scott967

Cyclists hit by some of world's harshest laws

says the New Zealand Herald. How about A$319 for riding without a helmet? A$425 for blowing a light? I'm sure that pleases some here though.

scott s.
.

bakes1

I guess someone has to top that unenviable list
Glad it's far from where I ride.
Pretty ridiculous legislation.
The one cycling advocacy group inferring that the mandatory helmet law is part of a larger problem is kinda loony though imo.

dynodonn 

Well, at least there's a A$319 fine for passing a cyclist at less than a meter distance, of course, that will more difficult to prove than not wearing a helmet.

hatrack71

I was afraid this day would come. Here come the control freaks... again. I never wear a helmet. They'll have to pull me over if they think it's a big enough priority. That's if the US wants to enact similar laws. And who knows, maybe they already do in some places. Glad I don't live in one of them.

CliffordK

Does this mean that they will guarantee that 100% of the traffic lights will work 100% of the time?

CliffordK

Oh, also, are they going to adopt laws for bike paths through T-intersections, and right turn onto bike paths which really only require a yield?

curbtender

It's bad enough to pay $50 for a bacon and eggs breakfast in Sydney.

Digital_Cowboy

The fine for running/jumping a red light should be stiff regardless of the type of vehicle that one is operating. As far as wearing a helmet, I'm of the school that I'd rather be wearing a helmet and not need it, then not be wearing one and have needed it. And a few years back I was damned glad that I WAS wearing wearing one as I walked away with "just" a concussion, when I could have ended up in a coma or dead.

Actually, if we follow Yehuda Moon's idea it wouldn't be so hard, i.e. a 3' length of broom handle attached to the rear dropout. Add a nice sharp nail to the end of it, on a breakaway mount, and I'm sure that most motorists would give us a wide berth.

canklecat

Australia seems to be the testing ground for nanny state over-regulation. I used to listen to Radio Australia on shortwave several times a week, and the news/talk shows tend to be the polar opposite to the typical US equivalent. The hosts, callers and politicians interviewed never met a "there oughta be a law!" proposal they couldn't embrace to protect the public from any inconvenience. Makes my own moderate, slightly lefty views seem downright fascist.

I'm betting Ira Levin's unnamed island utopia in his dystopian novel "This Perfect Day" was based on Australia. Not the people, but the government.

Those excessive fines and requirements sure take cycling out of the reach of impoverished folks who have no alternatives. In the US that's called de-horsing. Make ownership of private vehicles prohibitively expensive to keep poor people off the road, and economically segregated. It's a sneaky form of NIMBY regulation, under the guise of public safety.

FBinNY 

I hate to say it, but regulation is one of those unwanted consequences of increased cyclist numbers. Decades ago nobody bothered regulating cyclists in any way because the numbers were small and we were below the radar. As the numbers grew and cyclists made themselves more visible through advocacy, we showed up on radar screens, and the regulators felt compelled to step in "for our own good".

Helmet rules are a perfect example. Larger numbers of cyclists mean more accidents in injuries. That has those in government feel the need to step in and try to reduce those injuries. Since it's hard to argue against helmet rules, and many (most?) bicycle "advocates" say they save lives, we have a strong governmental bias toward regulation.

If the cycling community keeps harping on the dangers of the current infrastructure, we risk government focusing on the dangers themselves and try to fix the problem in ways other than what we had hoped for. What happened in NSW is a predictable outcome.

JonnyHK 

They have practically banned having a beer in New South Wales too...

Sydney lockout laws: Matt Barrie?s essay ?Would the last person in Sydney please turn the lights out??

FBinNY 

Sorry for the pun, but that's one hell of a sobering read.

But it's not only Sydney, NSW or even Australia. All over the western governments and regulation of the most minor stuff is like entropy and growing to the maximum. It used to be that governments allocated their limited resources on the low hanging fruit of the most serious issues. But now, it's become more like government by the latest bug up one's ass. Add to that, the reformed becoming crusading reformers, so ex smokers are leading anti-smoking campaigns, ex drunks anti alcohol, ex something, anti anything.

All over the world we have government by the crank, unhappy, frustrated trying to "protect" us from the thing that they feel has caused so much (of their) grief.

Paul Barnard

I have always felt like traffic penalties should be based on the threat the act poses to others. A loaded dump truck running 65 in a 45mph business district, like I saw this morning, should carry a much stiffer penalty than say a moped going 5 over on an unoccupied rural roadway.

B. Carfree

Much of what you wrote makes no sense. Cycling was FAR more popular in the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s than it is now. In fact, the record year for bike sales is still 1974 (and current sales are trending down the past few years based on units). If we were going to induce regulation due to our large numbers, it would have happened decades ago when we actually had those numbers.

As far as injuries, motorists account for far more head injuries than cyclists, both because of their larger number of participants and because one is 12% more likely to suffer a head injury while in a motor vehicle than while cycling on a per hour basis. Where's the call for those helmets in cars, helmets that are known to provide significant protection (unlike magic styrofoam hats)?

FBinNY 

Yes, there was a major boom in cycling in the late sixties, which is when I came to the sport. But that boom was in low key recreational cycling. ie the Sunday in the park crowd, as opposed to the current mix of more serious sport cyclists and commuters. But that's besides the point because the issue I describe relates to attitude and advocacy.

The regulation that came about during the sixties boom was about the industry, as in the CPSC standards. Regulation of cyclists, as in helmet rules came much later, and having lived through the process from the mid sixties to now, a big difference is the attitude of the cyclists themselves. It's now the cycling community (or parts of it) that keeps harping on the accident statistics and dangers, and so it should surprise nobody that government is hearing them.

Of course there are many, maybe most here on BF that disagree with me, and I'm OK with that. But I'll continue to post what I believe, and readers are free to take away what they will.

Ball Bearing

Along with the new laws for cyclists there is also a new 1 metre passing law when a motorist overtakes a cyclist. Surprise, surprise, the 1 metre passing regulation is not being publicised, but the new penalties for the cyclists are being plastered all over the media.

dynodonn 

DC, I'll stick(pun intended)to a camera, since I'll be going down hard if a motorist happens to strike the broom handle, and I still came away unscathed after some fairly close passes made by some motorists over the years.

I-Like-To-Bike

You may discover that there are some cranky, unhappy, frustrated BFers who try to "protect us" from opinions, or discussions that deviate from their own standard of approved bicycling beliefs, especially about safety and equipment.

Posts and posters that cast any doubt on the conventional wisdom on which their "beliefs" and "wisdom" are based, apparently cause so much grief for some BF characters that they complain and bully with false accusations and labels of "trolling" and "insults" on threads and/or to the the mods (with some success) to protect the sanctity of their version of conventional wisdom/group think from being questioned, and protect the delicate psyche of these thread nannys.

kickstart

I agree but......you do sometimes go to the opposite extreme. For example, yes, distractions such as ear buds, or cell phones don't automatically cause immediate danger, and some do totally over react to their use, but they do indeed have an impact on ones awareness, some more than others, therefore its unwise to dismiss the potential issues out of hand.

CliffordK

Many of the cycling peaks are directly attributable to the state of the economy.

1974 (fall 1973) was when the Opec oil crisis hit, and fuel prices doubled or more almost overnight. In some places, one just couldn't buy gasoline.

Our recent economic recession and high fuel prices in 2008 was also good for cycling.

I can imagine the current slide in fuel prices will have a negative impact on cycling, but would have nothing to do with bicycles, but rather an increased use of cars.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your comment makes sense if the only metric for measuring the "popularity" of bicycling is new bicycle sales. Do you think many people would measure the "popularity" of driving only by new car sales?

Any credible source for your statement about the relative risk of head injury (car vice bicycle) on a per hour basis?

curbtender

Only comes into play AFTER someone nails you.

bmthom.gis

No worries, oil will be going up again. I laugh at people buying these big gas guzzlers and enjoying gasoline at $1.44 a gallon around here. Saudi will cut production once they have decided they have done enough damage to other oil producing countries to regain their market share and prices will start to spike pretty darn quickly.

asmac

"worlds harshest laws"?

Right up there with North Korea. Glad you didn't overstate this.

kickstart

Well, this is A&S after all.........