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…
they are welcomed, on the bike lanes which the city built for them!
no riding down one way streets the wrong way, or through pedestrians when we are cross the lights and its red!
yeah a few bad eggs and usually those couriers man they are annoying
the bike lanes that theyre currently removing…? those ones?
edited. replied to the wrong dude :)
Mmmm yes, if I was to try and break a few laws whilst "working", or be a nuisance…
Wow great justification mate. Yea lets put other people's life and their own life in harms way as they have to earn a living. Love ya work chief.
Yeah but when ur cross the lights and you have a courier riding at 20km crossing down a one way street the wrong way, and almost running people over, you can't defend them
The bike lanes which the city built for them? The oh-so-complete and thorough network of bike lanes huh?
As an Ozbargainer living in Berlin, I cannot understand the problem we're facing in Sydney - The solution is simply converting more footpath/road space into bike lanes which are separate from the roads. It works perfectly here - The bike network is all encompassing, safe and helmets aren't necessary if you're a mindful rider.
Also - Drivers don't drive like angry aholes here, on back streets they drive slowly and relaxed and re always looking for pedestrians and cyclists, because most drivers are also cyclists too.
Bike Lane - Car Parking - Bike Lane - Car Parking - Bike Lane …..
Ride safe, don't ride.
I feel like that's one of the issues here. Most drivers are not cyclists as our cities are not cycle friendly. And until we get that paradigm shift then its basically an uphill battle with regards to driver behaviour.
bike lanes here in Syd, tbh, are of very small capacities and not future proof. only a fraction of cyclists using and already crowded during peakhours. well remind me of the current light rail situation around city, always chokeablock.
Roads are to be shared with Motorists. which I believe are not even enough for them alone if you drive you would understand. such dilemma and not a very good example of planning.
if we licensed cyclists and had a demerit system like with drivers those bike lanes are future proof. the glorious futer with zero idiot cyclists.
@djones145 Couldn't agree more, people see these idiots doing that sort of dumb stuff and apply it to every cyclist they see.
But about the bike lanes, in Newcastle they are a joke. They go through storm water drains, cars park in them and block them completely, some of them just end no where. There's even a shared bike path that just stops and turns into dirt at the back of the John hunter, it's supposed to link up with the other shared path and has been like that for years.
Cyclists an actually save the city, not ruin them. The council could instead do something better rather than slapping huge fines, such as educating people or making better pathways and cycling shortcuts.
Top 10 Reasons To Bike Instead Of Driving
http://www.trekstorewashington.com/articles/top-10-reasons-t…
Completely agree with you as a fellow cyclist living in the cycling friendly suburb of Brunswick, but I hate seeing cyclist break obvious rules that cars religiously follow, such as red lights. They give other cyclist a bad name, and would love to see them slapped more often.
This so much. As a cyclist commute to and from work in the city. I get so angry when I see other cyclist break the law and give the all other cyclist a bad name. Just obey the rules, what makes them different.
I generally agree with that sentiment but I think that in most cases cyclists are ignoring obvious laws.
Also motorists have to deal with Police fining them for minor/trivial/obscure offenses rather than getting a warning/educating which I don't think is right for them to do, but it still doesn't make me feel sorry for cyclists when they are finally put on the same playing field to see how revenue raising works first hand.
To a motorist, dealing with unfair fines is just part of the cost of driving, same level as rego - a tax to prop up the government's coffers. No matter how conservative you try to drive you will be faced with it at one point or another (maybe you get out of it, maybe not, but you still have to deal with).
Cyclists use the road just the same without paying for them so it is just a little taste of reality of how the government really raise their revenue to pay for it all
we should be encouraging more people to take up cycling not creating more disincentives for them not to get active and self sufficient in regards to transport….less congestion less traffic less cars on the road
also remember we are a fat lazy & obese country….we need the exercise!
are you suggesting that the fines we receive as motorists are there to discourage driving?
Rego is not a tax to prop up govt coffers, it barely pays for itself.
Everyone pays for roads, not motorists. Roads come from general revenue, not rego, not fuel tax. Cyclists pay more than their fair share because motorists do much more damage while cyclists do barely any. Motorists clog up the roads, cyclists ease congestion.
I don't really buy the argument that Cycling is good because it reduces Congestion. Why would a cyclist care if it reduces congestion if it doesn't affect them anyway? Only car/truck drivers have to deal with it because they are the ones who are creating it. Even motorcycles don't get congestion, should everyone drive a motorcycle?
And the argument about being active and self-sufficient. Again, these are personal goals. Why should the government subsidise these choices, when the cost of transport is already significantly less on a bike and you get to be more active.
I know in VIC Rego pays for road maintenance and Fines pay for road upgrades (which they call "Road Safety" because the roads are designed to be "Safer"). Not sure about NSW.
And not least of all, cycling doesn't fit everyone's personal circumstances. Personally I don't have a problem with cycling, but for me I wouldn't be able to make a living if it took me most of the day just to get to work.
@The Land of Smeg: 2/3 of rego is tac, the rest is not allocated to road maintenance & upgrades
general taxes pay for roads…i.e. we all do.
@The Land of Smeg: somewhere out on the internet is a photo of a street full of cars - congested then they took the same street and out the same number of people on two busses, not congested. They also took the same number of people on bikes and took up less space - not congested. Also so where out there on the Internet there is a study showing that two lanes of inner city traffic weren't carry as many people as a single lane of cyclists, and the cyclists were travelling quicker.
Cyclists don't ride 'to ease congestion', but if all the cyclists were sitting in one person cars there would be significantly more congestion. A lot of cyclists ride because they can beat the congestion, it's quicker to cycle. I ride because I enjoy it, and it keeps me fit(ish) but there is no congestion where I commute. Some people cannot cycle to work due to other circumstances.
@The Land of Smeg: I live in Victoria, most roads are paid for out of General Revenue (i.e. business and personal taxes). If you buy stuff or earn a wage you are paying for the roads. Local road maintenance is mostly paid for out of Rates. Big new road projects are sometimes paid for out of Federal Grants (hence the furore over the East West link funding). Rego pays for the administration of the Rego scheme itself. If there is anybody getting a free run on the roads it is an unemployed renter !
@2ndeffort: if rego paid for the cost of having rego then there would be no point of having rego. $250+ is a hell of an administration fee. Renters pay rent which pays rates.don't know how they would pay rent if they are unemployed however.
Of course there is other sources of funding but the registration component of the whole fee from vicroads goes towards roads, as do fines.
Ask I'm saying is that cyclists expect to be exempt from fees and fines because they seem to think that they are doing everyone else a favour by keeping themselves fit and making the roads less congested by getting past the congestion.
Cycling is a personal choice and they should be grateful for the free run they have had so far rather than think that everyone else owes them a favour.
Road networks cost money to run no matter who is using them and how.
@The Land of Smeg: Should kids on scooters and pedestrians also pay rego to use the roads? They are also personal choices.
By the way just because someone is riding a bike doesn't mean they don't own a car. I think you'll find most cyclist own cars too and pay rego like most people do.
I don't ride my bike to save money, I do it because the daily commute is the only exercise I get time for, and it's faster for me to ride in to work then drive in peak hour.
@alm865: I think that scooters and pedestrians should get equal Police attention for law breaking as every other road user. Rego is neither here nor there, and everyone had equal right to the road where used legally, just don't act like a pompus ******* as if others have less right to the road when they have the same legal right as everyone else, and be grateful for the benefits and less costs that you already get rather than demanding more to the major detriment of others.
At the end of the day I don't think that any certain group should get a free pass on not having to follow the law. If the application of the law is unfair it should be resolved to everyone's benefit not just a few.
@Euphemistic: I agree with rule changes to by cycling more practical for those who choose it, but you really don't have to add that last line in that it's somehow in the government's to do all those things. I honestly don't think they care whether anyone changes mode from car to bike or not.
@The Land of Smeg: In most states the largest part of the rego is for the compulsory third party insurance that pays for your rehab in case of a serious accident. IF there was an argument for cyclists to pay rego it would be that many cyclists (not all) are not covered by this 3rd party insurance if they are wiped out on the roads. I personally pay additional insurance to protect me when riding but I accept there are probably loads of cyclists that dont.
On top of the insurance, most states Rego schemes are horrendously expensive to run and represent the next biggest charge for Rego.
Next there are some states that charge a road congestion/road safety levy etc and there are a couple of states that take a bit of the rego and put it into 'General Taxation'. I am not aware of any states charging motorists directly for $$ to spend on fixing the roads. The confusion possibly comes from the fact that the rego fees are partly justified on the basis of how much damage a vehicle does to the roads. Obviously a large truck does more damage to the road than a motorcycle so the fees are adjusted accordingly. Using this logtic however a pushbike does pretty much no damage to the road. When the government uses the 'damage to the roads' argument to justify rego fees and a bike does no damage to the roads how would they calculate a rego fee. Potentially the cost of updating all of the rego databases etc to include cyclists and bikes would cost a lot more money than it would raise.
This debate has been had all over the world and nobody charges cyclists rego. If there was a way to turn a buck out of it I am sure governments would be all over it, the fact that it costs more than it raises and as a result no government wants to charge people extra taxes just so they can have a rego scheme for cyclists should be a clear sign it wont work. Would you be OK to pay extra in your car rego so that cyclists can be charged rego? OK so we just slug cyclists for the full charge of the scheme you say! So when it costs over $1K a year to ride a bike watch what happens to cycling, it disappears. There will be massive pushback to the government. Families wont want to pay for their kids to ride bikes to school, middle aged MAMIL bike clubs will evaporate and the bike industry (which sells more bikes per annum than the car industry sells cars) will disappear. I am a keen cyclist racking up a couple of hundred kms a week, I would possibly stop cycling if I had to fix a rego plate and pay $1K a year to ride. Add to that that the justification used for every other road user, i.e. the 'damage to the road' theory will be totally wrong when applied to bikes means you would have 1 rule for bikes and a different rule for all other road users. Rest assured some motivated person somewhere would challenge the whole thing in the courts.
End of the day it is all too hard, too much red tape and it costs too much. The only winners out of it would be the few motorists that like to blame cyclists for all their woes. Everyone else, including the taxman loses. This is why rego for cyclists is a bad idea and will never fly!
@alm865: Same, i drive 2-3 days a week, pay for parking in the city (exorbitant) and the bridge toll etc etc. But i try to ride as much as possible for the exercise factor.
I ride from Neutral Bay to darling harbour, honestly its quicker than driving some day, and for the most part there would be 1 maybe 2 patches of road where i affect the flow of traffic, each for less than 30seconds. When i ride, its a car off the road - less emissions, less congestion… i just wish i had the energy to do it every day!
Well i started cycling because congestion was so bad i felt like i was wasting my life in traffic. It actually took the same time to ride to work as it did to drive in peak hour traffic. So yes, cyclists care about congestion because it's often one of the motivators to ride.
Also, i still pay the same amount of car registration fees as non cyclists but since i drive much less now, i get less value for my fees. Maybe we should move to a usage based registration fee system! I'm so tired of the "registration fee" argument. Most cyclists also have cars and pay the same fees.
Also,cycling is expensive. It'll be a long long time before my transport savings actually break even with my bike expenses..if ever. You need to buy a proper road bike. .and then a proper helmet and a proper tire pump and proper bike lock and bike lights and maintenance tools and that's just your bare minimum. You need to service it and replace tires and so on. It ain't no cheap hobby!
register cyclists and have a demerit system.
only allow cyclists to make hook turns.
allow cyclists on foot paths if doing less than 5kmph
force cyclists to use service lane on any road with one.
cyclists must give way / allow to pass all traffic after the lights turn green. basically they cross and let all traffic behind them cross before taking the lane.
all other road users have demerit system why are cyclists so special?
hook turns would be safer as the cyclist doesnt have to cross carrige way to turn right.
a slow cyclist on a footpath is not dangerous to pedestrians and is safer for cyclist.
why take up a lane on a 80kmh road when there is a 50kmh road that follows the exact same route?
as a driver nothing more frustrating than getting held up by a group of cyclists, passing them only to have them split the lane at the lights and be stuck behind them again. if they werent allowed to split the lane and get to the front they might not be able to make the green. allowing them to come to the intersection, cross on the green, but then show some curtesy to allow drivers to pass is equivalent to burning them at the stake?
@antikythera: how will your demerit system apply to kids? While you are at it we need licences for pedestrians, more of them are killed each year on the roads than cyclists.
Hook turns are safe, but so is merging into the traffic and turning right with the flow, it is often safer becuase you can use momentum to Keep moving with the flow than stopping and starting again.
Slow cyclists on footpaths is a great idea, should be legal, but have you travelled on a bike a 5km/h? It is difficult to maintain balance and control under about 10km/h. At 5km/h joggers will be passing bicycles. I pass pedestrians regularly on my commute at 20km/h, a speed where it is efficient for me, and also easy to stop/swerve of required (not often). Footpath riding should be legal
Most riders will choose a 50km/h route over an 80km/h route where practical, but there are an awful lot of roads where not using the 80k/h road would takes hours of detour longer. Lots of services lanes are more dangerous due to turning vehicles, parked cars, intersections. Claiming a lane while travelling at 30km/h is a small delay for motorists in most examples. Being in some bike lanes alongside a row of parked cars is a deathwish, only need one idiot to fling a door open and the cyclist will end up seriously injured or dead, happens frequently. Most cyclists will choose not to take the lane when there is an alternative, but if it means merging in and out of the traffic flow it is less dangerous to stay in the traffic flow.
Forcing to give way after green? as a cyclist, nothing is more frustrating than having a car squeeze past after zero waiting time when there is a clear opportunity to pass within a few seconds. A better option is to change the rules to the Idaho stop. Red lights are treated like stop signs for bicycles, ie stop, give way then proceed IF SAFE. This will allow cyclists to clear the intersection before cars and not slow the traffic as well, and allows cyclists to get into shoulder lanes that are often missing in intersections.
Save the city? There are more cyclists than cars in China, why isn't that 'city' saved?
Imagine what would have happened if each cycle there in China was replaced with a car instead… how much worse it could get… good that there are 'some' cyclists rather than all drivers.
… and there are Top 10 Reasons why cyclists SHOULD be fined for breaking the law … just like motorists are!!!
About time! As a cyclist, although not a lycra wearer, I have no real problem with this. I despised the media heavy push by squeaky cycle groups over the last 12-24 months to have cyclists considered as regular vehicles. The constant war cry that "we are legally allowed on the road too!" was always going to end badly. All the do-gooders will now cry for leniency because "we aren't cars!". You reap what you sow. If you whinge to be treated equally, you can't just take the good.
Not sure whats left for me to get screwed over for now; Motorcyclist, shooter, four wheeler, now cycling… Might be time to take up knitting.
You need a license for those dangerous weapon capable knitting needles.
Next law: No needling after 3am
i agree and disagree….all the rest of us riding paths & trails suffer as a result
agree and disagree too. It's the inner city louts that get in the media and cause all the casual cyclists to get a bad name and then we all suffer. I spent a few days at a mid north coastal town in January. Heaps of cyclists, becuase why would you take the car. No helmets, no agro, no need for ID. now riding down to the take away to pick up dinner in a sleepy coastal town you'll need a helmet and licence when the risk is next to nil.
You should always wear a helmet - Natural selection if you do not. You get hurt when something unexpected happens, don't think just because you have never had trouble before you are not going to run into trouble in future. This is a teenager's mindset.
It is no big deal to be carrying a piece of ID and a helmet on your head if you are already in the position to be riding to grab your dinner…
I think this is a great idea and it was a long time coming. Benefiting most for larger cities.
Ideally we should be encouraging safe cycling by providing better infrastructure (more bike lanes) - I don't ride but would be more than happy to have my tax payer dollars spent on safer cycling.
But has anyone seen the roads in Sydney? They hardly function for cars at the moment… Can't see the money necessary being spent on safer roads for cycling when at the moment it is a snail trail of traffic.
There was no attempt to make a case that cyclists riding without ID was a significant issue. None at all. Was there one incident of a cyclist involved in a serious accident refusing to give their details? Ten? One hundred?
Governments bringing in harsh laws without justifying them is a sure way to lose the confidence of the public. Unless of course they were just dog-whistling to all the motorists who already hate cyclists… Nah, that would never happen!
@dazweeja: bang on the money….this was a non issue that didnt need legislation & enforcement applied. just one more layer of unnecessary control & bureaucracy
@DrDollar: I'm more than happy to wear a helmet when riding fast, riding on the roads, or riding in the bush on MTB. I haven't fallen off my bike nor been hit by a car cruising along the sharepath, ever. Most adult cyclists haven't fallen off a bike and had a head injury while doing the same.
If helmets are so necessary then why don't other high cycling rate countries, such as the Netherlands, have either mandatory helmets or significant statistics showing that head injuries are a real risk for cyclists. Riding a bike you are more likely to injure your arm.
@Euphemistic: I do not care if you don't wear a helmet. Please, tell me more about why you shouldn't wear a helmet.
I am also a non Lycra clad cyclist.
When I was 12, I was riding down a steep hill in the rain. When I went over the gutter, the wheel slid from underneath me, throwing me at speed into the wet grass. I slid along the grass until I went head first into a power pole.
My helmet literally split into two.
I never, ever, get on a bicycle without one. You never know what will happen.
@DrDollar: if you do not care if I wear a helmet why should it be mandatory? You obviously don't think it is essential safety equipment. I never said you shouldn't wear a helmet, but I don't think it is ALWAYS necessary to wear a helmet. I would recommend that cyclists wear a helmet as described above, fast, in traffic or other high risk situations, but you know what, I rode my bike around the campsite for a week without one back in January and it was great wind blowing in my receding hair as t wasn't as hot for my head.
@Euphemistic: You should always wear a helmet. Please refer to the comment just above yours as a good example for why you should always wear a helmet. I do not care if you wear a helmet personally. But I would hate to think that a friend of mine was hurt without one.
But please, continue telling us why wearing a helmet shouldn't be necessary. It takes all of, 5 seconds to put on…
ive never had a car accident therefore I don't need airbags or a seatbelt…
@Euphemistic: yea when i was younger i was riding. A car pulled out of the side street and i clipped the car went over the front and broke my arm lol
@MetalPhreak: more pedestrians die or are injured in incidents with motor vehicles than cyclists. Pedestrians trip over and hit their heads. Pedestrians should be made to wear helmets…
@DrDollar: more pedestrians injured every year than cyclists, pedestrians should be made to wear helmets.
There are always freak accidents and final destination moments. Depending what I am doing on a pushy I will wear a helmet. 90% of the time it will probably save your life. the other 10% is when you get run over by a car and if I was wearing a helmet that day I probably would have snapped my neck. I was run over by a car and had the axle pass in within 5mm of my head. If I wore a helmet that day I'd be dead.
Its just like seatbelts, 90% of the time it will save your life but there are instances when someone flys out of the window and survives, if they didn't they would be dead in a crumpled fire bomb.
In saying that, its probably worth wearing a helmet… or seatbelt for the 90% probability of surviving especially if its you vs a crappy driver on the public roads.
@DrDollar: In Sydney I agree, but there are some cities in Asia where they just don't wear helmet because the structure of the city is different. 50% of the road are used by bikes, the cars are much smaller and slower, etc. check out Kyoto, Osaka, Hong Kong island districts, and a few other cities in China. They all don't wear helmet.
No shortage of bike riding idiots on footpaths and shared tracks racing past people at speed with cm to spare.
If I have to give you 1.5 metres on the road why cant you give me the same on a footpath or shared track?
If you cant give me that space simply que up behind me until you have the space like cars do.
because its usually not there to give….? paths are a fixed width and most arent 3 metres wide….most riders ride respectfully and call or indicate their intentions when coming up behind slow moving walkers or runners…no one wants an accident & i go out of my way to slow down for the elderly disabled kids dogs etc as do many other riders….were quite aware of the speed difference & ride accordingly in the safest way possible. im also happy to queue behind you if theres oncoming traffic coming our way….i do this all the time too
the main problem with share paths is people dont keep left and dont know how to drop into single file when an oncoming rider or walker needs to pass or pass them….situational awareness and all that. if youre walking on a share path you have to anticipate other walkers runners riders dog kids learning to ride etc and allow for everyone to have access…because its a shared path
@franco cozzo: because its usually not there to give….? paths are a fixed width and most arent 3 metres wide"
Neither was the 90kph section of road I was riding (MC) on today.
It didnt stop a bunch of lycra clad morons on pushbikes riding 3 abreast blocking the lane off and pretty much forcing cars to either cut close breaking the 1.5m rule or overtake on the double white forcing me to dive to the left to avoid a head on situation
@franco cozzo: Found myself walking against oncoming groups of kids from Castle Hill High School the other day - required me to constantly deflect them off the wrong side of the footpath.
This is the same complaint that motorists have when sharing the road with cyclists.
the main problem with share paths is people dont keep left and dont know how to drop into single file when an oncoming rider or walker needs to pass or pass them….
Let me rewrite this sentence for you:
the main problem with share paths roads is people cyclists dont keep left and dont know how to drop into single file when an oncoming rider or walker driver needs to pass or pass them….
Most pedestrians are also drivers.. if cyclists don't give pedestrians respect, because pedestrians have a right to be on a shared path (the same as cyclists having the right to be on the roads), then they will not return that respect when they are behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Imagine you're walking along a shared path with your family and a cyclist comes speeding up to you dinging the bell continuously to get you to move out of their way…
That is really no different to a car driving up to a cyclist real fast on the road honking their horns to try get the cyclist to move out of the way.
This is where common-sense should kick-in. Except that common-sense doesn't seem so common nowadays.
.. I can hear you crying now!!!
Should see the look on the faces of cyclist hogging up entire lanes, cycling 6 abreast going 40 on a 100 road.
Doing well riding 6 abreast, best my cycling bunch can manage is about 3, they would have to have their arms around each other to get to 4 I reckon. Also 40 km/hr is a decent speed on a road bike, if you can average 40 over a decent distance you are doing well.
I don't care how well they are doing. If a car is going 60 under the speed limit, they'd be pulled over.
@tshow: OK let me rephrase it for you then, I was not giving the cyclists praise, instead i was calling out your rampant exaggerations. Cyclists cant do more than 25 on a shared path but are too slow on the road. Where should we ride? oh let me guess, you dont care as long as it doesn't get in your way and slow you down?
@2ndeffort:
I am referring to country roads. They would easily fit 6 abreast when taking up the buffer "lane". If the roads here were narrower, the harvesters won't fit. Sorry if you've never been to an agricultural town.
And yes. I don't care where they ride as long as they don't choke traffic. You'd be welcome to ride near town where everyone is going at 50, or use the buffer space along the faster roads.
I'm not anti cyclist. In fact, my wife cycles but we both agree that the cycling groups where we are is just inappropriate.
@tshow: Pretty much the only riding I do is in large groups on rural roads. I live in the outer suburbs of Melbourne and the only time I ride inner city is during large mass participation cycle events. I've ridden thousands of Kms through Gippsland and the Dandenongs in Melbourne as well as kms around Mansfield and down around Geelong/Great Ocean Rd hinterland. The groups i ride in (several times a week) would struggle to get 4 abreast in a lane. 99% of the time we obey the law and stay 2 abreast communicating in the group to warn of cars or giving hand signals to each other to warn of potholes or traffic lights/intersections etc. Occasionally somebody pulls out to drop back and take a rest at the back of the group or another person races forward to pass on a message etc. On very rare occasions we have a race to an intersection etc on a quiet road (no cars around) and sometimes we would get the group split up and faster riders overtaking slower ones.
Aside from the TV coverage of the Tour De france I've never seen a group riding 6 abreast and I reckon it would take up 2 lanes or both sides of the road if they did. I've ridden in many of the large mass rides with thousands of riders for events like Cadel Evans Gt ocean Rd ride and melbourne's 'Around the bay in a Day' as well as Gippsland's 'The Slog' and although there are literally thousands riding on some of these events I've never seen 6 abreast.
On most of the country roads I ride on the only buffer either side of the road is a wide dirt verge to the left of the road. I dont know if you've ever ridden a road bike with 23mm tyres at 50km/hr whilst both feet are firmly clipped onto the pedals but in case you havent I can tell you that navigating dirt and potholes as well as any road debris and roadkill is exciting to say the least. Most prefer to stay well on the tarmac. Most of the country roads i ride on are very quiet and you can ride for ages without seeing a car. Most of the groups i ride with are very conscioous of cars and we communicate to each other to try and be as little nuisance as we can, we regularly 'single up' going from 2 abreast to single file to allow cars past on narrow windy roads. I cannot imagine anyone I've ever ridden with riding 6 abreast. Almost none of the places i ride have any cycling infrastructure at all, if there was a lane dedicated to cyclists we would use it but we are normally 40+ riders in 2 files riding at 40km+, if the ride involved navigating lanes/paths that involved pedestrians or slow cyclists we would either take a different route or ride on the road instead. We are very conscous of busy roads and plan our rides around avoiding busy or dangerous roads, I know of many roads that we avoid (Wellington Rd in Lysterfield etc) because they are busy and dangerous for cyclists.
I find it very hard to believe that there are large groups of cyclists riding 6 abreast regularly. It might be popular on Herald Sun articles but i would wager i've seen more cyclists than most (as i am normally one of them) and i'cant remember ever seeing it.
obey the law and stay 2 abreast
Occasionally somebody pulls out to drop back
single file to allow cars past
i would imagine the law for two abreast was writen to allow for riders in single file to pull out and drop back. but cyclists assume it means they can ride two abreast constantly and break the law to drop back.
@antikythera: actually the rules states that two riders can ride side by side while a third is allowed to overtake within the same lane.
Why dont you wear lycra? Do you like saddle sores?
lol, Tony Abbott failed to support cyclists though he was one himself… wish he did, but anyways, his time is up
Hmm… he might the reason why people dislike cyclists lol
Don't knit and drive.
I don't understand why people push their personal agendas about law enforcement agencies doing their crackdown. It's the same notion for people who claim that speed/red light cameras are revenue raisers.
Do the right thing and you won't be fined. Simple.
Fair enough on the road rules fines, but $100 for not carrying ID is bizarre. How does carrying ID make road users any safer?
When you commit a crime they cops will know who you are…
When you get run over by a semi trailer that didn't see you, they will be able to identify the body…
The ID is not about making you safer - It is about making you identifiable and accountable. This is the purpose of ID…
so pedestrians should also carry ID for the same reasons and it should a finable offense to not have one on your person?
@franco cozzo: No, that would be a silly idea. Pedestrians are not using the road as a mode of transport, they walk next to it and across it rarely. We are talking about roads here and modes of transport that are moving faster than walking speed.
Carrying ID when you are traveling on a road is not a big deal, at all.
@DrDollar: but its not for just the road….theres no distinction in relation to location. its applied to cyclists everywhere in all situations i.e share paths, parks, trails etc …that is why the rules are non-sensical
@franco cozzo: Not so sure about that, everything I have read has been in relation to road rules only. Where are you seeing this?
@DrDollar: mandatory helmet laws apply on roads and off….id assume this will be implemented the same way? no clear distinctions being made between road or offroad / path riders….
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…
@franco cozzo: I don't think we should assume. Nothing I have read indicates that you could be fined for not having ID when riding somewhere that is not a road or footpath. You can drive a vehicle on your own property without a license. I believe same will go for bikes unless you find something telling otherwise.
EDIT: I see you edited your post with a reference. If this requirement does indeed include off-road, then I feel that is too far, I don't care what a cyclist is doing off-road in the same way I don't care what a skateboarder is doing off-road. On the road however, I have no issue whatsoever with having cyclists carry ID.
@DrDollar: i see no distinction being mentioned anywhere in relation to being a 'road user' specific requirement…just like mandatory helmets, bells, lights, 1x working brake laws etc it seems to apply all cyclists irrespective of type
Adult cyclists will be required to carry photo identification
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-forced-to-carry-photo-ide…
@franco cozzo: and how much trouble did they have fining people without this mandatory ID requirement. Just goes to show it is not necessary to mandate it. The police have the power to compel you to identify yourself already.
@Euphemistic: yup…was already a non issue…slow creep towards mandatory rego/insurance is my take on it
@franco cozzo: I reckon they should start introducing national identity card, have it integrated with transport and payment systems. Bring it on!
@DrDollar:
It is a big deal if you just happen to forget your ID whilst travelling 500m down to the local beach in your boardies for a swim one arvo, then a copper pulls you over to check your bell is working and discovers you don't have one or its not functioning… then is able to fine or warn you for the lack of bell and slap you a $106 fine for no ID. It all sounds a bit petty doesnt it? Besides, its easy enough to give a verbal warning when approaching someone without needing a little ding ding bell sound.
Is there a set fine for no working bell by the way? Or is that in the pipeline? My bike never came with a bell when purchased a few years ago so looks like I'll need to order one.
They say that a photo of your ID on your phone is sufficient, does this also mean you can carry a paper photocopy? That would be ideal for me as I could tape it inside my helmet as I never usually carry my phone or wallet to the beach when going for a swim, but always take my helmet. I would also prefer not to carry my original ID as I would need to leave it unguarded on the beach whilst I swim, which leaves me open to ID theft.
Lol… You again..
All over the world you don't need a helmet, and they are starting to change the red light rules to the Idaho stop rules (google it). What they have implemented here will stop people riding, and what we want is more cyclists out there to make it safer. More cyclists means more awareness, more awareness makes it safer.
first in line on 26/02/2016 - 21:02 Comment score below threshold.