Safe Passing Legislation to be debated in Parliament Thursda

[CycleSnail]

Thursday morning (16.10.2014) MLC Lynn MacLaren will debate a private member’s Bill to establish a minimum one metre safe distance for cyclists on roads in an effort to decrease accidents which cause death and serious injury.

Concerned cyclists should gather on the steps of Parliament Thursday 9:30 AM to welcome the Road Traffic Amendment (Keeping Safe Distances from Bicycles) Bill, which will require drivers of vehicles to leave a minimum distance when overtaking bicycle riders: one metre on roads up to 60 kilometres an hour, and 1.5 metres on other roads.

If you are unable to be at Parliament House tomorrow morning, take a few minutes and write to your local member. Some of the arguments supporting a legislated safe passing distance can be found on the BTA website here, and here, and here

Many people who are healthy, have access to a bicycle and live within cycling distance of their destination choose to use their cars because they are afraid of cycling in traffic among sometimes stressful situations. Why cycle if the car drive is less frightening and more familiar? The cycling academic John Pucher talks about riding a bicycle as “a benign activity carried out in a dangerous environment”. No Kidding! It’s a jungle out there and the evidence, if you chose to measure it in tragic accidents, is irrefutable.
The majority of cyclist fatalities (86%) involve a motor vehicle. A comprehensive study just published by the Monash University Accident Research Centre shows that an overwhelming (93.4%) number of unsafe car- cyclist interactions are caused by the behaviour of car drivers. And in over a third of these disturbing encounters the car was travelling in the same direction as the bicycle. The high percentage of serious injuries and deaths of cyclist being caused by cars driving in the same direction suggests that a legalised safe passing distance would be the first step in alleviating the justified fears of a commuting cyclist when he hears a car approaching from behind, colloquially referred to as “fear from the rear”.
Legislating passing distance works to change behaviour. A study into the effects of a 3-foot legalised passing distance in Baltimore did not find a single case where a car overtook a cyclist with less than 2’6” clearance. This means that cars were more aware of the need to give space and managed in most cases to do so.
When there is insufficient space to overtake safely, a car driver might sometimes have to wait for a couple of deep breaths. The few seconds’ delay he experiences would seem a small price to pay for an environment that allows safer sharing of our roads.

[wellington_street]

Really hope this gets up.

[CycleSnail]

Today, Amy Gillett Foundation CEO Tracey Gaudry released this letter to Members of Parliament of Western Australia following the advice from Greens MLC Lynn MacLaren that she will bring forward the debate for her Road Traffic (Keeping Safe Distances from Bicycles) Amendment Bill tomorrow.

a metre matters

Dear Members of Parliament of Western Australia,

The Amy Gillett Foundation urges you to keep the safety of all people using roads in Western Australia front of mind when debating the Road Traffic (Keeping Safe Distances from Bicycles) Amendment Bill in Parliament tomorrow.

A car hitting a bike rider from behind while travelling in the same direction is the most common crash type that results in a bike rider fatality. In 2013, 50 people died while riding their bike in Australia and currently we are trending towards 48 bike rider fatalities in 2014.

We believe that improving existing laws to provide motorists with a practical, measurable benchmark for safe passing distance will significantly improve safety and reduce death and injury for bike riders on Western Australian roads.

The Road Traffic (Keeping Safe Distances from Bicycles) Amendment Bill outlines a necessary passing distance of one metre for motorists when overtaking bike riders at speeds of up to 60kph, and 1.5 metres for speeds higher than 60kph.

Two governments at opposite ends of the political spectrum in Australia – Queensland and the ACT – have implemented safe passing distance legislation and are leading the way on proactive law-making that will decisively improve safety for bike riders on roads. We urge the Western Australian government to follow suit.

The Amy Gillett Foundation’s a metre matters campaign has spearheaded the national effort for state and territory governments to specify minimum passing distances for bike riders and we will continue to provide support around awareness and education for improved bike rider safety.

Please find attached a recent statement from the Amy Gillett Foundation Chairman, Mark Textor entitled Another Government says A Metre Matters emphasising the importance of minimum overtaking distance legislation.

Sincere Regards,

Tracey Gaudry
Chief Executive Officer

[rolandp]

Thursday morning (16.10.2014) MLC Lynn MacLaren will debate a private member’s Bill to establish a minimum one metre safe distance for cyclists on roads in an effort to decrease accidents which cause death and serious injury.

If you are unable to be at Parliament House tomorrow morning, take a few minutes and write to your local member. Some of the arguments supporting a legislated safe passing distance can be found on the BTA website here, and here, and here

Done - only moved house recently so don't know who my member of parliament is, so went a little higher.

[rolandp]

Flicking through some facebook photos on Ride to Work day, and noticed these ones:


Good to see a government department advertising this subject - even if it is only the cyclists from that department.

[Aushiker]

Done - only moved house recently so don't know who my member of parliament is, so went a little higher.

A new commute?

Andrew

[Aushiker]

Good to see a government department advertising this subject - even if it is only the cyclists from that department.

Nice find!

BTW does anyone know if Bicycling Western Australia has moved on its 100% opposition to minimum safe passing legislation?

Thanks
Andrew

[ColinOldnCranky]

Listening to Mark McGowan at the Bike2Work brekky yesterday I felt some disappointment when this was raised on the pulpit.

He seemed to be uncomfortable with it. Ludicrously he was saying that it should be "trialed" in a few places here and there. Sounded like he was more concerned with placating two diametrically opposed groups.

I can't imagine trialling a change of the way in which cars negotiate right of way on roundabouts for example.

A trial should be done universally or not at all. Mark McGowan, it's a simple proposal. Support it or argue against it. A trial in the manner you suggest would not make us any wiser and will not serve as much of a basis for any policy other than a policy on how NOT to test the water.

[archetuthus]

Watoday have put an article about this up now. As per usual the comments are a 'wonderful' place to visit. http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/oneme ... 16tpq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Le Mong]

[wellington_street]

^

[wellington_street]

In a lot of cases this rule will be a wast of time as there has been many times when my bullbar has missed a rider by millimeters so close I have looked in the mirrows to see if they are still upright.When you have a rider appear after a verhicle such as another truck or small van pops one out with no warning and sometimes even if you a gaining on one with on coming traffic a laden truck does not slow in time I have been forced to only just miss or even push them of the road with a loud blast as I don't intend to have a head one.There is such a great speed difference I have no way out so a miss is a miss even if only just.
CommenterRusty Location Date and time October 16, 2014, 4:31PM

It scares me that these are "professional drivers" we have to share the roads with.

[Thoglette]

It scares me that these are "professional drivers" we have to share the roads with.

yup, never mind that Regulation 124 already exists. Pushing someone off the road is not "a safe passing distance" F###wit

The Office of Road Safety advises

(1) As specified in part 11, division 3, regulation 124 of the Road Traffic Code 2000, a safe passing distance when overtaking is considered to be ''a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with that vehicle or to avoid obstructing the path of that vehicle''. Also, in part 11, division 1, regulation 109, a safe distance behind vehicles is considered to be a distance at which it ''will enable the driver to stop the vehicle in an emergency with safety, and without running into the vehicle in front of him or her''. In part 15, division 1, regulation 221, ''A person shall not ride a bicycle within 2 m of the rear of a motor vehicle, over a distance of more than 200 m.''

(2)–(3) Enforcement of the Road Traffic Code 2000 is the responsibility of WA Police. This question should be referred to the respective minister.

Question Without Notice No. 178 asked in the Legislative Council on 13 June 2013 by Hon Lynn Maclaren

Minister responding: Hon T.R. Buswell
Parliament: 39Session: 1

[hiflange]

Listening to Mark McGowan at the Bike2Work brekky yesterday I felt some disappointment when this was raised on the pulpit. He seemed to be uncomfortable with it.

My sense is that McGowan is only interested in the issue because the Libs are so obviously at sea on it.

[CycleSnail]

In parliament today it was pretty clear who understood cycling safety issues and who did not:

The arguments put forward by Liberal Michael Mischin opposing the legislation were uninspiring and ordinary and also incorrect.

In line with the arguments put forward by the RAC, the Office of Road Safety and the Police, Mr. Mischin seems to have taken his arguments from a study that was based on 61 crashes resulting in interviews with 31 cyclists who presented at one hospital in Adelaide over a period of three years. Only four of these cyclists were hospitalised as the result of an incident with a car travelling in the same direction.

It is difficult to draw valid conclusions from a such a small number of crashes, but that did not stop Mr. Mischin from making sweeping statements in regards to road safety…..

It would have been easy for Mr. Mischin to access other studies on car-cycling interactions, for instance the recent work by Dr. Marilyn Johnson in the ACT. She analyzed 460 hours of helmet cam footage and concluded that over a third (37.3%) of all interactions involved the driver and the cyclist travelling in the same direction. In my opinion this is at the high end for this type of accident.

Most studies put the “same direction” incidents at between 19% to 25%, and they are usually the largest single group of crashes, with intersection crashes being a close second.

For Mr. Mischin to claim that same direction crashes are not significant is wrong and careless.

In contrast Ken Travers from the ALP spoke well, demonstrating his extensive experience in Transport and politics. He agreed with the intent of the bill, but was weary of the legislative issues, suggesting that the government would be better off engaging in writing good legislation rather than simply trying to discredit this bill. He wanted bipartisan agreement that $10m cycling funding would continue irrespective who was in government. Observing that this debate was part of the intended behaviour change he suggested that large signs asking drivers to give cyclist a safe distance when overtaking would be nearly as good as getting a new law.

The ALP would support the bill today and so should the government, who then could do some of the things that improve cycling safety before the third reading of the bill. A cycling summit that includes government and non-government politicians as well as cycling groups could identify measures that would increase the number of cyclists and cycling safety.

[find_bruce]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-16/w ... aw/5820416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hkgts]

In my experience 99% of drivers give me enough distance when passing, it's just the 1%ers that risk my life by either purposely or inattentively passing way too close.

This law should be a no brainer, it supports 99% of current drivers that use good practice and makes the 1%ers aware that the annoying Lycra wearing cyclist they see is actually human after-all and not just a target.

I'll continue to ride with full alertness and respect to motorists, all while knowing full well that the government decided to not decrease the odds of my life being taken in a flash on our roads.

[Sinner]

I can understand Le Mong's frustration.

There are a number of cycle lanes at intersections which separate the left turn lane from ahead lanes. So if a left turn filter arrow comes on, how do the left turners maintain the 1m separation without mounting the kerb? Answer is they probably will stop and wait for the cyclists to go thus reducing the capacity of the intersection. Designers will then have to design 1m buffer lanes between the cycle lanes and the left turn lane.

[worzel]

On a slightly different tack, I was paddling up the inside of William St to the Hay St junction where the lights were red on Wednesday night - there was about a 60cm gap between the kerb and a bus so enough for me to get to the front of the queue. The bus driver saw me coming so moved left tight against the kerb to stop me getting past and forced me into a parking bay. If that is the mentality we are dealing with, what hope is there?

[wellington_street]

There are a number of cycle lanes at intersections which separate the left turn lane from ahead lanes. So if a left turn filter arrow comes on, how do the left turners maintain the 1m separation without mounting the kerb? Answer is they probably will stop and wait for the cyclists to go thus reducing the capacity of the intersection. Designers will then have to design 1m buffer lanes between the cycle lanes and the left turn lane.

The issue is the narrow cycle lanes we have in Perth. Regardless, the average width of a vehicle is approx 2.2m and the average lane width in the CBD would be 3.2, so why the need to mount the kerb? A large vehicle might have to wait but average/small vehicles will not.

[nitestick]

If you value your life, never, ever pass a large vehicle on the left.

On a slightly different tack, I was paddling up the inside of William St to the Hay St junction where the lights were red on Wednesday night - there was about a 60cm gap between the kerb and a bus so enough for me to get to the front of the queue. The bus driver saw me coming so moved left tight against the kerb to stop me getting past and forced me into a parking bay. If that is the mentality we are dealing with, what hope is there?

[Thoglette]

The bus driver saw me coming so moved left tight against the kerb to stop me

Bus drivers, like taxi drivers; truckers and VW Golf owners come in all sorts of different flavours - some are very understanding ; some stupid and some positively dangerous.

The nice thing about busses; taxis and SOME commerical vehicles is that you have an avenue of complaint - record the bus/taxi number; and write to the company running the bus/taxi AND the taxi board/transperth.

One complaing will be a drop in the ocean. But if the same driver has a stream of complaints, wheels will be set into motion. It also creates a stream of evidence should said dimwit driver actually hit someone - it establishes a pattern of bad behaviour which the two-wheeled complainant can present in court.

[CXCommuter]

If you value your life, never, ever pass a large vehicle on the left.

On a slightly different tack, I was paddling up the inside of William St to the Hay St junction where the lights were red on Wednesday night - there was about a 60cm gap between the kerb and a bus so enough for me to get to the front of the queue. The bus driver saw me coming so moved left tight against the kerb to stop me getting past and forced me into a parking bay. If that is the mentality we are dealing with, what hope is there?

Why, if it is stopped in traffic please point out the dangers (and is also perfectly legal)?

If it is moving and particularly near an intersection with indicators on then I would agree.

[nitestick]

He described heading towards lights. Don't head up a narrow path with no means of escape when the vehicle might begin moving. You'll be caught in a blind spot in an unexpected location, as regardless of the law most motorists will only expect a pass on the right.

EDIT: Have you ever observed how many vehicles drift leftward?

If you value your life, never, ever pass a large vehicle on the left.

On a slightly different tack, I was paddling up the inside of William St to the Hay St junction where the lights were red on Wednesday night - there was about a 60cm gap between the kerb and a bus so enough for me to get to the front of the queue. The bus driver saw me coming so moved left tight against the kerb to stop me getting past and forced me into a parking bay. If that is the mentality we are dealing with, what hope is there?

Why, if it is stopped in traffic please point out the dangers (and is also perfectly legal)?

If it is moving and particularly near an intersection with indicators on then I would agree.

[CXCommuter]

OP described approaching the lights- the response was an absolute i.e If you value your life, never, ever pass a large vehicle on the left