BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby The 2nd Womble » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:07 pm

P.S.

Sorry for my late entry into this. Better late than never when it comes to aspousing my opinion where BQ is concerned.
As for action? Perhaps (perhaps not) despite BQ's lack of interest in anything other than their 100 square km of Brisbane bike paths (Qld goes how far in all directions?!), the Cycling Issues Inquiry hands it's findings down no later than November 29, and the #survive1point5 petition must be responded to by the Transport Minister by November 28. Maybe a change is coming.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

by BNA » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:55 pm

BNA
 

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby il padrone » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:55 pm

The 2nd Womble wrote:Funny thing about BQ not supporting a minimum safe passing distance rule. Their tshirts always said differently. Maybe (shock horror) they were paid to push Wayne Goss' agenda at the time.
BQ don't have the ability to think for themselves. Money does strange things to a bunch of knee high socks and sandles wearing bearded penny farthing enthusiasts.

If BQ is anything like BV, then the body of 1993 was an entirely different beast to that which strolls the streets today.

BV in 1982 was revolutionised by those very "knee high socks and sandals wearing penny farthing enthusiasts" amongst which I count a good number of my friends (although I very rarely see them cycling in knee high socks nor sandals). BV had been built from a tiny, somewhat radical but entirely ineffectual body; into a much more viable lobby group with a strong and clear position on major cycling issues - built on the financial & membership power of the GVBR. Then in 1995 Ted Parker passed away untimely...... and the Harry Barber era began :(

Since then it's abandoned major assets, run unviable rides, and turned into an anonymous corporate "health charity". None of that was in any way due to sandals wearers, nor penny farthing enthusiasts.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18283
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby The 2nd Womble » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:04 pm

I highly doubt BQ was ever anything like BN.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby zero » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:27 pm

InTheWoods wrote:Being assertive and claiming the lane in Brisbane avoids careless close passes, but you are guaranteed to get punishment passes that are very fast and close to teach you a lesson. It doesn't matter if you are in the left wheel line, right wheel line, or centre of the lane.

Not sure what the second half of your video really shows. The road seems to be reasonably wide and there is a shoulder - you're probably not going to get much trouble along there anyway. Try doing that with no shoulder and the minimum legal lane width.


Anyone that does that, wanted to pass without moving over, so they will pass you closely anyway. Best off making it physically impossible for them to fit in the lane alongside you at all.
zero
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby high_tea » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:09 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
il padrone wrote:Rule 140 and 144 set the scene here. Safe overtaking is the key. Anyone who argues that a 2cm margin is 'safe' because a collision did not result has rocks for brains. The intent of the law is very clear and the relative speeds of vehicles and the nature of their movement and physical features are a key aspect of the level of safety.


The rule is not the title of the rule. While the title of 144 says safe, the actual rule contents only say don't collide, and that is enough to defend yourself in court - you can't break the "title" of a rule, see my example of rule 77.



Okay, we're well and truly down the rabbit hole of statutory interpretation, but what the hell. Let's press on a bit further.

There's a rule which basically says that words in a statute have to be given some effect. IOW, interpretations that don't read words or phrases down to nothing are preferred over ones that do. Or, as the High Court put it

Furthermore, a court construing a statutory provision must strive to give meaning to every word of the provision. In The Commonwealth v Baume Griffith CJ cited R v Berchet to support the proposition that it was "a known rule in the interpretation of Statutes that such a sense is to be made upon the whole as that no clause, sentence, or word shall prove superfluous, void, or insignificant, if by any other construction they may all be made useful and pertinent

(footnotes omitted)

This is from Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28, para 71

Now, the relevant bit of r144 reads:

must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and

(emphasis added)

This no-harm-no-foul interpretation makes "pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to" superfluous. The High Court, the ultimate authority on statutory interpretation in Australia says not to do that. There's another interpretation available that doesn't have this vice, the one that fits the title of the rule. That's good enough for me until someone shows me a reported decision that says different.
Last edited by high_tea on Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby InTheWoods » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:20 pm

Well that was interesting!
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: BQ's non-support for minimum safe passing distance

Postby high_tea » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:00 pm

BTW, I can certainly come at the idea that for a law like this, which is meant to be pretty much universally understood and followed, shouldn't need this sort of close reading. That's an issue with the wording, not the substance of the law.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Previous

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit