Things have got worse for cyclists in Australia’s “worst state for cycling” New South Wales, as police statistics show a surge in the number widely derided fines issued.
Compared with the same period – March to April – last year, the number of fines issued in the state has shot up 56% to 1545 in the space of a month.
To make matters worse, as we reported earlier this year, from March 1 fines for helmetlessness, riding on footpaths, riding without a light, riding without a bell and more, were increased significantly.
Some fines, such as riding without a helmet, more than quadrupled from A$71 (£35) to A$319 (£157).
The combination of these factors mean that police fines collected from people riding without helmets in New South Wales (NSW) alone totals A$350,262 (£172,113) between March and April, up from A$50,00 the year before, which makes for particularly poor reading for cyclists in the state.
The full picture of fines doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow either. While non-helmet related fines pale in comparison to those issued to cyclists in no or inappropriate headgear, the numbers of fines issued this year are consistently higher across the board, indicating something of a police crackdown.
This graph depicting the full story was pulled from the Sydney Morning Herald’s coverage of the fines:
The silver lining to the fine hike announced in February was the introduction of a close-pass fine for motorists overtaking cyclists at a distance smaller than 1.5 meters.
Unfortunately this police crackdown does not appear to extend to drivers. In the space of time that 1,098 cyclists were fined for not wearing helmets, four drivers were find for overtaking too close to cyclists.
NSW non-profit cycling organisation BicycleNSW‘s chief executive Ray Rice expressed his disappointment to the Sydney Morning Herald over the low numbers of motorist fines.
He said: “We agree that education is the best method but it has to be backed up by a reasonable level of compliance, which is fining people.
“[The number of motorists fined] does seem very low in proportion to the number of cycling fines issued in the same period.”
Meanwhile in response to the backlash over the huge fines being given to cyclists, Roads Minister Duncan Gay said that the government “don’t want cyclists’ money,” and that the increased quantity and cost of fines were “about improving safety.”
He said: “We don’t want cyclists’ money – that is not why we increased fines for high-risk and downright stupid behaviour. These changes are about improving safety.
“I don’t want to see another dollar in fine revenue but I do hope to see a reduction in cyclist injuries. It is simple: if you wear a helmet, you won’t get fined.”
However, claims from Green party transport spokeswoman Mehreen Faruqi suggested that the police have been “going on blitzes to rake in more revenue,” and the government were without “any serious strategy” for investing in bike infrastructure.
All of this comes after Professor Chris Rissel of the University of Sydney, an opponent of compulsory helmet legislation, said the legal changes meant that NSW is “probably going to become the worst state in the world in terms of how we treat cyclists – if we’re not already.”
We reported more about what he had to say on the sorry state of NSW cycling, here.
42 thoughts on “Cycling gets worse in Australia’s “worst cycling state” New South Wales as newly raised fines surge”
Quote:
That’s probably true, clearly the aim is to reduce cycling.
No shit, I bet even Kim Jong-un is more flexible on cycle helmets.
A tale of two cities.
A tale of two cities.
Moscow: Government drive to get cyclists out more has begun in earnest
Sydney: Government has begun in earnest to drive more cyclists out
wow, it’s good to know that
wow, it’s good to know that some 1st world countries are worse than Britain.
Riding on the pavements and
Riding on the pavements and with no lights at night are fine worthy. Helmets – make your own choice. Horns? Just shout at people! (who will probably be looking at a phone with headphones in anyway)
My desire to visit Oz has
My desire to visit Oz has decreased further. If that was even possible.
The fines are pretty hefty
The fines are pretty hefty but all the fineable items are what I normally have or equip on any ride.
I love cycling but I hate being injured, self inflicted or otherwise. Whatever you can to lower a chance of an accident is a good thing.
superdx wrote:
yeah i agree. sure their govt is fining only cyclists in an attempt to have less of them. but all the things they require are like requiring lights and seat belts in car in the 50’s. People hated it, and now if someone doesn’t have it you’d tell them how dumb they are.
The only one law that’s a little odd is the warning device since you can yell more easily and louder than most bells.
superdx wrote:
Except that in over 30 years of a compulsory all age helmet law the rate of head injuries has gone up not down.
And as most people who post using common sense rather than data… cycling without lights might appear dangerous, but along with running red lights, accounts for about 1% of cyclist vs motor vehicle accidents.
Cycling safety is about safety in numbers and infrastructure. These fines are aimed at reducing cyclist numbers and Gay Duncan has ripped out the College St cycle lane which used to carry more cyclists in rush hour than the two vehicle lanes beside it.
superdx wrote:
FFS – link?
davel wrote:
The fines are pretty hefty but all the fineable items are what I normally have or equip on any ride.
— davel FFS – link?— superdx
Just seen this. Am I too late to join in the helmet debate?
hawkinspeter wrote:
The reason why they have ridiculous fines for riding a bike in Boganville NSW is because there’s a number of cyclists who think they’re a good idea. There was some moron who wrote a whole article in the Conversation who said that as a cyclist he thought they were a great idea.
Motorists have their shit together. They ALL hate cyclists. It’s about time people on bicycles spoke with a unified voice and stopped arguing about stupid stuff like helmets.
davel wrote:
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/cycling-helmets-are-life-savers-study-claims-31583968.html
Details of the research:
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Michael%20Gilchrist.pdf
Fuck ’em. Don’t do the crime, don’t pay the fine. If these policies dissuade ill disciplined lawless idiots from riding around on bicycles … Great! That’s a good thing! :applause:
L.Willo wrote:
The fines are pretty hefty but all the fineable items are what I normally have or equip on any ride.
— L.Willo FFS – link?— davel http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/cycling-helmets-are-life-savers-study-claims-31583968.html Details of the research: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Michael%20Gilchrist.pdf Fuck ’em. Don’t do the crime, don’t pay the fine. If these policies dissuade ill disciplined lawless idiots from riding around on bicycles … Great! That’s a good thing! :applause:— superdx
S
All this proves is that you have a reduced risk of head injury if you are wearing a helmet & are hit by a car/lgv travelling at under 30mph, no other scenario’s so not really a good arguement for mandatory helmets unless you are deliberately riding into motor vehicles travelling at less than 30mph
Gus T wrote:
Is this place for real?!
Double digits max. 8}
L.Willo wrote:
Yay – get em into cars, along with everyone else. Weirdo.
L.Willo wrote:
The fines are pretty hefty but all the fineable items are what I normally have or equip on any ride.
— L.Willo FFS – link?— davel http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/cycling-helmets-are-life-savers-study-claims-31583968.html Details of the research: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Michael%20Gilchrist.pdf Fuck ’em. Don’t do the crime, don’t pay the fine. If these policies dissuade ill disciplined lawless idiots from riding around on bicycles … Great! That’s a good thing! :applause:— superdx
But do you think that so many more “ill disciplined lawless idiots” are suddenly out on the streets of NSW? Seems like a bit of extra effort is going into enforcing those rules, whilst the ‘carrot’ rules about close passing aren’t really being enforced at all.
brooksby wrote:
It’s so much easier to understand discrimination when it’s just institutional racism.
Hey, look everyone, another helmet debate! Let’s all ignore the evidence of massively disproportionate enforcement against one category of road user, and talk about helmets again!
brooksby wrote:
Brooksby, be careful what you wish for is what I say. Minimum passing distances are unenforceable, short of hitting another cyclist, I have no idea why any driver would accept the fine and not take his or her chance in court.
There are no shortage of videos from attention seeking twats screaming Jeeeeeeeeeeezus as an ignorant driver passes too close … this one is probably the most famous: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2PFRdEUN240
I defy anyone to define the exact passing distance so Roly-Poly can be prosecuted. As the law stands a prosecution could happen and a jury could rely on their judgement and experience to decide if that pass was safe. We move to an Australian style system and the focus becomes the actual distance, if that cannot be defined accurately, reasonable doubt … not guilty … actually would never get to court.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the lawbreakers who were rightly caught and fined. If they cannot or will not live by the law they need to get the fuck off of the roads. Zero fucks given.
L.Willo wrote:
I agree that if someone breaks the law then they get fined or whatever.
But that wasn’t really my point. NSW legislation beefed up the fines for cycling offences but said “It’s OK, because in return we’ll introduce minimum safe passing laws to keep you safe”.
Except it now appears that their police are going after the low hanging fruit and fining cyclists left right and centre (and, again, yes I understand that if they hadn’t broken the law then they wouldn’t *be* that low hanging fruit) but basically not bothering with enforcing the other rules.
It was presented as transactional: we’ll tighten up these rules to treat you like other road users, but it’s OK because in return we’ll introduce those rules to make you safer.
If it is so difficult if not impossible to prove a passing distance or take it through the courts then why bother with the legislation at all? Might have been fairer to have been open: we’ll tighten up all these rules and, er, that’s it. Now F off back to Amsterdam if you want to ride a bike.
L.Willo wrote:
being that the jury are probably 10x more likely to be drivers than cyclists and many drivers consider any pass with no contact to be safe, I don’t feel the status quo is providing any protection at all in the courts. (not that I think safe passing distances will do any better, short oif impact at a pinch point, where clear the width of the car would not allow for the safe distance regardless of what position the cyclist takes, they are unprovable)
L.Willo wrote:
The fines are pretty hefty but all the fineable items are what I normally have or equip on any ride.
— L.Willo FFS – link?— davel http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/cycling-helmets-are-life-savers-study-claims-31583968.html Details of the research: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Michael%20Gilchrist.pdf Fuck ’em. Don’t do the crime, don’t pay the fine. If these policies dissuade ill disciplined lawless idiots from riding around on bicycles … Great! That’s a good thing! :applause:— superdx
Seriously? I can’t believe you’ve provided the link to a seriously flawed publication. Did you actually read it? Michael Gilchrist draws on 37 fatalities over 10 years and nowhere does he highlight how many of the deceased were wearing helmets or not. Nowhere does he highlight collisions in a rural or urban environment. Nowhere does he show rates of survival of RTC’s that can be attributed to helmets. And nowhere does he highlight cause of death. There’s a copy of the autopsy report for one individual but that suggests the cause of death as severe blood loss. And take a look at the monster that hit the cyclist – a jeep with bull bars. If you skip down to page 33 you find a breakdown of vehicle type, speed and age of the cyclist and that gives you a better idea of what’s happening. And it looks like big vehicles driven at speed.
If you actually go to the RSA (for whom the publication was written) you get a clearer idea of road fatalities. And guess what most are at speed on the rural roads. And trust me. Most Irish drivers drive like total loons so it doesn’t surprise me that fatalities are pretty high in the Republic.
The fines in NSW are punitive and more likely to prevent folk from cycling as they don’t want to make a mistake and end up paying for it. And it is easy pickings for the police as a couple of officers just need to stand by the road and flag errant cyclists down where as they need to have more vehicles on the road to pull in errant motorists.
It would seem to be much easier to fine somebody for cycling on the pavement rather than provide a decent infrastructure for them.
giff77 wrote:
Yes. Very impressive research. Did you read it or knee jerk because you hate the conclusions?
And before you criticise his methodology, here are Professor Gilchrist’s impressive academic credentials in the area of impact and crash simulations.
http://www.ucd.ie/eacollege/mme/staff/academicstaff/professormichaelgilchrist/staff,98866,en.html
Can we see yours?
L.Willo wrote:
I dont’ think we need to see his. He comprehensively demolished your quoted research, and your only defence is to attack him; no further evidence needed.
You might like to take a look at some of the reliable, robust, long term, large scale, peer reviewed research, which shows at best, no benefit from mass helmet wearing, and at worst, an increase in risk with helmet wearing, but I’m guessing from your post that you aren’t interested in evidence that doesn’t support your pre-conceived position.
L.Willo wrote:
i can assure you. I did read the paper. And I can also assure you that my post was not based on hatred for his conclusions. Again, look at his data. 37 fatalities over 10 years. The list on page 33 shows ages, types of vehicle (usually large cars or lorries) and the majority of the collisions are at speed. NOWHERE does Gilchrists present cause of death or where survival is attributed to helmet use or if the ‘helmetless’ deaths could have been prevented. He does however recommend that research is carried out to improve the design of helmets to deal with high speed impact The Republic is dealing with an average of 10 deaths per year of cyclists (pedestrians double maybe even triple that) and that’s with a population of 4.5 million. Road fatalities are shockingly high and all the safety authorities can do is push for helmet legislation or wear hi viz rather than push for presumed liability or implement decent infrastructure.
The Dutch back in the 70’s took the bull by the horns after people started blockading streets due to the horrific levels of road deaths of young people and we have what we have today. When ever there is a fatality the Dutch investigate and tweek the structure to ensure the safety of the vulnerable road user. They don’t make noises about helmets and high viz. Meanwhile. The Anglo Saxon nations would rather enforce draconian laws and fines as their interpretation of road safety.
Go and pull the stats from the RSA website for the Republic. You will find the majority of fatalities have been killed by distracted motorists driving heavy vehicles at speed. There is no way a helmet will protect you. Nothing will. The Australian authorities need to be looking at infrastructure, speed control etc to protect the vulnerable. NOT implementing punitive fines as the means of protection.
I will ill point out that I have no issue with fines for traffic offense but these fines and offences need to be realistic.
giff77 wrote:
Well I did wonder, because you are aware that that is not a research paper but a set of slides from a Powerpoint presentation for a lecture? As such, the level of detail that you expect would be totally inappropriate.
Survival? What survival? The research is clearly into cycling fatalities. The cause of death is irrelevant. No one honestly thinks that cycle helmets will protect you from a spinal fracture.
The research had three stated aims:
e.g. to analyse what happens to the head during a fatal road accident and whether or not a helmet would likely have made a difference to the severity of the head injuries that were incurred.
Prof. Gilchrist used his considerable, award winning expertise in this discipline to use computers to model primary and secondary head impacts and calculate the effects of wearing a helmet. His conclusions contribute to an overwhelming body of evidence that a well-designed helmet offers significant head injury protection in accidents where the impact speed is less than 30 mph …. eg the urban speed limit eg persuasive grounds for making cycle helmets mandatory for road cycling in urban areas.
Finally, a pic from the one case study out of the 37 highlighted during the presentation, if I were to make that shape in a windscreen, with the back of your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not? Maybe ask your wife and kids the same question?
L.Willo wrote:
So I’m expected to take Gilchrist’s findings as gospel? Just because he is a highly qualified doctor does not mean that any of his papers/projects or lectures are infallible. You would think that to validate the use of helmets and their protective properties statistics would be included. There is no sign of these being mentioned on this lecture. All that is concluded is that they offer protection below 50kph and that research needs to be undertaken to design helmets capable of >50kph. Though I have mentioned that already.
As for the pic of the car. Let’s tell everyone that it is a Mitsibushi jeep with bull bars that rear ended a cyclist at 100kph on a wet and windy morning on a country road. The only fault of the cyclist was that he had no working lights. Even then, the driver should take some responsibity for not anticipating the unexpected. At least that’s what I was taught when learning to drive. And I’ll just repeat myself in case you missed it the first time. The autopsy report. There’s no mention of head trauma. Something I would have thought pretty important if you are conducting a lecture that is focusing on primary and secondary impacts to the head and the effectiveness of helmets. Don’t you think?
giff77 wrote:
Of course not but the point is that neither of us are sufficiently qualified in the field of brain trauma and impact reconstructions to criticise his methodology. So I was a little surprised to see your comment: riously? I can’t believe you’ve provided the link to a seriously flawed publication
Significant protection and should be worn, the Professor concludes. Most impacts in urban environments will be at speeds substantially below 50KPH.
Who would not welcome even more effective helmets.
A huge fault. To compound that fault, the cyclist was wearing a black coat, dark pants and wellingtons and struggling to maintain his line in a fierce wind at 6am in the morning.
Some, perhaps. All no, but in any case what does this have to do with Professor Gilchrist’s research?
“skin wound on left forehead 5cm in length, lacerated wound on the occiput of the scalp 5cm”
Sounds like a head injury to me?
superdx wrote:
Totally agree. Those idiot pedestrians not wearing helmets…
superdx wrote:
You can assert that, but the epidemiological evidence – i.e., oh, you know, the real world – contradicts you. Helmets are at best an ineffective public policy tool to making cycling safer. Indeed, as helmet compulsion seems to go hand-in-hand with cycling hostility, high-helmet-use regimes have *worse* cycling safety overall. And worse public health results too.
This bizarre fixation on polystyrene head coverings for cyclists in many parts of the Anglo-Saxon is counter-productive.
Has the number of Australian
Has the number of Australian cyclists doing bad stuff suddenly gone up by 56% or are the NSW police just enforcing the law more strictly? If the latter, how come the figures on fines for close passing are so ridiculously low?
(Not biting on the h*lm*t debate)
Passive resistance. If enough
Passive resistance. If enough cyclists mount their bicycles on top of really old and unreliable cars and drive them at rush hour until they break down, get a puncture or run out of fuel. Then other motorists might start to notice that cyclists were far less of a problem before they became motorists too.
“Just seen this. Am I too
[I]”Just seen this. Am I too late to join in the helmet debate?”[/i]
before starting a helmet debate you have to read all 8910 posts in this thread over on BNA (BicycleNetworkAustralia)
[i]Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)[/i]
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31309
antigee wrote:
I’ve just had a look at the linked thread and been surprised to discover from 1 early commentor, page 3 of 357, that airbags are not mandatory in Australia. I did a quick web search, apparently airbags are still an optional extra in Aus although they are now being fitted as standard by manufacturers there is no legal requirement for the manufacturers to do so. There’s more info here on the Austrian Govt’s attitude to airbags from the Australian College of Road Safety, acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-vehicles/airbags/ What I can’t understand is why cycle helmets are mandatory with repressive fines, in nSW, but working airbags are optional extra’s throughout Aus, seems a bit of a contradiction when the arguement put forward for a Mandatory Helmet Law is a road safety. Are there any Aussie commentors who can explain this contradiction to me.
I like this.
I like this.
A way to counter unhappy thoughts is to think of a list of things one has to be grateful for. I can clearly add ‘not being Australian’ to that list. Also ‘will never visit Australia’.
Roads Minister Duncan Gay
Roads Minister Duncan Gay said: “We don’t want cyclists’ money – that is not why we increased fines for high-risk and downright stupid behaviour.”
So will they be increasing the fines for behaving so utterly stupidly high enough to drive complete fools like Mr Gay from office?
It really doesn’t matter if
It really doesn’t matter if helmets are effective or not.
That is a completely separate and irrelevant point.
The issue is whether or not the government should be allowed to compel you, via the criminal justice system, to act in a manner they believe to be best for your health.
Should shoppers be arrested and fined outside the supermarket if they don’t buy enough vegetables?
Should people be arrested and fined if they take the lift instead of the stairs?
Should a full English breakfast come with a stint in a re-education camp?
We wouldn’t accept being criminalised for any of the above behaviours even if such action would reduce our risk of death/disease.
So why should we accept being criminalised for cycling without a helmet?
I’m entitled to make my own choices regarding my own health.
I don’t mind government advice but prosecution for a supposed ‘unhealthy’ behaviour is a step too far.
“Gus T
[i]“Gus T
………I’ve just had a look at the linked thread and been surprised to discover from 1 early commentor, page 3 of 357, that airbags are not mandatory in Australia. I did a quick web search, apparently airbags are still an optional extra in Aus although they are now being fitted as standard by manufacturers there is no legal requirement for the manufacturers to do so. There’s more info here on the Austrian Govt’s attitude to airbags from the Australian College of Road Safety, acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-vehicles/airbags/ What I can’t understand is why cycle helmets are mandatory with repressive fines, in nSW, but working airbags are optional extra’s throughout Aus, seems a bit of a contradiction when the arguement put forward for a Mandatory Helmet Law is a road safety. Are there any Aussie commentors who can explain this contradiction to me”[/i]
I’m not Aussie but live in Aus’ – suspect the answer is bit like the one to “why does the UK have summertime” – there are votes out in the in the rural areas and a belief that Aus’ conditions are unique (possibly true – these kids drove 35km to nearest road to get help – I think people in rural areas would say “35k thats not far” lots of rural kids drive on private land to the school bus stop – one way trips of 2hrs aren’t unusual http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-06/children-drive-35k-help-for-parents-injured-down-well/7005370 )
I don’t know why anyone would
I don’t know why anyone would still talk about the effectiveness of helmet laws as a hypothetical.
Here you go.
Conclusion: ineffective.
But completely effective as a distraction. What was the story about?
I’ll only pick up on the last
I’ll only pick up on the last three responses as 4am comes round to quickly.
While the wind doesn’t help it was a headwind and again the driver should have been anticipating debris on the road as a result of this and dropped their speed As for the clothing I somehow don’t think that would have helped as the motorist was driving to fast for the conditions
Personally I think that Gilchrist should have taken into consideration driver error in his study as that does have a huge impact no matter what the cyclist is wearing at the time.
You knew what I meant by head trauma not mentioned in the autopsy so no need to be pedantic on that one. There’s a quare difference between lacerations on the scalp and a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain.
good night
giff77 wrote:
You are criticising a cow for not being a horse.
Driver error, who did what to whom is completely irrelevant to this research. What is relevant to this particular piece of research is what happens when head hits metal and head hits tarmac and whether or not a helmet makes a significant difference in terms of head injuries.
The conclusion is overwhelming that at impact speeds up to 30mph cycle helmets offer significant protection and should be worn.
As head injuries are the overwhelming cause of death in cycle fatalities, pardon the awful pun, wearing one every time you get on a bike would seem to be an absolute no brainer.
L.Willo wrote:
I’ve come off four times in my few years cycling.
Once on a badly misjudged dropped kerb; twice on black ice (once on a road, once on a cycle path), and once when a car passenger opened their door into me as I was passing in a cycle lane.
I’ve had a sprained wrist and a cracked rib, plus cuts and bruises.
My helmet still looks like new, except for some scratches from branches that never get trimmed on my local cycle path.
Point is, my head has never yet been in any danger. I only wear a helmet because my wife threatened me with violence if I didn’t…
(But this is all anecdotal, so it doesn’t count)
Driver error will have a
Driver error will have a significant contribution to the end results. Was the driver speeding. Did the driver brake too late. Did the driver pull out in front of the cyclist or cut them up. All of these actions will influence all the relevant forces, velocities and masses involved within the collision.
A Smart car hitting a cyclist at 30mph will cause less harm than a Land Rover Discovery doing 30mph. It’s all basic physics.
Rather than introduce legislation and punitive fines in regards to ‘ safety equipment’ Reduce speed limits in the urban environment. It is a proven fact that a vulnerable road user will survive a collision of 20mph or less. They are also more likely to suffer life changing injuries or death from an impact of 40 mph.
There are many things various governments can be doing to improve the safety of the vulnerable on the roads. Fines for forgetting a helmet or pavement riding are simply not the way forward. That’s quite simply regressive not progressive.