Revenue Raising !

One of the pet gripes of New South Wales motorists is the impunity of cyclists when it came to obeying the road laws that are so so heavily inflicted on car drivers by the police.  This two wheeled brigade ignores traffic signals and stop signs, often in the presence of the police - who take no action.   It reinforced the conviction in many motorists minds that the road safety laws were a sham - and that these fines on car drivers were simply a form of revenue raising.

Occasionally these complaints would hit a raw political nerve and orders from the minister would produce a police blitz on cyclists behaviour.  It usually lasted a mere matter of days - and then the usual police apathy returned.  It was interesting to talk to one of the Highway Patrol cops and hear their stories.

The police did have valid gripes.  Establishing the identity of an erring rider was a problem.  Neither the bicycle nor its rider were required to display or have on their person any form of identification.  They could give a false name and address - with impunity.  After one of these police blitzes on cycling the debt recovery office was usually inundated with returned fine demands notated "Not at this address "- or "  Person unknown ".   To add insult to injury, the fine involved was minuscule.

All that changed on March 1 this year. Cycling fines which had gone unchanged for decades were sharply revised upwards.   The penalty for riding without wearing a safety helmet jumped from $71 to $ 319.   Running a red light or failing to come to a complete halt at a "Stop " sign " increased from $ 71 to $ 425.  Police interest in bicycle riding law breaches intensified - and fines imposed have exceeded a million dollars.

Many people contend that a mix of cycles and cars can never be safe on main city roads and country highways.  The risk of a conflict between a low speed bike and a higher speed car delivers an incompatibility that can not be reduced by law applications.   The fact that public money has been spent creating bicycle paths around the city seems to be testament to exactly that concern.   What is lacking is a law change that should require their use.

Many car drivers are confounded to encounter cyclists riding on busy roads where a dedicated cycle path is running parallel with it - and that is perfectly lawful.   It would seem very reasonable to expect the law to require cyclists to use cycle paths for their own safety and not dice with death where sharing with other traffic can be avoided.

When that March law change increased fines for cycling offences it also imposed new responsibilities on car drivers with regard to cyclists.   Car traffic is now required to maintain a one metre clearance when passing a cyclist on streets with a sixty kilometre per hour speed limit, and increase that safety margin to one and a half metres where a higher speed applies.    Since that law came into force, just fifteen such fines have been levied.

The police claim this new law is unworkable.  It is impossible for an observer to accurately measure the separation distance between a car and a rider, and yet that would be the evidence the officer is required to present in court.   At best, an officer could testify that "in their opinion " the distance appeared to be less than the one metre required by law.   That is hardly proof of guilt and many magistrates would instantly dismiss the charge.

It seems that this constant war between the two wheeled and the four wheeled brigades is set to continue !