Login to VeloClub|Not a member?  Sign up now.
July 25, 2017
July 24, 2017
July 23, 2017
July 22, 2017
  • ceedee

    The Amy Gillet Foundation has turncoat by welcoming the NSW government new charges. So I won’t be supporting them anymore.

    • gaz

      ??? appears to me to be a fair negotiation to get a metre/1.5m passing rules. Ive never seen AGF campaign for removing helmet laws. As for ID, a stat going round is that 90% of enthusiasts/fitness/racing cyclists carry ID at the moment. If increased fines get me more respect as a cyclist from other road users, then I’m happy.

      • horses

        Why does a law aimed to protect cyclists need to be combined with measures to punish cyclists?

        Carrying identification might be a sensible thing to do, but why should it be mandatory? What problem is this trying to solve? Where is the evidence that proves this will not only solve a problem, but that there’s a problem to solve? Has there been a sudden increase in unidentified injured cyclists? Has there been a sudden increase in cyclists not paying fines because they give police a fake name? What about pedestrians – they get hit by cars too, and I frequently see them running red lights – shouldn’t they have to carry ID? If you’re familiar with Duncan Gay you’ll know that this is just the first step in his dream of licensing cyclists.

        Increased fines are not going to get you respect, they’ll just cement the idea that lunatics have in their minds that cyclists are menaces of equal or more danger than cars. No amount of punishing cyclists or changing behaviour is going to convince these people; all they want is to get bikes off roads (and Duncan Gay is one of these people).

        The only parts of these laws police will be interested in are the ones that punish cyclists, and that’s obviously Duncan Gay’s plan. The goal here is to discourage cycling, when really the passing laws should be part of laws to encourage cycling. If you think these punitive measures won’t affect you because you wear a helmet, carry ID and don’t go through red lights then you are wrong. Accepting these laws will only result in fewer cyclists on the roads and will then be followed up by further punitive measures.

        • Adam Fuller

          It feels like the problem is Duncan Gay’s dislike of cyclists.

        • ceedee

          Well said Horse. Sadly there is to many cyclist like Gaz who just who are very innocent.

      • Winky

        It’s not a fair negotiation. Why should there be a negotiation at all? Laws requiring the carrying of I.D. should pass or fail on their own merits. Same as decisions to increase fines. These should be considered as part of a rational cost/benefit analysis. It is an absurd idea that just because the “long-suffering motorist” is now required to give some clearance to “annoying” cyclists, they should be rewarded by seeing cyclists punished.

    • Bex

      care to expand how they’ve become a turncoat by welcoming 1.5m passing rule? I don’t know a lot about their foundation, but their one message i keep hearing is “a meter matters”.

      • ceedee

        AGF welcome cyclist now must by law to have ID in NSW.

  • HughC

    Hmmmm….. Applaud Vaughters willingness to speak out, but it will be interesting to see what happens with Cannondale-Garmin in 2017. Either they have a different agreement with their sponsors, he knows they won’t be around anyway, or there will be conversation with ASO along the lines of…
    “I know I called you names, but I didn’t really mean it… so can I please still come to the party?”

    • Cameron Harris

      Vaughters is the not-so-Secret Pro.

  • Lounge

    A few thoughts on NSW rule changes. Carrying my licence; when on road and mtb I do this regardless. More to do with able to be easily identified in case I’m involved in an accident. Helmet; having smashed a couple riding my mountain bike I wear one religiously. No dramas here. Stopping at red lights. I do this too, 99% of the time. The only time I don’t is in the back half of the bunch and the “Rolling!” call comes and it is definitely safer to roll through on red than jam brakes on with a “dark” orange and have someone ride up your backside. The metre passing rule; great!!!!!!! But, the elephant in the room with any of the new rules is all about policing, or lack thereof. For many drivers stopping at red lights in most of Sydney appears to be optional and other than cameras is very rarely policed. As for mobile phone usage it is a complete joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whilst the plod might claim the number fines being issued are down due to compliance with the laws by drivers, the real reason is they just don’t police it!!!!!!!! So for anyone that is particularly worried by, or excited by these new laws, I don’t really see too much change to the status quo. And really, it is that one, the status quo, is all our politicians are really interested in.

  • Andy Logan

    Not that fussed about these “law changes” nothing will happen as the police won’t be there, unless they are going to start accepting camera footage as proof which I doubt. Basically it’s just increased fines etc.

    • horses

      The “crackdowns” on cyclists will certainly become more frequent and more lucrative. People who think they’re riding within the law will sure get a shock when some plod decides to start applying the law strictly and hands out fines for hundreds of dollars to people who dare stop at lights with their front wheel inside the pedestrian crossing.

      • Peter

        Don’t overestimate the zeal of the Police. They have more important things to think about than bicycle wheels impinging upon a pedestrian crossing.

        • horses

          Unfortunately the semi-regular “Operation Pedro” experience in Sydney show that this is not the case and that no cycling offence is too minor to be punished.

  • Andy B

    I cant help but feel like the NSW Government is too scared to upset motorists and had to offer a change of laws that try and make both sides of the argument happy.. majority of articles I read on these changes were titled and based around the requirement for cyclists to carry I.D.. they really seem to try and hide the important changes here- My only issue with this change is how easy it will now be to forget to put my drivers license back in my wallet

    The requirement for 1m-1.5m is great.. cant believe it took this long
    Some of the penalties seem very heavy handed for the actual damage they may cause
    I am ok with riding with a helmet.. always have always will, I think the people that will be most hurt by this are young girls/teens..
    Red lights.. im fine with that.. except the ones you HAVE to run because they don’t work for bikes…
    but is the need for such heavy penalties actually going to help?
    Instead of promoting this as a move to increase safety for cyclists they added fuel to the arguments of angry drivers by listening to their complaints

    disappointed with how this has been brought in

  • velocite

    I think the 1/1.5 metre rule is hugely important, and it’s great that NSW is implementing it. Disgraceful that Victoria has not yet. The ID thing for adults? Can’t see a reasonable objection. If we share the public roads with cars in the context of a set of rules with penalties, why should we not carry ID. And it’s not an onerous requirement, is it? The helmet fine is huge, but I don’t object to it so much as I object to the mandatory helmet rule. Three cheers for AGF, none for Bicycle Network.


Pin It on Pinterest

July 25, 2017
July 24, 2017
July 23, 2017
July 22, 2017