Cycle Registration Floated

[GTR-N1]

Our state gov't transport minister has floated the idea that cycle registration will help identify cyclists breaking the law.

Any Comments about...

1) revenue raising and thus, the whole idea stinks?

2) great idea that's overdue, since China had this going 30 yrs ago?

3) what minimum ages should be exempt?

4) compulsory third party insurance?

5) plate swapping becoming rife to escape fines?

6) a possible market for counterfeit plates?

7) number plate recognition by police or if the whole idea can be policed?

8) whether registration should apply only to certain roads?

9) whether a fine for riding on a footpath is less/more than riding an unregistered bike?

10) whether registration should not apply to mountain bikes?

11) whether cyclists should be registered rather than bikes since a cyclist might own many bikes?

12) one off fee for registration rather than annual?

[levinboy]

The amount of times I have nearly hit a cyclist who has gone through a red light is ridiculous so I think they should bring this in

Not to mention when a cyclist thought it would be a good idea to lean on the GTR at a set of lights then wondered why I reversed and he fell down lol

[scotty nm35]

To further add to the discussion... If cyclists have to pay rego to use the roads, they must therefore be allowed their own full lane space, just like any other vehicle.

Does this also affect the laws regarding low powered bicycles over the (absolutely useless) 200w limit, with possible licensing requirements?

Personally I have no objections to adult cyclists having to wear a registration hi-vis jersey and paying a small levy to ride on any road they then decide to. But I think it would end up costing way more to bring these laws in than it will ever make back.

[533 RYC]

A bit off topic, but, I had a 'discussion' with a boy in blue one day about petrol powered pushies. His response was that any mode of transport that has to be powered by anything other than a person must be compliant with ADR, pass a vehicle inspection & be registered. He had nothing to say when I asked him whether that includes old people on electric mobility scooters.

I agree with bicylists who regularly use the road to pay a one off fee for a registration vest. The amount of them that run red lights put themselves, pedestrians & drivers at risk.

A lot of drivers these days have dash cams, when they have footage & be able to identify offenders, police could help prevent future accidents.

For recreational bicylists, who don't use the road, they shouldn't have to pay a fee.

[xALmoN]

if its a nominal fee, i'm happy to pay that fee, but then i would also demand a safe lane for me to ride in.

I've had to ride the pushy to work twice this month, because car broken, and the number of times i've had cars coming too close on purpose, ridiculous.

[Daleo]

This is absolutely my number one pet peeve.

Some seem to be mandating specific clothing for cyclists to wear? Where does this end?
Why hi-vis; there is NO evidence that hi-vis makes cyclists (or anyone) more visible.

* Most research seems to indicate people who wear hi-vis when riding are more pro-active about safety; therefore exposing themselves to less risk. So it is more a function of the person not the clothing that makes it safer.

Why does all the responsibility for visibility now rest solely on the most vulnerable road user?
Shouldn't ALL road users now be in Hi-vis to ensure THEY are responsible for their own visibility?

The Cyclists breaking laws because they're unidentifiable is typical reactionary nonsense.
How many cars do you see run red lights/break the law?
And how many of those cars do you report to the police? My guess is none.

Are you seriously saying, because cars are identifiable that they therefore commit no traffic offences?

​Who has the most to lose running a red light when you compare a person on a pushbike to a person in a car?
Tell me again how many thousand times you've seen bike riders do it?

How many pushbikes have you seen on the news that have run into a car & killed the occupants of the car?

When licensed drivers in easily identifiable motor vehicles, stop committing traffic offences SOLELY because they are identifiable; THEN I'll accept this argument

Until then, it just doesn't hold up.

Registration is another piece of nonsense; registration is levied against vehicle weight and engine size; my bike rego would be about $3.
Also, there seems to be a misconception that registration pays for roads: it doesn't. Council rates from property owners pays for all the construction & maintenance of suburban streets.

It would cost more (evidence suggests MUCH more) than it could ever hope to recoup, and as Scotty says; then the cyclist will be wholly entitled to take an entire lane width and drivers behind will have to recognise his right to travel at 25km/h without being able to pass on any road with unbroken, or double centre lane markings.

Now is probably a good time to remind you that THIS IS ALREADY A CYCLISTS RIGHT.
There is no law in Australia that says cyclists must stay to the edge of the road, nor any law against riding two-abreast on any roadway.
You are fully entitled to take an entire lane on any single or dual carriageway (doesn't mean it is smart).
Laws against impeding traffic only apply to MOTORISED VEHICLES.

As a cyclist; I would be bolting a 2m long steel bar with sharpened ends across the rear of my bike; to ensure that NO car was able to use my lane to pass me.
I would also be wearing front & rear facing cameras to collect evidence against any driver who acted in an illegal manner, and submitting any evidence to police; than chasing the police constantly until charges were laid.

I'll pay the damn $3 RIGHT NOW; come and get it.

Are you sure you want that? REALLY?

There seems to be this misplaced sense of entitlement amongst drivers, that somehow because they own a car; they own the road. People were riding bicycles on roads before cars were invented, and I'd suggest they will be there after cars are gone.

The reality is much the same as everywhere in life; there are dickheads on bikes, just the same as there are dickheads in cars, just the same as there are dickhead in trucks.

The difference is; when you bump into a cyclist while driving you can very easily kill them. The same cannot be said for cars & trucks.

People in the largest vehicles should have a far greater level of care and responsibility around more smaller, more vulnerable road users.

This is not currently the case; If you ran up to someone on the street & bashed them to death with a steel bar; you would be charged with murder, or at very least manslaughter.
If; in some other circumstance, through your negligent actions a person died; you could be charged with manslaughter.
If you swerve at, & run down and kill a cyclist, then flee the scene (as long as you are sober); you could potentially get away with a charge of "passing with undue care" which carries a 1 demerit point penalty.
Cycling deaths in Australia have increased by around 30% in the last three years; yet not a single driver has been sent to jail for killing a cyclist, even when a court has found that the motorists negligence (or even deliberate actions in some cases) was the direct cause of their death. NOT ONE.

It's ridiculous. People want laws changed to reflect equal levels of responsibility for behaviour; lets start with this.

TL/DR?

The big answer lies somewhere in the middle of all the arguments; don't drive so aggressively; pay attention to more vulnerable road users (bikes, motorbikes, pedestrians) and remember that the 2 tonnes of glass & steel you're piloting that can KILL in an instant.
Cyclists also need to follow the rules; but we have far more at stake when we don't anyway.
Also; remember that guy/girl on the bike is a HUMAN BEING; just like you.

Registering bicycles or licensing riders isn't the magic bullet you think it is.

Stay safe, be safe.

Cheers, Dale.

[zebra]

the whole system is flawed imo

Why do I need to register a motor cycle?

Can I not just use the "bike" lane? Takes up the same amount of room

The issue is not with cyclists is not that they are there.

The issue is with the idiots who choose to ride their bikes 3 wide on the side of a freeway or those who are using the road..then decide that they don't have to wait at the lights so cut across the pedestrian crossing with zero warning.

I have personally nearly skittlled 3 bicycle riders this year from doing the latter.

I cannot do that in a car or a motorcycle so why should any other road user be allowed to do so?

Tl; dr

Dickheads ruin it and nothing will fix it

[zebra]

Actually. .

Could you imagine the uproar if motorcycles were allowed in bike lanes....

[r32-25t]

It would be about time for lots of reasons including

- they have their own lanes and we pay for them!

-if they damage you car or hit someone there is no way to identify them

-they have their own lanes but still want to take up my lane as well

The eye opener for me was last weekend at the swap meet was when a pedestrian went to walk across the footpath was told be a bike rider "uh uh don't even think about it"

[GTR-N1]

Ok, so if registration (with plates) is brought in, there would need to be CTP right?

In the past 2 years I've seen more oldies on 4W scooters brazenly on our roads. Subsequently I've also heard of one accident, maybe two, between a 4W scooter and something else. They'd not escape a registration law either huh - and require CTP?

[redcorpsjames]

As a club road bike racer and recreational rider I pay 300 a year for my racing license from cycling Australia. This includes insurance for racing and training. We should not have to pay to use the road. Bicycles are good for cities. Less traffic. Less emissions. Running red lights is done by a lot of cyclists. I will agree on that.

[r32-25t]

You agree that running a red light is done by a lot of cyclists but how do we send them the fine?

If I do it in my car i get identified by the registration plates attached to it that I pay for.

A bike rider does it, gets hit and the car has to claim from his green slip for the bike rider and his insurance to fix his own car despite not being a fault.

So it's about time the bike rider was made financially accountable for his own actions and safety

[r32-25t]

Plain and simple, I have to pay road tax to use my car in the road so bike riders can also pay road tax to use their bike on it

[zebra]

As a club road bike racer and recreational rider I pay 300 a year for my racing license from cycling Australia. This includes insurance for racing and training. We should not have to pay to use the road. Bicycles are good for cities. Less traffic. Less emissions. Running red lights is done by a lot of cyclists. I will agree on that.

I pay my ma race license fees too.

Therefore I can ride my unregistered race bike on the road?

[GTR-N1]

So the latest today is that the gov't is contemplating helmet identification numbers!

This follows the Neutral Bay cyclist's death upon hitting a bus. He was on a mountain bike...

> not wearing a helmet

> riding on a footpath

> dodging walkers whilst at speed

> disobeyed a red pedestrian light

The day before, an Anthony Platts-Bagss had both legs broken by a left -turning Aust Post truck.

Umm, without any ID or rego, how do I notify their Mums? > 'er ambulance n police?

[Daleo]

People are acting like bike riders don't ALSO own registered motor vehicles; and therefore must already have a license.

I own registered car and one registered Motorbike, and I pay thousands a year in land rates that go directly toward road maintenance in my area.

How much more should I have to pay?

I pay my ma race license fees too.

Therefore I can ride my unregistered race bike on the road?

You get that there is a fundamental difference between a bicycle and a MOTORcycle?

The difference being the MOTOR component.

You agree that running a red light is done by a lot of cyclists but how do we send them the fine?
If I do it in my car i get identified by the registration plates attached to it that I pay for.

A bike rider does it, gets hit and the car has to claim from his green slip for the bike rider and his insurance to fix his own car despite not being a fault.
So it's about time the bike rider was made financially accountable for his own actions and safety

How many motorists are getting stuck with these bills? Call the police; if they've hit your hard enough to damage it seems unlikely they're doing a runner...
Also; the responsibility to remain at the scene and identify oneself after any accident is beholden on all people; so what is the solution? The person is breaking the law by running away with their broken bicycle.

Being identifiable doesn't seem to stop motorists from leaving the scene of many accidents where riders have been injured; where is your counter argument using the same logic?

Where does the numberplate go? There would have to be an ADR approved location, and standardised mounting equipment. This is where front facing identifiers on motorbikes has repeatedly fallen down. Who pays for the plate?

And don't use any part of the rider as your answer; you are identifying the VEHICLE not the rider. Just like a car.

There are arguments on all sides; the fact remains that plenty more riders are killed by inattentive motorists; than motorists are killed by errant cyclists.

Yet every time a cyclist is killed or injured, the instant reaction is the universal call for cycling registration.

This is exactly what has prompted the latest call.

Would an identifier have stopped the helmetless cyclist in the city on thursday from riding his bike through a red traffic light, and under a bus?

No.

Why can't all just get along?

[r32-25t]

If I hit something and leave the scene of the accident I'm identified via my number plate when it is handed to the authorities, the police then turn up to my door and hand me an even bigger fine for leaving

Attach the plate under the rear of the seat facing rearwards just like on a motorbike

You own a bike and a car so you still pay road tax but what about all those people who live in the city who only own a bicycle? They still get to use the road without paying road tax! and as I've said why am I paying for them to have their own lane for them to just use mine anyway?

[Daleo]

If I hit something and leave the scene of the accident I'm identified via my number plate when it is handed to the authorities, the police then turn up to my door and hand me an even bigger fine for leaving

Attach the plate under the rear of the seat facing rearwards just like on a motorbike

You own a bike and a car so you still pay road tax but what about all those people who live in the city who only own a bicycle? They still get to use the road without paying road tax! and as I've said why am I paying for them to have their own lane for them to just use mine anyway?

Yet if you leave the scene of an accident where a cyclist has been injured; there is unlikely to be an additional fine, if in fact you are fined for your actions at all.

Attach it how? To the threaded mounting holes or bracket provided by the bicycle manufacturer? Like on a motorbike?

They don't do this; and for a market as small as Australia; I can guarantee they wouldn't either.

For the record; I'm not unsupportive of this idea; but I am playing devils advocate on the issue.

These questions WILL have to be answered before plates can be fitted across the board.

Plenty of the city dwelling sole bike riding individuals you speak of, still have licenses, even if they only use them as a form of I.D.

For the 11ty billionth time: "ROAD TAX" DOESN'T PAY FOR ROADS! Yet another flat earth misconception peddled by the ill informed. Even the old 3x3 levy introduced many years ago as a punitive levy applied to fuel never went directly to roads; it went into consolidated revenue. Even the tax revenue from fuel sales (which actually make far more sense in our bullshit "user pays" society) doesn't go directly to road funding. Nor does the money raised by "Safety Camera's".

Why? These both make more sense.

Where on your vehicle registration papers does this "Road Tax" appear? The only tax I can see on mine is a $226 MOTOR VEHICLE tax.

Did you spot the key word there?

There is nowhere near enough money accrued by the fees attached to licenses and Vehicle registration renewals to adequately fund road building/road maintenance.

The bulk of funding for roads comes from the residents paying land rates to the council in their area. Do you own a property in your area?

Why should I pay for you to drive on the roads in my area; that MY rates went toward building?

Screw you man; pay for your own rajab damn road into my suburb.

How much damage does a 12kg bicycle do to a road? How much damage does 1000 bicycles do? The same as one car? Less? How much less?

I'd say the damage is essentially immeasurable.

It's a nonsensical argument.

Federally funded roads get their funding from consolidated tax revenue; so if you pay tax; you have paid for the road.

Next argument please.

[533 RYC]

I agree with both sides of the argument. I club raced for years, My family background has cycle racing going back 4 generations. I'm ALWAYS very aware of cyclists (& motorcyclists for that matter, as I ride them too) & have blasted & abused quite a few other motorists for not giving way &/or enough room for a cyclist.

But, as road users who are ENTITLED, as Dale stated, to have full use of a lane, they should follow road rules. I retract parts of my previous statement. If they bring it in, not everyone will follow it & how do you police it? Employ 20,000 Bicycle mounted police across the state? I don't think so........

The biggest thing I hate is ANY mode of transport running red lights. I was shocked when I first moved to Sydney. In Sydney, a red light means 3 more cars can get through. All motorists need to clean their act up,& the police need to crack down on it. I've seen police be in a position to book people, but they turn a blind eye to it. IT SUCKS!

[GTR-N1]

Some deep and rational thinking on this page mixed with quite a bit of intensity.

There is always going to be some heated debate between rights and responsibility - not just on this forum, but on the road as well.

So if registration is to be brought in, should it be only in capital cities? Could or should country areas or non built up areas be exempt?