NSW: tough new fines inspire people to stop cycling

PedalDancer wrote:

I live in Sydney.

I got booked + a $106 fine 2 weeks ago.

I had a helmet, bell and reflectors (all mandatory components of a bike if you are considering throwing your leg over a one in NSW) .

My offence was  a 'Riding on a footpath'. It was 7m down a sidewalk (past 2 shopfronts) from bike racks (outside a cafe I was at) - to get back on to the cycleway from a kerb ramp. Link

I do agree laws ahould be in place to maintain order and ensure safety for all.

However these laws should be exersised with discretion and reason (ie comon sense).

I have accepted this.

however I cant help but to wonder if I'm the only person on this planet/galaxy that has ever been booked for riding on a sidewalk?

 

 

By your own admission the distance covered was 7 metres. Why could you not walk your bicycle to the lane? And why are you complaining now about a fine when you did sonething that you knew at the time to be illegal?

Why dont you take responsibility for you own poor decision making and stop looking for sympathy in a situation where you only have yourself to blame.

Strewth!

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Road.cc should be a safe haven. 

It's pretty safe considering most of us aren't on the road while reading this site and its comments.

velo-nh wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Road.cc should be a safe haven. 

It's pretty safe considering most of us aren't on the road while reading this site and its comments.

 

Speak for yourself. I've just taken a chicane at 30mph one-handed and am about to overtake a dirty oil-spilling truck on the wrong side of the road. If that gets tricky I'll just slam on my disc br

bikebot wrote:

In a (very very strange) parallel universe, UKIP won the last general election...

Dozens of new laws to make cycling "safer" have now been introduced to the UK. Road.cc have just published a story about a quiet village in surrey which has issued hundreds fines to cyclists who failed to dismount and walk aound a quiet and mostly deserted roundabout.

Sydney/NSW sounds like a Right Wing parody of a City in a Developed Country.

L.Willo wrote:

@nuclearcoffee. Please explain to me how you can control the actions of a driver or a police officer while you are riding? In a democracy or in a dictatorship you have zero control over what other people are doing. 

So instead of getting all hot under the collar about what the other kids are doing,

put your lid on,
check your bell works
calm down, go for a ride and try not to cycle like a dick.

If you lack the self discipline to accomplish those three small tasks, perhaps it is better for everyone that you give up cycling. It really does require self-control to do it well.

You seem to have problems with reasoning - has your head hit a windscreen at some point?

One has to be concerned with 'what the other kids are doing' when those other kids may potentially kill you with their actions.

But you are just trolling aren't you?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

@nuclearcoffee. Please explain to me how you can control the actions of a driver or a police officer while you are riding? In a democracy or in a dictatorship you have zero control over what other people are doing.

You seem to have problems with reasoning - has your head hit a windscreen at some point? One has to be concerned with 'what the other kids are doing' when those other kids may potentially kill you with their actions. But you are just trolling aren't you?

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension. Of course you can be concerned by what other people are doing but that does not give you any control over what they do. You see, concern and control  look similar but they don't mean the same thing.

Arguing that you don't deserve a fine because Joe Driver over there didn't get one too is the stuff of the infant school playground.

Were you wearing a lid? No. Then shut up and pay up.

Did you have a bell? No. Ditto

Were you cycling like a dick? Yes. Ditto.

Take responsibility for your own shit, people!

L.Willo wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

@nuclearcoffee. Please explain to me how you can control the actions of a driver or a police officer while you are riding? In a democracy or in a dictatorship you have zero control over what other people are doing.

You seem to have problems with reasoning - has your head hit a windscreen at some point? One has to be concerned with 'what the other kids are doing' when those other kids may potentially kill you with their actions. But you are just trolling aren't you?

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension. Of course you can be concerned by what other people are doing but that does not give you any control over what they do. You see, concern and control  look similar but they don't mean the same thing.

Says the guy who applauds cyclists being controlled by idiotic laws!

You don't really do consistency, do you? Trolls never do.

L.Willo wrote:

You cannot control what other drivers do or how the cops treat them but you can take care of your own issues, wear a lid, fit a bell and don't cycle like a dick and you won't have to pay a penny.

Or, better still, live in a less crap country.

PS drivers are 'let off' for speeding _all the time_ as a matter of official police policy.

L.Willo wrote:

@nuclearcoffee  You sound like one of my daughters in trouble pointing out all the things her sister did too, as if that will deflect the heat.

You cannot control what other drivers do or how the cops treat them but you can take care of your own issues, wear a lid, fit a bell and don't cycle like a dick and you won't have to pay a penny.

I mean the idiot in this piece ... I wasnt wearing a helmet but it was only for a mile and a half ...

I will try that one next time ... Sorry officer I was doing 90mph down the motorway, but it was only for a mile and a half, please let me off  .... 

Erm, that is exactly how democracy is suppose to work.  Literally the entire point.  If you don't have some control over that you do not live in one.   (Nor do you live in an even vaguely fair country if the police punish the sufferers of harm instead of the givers - I certainly wouldn't want to be raped in your neck of the woods with your attitude.  But that's a separate point.)

I would continue, but you've already past the "idiot/troll" threshold with that statement alone.  Anyone who converses with you can only stand to lose IQ points.

L.Willo wrote:

@nuclearcoffee  You sound like one of my daughters in trouble pointing out all the things her sister did too, as if that will deflect the heat.

You cannot control what other drivers do or how the cops treat them but you can take care of your own issues, wear a lid, fit a bell and don't cycle like a dick and you won't have to pay a penny......

I'm going to just for the sake of argument assume that your daughters are teenagers. Will you be telling them to not wear mini skirts, cropped tops, low cut tops, low slung jeans etc for their protection and if they don't, they're grounded?  Because as we know all adolescent and young men are sex driven animals permanently on heat and a girl has to protect her modesty from these beasts! I bet you don't, because that mentality is victim blaming and it's the actions of the fellas that need called into account.  

Much in the same way these fines are victim blaming. There's the attitude that if you don't take precautions then you need to bear the consequences. I don't dispute this.  What's  wrong is, the fines are disproportionate for the offence.

Seriously £165 for not having a helmet vs a dangerous pass which will sting you 80 quid and a couple of points. 

Folk are going to give up their bikes because they don't want to make a mistake and end up facing some overbearing cop who will dish out a fine because his quota for that day needs met rather than give you an earful. Yet drivers will continue to get away with piss poor driving and if pulled up for it they wind up with a lesser fine than the cyclist.

The fines need to be proportionate for the offence and there's actually some offences that the govt of NSW need to strike off the statute books.

giff77 wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

@nuclearcoffee  You sound like one of my daughters in trouble pointing out all the things her sister did too, as if that will deflect the heat.

You cannot control what other drivers do or how the cops treat them but you can take care of your own issues, wear a lid, fit a bell and don't cycle like a dick and you won't have to pay a penny......

I'm going to just for the sake of argument assume that your daughters are teenagers. Will you be telling them to not wear mini skirts, cropped tops, low cut tops, low slung jeans etc for their protection and if they don't, they're grounded?  Because as we know all adolescent and young men are sex driven animals permanently on heat and a girl has to protect her modesty from these beasts! I bet you don't, because that mentality is victim blaming and it's the actions of the fellas that need called into account.  

Much in the same way these fines are victim blaming. There's the attitude that if you don't take precautions then you need to bear the consequences. I don't dispute this.  What's  wrong is, the fines are disproportionate for the offence.

Seriously £165 for not having a helmet vs a dangerous pass which will sting you 80 quid and a couple of points. 

Folk are going to give up their bikes because they don't want to make a mistake and end up facing some overbearing cop who will dish out a fine because his quota for that day needs met rather than give you an earful. Yet drivers will continue to get away with piss poor driving and if pulled up for it they wind up with a lesser fine than the cyclist.

The fines need to be proportionate for the offence and there's actually some offences that the govt of NSW need to strike off the statute books.

 

giff, my main point is about the rule of law, not these laws per se.

We live in a democracy but more importantly our society functions because we all respect the rule of law.

We get governments that we don't like. They sometimes make laws that we don't like, but other than for matters of conscience, society works better if we suck it up and obey the rules.

This is not incompatible with protest and continuing the debate to get stupid laws repealed, but while it is the law, obey it and don't complain about the consequences should you decide to break it. That is what we will be teaching our daughters.

In the cited examples, one sad person has sold her bike because she does not want to risk a fine for cycling on the pavement. That is her choice. Personally in her situation, I would consider building up my confidence by cycling on quiet roads at quiet times, taking lessons from an experienced cyclist etc but if she chooses to quit cycling altogether, so be it. One less pavement cyclist for pedestrians to deal with is a good thing.

Another fellow cannot trust himself to wear a hat, fit a bell and not cycle like a dick on his 10 minute commute. So much so that he prefers a 40 minute walk. Again, if that is his attitude, he has made the right choice for everyone.

My daughter Lily when caught with her hand in the cookie jar will give me a complete run down of all the naughty things that her sister did recently in a vain attempt to deflect attention from her situation. It is cute because she is only 3 years old and will grow out of it or rather will be trained to take responsibility for her own actions. If she is 13 and still behaving like that, I will be exasperated.

My god, if she is 30 and still behaving like that, how pathetic ....

I am issuing you with a fine for not wearing a helmet ....

Yeah but that guy over there is on his mobile, that one has a faulty light and a bald tyre .. I insist you solve all other crimes before you get around to me ... waaaaah! Waaah! Life isn't fair!

... is the pathetic equivalent of the folk in this article and many commenters below the line.

On the subject of safety, my advice to my daughters and anyone for that matter is the onus is on you to do whatever you can to protect yourself. Trouble can still come knocking at your door anyway but at least you have done what you can.

My other piece of advice is because you are allowed to do something does not make it always appropriate to do so. Sure it is your right to attend a job interview wearing a skimpy top and hotpants but unless the job is a dancer at Stringfellows it probably isn't a good idea.

I have every right to sit with a mate in a dodgy Bermondsey pub on a Saturday afternoon and loudly express my opinion that Millwall FC attract a chavvy, white van man, racist element that makes it impossible for me to support them and I hope they are relegated. Again, not a wise thing to do and I don't suppose it will be much consolation that I was within my rights as I am carted off to hospital in an ambulance.

So take personal resposibility girls. Wear your skimpy gear if you want to but consider the implications and plan accordingly. "But I had every right!" does not look good on anyone's tombstone.

L.Willo wrote:

....Yeah but that guy over there is on his mobile, that one has a faulty light and a bald tyre .. I insist you solve all other crimes before you get around to me ... waaaaah! Waaah! Life isn't fair! ... is the pathetic equivalent of the folk in this article and many commenters below the line.

It's a perfectly valid complaint if police are enforcing laws that affect people who are only really dangers to themselves (cyclists) in preference to those that cover behaviour that is dangerous to others (cars - speeding, mobile phone use etc etc).

You're distilling this issue to  'obey all laws vs stop whining and take responsibility' - it's nowhere near as binary as you're making out. If cops were handing out fines to cyclists while motorists were murdering each other, there would rightly be outrage, their prioritisation of any enforcement is a valid topic for debate. And commenters disagreeing with you are not bemoaning cyclists having to follow laws. They are bemoaning:

1. Stupid laws that are made without evidence (eg. the helmet enforcement: this, you seem to acknowledge)

2. These laws being enforced in a disproportionate or biased manner. You seem to be struggling with this bit. Are you really surprised that on a road cycling site, some commenters have issues with the types of laws and enforcement as outlined here? Do you expect everyone to respond with a resigned shrug of the shoulders and letter to their MP?

davel wrote:

. ..commenters disagreeing with you are not bemoaning cyclists having to follow laws. They are bemoaning:

1. Stupid laws that are made without evidence (eg. the helmet enforcement: this, you seem to acknowledge)

Personally I think helmets should be mandatory for under 16s. Everyone else should make their own choices. In the UK that should be an informed choice i.e. in the event of you suffering a head injury, self-inflicted or otherwise, insurance payouts/ compensation may be reduced for your contributory negligence through your deliberate decision to ignore the Highway Code.

Quote:

2. These laws being enforced in a disproportionate or biased manner. You seem to be struggling with this bit. Are you really surprised that on a road cycling site, some commenters have issues with the types of laws and enforcement as outlined here? Do you expect everyone to respond with a resigned shrug of the shoulders and letter to their MP?

 

This is an argument you cannot make while your neck is in the noose, like the people in this article or our Australian friend below the line. When you have been busted fair and square and want to talk about everything else except your own irresponsible behaviour, it does not wash.

I will give you an analogy. It is indisputible that the police use stop and search powers disproportionately against young men from ethnic minorities. It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate about this and campaign for more equitable treatment.

But you have no credibility trying to have that debate when you have just been busted for carrying a knife after a stop and search. Maybe you wouldn't have been stopped if you were from a different race but infinitely more important is the fact that you should not be carrying a knife. Trying to argue otherwise would clearly be an attempt to put the focus on racism instead of your crime and it won't wash.

That is what the people in this article are doing. Placing the focus on policing and the law because it is more palatable than facing up to their complete lack of self discipline. I have zero sympathy.

L.Willo wrote:

It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate about this and campaign for more equitable treatment.

But you have no credibility trying to have that debate when you have just been busted for carrying a knife...
...
That is what the people in this article are doing. Placing the focus on policing and the law because it is more palatable than facing up to their complete lack of self discipline. I have zero sympathy.

Which thread are you on? You seem to think that anyone who's arguing for even-handed policing of evidence-based laws is a pavement-hopping, RLJing oik.

I actually thought you were being over-simplistic and melodramatic, as opposed to trolling, but your helmet comments... Come on. Whether deliberate or not, you must realise by now you're into living under a bridge, eating goats, territory.

davel wrote:

Which thread are you on? You seem to think that anyone who's arguing for even-handed policing of evidence-based laws is a pavement-hopping, RLJing oik.

No. But defending/sympathising with people caught deliberately breaking the law as if they are some kind of martyrs sticks in the craw.

Quote:

I actually thought you were being over-simplistic and melodramatic, as opposed to trolling, but your helmet comments....

Which bit? The under 16s part? Totally stand by that.

The contributory negligence part? You don't think that cyclists should be properly informed about the status quo before making decisions re: helmet usage?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/sep/08/helmet-lega...

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-distractions-and-contributory-negligence

Personally I think helmets should be mandatory for under 16s. Everyone else should make their own choices. In the UK that should be an informed choice i.e. in the event of you suffering a head injury, self-inflicted or otherwise, insurance payouts/ compensation may be reduced for your contributory negligence through your deliberate decision to ignore the Highway Code.

I'd agree with helmets for under 16s but contributory negligence is over-egging it somewhat. If you take that stance then it would be consistent to use a similar approach for every big of the Highway Code.

e.g.

Rule 148:

Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as

• loud music (this may mask other sounds)
• trying to read maps
• inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
• arguing with your passengers or other road users
• eating and drinking
• smoking

Rule 149:

You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.

Let's see some of those rules enforced first before targetting cyclists.

hawkinspeter]<p>

Personally I think helmets should be mandatory for under 16s. Everyone else should make their own choices. In the UK that should be an informed choice i.e. in the event of you suffering a head injury, self-inflicted or otherwise, insurance payouts/ compensation may be reduced for your contributory negligence through your deliberate decision to ignore the Highway Code. [quote

wrote:

I'd agree with helmets for under 16s but contributory negligence is over-egging it somewhat. If you take that stance then it would be consistent to use a similar approach for every big of the Highway Code.

e.g.

Rule 148:

Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as

• loud music (this may mask other sounds)
• trying to read maps
• inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
• arguing with your passengers or other road users
• eating and drinking
• smoking

Rule 149:

You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.

Let's see some of those rules enforced first before targetting cyclists.

Contributory negligence is enforced for those. If your doing then contributes to your injury then your compensation will be reduced.