Browse wBW ad-free: bercome a member for just $10/year!
Mark Hinchliffe·
NewsMotorbike news
··13 Comments·3 min read

Cyclist identification proposal rejected

Cyclist identification call rejected

A Tasmanian Motorcycle Council proposal for free identification numbers for cyclists over 18 has been rejected.

Council president Paul Bullock confirms the Tasmanian Road Safety Advisory Council discussed the TMC’s policy proposal.  

Proposal rejected

“RSAC did not endorse the proposal,” he says.

“Discussions identified that it might be timely to develop a campaign about all road users sharing the roads.

“RSAC referred this to the Education and Enforcement Sub Committee (EESC) for consideration within its priorities.

“Identification has been passed on to a sub committee of the RSAC ‘for consideration within its priorities’, so it will be a low priority.

“But I will be following and asking what is happening at every RSAC meeting you can be assured of that.”

The rejected TMC call for cyclist ID is based on cyclists disobeying road rules and not being fined.

Paul says it follows “many complaints” from motorcyclists, car drivers, bus drivers and truck drivers about cyclists who behave irresponsibly.Identification bicycle rejected

Identification not registration

The rejected TMC proposal did NOT suggest cyclists pay registration fees.

“Cyclists don’t understand it is for identification, not registration. It is to stop cyclists breaking the law. At no cost to the cyclist,” Paul told us when the TMC made the suggestion in January.

The TMC wanted cyclists over 18 to wear some form of reflective identification number on their bike, clothing or helmet. Paul says it could be funded through the road safety levy.

Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists rejected
Tasmanian road sign

Rule breakers

What seems to irk many motorists is that cyclists get political favour, their own lanes, free footpath parking and yet avoid traffic offences.

Paul says the TMC posted the following video of cyclists disobeying roundabout give-way rules.

However, cyclists are not avoiding traffic fines altogether.

In the past two years, Queensland Police alone have booked more than 230 cyclists for speeding and 540 for running red lights.

The TMC also provided this list of traffic offences in Tasmania by cyclists:

See also
Offence Legislation Fine Code Item Penalty
Unit
Cyclist unreasonably obstructing the path of other driver/pedestrian RR 125(1) $81.50 B819 174 0.5
Cyclist ride without due care and attention RR 367(1) $122.25 BC11 441 0.75
Cycle without reasonable consideration for other road users RR 367(2) $81.50 BC12 442 0.5
Cyclist unreasonably obstructing the path of other driver/pedestrian RR 125(1) $81.50 B819 174 0.5
Cyclist not seated astride and facing forward RR 245(a) $81.50 BA97 330 0.5
Cyclist riding with no hands on handlebars RR 245(b) $81.50 BA97 330 0.5
Cyclist seated other than on seat RR 245(c) $81.50 BA98 331 0.5
Cyclist fail to ride in bicycle lane RR 247(1) $122.25 BB01 335 0.75
Cyclist cause traffic hazard (moving into path of driver/pedestrian RR 253 $122.25 BB22 345 0.75
Ride bicycle with no warning device in working order RR 258(b) $81.50 BB38 356 0.5

“While the majority of cyclists obey the law there is an element within the cycling fraternity that continually do not,” Paul says.

“They obstruct vehicles travelling on the road; while travelling in a group doing far less speed compared to other vehicles, they will not move into single file to allow vehicles to pass.

“Cyclists use the excuse that they are entitled to ride two abreast on the road, while failing to accept that they are unreasonably obstructing traffic, which is illegal.

“Despite it being legal for cyclists to travel two abreast and laws allowing other vehicle to cross double lines to pass when safe to do so, irresponsible and discourteous rider behaviour puts cyclists and other road users at risk.”

With identification numbers, more traffic offences could be issued, more than paying for the cost to implement the program, Paul says.

Petitions against cyclist rules

Last year, a Change.org petition was started by Drivers For Registration of Cyclists for cyclists to ride single file.

It has so far received more than 136,000 signatures.

Identification bicycles cyclist rejected
Image from the Change.org.au petition

Meanwhile, a 2017 petition against a rule allowing motorists to cross solid and double white lines to pass cyclists thus endangering oncoming motorcyclists has closed with only 2327 supporters.

Petition organiser Maritha Keyser, who was injured in such an incident, closed the petition after failing to gain the attention of any politicians.

 

Tags
Mark Hinchliffe
Related

13 Comments

  1. Diagram number three is how I see cyclists around South east Queensland 99% of the time & giving them a warning blast appears to make them even more blasé.
    The Queensland rule allowing motorists to cross solid and double white lines to pass cyclists is fraught with danger for oncoming traffic & very dangerous for motorcyclists.
    I’ve faced many vehicles of various sizes coming head-on for me, It’s a serious farce!

    1. So the road user creating the danger by not following the law is not to blame, only the cyclist. Queer world you live in, victim blaming much?

  2. When they introduced these new rules – why didn’t they just get rid of the “allowed to ride 2 abreast” allowance? Seems like it was all gain but no loss for the cyclists. I assume “team” who developed them were mainly cyclists.
    They may now have a lot more rights – but in reality the new rules have put them and all other road users in more danger, not less.

    1. Yes the right to safe passage and safe use of public infrastructure paid for by all tax payers is such a burden.

      The new rules did not create more danger, road users who do not follow the rules properly create the danger. Blame the perpetrator of the stupidity in not following the rules not the cyclist. Victim blaming by people like you solves nothing.

  3. Perhaps some of you guys doing the whinging should try cycling and see things from the other side. There are idiots on both sides but the real issue is that if something happens the cyclist ALWAYS comes of worst. As a biker (motorised) I have endured for years the idiots in tintops and would have thought that other motorbike riders would be aware of being the one that comes off worst. The 1 metre rule makes a lot of sense but it is not always followed…I have been buzzed several times by nutters doing their legal 100ks and giving me a few inchs clearance…as if to say “fuck you you should be here!”
    Maybe a little courtesy on all sides would go a long way.

  4. More old man shouting at the wind garbage from MBW. If this person in Tasmania had any idea, they would have seen that RTA in NSW already looked at the idea by a minister known for hating cyclists and it was rejected, along with carrying ID compulsorily while riding. The really sad thing is that the education system and in particular the complete lack of education in civic matters in schools means that most people will have no idea how to work out why or even understand the reasons why. Suffice to say it is unconstitutional (ID for riders or mandatory carrying of ID by riders).

    MBW, drop the dead donkey already.

    1. Hi Kana,
      You mistake our reporting of issues for support for them.
      If that was the case with all journalism, then all journalists would have dissociative identity disorder (previously known as multiple personality disorder).
      Cheers,
      Mark

      1. Reporting it no matter which side you’re on gives it oxygen (i.e. tacit approval to keep the idea alive). Starve it of oxygen in the first place. Walk away from it and tell them so, they will soon give up. Or find another equally stupid hobby horse to mount.

        1. Hi Kana,
          That’s censorship.
          We don’t even censor hate speech in Australia, yet you want me to censor a debate that many actually think is important for safety reasons.
          Cheers,
          Mark

          1. No its not, its called sensible journalism, otherwise you’d be forced to report every crackpot idea out there, you get to choose, that’s called editorial privilege. So are you telling me you report absolutely everything that crosses your desk no matter how stupid or reckless or idiotic? Or do you select what to report? Are you censoring debate? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

            Look up the Streisand Effect, and stop giving oxygen to crackpots with not only stupid ideas, but unconstitutional ideas.

          2. Hi Kana,
            Responsible journalism reports matters of concerns to sectors of the community.
            The Tasmanian Motorcycle Council represents thousands of motorcyclists in Tasmania.
            We are a motorcycle website reporting on issues that affect motorcyclists.
            This may seem a crackpot idea to you, but it isn’t to many readers who agree wth the TMC.
            It was also deemed a legitimate enough idea for the Tasmanian Road Safety Advisory Council to discuss.
            Therefore, it is worth reporting.
            Sorry, but I’m not sure how you see that it is unconstitutional.
            By the way, the Streisand effect surely supports my argument. It says that censoring something only serves to promote it.
            Cheers,
            Mark

  5. No idea why I cannot reply to your comment. So here we go.

    If you do not know why it is unconstitutional, do some research, that is what journalists are supposed to do isn’t it? Anyone with a basic knowledge of Australian civics education and a copy of the constitution can work it out. I did when researching the proposed NSW mandatory ID carrying by cyclists, but of course it took some effort and reading, sadly something missing from the will of people in society today. Research it, then you will understand why it is a crackpot idea.

    Does the TMC represent motorcyclists in Tasmania? If they are wasting time on ideas like this I question their efficacy. One VRU targeting another VRU when they could be working together to go after a common problem, distracted drivers in 4 wheeled motor vehicles. I mean seriously are cyclists so threatening on the road you would bother going after them? Slow news day much.

    The Tasmanian Road Safety Advisory Council will look at anything that comes across their bows that is within their purview, that is their job, they are a government department.

    The reason the Streisand Effect applies here is simply because you are giving oxygen to an idea that simply cannot be implemented (remember it is unconstitutional). So by giving it oxygen you are enabling the dog whistlers, you have become part of the problem. That is your choice.

    Remember because people with motorized vehicles couldn’t play nice, that is why we have road rules, CTP, a whole division of police departments to sort out the people who cannot play nice with their vehicles, traffic lights, enforcement cameras because people cannot find it within themselves to play by the rules in their vehicles. But cyclists who are trying to survive on the very public infrastructure that they effectively created for themselves under a set of rules that never existed prior to motorised traffic are the source of blame.

    http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars,com

    1. Hi Kana,
      And you day I’m giving this issue oxygen!
      BTW the Streisand effect is where you give oxygen to something by trying to censor it.
      Cheers,
      Mark

Comments are closed.