My Melbourne living son advised me of the relatively steep increases in traffic fines for cyclists in Victoria – for example, 5 penalty units for not wearing a helmet. I believe a penalty unit is currently worth $116.82, so the helmet fine is now $584.10, up from $146.00. In WA the same offence incurs 1 penalty unit which is $50.00.
Poor Victorian cyclists – and it gets worse, for example
Clause 18 dangerous driving – amends section 64 of the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide an offence of dangerous driving for vehicles other than motor vehicles. Such vehicles include bicycles, but certain wheelchairs are expressly excluded. A person guilty of dangerous driving of a vehicle other than a motor vehicle will be liable to a penalty of 120 penalty units ($14,018) or 12 months imprisonment or both, which is half the maximum penalty that can be imposed in the case of a motor vehicle.
Clause 19 careless driving amends section 65 of the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide an offence of careless driving for vehicles other than motor vehicles. Such vehicles include bicycles, but certain wheelchairs are expressly excluded. A person guilty of careless driving of a vehicle other than a motor vehicle will be liable to a penalty of 6 penalty units ($700) for a first offence and 12 penalty units for a subsequent offence.
Or on a more trivial matter
247A Entering a bicycle storage area
(1) A rider of a bicycle approaching a bicycle storage area at an intersection that has traffic lights or traffic arrows showing a red traffic light or red arrow must not enter the bicycle storage area other than from a bicycle lane, unless the rider is not required to ride in the bicycle lane under these Rules. Penalty: 3 penalty units. ($350)
Note – Bicycle storage area is defined in the dictionary.
(2) Subrule (1) does not apply if the bicycle storage area cannot be entered from a bicycle lane.
247B Giving way while entering or in a bicycle storage Area
(1) A rider of a bicycle must when entering a bicycle storage area, give way to—
(a) any vehicle that is in the area; and
(b) if the area is before any green or yellow traffic lights, any motor vehicle that is entering or about to enter the area, unless the motor vehicle is turning in a direction that is subject to a red traffic arrow; and r. 247A Part 15—Additional Rules for Bicycle Riders Road Safety Road Rules 2009 S.R. No. 94/2009 302
(c) if the area forms part of a lane to which traffic arrows apply—any motor vehicle that is entering or about to enter the area at a time
when those arrows are green or yellow. Penalty: 3 penalty units. ($350)
Note Bicycle storage area is defined in the dictionary.
(2) A rider of a bicycle that is in a bicycle storage area that extends across more than one lane of a multi-lane road must, if the area is before any green or yellow traffic lights, give way to a motor vehicle that is in any lane other than the lane that the bicycle is directly in front of, unless the motor vehicle is turning in a direction that is subject to a red traffic arrow. Penalty: 3 penalty units.($350)
Got that? And that’s only for bicycle storage areas, and there are plenty more like that – just to be clear here, these (ridiculous) rules also apply in WA but the fines are more humane.
I checked Bicycle Victoria’s website and they seem to support the changes. Spokesman Garry Brennan was reported in the Age as saying that if bicycle riders wanted equal treatment on the road, they had to accept equal responsibility. They should be ”prepared to cop equivalent fines to other road users if it means we are accorded the full rights we are entitled to under the law”.
Is that correct?
How does that accord with BikeVic’s slogan ‘more people riding more often’? Certainly seems a huge discouragement to me.
Discounting the environmental and health aspects of cycling, there are significant difference between a bicycle and other forms of powered transport including speed, size, vulnerability of user, potential of damage to third parties and relative damage to road. Fines should be adjusted to reflect these differences. Running a red light on a bicycle is likely to result in the death of the cyclist; running a red light in a car may result in the drivers death and also the death of those with whom he may collide.
And what about issues of vulnerability and survival? All cyclists know that personal safety can require you to break the law on occasions. It is small comfort to be able to say ‘I was obeying the law’ as they load you into an ambulance.
Having read through a sample of traffic laws I realised that their main goal is the orderly movement of traffic, not safety of road users. Of course traffic engineers would argue that orderly movement of traffic confers safety, and to some extent that is true. However if orderly movement of traffic is your goal you then have to define in increasingly endless detail exactly what orderly movement of traffic is and how its rules are to be applied in every circumstance. Thats when you end up with statutes covering ‘Entering a bicycle storage area’.
And do road users (or even the Police) know all the range of regulations? Given that the only test of your knowledge of traffic regulations will be when you take your driving test, which in my case was over 40 years ago, the answer would have to be ‘no’. In fact the current driving licence arrangements are so slack that even if your driving licence is suspended for a period, there is no requirement for you to take driving test in order to have your licence reissued.
Another side effect from extensive traffic regulation is the reduction in the perception of personal responsibility by the driver, as the regulator (the state) effectively dictates what to do. So we have drivers exercising their perceived traffic ‘rights’ regardless of safety of others. This lack of personal responsibility is also reinforced media reporting of ‘dangerous roads’ (the inanimate) rather than ‘roads on which drivers drive dangerously’.(the personal)
I suggest that the goal of traffic laws should be to return responsibility to the driver with the emphasis on road user safety. That is not to say that all traffic laws are to be repealed, but the overarching aim is safety and responsibility.
To emphasis this there needs to be a clearly understood leading statement to traffic regulations. I would propose:-
“Any person in charge of a wheeled vehicle which causes the death or injury of another will be charged with murder for the death and attempted murder for any injury, until proven otherwise.”
This would apply from shopping trolleys up to road trains. So that a cyclist who knocks down and kills a pedestrian would face exactly the same penalty as a car driver who knocks down and kills a cyclist. The emphasis is on the result, that is death or injury, rather than how the death occurred.
Of course, I would expect a large adverse reaction as murder is a fairly emotive term, and to think that in driving a car you might find yourself on a murder charge seems ‘unfair’. But if you drive in a manner that causes the death of another person, why is that any less of a crime than if you killed them by some other means. A death is a death
So by being quite clear about the consequences of traffic related accidents, and returning responsibility to the vehicle operator, the need for detailed traffic regulations covering things such as access to bike storage areas, can be hugely reduced.
Riders and drivers alike will have a very clear understanding of the consequences of irresponsible vehicle use.
WA cyclists certainly need a better strategy than that of Bicycle Victoria if we are to avoid similar draconian fines being imposed here, and challenging the basis of traffic regulations is one option.
What do you think?
I think the traffic laws should focus on the safety of all people using public spaces. This includes rules on how to share these spaces, which include roads. The suggestion of focusing on the result of irresponsible behaviour (death of a person in the worst case) makes sense to me.
If we find a way to share public spaces in a less dangerous fashion, for instance via the encouragement of walking and cycling, we create a win-win situation.
Ah, and charging over $500 for not wearing a helmet is just dumb. More cyclists = less danger. Helmets do not even enter the equation. I see this amazingly high cycling participation in Zurich, no helmets, few accidents, frustrated (and careful) car drivers, balancing the use of public spaces in a more organic fashion.
Whilst laws and penalties seem to create traffic order, at the end it is the people who make all this work (or not).
The tripling (or more, in some cases) of fines in Victoria happened on the quiet last November (2009) – Vic Police state that the changes were “widely publicised”, but in fact the press releases only detailed car & motorbike fines, ending with general mention of “changes also including bicyclists.” No period of grace was given. Fines were handed out by teams of “Bike Squad” police positioned along city routes from the first morning. There is now a $146 fine for FAILURE TO HAVE A BELL. I know this because I’ve been fined for it. Officer Brandi not only kept a straight face while administering it, he described it as a serious offence.
Getting a full list of the offences & fines is very difficult. Sections are available for download from a website of Victorian Legislation, but the rules are not all kept in one part of that site, do not mention the level of fines & all sections can only be read when downloaded as a pdf. Bike Squad officers are issued with a book detailing the fines, but this is not available to the public & they refuse to show it to the individual cyclist. Vic Police cite restrictive printing costs & the likelihood of revisions to the law as reasons for not producing a public copy.
Incidentally, my last helmet fine was, just like the bell, $146, so you might have been misinformed about the number of penalty units – or they’ve gone up again! Also, an officer recently advised me the Dangerous Riding charge is $6800 & the Careless charge is ten percent of that – $680. Nonetheless, it really does stink.
Lastly, Bicycle Victoria is funded by the state government. Without fail they support every revision to law here – every fine hike, every escalation of enforcement. After the fines of November, I saw that their website still advised of the old level of penalty – on calling them neither of the available staff were even aware of the change! When the site was revised it came with a ringing endorsement of these ludicrous fundraising measures. Sadly it seems like they’re total lackies & many Victorian cyclists have simply written them off.
This stuff really does spoil the simple pleasure of cycling. Makes me want to get back in a car!
Quick update – I just checked the figures and there’s been a tiny hike since June, Civic Compliance now say the base fine (helmets, bells etc) is $149. Still pretty unbelievable.
This is what happens in a country where citizens are relaxed. Legislation made by do-gooders in league with self based agenda driven politicians creep up on us until even the nicest of folk start to realise things have gone over the top. Next time a copper books you for something like not wearing a helmet or not having a bell, explain to them that it’s your tax money paying for them to prey on the people they are supposed to be giving service to. Who benefits from this over the top fining? Is our society better off for it? No it’s just idiots like John Brumby attempting to score political points and increasing the states consolidated coffers. That guys been the bane of this state for too long now, he’s stuffed education as well, but that’s another rave.
Traffic management Police are becoming robotic, they are given quotas and turning off their own disgust at their own disgusting behavior when they are used as revenue collectors. I don’t know how many times I have heard a copper “I’m just doing my job”. I say “yes, but what about if it was your relative or a member of the police or you had committed an offense yourself, then things would be different wouldn’t they”. Not a single real on the job copper could argue this wasn’t the case and I know enough of them to make this statement. I am not a hater of police. It’s a hard enough job without needing this diatribe from me, but that’s what happens when you become the “meat in the sandwich” in a situation like what has developed. Get rid of quotas and blitzes, these are things that should have disappeared with WWII and german gas chambers. Let’s get the coppers and civilians back together the way they are meant to be.
We need to drop fining altogether to show that we are seriously not just collecting revenue and go to a system of very short to very long term suspension of road vehicle privileges or something similar. A few weekends of no road privileges for speeding under 10km over the limit for example. This fining business, and a business it has become, is getting way over the top. It also punishes the little guy far more harshly then someone who spends $150 on their lunch every day. The higher the fine, the more likely non-payment will occur. You start pushing people into corners and the world will not be a better place when they react badly and that is a time tested phenomenon.
Anyhow, drive carefully, talk to a policeman, ask them how they like their job. Thank them for doing their job, and remind them that you are a grateful representative of the people they serve.
love you all,
dave.
Hi Dave
Libertarian policy is that victim-less crimes should not be punished and the LDP website specifically lists removing bicycle helmet laws on their website
at ldp.org.au. check the Policy section under Victimless Crimes.
Goto the LDP (Liberal D
emocratic Party) policy section titled victimless crimes.
I have met with them at their open monthly meeting here in SA, they are interested to help, and they need more members so if anyone is interested in the
libertarian ideals it’s free and is online at ldp.org.au
I don’t agree with every policy they have but this is an opportunity to get some political representation which no other party seems prepared to offer.
If Cyclists vote for and Support the LDP even if just for this one reason hopefully the majors will take notice and we will see a change to the helmet laws sooner rather then later.
Regards Steve.
I think Australian laws are against any expression of freedom and democracy when it comes to riding a simple bicycle… I’ve spend most of my life riding bikes in cities like New York, Paris, Montreal where helmets are not compulsory and I’ve never had or seen any accidents involving a cyclist… This is pure bullshit and a very smart manipulative way to fine people and increase tax profits, why not adding radars to control bicycle speed and limit it at 30km/h like in British Columbia, Canada??? Are we living on a planet where the mob is in charge of the police and the politicians are their prostitutes??? This is just revolting, since I’ve moved to Australia I have simply replaced my bike by a SUV and make sure to pollute as much as possible. And I keep riding my bike in free countries, by the way I’m going to leave Australia and not being free on a bicycle is one of my main reason.
Just saw a pretty bad accident myself involving a cyclist and a pedestrian, the large majority of the cyclists I see wear bike helmets, either for their own safety or purely because it’s the law, but unfortunately this cyclist was not! Along Perth river at peak hour traffic there are a lot of cyclists and pedestrians and people forget to treat it like a road, a pedestrian wearing head phones listening to music decided suddenly to walk out into the middle of the bike path and the cyclist had not enough time to stop, the pedestrian got away unscathed- didn’t even fall over, but the cyclist seemed to fly off her bike and hit her head badly and was bleeding. She was just laying on the ground.
I’d been thinking for a while that the bike path had become dangerous with so many cyclists and pedestrians trying to use it together, people forget that bikes can go at high speeds but cyclists just want to go as fast as possible to get home at that time.
I’m not for things like fines etc for not wearing a helmet, but I have to wander in this case who will get the most blame for the accident? The pedestrian for freely roaming into oncoming traffic or the cyclist for not wearing her helmet? I think she may have come away relatively unharmed had she had head protection
From now on whether on the road or a bike path I will secure my helmet and ring my bell as long as the pedestrian isn’t listening to music and can’t hear the outside world!
just coped a fine for no helmate and its $153 in vic
just got a fine 305$ for red lights (in the middle of the night on the empty road – i still was supposed to stop and wait for green light) in Melbourne
Would be interested to know if it was possible for the traffic lights to be triggered by a bicycle, or if you had to wait for a car to come along. If the latter, then I would think you had a good case to challenge the fine on the grounds that the lights won’t change for a cyclist so you had no choice but to cross (after waiting for a reasonable time for a car to appear)
Mine was $190 for no helmet in Adelaide. Doesn’t feel fair at all.
In comment to Candice:
I would lay the blame on the cyclist, but not for deciding to go without a helmet, rather for cycling at speed on a shared path. At rush hours cyclists should be aware that there will be walkers and wanderers on the path and cycle defensivly. If this means slowing down (properly) in congested areas then so be it. Cyclists need to be as careful of pedestrians as we would liket car drivers to be of us.
I prefer to cycle without a helmet. I wear my helmet when I comute into the city to avoid a fine. I hate it but I would hate to fork out cash more. I would be super pissed if I copped a fine like the one that Ben or Dylan got. OUTRAGEOUS!!
Vol: that sux but red lights are something else. Cops are not always the friendliest people :-/
So well said:
“Having read through a sample of traffic laws I realised that their main goal is the orderly movement of traffic, not safety of road users.”
Yes, yes, yes!!
Traffic lights are an excellent example of this. The safest thing is for everyone to just slow down and give way to the right. But if people slow down, traffic doesn’t move as quickly. Hence traffic lights, which let motorists go by without even slowing down.
Oh and I think murder is over the top. Manslaughter is a better word.
This year the New Zealand Medical Journal published my report “Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law” It concluded, “This evaluation finds the helmet law has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties.” So what might seem to be a good idea had a very negative outcome.
BICYCLE HELMETS: A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION bu Curnow provides useful information.
The report “Evaluating bicycle helmet use and legislation in Canada” may be of interest also.
Excessive fines in Victoria shows the damage a helmet law provides. Its the wrong approach to health and safety.