New cycling rules in NSW

[newjez]

Possibly someone riding like your father would continue to wear helmets if they weren't compulsory. Surprised a cycling helmet would affect an under eye injury. Obviously the experience that helmets can help some individuals in some crashes is built into the argument. It is worth reading the arguments if you haven't already as they take you on the journey from the safety of the individual cyclists in a singular incident to the safety of the population of the city overall - including non cyclists. Sometimes counter intuitive notions are worth exploring specially given the evidence of experience.

 

I think the far morst important safety feature is enough cyclist numbers to encourage respect for cyclists, convince of the need for seperate infrastructure and convince of the need for better safety built into penalties, crash investigations etc.

 

Similar to mandatory helmet laws, I suspect individual hi-viz may help safety but compulsory hiviz may harm it.

 

I wear glasses. I head butted the rear windscreen of a hatchback that stopped on a green light on a steep downhill. Her brakes were better than mine. A helmet would have at least reduced the severity of the accident.

 

Compulsory helmets make it a hell of a lot easier to get helmets on the kids. Saying that, mine all wear helmets, despite the lack of street credibility, because they've seen what can happen if you don't wear them. (My dad should take his old helmets into schools, because it's hard to believe they could take that much damage and not suffer injury.

 

I see a lot more cycling in the UK these days. Most wear helmets. I guess that comes down to things like the tdf. Helmets are worn by the professionals, so...

[PommyPaul]

sounds like a good move to me, bicycle laws need a serious update tbh (i'm a keen cyclist btw) some of the behavior i see from cyclist is just shocking, being a professional driver i always abide by the rules, there's been several occasions when i've had to follow a cyclist for over 15 mins as i couldn't safely overtake, how hard is it to show a little respect for other road users and let traffic past!

[robfromdublin]

It's a paradox.

 

Helmets are clearly beneficial if you have an accident. However, a legal requirement for helmets results in less people cycling. And having more cyclists makes things much safer for cyclists than simply wearing helmets.

 

My general attitude is live and let live. If someone is stupid enough to avoid wearing a helmet then let them at it.

[fish.01]

I wear glasses. I head butted the rear windscreen of a hatchback that stopped on a green light on a steep downhill. Her brakes were better than mine. A helmet would have at least reduced the severity of the accident.

 

Compulsory helmets make it a hell of a lot easier to get helmets on the kids. Saying that, mine all wear helmets, despite the lack of street credibility, because they've seen what can happen if you don't wear them. (My dad should take his old helmets into schools, because it's hard to believe they could take that much damage and not suffer injury.

 

I see a lot more cycling in the UK these days. Most wear helmets. I guess that comes down to things like the tdf. Helmets are worn by the professionals, so...

 

Yes, same issue with Australian cycling..it is dominated by lycra sports cyclists due to the suppression of utility cyclists and these issues are often seen from that one dimensional viewpoint of why wouldn't you wear a helmet as you fly along a road tdf style so how could mandatory helmets possibly hurt. Unfortunately this misses whole swathes of the argument for cycling as a mode of transport rather than a sport.

Edited December 25, 2015 by fish.01

[fish.01]

It's a paradox.

 

Helmets are clearly beneficial if you have an accident. However, a legal requirement for helmets results in less people cycling. And having more cyclists makes things much safer for cyclists than simply wearing helmets.

 

My general attitude is live and let live. If someone is stupid enough to avoid wearing a helmet then let them at it.

 

Yes, it also potentially increases the health risks for those who don't cycle but would have given a suitable cycling environment.

[fish.01]

sounds like a good move to me, bicycle laws need a serious update tbh (i'm a keen cyclist btw) some of the behavior i see from cyclist is just shocking, being a professional driver i always abide by the rules, there's been several occasions when i've had to follow a cyclist for over 15 mins as i couldn't safely overtake, how hard is it to show a little respect for other road users and let traffic past!

 

With respect, the serious update needed is to improve safety for cyclists, the majority caused by bad infrastructure putting cyclists at risk from irresponsible drivers. Apart from the 1 metre law, I don't think these laws get near the proper list of priorities to do that.

[Rallyman]

dont see the problem with wearing a helmet , not sure how you Inforce a 1 meter rule ,will the same law apply to cyclists passing parked cars ?

Irresposible cyclists need to be held to account as well ,all road users need to respect each other, with a continued population increase you will get more traffic on the already heavily conjested roads.

[fish.01]

dont see the problem with wearing a helmet ,

 

Have you read all the arguments for and against ?

 

not sure how you Inforce a 1 meter rule ,

 

Don't worry, if Qld is anything to go by, it's mainly for when the cyclist is injured or dead.

 

It was introduced first in Qld because we cyclists had a concerted campaign after a gifted Brisbane concert violist came back from europe for a family visit. He made the mistake of cycling on our roads, was used to europe I guess, and a cement truck driver overtook him on a bend in a lane that had no space to do so, rather than waiting 15 seconds for the road to widen.

 

Richard was crushed to the point his parents couldn't recognise him. The law stated the vague notion that you had to pass at a safe distance. The cement truck drivers punishment? Nothing.

 

It was the latest of many.

 

will the same law apply to cyclists passing parked cars ?

 

Cyclists have killed zero parked cars so far this year. Of course cyclists should avoid parked cars for their own safety as many drivers don't look when opening their door. I can't see governments making it a law though as it would prevent them putting their bike lanes right beside the parked car doors in the door zone of death.

 

Irresposible cyclists need to be held to account as well ,all road users need to respect each other, with a continued population increase you will get more traffic on the already heavily conjested roads.

 

Yes, I agree irresponsible cyclists should be held accountable as there is a % of dickheads on bikes as well. I think the issue is that the law is made by the majority and they slant it far too much in the way of motorists despite the far bigger danger cars/trucks/buses pose on the road.

 

We are far behind countries with balanced transport systems. These massively increased fines are just one example of how we cannot introduce a safety initiative for cyclists without a large sop provided to motorists after the massive shock jock anti-cyclist talk back radio campaign in Sydney. Policy dictated by shock jock ******s.

 

Many people seem only capable of looking at something from the point of view of that which they participate in...not for the good of the city as a whole.

Edited December 26, 2015 by fish.01