The constant smear campaign against cycling

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:39 am

Fine for riding without a fitted bell (if taken to court) - $699.77

Fine for not overtaking safely, and same for lane-splitting - $466.38

First one harms virtually nobody. Second one is the prime cause for a large proportion of cyclist collisions (and many deaths). Guess which one is enforced more heavily ??? :evil:
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

ironhanglider
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
Location: Middle East, Melbourne

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby ironhanglider » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:39 pm

The fine listed in the statute is the maximum. The court may choose to impose a lesser penalty, usually if there are mitigating factors.

Cheers,

Cameron
Image

human909
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:37 pm

ironhanglider wrote:The fine listed in the statute is the maximum. The court may choose to impose a lesser penalty, usually if there are mitigating factors.


Yes. Like recently when the court chose to fine the lady who killed a cyclist by dooring only 2/3s of the maximum amount ($1000). Presumably the mitigating factor was the fact she only killed one cyclist. :roll:

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18452
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:49 pm

human909 wrote:
ironhanglider wrote:The fine listed in the statute is the maximum. The court may choose to impose a lesser penalty, usually if there are mitigating factors.


Yes. Like recently when the court chose to fine the lady who killed a cyclist by dooring only 2/3s of the maximum amount ($1000). Presumably the mitigating factor was the fact she only killed one cyclist. :roll:
I guess the cyclist didn't have a bell
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Red Rider
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:44 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Red Rider » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:29 pm

Some good publicity for cycling: What is great about cycling is that it's on a human scale, you can interact with the environment far more than in a car. The best thing to come out of the Stanford sexual assault/rape case is the two cyclists who came to the victims aid:
The woman said she now sleeps with pictures of two bicycles taped above her bed to remind herself of the two cyclists that were heroes in this story.


When riding a bike I'm able to interact with other people, pedestrians and cyclists, and I'm sure most of us would have helped someone ( out animal) out when you wouldn't have when in a car, simply because you couldn't see or hear what was going on. I often pick up junk off the road whilst waiting at lights that would damage a car or bike; spanners, screws, bumpers, all sorts.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:14 pm

ironhanglider wrote:The fine listed in the statute is the maximum. The court may choose to impose a lesser penalty, usually if there are mitigating factors.

Yes. And equally, the TIN handed to you or mailed, has a MUCH lower penalty for immediate payment. Your payment of the 80-90% lower TIN fine will also not get you any criminal record, just (maybe) demerit points.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:21 pm

human909 wrote:
ironhanglider wrote:The fine listed in the statute is the maximum. The court may choose to impose a lesser penalty, usually if there are mitigating factors.


Yes. Like recently when the court chose to fine the lady who killed a cyclist by dooring only 2/3s of the maximum amount ($1000). Presumably the mitigating factor was the fact she only killed one cyclist. :roll:

All I can see in the Road Rules is
Rule 269 (3) - A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.


That'd be $466.38.

There must be another more severe rule, and if this was the death of Albie, I understood the woman was fined $1500 for opening her door in the face of traffic.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

human909
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:10 pm

I can't explain that. It must be regulated somewhere other than the road rules.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images ... Report.pdf

The Road Safety Amendment (Car Doors) Bill 2012 was introduced into the Legislative Council in
February 2012. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalties associated with Road Rule
269(3), which is to cause hazard by opening a door of a vehicle, commonly called ‘car dooring’.

While the term ‘car dooring’ is yet to rate as an inclusion in any English dictionary, judging by the
interest generated by this Inquiry and the increase of cycling throughout Australia, it may not be
long before it is included in all mainstream dictionaries.
With over one million Victorians riding a bike each week and an increasing number of commuter
cyclists in metropolitan Melbourne, it is imperative that cyclists and motorists are fully aware of
each other’s rights to use Victoria’s roads. But it must be noted that cyclists equally have a
responsibility to respect Victoria’s road rules.
Evidence provided to the Committee showed that ‘car dooring’ is an increasing problem,
particularly in inner Melbourne. The Inquiry generated a great deal of interest within the community,
with the Committee receiving 94 written submissions and hearing from 7 witnesses at public
hearings. I wish to record my thanks for the support given by the public to this Inquiry, with a
significant number of people attending the hearings and filling the public galleries.
The evidence received overwhelmingly supported an increase in the penalties for ‘car dooring’.
However, a number of witnesses, including VicRoads and Victoria Police, argued that this could be
better achieved through changes to the regulations rather than proceeding with the Bill. On 31 July
2012, during the course of this Inquiry, the Government acted in line with this suggestion and made
regulations to increase the penalty for ‘car dooring’ to an on-the-spot fine of $352 and maximum
court imposed penalty of $1,408. The Committee believes this change to the regulations has
substantially addressed the main issue raised in the Bill.

The Committee also examined the issue of whether demerit points should be attached to the
offence, but ultimately decided against supporting the introduction of demerit points at this time.
Instead, the Committee believes the effect of the increased monetary penalties should be carefully
monitored to ensure they achieve the desired behavioural changes in motorist actions. Once this
empirical evidence is collected, there should be a further evaluation of the necessity for the
introduction of demerit points.
There is no doubt that ‘car dooring’ is just one of many dangers facing cyclists, and further issues
around rider safety need to be addressed. Education is an integral step in achieving a safer
environment for cyclists and it was pleasing to note that many of the submissions acknowledged
the establishment of the Baillieu Government’s ‘Road User or Abuser’ Facebook campaign and
stickers to remind passengers and drivers to look for cyclists. Other actions the Committee believes
should be considered include a cyclist awareness campaign targeting inner Melbourne, bicycle
safety questions to be included in the driver licence tests and clear enforcement guidelines to be
given to Victoria Police.
Victoria has an excellent reputation for road safety and the Committee hopes that our
recommendations will be accepted and implemented in the near future.

human909
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:22 pm

Wow the law is a pain...

Here is the government gazette highlighting the law change.
http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/G ... 12S269.pdf

il padrone wrote:There must be another more severe rule, and if this was the death of Albie, I understood the woman was fined $1500 for opening her door in the face of traffic.

It was $1000 for the reports I've read. And yes it they only pursued a dooring charge.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/call- ... lclin.html

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:59 am

Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.

But drivers always follow the road rules, eh? :wink: It is only cyclists who are the renegades :roll: :evil:
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18452
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:20 am

Is the fine indexed? IE $1,408 in 2012 has crept to $1,500? Also possible that more than one charge was laid. Could also be a generic clause somewhere that allows more Judge discretion when a death is involved. Having said that, it doesn't matter how complex the law gets there's always holes, for example the person who got killed in QLD sleeping in their tent on private property. The driver couldn't get charged as the road rules didn't apply on private property. The law has been updated.

il padrone wrote:Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.

But drivers always follow the road rules, eh? :wink: It is only cyclists who are the renegades :roll: :evil:
Yip, cyclists are up there with bikie gangs, especially if you wear patches, I'm mean lycra.

What are the statistics for Motorists killed by cyclists?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:33 am

mikesbytes wrote:Is the fine indexed? IE $1,408 in 2012 has crept to $1,500?

Yes the fine is indexed to penalty units. The $1408 did creep to $1476.

il padrone was quite reasonably questioning my claims because the current road rules have not been amended with the updated penalty units. But as I pointed out the Bill did pass and a government gazette was issued thereby increasing the penalty to 10 penalty units.

mikesbytes wrote:Also possible that more than one charge was laid.

There wasn't. Nor was there a generic clause regarding death. This was a simple dooring charge brought before the magistrate.

User avatar
familyguy
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Cromer, NSW

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby familyguy » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:55 am

il padrone wrote:Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.

But drivers always follow the road rules, eh? :wink: It is only cyclists who are the renegades :roll: :evil:


This is one of those things you can't do in Vic but can in NSW?

Jim

human909
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:18 am

Personally I'll readily cross double lines IF it safe. Most times simply waiting will resolve the issue so there really isn't any need. However in some places you might have a dozen or more kilometers of double lines. In such circumstances I will cross double lines hen it is safe to pass a cyclists. (Only place I really remember doing that is Mt Buffalo....)

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:35 am

familyguy wrote:
il padrone wrote:Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.

But drivers always follow the road rules, eh? :wink: It is only cyclists who are the renegades :roll: :evil:


This is one of those things you can't do in Vic but can in NSW?

Crossing double-lines is (supposed to be) a big no-no. Illegal action, unless exiting or entering the road. Not that most drivers seem to notice it.

And, yes, often it may be quite safe to do this passing cyclists, but still illegal. My point is about how so many people castigate cyclists as the great law-breakers on our roads. Also, I have had my fair share of drivers crossing double-lines to pass me, on a blind curve, on a crest, even with oncoming traffic. MGIF cyclist..... at all costs :x
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

TheWall
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby TheWall » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:30 pm

il padrone wrote:Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.

But drivers always follow the road rules, eh? :wink: It is only cyclists who are the renegades :roll: :evil:


One of the best parts of the Qld Safe Passing Legislation is the allowance for other road users to cross double whites and cross painted traffic islands to help them give space for cyclists...when safe to do so.

Otherwise, on many roads, no one could ever pass anyone!

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:12 pm

TheWall wrote:One of the best parts of the Qld Safe Passing Legislation is the allowance for other road users to cross double whites and cross painted traffic islands to help them give space for cyclists...when safe to do so.

THIS is something I remain a bit sceptical about. It is the drivers' interpretation of the "when safe" bit that bothers me. My experience is that so many lack any ability to make that judgement. Certainy without some sting in the tail (enforcement and prosecution), many will just ignore the safety.

TheWall wrote:Otherwise, on many roads, no one could ever pass anyone!

They are more than free to pass someone, just as soon as they get past the double-lines. Here in Victoria this is still the rule. Drivers just ignore the rule anyway :|
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

TheWall
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby TheWall » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:36 pm

See your point but I do think I prefer other road users to have this choice than trying to squeeze between me and an artificial barrier (the white line) so to avoid a ticket.

Btw...2/5 of my reported to Police close passes were exactly that...they had no idea they could cross...the others...just morons :roll:

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:46 pm

TheWall wrote:
il padrone wrote:Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.

But drivers always follow the road rules, eh? :wink: It is only cyclists who are the renegades :roll: :evil:


One of the best parts of the Qld Safe Passing Legislation is the allowance for other road users to cross double whites and cross painted traffic islands to help them give space for cyclists...when safe to do so.

Otherwise, on many roads, no one could ever pass anyone!


That's pretty much VicPlods favourite reason for opposing SPLs, in fact, their spokesplod just about verbatim parroted a Feral Hun editorial on the point.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

human909
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:58 pm

TheWall wrote:See your point but I do think I prefer other road users to have this choice than trying to squeeze between me and an artificial barrier (the white line) so to avoid a ticket.


There is another choice.

That choice is to WAIT. This should be part of any road safety education.

That said, due to over enthusiastic use of double lines there are some cases where it is safe cross them whether you are passing a cyclist, a tractor, a errant kangaroo or an obstruction. But this should be the exception not the norm. Like I admitted earlier, I've done it before. (What I didn't mention then was that I did wait about a minute before doing so as I deemed it unsafe. Meanwhile the well meaning but IMO foolish cyclists were pretty much riding on the edge of the tarmac to try to let me pass. There was no way I could leave a decent 1m while not crossing the centre line. So I didn't pass.)

Mulger bill wrote:That's pretty much VicPlods favourite reason for opposing SPLs, in fact, their spokesplod just about verbatim parroted a Feral Hun editorial on the point.

Which just goes to show that the concept of slowing down and waiting to pass behind a cyclist does not enter the realm of understanding even with the police. MGIF is the order of the day even for the police.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18452
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:15 am

Once the law for crossing double lines has been in for a year or so in NSW and QLD then VIC can evaluate what happened and choose whether to stay as they are or change
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
familyguy
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Cromer, NSW

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby familyguy » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:00 pm

il padrone wrote:
familyguy wrote:
il padrone wrote:Meantime on my ride today (75kms in the Blackwood Ranges) every car that passed us on double-line sections of road crossed the double-lines. Often widely. Except for one, who slowed behind as there was oncoming traffic right there.


This is one of those things you can't do in Vic but can in NSW?

Crossing double-lines is (supposed to be) a big no-no. Illegal action, unless exiting or entering the road. Not that most drivers seem to notice it.


Hence my query. Totally legal in NSW, not that everyone knows it or gets the nuances.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12871
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby trailgumby » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:02 pm

il padrone wrote:
TheWall wrote:One of the best parts of the Qld Safe Passing Legislation is the allowance for other road users to cross double whites and cross painted traffic islands to help them give space for cyclists...when safe to do so.

THIS is something I remain a bit sceptical about. It is the drivers' interpretation of the "when safe" bit that bothers me. My experience is that so many lack any ability to make that judgement. Certainy without some sting in the tail (enforcement and prosecution), many will just ignore the safety.

TheWall wrote:Otherwise, on many roads, no one could ever pass anyone!

They are more than free to pass someone, just as soon as they get past the double-lines. Here in Victoria this is still the rule. Drivers just ignore the rule anyway :|

I hear what you're saying, however I make the observation that the law change has merely legalised what people do anyway.

TheWall
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby TheWall » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:11 pm

The "legalisation" makes them more likely to do it in my opinion. Still you get the nutters who still figure they have to stay in the lane despite the option to move over and the ones that make me chuckle are the one that sneak a when over and close pass you when in reality they could have taken the whole oncoming lane safely!

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:19 pm

trailgumby wrote:
il padrone wrote:
TheWall wrote:One of the best parts of the Qld Safe Passing Legislation is the allowance for other road users to cross double whites and cross painted traffic islands to help them give space for cyclists...when safe to do so.

THIS is something I remain a bit sceptical about. It is the drivers' interpretation of the "when safe" bit that bothers me. My experience is that so many lack any ability to make that judgement. Certainy without some sting in the tail (enforcement and prosecution), many will just ignore the safety.

TheWall wrote:Otherwise, on many roads, no one could ever pass anyone!

They are more than free to pass someone, just as soon as they get past the double-lines. Here in Victoria this is still the rule. Drivers just ignore the rule anyway :|

I hear what you're saying, however I make the observation that the law change has merely legalised what people do anyway.

My point is that, in Victoria, the SAFE option is generally to wait behind until you get through the double-line section. Disagreeing with this concept (what almost all drivers do) is equivalent to saying that "red-lights are optional". :roll: :?: :| ie. illegal acts are OK :?: Are they ??
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andrewjcw, Cyclophiliac, madmacca