Cycling Fines - NSW 2005/06 - 2010/11

[find_bruce]

Someone asked if anyone had been fined for riding on the footpath. In looking at the answer, I noticed that in NSW over 6 years the number of fines issued has been reasonably consistent of just over 10,000 per year. What did surprise me was the proportions, which are in stark contrast to the impression one might get from a certain cycling "safety" organisation.

• 74.5% - Rider or passenger not wearing helmet (if you want to discuss whether this is a good law, the place to do so is here)
• 9.9% - No front light, rear light or reflector
• 7.8% - Ride on footpath / pedestrian part of separated path / pedestrian area
• 2.9% - No bell
• 1.3% - No brake
• 1.1% - Ride bicycle negligently, recklessly or furiously
• 0.7% - Run red light
• 1.7% - Other

Sources NSW Office of State Revenue 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 and 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11.

Of course there are a number of different factors that can contribute to this:

• ease of detection
• frequency of offences
• timing of offences
• Police priorities
• whether you had been pulled up for some other offence

While ease of detection is probably a significant factor in the number of helmet fines , no lights & riding on the footpath, the fact that no bell & negligent etc riding are both more common than red light running seems to run against the stereotype so favoured by motorists & the aforementioned advocacy group.

[g-boaf]

The bell is one thing that is now just about pointless.

It has been made irrelevant by the iPod. Ban cyclists and pedestrians from using portable music players while they are moving as an extension of the bell laws. Then the bell becomes useful again.

As for riding a bicycle furiously, I guess I broke that law yesterday and today as well. You could probably make a killing by going through the Strava leader boards of the wide M7 cycle way segments. Perhaps I shouldn't sweat, nor grimace when I'm riding up a hill.

Furiously... What the heck is that??

[il padrone]

.....the fact that no bell & negligent etc riding are both more common than red light running seems to run against the stereotype so favoured by motorists & the aforementioned advocacy group.

Ignoring any advocacy group views, I'd reckon that riding without a bell is far, far more common than red-light running. I'd reckon 90% + of cyclists ditch their bell soon after purchase of the bike.

[high_tea]

The bell is one thing that is now just about pointless.

It has been made irrelevant by the iPod. Ban cyclists and pedestrians from using portable music players while they are moving as an extension of the bell laws. Then the bell becomes useful again.

Mmm. I druther just ditch the bell law. It's silly. If it needs pedestrian regulation to make it work it's double silly.

Bit of trivia: there is no offence for failing to ring a bell. There is an offence for ringing one unnecessarily.

[find_bruce]

You will get no argument from me about the commonality of bikes without bells nor the stupidity of mandatory bell laws, my point being that no bell is not something that would spring out at you.

My theory is that almost all of the no bell & most of the no brake fines will be for cyclists who had already been pulled up for another matter.

high_tea, while there is an offence for failing to have a brake, I am not aware of any offence for failing to use it

[skull]

I have recently put a bell on my bike.

It is great, I was over yelling passing when getting around on sharepaths. All it would do was create confusion and some peds would get uppity. Now I just ding as I approach.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[high_tea]

You will get no argument from me about the commonality of bikes without bells nor the stupidity of mandatory bell laws, my point being that no bell is not something that would spring out at you.

My theory is that almost all of the no bell & most of the no brake fines will be for cyclists who had already been pulled up for another matter.

high_tea, while there is an offence for failing to have a brake, I am not aware of any offence for failing to use it

True, but there's no lack of failing-to-stop offences. You don't absolutely need a brake to stop, but it sure helps

[lobstermash]

I have recently put a bell on my bike.

It is great, I was over yelling passing when getting around on sharepaths. All it would do was create confusion and some peds would get uppity. Now I just ding as I approach.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

I took the bell off my bike after a number of incidents of peds panicking when woken up from their stupor and couldn't figure out which side of the line (they were walking on) to go to and I had to all but stop anyway. As noted above, you don't have to ring a bell if you have one, but I've found most people are happy with a polite 'excuse me' and return 'no worries' to my 'thanks' as I go past. I now only got the idiot peds asking 'where's your bell?' when I tell them they're hard to see when walking in unlit areas kitted out in black from head to toe at night...

[il padrone]

I have recently put a bell on my bike.

It is great, I was over yelling passing when getting around on sharepaths. All it would do was create confusion and some peds would get uppity. Now I just ding as I approach.

+1

I discovered the real merits of a bell (for shared path use) about 10 years ago. Pretty much useless on the road for car drivers of course, but even there on busy pedestrian streets it is very worthwhile as a simple warning.

[Tornado]

I'd reckon 90% + of cyclists ditch their bell soon after purchase of the bike.

Neither of my bikes came with one.

[traveldreamer]

The bell is one thing that is now just about pointless.

It has been made irrelevant by the iPod. Ban cyclists and pedestrians from using portable music players while they are moving as an extension of the bell laws. Then the bell becomes usefu:

No.

Only if you ban any form of music systems in cars And while we are at it remove all soundproof ing from cars as well.

Pedestrians and bikes are the solution do not do anything to discourage them. All you will do is make them motorists.


Cars are THE problem

[queequeg]

The bell is one thing that is now just about pointless.

It has been made irrelevant by the iPod. Ban cyclists and pedestrians from using portable music players while they are moving as an extension of the bell laws. Then the bell becomes usefu:

No.

Only if you ban any form of music systems in cars And while we are at it remove all soundproof ing from cars as well.

Pedestrians and bikes are the solution do not do anything to discourage them. All you will do is make them motorists.


Cars are THE problem

A bell on a bike that is ridden on the road is about as effective for warning motorists as a cat flap in an elephant house.

[il padrone]

A bell on a bike that is ridden on the road is about as effective for warning motorists as a cat flap in an elephant house.

The bell requirement is there so that cyclists have a device to warn pedestrians of their approach. Pretty much the same reason that cars must be equipped with a horn, except motorists also warn other motorists (well, maybe not in Australia - here they just seem to use the horn as a form of abuse).

Cyclists should never need to warn motorists. All motorists come equipped with two effective eyes and it is their obligation to look out for cyclists first before passing.

[queequeg]

A bell on a bike that is ridden on the road is about as effective for warning motorists as a cat flap in an elephant house.

The bell requirement is there so that cyclists have a device to warn pedestrians of their approach. Pretty much the same reason that cars must be equipped with a horn, except motorists also warn other motorists (well, maybe not in Australia - here they just seem to use the horn as a form of abuse).

The law doesn't make that distinction. A bell works fine on quiet streets and shared paths, but in a noisy environment it is useless. I have been
coasting behind pedestrians and ring my bell about 40 times, but due to background noise from passing cars they just can't hear it. Not surprising given that I can barely hear it over the noise.
So, my bell is mostly there for legal compliance, but my voice is far more effective (as is yelling out "No brakes!" in an urgent sounding voice). Is my voice box not a device?

[il padrone]

The law doesn't make that distinction. A bell works fine on quiet streets and shared paths, but in a noisy environment it is useless. I have been
coasting behind pedestrians and ring my bell about 40 times, but due to background noise from passing cars they just can't hear it. Not surprising given that I can barely hear it over the noise.

If the roads are that busy and noisy it is highly unlikely that a pedestrian will be stepping out into the road without looking I'd think. Regardless the law does not specify the environment of use. It would be equally pretty useless honking a horn in a road tunnel. It is often pretty useless honking a horn in city streets with building echo and such. Should this be grounds for removing the legal requirement for motor vehicle horns ??

So, my bell is mostly there for legal compliance, but my voice is far more effective (as is yelling out "No brakes!" in an urgent sounding voice). Is my voice box not a device?

Legal requirement for a bell does not prevent you using your voice for warning as well. By any legal definition though, no, a part of your personal anatomy is not a 'device'.

[queequeg]

If the roads are that busy and noisy it is highly unlikely that a pedestrian will be stepping out into the road without looking I'd think. Regardless the law does not specify the environment of use. It would be equally pretty useless honking a horn in a road tunnel. It is often pretty useless honking a horn in city streets with building echo and such. Should this be grounds for removing the legal requirement for motor vehicle horns ??


Legal requirement for a bell does not prevent you using your voice for warning as well. By any legal definition though, no, a part of your personal anatomy is not a 'device'.

I am not talking about using my bell when riding on a road like that, but many of the shared paths I use are alongside busy arterial roads (and freeways). Basically, coming up behind a pedestrian on a shared path, but due to noise from the adjacent road, they can't hear the bell.
It has nothing to do with horns in cars, but a horn in a car produces a vastly louder warning than any feeble "ting ting" from a bell. Also, I ride all weather and in the rain my bell makes more of a soft "thunk" noise rather than a "ping". Car horns are not affected by weather.
I don't know what the ADRs are for car horns, but there is no standard for bells. My understanding is that as long as you have one and it "works", it is fine. Whether it makes it an effective warning device is open for debate. My experience is that it is fine for a friendly warning in a quiet environment, but is pretty much useless the rest of the time. Cyclists are not wrapped up in sealed soundproof boxes and can use their voice as an audible warning device. The volume is easily adjusted to circumstances. Motorists have horns because they can shout at the top of their lungs inside their vehicle and nobody will hear them.
So yes, the law says I need a bell, but does not mandate that I use it (or dictate where on my bike it must be located, just that it be attached)

[g-boaf]

On another forum, there is discussion about Police stings that are set up deliberately in areas where the cycling infrastructure doesn't exist, or an intersection is dangerous enough that people prefer to use a pedestrian crossing for some degree of safety.

[Undertow]

[*]1.1% - Ride bicycle negligently, recklessly or furiously

I guess it's illegal to have sprints on your group ride then.

[find_bruce]

[*]1.1% - Ride bicycle negligently, recklessly or furiously

I guess it's illegal to have sprints on your group ride then.

Yes & not just for that reason. Every state and territory ban races being conducted without approval. In NSW it is section 115 of the Road Transport Act

I have never heard of anyone being booked for racing on a bike though.

[citywomble]

I guess it's illegal to have sprints on your group ride then.

Yes.

By way of confirmation that this was actually the intent when the law was drafted, Section 115 applies to any "vehicle", which applies to bicycles, where Section 116 then differentiates by applying only to "motor vehicles". Often you need to infer from the omissions between different parts of legislation to determine intent and application.

Roads are provided and legislated for travelling between places on and not for competitive racing or time trails, including personal bests, which is one of the arguments against Strava.

[jcjordan]

The bell is one thing that is now just about pointless.

It has been made irrelevant by the iPod. Ban cyclists and pedestrians from using portable music players while they are moving as an extension of the bell laws. Then the bell becomes useful again.

Fine you also then need to ban in vehicle sound systems, talking whist operating a vehicle and the removal of all sound proofing.

You also need to increase the noise made by vehicles so that you can hear them coming up behind you.



If you are so re

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[roberto73]

It seems they haven't published more recent fine stats for cyclists. Wondering if anyone knows how to extract them.

[find_bruce]

It seems they haven't published more recent fine stats for cyclists. Wondering if anyone knows how to extract them.

Not as far as I am aware - State debt recory office publishes limited data http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/info/statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;