With this intersection and king street it actually makes more sense to ignore the bike path and take the road, as you can get a longer run of green lights and stay legal. Sad but true.steveagle wrote:People commuting into Sydney CBD via the Pyrmont Bridge. That bike light should always be green the same time pedestrian crossing is green at the bare minimum. However many times it has been red despite riders waiting and pedestrians crossing. Usually I will go and "run the red". It would be a real shame to cop a fine for that. Whilst I could cop a $71 fine on the chin, it makes no sense to cop a $350 fine.
All other traffic lights I am more than happy to wait alongside cars and don't believe cyclists should run the red. At least until such times they see fit to make red lights equivalent to stop signs for cyclists.
NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
- grimbo
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:38 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby grimbo » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:17 pm
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:20 pm
Wait for his next round of bicycle law changes.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- steveagle
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:41 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby steveagle » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:31 pm
Correct on both fronts. I go on the bike path at Pyrmont Bridge Road because I don't want to block the lane turning left but otherwise I would stay on the road. And King Street I prefer the road anyways because the path randomly ends at Clarence Street so you have no choice (and better run of lights).grimbo wrote:
With this intersection and king street it actually makes more sense to ignore the bike path and take the road, as you can get a longer run of green lights and stay legal. Sad but true.
Both of these may be the better options with the red light penalties.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby human909 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:43 pm
Taking the road does not make cyclists immune from the requirement to obey the cycle lanterns.steveagle wrote:Correct on both fronts. I go on the bike path at Pyrmont Bridge Road because I don't want to block the lane turning left but otherwise I would stay on the road. And King Street I prefer the road anyways because the path randomly ends at Clarence Street so you have no choice (and better run of lights).grimbo wrote:
With this intersection and king street it actually makes more sense to ignore the bike path and take the road, as you can get a longer run of green lights and stay legal. Sad but true.
Both of these may be the better options with the red light penalties.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby sogood » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:54 pm
You are lost here wrt to the sections of road in reference.human909 wrote:Taking the road does not make cyclists immune from the requirement to obey the cycle lanterns.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby human909 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:04 pm
Fair enough. If they take you through different intersections then that is a different story.sogood wrote:You are lost here wrt to the sections of road in reference.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:06 pm
Definition:260 Stopping for a red bicycle crossing light (1) The rider of a bicycle approaching or at bicycle crossing lights showing a red bicycle crossing light must stop before reaching the bicycle crossing lights.
bicycle crossing lights means a device designed to show a bicycle crossing light, or 2 or more bicycle crossing lights at different times
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby sogood » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:10 pm
Different state and I sure hope you know the intersections in discussion well.il padrone wrote:Rule 260 in the Victorian Road Rules; probably something very similar in NSW...
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:16 pm
Not so familiar with the Pyrmont Bridge access, but any fool can check King Street and see that the seperated bike lane is on the same road surface, same lights. We all might think the bike light is only for the lane, but the road rules actually say otherwise.260 Stopping for a red bicycle crossing light
(1) The rider of a bicycle approaching or at an intersection, or another place on a road or road related area, with bicycle crossing lights must comply with this rule.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) If the bicycle crossing lights show a red bicycle crossing light and the rider has not already started crossing the intersection or place, the rider must not start to cross until:
(a) the bicycle crossing lights change to green, or
(b) there is no red or yellow bicycle crossing light showing.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby AUbicycles » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:40 pm
One of the components for the positively received 1 metre safe passing distance is the rules for drivers overtaking which are worthwhile sharing. This is from the following website: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is good news - while many motorists will cross double-lines to overtake, some still hesitate as I understand it was still technically illegal up to now. The new ruling provides clarity for drivers - which makes it safer for bicycle riders.If drivers cannot pass a bicycle rider safely, they should slow down and wait until it is safe to pass the rider, leaving the minimum distance. To help drivers provide the minimum distance, some exemptions to the road rules will apply.
As long as a driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic and it is safe to pass the bicycle rider, the driver will be exempt from the following road rules:
Keep to the left of the centre of the road (two-way road with no dividing line)
Keep to the left of the centre of a dividing line - broken and unbroken lines
Keep off a dividing strip
Keep off a painted island
Driving within a single marked lane or line of traffic
Moving from one marked lane to another across a continuous line separating the lanes
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby sogood » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:24 pm
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby human909 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:59 pm
Exactly.il padrone wrote:Not so familiar with the Pyrmont Bridge access, but any fool can check King Street and see that the seperated bike lane is on the same road surface, same lights. We all might think the bike light is only for the lane, but the road rules actually say otherwise.
At this intersection and quite a few other it is like this.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:01 pm
https://medium.com/@lastwheel/foxes-in- ... .cdfrkb5hb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Foxes in Charge of the Hen House
The Amy-Gillete Foundation is an Elaborate Con
The Amy-Gillete Foundation (AGF) is an Australian road-safety charity claiming one single aim in their manifesto: “to create a safer cycling environment in Australia”. Staffed with well-connected high-achievers, it is chaired by Mark Textor who the Australian Financial Review named as one of the ten most powerful Australians. How is it then, that the AGF not only failed to stop a New South Wales government imposing some of the most regressive cycle laws in the world, but they claim a “welcome” victory of an authoritarian crackdown?
Grassroots cycle advocacy has been wanting greater protection from road violence, specifically some minimum passing distance had become a public political issue. A (very) minimum passing distance now exists for overtaking drivers but much more has been lost to offset this meagre concession. Marketed as bringing equity for all road users and “balance” to traffic law according to Textor, New South Wales have actually deregulated the offenders whilst imposing increased punitive measures on the victims. People cycling must now carry photo-identification, fines have increased six-fold into hundreds of dollars and perceived annoyances are now judged by law as having parity with projecting lethal force from behind a wheel.
To put that in perspective, the fine for not wearing a helmet is twice that of driving in a bike lane — and for the uninitiated, drivers kill people and mandatory helmet laws are unequivocally “disastrous” for public safety. The science is in, the fractured skulls counted, the correct public policy has been long known — helmet laws reduce participation in cycling. Whilst a smug of community thought leaders have been baffled with such “stupidity” of law making, I say this is nothing more than a transparent legislative land grab. This is how the motoring industry has operated from inception because they have an inherently dangerous product with such poor efficiencies they need anti-competitiveness to remain viable. Decade, after decade, they’ve set up unaccountable “liberal” sock-puppet organisations to exclude real voices and creating a paralysis for any threatening social movement. In these ways The Amy-Gillette Foundation is no different.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:22 pm
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby velonaut » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:19 pm
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:22 pm
No such offence as "jaywalking". It is a motor-industry inspired fallacious 'crime'; does not exist in the road rules (look it up).
You may get pinged for 'failing to follow a red light'. But yes, this crime for a pedestrian (in Victoria) is 2 penalty units; for a cyclist facing bike lights - 10 penalty units; for a cyclist or driver on the road - 10 penalty units.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby human909 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:31 pm
It will be very interesting how this legislation is finally written because as it is currently being described this is more onerous than what is currently required for motorists. There is currently no requirement that a motorist carry their license. But if they can't present one on request they have 3 days to do so.
(That was for ACT) The NSW law does not have the option for later presentation.. Thus I was wrong.
(That said in NSW I've seen an unlicensed driver been let off because it was too much hassle for them to check interstate if the renewal had gone through!)
(Section 171 of Road Transport (General) Act) {NSW})
EDIT FOR CORRECTIONS.
-
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby BJL » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:52 pm
For me, time to get rid of the states altogether. Stuff like this is just a needless waste of time and resources.
-
- Posts: 6179
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
- Location: Mill Park
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby fat and old » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 pm
How can anyone (not cyclists.....the "others") complain now? Seriously......there's an opening here.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby trailgumby » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:22 pm
Link please. I'm not seeing section 58 as having anything to do with licensing at all.human909 wrote:It is pertinent to note that motorists and no other road users are required to carry ID on them!!
It will be very interesting how this legislation is finally written because as it is currently being described this is more onerous than what is currently required for motorists. There is currently no requirement that a motorist carry their license. But if they can't present one on request they have 3 days to do so.
(Section 58 of Road Transport (General) Act) {NSW})
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby g-boaf » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:37 pm
I'm sure an FOI request should get data on the number of infringements issued and what they were for.il padrone wrote:*cough*
No such offence as "jaywalking". It is a motor-industry inspired fallacious 'crime'; does not exist in the road rules (look it up).
You may get pinged for 'failing to follow a red light'. But yes, this crime for a pedestrian (in Victoria) is 2 penalty units; for a cyclist facing bike lights - 10 penalty units; for a cyclist or driver on the road - 10 penalty units.
fat and old wrote:I see a marvellous opportunity for a switched on cyclist/group to take advantage of their new found "legitimacy" through the use of a high profile, media savvy ambulance chaser such as Slater & Gordon or Maurice Blackburn to go after the minimum passing cases.
How can anyone (not cyclists.....the "others") complain now? Seriously......there's an opening here.
Wasn't one of those firms already associated with an advocacy group?
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby biker jk » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:44 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-pedest ... k9k5a.htmlg-boaf wrote:I'm sure an FOI request should get data on the number of infringements issued and what they were for.il padrone wrote:*cough*
No such offence as "jaywalking". It is a motor-industry inspired fallacious 'crime'; does not exist in the road rules (look it up).
You may get pinged for 'failing to follow a red light'. But yes, this crime for a pedestrian (in Victoria) is 2 penalty units; for a cyclist facing bike lights - 10 penalty units; for a cyclist or driver on the road - 10 penalty units.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby human909 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:56 pm
Sorry it would seem that in the jumble of legislation I ended up looking the the A.C.T. legislation...trailgumby wrote:Link please. I'm not seeing section 58 as having anything to do with licensing at all.
The NSW legislation is here: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/infor ... cad5eae5a5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Section 171
It does not have the defense of producing your license within 3 days like the A.C.T. does.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby trailgumby » Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:07 pm
Yeah, it would have surprised me if it did. It's a 1 demerit point offence here.human909 wrote:It does not have the defense of producing your license within 3 days like the A.C.T. does.
-
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:31 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby rogan » Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:12 pm
Good pickup, you're right, and it's complete madness, of course. The chances of Constable Plod being aware of this are low. More likely you would get done for not riding in the bike lane. I assume Kent and Union are actual bike lanes under the Road Rules... ?il padrone wrote:NSW Road Rule 260 is a different wording, but effectively exactly the same rule.
Not so familiar with the Pyrmont Bridge access, but any fool can check King Street and see that the seperated bike lane is on the same road surface, same lights. We all might think the bike light is only for the lane, but the road rules actually say otherwise.260 Stopping for a red bicycle crossing light
(1) The rider of a bicycle approaching or at an intersection, or another place on a road or road related area, with bicycle crossing lights must comply with this rule.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) If the bicycle crossing lights show a red bicycle crossing light and the rider has not already started crossing the intersection or place, the rider must not start to cross until:
(a) the bicycle crossing lights change to green, or
(b) there is no red or yellow bicycle crossing light showing.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines
Postby human909 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:20 pm
Separated bicycle paths and bi-directional paths are not bicycle lanes under the road rules. The whole thing is a jumbled mess. You could quite legally take the lane and the stop on the red cycle lantern and hold up all the traffic behind you. Do this across all the lanes and the stupidity of it all would soon be realised.rogan wrote:Good pickup, you're right, and it's complete madness, of course. The chances of Constable Plod being aware of this are low. More likely you would get done for not riding in the bike lane. I assume Kent and Union are actual bike lanes under the Road Rules... ?
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], zebee
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.