong.
Mixing bikes with high speed cars and trucks on our roads is brilliant! What ever could go wrong?
unfortunately thats what the govt has decided is the easiest course of action….rather than creating proper usable & segregated infrastructure its just easier to paint some lines on the road
Agree. Road authority should provide proper infrastructure. The lack of it is the reason which creates friction between road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
Instead of putting heavy fines and fill the coffers, government should consider legislation that ensures all future infrastructures move towards good access to all road users, like the one they did for the disabled people access to all buildings.
I have nothing against the cyclists, I just don't want them to be so close to my car. It's far too dangerous for them. Additionally, we often have to drive around them (going into the other lane) which is dangerous for me and other cars. All together just a really stupid situation which shouldn't be happening. Perhaps in the right locations sure, but not widespread, freeway emergency lanes (!!!), etc.
Bikes makes virtually no sound when moving so hard to know when they are coming next to you when you're in your car or when they're sharing the foot path with pedestrians. If there is a sounding device that will allow us to know when they are soon approaching, a lot problems could be solved already.
Electric cars make virtually no sound when moving so hard to know when they are coming next to you when you're in your car or when they're sharing the foot path with pedestrians. If there is a sounding device that will allow us to know when they are soon approaching, a lot problems could be solved already.
This is ridiculous…they should be out there getting the real criminals, not wasting time on this garbage.
The saddest part is criminal is the correct term now.
It is a criminal offense for our lyrca-friends not to have their papers. That should never have be taken lightly.
Good it's about time and they should pay rego with comp third party.
Troll Alert!
…i think hes that guy that always brings up rego & insurance on all those news.com articles…
got T boned by one rider and he was at fault going through a stop sign.
he didnt like the fact that NRMA where on my side and said that he was at fault and he has to pay for damaging my car.
so then i got taken to court and had to use police called on site with their report to help me fight the case, with the letter from NRMA.
my aunty got sued by a bike rider, he didnt indicate he was chagning lanes and she was in her lane which he went into and yeh she clipped him.
so im all for rego'ing bikers 18 years and older plus if they on the roads MUST have insurance.
@Hotkolbas: And I've been nearly killed twice by inattentive drivers, 1 lady hit me at 60 km/hr whilst I was on a zebra crossing, she was reaching back to attend to a kid in the back seat and didn't look/slow down. This doesn't mean I blame all drivers for my problems just that there are some morons out there that you need to watch out for.
not good at all, bad enough happening to you but that could have been anyone.
i guess it was good that you where looking out.
This seems more about revenue raising than anything. How on earth will the police be able to judge one metre distance, while probably viewing it at an angle, it will be at their discretion to hand out fines to motorists. Cyclist needing ID, so they can be fined easily.
Meanwhile, the Liberal State Government sits back and laughs as the motorists, cyclist, and pedestrians fight each other. They reap the extra tax from the fines and say that increasing and creating fines will suddenly make it safer and stop accidents. Divide and conquer.
How on earth will the police be able to judge one metre distance,
They would need to use one of these ultrasound range-finding things equipped on a bicycle to catch offenders who pass too close:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/police-harne…
thing is most police can't be arsed to ride a bike when they have a car. And when you're in a car, a meter distance is very hard to judge with a naked eye, and most motorists probably can't tell if they have left sufficient distance between a rider or not (especially when you're just concentrating on driving and not paying full attention to your side)
@Stphn…mate i 100% agree with you and its refreshing to hear some critical & objective thinking in this debate.
you summed it up very nicely…and lets not forget the medias part in this too.
They are never going to measure the distance BUT..when some peanut wipes out a cyclist and goes to court, there will be a clear-cut law broken and it will be easy to prove the driver was breaking the law by not leaving enough space SO they can send the evil ^%$&^ to jail!
If you're not breaking the law as a cyclist you should be fine right? I don't see the issue?
About time. I won't listen to anyone who says cyclists ease congestion! They ride in bus lanes, forcing buses out of their lane just to exceed 20km/h- which in turn slows the middle lane to let the bus in, everyone jumps to the right and the traffic has slowed to 20km/h because one bloke decided to cycle in a bus lane. Fine away. It's the same gig for car drivers, there's silly fines out there- deal with it. Can't claim you're a road user too then be surprised when you get treated to the downsides of being a road user.
I am a keen cyclist, do a couple of hundred Kms a week. I reckon it is great that the cops fine people that jump red light or ride without helmets, go for it!
I dont get why other people in this thread qualify their posts with 'I dont wear lycra', what does wearing lycra have to do with anything? The issue here is about not wearing a helmet, not about wearing lycra. Do you get upset with cricketers that wear white pants or surfers that wear board shorts?
theres no logical reason for mhl if you are not riding on roads though right?
shouldnt it be up to the individual just like any other recreational activity….?
also nice one on the riding ….couple hundred is a good effort (im much the same…) ;)
When I was a kid I rode everywhere with no helmet, everyone I knew did the same. Fact of life though is that somebody made it a law and like all other laws we arent at liberty to pick and choose which ones we obey. If it is wrong then convince the government to change the law otherwise put a helmet on. I have 2 smashed ones in the garage I kept to show my kids from when I've been hit by cars. Both are destroyed but my head is OK. If I wasnt wearing a helmet best case I would have lost a fair chunk of scalp as it was I have permanent scars on shoulders/elbows/knees from an inattentive driver hitting me at 60 km/hr when she reached back into the rear seats to quieten a noisy kid and didn't slow down so T-Boned me on a Zebra crossing.
Personally I dont care if people wear a helmet, Marco Pantani and Eddy Merckx rode in cloth caps. My personal preference is to wear a helmet and I would wear one even if it wasnt compulsory but personal preference is no excuse to break the law.
"Cycling fines are standardised at $71 but from Monday will more than quadruple to $319 for not wearing a helmet and $425 for not stopping at a pedestrian crossing."
Is that not that step (scam?) merely at generating revenue by the government or council?!
Compare the cost of vehicles driven. Average new cycle = $400, Average cost of new car = $10,000+.
But cyclists now paying fines that are more than their cycles cost…Absurd!
Is is not ethical on part of the government.
Cycles are far cheaper than cars, more greener environmentally speaking and less hazardous to the present/future generations and impact our roadways far less. Also, supporting cycling means our collective tax money will not be spent just repairing roads (as cars cause more damage than cycles) or subsidizing fuel costs (which is not required for cycles) or recycling metals (cars generate more wastage), but be utilized in better ways, such as welfare and new infrastructure and people's lifestyle improvement. Also, cost of public health (medicare) is reduced, including reducing obesity-driven lazy culture.
The issue could be dealt in better ways.
I'm more of a car driver but believe that cyclists save their cities in better ways, and a softer but wiser yet firm way of dealing with the issue would be more welcome by all.
no offence to anyone. real event this morning.
three lanes pacific highway one direction heading north. Very heavy traffic on a Saturday morning. Left lane was parked trucks unloading for costruction. Fast lane was stopped as extended queue from the right turn lane. The only left that is moving was the middle lane. 3 lanes try to merge one. 3 bikes at leisure occupied the middle lane to overtake. Every cars have to keep distance as the new rule, Road was slight uphill. it was chaotic.
Real event on a Rural Road about 50 km from where I live. Along with a group of similar blokes I go for a Sunday Morning ride. The road is extremely rural, either side of the road are paddocks with cows etc, time is 7:30 am on a Sunday morning. Fair to say the traffic conditions were 'light', in fact I dont think in 10 mins of riding up the road we had seen a car yet. In the distance we see an overweight bogan looking farmer out front of his farmhouse, he has a hotted up looking street machine car in his driveway, we ride past his farmhouse. Mostly we take no notice, one guy in the bunch tells us the guy gave us the bird as we rode past, we all have a laugh! We ride maybe 25km up the road and when it turns into a dirt road we turn around and come back down the same road. As we pass the farmhouse this guy is waiting for us with his car, he does a few fishtails out of his driveway and guns the car, veering into our riding bunch, gunning the engine and his bogan mate is hanging out the window shouting something at us. He disappears down the road…we all say what the F^%$k is that guy's problem. For the next 15 mins he proceeds to do laps of the road making high speed passes at close range, at one stage his passenger throws a half empty beercan at us. On another pass he is probably travelling well over 100km an hour, he tries to do a fishtail and nearly loses control, we actually stop as a group at the side of the road scared to ride on. He does a bit of circle work on the country road, burnouts etc ahead of us his feral mate screaming things out the window. Eventually he screams off and we race back as fast as we can to the nearest main rd/highway hoping he wont have the balls to do his antics on a busier road.
I've been up that road a few times and on average this guy tries to intimidate us about 1 in every 3 times. I've stopped going on those rides because eventually he is going to kill someone. The guys I ride with take cameras to catch him and report him to the cops, we've gotten a few high speed passes on a Fly 6 camera but nothing good enough for the cops yet.
I'm not looking for sympathy here just pointing out that moron road users come in all varieties. The mode of transport doesnt make a moron, the lack of concern for others and probably the excessive consumption of alcohol makes a moron.
@2ndeffort:
thank you for sharing the story. An example that gives us a better understanding on the spirit of the legislation on minimal distance.
seems like this guy is crazy…hope he won't do it again otherwise receive the jurisdiction he deserved.
I saw a kid this morning, all of about 14. He was riding his bike, good on him - should be encouraged. It was in a quiet residential street, when he heard me in my car he headed for the footpath. $106. he wasn't wearing a helmet, $319. But he was probably just going to his mates house, and there was no danger of him maiming anyone, or very little of him hurting himself. That's a lot of dollars for a very low risk activity. His parents would have had to cough it up and probably stopped him from riding his bike for ever more.
The look of fear though when he saw me was a concern. I am a cycle aware driver being a regular cyclist, and was prepared to wait behind him for a bit if necessary because it wasn't safe to pass, but this kid didn't know that. He assumed that there was a great big steel object ready to run him down. We need many many more riders so that seeing and interacting with cyclists is completely normal and these new fines are only going to stop more people from riding, which is not the right way to go.
As someone who has had his life saved twice by helmets I will repeat the logical conclusion THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TIME WHEN IT IS SAFE TO NOT WEAR A HELMET. One incident was very low speed but still resulted in a cracked helmet, so I replaced it - not my skull. You can generate enough speed falling on your head from a stationary bike!
Do you think seat belts are not required if I am only going to my mates place?
How about checking the gas line on my Barbie, only if I have a big group coming over?
Rant over :) and ok that last one is definitely a straw man.
Given the extreme cost of rehab NO it's not your decision, because you aren't paying for the results!
and yet we are one of the few countries in the world with mhl…makes you wonder why those countries dont have close to 100% rider mortality rates…?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws_by_country…
…or is general cycling actually quite a safe recreational activity & form of transport specifically when practiced on non road environments?
Who said anything as hyperbolic as 100% mortality rates?
I don't get this at all.
Increased safety = good. Head Trauma and death or severe life disabling injury = bad. Environment = Irrelevant.
Internet = Trolls.
@slewis69au: you said…:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TIME WHEN IT IS SAFE TO NOT WEAR A HELMET
why hasnt the rest of the world adopted your view and made helmets compulsory….? ….maybe your statement is the one full of bs?
@franco cozzo:
The other country argument is strange to me, if everyone used that logic nothing would ever change.
So it seems meaningless to me.
@slewis69au: Rather than a mandatory helmet law, we should be looking at educating people to make wise choices. There are many skiers using helmets now despite then not being mandatory, same in rock climbing. There are many cyclists using helmets in countries where it hasn't been mandated, ie they just think it is a good idea.
I don't think that cycling is that dangerous, on the most part. I wont wear one myself if just riding around the yard or up and down the street checking if my maintenance skills are up to scratch, I don't make my kids wear them unless venturing out onto the streets. Many people are the same: Low danger (parks, slow) - no helmet, higher danger (fast, busy roads) - helmet.
Just because it saved your life doesn't mean everyone have to wear it. Maybe it was your shitty biking skills that caused the accident
Yep sure - the guy turning right at the traffic lights and driving straight through me like i wasn't there clearly was my fault. You idiot.
@slewis69au:
Kinda confused how you're sure the helmet saved your life? Minor head trauma with it on?
Point back to all of the other countries where seat belts are mandatory, motorcycle helmets are mandatory as are so many other safety items, but we are almost the only ones who have implemented cycle helmet laws and our cyclist numbers are down because of it.
Initially I was all for the helmet law, but I have changed my view. I think it should be mandatory for under 18s, mandatory on roads 60km/h and above for everyone. The statistics and studies show that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling, make it perceived as more dangerous than it is and don't have a significant impact on injuries received for cyclist.
My opinion has been formed over many years riding on and off roads, on all types of bikes and has also included several stacks where I'm sure my helmet has reduced the injury I sustained and in the process broke and required replacement. I'd still wear my helmet commuting, and riding in the bush and on fast roads even if the law was repealed and many other cyclists would be exactly the same. In countries where there is no law it is similar, cyclists riding fast still waar helmets, it's just what you do to reduce risk when riding faster.
Please show the study that says that helmets don't have a significant impact on injuries.
I would like to read it.
more cyclists also equals less cars congestion & traffic & takes some strain off the inadequate pt system