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

        • RockyRaccoon on 23/12/2015 - 11:31
          +1

          mskeggs

          You are making some very emotive and misleading statements here.

          You say its ok to give 17yo alcohol in a private residence. Guess what its not that simple, its illegal unless you get a guardian/parents approval. (since you are in NSW (and this new law on Bicycles is NSW based)

          Secondary supply is the supply of alcohol to minors (people under the age of 18) on private premises. In New South Wales, alcohol can only be supplied to minors by:
          • parents/guardians
          • people authorised by the parent/guardian
          • people who have parental rights and responsibilities for the minor
          This means that if you provide alcohol to teenagers at a party without the permission of their parents, you are committing an offence.
          It is important to note that this also means that if your 18 year old provides alcohol to their 17 year old friend(s) they are breaking the law.
          A person who provides alcohol to a minor in NSW without the permission of the minor’s parents, may be subject to criminal prosecution.
          The maximum penalty for providing alcohol to a minor without their parent or guardian’s permission is $11,000 or 12 months imprisonment (or both) or an on the spot fine of $1,100 (as at September 2013).

          On the point about detaining them, are your really serious that they should be detained for not wearing their helmets. Like all laws if you carry your ID, you will get an on the spot fine, that makes it simple for you and the police. Like many laws, if these are linked to fines, they encourage compliance. Dont want a fine for no helmet, wear one. Or are you suggesting that injuries caused by cyclists without a helmet be exempt from public funding. It just makes it easier for all. Really if the police do want to get you, they can do this in a lot more ways than stopping you on a bike.

        • sleepy120 on 23/12/2015 - 18:50

          @RockyRaccoon: the old fine was adequate at under $80. To say wearing a helmet is in the same class of danger as holding on to a moving vehicle is over the top don't you think?

        • RockyRaccoon on 23/12/2015 - 21:25
          +3

          @sleepy120: This is ozbargain. I wouldn't be paying $80 (or even $10) plus I want to protect my head so I use a helmet.

          I crashed my bike when a little kid ran out in front of me, and was so happy I had bike gloves on and my helmet.

          So really its a non issue for me how much it is as I wouldnt be caught without my helmet, but I see about 5-10% of riders without helmets on my weekly ride, so is $80 really adequate as you say.

          cheers

        • 811b11e8 on 24/12/2015 - 16:59
          +3

          @mskeggs:

          Actually pack rides can easily exceed 50kmh. He'll I'm a causal cyclist and normally get a max speed of 70ks an hour unless the road is dead flat.

          Even if I hit you at 50km an hour I'm probably going to break a few bones best case scenario. Unlike cars there is only crumple zone on my handles bars it's probably going to do a lot of internal damage to you.

          Fatalities do happen. I remember a few years ago seeing an accident on beach road in victoria where a cyclist ran a red, and hit a pedestrian. Reading the news the next day it said the old lady that got hit died.

          Couldn't find the link on my mobile but there is another fatality on the same road mentioned on this article that's more recent.

          http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/beach-road-cyclist-left-with…

          There really should be zero tolerance against deliberately running red lights. Id like to see fellow cyclists and drivers get demerit points or exponential fines.. Like first one $100 then 1000,etc

    • whooah1979 on 23/12/2015 - 17:10

      $319 is the same as riders.
      http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=demer…

    • tko6070 on 24/12/2015 - 21:13
      +1

      It's hilarious that we have a law to protect people's brains. $319 is the least of the consequences

  • DelhiBelly on 23/12/2015 - 10:32
    +1

    It is quite reasonable and right thing to do. Thanks govt.

  • WT on 23/12/2015 - 17:11
    +7

    No mention of the 1m rule? As a non lycra wearing cyclist who would rather ride on a foot path then risk death in sydney suburbian traffic i think its great.

    As a motorist, wtf!? how do you over take one of the lycra boys and gals on a single lane road? Expect them to move over when clear to do so? That never happens

    • 2ndeffort on 28/12/2015 - 18:16

      Pretty sure it is also illegal to ride on the footpath and what is wrong with Lycra? You pass a cyclist the same way you would pass any other road vehicle. Have you ever had to overtake a tractor? How did you go with that? Maybe have to slow down and wait for a good opportunity/space.

      The issue here is that if you hit a cyclist whilst overtaking you have clearly broken the law, I seriously doubt there will be cops in sidecars with tape measures trying to catch people out over 6 cm passing distance. Every cyclist that clocks a few Kms on the road has fallen foul of the folks that think it is a sport to scare cyclists by speeding past or doing a burnout as you pass them by very close from behind.

  • ChrisLevo on 23/12/2015 - 17:15
    +13

    Don't have the slightest problem with this.

    I ride a bike and drive a car, and would expect the police to see proof of my ID if I do something wrong.

    All the rest of the rants about police state, tax-raining and the like belong elsewhere.

  • chipstss on 23/12/2015 - 17:37

    I hope this law doesn't come to QLD, sometimes I forget or simply dont want to carry my heavy wallet when riding.

  • gimli on 23/12/2015 - 18:49
    -2

    FYI This rule will not apply to under 16.

    Time we crack down on cyclists.
    Half of road accidents are due to them.
    Driving was safe before cycles were invented.
    Hopefully they get double fines over christmas and get targeted by the booze bus.

    • RockyRaccoon on 23/12/2015 - 21:31

      Driving was safe before cycles were invented.

      ROFL

      The only "driving" that was safe before bicycles, was horse and buggy driving.

      Modern bicycle 1884, First car 1894

    • welfoj on 24/12/2015 - 00:22
      +1

      Not sure whether sarcasm or stupidity :0 I'm thinking sarcasm

      • gimli on 24/12/2015 - 07:06
        +3

        Stupidity probably

        Doctor said my brain is weak which makes me stupid. So it's not my fault.

        • RockyRaccoon on 24/12/2015 - 07:47

          Hey, we allow for a few errors at this time…. Just make sure you wear a helmet in future to protect the brain. And I enoyed the laugh Merry Christmas :)

    • utopia on 25/12/2015 - 22:27

      1/2 of the 1200 deaths a year on the roads caused by bicyclists?
      where do you get your statistics?

      • gimli on 25/12/2015 - 22:33

        Australian board of standards (abs)

        • Lichen6420 on 27/12/2015 - 11:04
          +1

          lol… i think you mean Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) ??

      • 2ndeffort on 31/12/2015 - 16:36

        Yep I saw that statistic as well in the 'Big Bumper Book of Stats', it was right under the quote:

        'everything you read on the Internet is true' by Abraham Lincoln

  • bargainslut on 23/12/2015 - 19:32
    -1

    +1 FYI The bicycle was invented before the car…..

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15…

  • foreveraloan on 23/12/2015 - 19:46
    +8

    if cyclists want to be treated as legitimate road users, it cuts both ways.

    incentives (in the form of fines) to encourage safe road use is nothing novel. makes perfect sense, actually.

    • bargaino on 23/12/2015 - 20:24

      if cyclists want to be treated as legitimate road users

      eh? They have always been. Its the skateboarders and segway riders who seek such status.

      And since cars were invented, they were held to a higher standard than other road users, as they are more dangerous.

      Heavy truck drivers have stricter rules and higher penalties than car drivers too. Do you have a problem with that?

      • foreveraloan on 23/12/2015 - 21:40

        i've already said that i think fines are sensible incentives for encouraging good road behaviour. so no, i don't have a problem with stricter rules for truck drivers.

  • bargaino on 23/12/2015 - 20:20
    +5

    Very sad, the increasing intrusion of the state.

    Meanwhile, over here in WA I don't even need photo ID when driving.

    I would like to see some of the more sensible laws enforced instead, like having lights at night!
    With cheap LED lights and long battery life, there is no excuse these days.

    • pegasusx on 24/12/2015 - 13:51

      I concur. I find it crazy that some cyclists have no "be seen" LED blinders and rear lights esp at night. I commute via bike and have both on at all times. Winter have at least two red rear lights and when it rains I have 3 or so markers = Xmas tree.

    • tqf8h on 28/12/2015 - 12:41

      Is this true? I wasn't aware. I thought they could even impound your vehicle for 30 days if caught driving without a drivers licence. Must have changed recently then.

      • bargaino on 28/12/2015 - 15:20

        that would be "driving while disqualified" - hardly the same thing!

  • snajper on 23/12/2015 - 21:48
    +6

    I am cyclist and have no problem with the new laws. We are riding in traffic, sharing roads with cars and therefore must obey common road rules. Carry id and helmet….

    • bargaino on 23/12/2015 - 22:49
      -1

      I am a driver, and I don't have to carry ID or wear a helmet.

      • whooah1979 on 24/12/2015 - 06:28
        +4

        it's a requirement when driving in nsw to use a seatbelt and produce a valid drivers licence when ask by the police.

      • dbun1 on 24/12/2015 - 12:02
        +1

        The equivalent for a car would be wearing a seatbelt.

        • bargaino on 24/12/2015 - 12:22
          -5

          No. the equivalent for a car would be a crash helmet, as worn by motorcyclists. Pedestrians should wear helmets too.

        • dbun1 on 24/12/2015 - 12:36
          +4

          @manic:

          What a nonsensical argument to make

        • bargaino on 24/12/2015 - 12:48
          +1

          @dbun1:

          Its called Reductio ad absurdum. All the reasons given for compulsory cycle helmets can be applied equally to drivers or pedestrians, who also suffer head injuries.

          What is special about cyclists? It turns out that the arguments, when tested, are far weaker than you expect. Not nearly as strong as for motorcyclists, for example, who tend to suffer much more serious injuries in a crash, and different sorts.

          Safety features are rarely as overwhelmingly effective as seat-belts are.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 26/12/2015 - 16:38
          +2

          @manic:

          Its called Reductio ad absurdum

          Yeah, yeah. Well I reckon: Mea navis volitans anguillis plena est.

          But seriously…

          All the reasons given for compulsory cycle helmets can be applied equally to drivers or pedestrians

          No. You are incorrect. Not all reasons.

          Motor vehicle drivers are required to have compulsory third party insurance (in most states this is a component of their vehicle registration).

          This insurance covers liability up to $millions in the case of either a vehicle occupant, another vehicle occupant, another road user (including cyclists), pedestrian, etc is injured and requires costly medical care. Possibly for life.

          Cyclists do not have this insurance. Thus, any damage (of the human type) they may cause must be covered by the public purse, beyond what may or may not be possible to extract from cyclist if blame can be ascertained.

          A principal argument for helmets is not specifically for Johnny Lyrca Skinny Legs Cyclist's own spongy cranium protection; rather it is protect me from having to fork out to pay for medical care for the rest of his pitiful life when he splits open his melon, or fractures his spine.

          And you are also incorrect regarding pedestrians.

          I'm sure there are not many cases of out-of-control pedestrians crashing into other pedestrians, shops, cars, cyclists, and causing massive medical mayhem. (I guess it is possible, but for the extremely few such incidents I'm sure most of us could handle the drain on our tax dollars.) Pedestrians seldom spontaneously veer into other pedestrians, or crash to the pavement, to the extent of causing brain damage. And if they do run into motor vehicle traffic, well… the CTP insurance of the vehicle covers them.

          But not if they run into, or a cyclist runs into them.

          The intrinsic benefit of preventing injury and death by making seat belts compulsory has had the prosaic benefit of reduced costs due to death and injury to the public health system. (And reduced insurance premiums - relatively.) The corollary argument for bike helmets is equally compelling.

        • bargaino on 26/12/2015 - 21:52

          @Roman Sandstorm:

          Motor vehicle drivers are required to have compulsory third party insurance

          I see you are going with the dichotomy fallacy. Good choice sir.
          "us vs them". You are conveniently ignoring the fact that most cyclists are also drivers, and so pay exactly the same premium.
          The remainder is mostly children, or the very poor, and I for one do not have a problem subsidising them.

        • tikei on 27/12/2015 - 12:55

          @manic:
          The argument against registration for bikes seems only to be "I have a car and pay registration, therefore why should I pay twice?", reasonable apart from the fact that if you have two vehicles or more that you may use at varying times you pay registration for each.

        • bargaino on 27/12/2015 - 14:27

          @tikei:

          if you have two vehicles or more that you may use at varying times you pay registration for each.

          Indeed, you could argue that it is not fair, and compulsory 3rd party should apply to drivers, not cars.
          What you describe is a sort of luxury consumption tax, and people probably think that if you can afford two cars, you will not be bothered by the extra tax.
          It definitely does have negative consequences. SO can you think of a better system? Charge people according to km driven? According to their age? (Young drivers are higher risk.)
          What is fair?

          But I don't see by what reasonable logic you think this means drivers who cycle should pay double. Bad analogy.

        • tikei on 27/12/2015 - 16:30

          @manic:

          Vehicle registration's purpose is to establish clear ownership and to tax motorists or vehicle owners. I think it's fair to charge someone with two cars two registration fees because of the administration costs the government will incur. Extra vehicle, extra admin work. I don't view it as a luxury consumption tax. I know someone who bought a second hand dingy ute for work because his other car wasn't fit for the task. A bicycle is also a vehicle that uses public roads and should not be exempt from registration. They need to be identifiable. Although the cost would no doubt be less than cars. Some might argue that it'll cost the government more to enforce bicycle registration than to just leave it as it is, but if it makes cyclists more cautious and think twice before breaking the rules, I think it's worth it.

          Charging per km traveled would be more fair. However that would be hard to have in place and cost the government a lot to enforce. In this case, the cost incurred by the government isn't for promoting safety, it's not worth it. But bike registration is.

      • Pyrock on 25/12/2015 - 16:14
        +1

        the giant metal cage kinda replaces your helmet

  • gimli on 23/12/2015 - 22:08

    DO drivers need to carry ID?

    • whooah1979 on 24/12/2015 - 06:29

      When driving or riding in NSW, you must comply with all the conditions, restrictions or limitations that apply to your NSW licence. If the NSW Police ask you to produce your licence in relation to a driving matter, you must provide your NSW licence.

      http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/licence/visiting-nsw.html

  • RefusdClassification on 24/12/2015 - 01:40
    -1

    Liberals are such hypocrites. They say they believe in liberty and small government, but in practice they love totalitarianism as much as the ALP do. Our automobile obsessed society is full of discrimination against cyclists and motorcyclists. The LNP ought to adopt a slogan: "No SUV = no good".

  • Zachary on 24/12/2015 - 02:35

    Wow, what's next? A license to bike ride?

    • Randxyz123 on 24/12/2015 - 17:44

      Hopefully making them pay rego…

      • serpserpserp on 27/12/2015 - 13:09
        +1

        Do you understand why people who own cars pay rego? Do you understand where rego money goes?

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2015 - 07:56
    +7

    Inactivity is the real danger in Australia.

    An estimated 16,000 Australians die prematurely each year as a result and cost in excess off $700 million per annu .

    As such anything that makes people less likely to exercise (Helmut laws, carry ID while riding) is unwise.

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http…

    • LYRICALRAVER on 25/12/2015 - 08:52
      +1

      isn't that a leaflet produced by Medibank - propaganda so people would buy health insurance from them?

      • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2015 - 10:50

        Doesn't change the fact that inactivity caused by limiting opportunities to exercise costs more to society than people not wearing helmuts.

        As a society we need to do everything possible to encourage physical activity, not limit it.

        • RockyRaccoon on 26/12/2015 - 21:56
          -2

          So you have statistical evidence that there will be a drop in health because people wont ride bikes if they must wear a helmet? Maybe they will just buy a stationary bike instead.

          Jumping off a cliff can be healthy for some, so lets encourage that for everyone.

          Swimming is healthy, forcing people to swim between the flags can deter some from swimming, being stuck with all the kids who pee in the surf etc can be a deterrent.

          And so on….

          While you might be right you may also be wrong. Without data its a little meaningless

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 24/12/2015 - 10:19
    +2

    My only problem is that I don't carry a wallet or phone when riding or walking.

    If they started random breath testing cyclists then I could be fined despite being innocent.

    I've heard police sometimes give you a grace period to forward your ID when you've forgotten your licence at home. It's kinda silly that we've reached the point that everything is digital - including our ID and registration - and we still pretend that physical licences are a secure form of ID check when pulled over. A genuine fugitive has little to lose. Without an attached PIN number or facial recognition the added security is moderate at best (don't want to give them ideas though). It's primarily useful for those who are unconscious, uncommunicative or dead.

    • bargaino on 24/12/2015 - 11:43

      If they started random breath testing cyclists

      There is no blood-alcohol limit for cyclists.

      If the police are lobbying for ID, its probably because certain types of people are giving them false names. Already a crime, but a lot harder to chase up.
      With compulsory ID, the cases of fake ID, stolen ID etc might be far fewer than the number of false names right now.
      Welcome to multicultural Australia.

      I would hope the police will use discretion, but am not confident in giving such power to the police, especially without official guidelines.

      • peterpeterpumpkin on 24/12/2015 - 11:58

        I found the laws confusing at best. But I've read that "driving under the influence" is illegal on bikes as well (at least in NSW and QLD), despite there being no legal provision for random breath testing or the establishment of defined "levels" of influence (e.g. http://www.streetoncriminallawyers.com.au/drink-cycling-law/).

        • bargaino on 24/12/2015 - 12:18

          It's basically the same as it was for drivers before BA limits.
          You can be well over the driving limit, so long as you have proper control of the bike.

          The wording corresponds to a 0.15 BAC level offense. (think slurred speech and trouble walking.)

          WA road traffic code 2000:

          regulation 229. Proper control of bicycles
          A person shall not on any road or path —
          (a) ride a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs
          or alcohol and drugs to such an extent as to be incapable
          of having proper control of the bicycle; or
          (b) ride a bicycle recklessly or without due care and
          attention.
          Modified penalty: 2 PU

    • Randxyz123 on 24/12/2015 - 17:48

      My only problem is that I don't carry a wallet or phone when riding or walking.

      Really I find that incredibly difficult to believe…

      I've heard police sometimes give you a grace period to forward your ID when you've forgotten your licence at home.

      If you are over 26 you can drop into the nearest police station with your ID to verify your identity.

      • peterpeterpumpkin on 24/12/2015 - 20:19

        :) It might be a psychological side-effect of walking to and then swimming at the beach a lot and always fearing theft. Unless expecting a call I never carry a mobile either. I know I'm not normal.

        This 26 yo+ exception intrigues me. Any references?

  • btst7000 on 24/12/2015 - 10:45
    +4

    From a purely libertarian standpoint, I don't like this change in legislation.

  • cktftw on 24/12/2015 - 11:43

    About time. And number plates too. Way too many cyclists breaking rules with no way of conviction.

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

    This makes me mildly annoyed. I do believe in safety and caution. Educate not regulate!

    it smells very authoritarian and punitive.

    I drive, take the train, walk and cycle. Most cyclists are great because they take their lives into their hands and mostly try to be safe. They are entitled to use the road just as much as a car by law and every car off the roads in Sydney means a little less congestion, a healthier person and a little less pollution.

    These fines costs as much as buying a bike! And the poor police trying to enforce this law of carrying ids and wearing helmets… The people likely to fall into breaking these laws will be unwitting tourists and those that can't afford the fines.

    I can't imagine the police forces investing their resources enforcing these laws either… There is so much more that they have to do. Enforcing id checks will not go down too well!

    I suspect that the court of public opinion will get these laws thrown out or amended.

    • 811b11e8 on 24/12/2015 - 17:08

      I doubt the police will check to see if you have received your licence unless your doing something stupid.

      The only time a police officers has asked to my drivers license was while I was speeding.

      It's definitely a good idea to carry ID regardless of the law. You could end up hospitalised after an accident.

  • dbun1 on 24/12/2015 - 12:00
    +5

    About time. I don't have an issue with sharing the road with cyclists; however, I do have an issue where they think they are above the law and can run red lights and not follow road rules.

    If they want to be road users, then there needs to be some rules to keep them accountable, just like the rest of us in our cars.

    • pegasusx on 24/12/2015 - 14:02

      Running reds falls in a few categories.

      1. Running a red because they cant see any traffic and they think its "safe". Dick move. Its this mentality that infuriates and is very dangerous to other road users.

      2. Running/Rolling over a Red because it will never turn green! The road sensors dont pick up the bike. You can wait there forever and hold up traffic if they dont safely "roll" through a red.

      3. Rolling through a red in a bunch. Sometimes when a large group say 10 + cyclist ride in a bunch they sometimes have to run the red as stopping suddenly will case a split in the group or worse crash within the group to "Stop for the red". Most responsible bunches will call "stopping" when they see yellow. Or if the yellow comes on midway they will call rolling and possible some of the rear cyclists will run a red.

      So its a bit of a grey area for me as a road user. All comes down to understanding

      • 811b11e8 on 24/12/2015 - 17:28

        Large bunch rides can be a pretty big problem. I use to live on beach road in Victoria and early in the morning you would frequently get cyclists running reds. Sometimes I would miss a green light completely if a large bunch was going through waiting for them to clear the intersection.

        The worst was the last couple in a bunch who had obviously been dropped but would still run the red seconds later chasing the main group. (this was a frequent occurrence).

        I use to commute every day up that road every day and saw a few accidents. One because I tooted my horn when approaching a green light as there were still cyclists racing through it ag 5am while it's still dark in brighton North and one cyclist freaked out and staked. The other was around midday some lady got killed up crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing further up in south Melbourne.

        Exactly the sort of rides that give us cyclists a bad namename.

        I'd like to see them regulate the bunch rides maybe limited the size to 20 or 50 instead of sometimes rides with 200 cyclists trying to go through one green light.

        /rant

        • ChickenTalon on 25/12/2015 - 10:52
          +1

          Under the law a group of cyclists is classified as one vehicle. If they enter the intersection it's perfectly legal for the rear riders to pass through under orange/red. A group of 200 riders is silly, but it's still legal.

          Riders who aren't part of the group however, because they've been dropped, certainly should not enter the intersection.

        • serpserpserp on 27/12/2015 - 13:13

          You unnecessarily tooted your horn and caused bodily harm to another human being. How do you feel about that?

      • Randxyz123 on 24/12/2015 - 17:55
        +1

        Running/Rolling over a Red because it will never turn green! The road sensors dont pick up the bike. You can wait there forever and hold up traffic if they dont safely "roll" through a red.

        Then get off your bike and hit the pedestrian button… Not that difficult

        • pegasusx on 25/12/2015 - 10:58

          When its practical yes. When there are none - Impossible. And when its across the other side of the intersection and you walk your bike over its not running a red, its jay walking. So yeah a grey area.

  • peteru on 24/12/2015 - 12:42

    Cyclists need to be effectively punished when they break the law and become a safety concern, but requiring them to carry identification is not a pre-requisite for that. If a moron on a bike runs red lights, weaves through traffic or rides on the footpath through crowds, the cop needs to catch them. Once that part is done, they can be dealt with effectively, even if it means handcuffing their bike to the nearest fence and sticking the offender in the back seat of the car to take them off for processing at the station.

  • ufohunter on 24/12/2015 - 13:42

    removed

  • doctordv8 on 24/12/2015 - 13:58

    If and when the public, that is you and me, and everyone else inbetween, follows all the rules and uses all common sense and does the right thing everytime to everyone, then there would be no need for legislation. Educate not legislate as stated previously was introduced by us(not only us), and others many years ago in the NTMA for the fight against compulsury motorcycle headlight 'on' laws, even though we fully agreed with the law, we just wanted the choice and for us to turn them on. Here again, the saying is bantered around, but sometimes …most times I agree with the Govt', because too may people are just too dumb, lazy, ignorant, or insane or of different values/opinions to follow what is generally considered safer for everyone on the whole.

    Motor bike helmets were optional at one stage, pushbike helmets were also not the rule, but in real life, they have and do save lives, as do all safety related rules or processes. It is just sad that because a few rotton eggs are spoiling it for everyone else, we MUST have rules, and laws, and legislation that we do not always agree on as being needed for us, ourselves. If the perfect world ever returns, then maybe we can all go back to pre safety warning days and do what we want without any detrimental effect of anyone else, and be free of so many rules.

    That will never happen, so get over it, and follow the law. You being on the road is a privilage, not a right, and if I was a copper having to ask a hundred parents to identify the splattered mutilated remains of a cyclist for real or via photo because there wasn't a shred of ID on them, I would try to introduce this rule as well.

    Also, how about a ID plate permantly registered and affixed to each pushbike, as well as ID on their person, visable to our cameras so when they do the wrong thing on the road, we can bust them, the same as they try to bust the car drivers. Fair is fair. Most car drivers, and pushbike riders are all good, so I believe if you are the ones complaining about more laws and more control and more surveilance, you are proberably the minority that are causing the problems in the first place.

    C'mon, it is nothing to worry about, having ID is normal, and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Is it such a difficultly to put your ID of what ever kind in a sleeve on a lanyard around your neck when you are on your pushbike? Think about it people, keep whinging about this and you will all end up with a bar code on the back of your neck and micro chips in your body…somewhere.
    Mmmmm, upside…at least I will never be lost.

    • bargainslut on 25/12/2015 - 00:53
      -2

      @Doctordv8. The rules are heavily skewed in favour of large corporations and big government so following the rules will only be to the public determent as the gap between rich and poor steadily increases year on year.

      The priority is to tighten up political mismanagement and corporate greed at all levels not demanding more money from an already overstretched disconcerted public.

      As to the statement you made,"so get over it, and follow the law" Each individual has their feelings and if they wish to challenge law or help improve this is right and progressive. it's not for you to dictate what they must do. I would appreciate it if you retract the above words you chose to write.

      • doctordv8 on 28/12/2015 - 19:38

        Gidday, in the first paragraph I stated how I and others in the NTMA fought for a law/rule change, and we did it correctly, challenging the system. We lost but at least we had a go to speak up about our rights. It was our right to do this, and we although we lost, we raised a lot of questions that did improve our lot as bikers.

        We got over the drama, and followed the law while we fought, and I stand by that. Fight if you must, but you still need to follow the law first, and during your fight. I am sorry to upset you, but a retraction is not being written.

        Also a point perhaps not made/strong enough in the first response on the subject. I drive cars and trucks, I ride motor bikes and push bikes, (cyclist/cycles - words are a bit general), I am a local, a citizen, I am on both sides of the subject matter, therefor I have a voice.

    • bargainslut on 25/12/2015 - 00:56
      -2

      @Doctoerdv8My earlier post in case you missed it.

      "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….."

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2015 - 14:22
    +7

    I want to see rego for them blasted lane hogs.

    time over 9 years around spit bridge they have given me headaches with the thought that they are in the right.
    But what gets me is that have no idea that my 2 tonne jeep will not cry pain when it gets hit.
    I guess they need to reintroduce the heavy metal posters again.

    Again I'll say introduce rego so if they have an accident with others it is easily traceable.

    My aunty got t boned by a biker years ago, he flew through a giveway sign and yeh perfect timing.
    He almost won the court case if it wasn't for video footage shoot at the scene….. He wanted an appeal but this is how stupid it gets my aunty had to make a claim on her insurance

    • Randxyz123 on 24/12/2015 - 23:07
      +1

      Could not agree with you more.

      He almost won the court case if it wasn't for video footage shoot at the scene…..

      It's pathetic. They don't admit they f***ed up and think they have the right of way. Everyone f****s up at some point I hope he got charged with providing false evidence or something.

      But what gets me is that have no idea that my 2 tonne jeep will not cry pain when it gets hit.

      THIS. I have a 2 tonne Land Rover. If a cyclist cuts me off and gets hit guess which one is gonna be dented? (Yes guy dressed in black riding with no lights at 11:30pm who scared the living s*** out of me when you came out of a side street I'm talking to you)

      Also imagine if that guy was killed or seriously injured as a result of that accident? Your aunty would know she was in the right but since cyclists always have the right of way she could risk being charged and having to live with that for the rest of her life.

      Also with cyclists being doored. Yes us drivers and passengers need to check their mirrors and over our shoulders to make sure it is clear BUT cyclists in my opinion have a equal responsibility. They need to look ahead if a car is pulling up 99.9 % chance the driver and /or passenger(s) will be getting out and make an effort to move out of the way.

  • bargaino on 24/12/2015 - 15:29
    +1

    I don't know anyone under the age of 80 who uses the word "pushbike". It sounds so … archaic, and condescending? Or implies they have not ridden a bike in 40 years?
    Or at least complete ignorance of cyclists (no friends who ride), who they perceive as "the other".

    having ID is normal, and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

    IDs are easily lost or stolen. Why not all have RFID chips implanted? Then ban clothes, which can be used to conceal weapons and stolen goods. I have nothing to hide. Do you?

    • frewer on 24/12/2015 - 22:22

      If that ever be the case I shall never see you in public … NEVERAAA

      EDIT: On the serious note, it's sad to see that this government is no different than the "evil communist" that they are constantly crucified … I mean we have had more "freedom" ( in the context of this topic) than here.

    • lordra on 28/12/2015 - 00:33

      They're still called pushbikes in England to this day

    • doctordv8 on 28/12/2015 - 20:22

      Well don't you now. It is still a very correct term, it is a push bike, fact. It is also nown by other names, but that was a very picky point you made, err, non point, as just because you thought you did not know anyone under 80 using 'that' word, doesn't make it fact. It sounds so…normal to me and we currently have 3 'push bikes' in our 4 person family, being ridden every week. How could say ignorance of cyclists? Are we/I ignorant of myself, ignorant of the team riders I see every moring, ignorant of the club riders here in our area, or ignorant of our neighbours and friends that ride?

      IDs are a fact of life for so many years that it is considered 2nd nature to have something on you most of the time. It is not, nor was it implied to be compulsory, and nothing was mentioned about being lost or stolen, but that identity theft/fraud etc is a whole other story. I have nothing to fear, and neither should you, unless I am breaking the law.

      Did you not read this sentence? Think about it people, keep whinging about this and you will all end up with a bar code on the back of your neck and micro chips in your body…somewhere.

      What did I ever do wrong to you? Your statements and questioning seem very 'ignorant' to me though.

      • bargaino on 28/12/2015 - 20:32

        It sounds so…normal to me and we currently have 3 'push bikes'

        OK, thanks, thats what I wanted to know.
        It may be a regional thing, as I've been in a few clubs and know lots of cyclists and never heard that term used, except by my grandfather :-)
        And in England (good point lordra).

        How could say ignorance of cyclists?

        I just mean that these arguments can take on an "us vs them" flavour. Some people post as if cyclists are not also motorists, suggesting they do not know anyone who rides.
        So they are not familiar with the cyclists point of view.

        I feel an element of class conflict too. Bogan petrol-heads vs latte-sipping lycra-clad yuppies :-)

        IDs are a fact of life for so many years that it is considered 2nd nature

        I agree, but still am very uncomfortable about the direction society is moving if ID papers are required at all times.

  • Lichen6420 on 24/12/2015 - 19:16
    +3

    Hell yes ! … love this. About time cyclist were accountable for their actions.

    No different to driving a car without carrying your license and receiving a fine. A step in the right direction.

  • WaitAwhile on 24/12/2015 - 21:57
    +3

    Cycling was discouraged in Western Australia after 1919 when laws required all bicycles to be registered with a number plate. However, many cyclists ignored that law as they nowadays challenge the helmet law.

  • p1 ama on 25/12/2015 - 02:39
    +3

    Car drivers get fined when they break the rules, public transport users get fined when they break the rules, pedestrians get fined when they break the rules, so why is there an uproar every time fines are proposed for cyclists?

    Also, arguing against helmets is stupid. We have standards and regulations for safety to minimise the risk for all. Cars have very stringent safety features and if you're going to be in an accident, you'd rather be in a car than on a bike, that's for sure. We have a taxpayer funded health care system, so I think it's reasonable to expect that people behave in a way that minimises risk and minimises the burden on taxpayer dollars.

    If you're stupid enough to ride without a helmet, you should be made to pay for your own medical bills when you crack your head open because you hit the kerb. I don't see why we tolerate such selfishness (taking away medical dollars and hospital beds from those who need it most) and I don't understand why cyclists try so hard to have the same status as cars and motorbikes, but at the same time conveniently dissociate themselves when it involves fines, regulation or responsibility.

  • cowiie on 25/12/2015 - 11:00

    I agree with these laws! Was just driving home in QLD on Kingsford Smith Drive with 6 bicyclists on my right side. Traffic lights turned red and I had plenty of time to stop. 4 of them went straight through whist the other side was green. Bunch of idiots.

    • serpserpserp on 27/12/2015 - 13:17
      +1

      I'm not a cyclist but I see cars running red lights all the time too.

      • cowiie on 27/12/2015 - 23:29

        I agree, but at the end of the day, the car will always crush the bike.

        • serpserpserp on 28/12/2015 - 09:38
          +3

          Yep, even when they run a red light themselves. Cars will also crush, grannies, children, dogs, tax payer funded infrastructure, shop fronts, houses, etc. So essentially no one is safe from cars.

          I think people should take a break from slamming cyclists, skateboarders, runners, pedestrians and focus their energies in fighting for better infrastructure on our roads to cater for all forms of transport.

        • doctordv8 on 29/12/2015 - 13:45

          @serpserpserp: Well said! 2nd bit 1st. Improving the enviroment(infrastructure) we all use and the way we use(rules) them, will make it better and safer as well as more enjoyable and less stressfull whilst we are doing our daily drudge, and then our daily fun.

          Although we all claim to have rights for this that and the other, everything we do has a effect on someone or something, and that is where your first sentence comes in. It may be such a simple thing, 'it is my right to….' but so many of the rightous do not see the aftermath of just being right, hence what I said in my 1st rant comes back to me.

          "If and when the public, that is you and me, and everyone else inbetween, follows all the rules and uses all common sense and does the right thing everytime to everyone, then there would be no need for legislation" and this hum dinger I should also of said…..

          Road rule #1. Do everything in your power…. whether you are right or wrong, in the right or in the wrong, whether you agree or not, bigger or smaller, slower or faster…..to avoid an accident!

          The words people scream "but I had right of way" means absolutely nothing to a grieving family when you are being buried.

          Sorry, a bit off track we have gotten, but sometimes, we need to remember why someone upstairs mentions rules and such, they are usually said for a very good reason, even if you or I do not know about it.

  • NickosFoivos on 25/12/2015 - 11:05
    +1

    Instead of focusing on the many serious issues, they keep on releasing more and more stupid laws. Congrats :)

  • dmaca667 on 25/12/2015 - 12:09
    +2

    I complete approve of this decision and think it is actually a good move but does not go far enough. There should be a cycle license.

    The first biggest point that people arguing against it are ignoring is that a cyclist is a road user. The argument gets distracted with cars, bad drivers and the whole "OMG MY CIVIL LIBERITES! HOW DARE YOU ASK ME TO PROVE WHO I SAY I AM".

    Rather then have the term "car license" change it to a "Road user license". Have different restrictions on a road user license (like we currently do for our car/motorbike license, eg, you have been assessed as having an understanding of road laws and are competent to operate this vehicle, but not this vehicle).

    The biggest advantage of a road user license is that it demonstrates at some point in time, this person is familiar with the road laws that govern the state/territory. For example, a foreign student from Indonesia (or any other country) may not necessarily be familiar with the road laws and could pose a hazard to themselves and others (could be administered by the Uni once/twice a month with some form of accreditation, subsidised by the government).

    Also have it at an age appropriate level - there is no reason for not having this in schools (administered by the school). A lot of school aged kids will see it as a right of passage (as they do at the moment with a drivers license). That way the school is teaching something useful (namely road rules), and the kids feel like they have achieved something useful. Restrictions on school aged children could be limited to suburban/rural and not through the city or highway or other major road ways.
    There is absolutely no reason why we should not educate kids about road laws (as people keep preaching, educate not legislate). A license demonstrates that at least you have received the education (if you choose to follow or not is your choice).

    There would be a recognition (such as a car/motor bike or HV license) would negate the need for a push bike license (as i said, we are looking at a persons understanding of road rules in a bike license - not necessarily vehicle operation)

    Exceptions (there always are) is a dedicated facility where the bike does not come in contact with cars - im thinking bike parks & tracks and the like (that way families with small children can still use them).

    • CoreJava on 25/12/2015 - 13:16

      Agree.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/12/2015 - 08:54
      -1

      Best thing I have read on this site for ages.

      Now visit parliament and kick those idiots out. Your ideas not only make sense but would actually make driving much safer and enjoyable. However I would go one step further and crush any 18+ cyclist's bicycle if they are caught not wearing an helmet or riding a red light.

    • DealsyMcDealsalot on 26/12/2015 - 22:05
      -3

      Congratulations sir/madam, this is officially the dumbest shit on the Internet.

      • dmaca667 on 27/12/2015 - 00:43

        Thank you for your insightful and moving post. I stand completely correct and rescind my previous post and contribution to the conversation. Thank you for such a convincing argument. (only leaving it for archive purposes).

        • DealsyMcDealsalot on 27/12/2015 - 20:36
          -2

          No problem, try not to be so stupid next time

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join