Don't Forget Your ID! A Guide To The New NSW Cycling Laws

As of the beginning of March 2016 (that's now!), there are a bunch of new road rules you'll have to follow while riding your bicycle on NSW roads or you'll face some substantial fines.

Image: Shutterstock

If you're over 18, you'll need to carry photo ID from now — but the fine of $106 won't come into effect until 2017 while everyone gets used to the new rules.

Make sure you have your helmet on and definitely don't hold on to any moving vehicles while you ride — or you'll be parting with $319 for each offence (that's up from $71!).

If you are planning on riding after dark, not having lights will see you risking a fine of $106 — up from $71.

Running though a red light, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing and "riding dangerously" will also attract fines of $425. Business Insider reports that's a jump of 500% on the previous fines.

There's also an across the board one metre rule now in place, with a fine of $319 and two demerit points for non-compliance. Cyclists need to stay one metre away from pedestrians on shared paths (where possible), and motorists need to stay one metre away from cyclists. This distance increases to 1.5 metres when the car is travelling at over 60km/h.

This video explains the rules for motorists:

More than 450 infringement notices were handed out to Sydney cyclists just last week. This included 210 for not wearing helmets, 103 for disobeying traffic lights, and 80 for riding on the footpath. A further 64 cautions and warnings were issued.

[Business insider]


Comments

    Saw a good point on this yesterday, specifically with the red light rule. All too often, a bike isnt big enough to trigger the sensors, so what is a bike rider meant to do? Get off their bike and walk across the pedestrian crossing? Wait for a vehicle big enough to trigger the lights?

    There are flaws in these laws that wont be addressed, and in the end its going to become a fund raising exercise instead of a safety based change. For the most part, I get why they are making the changes, but the lack of consultation over them is leaving a lot of head scratching going on.

      You realize motor bikes have the same issue with triggering the sensor. They seem to be fine.

        Except that motorbikes are made of a large amount of metal that makes it easier to trigger lights. So many times I've had to wait for other cars to come to trigger lights while on my carbon fibre bike that doesn't trigger lights.

          Yet some, like a metal triumph thruxton, still won't trigger it.
          So that puts that guy in the same boat as you.

          So you are clearly riding the wrong kind of bike, yet you want to blame the government for it. That exact thing was the big factor that made me stay with an aluminium frame bike because I commute on it most days. Of course, I also saved myself a packet.

            Maybe I didn't spend enough money. My carbon frame triggered the lights perfectly fine this morning. I find if you sit square in the middle of the pad, it works ok. Of course, then when a car comes along behind you, they want you to move over (which I do anyway).

            The problem is when there is a bike lane at the lights and doesn't have a sensor. So you have to break one old law to conform to a new law.

          Some lights use magnetic sensors so bikes like mine which are made of aluminum have the same issue although weighing 160kg. I think the only metal in mine is the con rods and crank. Plus a few bolts.

        It has noting to do with vehicle size, the sensors in the road are usually induction based and rely on a significant amount of ferros metal passing over them, if you have a steel frame bike/motorbike your fine, however if you have an alloy or carbon fibre frame they are usually don't have enough iron in them to trigger the sensor.
        Most vehicles with IC motors have at least a few iron or steel parts that will trigger the sensor

          Doesn't have to be Ferrous. Most metals will interrupt the EM field the sensors use.

            Aluminium ladders work. Used to be a trick for roller doors. Get you little 3 foot ladder on a rope throw it through the gate and drag it over the sensor.

      If you can't trigger it go to the pedestrian crossing. You can walk your bike across the road at the pedestrian crossing. And yeah I get the frustration because as a motorcyclist my bike sometimes won't trigger lights, but I manage to deal with it.

        Figured I'd get a few comments :) To me, your response is indicative of the problems. Bikes are NOT cars, but they are now treated as such and most of these fines are the same for both, with obvious exceptions. Why is that?

        I dont ride, and I dont drive, so dont assume I'm in this for some personal gain. I am merely looking at these changes and wondering what the point of them is. The red light issue is only a small thing, but why should a rider be inconvenienced in this way? If they ride across the pedestrian crossing, they're also in the wrong, so now they need to remember one more thing to follow.

        I know this is going to get panned, and people will misinterpret what I'm trying to say, but to me there are questions that need answering when a bike rider is held to the same standards as a car driver like this.

        Laws are meant to protect the weaker element, not punish them, and as I said above, while I understand why some of the rules are in place, others just dont make sense.

          The general idea of large fines for crossing red lights is that it's a safety issue.

          Laws aren't just there to protect the weaker elements, they're there to save people from themselves too. Seat belt laws are a good example. "Be safe or I'll force you to be safe".

          Crossing red lights are dangerous, and especially dangerous for cyclists. So now they get the same disincentive as motorists.

          Personally, I'm ambivalent to the changes. I both cycle and drive and I carry my wallet everywhere I go, so it makes no difference to me. I ride a hardtail mountain bike in the city with full slick tyres, so I have no problems triggering traffic lights. I WISH I could afford to have the first world problem of having a bike with so much carbon fibre that it didn't trigger them - that would be awesome.

          Considering NSW is about to start trialling digital licences on your mobile phone (as an option instead of a physical card) I dare say you won't have to carry your wallet for too much longer if you don't want to.

            Yes, our hospital system is overcrowded as it is, so laws to prevent stupid people from injuring themselves and taking up valuable hospital resources should be encouraged.

          "... most of these fines are the same for both, with obvious exceptions. Why is that?" Why should it be any other way? If a motorist runs a red light safely, perhaps at 4am when there is no other car or person in sight, how is that any greater an offence than a cyclist doing it? Or to put it another way, why should I be subject to a different fine when doing something in my car or on my bike? We are all road users, why would you expect cyclists to get special treatment? Isn't it enough that we don't even have to pass a knowledge test to use the roads? (Although we are still expected to know all the laws.)

          "... now they need to remember one more thing to follow." No we don't we just need to do all the same things that every other road user has to do. Again, why should we be treated any differently to every other road user?

          "questions that need answering when a bike rider is held to the same standards as a car driver like this." Actually, I think the question is why has it taken so long for cyclists to be treated the same as everyone else?

          By your logic, it almost seems that truck drivers should probably be paying even bigger fines than car drivers but it is not a weight-based issue, it is about everyone being safe on the roads. Nobody gets punished if they obey the laws. It's pretty simple, really.

            But... Truck drivers do get bigger fines than car drivers....

          If you ride a bicycle on the road, you need to obey rules. It has nothing to do with the class of vehicle but its use on the road. We have rules for safety. It isn't a big ask not to run red lights - this is to protect the cyclist and the motorist. Fact is a cyclist will always be more vulnerable than a motorist and they need to take responsibility for that safety. But quite a few aren't bothering to do so, thus we've got laws to enforce it. You can't demand cars make way for a cyclist (especially on roads that aren't designed for it) and then ignore rules for your own safety.

          I see no problems with the rules being the same...they're using the same roads so why shouldn't they be subject to similar road rules?

          As for the inconvenience, I imagine for most roads it's a non issue entirely in respect to sensor based lights due to other cars being around or the lights being on timers. With that being the case, if it's an inconvenience then go a different route or use a different mode of transport. That might sound blunt, but to be honest there's inconveniences with other vehicle options too be it construction zones that go months unmanned to arguably trying to pass cyclist safely on roads that don't have cycle lanes. The later can be a huge problem on single lane roads.

          All modes of transport have their compromises and I'd much rather have cyclist inconvenienced by having to dismount to trigger a light than see them getting run over because a car they didn't see or misjudged went through a green light.

          I'd argue that law does protect the weaker element and it doesn't set out to punish them at all.

          Last edited 03/03/16 6:45 pm

      It isn't just the size that is an issue with a lot of bikes.

      Traffic light sensors are inductive, and are triggered by the metal in your car/bike/motorbike/anvil.

      More and more often, bikes are largely carbon fibre and other composite materials. The less metal present, the less likely it is that the loop will be triggered.

        Bikes are largely carbon fibre? Not mine. You obviously live in an area populated with a high percentage of MAMIL wankers like the type I see on weekends with their office worker bellies stretching the lycra tight while they sip their lattes outside the cafe and compare their $5000 bikes.

          Sadly yes, I do.

          They pay their $5K for a new bike which they proudly tell everyone is 3 grams lighter than their old bike, which they paid $5K for last year.

        If you have the wrong vehicle it's not the government's fault. It goes the same for say drivers of very large cars that can't park in the city. It's the wrong vehicle for the environment they are in.

          That argument doesn't make sense. The government should accommodate any vehicle that is road legal.

      in France it's actually legal to ride thru a red light; providing it is safe to do so. But Europeans are generally much more tolerant of cyclists.

        Europeans are also smarter and less stupid. E.g., integrate dedicated bike lanes into road design.

          Yeh nah. Maybe because i live in Brisbane, but there arent enough cyclists to warrant bike lanes.

            That seems like circular logic though. If there were proper bike lanes, it would encourage more people to ride.

              Not in Brisbane, it's too spread out and too hilly. Perhaps in your city. And bike lanes come at the expense or bus/car lanes which are much more important.

                It's been a while since I've been to Brisbane, can't remember how hilly the inner suburban area is. As far as street space though, that's more poor city planning than anything else. Again I don't know how it is in Brisbane but a lot of places can just reduce footpath space or reduce median strip space and squeeze in some bike lanes that way. In the CBD itself obviously that's not as much an option, but then the CBD in most cities has traffic at a crawl anyway so mixing some bikes in there shouldn't be an issue.

                Part of why it works so well in Europe is bicycling has been a cultural norm there for many decades. The only way to get similar results here is to kickstart cycling culture, and providing infrastructure for it goes a decent way to doing that. I don't think anyone would disagree that cycling is better for the environment and fitness.

      I'm sure it's more to punish the idiots who see a light change red yet still race through anyway, making pedestrians crossing with a green man jump for their lives!

        It's not those guys so much as the ones who push their way to the front, wait for a tiny gap and race across, giving the motorists on the cross street heart attacks. I saw that every day when I used to commute through the CBD to Paddington (on my bike).

        Your description is a more accurate fit for motorists rather than cycles.

        No regular pedestrian in the Sydney CBD would dare set foot on a crossing until at least 2 seconds after the green man lights up. That's to allow the red-light running cars to get through first.

      This happens to me sometimes but it is incredibly rare that I am stuck for longer than a minute or two. Sometimes I will just ride over and press the pedestrian button or ask a passer-by to press it for me but usually a car comes along before I get too bored. Your solution of getting off and crossing as a pedestrian is also perfectly valid. There is certainly no excuse for running a red light in this circumstance.

      The idea that governments see this as a way to make money is, frankly, laughable. They'd do better putting everyone's rego and license renewals up $2. It might seem like a fortune to an individual but it is peanuts to a state government.

    I quite like the 1m rule, but I feel it needs to come with a infrastructure rule that essentially says that if there is a bike path/lane in place within xx metres, then you must use it.

      Not sure about NSW rules, but that's a standard rule in most places - you're obliged to use a bike lane when it's there unless it is impractical to do so. If there is no bike lane, you have to keep as far left as practical. The 1m rule applies in either case.

      Reasons why it might be impractical to ride in a bike lane? Glass or debris on the road, some tosser parked their car there, etc.

        It's actually dangerous to ride too close to the curb, it's much safer to leave a slight space.. Why? So you have somehere to go if a car gets too close.. riding right up against the curb means you stand a good chance of having a serious accident & @ speed you could be thrown more than 1M in the air; which would put you in the path of traffic..

        These laws seem to be aimed to discourage people from cycling.

          Dangerous my arse! I've been doing it my entire life in complete safety. What feels far more dangerous to me is pissing motorists off by making it hard for them to get by. I want them past me as quickly as possible. Sometimes, when you get a particularly timid driver, that might mean getting off the road for a minute or two and I am fine with that. A minute out of my life that saves a dozen others a minute is a trade any right and proper member of a civilised society should be happy to make. Instead we see too many cyclists who think their rights trump those of every other road user.

            No one is out there with the specific intention of pissing motorists off - we've all got better things to do - but it's not hard to piss some of them off. They do a great job at pissing each other off.

            The rule is that you keep as far left as practical. pixelwhip is right that it's not safe to be pushing along at 30km/h+ mere centimetres from the kerb, therefore any smart rider is going to give themselves a bit of space to avoid obstacles and account for deviations in their line caused by potholes, other cyclists overtaking, animals jumping out, etc. You don't see cars rolling along in the gutter, do you? (Ok, sometimes the useless drivers do, but that's not typically their intention.)

            Edit: Misunderstood @SomeOtherIdiot's statement, removed rebuttal.

            Last edited 04/03/16 10:16 am

              So drivers are mass murderers now? I'm a cyclist and a driver. I'm sick and tired of the "pro cyclists" making the rest of us look bad.

              I got into an argument with a bunch when a pack rode past 4 wide, taking up the entire car lane, forcing the cars driving at that time of morning to cross to the other side of the road to pass them. They weren't even bothering to try to ride in the bike lane that at the time of morning had no cars in it and was wide enough to have 2 cars parked side by side.

              I came up to them at a coffee shop down the road and asked them why they needed to take up the entire road, why they had to ride 4 abreast and why they couldn't ride in the bike lane. Of course they got all superior because they were wearing the spandex and had the shaved legs and the $10,000 bikes.

                Not sure who you're responding to, @tonyintsv. I was pointing out that drivers aren't killing a dozen people a minute.

                The situation you describe sounds like the cyclists were behaving inappropriately. If a bike lane is present, they're obliged under law to use it unless it's impractical to do so. Under no circumstances is four abreast allowed (unless it's a closed-road cycling event, of course).

                Credit to you for not arguing with them while driving.

                As for the "pro cyclists" being the problem (by that I think you mean those wearing Lycra or something similar, on road bikes, etc.), I'd say the main offenders are the uni students and casual riders who travel on the wrong side of the road against incoming traffic, taking on red lights, etc. Most of the more serious riders I ride with, or see walking in the CBD of Canberra, tend to obey the rules (most of the time, anyway).

                  I wasn't driving. I was riding as well, but because my bike was only $500 I am considered a lower life form. And as to their "intentions" if they weren't intending to piss drivers off, you would have thought that being honked at by cars and at least one truck because they couldn't get past safely would have clued them in that they were in fact pissing drivers off.

                  Fair enough @tonyintsv. My intention in this forum is to defend the rights and rules cyclists have, and if I can, explain why I think those rules are good ideas (or not, as in some cases).

                  On the other hand, I have no intention of defending cyclists who break those rules. They tend to stuff things up for the rest of us.

              "No one is out there with the specific intention of pissing motorists off". You obviously don't travel the same roads I do. Every day I see cyclists doing something that is guaranteed to piss other road users off. In their minds I'm sure they believe they are just doing what the law allows but the result is the same. A small amount of consideration for others doesn't hurt anyone.

              "You don't see cars rolling along in the gutter, do you?" Of course you don't, drivers sit on the right side of the vehicle and if they know what they are doing, they know to drive close to the right edge of the lane they are in.

              I feel like there is a bit of a misunderstanding with this reply...
              He was saying that taking a minute of his time to get out of the way of traffic would save a dozen others (drivers in cars stuck behind him) a minute of their time.

            perhaps you want to read this article for a more detailed explanation as to why being force to ride right next to the curb is a bad idea. (http://cyclingtips.com/2013/05/how-far-from-the-curb-should-you-ride/)

              There is not a single valid opinion in that article. In fact, the research quoted in the article suggests that the further you ride from the gutter, the closer motorists will get when they pass you, so the only logical conclusion to draw is that you should ride as close as possible to the gutter. And I bet I know why that is, it will almost certainly be because the motorists see that you are trying not to be in their way and they will respond with similar courtesy. I often ride in the gutter and I rarely have any problems with motorists, although that could be because I don't expect them to miss me by more than 10cm and I am perfectly happy with them doing just that.

              I also don't think that van passed him too close at all. The lanes there were extremely narrow, something totally ignored in the article, and you would hope a van driver is a bit more professional and can judge the distance better than some P plater who has only been driving for a week.

                Not sure where you ride or how far you go. Do you even actually ride?
                Riding in the gutter or close to parked cars is the quickest way to get yourself killed. Ride to be seen. Ride confidently and be assertive of your rights. Riding on the extreme left means no-one can see you or your intentions. Ride to the right of parked cars so you don't get doored etc.

                The fact that you do not know this indicates that you do not ride much or at all.

                  exactly.. never been car-doored myself, but have had friends who have & they ended up spending many months in recovery.

      Noticed since it came in cyclists in my area ride in the middle of the lane and not giving a shit.

        That was yesterday. Sadly, they can do that legally.

        It has ALWAYS been legal for a cyclist to use the whole lane. The cyclist should make a judgement about whether this is the safest thing to do based on road and traffic conditions.

    What happens if you don't have a photo ID? Photo IDs don't grow on trees... and not everyone that rides a bike has a Drivers License or Student ID (with a photo).

      I have a friend I ride with who is in this predicament, doesn't drive and doesn't drink and looks old enough to almost never be carded anyway. So unless he wants to carry his passport everywhere he has to go and pay the RMS for a photo card

      there is a proof of age curt option. around $20
      http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/transport-travel-and-motoring/motoring/drivers-and-licences/proof-of-age-card

      You have to obtain one. An 18+ card is as acceptable as a driver's licence. Student ID isn't good enough. Basically, if you can't use it to get into a pub, it's not good enough when you're on your bike.

      Apparently the ID laws aren't in the legislation that passed so you dont need ID to ride. apparently a lot of people don't have enough ID to get ID, those people are more likely to ride bikes.

      though the minister in charge of the thing seems to be confused..........

      ... then get a photo ID? It's the law. Suck it up.

        So you're going to force kids to get official photographic IDs? Like hell!

      You can get an 18+ card if you're over 18. There are many avenues to acquire photo ID that aren't linked to vehicles and don't even require tests.

      Last edited 03/03/16 6:44 pm

        So not allowed to ride a bicycle if you're under 18?

          If you had read the article you would've seen the part where it said:

          If you’re over 18, you’ll need to carry photo ID from now

      You don't need to do anything.

      There is no law that requires cyclists to carry ID in NSW. Not now, and not in a year from now. It simply doesn't exist.

    $106 fine for not having a bell on your bike & since apart from a few shared paths it is illegal in NSW for a teenager or adult to ride on the footpath it can only be to warn cars, trucks, buses & motorbikes which seems pointless.

      I ring my bell to warn cyclists that I want to overtake and very few hear me and move over. Bloody cyclists!

    Some of the frustration with these changes I understand, others I don't.

    Why would anyone care if the fine for not wearing a helmet or "holding onto a moving vehicle" goes up? Who holds onto a moving vehicle? Lights at night are a no-brainer. As for helmets, it's no secret that it's the law, so just wear one. I know there is a large section of the cycling community who disagree that we should need to wear a helmet, but there's a difference between arguing for change and completely disregarding the law.

    Running red lights just pisses people off, and it's dangerous. Don't do it. If the sensor doesn't trip, go and push the pedestrian button, and submit a request to your local council (copy in your local cycling advocacy group) suggesting the area needs an upgrade (I know, I know, it'll never happen, but these things don't fix themselves, and breaking the law won't make it any better).

    I think we cyclists are sometimes our own worst enemies. We cry out for respect on the roads, but some are not willing to abide by the laws they think are a bit shit. At the end of the day, we should campaign for change, but at the same time respect the laws until that change occurs.

      These laws, like very many laws that we have, are only in place because people are idiots.

      I can't speak for traffic lights, there aren't any on my commute; at the stop sign though, it's usually no safer to stop than it is to roll through it (turning left). If you could ever rely on people being considerate and aware of their surroundings, we wouldn't need to regulate the roads as heavily as we do.
      I fear that, at the stop sign mentioned above, I'm more likely to get booked on a bike than the cars in front or behind me that roll through it as well. That, and 1.5m is never going to get enforced - part of my commute is along a 80km/h stretch with around 40-50cm of shoulder, and I get passed within that 1.5m multiple times daily.

        Man riding a bicycle on a 80km/h road is an accident waiting to happen. Dunno where you live but they should put in a bike path that parallels the road or something.

        Also, 1.5m? So all traffic has to change lanes with almost no warning (due to the cyclist moving much slower)? That's definitely safe.

          Outside of the cities mate, like a pretty big chunk of the population. That's why a lack of serious consultation in legislation is such a problem - we're all stuck with Sydney-centric laws, many of which make little sense in areas that may not have footpaths, shoulders, lighting - many roads are single lane, relatively quicker, lower traffic density. It all comes together to demonstrate an entirely different set of issues (not just with roads, but that's the example in question), and successive NSW governments continue to produce legislation that might make sense in Sydney, and to a lesser extend Newcastle, Tamworth, Armidale, etc.
          Going back to my point that the reason we have to regulate our roads so much is that people are idiots. 95% of the time, oncoming drivers will move to the far left of their lanes and the drivers passing the cyclist can move to the far right - if the cyclist is far left (which is where those of us without a death wish are) then you're pretty close to that 1.5m. "No warning" isn't correct though in the case of my commute, except where a driver isn't paying any attention at all, in which case they're a danger to everyone.
          Re-reading what I wrote - it's not clear that I don't necessarily support the 1.5m rule - I try to be conscientious when I'm riding, and I appreciate when drivers do the same. The closest I've been to being hit was actually by a motorhome on an 80km/h stretch with a 1.5m shoulder - I was probably 1m from the line (the very edge of the road is pretty badly damaged) and the motorhome easily came within 50cm (felt like 30cm, but let's be honest - it gave me a huge fright) of me at 80km/h, their entire tyre was in the shoulder. A combination of not caring or not paying attention and probably not being aware of how wide their vehicle was.

            Yeah I do believe infrastructure is the big problem - most roads are simply not designed with cyclist traffic in mind so trying to safely manage vehicles and bicycles in a space physically not big enough becomes a nightmare with no easy solution.

            A story from a drivers perspective: there is a road through the Adelaide hills called Upper Sturt. It's one lane each way, barely wide enough for a car and almost every corner is blind. Was heading up that way one day and almost immediately found myself sitting at the back end of about 30 cars crawling up the 60km/h hill at about 10km/h. What's going on I wonder?
            After a while I get to a bend where I can see across a gully to further up the road. Lo and behold: a cyclist slowly powering up the hill, cars backed up behind it because there is no room to safely overtake and he refused to pull over so people could pass.

            Another time riding my motorbike through the hills/country, on a road not as tight as Upper Sturt but still fairly narrow and winding with a number of blind corners, limit 80km/h.
            I come round a corner to find a pack of cyclists taking up the entire road, slowly cruising along chatting to each other. I almost crash trying to pull up in time; a brakes screeching, back end fishtailing, almost eating bitumen emergency stop. And then they have the fucking nerve to get angry at me for beeping my horn to tell them to get out of the way.

            Another time on my commute on a very busy 90km/h major road I saw a semi ahead suddenly swerve into the right hand lane, barely missing traffic there because a cyclist flew out of a side street into his lane just ahead of him.

            I respect people's right to ride but some roads cyclists just should not be on.
            Ultimately though it is dickheads on both sides causing a lot of the major issues.

              I don't mean to spark an argument Jo, because you've said a few things that make sense. One thing though doesn't - if you're coming around a corner so fast that you can't safely take action to avoid something on the road, i.e. a group of cyclists, a tree over the road, a broken-down car, an animal, etc., you're traveling around that corner too fast. It may have an 80km/h limit, but that's not a goal speed. In that example, I think it's you who were in the wrong, not the cyclists, and beeping your horn only exacerbates the problem.

              That guy who pulled out in front of a semi? Well, Darwin can explain that to you. As a cyclist I have no sympathy for or association with the idiots who break the rules and put themselves and others at risk. Throw the book at them IMHO.

              Edit: Not literally. Please don't throw shit at cyclists. It happens and it's not good.

              Last edited 03/03/16 9:12 am

                I doubt I would have been going 80 round it but I see your point. But I don't think that creeping slowly around is the answer either - then you are a potential hazard to drivers behind you. Seen accidents happen that way too.
                The major problem I had in that situation was they were taking up the whole road. Like shoulder to shoulder. If it was one guy keeping left I would have cursed under my breath and just kept wide like I normally would. But I just had nowhere to go.

                  Fair one. The rule is two abreast, three if overtaking. Courtesy and common sense says single-file in some situations, particularly when corners are involved. Strung out across the road is silly and inexcusable.

    I doubt much will change, the red light traffic cameras won't be able to issue fines to cyclists, so you have to be stopped by cops, something I have never seen happen to a cyclist, no matter how crazy they are riding!

      You obviously missed the news about the police blitz against cyclists last week.

      Cops all over the shop, handing out tickets to cyclists for speeding, running red lights, not having a working bell (yes that's an offence) and not wearing helmets.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nsw+cyclist+blitz#

      Even prior to the new fines NSW police were stopping and fining 14,000 cyclists per month.
      Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. I have never seen police stop an armed robbery, therefore all armed robbers are getting away scott free!

      See the stupidity in your logic?

        Dude, how many armed robberies have you seen??

        It's a stupid point you raise, I have never seen an armed robbery so I would not have enough data to make a comment about how many of them get caught.

        I've seen lots of cyclists break rules however, and I've never seen any get caught, so I can say that there is a good chance they'll get off scott free, but I would never say that "all" cyclists get off scott free.

        Also where did you get your stats about the 14,000 fines per month?

        According to the story below, police had a "one day blitz" since the new laws, and only managed to get 450 cyclists, which works out less than 14,000 a month, and that's referred to as a blitz day, it must have been much more than average!

        http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/26/cyclists-fined-393-times-during-new-south-wales-police-blitz-on-thursday

    What ever happen to the two abreast law ??? Here in Melbourne a council has dedicated a whole Lane for push bikes yet they insist on riding 8 abreast and take up half the lane dedicated to cars as well as their lane. No wonder so many drivers are fed up with cyclists. They think they own the road. Normal cyclists are fine but the leotard wearing group think they are above the law.

      So many times driving in Melbourne and there are a pair of cyclists chatting away.. 1 on the right line of the bike lane, the other taking up half the car lane. This forces drivers to try and overtake safely and go in the oncoming car lane. What tops it off is when they slowly drift further right when you try and get around them.. My standard remark to my wife when I see this is "oh look another person that lacks basic survival skills"

    What a small minded, backwards looking, nation we look like thanks to the LNP.

      That's a bit over the top 978lee - politics generally follow popular thinking (or more accurately, the complete lack of it) and in recent years there's been unjustified objurgation of cyclists, single mothers, the unemployed, Muslims, unauthorised boat arrivals and immigrants in general, and going back a bit further to the days of Ms. Hanson, Asians, and before that environmentalists, more commonly referred to as greenies or hippies. The rise of aggressive individualism accompanied by the attribution of culpability to a certain group (which is used to justify recriminations and leads to all sorts of abhorrent behaviour) seemed to occur in Australia sometime in the 60s or 70s. Before then there seemed to be a sense of community and co-operation, but today it's all but gone. Both sides of politics engage in it, but you can thank average Joe on the street for wanting to be part of a lynch-mob every time an opportunity arises. The hyperbole that's apparent in letters and opinion sections in newspapers is astounding - "all cyclists run red lights" "all Muslims are terrorists" "all unemployed people are bludgers" - but it reverberates around and builds into a frenzy of denunciation, until it reaches a point where politicians risk losing votes if they aren't seen to be doing something about the menace. I have very little faith left in the ability of democracy as we know it to solve real problems and deliver just outcomes.

        Very well said Jamall, thankyou. Someotheridiot's comment below is a good example of this.

    We whinge about "the nanny state" all the time but the simple fact is that, unlike in the past, members of this society cannot be relied upon to do the right thing by their fellow citizens. These laws are a direct response to the irresponsible behaviour of a sizeable minority of cyclists. The cycling community has no-one else to blame for this.

    Personally, these changes mean nothing to me because I try to keep my behaviour consistent whether I am riding or driving. i.e. I don't break the law just because there is a greater chance of me getting away with it. If someone's use of a bicycle is predicated on them breaking the law, then I hope these new rules do get them off the road. For the other 99.9% of us, there is nothing at all to worry about. In fact, if it helps build a better relationship between cyclists and other road users, then we are all going to benefit greatly from it.

      God you're a fucking self righteous baby. Has anyone ever told you that?

        I'm not self-righteous, I just grew up in a time when consideration for others was more important than naked self-interest.

    How about cyclists on the highways? Am I to slow down to 40 or 50km in a 100 zone in the left lane and cause an accident because people behind me are going nuts for me going so slow, just because 90 percent of the time the cyclists in front of me decide to drive on or over the shoulder lines just enough so you can't pass them when it's busy? It was already difficult to predict their moves, now I need to keep at least 1,5m away? I don't mind cyclists but some of these new laws are designed so some disgruntled cyclists can really mess with motorists if they wanted to. Blame will always go to the motorist if something happens no matter what. I guess now would be a good time to invest in a dash cam.

      Am I to slow down to 40 or 50km in a 100 zone in the left lane and cause an accident because people behind me are going nuts for me going so slow, just because 90 percent of the time the cyclists in front of me decide to drive on or over the shoulder lines just enough so you can't pass them when it's busy?

      Yes. If it's not safe to pass someone, slow down and wait until it is. It's the same whether it's a bike, a car, a truck, a caravan, a horse, whatever. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If slowing down "causes an accident", you're doing it wrong.

      It was already difficult to predict their moves, now I need to keep at least 1,5m away?

      Why do you think the 1.0m/1.5m rule exists?

      At least in the cities in QLD cyclists aren't permitted on freeways, just the same as pedestrians, mopeds, and other things that are too dangerous to be in a 100km/hr zone. I assume it's the same in other states?

        Well thats probably what I really meant, freeways, until blueterrestra decided to become my personal driving instructor. I'm sure it's not really allowed, but I see them frequently on the M5 here in NSW, on the shoulder where I guess it's safe enough to cycle. Was also implying that half of these guys just like to mess with drivers, and now we have to keep more distance if one of them decide to jokingly swerve across the line we all have to swerve into the middle lane.

    Where are we living that we have to have ID to ride a bike? Communist Canada? Why not just make cyclist were yellow stars so we can identify who is a cyclist and who is a normie.

      Wait till all pedstrians are required by law to carry ID.

    And here I am paying my car rego like i do every other 6 months.

      That's an argument that's been demonstrated to be rubbish countless times. Try again.

        When it's 5 am in the morning and I'm tying to get to work on time but the dick head in lycra has decided to use the road doing a quarter of the speed limit instead of using the nice new bike that's next to said road, then I will stop complaining. (This happens all the time )

          Leave earlier. The roads aren't there for your exclusive use, registration or not.

            So I should leave earlier than i already do so that the cyclist can use the road instead of designated bike paths. Good logic

              Just because a path exists doesn't mean a cyclist has to use it (bike lanes, yes they have to use it; bike paths, no). There might be many reasons why he/she chooses not to. There might be pedestrians using it, and the cyclist wants to move at a speed that makes it unsafe to pass them. It might be poorly maintained (I know the ones I ride frequently have tree roots tearing them up, concrete slabs that are woefully uneven). It might just not go where they want to go - do you follow the service road along a highway because there's less traffic on it, or do you stay on the highway because it gets you there quicker?

              Whatever the reason, you need to accept that they have a right to be there. A bit of inconvenience to you personally is irrelevant. Why should they be inconvenienced just you won't be? Why are their rights worth so much less than yours?

              So I should leave earlier than i already do so that the cyclist can use the road instead of designated bike paths.

              Yes. Exactly. Take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming people who are going about their day and following the rules.

                Nah, I think I will just keep doing what i'm doing.

                Only a matter of time until stuff changes for the better :)

    They should also be made to pay rego like the rest of the road uses.

      Yeah, I'm in.

      Rego is calculated by weight of the vehicle, fyi, so where do I pay my $3 ?

        The footpaths are paid for by local governments. Register and license those pesky pedestrians too.

      The RMS has carried out several studies into cycle rego and repeatedly concluded that they would be a waste of time and money. Can everyone who calls for a cyclist rego scheme please stop, because it is well and truly established to be pointless, and the argument is now used purely as an attack on cyclists.

    There is no law that requires cyclists to carry ID. Not now, and not in a year from now. It simply doesn't exist.

    The BusinessInsider article to which the author refers has been modified to state this. See also this ExecutiveStyle article where an RMS spokesperson confirmed this to be the case:

    http://www.executivestyle.com.au/metre-passing-laws-and-id-for-cyclists-in-nsw-gn8j6r

    Duncan Gay has deliberately misled us all about this, and the mainstream media have all fallen for it.

    This whole debate is insane. People who don't ride have no idea what the issues actually are. It is not worth going through all of this stuff because many people simply refuse to recognise a cyclist's right to use the road. Cyclist's have all the same rights to use the road. When they are on the road they have all the same rights as a car. Case closed, deal with it.

    Duncan Gay whipped all this up again because he is anti-cyclist. Most people who are anti-cyclist are often overweight and either a bogan or a hick.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now