- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Sydney Harbour from the air (copyright Rodney Haywood)Cycling gets worse in Australia's "worst cycling state" New South Wales as newly raised fines surge
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.
Latest Comments
- ktache 3 hours 28 min ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 4 hours 24 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 4 hours 31 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 4 hours 35 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 5 hours 21 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 5 hours 30 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 6 hours 38 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 9 hours 18 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 9 hours 35 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 10 hours 1 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
42 comments
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.
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.
"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'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-parent... )
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?
rearimpact.png
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?
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?
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?
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
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)
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.
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.
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)
Pages