- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Sydney Harbour from the air (copyright Rodney Haywood)New South Wales set to be "worst state in world" for cyclists
Transport for NSW says that huge increases in fines for cyclists who break the law and a requirement they carry ID will improve the safety of people on bikes. But an academic who regularly publishes on cycling issues says the legislation means New South Wales will probably “become the worst state in the world in terms of how we treat cyclists.”
From next Tuesday 1 March, as well as having to take ID with them, bike riders in Sydney and elsewhere in the state will face being fined A$315 for failing to wear a cycle helmet and A$425 for running a red traffic light.
Those are increases of 350 per cent and 498 per cent respectively on the current fines of A$71 for both offences, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.
Other changes to traffic laws in what is Australia’s most popular state, home to 7.5 million people, nearly one in three of the country’s population, include that drivers will have to give cyclists at least one metre’s space when overtaking them in areas with a speed limit up to 60kph, and 1.5 metres above that.
A spokeswoman for Transport for NSW told the newspaper: "The rapid growth of cycling in Sydney” – the number of daily trips in Sydney has doubled in the last decade – “is not expected to change with the NSW government's new measures.
"In fact, the changes will encourage more cyclists who may have previously felt unsafe with drivers on the road who were flouting the law, putting innocent road users at risk.
"New and seasoned bicycle riders can now have increased confidence in sharing the road safely with motorists and pedestrians."
NSW roads minister Duncan Gay maintained the laws would benefit cyclists. He said: “The new policies we have announced are going to put cycling safety at the forefront of people's minds.
"I disagree with the negativity that there will be fewer people cycling because of the new laws – we're increasing safety, which is going to encourage more people to jump on their bike with confidence.
"I put it to those groups who are against these policies - if you are a safe road user, you don't need to change your behaviour. In fact, you should continue doing what you're doing to set the example for other road users."
Cycling campaigners however have hit out at the legislation as being a further reflection of what they see as the state’s anti-cyclist stance.
Bicycle Network CEO Craig Richards said: "No other country in the world has the extraordinary barrier of mandatory ID for riders. It's embarrassing that international experts in liveable cities think NSW is so backward.
"We call on the NSW government to produce the data, evidence and reasoning for fine increases of 500 per cent and mandatory ID.
"The government hasn't yet even released the wording for these laws and they're two weeks away. Maybe the government is having second thoughts?
"We've seen significant backlash from the bike riding community, the opposition and the Greens in relation to the proposed laws," he added.
Meanwhile, Professor Chris Rissel of the University of Sydney, an opponent of compulsory helmet legislation who has published widely on the cycling issues, said the legal changes represented “new lows” in the state’s treatment of cyclists and that the government was missing the point when it came to how to improve riders’ safety.
He told Australasian Lawyer: “This legislation is reaching new lows. There are many things that could be done to make cycling safer and to encourage more people to ride. These things are not it.”
He added: “We’re probably going to become the worst state in the world in terms of how we treat cyclists – if we’re not already.”
But Bernard Carlon, the executive director of the NSW government’s Centre for Road Safety, insisted: “If one cyclist chooses to now wear a helmet because of the new penalties, we consider that a win for cyclist safety.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 1 sec ago
I see a car go through a red light at almost every single cycle at every single junction. ...
- eburtthebike 6 min 45 sec ago
And demanding that the real issue, lack of safe cycling infrastructure is addressed immediately, not blaming the victim.
- mctrials23 11 min 48 sec ago
If you can do it on that you ain't pushing very hard.
- chrisonabike 58 min 28 sec ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 10 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 1 hour 27 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
- RafaDy 1 hour 22 min ago
I think reviewer completely missed the point here trying to match bike's name with what it can do. Ribble is namin git's bike weirdly, the...
- Moist von Lipwig 4 hours 48 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- HKR 6 hours 3 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
Add new comment
24 comments
Bernard Carlton's quote sums up the staggering stupidity of the helmet-obsessives: They'd rather have people _not_ cycle at all, than cycle without a helmet. Even though cycling is overwhelmingly a (population-wide) beneficial activity for health and longevity, even with 0 helmet use.
Further, for at least some helmet obsessives, the goal actually _is_ to decrease cyclist numbers - for they hate cyclists.
Or there is pressure from the insurance industry lobbies to reduce payout liability either through cyclist number reduction, or payout sum in head injury cases? What next, blame the accident on the cyclist for not wearing a helmet?
If something is made "unfun" through punitive regulation or does not meet capitalist agenda, then get rid of it, it seems.
So when I ride to work at 5.45am and come to a red light, with no cars nearby, and wait for the subterranean induction coils to sense my carbon bike... I should obey this rule?... Thanks Christ I live in Victoria!
Solution... get off bike as you approach the intersection, run/walk your bike through it (with helmet off if feeling daring and have the time to remove it), then remount bike and go on your way... Perhaps the fine for Jay Walking is less?
So when I ride to work at 5.45am and come to a red light, with no cars nearby, and wait for the subterranean induction coils to sense my carbon bike... I should obey this rule?... Thanks Christ I live in Victoria!
Solution... get off bike as you approach the intersection, run/walk your bike through it (with helmet off if feeling daring and have the time to remove it), then remount bike and go on your way... Perhaps the fine for Jay Walking is less?
It's a perfectly civil question not a criticism.
Are there cameras to see you go through the lights? Are they all on sensors?
This is a disaster, and definitely 1 up for motorists. An average ride for me would cost at least 3000 dollars.
This is another step towards making riding a bicycle like owning a Lamborghini. If you have a lambo you should be able to afford the speeding tickets.
Biggest loosers here are definitely children. Do kids really need to carry an ID and have a helmet to ride down the street to their mates house.
What are you doing to rack up 3000 dollars?
Queensland has been trialling minimum passing rules for a couple of years and prosecutions against motorists have been low but the 2015 death rate for cyclists has decreased significantly so hopefully this indicates a change in driver behaviour - will be fantastic if the seriously injured data when produced shows same trend.
Meanwhile police say need for prosecution of motorists is low because behaviour is good? But increased fines have been used extensively to target cyclists (see article) meanwhile in Victoria we already have fines at levels similar to those that will be applied in NSW but no minimum passing rules in exchange.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cyclists-claim-they-are-wo...
Successive UK governments have adopted a similar approach to the problem of high motorcycle fatalities. Over a period of ten years they have decimated the motorcycle industry in this country, causing job losses in training, sales, repairs and other affiliated businesses.
They achieved their objective by progressively extending the scope of the motorcycle driving test to the point where it involves five separate phases. Youngsters now look at this almost insurmountable barrier to riding on the road and they rush out and buy a car instead.
Instead of working with the industry to reduce accident levels and improve the safety of the bikes they have chosen the quick and easy option of slashing the numbers who take up motorcyling in the first place. As older riders give up their machines there are few youngsters to replace them and we are well on the way to motorbiking's extinction.
But of course the headlines trumpet reduced casualties and the average, non-motorcycling reader thinks it's a great success instead of recognising it for a shortsighted, ill thought-out policy.
Is it uneforceable? Front and rear cam and hand every single commute into the police. Bury them under it. Then write to the media to ask why it's not being enforced. Could be interesting.
It is obvious the passing rule is unenforcable so won't improve behaviour - I will bet most car drivers are not even aware of it. 500% increases in fines for cyclists can only be perceived as anti cycling in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to suggest it will improve rider safety. Basically this policy is clearly aimed at discouraging cycling however they dress it up.
I commuted by bike for about 5 years in Sydney and found it a hostile environment to ride in, certainly in comparison to riding in London. Car drivers were sometime insanely aggressive. I can't see how this will improve things like Transport NSW suggest.
Casual cyclists effectively legislated off the road for their own safety.
I don't usually buy into "thin end of the wedge" type arguments, but as a (mostly) helmet donning, light carrying, hi viz wearing, non RLJ'ing cyclist I see what has happened in NSW as a warning to us in the free world to make sure we are vigilant in defending our personal choices based on reason and requirement.
But think of the road stats, how can cyclists die, if they don't exist....
And that of course is the art of politics. 'Look, we have cut cyclist injuries and fatalities and here are the stats for Year1 v Year2' is a far easier soundbite to sell compared to the in depth analysis of reduced cycle usage, increased traffic congestion, pollution, the net health and economic effects on a population doing less exercise and breathing more fumes and all the other detail which is more statistically arguable.
What he said. How can you possibly enforce a law you can't measure?
I presume that they've some infallible method of checking the one metre space somehow? No? Expect pretty much zero enforcement of that one then.
As well as the possible effect of discouraging adults from riding, isn't this pretty much banning Aussie children from riding except round and round the garden? I would imagine that this will also impact on sales of childrens' bikes, won't it? Unless Aussie children are microchipped at birth or something, how will they be able to show ID...?
(That said, I think putting mandatory passing distances into law is a Good Thing).
The new rules say 'adult' riders have to carry photo ID. Presumably tht means people 17 and under don't (though I haven't seen the age bracket clarified anywhere).
Meh.
But, for balance, there's a fine as well for failing to give the requisite overtaking space. It's the same fine as for not wearing a helmet.
Of course, one of those is far easier to police and see. I'm utterly against compulsory helmet wear but I think it's worth reporting a significant new fine for motorists as well. They could probably wipe out national debt if they enforced it.
And, if they did, they'd not need the helmet law.
Yet the fine for driving in a bike lane is around half that for not wearng a helmet. Presumably if motorists stayed out of bike lanes and didn't 'door' cyclists so often (or even if bike lanes were properly designed), there would be no (perceived) need for the helmets (or helmet laws).
Then they need to make it the same.
Incidentally, for more balance, whilst I don't agree with these laws at all, the ID check will only be required if the cyclist is suspected of breaking a law. Not great, but it makes some sense.
{edit - duplicate post}
I can't help but think it'll go the way of any compulsory ID carrying laws, though: the ID check will only be required if the cyclist is suspected of breaking a law or if the policeman really wants to and you haven't broken any law.
In a country that is so overtly anti-cyclist though, who would be silly enough to risk not carrying ID?