Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Pushbike Riders required to carry ID

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by cjvfr, Dec 23, 2015.

  1. Adult cyclists will be required to carry photo identification and fined 350 per cent more for not wearing a helmet under new rules and penalties to be introduced by the NSW government.

    Drivers will also be required to leave a one-metre buffer when overtaking cyclists, and at least 1.5 metres when travelling faster than 60km/h, or face losing two demerit points and a $319 fine.

    Roads Minister Duncan Gay unveiled the cycling package on Monday. The reforms will start in March 2016.

    “We hope this is the right way to do it, but if we need to do more we will, if we need to wind it back we will,” Mr Gay said.

    Mr Gay stopped short of introducing a licensing system for cyclists, a proposal the minister last year said he was “increasingly persuaded” by.

    Instead, it will be compulsory for adult riders to carry photo identification so they can be identified if they break the road rules or in an emergency situation.

    “We needed some way of identification and enforcement … suggestions including licences and registration were rejected by the committee,” Mr Gay said.

    “In the end we came to a consensus. That is better than being at war when going ahead.”

    There will be a grace period of 12 months for cyclists caught without photo identifications. However, a penalty of $106 will be introduced from March 2017 – the same as applies to drivers caught without a licence.

    Penalties will increase dramatically for cyclists caught breaking road rules. While most offences currently attract a $71 fine, cyclists caught riding without a helmet will be a slugged $319.

    Running a red light will incur a $425 fine, riding dangerously a $425 fine, holding onto a moving vehicle a fine of $319 and not stopping at a pedestrian crossing a fine of $425.

    The introduction of a compulsory minimum distance of one metre for drivers has already been trialled in Queensland, Canberra and South Australia.

    The government is also introducing a “new safety advisory recommendation” for riders to leave a gap of one metre, where practical, when passing pedestrians on a shared path.

    Greens transport spokeswoman Dr Mehreen Faruqi supported the new passing distance laws, but said the fines and compulsory identification were “regressive and punitive measures”.

    Dr Faruqi said it was “ridiculous” that the new $319 fine for not wearing a helmet was almost double the fine for driving in a bike lane and the mandatory identification rule would discourage bike riding.

    “What will actually make riders safer is installing good cycling infrastructure. Sadly, but not surprisingly, it doesn’t seem the government has any interest in the evidence,” Dr Faruqi said.

    Bicycle NSW chief executive Ray Rice said he was pleased with the package of changes, particularly the introduction of the minimum passing distance.

    The increased fines and requirement for identification, Mr Rice said, would not have a huge affect on cyclists as 90 per cent already carried identification and 70 per cent already wore helmets.

    “We don’t think it’s necessary and therefore why legislate for something that people are already doing … most riders obey the law already,” Mr Rice said.

    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. I don't live in NSW, but if I did these laws could G&FT.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. are they trying to solve problems that aren't there? or just trying to make life shit for cops?

    fining bikes for going through red lights is great in theory... but they don't trip cameras, and cops would have to be right there..

    helmets? I always wear one but plenty don't... never head of a no-helmet fine being given..

    1.5m gap when passing at >60?
    tbh I reckon bicycles shouldn't be allowed to ride in a lane on roads with >70km speed limits., when there is an alternative... the closing speeds are too great and many drivers (and cyclists) are too dumb to make it work..
    if bike is sitting 1m from the line, as they are allowed to do, and they need 1.5m gap for overtaking... that's 2.5m... how wide are single lane roads? not that wide...

    having to carry ID... not sure how that will work. what will they do if someone doesn't have ID and refuses to identify themselves? arrest them?
  4. I saw this a few days ago when announced, and about fcuking time is all I can say. Good enough for everyone else on the road to pay by the rules or wear the consequences, so why not for these fukers!
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. So who's gonna police the distance thing? Who's gonna measure? And true with the running red light thing...the cops have to be right there to see it, and how often does that happen?!
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. They've been listening to too much of the rabble rouser talk back radio host crap, all the 'drivers vs cyclists war' crap that they stir up.
    Papers please.
    Maybe they should tattoo the ID on cyclists arms.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Hmm, the pushy rider has to carry some kind of photo ID.

    So they get to decide if and when they are prepared to be identified.

    Geez, that's a good deal......... can we dismount our rego plate and put it in a bag, only producing it when it suits us?
  8. This and the stoner sloth ads / random road side drug testing are both cynical posturing by the government to be seen to be doing something for a group they're planning to ignore. The prohibitionists in the first case and idiot cagers in the second case. The decriminalizing pot stuff has been going on for a while, but I'm not sure what is coming with the cycling thing -- maybe higher fines for driving offenses? Hopefully more clearways on the weekend...not holding my breath.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. It's what you get when Draconian and Nanny mindsets meet. What's next - Pedestrians forced to carry identification as well, because after all - we see them Jay walk or cross on red men? pwbikepwbike isn't far off - "Papers Please" is probably where we are headed to given enough time...

    I have no problems policing and enforcing cyclists as they use the road the same as other road users, but I feel like we've been going 'over the top' with some of the fines, and requirement for some time now, and it's getting worse.

    Sure - you could say "About time Cyclists are targetted like us motorcyclists / car users", and I understand that perspective, but I would prefer for things to go back a few notches for everyone instead.

    Rather, this sadly tells me that the government is keen on continuing down a certain hard line direction instead. Excpeted I guess, but still unfortunate.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. The bike lobby didn't endear themselves when their spokesman (on ABC radio) claimed that driving/riding is a privilege
    whilst riding a bike is a 'right' :facepalm:

    The 1 metre rule works well in Europe, but they have a bike/motorbike understanding that would take us a century to catch up with. Cyclists generally keep well over on country roads and drivers wait a moment or two until it is clear to overtake.

    I'm all in favour of some sort of responsibility being placed back onto cyclists: they should be held accountable and expected to obey the traffic laws the same as other road users. We have all seen the countless times that cyclists deliberately ride through a red light, disregard other road users, etc. I am always reminded of the rider who killed an elderly pedestrian in Melbourne when he rode through a red light, in a pack, and finished up with a $250 fine :(
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Cyclists do have an obligation to obey traffic laws. There is a substantial section of the Road Rules in every state devoted to cyclists. The fact that it's not enforced is not the fault of cyclists.

    This looks, to me, like government by talkback radio.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. like with other road users, the onus should not be on cops to enforce or provide deterrent...
    the onus should be on the individual road user to not be a twat..
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. These penalties are so stupid it hurts. And I hate cyclists
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. But the fact that so many cyclists blatantly disobey the traffic laws is the fault of the cyclists. Hence the support for increased penalties plus a requirement for them to be identifiable.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. #15 oldcorollas, Dec 24, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2015
    do you think carrying ID will make riders comply with laws more effectively? is the deterrent big enough or should there be more police stationed at traffic lights? red light cameras triggered by movement rather than under-road sensing? (red light running is a pet hate of mine)

    does the deterrent of fines and licence loss work for all motorcyclists or cagers? :)

    edit: it's like the rule of only being able to edit posts for 20 minutes on NetRider, compared to no restrictions on other forums.
    does that prevent people from positing shite or at least make them think twice about what they post?
    (apparently not much :), or if it does.. oh dear o_O)
  16. Do you also support carrying ID for pedestrians as well since so many pedestrians disobey the traffic law?
  17. at least make them wear helmets :)
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. Identifiable by whom?

    Fine, they may be required to carry some ID, but, to whom do they have to show it?

    Seven foot tall Lycra Lizard runs into little old lady......

    She asks for ID and he buggers off......

  19. ...and Hi-Vis gear!
  20. and make it illegal to text and walk?

    self-preservation is not strong with some people.
    • Agree Agree x 1