Poll on one meter passing distance - go and vote!

[casual_cyclist]

Correction: that little man in my head tells me "I must wait until I can

I agree with womble. When I am driving my car, I come across lots of situations where it is unsafe to overtake a slower vehicle. A slower vechicle might be a bus, truck, van, older car or cyclist. Impediments to overtaking might be trees, medians, traffic calming, oncoming traffic or visibility. In those situations I simply travel behind the slow vehicle until safe to overtake. It is my imperative to drive safely and obey the road laws at all times. It is not my imperative to be in front of a slower vehicle at any cost. As mentioned above, it's not rocket surgery. As a side note, I am most often required to travel at a speed that is less than the speed limit by buses and not by cyclists.

[Summernight]

Must. Get. In. Front.

I have an inner MGIF. I'll admit it to this anonymous counselling group. Hi, my name is Summer and I am an MGIF sufferer.

I have to keep bashing it down until it is safe to overtake whatever I'm overtaking. I take extra precautions with cyclists, children and horses/cattle/sheep/animals.

I saw a herd of kangaroos on the road in front of my car on the weekend. What did I do? Stopped the car (it was a country road), took photos of them all staring at me and enjoyed the wildlife until they hopped away. One even had a joey sticking its head out of the pouch. So cute.

How much time did I lose doing that? A minute. Barely a blip on the time scale.

[casual_cyclist]

Must. Get. In. Front.

I have an inner MGIF. I'll admit it to this anonymous counselling group. Hi, my name is Summer and I am an MGIF sufferer.

I have to keep bashing it down until it is safe to overtake whatever I'm overtaking.

MGIF is a common affliction affecting many motorists. Why just last week I was travelling in my motor vehicle on a 50km/h residential street, followed by an oversized vehicle with an impatient driver suffering from MGIF syndrome. Upon reaching my street, I slowed and indicated my intention to turn right. Generally the symbols of brake lights and a flashing indicator light signal a warning and indicate the driver of the vehicle is desirous of imminently executing a right hand turning manoeuvre. Aware that I had made my intentions well known, I proceeded to execute my planned and forewarned right-hand turning manoeuvre only to find that mr MGIF had decided it was an opportune and appropriate time and location to overtake me at speed on my right, thus blocking my path to travel into my street. I swerved sharply to avoid a collision and he braked heavily to unimpede my manoeuvre. I found it exceedingly upsetting to almost be cleaned up by another driver that appeared to be driven by the sole imperative to Get In Front. Equally upsetting was that the driver stared at me like I was doing something wrong. Oh yes mr MGIF, I apologise for impeding your progress by driving down a road at the speed limit, indicating, braking and turning right. How Very Dare I.

[Summernight]

MGIF is a common affliction affecting many motorists. Why just last week I was travelling in my motor vehicle on a 50km/h residential street, followed by an oversized vehicle with an impatient driver suffering from MGIF syndrome. Upon reaching my street, I slowed and indicated my intention to turn right. Generally the symbols of brake lights and a flashing indicator light signal a warning and indicate the driver of the vehicle is desirous of imminently executing a right hand turning manoeuvre. Aware that I had made my intentions well known, I proceeded to execute my planned and forewarned right-hand turning manoeuvre only to find that mr MGIF had decided it was an opportune and appropriate time and location to overtake me at speed on my right, thus blocking my path to travel into my street. I swerved sharply to avoid a collision and he braked heavily to unimpede my manoeuvre. I found it exceedingly upsetting to almost be cleaned up by another driver that appeared to be driven by the sole imperative to Get In Front. Equally upsetting was that the driver stared at me like I was doing something wrong. Oh yes mr MGIF, I apologise for impeding your progress by driving down a road at the speed limit, indicating, braking and turning right. How Very Dare I.

I've been honked and abused when on a bicycle by someone doing that. I did the whole indicating, moving over to the centre of the road to claim the lane (it was a sidestreet with no lane markings) and still had the guy think he could accelerate on the right of me to overtake. Even my waving arm saying I'm turning now, don't you dare overtake me on the right got abuse as a response. Charming

[Evo6point5]

Maybe I'm pessimistic (read: realistic) but who's going to police these laws if introduced?

There are laws against road rage, tailgating, cutting off and other anti-cyclist maneuvers but this has no impact on drivers in my experience. Too many close calls have left me thinking holy crap they nearly killed me so now do 80% of training on the boring fluid.

laws don't change the mentality and until that can change we're all on hitlists.

[Jackfrost]

Frankly the only way to know you, as a driver, aren't closer than 1 metre would be to change lanes to overtake, which is the safest option anyway.

And when there is continual oncoming traffic or centre islands?

And there's the problem with our roads. "And what if?" If what if occurs, don't overtake. It's not rocket surgery is it? What if I don't have room for any one if a million reasons? I choose to wait until I can.

No, you are going off on a tangent. The suggestion was that a driver should cross change lanes to overtake and I questioned what then if this is not possible? This takes us back to the proposal for a 1m law and the question is: How will a driver be able to determine if there is 1m to pass and how will Police be able to detect and prove that a motorist went within 1m of a cyclist. How will they prove that the cyclist did not close the 1m gap as the vehicles passed? There are so many holes in the logic of this law and how it will be applied and enforced that it is not even worth debating.

[eldavo]

In your driving test to get your license you can't deviate more than 1m from the curb in a reverse parallel park or some such.
If you hold a license you've been tested, so it's not impossible to prove knowledge of what a metre is from inside a vehicle.
Like hoon laws, Police witnesses are usually the only ones who will succeed in convictions, as it will take far too much evidence unlikely to be available for public witnesses or footage to prove. That said footage with road markers and other reference points can be used.

The examples of the QLD 1 metre submission footage show recently easily shows two riders and a truck close shave on a highway.
Width of their shoulders and video frames will give an easy idea for something that is obviously too close or borderline and may not be pursued at all.
So it's not rocket science for policing and convictions.

They have had 1800 catch a hoon campaigns for political gain before, nothing wrong with prioritising human life ahead of vehicle arrogance and saying as a society it's not acceptable and we've made the effort to put it in law.

I had an idiot threaten to run me down because I crossed the PSP crossing 30metres in front of him. His justification for being a stoned Judge Dredd was that I shouldn't be on the footpath, that I corrected him was a PSP. At 7am he probably had depth perception mind altering drugs affecting him to have got the distances so wrong and to sit on the horn after I'm in the crossing median well after I stopped.
If someone like this needs to know what right and wrong is by law to determine whether to run me down or not, I'd prefer to take a chance on the law.

[The 2nd Womble]

Please Jackfrost, do make the effort and argue your point. Otherwise you're just another idiot with an opinion and a rolled down window.

[exadios]

Please Jackfrost, do make the effort and argue your point. Otherwise you're just another idiot with an opinion and a rolled down window.

He has argued his point - which is that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that when a vehicle passes a bike at distance x that x is known to a certain accuracy and that x is less than 1 meter. Otherwise the driver walks.

[eldavo]

We aren't reinventing the wheel or the first to do it, I hardly see any debate in this as any professional in the chain of legislature has a good head start.
The PDF on the amygillette site lays it out clearly.

P.s. if infrastructure catches up, crossing solid lines and into bus or cycle lanes/reserves is same burden as a single officer witnessing someone passing on double solid lines.
Not complicated, plenty of precedent and prosecutions.

[mikesbytes]

[mod]Guys you know the rules. Calling each other names is simply rude and unacceptable. I'll keep an eye on this thread so be good little boys

Lets see who can post the most intelligent responses [/mod]

[The 2nd Womble]

[mod]Guys you know the rules. Calling each other names is simply rude and unacceptable. I'll keep an eye on this thread so be good little boys

Lets see who can post the most intelligent responses [/mod]

You are.

[Summernight]

And when there is continual oncoming traffic or centre islands?

And there's the problem with our roads. "And what if?" If what if occurs, don't overtake. It's not rocket surgery is it? What if I don't have room for any one if a million reasons? I choose to wait until I can.

No, you are going off on a tangent. The suggestion was that a driver should cross change lanes to overtake and I questioned what then if this is not possible? This takes us back to the proposal for a 1m law and the question is: How will a driver be able to determine if there is 1m to pass and how will Police be able to detect and prove that a motorist went within 1m of a cyclist. How will they prove that the cyclist did not close the 1m gap as the vehicles passed? There are so many holes in the logic of this law and how it will be applied and enforced that it is not even worth debating.

I don't see the problem with the driver having to change lanes to overtake - this is what happens when you have large slower vehicles in front of you (ie. tractor, horse and carriage, truck). You have to slow down and MUST change lanes to overtake them (as they are taking up the whole lane anyway) and if it isn't safe or the road doesn't allow you (double lines etc.), you don't do it - you wait until a more appropriate time and THEN overtake.

Why is there angst about this just because it is cyclists instead of the tractor etc.? Slow down until safe to overtake.

Those few seconds you are waiting may make you smell the roses instead of having steam coming out your ears. Try and enjoy the journey as well as the destination.

This is why in some areas I claim the lane - making cars change lanes to overtake me. Why? Because it is safer for me and they are less likely to make a bad decision and have to live with possibly hitting and killing me because they miscalculated their distances.

[CycleSnail]

I think a legalised safe passing distance of at least one meter will be a good starting point for an education campaign aimed at car drivers.

As long as people on bicycles are exposed to the danger of cars driving in the same direction we will not see a substantial increase in cycling participation to European levels. Worthwhile remembering that of the crashes that lead to hospitalisation, being run over or sideswipped by a car is the most frequent reason, on a par with a car driving accross the cyclists path. 87% of cyclist deaths in Britain last year involved a car. I think better protection of cyclists is called for.

There is a useful paper on the arguments surrounding the one meter rule on the Amy Gillette website. As I indicated in an earlier post, Tracey Gaudry of the AMG will be in Perth next week, and she will be at the RAC Tuesday 13th August 0930 onwards. Contact marianne.carey (at) rac.com.au if you would like to attend.

[The 2nd Womble]

Yes, we've seen how well education has served the cycling community. New laws with serious penalties are introduced on an almost weekly basis in this country. It's not too much to expect some to finally be introduced for us after years of nothing (failed education efforts and mounting road toll)? The last thing the AGF wants to do is upset anyone by asking for something meaningful.

[eldavo]

(Psst... T2W, you'll find that common ground you agree on in the 1st sentence of his post

[The 2nd Womble]

(Psst... T2W, you'll find that common ground you agree on in the 1st sentence of his post

Shush you.

[jlh]

I would think the main benefit of implementing '1m passing distance' legislation is more to do with raising awareness rather than actually enforcing the law.

[exadios]

I would think the main benefit of implementing '1m passing distance' legislation is more to do with raising awareness rather than actually enforcing the law.

But surely implementing lefislation that is enforcable would be even more beneficial - like mandatory lane change before passing.

[CycleSnail]

I would think the main benefit of implementing '1m passing distance' legislation is more to do with raising awareness rather than actually enforcing the law.

But surely implementing lefislation that is enforcable would be even more beneficial - like mandatory lane change before passing.

Perhaps if we look what other countries are doing, and how their motorists view people on bicycles, we can step back, reflect and then nudge Australia in a better (cycling) direction just a little bit. For instance as described in this BBC article (look at the photos if you dont have the time to read it).

A legalised safe passing distance by itself will achieve little, but each time these types of discussions emerge, with all the pro's and con's, cycling for transport is advanced. With the support of people who ride bicycles to work, school, trains and shops we continue to push for changes in law, changes in road rules, urban design, lower speeds on selected roads and infrastructure spending. It is useful to see the bigger picture and all work towards some progress, rather than fighting a trench war about what would be even better ...

[The 2nd Womble]

You make it sound as though asking for meaningful change is asking for too much. No, we shouldn't ve happy with "that'll probably do" because its too difficult otherwise. I don't know about you Snail, but its most distressing to me when the grieving relatives of dead cyclists come to me and ask what can be done to ensure this never happens again. A law that falls over for the lack of meaningful penalties befitting the result of a life lost, or because it is essentially unenforceable because its simply not worth the Police pursuing it considering its purely "educational" function will not satisfy the families, most of the members here or myself. Suggesting that a law be wishywashy just to get it passed by parliament is a cop out. Just as some jurisdictions use this law as a "meh", there are just as many who enforce it and attach meaningful penalties to it.
This comes down to the moral conscience of our politicians and our advocates. Don't tell people a metre matters if it will only cost someone a cheap lunch for ignoring that metre.

[CycleSnail]

You make it sound as though asking for meaningful change is asking for too much. No, we shouldn't ve happy with "that'll probably do" because its too difficult otherwise. I don't know about you Snail, but its most distressing to me when the grieving relatives of dead cyclists come to me and ask what can be done to ensure this never happens again. A law that falls over for the lack of meaningful penalties befitting the result of a life lost, or because it is essentially unenforceable because its simply not worth the Police pursuing it considering its purely "educational" function will not satisfy the families, most of the members here or myself. Suggesting that a law be wishywashy just to get it passed by parliament is a cop out. Just as some jurisdictions use this law as a "meh", there are just as many who enforce it and attach meaningful penalties to it.
This comes down to the moral conscience of our politicians and our advocates. Don't tell people a metre matters if it will only cost someone a cheap lunch for ignoring that metre.

Not sure how to reconcile your comment with what I was writing, and even less with what my intentions are

[The 2nd Womble]

Then why promote "a metre matters" so heavily? Minimum safe passing distance legislation is one of the main reasons for the existence of the Qld Inquiry and is the core focus of the AGF.

[CycleSnail]

Then why promote "a metre matters" so heavily? Minimum safe passing distance legislation is one of the main reasons for the existence of the Qld Inquiry and is the core focus of the AGF.

Because it is one of a number of things that we do that will hopefully lead to an increase in cycling participation and to a safer environment for people who choose to use a bicycle to go to work, school, train stations and shops. In WA (the location of this forum section), we have not had a inquiry like Qld (well done, Qld!). And if we do, I would hope that all people who cycle for transport (and supporting organisations) will come up with similar positions on cycling safety issues, to increase the chance of positive changes in legislation.

[exadios]

I would think the main benefit of implementing '1m passing distance' legislation is more to do with raising awareness rather than actually enforcing the law.

But surely implementing lefislation that is enforcable would be even more beneficial - like mandatory lane change before passing.

Perhaps if we look what other countries are doing, and how their motorists view people on bicycles, we can step back, reflect and then nudge Australia in a better (cycling) direction just a little bit. For instance as described in this BBC article (look at the photos if you dont have the time to read it).

A legalised safe passing distance by itself will achieve little, but each time these types of discussions emerge, with all the pro's and con's, cycling for transport is advanced. With the support of people who ride bicycles to work, school, trains and shops we continue to push for changes in law, changes in road rules, urban design, lower speeds on selected roads and infrastructure spending. It is useful to see the bigger picture and all work towards some progress, rather than fighting a trench war about what would be even better ...

What has the article have to do with a 1m safe passing distance law?