Skip to content

Australia – the land of cycling hatred

December 22, 2015

22 December 2015

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for cycling in Australia, the state of New South Wales has made a mockery of everything deemed good cycling policy with a suite of draconian and punitive measures to ensure cyclists follow laws that they were rarely breaking anyway. In exchange, and backed by the Amy Gillett Foundation (AGF), a lobby group primarily representing pack-riding sports cyclists, NSW introduced a “1 metre law” that required motorists to provide 1 metre clearance, 1.5 metres in 80kph zones or higher, when overtaking.

For this token indulgence of the 1 metre law, cyclists’ fines were “equalised” with those of motorists, increasing the helmet fine by 350% from $71 to a whopping $319 and others by even more. More sinister than that, is the introduction of a compulsory photo identification law, to mirror that of, yes again, motorists, with an identical penalty attached if such an ID cannot be produced. Those under 18 years of age are exempt, highlighting the absurdity of the notion anyway. This law proved a compromise, because the desired outcome by Transport Minister Duncan Gay was a fully fledged registration and licensing system, complete with registration plates, for cyclists.

New bicycle laws and fines, New South Wales, Australia as proposed 2015-12-22

The 1 metre law is a dream for the likes of the AGF, helping to legitimise pack riders hogging lanes and preventing cars from overtaking too closely. They’ll feel far more entitled than ever before and the animosity between motorists and cyclists will only increase. For everyday cyclists, the 1 metre law is a sell out, achieving little for real safety, because everyday cyclists are not interested in fighting with cars and trucks, preferring separate lanes, and lower speed limits in local residential streets. Like the helmet law, the 1 metre law will also be another reason for governments to do nothing about real cycling improvements of better infrastructure.

As usual with cycling “reforms” in Australia, nothing is solved, nor achieved. The main frustration for motorists right now is hordes of weekend pack riders holding up traffic. That frustration will only increase because the 1 metre law will make overtaking more difficult. Gone are the days of a close pass, especially when many pack-riders carry helmet cameras to film errant motorists. In contrast, the lady on an upright bike, who cruises slowly around her local shopping area without a helmet and does not inconvenience anyone, will be the one slugged with obscene fines as the pay-off for the increased legitimisation of pack riding that the AGF sought.

Why were the fines raised? Again, there’s no problem to solve. With a helmet law for 25 years, there’s almost 100% use of helmets, particularly on roads. There’s no spate of cycling crashes caused by running red lights either. In fact, the rampant epidemic in this area – of pedestrians running red lights – goes unchecked. Pedestrians are also not required to carry ID in case police do stop them.

When cyclists are pulled over by police, have there been problems identifying them? Since no statistics were produced, the answer must be no. Why the sudden need to identify people in an emergency? If it’s a legitimate problem, then surely everyone must carry ID. Pedestrians die at more than 5 times the rate of cyclists on the roads. Riding dangerously – whatever that means, it’s probably riding a few metres on a footpath – again, the casual and utility cyclist is assaulted with outrageously high fines for minding their own business.

Respect?

Fines have been on the ascent throughout Australia for many years now as part of a mystical policy about gaining “respect” from motorists. If cyclists want to have more rights on the roads, then they must be treated as any other vehicle on the road and behave like one. That means, equal fines, regardless of the fact a cyclist does far less damage than a motorist in a crash. In fact, a cyclist has their own safety as the biggest deterrent against doing anything illegal or stupid, and research consistently shows that about 80% of all bicycle/vehicle collisions are the motorist’s fault. When 95% of serious cycling injuries involve a vehicle, it further highlights the folly of targeting the innocent and vulnerable sector as the problem of poor road cycling safety.

The state of Victoria started this insane policy of “respect” at the behest of its leading lobby group, Bicycle Network Victoria, 10 years ago. Helmet fines were tripled, then later came the equalisation with motorists of other fines. Queensland followed 18 months ago, South Australia is contemplating it, and now NSW has gone nuclear on it. The AGF’s main “safety” campaign of “it’s a two way street” and primary motto of “safe together” laughably explains it all. The AGF is fully committed to get more cyclists onto roads, risking their lives, just so its pack riding and sports minded constituents get their “fair go” on weekends. The AGF don’t represent everyday cyclists, were never elected by anyone and are pushing cycling policies that are more likely to kill people than save them. It’s an outrage they can cosy up to a government and gain this much power. Naturally, the NSW government has followed AGF’s misguided approach, and will promote its new laws with “Go Together”. Sigh.

IMG_20151222_235040

Blunt cycling advocacy by the Amy Gillett Foundation.

The press release from this egregious mob with a motoring group (NRMA), road transport company (Toll) and car company (Subaru) as supporters shows the sell-out that the AGF is. The only item discussed is the 1 metre law. Nothing about the ridiculous increase in fines, nothing about identification, nothing about the 1 metre law cyclists are required to obey on shared paths when overtaking pedestrians. Their role has been a totally self-serving exercise. Pack riders will always wear helmets while their cohorts in the professional peloton do, believe they belong on the roads and will always carry their wallet and ID for their latte sipping pit-stops. The AGF don’t care about the humble bikeshare person, who is already blocked by the requirement to wear a helmet, and now blocked further if they don’t have ID. Nor do they care about the casual rider sticking to paths and footpaths because they are afraid of the roads.

If the 1 metre law were any good, some of these treacherous compromises might be palatable. It’s a mirage in practice and its success is predicated on the motorist seeing the cyclist in the first place, and obviously would need a massive deterrent to be remotely effective. So for the potentially lethal activity of passing a cyclist too close, you’d expect a penalty of a $3000, or at least $1000, surely? No, it’s $319 – the same as the helmet fine! How the two correlate is mystifying. One causes death and injury while the other is a superficial and a last resort flimsy attempt to prevent or reduce it. It effectively places the victim as equally negligent for their death or injury as the perpetrator that directly caused it. Victim blaming at its worst.

Legally the 1 metre law lets motorists off almost scot-free. It’s virtually unenforceable, that’s until a cyclist is hit. Then the crime won’t be reckless driving or manslaughter, it will be failing to keep 1 metre clear, and be penalised with the farcical $319 fine. This scenario has already been tested with the “dooring” law in Victoria recently, where a cyclist was flung into the path of a truck from an opening car door. What was motorist’s punishment? Yep, the $1000 fine for dooring.

It’s not just the AGF with the wrong mindset, most cycling groups in Australia push this crazy idea that, to gain equal rights, bicycles are vehicles and to “share the road”, and believe cajoling human behaviour via uber regulation is the key to safer cycling. Now you see the manifestation of these policies in action as motorists naturally expect cyclists should obey every single road rule, pay the same level in fines and even be licensed and registered. Cycling advocates were frothing to have the fine for dooring increased to over $1000 in Victoria. Not so much as a real safety measure, it was more as an attack against motorists. Of course, the entire insanity of equalising fines between motorists and cyclists is driven by hate and jealously from motorists than of safety or earning respect. Motorcyclists suffer a similar wrath by “lane splitting” to ease through traffic jams. Motorists want this illegal out of hate and jealously, not for any safety reason.

Australia is at a major crossroads now. Never before has cycling been under such a vicious assault by the public, governments and even cycling groups claiming to represent cycling. It’s time to stop pandering to the hateful majority and their sycophants and look to overseas to learn about best cycling practices. No cycling advocate should be happy to see someone pulled over on a dedicated beach cycling path and hit with a $319 fine for merely enjoying the weather – and doing an activity legal in 99% of the world. Ironically, there’s a federal senate inquiry in process right now into the community impact of the nanny state, and still we have a state that unleashes a torrent of bruising, hateful anti-cycling measures. When Queensland had its inquiry 18 months ago, one recommendation was relaxing helmet laws, specifically for adults on paths and on roads with 60kph speed limits or less. The government ignored all that, preferring to equalise fines and trial the 1 metre law.

The culture and dialogue must change. End this farcical idea that bicycles are vehicles. Kids ride bikes, and on footpaths. Can they do the same with a car? No. Bicycles are closer to skateboards and rollerblades. They are their own unique transport that have been forced onto roads out of desperation, not by will. Other than sports and pack riders, everyday cyclists – the people we want to attract more onto bikes – don’t want to be there. They want separation. A process must start to immediately declassify cyclists as vehicles and institute a culture that cycling is safe, accessible and fun activity. Fines should correspond to damage that can be caused to other people, much like we have higher penalties for carrying a gun compared to a knife. Relax some laws, particularly helmet laws, allow give-way at stop signs and allow slow riding on footpaths. Then motorists can’t whinge about laws being broken, and the likes of the Amy Gillett Foundation can disappear off the face of this planet.

Sources:

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/wheeling-out-new-cycling-safety-package

http://www.amygillett.org.au/new-south-wales-says-a-metre-matters

More:

Australia the arse end of the world for cycling

Advertisements

From → Cycling Free

12 Comments
  1. sexton16 permalink

    I’d agree with ditching most of it as long as they increased the fines for red light and crossing violations tenfold.

  2. crank permalink

    well articulated. you need to write to upper house in NSW to block this nonsense. and pre-emptively here in Vic as I intend to.

    Also, I was told (I don’t know for sure) that NSW drivers do NOT legally need to be carrying photo id. That seems odd to me, but it no doubt varies state to state.

    Duncan is very close to having his bicycle registration.

    • You’re probably right. I think in my state that you need to present your licence at a police station within a certain time, maybe 24 hours. Since vehicles carry registration plates, police still have some means of identification if the licence is never presented. Cyclists don’t carry plates, therefore no ID is probably seen as tantamount to a vehicle without plates.

      The more you analyse it, the more these laws are all about persecuting cyclists in the name of placating motorists. Massive fines for trivial offenses and an unnecessary ID law. In exchange, the cyclist gets an unenforceable 1 metre law. That’s one small step forward for two giant steps back. Even if the 1 metre law does help, why do we need to sacrifice so much to get it? Just once, do something for cycling without the need for a pay off.

  3. Bernie Carpenter permalink

    The best thesis on the inadequacies of cycling advocacy in this country I have read.
    Essential reading for all normal cyclists.

  4. It’s obviously problematic that we have bicycle lobby groups beholden to motoring lobby groups, and that we have politicians beholden to talkback callers, but I’m pretty firmly of the view that it’s not in the combined interests of people who ride bicycles to allow ourselves to be divided into tribes, as if cycling legislation and infrastructure was a zero-sum game.

    The metre-passing law, for example, is a good one for everyone, not just for pack cyclists. I’m sometimes threatened by close passes between my house and the nearest off-road bicycle path, and it doesn’t matter what I’m wearing or why I’m riding. If governments use the metre-passing law as an excuse to delay better separated infrastructure, then that’s an issue to be dealt with when it happens, but it’s not a good reason to oppose an otherwise-good (or at least neutral) law on the basis that a future government might use it cynically.

    I personally divide my bicycle time between utility cycling, recreational cycling and solo touring, and I’ve never felt the impulse to join a bunch ride of any kind, but I still think it would be a mistake for me (or anyone who cares about the rights and safety of bicyclists) to succumb to lazy stereotyping about road cyclists, based solely on the fact that I’m not one of them. If people who happen to ride upright bikes or cargo bikes or whatever give themselves permission to malign those who ride carbon fibre road bikes, then I believe that all they’re doing is perpetuating the culture of cycle hate, and I don’t believe that broader participants in that culture are inclined to discriminate between cyclists based on the height of their seat or the angle of their thighs.

    There is absolutely no reason why everyday cyclists can not and should not have the separated infrastructure that they need and want. There’s likewise no reason why road cyclists shouldn’t be able to ride safely on the road. These are in no way contrary objectives, and they shouldn’t be treated as such.

    • I used to think similarly, that highlighting the various types of cycling was a specious argument. Now I’m convinced there is a problem. Every single idea, discussion and even “reform” is from the perspective of a road bike dicing with traffic on a heavy road. More than that, some of these riders get a thrill out of such riding and really want to be seen as any other vehicle and treated accordingly.

      When you look overseas, the cycling culture is flipped. Everyone rides and everyone looks normal, and I ask myself why. Then I see the hysteria of two girls on a peaceful ride along a quiet street on the Gold Coast without a helmet. I see the fear mongering and hatred against cycling from the general community. I see the obsession that cyclists are vehicles – equivalent to a car or a truck. Now I see ridiculous persecution that is condoned by an upstart cycling group primarily representing road loving sports cyclists. The AGF don’t speak for me so the only option is to disown them and everything they represent.

      I’m not so much against the 1 metre law, I’m against selling our soul to get it. The irony is if the law helps, why would helmet fines need to be raised to such a ridiculous level? They should be reduced, or the law repealed.

  5. Stuart Walsh permalink

    As a rider who obeys the law while riding I find this the most stupid nonsense I’ve witnessed any Government developing yet. Politicians should make cycling easier to maintain on our roads with decent lanes for cyclists and most of this hype would not be an issue.

    The 1 meter rule/1.5 meter rule is a godsend, but to place onus on the rider to carry identification is ludicrous. How the heck that makes it safer to ride is beyond my comprehension. Who is or what does the AGF stand for and when did I as a rider ask for them to represent me. Not sure they are really thinking of cycling as a pastime and healthy lifestyle most choose to keep fit and enjoy the fresh air.

    It’s necessary to wear a helmet, but raise the fine to such a ridiculous amount is not going to help at all. It’s just an exercise in revenue raising.

    As a motorist I see a bike rider I naturally give them space when passing, but to make cyclists out to be at fault is the same as the few make the many look guilty. So, let’s punish all cyclists, this just doesn’t make the cut, what a stupid way to thinking. By all means fine those that run around the capitol cities breaking so many rules it’s an embarrassment to admit I’m a cyclist when looking at their exploits. But in the same context, what are those of us who use a bike to keep healthy or practice for the next bike race on the weekend wearing guilt for, the majority of us obey the rules and wear helmets etc. as it is. Horses for courses, we are not a ton of iron on the road, we don’t have bike lanes made out ride in so don’t even think of registration unless you develop decent lanes for bicycles in all areas, not just the capitol cities but in regional areas as well, then maybe, just maybe you have the right to make us pay registration for a bike. But till then, keep you little brain active in helping us survive from the idiots in cars and leave us to ride and keep healthy doing so with holes in the pocket.

  6. Tony permalink

    I am from the UK but now live in Perth WA. I have cycle-toured in many European countries – some with good cycling infrastructure, others with little. But I have rarely encountered the hostility I encounter here, particularly when I roam outside the Perth environs.

    Abusive yelling, occasionally objects thrown from the car. But Perth is, from what I hear, alot better than Sydney where I used to live many years ago. It seems cyclists are really hated over there.

    I know of several cycle-tourists who have travelled the world who rate Sydney as one of the worst places to cycle.

    How can a person riding a humble bike invoke such anger and hostility by just pedalling. I thought it was only mad dogs that attacked cyclists?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Compared to Estonia, Australia is so backwards | The Warrior Factor
  2. Warrior Factor – 2015 in Review | The Warrior Factor
  3. Living under a mandatory bicycle helmet law regime | The Warrior Factor
  4. Bicycle Network’s utter hypocrisy about cycling safety | The Warrior Factor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: