Bicyclists now required to carry a photo id or fines apply

scrimshaw on 22/12/2015 - 17:44
Last edited 22/12/2015 - 17:45

Greetings fellow Aussies and unruly bikies, the NSW government had yet released another unnecessary law to keep you kids in check-

http://abc.net.au/news/2015-12-22/new-south-wales-plan-for-c…

Quote

New South Wales will be "the laughing stock of the world" when new laws are introduced forcing cyclists to carry photo identification, a cycling advocacy group has said.

The change in laws was announced by NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay as part of a crackdown on cyclists who break road rules in the state.

From March 2016,riding without an ID will result in a $106 fine and not wearing a helmet or holding onto a moving car will cost $319, while running a red light will incur a $425 fine

Starting next March, make sure you and your cycling friends (and possibly even your kids) carry a photo id so that your nanny state can properly do its job of raising revenue and enforcing the road rules.

Better start carrying a few hundred dollars with your cycling gear in case your friendly neighborhood cop decides to have a chat with you.

Sports & Outdoors

Related Stores

Roads and Maritime Services
Roads and Maritime Services

Comments

  • iratepirate on 22/12/2015 - 18:01
    +5

    How does a kid under 18 get photo I.D.?

      • Settero on 22/12/2015 - 18:08
        +2

        it changes , to how does someone under 16 get photo I.D.

        • whooah1979 on 22/12/2015 - 18:38
          +10

          they're not required to carry a photo id. however, it's still useful to have one in case they're involved in an accident and can't communicate.

          From 1 March 2016, cyclists over 18 must carry photo ID and if they don’t have a driver’s licence, can get a $51 NSW photo card.
          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-nsw-government-is-goin…

        • Settero on 22/12/2015 - 22:36
          +9

          @whooah1979:
          and how will they be able to tell if u are over 18 without asking you for photo id ?

        • whooah1979 on 23/12/2015 - 05:54
          +2

          @Settero:

          The police can simply ask the person for their name, address and age. Most people will give a truthful answer.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2015 - 11:21
          +6

          @whooah1979: Incorrect, legally people only need to give name and address.

        • User167511 on 23/12/2015 - 16:01
          +5

          @woolfenstein: not sure about Australian law but under the Judges Rules of English law a police officer is not empowered to ask you your name and address unless they suspect you have committed an offience. If they ask you if you saw an incident as witness and you advise that you saw something, they can ask for details In Order that they can subpoena you. Otherwise tell them niltch and you cannot be arrested for doing so.

        • Hirolol on 23/12/2015 - 17:56
          +7

          @woolfenstein:
          not sure why you are getting downvoted as what you are saying are correct.
          i think people need to learn what their own rights are, in australia you have more power than you realize…

        • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2015 - 10:09
          +1

          @User167511: This. Is. OZBARGAIN… .com… .AU!

          And I'm sure about Australian law, lol :)

        • Tafe on 24/12/2015 - 12:32
          +1

          @woolfensteinErrmm… Perhaps you shouldn't be so sure because User167511 is mostly correct in his application of English Law to Australian Laws.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2015 - 16:24

          @Tafe: Technically you only have to:

          "•If they reasonably believe you’ve committed a crime
          •If they reasonably believe you’re about to break the law
          •If they reasonably believe you may be able to help with an investigation into a crime
          •If they reasonably believe you’re carrying illegal weapons like knives, firearms or anything changed so it could be used as a weapon (like a bat, hammer or axe)
          •If they reasonably believe you have committed graffiti or you’re carrying something on you that could be used to do graffiti
          •Stopped for a breath test
          •Pulled over while driving
          •In a hotel or somewhere that sells alcohol"

          http://www.lawstuff.org.au/vic_law/topics/police - this is a good source for all.

          In this case they suggest: "If you think the police don’t have a good reason to ask for your details, or to search you, it is a good idea to comply with their instructions anyway and make a complaint later."

          Erm… probably because it's near impossible in practice to prove the police have no reason to be reasonably suspicious of you (I invite everyone to give it a try though, please come back and tell us about it! :)

        • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2015 - 01:21
          +2

          @woolfenstein: You are right, but Police can ASK for your age, but legally you are NOT required to GIVE it.

          The correct answer is probably "NO COMMENT" to the question of age or any other question that is not their Name and Address.

          Additionally, they have the right to ask for the Police Officers' Name, Rank & Station, which they must write down for you if requested.

          The person being questioned by Police do not have to give consent to a search if they want to search your bag/person etc. for an ID.

          If the Police have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime as been committed (eg: If the suspect looks nowhere near under 18 to a reasonable person - in this case) they have the right to detain/arrest you.

          IANAL

        • Uncle Chop Chop on 25/12/2015 - 10:16
          +1

          @The Land of Smeg: In SA it used to be "name & address", but now it's "personal particulars", which includes age, and can also obscure details like your phone number. It changed 5-8 years ago. Not sure about NSW.

        • Phoebus on 26/12/2015 - 00:49
          +2

          @User167511: Unfortunately the laws of the colony differ from the mother country. In QLD you must give your name and address to police if requested.

        • serpserpserp on 27/12/2015 - 13:02
          +1

          @The Land of Smeg:

          TL:DR - Be a prick to the police and they will likely return the favour and detain you.

        • diazepam on 27/12/2015 - 19:48
          +1

          @serpserpserp: be courteous, but do remind them of your rights.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/12/2015 - 08:25
          -1

          @whooah1979: That literally doesn't make any difference whatsoever… you have not added or disproved any information.

          Read through that whole page and play match ups with my post!

  • whooah1979 on 22/12/2015 - 18:02
    +20

    many road users don't give a crap about road rules. cyclists and pedestrians don't get demerit points when they commit an offence. so fines are the only way to control offenders and perhaps reduce them reoffending.
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-pedestrians-stroll-straight…

    • Settero on 22/12/2015 - 18:24
      +9

      why do they need photo id to give bicyclist tickets ? they sure manage to give pedestrians tickets without requiring them to have photo id.
      its not like a car where you are required to prove you are legally allowed to drive thus, have a handy photo id on you.

      • whooah1979 on 22/12/2015 - 18:30

        id isn't really an issue.

        The increased fines and requirement for identification, Mr Rice said, would not have a huge affect on cyclists as 90 per cent already carried identification and 70 per cent already wore helmets.

        http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-forced-to-carry-photo-ide…

      • franco cozzo on 23/12/2015 - 09:17
        +4

        ….first you introduce mandatory id then you introduce licensing, registration (& what the hell why not mandatory 3rd party insurance too)later on down the track.

        a whole new revenue stream of admin fines and all the associated bs. you can tell they are starting to push towards the idea that bikes are vehicles rather than a recreational activity…its nonsensical

        • GaryQ on 23/12/2015 - 10:18
          +2

          Se i migliori mobili volete comprare, oggi, domani, sempre, da Franco Cozzo dovete andare. Dove? a Brunswick and a Footscray. Comprate da Franco Cozzo.

          GaryQ on 23/12/2015 - 10:18 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
        • newozbargainermelb on 24/12/2015 - 11:16
          +1

          @GaryQ: If you want to buy the best furniture, today, tomorrow, always, by Franco Cozzo you need to go. Where? Brunswick and Footscray. They buy from Franco Cozzo. :P

          newozbargainermelb on 24/12/2015 - 11:16 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
        • AlexF on 24/12/2015 - 13:09
          +10

          bikes are vehicles rather than a recreational activity…its nonsensical

          They are vehicle if on public roads.

          Victorian TAC doesn't cover injuries caused by bicycle. If registration would extend this cover, then I'm for it.

        • Kevan2 on 24/12/2015 - 23:10
          +1

          @AlexF:

          Agree with almost what is said but????? a 4wd on sand dunes recreational activity and even if I transport it to the dunes and never on the road.

          How much damage will a 75 fit bicycle rider on a almost 7kg bike doing 35kmph do to Grandma who is 50kg if she steps of the way the rider>

          To calculate the Force, multiply the mass by the speed it was travelling, then divide by the time it takes to stop (roughly 2.02 seconds, for the o sh*t comment ).

          To find the equivalent mass in terms of gravity, divide this number (the force calculated above) by the acceleration of gravity . The resulting number will be the equivalent weight that it "feels like."

          Of course, this answer depends heavily on the stopping time. Consider this,Grandmas are designed to crunch in an accident to increase the time it takes to stop, and reduce the G force felt by the bicycle . Even a few milliseconds can mean the difference between having to show your Proof of AGE or not being there.

          Yep all bikes should have rego insurance and children bikes also, Added benefit is finding'borrowed' bikes

        • tebbybabes on 26/12/2015 - 17:36
          +3

          Bikes ARE vehicles.

        • RI4V4N on 28/12/2015 - 15:09
          +3

          @Kevan2:
          Uh a bike could still cause a multiple car accident if it did something crazy and illegal on the actual road.

        • ThadtheChad on 29/12/2015 - 12:56

          ….first you introduce mandatory id then you introduce licensing, registration (& what the hell why not mandatory 3rd party insurance too)later on down the track.

          Sounds like a great idea. With the revenue generated, they could use that to build dedicated bike lanes, lockers etc. Benefits the bikers as well as add a bit of responsibility to what has long been a rather uncontrolled and unregulated mode of transport.

  • whooah1979 on 22/12/2015 - 18:41
    +8

    Better start carrying a few hundred dollars with your cycling gear in case your friendly neighborhood cop decides to have a chat with you.

    that's silly. on-the-spot fines doesn't mean that you have to pay it on the spot.

    • scrimshaw on 22/12/2015 - 18:44
      +9

      Was being sarcastic.

      • whooah1979 on 22/12/2015 - 18:46
        +3

        Better start carrying a few hundred dollars with your cycling gear in case your friendly neighborhood cop decides to have a chat with you.

        edit. i may have read op's post wrong. do you mean that we should offer the friendly neighbourhood cop a bribe when they chat with us?

      • whooah1979 on 22/12/2015 - 18:51
        +1

        damn. this rain is playing havoc with my internet. it's so slow that i didn't notice that you were op.

      • jaybmate on 24/12/2015 - 17:21
        +1

        Thats not sarcasm, its an exaggeration.

        Sachz used it correctly below.

    • User167511 on 23/12/2015 - 16:02

      You mean so they can be bribed? (joking)

    • Charity on 23/12/2015 - 16:13
      +4

      On-the-Spot fines = flipping the presumption of innocence. AKA, Guilty until proven innocent.

      These disgraceful "laws" have no business in a civilised society.

      • DarwinBoy on 23/12/2015 - 20:06

        By paying the fine you are admitting guilt. All fines should give details on where you can contest it. Eg I want this offence to be seen in court and in front of a judge. The issuing party can then decide before it goes to court to withdraw it or take you on.

        • Charity on 23/12/2015 - 20:55
          +5

          Exactly. Guilty until proven innocent

  • sachz on 22/12/2015 - 20:01
    +20

    ok, ill say it. its about time… its only the cyclists complaining here. if ur doing no wrong then u have nothing to fear, goes both-ways.

    • bargainslut on 22/12/2015 - 22:07
      -8

      It's not both ways though. The government and police hide a lot of things. Perhaps they fear their own people…..

      ps- I don't ride a bike:)

    • mskeggs on 22/12/2015 - 23:33
      +15

      I'm not a cyclist, but if you think it is reasonable to carry photo id everywhere and a $400 fine for skipping a helmet is appropriate, I have some red A's for adulterers and yellow stars for the jews out the back. There is no excuse for government being so aggressively involved in identifying people and potentially monitoring their movements.
      There are plenty of examples of government records being subverted to cause harm to citizens (East Germany, Cambodia, South Africa, Chile etc) and where the benefit is trivial like this we should oppose it.
      I understand that in a recent 12 month period (can't remember whether it was 2013, 2014 or earlier) there were 6 instances where this ID requirement would have been useful - that is, in every other instance people were adequately identified.
      Why is the government micromanaging our lives to the level of 1 in a million issues?

      • whooah1979 on 23/12/2015 - 06:42
        +4

        There is no excuse for government being so aggressively involved in identifying people and potentially monitoring their movements.

        sounds like a film.

        photo id is one of three items that most adults take with them when they leave their house. the two others are keys and a mobile phone.

        some euro countries use bankcards, credit cards or student id as photo id. norway has been doing this for more than 20 year.

        • sachz on 23/12/2015 - 09:40
          +2

          … and what a horrid place norway is to live today. (//*** sarcasm off)

        • juki on 24/12/2015 - 23:26

          it may have changed, but i don't remember the fine (or even the bother) that high for not having the photo id, especially if you hadn't done anything wrong

      • User167511 on 23/12/2015 - 16:05
        -3

        Because at the moment we are a nanny state. Nanny states can progress to worse evils such as police states.
        Compare today to 50years ago. Now the govt everything about us… For what??

      • JH100 on 23/12/2015 - 20:13
        -1

        Control.

      • This Guy on 24/12/2015 - 02:12
        +5

        That's a pretty slippery argument.

        Smart phones already provide way more data than an ID ever will. There is no oversite for police access to meta data. In our country their likely never will be.

        Facial recognition software has been pretty accurate for some time (a public example is facebook). It should be pretty simple to integrate facial recognition into police body cams (or even just tag people in video logs automatically at a later date).

        Police and governments have always been able to abuse their power (hence Australia's treatment of our indigenous population). Nothing has changed :p

        • Kevan2 on 29/12/2015 - 12:09

          Change to some police officers not the implied all police. Same as some government officials, some neighbours and sadly some family members?

      • b-hunterr on 25/12/2015 - 18:47
        +2

        The infrastructure here in Australia is simply most of the time not designed with the cyclist in mind. It's not really part of the culture over here and fundamentally lacks planning across the board. The helmet therefore makes sense over here.

      • azshade on 27/12/2015 - 20:49
        +2

        Well I'm all for it and I do ride a bike. I ride my bike on a nearby bike path that loops around a large chunk of the city. I also walk on it pretty regularly. I'd guess about 90% of the cyclists are out there minding their own business and are not a danger to anyone, but every once in a while I see cyclists (be it when I'm walking or riding) that does something stupid.

        If a cop happens to be able to now spot them and ask them for ID, they can at the moment say "I don't have ID", which makes it a whole pain in the neck. If the cop can now reply with "well that's a $106 fine so are you sure you don't have ID?" then it might encourage the guy to cough up his ID, and maybe get an official warning.

        This always gets rolled out as a NAZI style slogan issue, but it's not as though the police are going out of their way to harass people riding their bikes safely on a Sunday ride. They'll be pulling over the people riding through red lights or riding the wrong way on the road, ducking between cars and so on. The d'heads.

        I'm all for the police busting them.

    • blitz on 23/12/2015 - 14:46
      +19

      if ur doing no wrong then u have nothing to fear

      This kind of comment is mindless fascism. It allows the mentally lazy to justify any law.

  • holoz0r on 22/12/2015 - 20:04
    +13

    I think this is a fantastic idea. It means that those who chose to be a tool on the road will be punished as though they were a motorist. Can't wait for cyclists to have to pay rego and CTP too :)

    • LYRICALRAVER on 22/12/2015 - 20:20

      all part of fattening already bulging wallets of the RTA - RMS or whatever the f it is! the costs of running and maintaining a vehicle vs the price-gouging of public transport.

    • mskeggs on 23/12/2015 - 00:32
      -7

      Are you happy to be forced to wear a helmet when driving in a car? It is the next step after forcing helmet wearing on other equally safe activities like cycling. How about when you are walking on a footpath, or at home. You can't be too safe, right!
      Or do you mean it is good to find any marginal excuse to force people to present their papers? Papers please was pretty much an idea Australians fought against in WW2 - we thought we had the right to live our lives free of government scrutiny except where their scrutiny was absolutely necessary. We were deeply suspicious of countries where you had to carry an ID card - it was something that happened in Stalinist Russia, not the free west. They had good arguments about why carrying and official ID was necessary, but they also used the ID those documents provided to murder their political opponents. We probably won't have that trouble here, but why put the tools together that would allow it?
      But the bottom line is, why do you hate cycling? You could buy bike tomorrow for peanuts and gather for yourself all the fantastical benefits you seem to believe cyclists have available?

      • holoz0r on 23/12/2015 - 07:42
        +22

        I catch public transport to work, have owned my car for 2 years (only 14,000 km on the dial; - and its fitted with airbags and a dozen other safety features that should anything go wrong, protect me and the other vehicle occupants from injury.)

        Cyclists have a helmet between them and the pavement and any other road users. The reason why enforcement of these laws is important to ensure that road users behave consistently, regardless of method of travel. (Obviously, there's the lane filtering motorbikes along with cyclists - most places you go, and not enough people share the road correctly.

        We're encouraged ("Please carry while driving") to have our license with us whilst driving, and you have to take your passport with you if you're leaving the country.

        I dont hate cycling, I dislike the entitled attitude that numerous cyclists harbour and the unsafe behaviours they can engage in. Few bad eggs ruin the fun for everyone.

        I'm in SA so its not as bad here as it is in other states.

        • cktftw on 24/12/2015 - 11:47
          +2

          Im in SA too, and if there's any way to identify the cyclists breaking the law, I'd be sending my dashcam clips to the cops every day

        • holoz0r on 24/12/2015 - 19:00
          +1

          @tm87: I've often thought that if we had the ability to send dashcam footage to the police that results in a successful fine (for instance, injured or retired officers could review the clips for authenticity / breakage of law) - and they sent the citizen even 1% of the fine (once it was paid) - it would mean that we would get more enforcement and incentive to do the right thing… but then it opens up all the questions of vigilante-style behaviour.

          Crowd Source Policing. (But still have those qualified enforce it)

        • juki on 24/12/2015 - 23:30
          +7

          my neighbor died, simply by losing balance of his bike and hitting his head on the curb. Sounds stupid, but he more or less died on the spot.

          yeah, helmets should be a must when riding a bike

        • apey2000 on 25/12/2015 - 23:27
          +3

          @juki: As a cyclist… YES!! Would not straddle my bike without a helmet.

    • cnrmlj on 24/12/2015 - 16:46
      +1

      Absolutely. We have beautiful cycle ways around where i live yet idiot cyclists continue to ride on the roads, right next to the cycle way. Same thing in the city. There should be a $10,000 fine for riding on a road next to a cycle path.

      • tebbybabes on 26/12/2015 - 17:46
        +3

        I'm sorry, I can't agree. Bikes ARE vehicles. They also have equal road usage rights except where prohibited. More than half of the cycle paths I've seen are recreational paths that don't necessarily travel to where I might need to go. E.g. going straight on a road, while the cycle path would veer off, or a separated cycle path that doesn't allow turning right unlike the road alongside it, etc. I take the cycle paths as often as I can, because I enjoy the paths - except when cars are parked on it, delivery vehicles are stopped on it, strewn with broken glass, etc. But there are times where I have to be on the road. When I am, I behave like a vehicle and follow the road rules like a vehicle. We're all road users, therefore we all have the same right to be on the road.

        • JOCKz on 27/12/2015 - 10:58
          +4

          Well some cyclist have very little disregard for other road users. I live in melbourne and every Sunday the hoards of cyclist ride on beach road. Its 2 lanes both ways for the most part, with local residents parking their cars on the road. I have seen hundreds of cyclist dodge in front of my car to avoid stopping. Cyclist should follow the same road rules everyone else follows if they want to use public roads. Its quite simple.

        • tebbybabes on 27/12/2015 - 21:26
          +1

          @JOCKz:

          It's a shame that that happens. Gives other law abiders a bad name. You're absolutely right. Public roads require EVERYONE to follow the same road rules.

          One thing I notice though from some people - I get the impression of a distinct "Us vs Them" vibe. -FROM BOTH CYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS- I really don't think that's the ideal situation. Not every motorist is a saint, just like not every cyclist follows all the rules. It's not fair painting everyone with the same brush.

        • Lord Ra on 28/12/2015 - 00:24

          Well said, +1

        • 2ndeffort on 28/12/2015 - 18:06
          +3

          Beach Rd on the weekend is a well known cycling hotspot, I've ridden hundreds of Kms up and down it. I have overtaken slow cars on Beach Rd, just like a faster car would do to a slow car. All of the cyclists I know are extremely aware of their own vulnerability on a bike. If anything goes wrong we will come off 2nd best.

          People need to understand the difference between recreational cyclists, mum and dad with their cute 6 yo out on some cheap bikes from Anaconda for 10 mins worth of scenery and fresh air, compared to some serious cyclists out improving their fitness. For the former group bike paths and frequent stops are almost mandatory and they are generally moving at walking pace most of the time anyway. For the other group you are generally flogging yourself trying to keep up with the group. Frequent stopping is disaster as the effort required to get back to cruising speed is enormous. There is no excuse for breaking the law but within the law you will find serious cyclists looking for ways to avoid having to stop. This is not arrogance or disregard, this is possibly a middle aged guy running at 85% of his max heart rate panicking that he might have to stop and lose all of his friends as they power off into the distance. Cycling as part of a bunch is much easier, being isolated on your own requires much more effort so potentially having to fight it out alone might mean he has to turn around and go home. No excuse for running a red light or breaking the law but if you can get through before the light changes you will definitely try hard to avoid being 'dropped' by the group. If you have to overtake a car to keep up most would, within the law' do that. Giving a friendly wave and pulling over to patiently wait might be OK for drivers that can just push a pedal on the floor to accelerate again, much tougher prospect for cyclists.

          here was also the story in the paper 2 NY Day ago where some young hoons were driving up and down beach rd in a ute with one hanging out the back of the ute with a rolled up newspaper belting cyclists as they went past trying to see how many he could knock over. If you hate the cyclists on Beach why not find another route to your destination. I plan almost every cycling journey to avoid roads that I know will be a problem with loads of cars. I actively seek out routes that will be safer or avoid annoying traffic situations. I could say 'stuff them all, I am allowed by law to ride there' but if it al;l goes wrong I will be the loser so I look for safer routes, maybe try that strategy. I've ridden up Beach Rd loads of times but I wouldn't drive there on a weekend.

        • bargaino on 28/12/2015 - 18:46
          +2

          @JOCKz:

          with local residents parking their cars on the road.

          Well, that should be banned for a start. Not much use having a 4-lane road if idiots are going to clog it by parking on it.

        • JOCKz on 28/12/2015 - 21:53
          +1

          @2ndeffort: Considering everyone else uses the road and tries to merge into traffic in a safe manner; i don't see why cyclist have an exemption. Cars and motorbikes do follow the same rule of physics as cyclist. If we all adopted the same ideology you described, i bet their would be a increase in road accidents. Its this kind of attitude which makes everyone hate cyclist. The "entitlement" attitude. Selfish.

          I don't see how you can justify diving in front of a vehicle traveling at 60km/h because you don't want to stop ? How do you explain that to the driver of a car that has been traumatized because of the stupidity of the cyclist he just ran over ? You cant pick and choose what you want to do because it becomes an inconvenience.

        • 2ndeffort on 31/12/2015 - 16:22

          @JOCKz: Where did I say that cyclists had any exemptions from road laws? I actually said that all the cyclists I know are extremely careful as we are very aware that we will be killed in a serious accident. I have cycled faster that 60 km/hr on Beach Rd but that is beside the point. If I was worried about ever cycling in front of a car I might as well sell my bike and stock up on Corn Chips and heart disease! Being in front of cars is unavoidable as there is always going to be somebody driving up behind you. I cant see how it is arrogant to expect other road users to be careful when passing me to avoid killing me. Have you ever passed a tractor on a country road? Was he arrogant and selfish? If a car driver runs me over he should feel extremely guilty and I would hope he is crippled by the guilt. I am very careful and only somebody breaking the law or being extremely inattentive would hit me, somebody following the road laws would never hit me. Anybody that kills or injures a cyclist when that cyclist is obeying the law should be prosecuted under the full force of the law.

        • JOCKz on 01/01/2016 - 09:46

          @2ndeffort: In your scenario are cyclist the tractor or car ? I'm trying to find out the reasoning behind your logic. If a cyclist dodges in front of a moving vehicle to "avoid stopping" and in this scenario gets hit. How is it the drivers fault ?

          If it was a car and he scraped the side of my car, wouldn't i be making a claim with his insurance company ? Believe it or not, cyclist aren't the only people that use our public roads for recreational activities. Us petrol heads do have recreational vehicles too and we do follow the same road rules just like everyone else.

        • JediJan on 05/01/2016 - 18:38

          @2ndeffort: I have always wondered at the safety of those cyclists on Beach Road. I used to ride bikes myself as a mode of transport, rather than fitness, but found it just too dangerous out on the roads to continue. When a truck or car passed too closely it would be difficult to not fall. As a driver, on Beach Road, many times, the only time I felt the riders were wrong was when on occasion they would ride two or three abreast, therefore spread across a whole lane on purpose. When I was young we were always taught single file only and to keep as far left as practical. We also knew the hand signals for turning left, right and stopping. How many riders do that today, or even know of these I wonder?

        • 2ndeffort on 05/01/2016 - 19:00
          +1

          @JediJan: It is totally legal for cyclists in a group to ride 2 abreast, here is a video explaining why it is good for us to ride 2 abreast in groups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE . I do it all the time. On a narrow road through the hills the guys I ride with normally call out to each other and we will go to single file if it makes sense. For a big event like 'Around the Bay' on Beach Road where there are massive Pelotons of cyclists we would always stay 2 abreast. Worst case 2 cyclists riding side by side is never going to be as wide as a car. Cyclists should use hand signals, there are a whole load more than required by law, normally to indicate to riders behind you things like potholes in the road or parked cars ahead that you need to merge past etc. I always indicate where I am going.

        • JediJan on 05/01/2016 - 19:39

          @2ndeffort: With organised events with groups such as "Around The Bay" etc. many abreast, are to be expected (and well advertised in advance … to avoid at all costs!). I have always assumed in regular (Beach Road) traffic that the bikes should ride in single file. For safety of both riders and drivers; much of it is double lines anyway. I believe there should be more bike lanes created, just about everywhere. Personally I would never ride a bike on Beach Road, even way back then, even though I lived nearby at the time. Always used the service roads on Nepean Highway or Dandenong Road where I could. I recall being followed on a weekend by a Police car as I was riding downhill (without a helmet … the old days) on Princes Highway, Sandown, wondering if they were going to fine me for riding too fast! (was 45mph speed limit then)

          As teens we used to ride our bikes down old Wells Road (before it became the Frankston Freeway), single lane from Frankston to Chelsea Heights (to go horse-riding at the "Ponderosa"). That used to be scary at times, especially on the return ride, as some of those cars and trucks passed us too close, apparently with no care. We always rode in single file (that was the norm back then), and it was a busy road even then, double file would be meaning cars/trucks overtaking and risking head on accidents. We were taught single file in school.

          I still would not like to go riding a bike (on a road) anywhere unless it was single file. I feel fortunate my son has found other healthy interests other than bike riding. I do think it is just too dangerous now (more so than way back when); shame I agree. Just aware of too many accidents and fatalities. Last time I rode a bike was on the beach at Cape Tribulation, North Queensland … no cars, only the crocs to be wary of!

      • 2ndeffort on 28/12/2015 - 17:39

        I am a very keen cyclist, normally cycle 3-4 days a week before work or early on weekends. I actively avoid cycle paths as, at around 45 km/hr on a flat road or faster downhill I am as dangerous as a motorbike to any pedestrians. I could slow down and ride at 10 km/hr but then I would be wasting my time out riding, I wouldn't be getting fitter and I wouldn't enjoy myself. If your law came into effect I, like all my cycling buddies would have to give-up cycling.

        • WT on 29/12/2015 - 12:27
          +1

          Try mountain biking. Some of ther trails i ride completely shatter you at 10kph.

          A mountain bike i find can require up to twice the energy and a downhill mountain bike with 15psi will require about twice again.

        • 2ndeffort on 31/12/2015 - 16:26
          +1

          @wholesaleturbos: Totally agree, I have done some 20 km Mountain Bike rides that felt like 80 km road rides. I've also done some 10 degree plus climbs in the dandenongs on a roadie that had my lungs coming out through my mouth! Mountain bikes are great fun but you need some great bike handling skills, I've never gotten the whole 'jumps' thing, I builtup a F/S enduro bike last year and tried to get into MTB at Lysterfield but I need to do more of it top get good enough to enjoy it properly, I can ride 100 km on my roadbike from the front door, I have to take my MTB somewhere to get to the trails, but respect to all the MTB' ers out there!

  • LYRICALRAVER on 22/12/2015 - 20:14
    +11

    It's all about Revenue Raising for the State Government and fattening the pollies' fat bulging wallets. It's not really about Road safety concerns or people's well-being, if you really look into the pricing figures. Also, look at how they are price-gouging Public transport commuters through the 'next phase' of the Opal card… What a rort for the common citizen's hard-earned dollars! Yes they are turning Sydney into the most expensive place to live in the World. Thanks for nothing

  • RockyRaccoon on 22/12/2015 - 20:33
    +2

    Better start carrying a few hundred dollars with your cycling gear in case your friendly neighborhood cop decides to have a chat with you.

    How stupid - a few hundred dollars vs a small photo id

    Not sarcasm more like you are practicing for a job with A Current Affair with emotive claptrap, like "nanny state", and quoting only one bicycle advocacy group…… "and possibly even your kids"

    Sorry Scrimshaw, on many things here that you post, you make sense, but this time not

  • bargainslut on 22/12/2015 - 21:58
    +31

    I'd prefer the largest companies in Australia pay the correct taxes instead of squeezing more money out of hardworking people. May as well have pedestrians carry ID as well just in case 'they are up to no good'
    Who's the crooks in this crime…..

    • Settero on 22/12/2015 - 23:11
      +1

      sigh…
      there is a difference between using loopholes to lower the amount of tax you have to pay , and not paying the right amount of tax…
      not paying the right amount of tax is ILLEGAL , what these company's do is legal thus , don't hate the player hate the game, cry at the government for not fixing these loopholes while adding laws forcing bicyclist to have photo id…

      • bargainslut on 22/12/2015 - 23:18
        +7

        I'm aware it's a loophole and aware that not paying the correct amount of tax is illegal. I was eluding to the fact the government should take it's finger out it's bum and shut the loopholes and stop squeezing even more money out of hardworking people who pay a much higher tax rate. Furthermore I'm not hating or going crying anywhere, I'm merely expressing my feelings on the world wide web:)

        • RockyRaccoon on 23/12/2015 - 11:05
          -4

          So what does hardworking people got to do with this. Are you saying all bicyclists are hardworking. Maybe so maybe not, its emotive bs and nothing to do with any argument. Some CEO's of business are hardworking, others aren't.

        • bargainslut on 23/12/2015 - 11:29
          +1

          @RockyRaccoon: I made myself abundantly clear….

        • RockyRaccoon on 23/12/2015 - 11:33
          +1

          @bargainslut: likewise, its the WWW of feelings from all… :)

        • bargainslut on 23/12/2015 - 11:40
          +1

          @RockyRaccoon: Merry Christmas Raccoon. Is 'Emotive' the word of the day?

        • arcticmonkey on 23/12/2015 - 20:07
          +4

          Agree but who donates to the Liberals?

          Look deeper and you might find the reason why they kill our healthcare and education instead of taxing billion dollar multinationals more fairly.

        • bargainslut on 23/12/2015 - 21:04
          +2

          @arcticmonkey: This is the nucleus of the problem. A solution must be found otherwise were toast.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/12/2015 - 20:28
          +1

          @RockyRaccoon: That just makes too much sense for this thread

      • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2015 - 06:14

        Well not always. The way companies like Ebay operate by faking a Swiss base is very likely illegal.
        If a plumber stuck a swiss address on his invoice to dodge collecting GST - which is exactly what Ebay does - they wouldn't get away with it for long.

  • sleepy120 on 22/12/2015 - 22:55
    +7

    $319 for no helmet? what a loada crap!

    • scrimshaw on 22/12/2015 - 22:58
      +4

      back in 2010 it used to be $57 for all sorts of bicycle offenses, including running a red light.

      • sleepy120 on 22/12/2015 - 23:46
        +2

        before this increase it was under $80 for no helmet

      • mskeggs on 23/12/2015 - 00:21
        +8

        The helmet laws are of marginal benefit at best.
        There is some evidence that the deterrent effect of requiring helmets before you can ride is actually a public health negative as casual cyclists give up riding because they are irregular bike users and they will fail to get the cardio exercise a bike ride would have provided.
        I'm in favour of a mild incentive to wear a helmet - perhaps a sporadically enforced $50 fine, even though helmet wearing is a marginal public benefit. But upping the fine to nearly $400 is absurd and kills the possibility of casual riding and suggests that riding without a helmet - which is a perfectly safe thing to do in nearly every circumstance (except maybe peak hour traffic) - becomes a potentially life changing disaster for those on marginal incomes.
        What is Duncan Gay thinking except a red hot hate for cyclists?

        • cktftw on 24/12/2015 - 11:50
          +2

          helmet wearing is a marginal public benefit

          yeap, that's natural selection or Darwinism

        • [Deactivated] on 26/12/2015 - 13:04
          +2

          I felt that too,
          but because i didn't want to wear attention or a fine i put it on anyway.

          I was a tough guy i'd simply hold my head up as to not hit the ground.

          But reality is a bitch.
          Broke my collarbone in 3 places and my helmet 'bounced' off the ground twice

          I'm NOT a tough guy vegetable today living on a pension sucked from your tax, because I wore a helmet that day.

    • belongsinforums on 22/12/2015 - 23:14
      +2

      yea, next thing they'll be telling us there's a fine for drinking alcohol if you're under 18!

      • mskeggs on 23/12/2015 - 00:09
        +1

        So there is already a fine for that in some circumstances, but not others. In my home, I can happily offer a glass to a 17yro, because alcohol paranoia is dumb and we should treat underage people maturely if we want them to behave that way.
        But we have different rules for unaccompanied under age kids at a pub or night club.
        So I reckon it is fair to treat cycling offences in a similar way.
        Should a cyclist behave in such a way that they cause an accident or otherwise endanger others, by all means detain them if they break the law.
        If they aren't breaking the law, why do they need to produce their papers? Detain them if they are breaking laws, as you would anybody, but why single out cyclists?

        • belongsinforums on 23/12/2015 - 00:35
          +3

          Don't drivers need to carry ID too? Perhaps it's because there's no such thing as a bicycle license at the moment. There's a thought!

          And I thought that alcohol is particularly damaging for developing brains (even at 17 years of age)? Any doctors here?

          Oh, and I do cycle casually. Plenty of MAMILs I see do run red lights, and there are still plenty of bike users who ride without helmets in Australia. I do not wish for my tax to pay for their hospital fees, if possible.

        • mskeggs on 23/12/2015 - 00:47
          +10

          @tomkun01:
          A half a glass of champagne at xmas for a 17yro has approximately the same impact as a half a glass of champagne at christmas on a an 18 yro. Society decided on a line of 18yro in Oz. It is 21 in the US, and younger in Europe. Over consumption of alcohol at any age is damaging - you don't magically become immune at 18 or 21.
          Car/Truck drivers pilot a 1000kg+ machine that is trivially able to exceed 60km/hr.
          A cyclist at their most aggressive, run a 100kg machine at under 50km/h, and almost always under 30km/h. The difference in the impact energy if one hits you is approximately the difference between getting hit by a water pistol or a .22.
          So there are good reasons not to license bicycling, like you shouldn't licence running or walking or water pistols.
          Unless the end result - the goal of the new licensing laws - isn't actually related to the things that could go wrong with cycling/walking/etc. but more about building a bigger database that can be used for other reasons.

        • belongsinforums on 23/12/2015 - 01:44
          -2

          @mskeggs: Good luck stopping data collection. I suppose I agree with some form of licensing for cyclists, but obviously not as strict as drivers. You could call me reasonable. 1000 kg or not, I do not wish to get hit by a moving mass as a result of someone running a red light. Perhaps only cyclists that use the same roads as cars should be required to display plates?

          And yes, alcohol is damaging at any age. 18 may become 25 in the future? Who knows.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join