Cyclist in Australia slapped with $1,161 fine for using phone while riding, as police “remind cyclists that they are subject to the same rules as motorists”

The other issue with proportionality is on rate of offence being prosecuted;

I suspect it is similar to RLJ in the UK.

Last data I have fully available is 2016;

~5k RLJ prosecutions for cyclists;

~55k RLJ prosecutions for drivers;

So cyclists made up ~8-10% of prosecutions.

But in the same year cyclists caused ~1-2% of injuries resulting from RLJ; Basically directly proportional to number of miles ridden.

So despite regular claims about 'scofflaw cyclists' who can't be prosecuted due to not having licence plates, cyclists are prosecuted at a much higher rate than motorists relative to harm caused...

Because it is easy and relatively safe for officers to stop cyclists, while stopping drivers has to be done carefully because any collision is likely to be fatal...

cyclisto wrote:

If car=cyclist then why not cyclist=pedestrian and why not pedestrian=cat.

So dear police officer, if you see a cat near a phone, issue a £600 ticket.

PS, I have done many stupid things on a bicycle, and talking to a phone is so stupid that even not I have done it, but such fines are simply crazy for cyclists.

I can also confirm I have never phoned a cat while riding a bike

wycombewheeler wrote:

I can also confirm I have never phoned a cat while riding a bike

"It was in a holder - I was using it paws-free", claimed the cat.

Another possibility is that fines are set as a percentage of the offender's income. No idea if that is the case for these fines, but does happen in the UK leading to similarly non-round numbers. 

FrankH wrote:

Slightly off topic, but $1,161 and $619? WTF?  Does anybody know why Australia's fines are not "round" numbers like they are in the rest of the world? 

Maybe they follow D&D generation rules:

Fine for phone use - roll a d12 and a d8 and a d4 and multiply the result…  That sort of thing.

john_smith wrote:

£1,800 for operating your bike computer, £2,400 for operating your pulsemeter and/or powermeter and £7,600 for shifting electronic gears (£1,400 EU surcharge + 20% VAT for 950% special EU hate fee if they're Campagnolo SPS; we really hate the EU here in Brexitland).

??? 

So it's £200 for drivers and £600 for cyclists?
Or you think 2T of metal is equivalent to 10kg of metal?

Hirsute wrote:

So it's £200 for drivers and £600 for cyclists? Or you think 2T of metal is equivalent to 10kg of metal?

According to the article It's £200 in England and the equivalent of £600 in Queensland, this would apply to motorists and cyclists 

A cyclist rides into Hirsute and says "It's OK, the bike only weighs only 10 kg". To which Hirsute replies "Right you are, old chap. When your skull smashed into mine it felt like rather more than that. But who am I to doubt your word?"

Then when a car ran into Hirsute he didn't say anything ever again.

Hirsute is absolutely correct. The same offence committed by vehicles of incomparable risk are not equivalent.

Proportionality.

It's not the weight / momentum so much as the kinetic energy - and generally motorists are equipped with a lot more and can boost that in a rather short distance. (Actually "its complicated" because the kinematics and going under a truck even at low speed can be sufficient for you - but it seems motor vehicles present a different order of danger.)

Also Not sure if there are studies on the relative consideration of risk by people cycling versus driving but it doesn't seem many drivers are suffering physical consequences from colliding with pedestrians. And the legal consequences seem to be both very variable and not infrequently minimal.

I'm not suggesting a car doesn't usually have a lot more kinetic energy (which is directly proportional to mass and to all intents and purposes to weight) and isn't arguably a lot more dangerous than a bike, but the comparison would have been a lot more realistic if it had read "2 tonnes versus 50-100 kg", IMHO. Ignoring the mass of the cyclist doesn't make much sense, since by the same principle a pedestrian would have a total mass of 0, which is clearly wrong.

... fair point, all-up weight.  So it's bike + rider vs. car + driver + any passengers.  I suspect the dynamics become important because in the bike collision the heavier element (cyclist) may not directly impact the pedestrian and also become detached and carry away some of the energy etc.

Also kinetic energy being proportional to the square of the speed... If both collisions occur at the same speed fair enough - but typically cars will be going faster than cyclists (city driving tends to be stop ... wait ... wait ... wait ... foot down, hit limit ... stop).  Certainly accelerating faster than most of us - and E-cars are even zippier to get going...

Me plus bike at a typical speed about town (in fact, generous) of 14mph - 1.76kJ.

Me in car on my own - say an older Yaris (1110kg).
At same speed: 21.7kJ
At the common Edinburgh "street" limit (20mph): 44.4kJ

It goes up pretty quick!

I think the mass of the car can be treated as infinite, in the sense that the velocity of the car is not going to change much at all on impact. Fortunately cars are generally softer than walls, since, for the rest, being hit by one will be pretty similar to being hit by a wall. But most of the time the impact with car is not going to be the biggest problem anyway. What is critical is what the cyclist subsequently hits, or is hit by, or ends up under.

Yup. The only conceivable consequence of hitting a pothole one-handed whilst concentrating on everything but the road is that your phone will be lost. There is absolutely no possibilty of you or anyone else getting hurt.

Fursty Ferret wrote:

You'd think that a country that was formed on the basis of massively disproportionate punishments inflicted on vulnerable members of society would know better.

Seems to be quite the opposite and the police have been killing Aboriginal people in custody: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-68634074

Quote:

Last year was the most lethal on record, according to government data.

Police advocates insist officers are using necessary force when confronted with life-threatening situations, and that each death is thoroughly examined.

But critics say there is a "culture of impunity" in which "police are investigating police" in cases alleging excessive force. They point out there has never been a conviction of a police or corrections officer over an Indigenous death in their care.