Missing the point on the new cycling laws

Bicycle related chatter & discussion
j_schwark
Posts: 15
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 11:32

Postby j_schwark » 26 Feb 2016, 18:46

There’s been a lot said about NSW’s new cycling laws due to start next month. However the conversation, I believe, has really missed the point.
There has been a huge negative campaign from many cycling clubs and most visibly Bicycle Network. The focus has been almost entirely on the need for adults to carry identification and traffic infringement fines to match those of motorists.

While I fully respect and support people’s right to express their opinion, I personally believe it’s not the most important part of the new cycling laws.

What seems to be forgotten is a massive win for cycling safety and that is that the 1m passing rule being made law. This is where the conversation should be focused on, making people aware this new law – a law I know will save lives.

Instead we have people standing at busy intersections with a giant novelty NSW licence telling anyone who will listen that these new laws will discourage people from cycling.

The simple fact is if you’re already doing the right thing, these new laws won’t affect you other than making your time on the road a whole lot safer.

If these new fines stop someone from cycling because they believe that they should be able to run a red light, ride dangerously or hang off the back of a moving car that’s an excellent result for the rest of us – one less idiot on the road.

As for carrying identification, this is something that I and most of the people I cycle with already do. I carry my licence and my Cycling NSW card on all rides because if I have an accident I want to be identified as soon as possible.

Identification doesn’t have to be the physical card, it can be a photo on your phone or even a photo copy. A small thing you can do to help yourself in an emergency.

These issues pale into insignificance when compared to what else is beginning March 1, the 1m rule. This is a change that will make every day cycling safer and in turn will make cycling more appealing.

One of the biggest barriers stopping people taking up cycling is that they’re scared of being hit by a car. Changes like the 1m rule will go a long way to making people feel safer when cycling and doing a lot more for the cycling community than having a cheap fine for running a red light or not having to carry a licence.

I’m looking forward to March 1, and I hope more people understand the benefits of these changes.

Jarrad Schwark

**Disclaimer, a lot of you know that I am employed by the NSW Government, but this is an expression of my own personal opinion.

John Mason
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Dec 2013, 21:04

Postby John Mason » 26 Feb 2016, 19:09

Hi Jarrad

i think you make a fair point, and you've made that point well.

on my commute to work on Thursday there were 6 police officers within a 600 metre stretch of Oxford st to encourage/enforce traffic law compliance by cyclists.

There are reasonable laws, and there is reasonable enforcement of law, and my fear, based on many years on two wheels (engine powered and leg powered) is that when it comes to issues with an element of moral panic, enforcement agencies can lack the autonomy to choose the reasonable enforcement option.

we will see,

John

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 26 Feb 2016, 19:41

Do you think its reasonable to be fined $106 for riding on the footpath?

j_schwark
Posts: 15
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 11:32

Postby j_schwark » 26 Feb 2016, 20:24

John - I agree, it's a bit daunting appraching a sea of police at intersections, I get the same thing through Pyrmont. Dougie posted a good article on this issue on his Facebook today. Generally they're reasonable and fair, they're there to discourage risky behaviour (there's a lot of it). The other week I went from a bike lane on a green light but the bike light was red. I was pulled up by an officer and I explained I saw the green light for the cars and went. He understood and let me off with a warning.

Mike - I think your comment really proves what I was saying about losing sight of the real change here. It's always been illegal to ride on the footpath if you're over 12. I'm not sure the fine increasing by few dollars makes it any more or less relevant. In my experience discression is used if an adult rider is using a footpath for a legitimate purpose.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 27 Feb 2016, 11:53

People were fined for riding on the footpath in the blitz. Most likely those who lack the confidence to ride in the traffic. The Blitz had little to do with safety

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 27 Feb 2016, 16:27

These changes are not focused on safety at all. They are punitive and are Duncan Gay's further attempts to reduce the amount of people riding a bicycle as was the over the top "blitz" on cycling offences last week. He is the self confessed anti-bike lane and pro bicycle licenses minister for roads who has zero understanding of cycling or the way to promote and encourage cycling. He is relic and along with Baird they are working to promote the use of the car in Sydney and to suppress active transport.

The 1M passing rules will not be enforced. Experience in other states (QLD & SA) has shown that Police will simply not fine drivers because they will say it's impossible to prove. Even with video they won't prosecute. Driver behaviour has not changed. I believe the same will be the case in NSW. Cycling will not become safer. The drivers who close pass will continue to do so with impunity.

The only change we will see is an increase in policing of what are trivial and minor “offences” by cyclists that in the rest of the world carry no penalty – things like not wearing a helmet and riding on the footpath. Having to carry ID is the same as licensing and is a world first - no other group has been so targeted by this Government. The massive increase in fines just for those two activities will reduce the amount of people cycling and stop many from ever starting. Police were in Centennial Park fining cyclists for speeding and running the stop signs. They targeted intersections where cyclists are known to use the footpath due the danger involved and fined them for footpath riding.

Infrastructure does not exist to create a safe environment for cycling and light phasing is a joke on the ones that are there. The legislation seeks to ENFORCE riding in what passes for a bike lane on many roads – that will affect sports bunches riding to Waterfall.

I don’t wear a helmet when I go to my local shops and I often ride without a license or phone. I also use the footpath where I consider it to be for my safety. Sports riders are not the ones who will be affected by this attack on cycling by a right wing government. The poor, students, those who have no other transport options, they will be the hardest hit. And I note that last Thursday’s blitz did not include Baird’s electorate of Manly, where today at least 70% of the cyclists I saw did not have a helmet on.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 27 Feb 2016, 16:30

Carrying ID
"Welcome to the police state for cyclists. I have no idea how this legislation is part of a “safe cycling package” apart from allowing police to identify the corpse under the wheels of a motor vehicle. Some cynics would suggest this requirement is the closest minister Gay could get to registering cyclists. It serves no purpose other than to inhibit the simple enjoyment of hopping on a bike to go to the shops, or the beach or park."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... egislation

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 27 Feb 2016, 16:41

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/gener ... TakeAction

Just four days before they are due to come into force, the NSW Government have tabled their new anti-bike laws in Parliament.

The freshly slated 'Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Bicycle Riders) Regulation 2016' will see changes to the Road Transport Act 2013 with the following new laws introduced:

to require motorists to keep a specified minimum distance from a bicycle when passing to the right of the bicycle on a road:
to provide that the offence under the Road Rules 2014 of not obeying the applicable speed limit (which currently applies to bicycle riders as well as motorists) may be dealt with by way of a penalty notice if the offence is committed by a bicycle rider:
to increase the level of the penalty payable under penalty notices for offences under the Road Rules 2014 that relate to the use of bicycles or to persons riding bicycles:
to prescribe the offence of failing to keep the minimum distance when passing to the right of a bicycle as an offence for which demerit points may be incurred:

As predicted, there is no mention of mandatory ID, which the NSW Government appears to be continually backing away from. It was initially said that the law would be introduced on 1 March 2016, but they have backed off and it will not be introduced this year - a win for bike riders.

Although the increased penalties for bike riders will commence next Tuesday, there is still an opportunity to get them thrown out the window.

A disallowance against the new penalties can be tabled 14 sitting days after the new rule is published on the NSW Legislation website (from today). But we need your help to do this.

For the disallowance to be successful, we need to have the numbers and support of all Opposition and Crossbench parties in the NSW Upper House.

The Greens, Labor and the Animal Justice Party have said they will support a disallowance, however the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party are yet to make their position clear.

Take action now:
We need you to email and tweet both the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party as soon as you can and express your concerns about the 500% increase in fines and ask them to support the disallowance.

Christian Democratic Party Shooters and Fishers Party
paul.green@parliament.nsw.gov.au robert.borsak@parliament.nsw.gov.au
f.nile@parliament.nsw.gov.au robert.brown@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Twitter: @CDPAustralia Twitter: @sfpAustralia

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 27 Feb 2016, 16:47

So now a bicycle rider will be able to be fined for exceeding the speed limit although a bicycle does not come with a speedo as standard equipment. I certainly don't have one on my shopping bike and neither do the vast majority of commuting riders, Sunday bike path riders and utility cyclists. Will the police use this to fine riders for exceeding the 10kph limit on Pyrmont Bridge?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 27 Feb 2016, 18:09

Well said Stuart.

For the new fines, some are the same as for a motor vehicle, despite the huge disparity in danger to others.

And rather than getting rid of out dated laws, as did SA, they have increased the fine. Apparently its safe to ride on the footpath if you are accompanying a minor under 12 but its dangerous to ride on the footpath if you are not accompanying the minor

User avatar
AntonyGreen
Posts: 56
Joined: 12 Apr 2009, 23:38
Location: Enmore
Contact:

Postby AntonyGreen » 28 Feb 2016, 10:56

It was fantastic to see so many people in the 28s today with their new bells. We were so much safer for them. It was still easier to yell at riders as we approached and passed, so we just need to work out a good opportunity to use them.

andrewm
Posts: 360
Joined: 12 Nov 2011, 08:45

Postby andrewm » 28 Feb 2016, 15:38

I notice many of you are getting bells

The bush lawyer in me challenges the advice I have heard from a number of people that it doesn't matter where on your bike you put the bell or horn. The relevant Road Rule states:

258 Equipment on a bicycle

A person must not ride a bicycle that does not have:
(a) at least 1 effective brake, and
(b) a bell, horn, or similar warning device, in working order.


I would say it is arguable that for a bell to be in working order, you must be able to work it while riding your treadly. I suggest not being a smarty pants. If you have a bell or a horn, put it where you can use it. To do otherwise may just antagonise the police if they stop you and check. (I always thought may voice was a similar warning device. An instinctively operated audible warning device that can also convey information with a warning. I suspect that argument wont stand.)

On a related note, who rides at night? Who has a reflector? If you ride at night, or even in low viz conditions, the rules say:

259 Riding at night

The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays:
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the front of the bicycle, and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the rear of the bicycle, and
(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 metres from the rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s headlight on low-beam..


Given the focus on strict compliance - I thought I should point this out.

BTW - Radbots have a built in reflector. Maybe they should have the same bump in sales as the spurcycle bell?

On a related note - I am somewhat relieved there is no requirement to have wheel or pedal reflectors.......

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 28 Feb 2016, 17:10

Wheel and pedal reflectors are mandatory in WA even if the bike is a fully enclosed recumbent. The law can been catered for by sticking a bit of reflective tap to your rim and the back of the pedals, though I'm not sure how it would go onto double sided SPD's.

There seems to be some rumblings that it may become mandatory to ride on the bike path rather than the road when an adjacent bike path is available. If this comes up then you can say goodbye to riding on Grand Pde (aka General Homes as we call it).

What I'm highlighting is that the prime purpose of their point is to discourage cycling thru making unnecessary requirements that are not in place anywhere else in the world and the enforcement of redundant laws. What will come next is other rules designed to make cycling more and more difficult.

Oh and BTW there were cyclists fined in QLD for not having a bell

User avatar
AntonyGreen
Posts: 56
Joined: 12 Apr 2009, 23:38
Location: Enmore
Contact:

Postby AntonyGreen » 28 Feb 2016, 19:29

Carrington Road might be a more interesting issue given the new clearly marked bike path along a route the club rides. If we have any hassles we just have to change the route to go up Illawarra Road and Renwick Street. No cycleway there.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 29 Feb 2016, 13:48

A bike rider must sit astride the rider’s seat facing forward and have at least one hand on the handlebar (Rule 245)

So no standing on the pedals OK.

The rider of a bicycle must not ride the bicycle negligently or furiously or recklessly. (Rule 245-1)

No definition is given of those terms. As Marc knows, they have been used to charge a rider after a bunch crash (thrown out in court though).

http://www.cycle.org.au/index.php/print ... ling-rules

jcaley
Posts: 442
Joined: 25 Oct 2012, 07:14

Postby jcaley » 29 Feb 2016, 15:46

While we are clarifying laws, there is a rule you must to use an adjacent cycle lane where available. However, Carrington Rd cycleway is not a lane and therefore you are not required to use it. A cycle lane has a continuous white lines both sides and has a start cycle lane and end cycle lane sign. So most door lanes also don't qualify.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 29 Feb 2016, 17:20

jcaley wrote:While we are clarifying laws, there is a rule you must to use an adjacent cycle lane where available. However, Carrington Rd cycleway is not a lane and therefore you are not required to use it. A cycle lane has a continuous white lines both sides and has a start cycle lane and end cycle lane sign. So most door lanes also don't qualify.

I've read that elsewhere - got a link to that?

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1479
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 01 Mar 2016, 14:20

I believe the law says that cyclists are to use a bike lane 'unless it is impracticable to do so'. Those are the words that will be under scrutiny if one was to be fined for not using a cycleway.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 01 Mar 2016, 15:47

JoTheBuilder wrote:I believe the law says that cyclists are to use a bike lane 'unless it is impracticable to do so'. Those are the words that will be under scrutiny if one was to be fined for not using a cycleway.
That's what I understood, however from the banter I've read I'm wondering if there has been a shift

jcaley
Posts: 442
Joined: 25 Oct 2012, 07:14

Postby jcaley » 01 Mar 2016, 19:05

Jo is correct. The bit I added is about the road rules definition of a cycle 'lane'. I'll dig it out.

jcaley
Posts: 442
Joined: 25 Oct 2012, 07:14

Postby jcaley » 01 Mar 2016, 19:45

This post in Sydney Cyclist includes the NSW legislation definition of a "bicycle lane" and a discussion about what is and what isn't.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 10 Mar 2016, 22:07

Hello Jarrad Schwark

I don't know you, but as a defender of the Liberal Party's criminalisation of cycling and a government employee I'd like your feedback on the current situation, namely.

Cyclists being fined for dangerous riding for doing a track stand at the lights;
Cyclists being fined for having a missing reflector while riding during the day;
Cyclists being fined for having a slightly loose helmet strap;
Cyclists being fined for not having a bell;
The riot squad being used to harass and fine cyclists;
Moto cops riding 1000cc motorbikes down bicycle lanes to apprehend cyclists who have broken no laws;
Police point blank refusing to pursue motorists who close pass cyclists, even with video evidence.
Police saying you'll need to be run down by a motorists before they'll pursue charges.

I await your response. Have a nice day.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 11 Mar 2016, 07:28

Other cyclists have been fined for going thru red lights, those lights are pedestrian lights at Moore Park where the cycleway is broken by a pedestrian light that has no bicycle lantern. The only way to legally get across is to dismount and walk across.

Those doing Saturday slowies, check out the light used to cross Anzac Pde

User avatar
p_mayson
Posts: 146
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 16:46
Location: Sydney

Postby p_mayson » 11 Mar 2016, 08:46

Very aggressive post, Stuart Hickson. And I'm not sure entirely appropriate...

I know Jarrad well: he's an excellent ambassador for what this club is all about

And he's perfectly entitled to express his opinion in as articulate, considered and measured manner as he did

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 11 Mar 2016, 16:19

Paul - Agree he's entitled to his express his opinion, as am I. I'm just asking what his views are now, given that he was sure it was all going to be roses and that the 1M passing rules would immediately deliver us safe roads and safe cycling. And that police would never overreach.

Personally (and as predicted) I think the opposite has happened. What's wrong with asking for his opinion on it? There's nothing rude or insulting in my post.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 15 Mar 2016, 23:22

On the claim that a cyclist being fined whilst track standing, which first came out a few days ago and spread across cycling centric social media accounts like wild fire. No confirmation of the episode came through in the first 24 hrs despite many requests from media participants and I have heard no more since. Unless there's verification, it's just hearsay. Further, there's no information on the specific circumstances of the incident. What else happened? What else happened to draw the police's attention? I doubt a steady track stand like Lindsay's, behind the stop line, in the centre of the lane and well clear of other vehicles and pedestrians, would attract the attention of any officer. Such is the hysteria in the cycling community at this time.

Just ride safe and follow the rules, then no fine will stick. Remember, speeding in excess by 45km/h has a 4 figures fine.
Last edited by weiyun on 17 Mar 2016, 12:55, edited 1 time in total.

Sim
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Sep 2015, 13:32
Location: Annandale

Postby Sim » 17 Mar 2016, 09:03

NSW Police were out in force in Pyrmont this morning ... five cops on bikes riding the strip between Miller St and the bridge. One was harassing a cyclist who was not riding in the separated cycle path ... this practice may well bug a lot of people (including some other cyclists) but it is completely legal so I went to his defence, and the cop was pretty annoyed to say the least. Ultimately nothing came of it.

The cyclist told me the policeman had stopped him for going through the green light on the road when the bike light for the adjacent separated cycle path was red. This is too ridiculous to believe, there must have been some midunderstanding. Sadly though it looks like things are going to get filthy for a while, hopefully we'll see a return to calm in time.

jcaley
Posts: 442
Joined: 25 Oct 2012, 07:14

Postby jcaley » 17 Mar 2016, 12:44

Sim, are you ok with your story above being quoted by Bikesydney?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 17 Mar 2016, 16:23

Is this the same incident with photos?

http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=87869

User avatar
simon.sharwood
Posts: 510
Joined: 18 Feb 2008, 10:14
Location: Marrickville
Contact:

Postby simon.sharwood » 06 Apr 2016, 13:55

My $0.05.

Last week, a bloke ran a stop sign and hit my car.

We're insured, so its not a major hassle.*

I called the police. They aren't interested.

Indeed, in NSW it is no longer required to report minor car accidents in which no-one is hurt and no cars are towed.

So the bloke who hit my car has negligently ignored a stop sign, damaged my car, robbed me of time and caused me financial loss (resale values of cars involved in accidents plummet).

He doesn't get fined or lose any points from his licence.

So, yes, I get the point that the 1m passing laws look like a win. And that having ID with me has some small upside.

But negligent behaviour isn't being properly punished, while cyclists are being fined for not having bells.

Bells FFS.

What if there's a cyclist on the other side of the next stop sign this bloke ignores?

And why, if the point of the new cycling laws are greater safety, is someone who has been an un-safe driver no closer to losing their licence? Why can he go un-punished for demonstrably dangerous driving?

Simon

* I say that optimistically hoping that the damage does not exceed the agreed value for which I insured the car. If the damage exceeds that, things will get interesting.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 06 Apr 2016, 20:24

Hope your not insured with Youi

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 08 Apr 2016, 12:05

Good post Simon. For mine this just reinforces that these new laws are all about punishing and marginalising cyclists while Gay & Baird allow rule breaking motorists to go unpunished, because they want a car centric culture and that's where they see their supporter base coming from.

Every day in the CBD I see motorists run red lights after the light goes red and the green man walk sign has come on. Every day I see motorists speeding over the 40kph limit but Gay refuses to install red light / speed cameras in the CBD. The group of road users that poses the greater threat to other road users and pedestrians safety is not being policed with anything like the enthusiasm that police have for harassing cyclists - clearly Liberal national party policy is being implemented by NSW Police.

Sim
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Sep 2015, 13:32
Location: Annandale

Postby Sim » 04 May 2016, 10:27

jcaley wrote:Sim, are you ok with your story above being quoted by Bikesydney?


Sorry, didn't see your request! In all honesty, it sounded so bizarre that I wrote it off as the cyclist misunderstanding what the policeman was saying, or me misunderstanding how the cyclist was retelling it.

Sim
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Sep 2015, 13:32
Location: Annandale

Postby Sim » 04 May 2016, 14:25

mikesbytes wrote:Is this the same incident with photos?

http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=87869


Wow, you're right ... I didn't misunderstand it at all, this exact issue is discussed in page 5 of that thread. NSW Road Rule 260 could be read to suggest that if I'm riding on the road next to an adjacent separated bike lane, I have to obey the bike lane lights.

Despite the urge to think this is a sneaky piece of work by the NSW Govt to force cyclists on to separated paths, I actually think it's sloppy drafting which is meant to cover bike crossing lights that aren't situated at an intersection (eg. lights at a pedestrian crossing that isn't on a corner). Yet what I witnessed seemed to be a policeman cautioning a rider on the road for not obeying the bike path lights ... that's quite puzzling.

260 Stopping for a red bicycle crossing light

(1) The rider of a bicycle approaching or at an intersection, or another place on a road or road related area, with bicycle crossing lights must comply with this rule.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

(2) If the bicycle crossing lights show a red bicycle crossing light and the rider has not already started crossing the intersection or place, the rider must not start to cross until:
(a) the bicycle crossing lights change to green, or
(b) there is no red or yellow bicycle crossing light showing.

User avatar
simon.sharwood
Posts: 510
Joined: 18 Feb 2008, 10:14
Location: Marrickville
Contact:

Postby simon.sharwood » 19 May 2016, 12:38

An update.

I explained my situation to my State MP, Jenny Leong.

She said "I would be interested for us to follow up about the fact that police no longer issuing incident numbers for minor traffic incidents (while at the same time spending significant resources targeting pedestrians jaywalking and cyclists)."

She's going to cook up some Questions Without Notice and run them by me before asking them in Parliament.

So this may spark up a bit.

S.

wallman
Posts: 298
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 15:10
Location: Marrickville

Postby wallman » 02 Jun 2016, 08:53


User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 19 Nov 2016, 07:11

And now we see the Liberal / National government plans bearing fruit. The National Party ministers for Roads (Duncan Gay) and Police (Troy Grant) working hand in hand have succeeded in lowering Cycling numbers in Sydney, just as planned.

After police predictably fined just four motorists for close passing compared to over 1500 cyclists (May 2016) Cyclists bear brunt of new road fines as NSW Liberals accused of 'dash for cash we now have more stats on the reduction in cycling in Sydney - I bet there's celebrations in Maquarie St.

Heavy fines and stalled bike paths blamed for drop in Sydney cycling rates

"The number of people cycling in central Sydney is lower than it was two years ago – with some advocates blaming the drop on the policies of the Baird government. Until about a year ago, the state government had a target of doubling the number of trips made in Sydney by bicycle. But the government scrapped that target last September – and, in the meantime, cycling rates have remained below where they were in 2013 and 2014.

Clearly, the LNP want less cycling and less cyclists and use organisations like Amy Gillett Foundation to legitimise their cause as AGF support tough sanctions on bicycle riders, increased fines and licensing while pretending to be advocates for cyclists. Just so happens their chairman is #1 Liberal party strategist, pollster and some say, policy adviser.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 19 Nov 2016, 07:53

Yip Dunc has achieved his objective of reducing the number of bicycles. I'm expecting him to use the data to state that people don't want cycling infrastructure

Neilm
Posts: 212
Joined: 06 Apr 2015, 13:08
Location: newtown

Postby Neilm » 19 Nov 2016, 08:18

Yes I was reading that this morning mike, my question is was these levels taking at the same time of the year

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 19 Nov 2016, 09:38

Neilm wrote:Yes I was reading that this morning mike, my question is was these levels taking at the same time of the year


So if reported cycling levels are below 2013/14 levels, its because of 'the time of the year' ?

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 19 Nov 2016, 11:28

Tour de France winner Cadel Evans finds cycling in Sydney too intimidating
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/boo ... ss316.html

but of course the LNP and their supporters will tell you every thing is fine. There is no anti-cycling agenda in the LNP

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 20 Nov 2016, 10:09

But of course Duncan Gay continues to peddle the lie that the huge increase in fines was all about 'safety', not criminalising cycling and reducing cycling numbers - an outcome already achieved.

$1.3 million in cycle fines in first months of new laws dwarf penalties for motorists

"Cyclists in NSW have been fined more than $1.33 million since harsher penalties came into force in March, more than double the amount the government collected in the entire 2013-14 financial year.

And while there has been a sharp increase in the amount raised from cycle fines, the total value of penalties imposed on motorists for failing to pass riders at a safe distance pales in comparison – just $4857 in the seven months to September."

User avatar
mikesbytes
Posts: 6985
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
Location: Tempe
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » 20 Nov 2016, 13:52

I hear that is equates to 15 penalties for unsafe passing, about the same as one cyclist would get in a single training ride. I'm betting that all of those 15 penalties were given out where video evidence was submitted and the cyclist had to push very hard for the notice to be given

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 22 Nov 2016, 18:39

New piece from writer and avid rider Steven Herrick - who's just completed a 4,200k, 42,000m of climbing ride with his wife from Scotland to Corsica via Spain.

Fewer people are cycling in Sydney – the NSW government must be pleased

And yes, you'd have to think that the LNP government are popping the champagne corks. Mission accomplished to lower cycling levels in Sydney.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 22 Nov 2016, 18:52

And more! This time from Philip Gomes via SBS Cycling Central

Cadel speaks but will the NSW government listen?

"At the weekend couple of news reports combined to paint a terrible picture of cycling in Australia's global city, Sydney, and it wasn't pretty".

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 02 Feb 2017, 11:03

As Troy Grant is confirmed as continuing as NSW Police Minister the police are now targeting cyclists not riding in the badly designed Liverpool St cycleway. The light phasing at cnr Liverpool and Pitt is so bad most riders stay in the road in Liverpool and then merge into the cycleway after Pitt St.

Now, clearly under direction from the anti-cycling minister for police, moto cops have been in place 1-2 days a week fining cyclists for not riding in the cycleway, which is not illegal (Police don't know the road rules) or for riding from the roadway into the cycleway when the cycleway light is red - again not an offence. This is straight up harassment.

The change in leader of the NSW LNP has done nothing to lessen the #cyclehatred from the current NSW Liberal National Party gov.
Think about that next time you vote.

jcaley
Posts: 442
Joined: 25 Oct 2012, 07:14

Postby jcaley » 02 Feb 2017, 14:48

If anyone is issued a fine by police for not riding in the separated cycle paths, it would be good to inform Ray Rice at Bicycle NSW info@bicyclensw.org.au Last time the police issued an infringement notice for this type of matter, the person opted to fight the charge in court but the charge was dropped before it got to court.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2520
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 21 Mar 2017, 18:59

I'll just leave this here:
NSW Police Minister Troy Grant fined for using phone in car, says he didn't know it was illegal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/n ... ar/8372962


Return to “Conversation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest