CyclingWA, Bicycling WA and Bicycle Transport Alliance unite

[Aushiker]

reads the headline at Perth Now. Forum member CycleSnail and Bicycle Transport Alliance executive officer promotes a call for safe passing distances. The story can be found in Perth Now.

A coalition made up of Cycling WA, Bicycling Western Australia and the Bicycle Transport Alliance, which represent more than 8000 cyclists, is calling for the zone to reduce the number of riders killed and injured on the road.

Alliance executive officer Heinrich Benz said motorists who breached the 1m zone should cop a $150 fine and lose three demerit points the same penalty as running a red light.

The proposal was put to road-safety advocates at an advisory forum in WA, which included Main Roads, the RAC, Office of Road Safety and WA Police.

The RAC agreed, while the ORS said more than 1m was needed on some roads.

Well done Heinrich and the BTA board.

Andrew

[blkmcs]

I'm a member of BTA and I am not calling for a 1 metre buffer zone, it would just be yet another unenforceable regulation.

[Aushiker]

I'm a member of BTA and I am not calling for a 1 metre buffer zone, it would just be yet another unenforceable regulation.

I assume you are in support of safe passing. Yes? If yes, how do you see it being regulated if not by a defined distance? It would seem that the current regulation is pretty much unenforceable unless actually hit. Seems to me that a defined buffer would be better than what we current have at least.

Andrew

[blkmcs]

I'm a member of BTA and I am not calling for a 1 metre buffer zone, it would just be yet another unenforceable regulation.

I assume you are in support of safe passing. Yes? If yes, how do you see it being regulated if not by a defined distance? It would seem that the current regulation is pretty much unenforceable unless actually hit. Seems to me that a defined buffer would be better than what we current have at least.

Andrew

Of course I support safe passing.

I metre may be unsafe in some situations and 20 cms safe in others.

There would, in my opinion, be more to gain by running a campaign to explain to road users why a 1 metre buffer is considered adviseable and the reasons why passing closer than that may be unsafe. Most drivers would regularly have to pass other road users and static obstacles at much less than 1 metre clearance and they do this time and time again without a collision and this may be why they consider it OK to pass a cyclist with the same clearance. Few drivers would be aware of how much a cross wind can move a cyclist off course or of the need to swerve to avoid broken glass or a pothole.

If a defined buffer zone is put in place how will it be enforced? If it is not enforced then it is useless.

Safe roads need Engineering, Education and Enforcement.

[blkmcs]

Andrew, I should add that your story in the Sunday Times today on the use of video will probably have more impact on driver behaviour than the BTA call for a 1 metre buffer.

Well done on getting it published.

[Aushiker]

I metre may be unsafe in some situations and 20 cms safe in others.

and when it is not safe what happens then? The law as it stands provides no protection and as I read your suggestion, it provides no protection. Maybe the one metre rule is not the best option but I think we need something. The UK rule seems vague as well.

Edit: Not arguing against education and agree 100% with that. I just think we need something to back it up.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

Andrew, I should add that your story in the Sunday Times today on the use of video will probably have more impact on driver behaviour than the BTA call for a 1 metre buffer.

Well done on getting it published.

Thanks. The photo is emabrassing as but ... I just chucked my helmet on for the photo and didn't put it on properly ...

Andrew

[trailgumby]

Andrew, I should add that your story in the Sunday Times today on the use of video will probably have more impact on driver behaviour than the BTA call for a 1 metre buffer.

Well done on getting it published.

Thanks. The photo is emabrassing as but ... I just chucked my helmet on for the photo and didn't put it on properly ...

Andrew

I was wondering about that

Given the intransigence of WA police to do anything about your previous video-documented requests for TINs to be issued for failure to allow safe passing distance, I think a "1 metre minimum" rule is the only way we're going to get them to pay attention. This "he didn't hit you, so it must have been safe" BS attitude MUST be killed off.

[KonaCommuter]

Given the intransigence of WA police to do anything about your previous video-documented requests for TINs to be issued for failure to allow safe passing distance, I think a "1 metre minimum" rule is the only way we're going to get them to pay attention. This "he didn't hit you, so it must have been safe" BS attitude MUST be killed off.

I agree 100%


A minimum of 1 meter could be enforced if it’s backed by video footage.

[blossy84]

I read those articles in the Sunday Times this morning as well. I thought it was odd to have Q&A's at the bottom of the page relating to road rules and not one rule mentioned in regard to cyclists. Wouldn't it have been a good idea by the newspaper to use the Q&A session to make people aware that cyclists are legally allowed to ride on the road, legally allowed to ride two abreast, etc etc. Especially considering the intro to the Q&A's mentioned the cyclist that got caught for speeding. It didn't make sense to me having the road rules they did on there after the cycling related articles.

[hotfoot]

I think thats a great idea blossy..putting cycling specific laws in the papers..somewhere prominant, not in the lost depths of the paper, would educate drivers to what is their actual rights and responsibilities...then they have NO excuse. A 1m distance as law would tell drivers EXACTLY what they were expected to do, not rely on their own (poor( judgement.

[Aushiker]

I read those articles in the Sunday Times this morning as well. I thought it was odd to have Q&A's at the bottom of the page relating to road rules and not one rule mentioned in regard to cyclists. Wouldn't it have been a good idea by the newspaper to use the Q&A session to make people aware that cyclists are legally allowed to ride on the road, legally allowed to ride two abreast, etc etc. Especially considering the intro to the Q&A's mentioned the cyclist that got caught for speeding. It didn't make sense to me having the road rules they did on there after the cycling related articles.

Good points.

Andrew

[il padrone]

I'm a member of BTA and I am not calling for a 1 metre buffer zone, it would just be yet another unenforceable regulation.

+1

Well, I'm not a BTA member, but you know what I mean.

I do agree with a minimum standard publicised and promoted through L-plate and licence testing, of 1m.... but only as a minimum at 60kmh. 80kmh - 1.5m. 100kmh - 2m. And the general principle that drivers should, for best safety, always overtake by making a FULL lane-change*. They'd do it for a moto, why not for a bicycle??

* my reading of the road rules, especially rule 146 (1) of the Victorian Road Rules, suggests this type of overtaking is legally required.

[CommuRider]

Other cycling groups in the country please take note of this initiative. Do something useful and MEANINGFUL with our membership $.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 6288135508

CYCLISTS are demanding a mandatory 1m "buffer zone" when being passed by cars in a move that has reignited the war between bike riders and motorists.

A coalition made up of Cycling WA, Bicycling Western Australia and the Bicycle Transport Alliance, which represent more than 8000 cyclists, is calling for the zone to reduce the number of riders killed and injured on the road. Alliance executive officer Heinrich Benz said motorists who breached the 1m zone should cop a $150 fine and lose three demerit points the same penalty as running a red light. The proposal was put to road-safety advocates at an advisory forum in WA, which included Main Roads, the RAC, Office of Road Safety and WA Police. The RAC agreed, while the ORS said more than 1m was needed on some roads.

Mr Benz is also demanding:

- Bicycle safety be added to the school curriculum.
- New questions be added to the driver's licence theory test about cyclists.
- Bike riders be given a five-second head start at traffic lights.

[Aushiker]

See http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 53&t=50205 for the thread on the same story.

Andrew

[CommuRider]

Thanks @Aushiker, I was looking for a thread already posted on it. Mods please lock

If sandgropers can do it, why are our East Coaster bicycling groups so incompetent/deaf/impotent to do something similar?!

[il padrone]

I think the difference is that a motor vehicle driver knows the moto can catch up and exact a bilious diatribe upon them (or more). whereas they figure a cyclist cannot catch them up.

So very true I do believe.

[Aushiker]

It seems this story has made the Channel 10 news in Perth, my videos where used and the RAC is apparently not supporting the one metre rule. Their argument is that it is not enforceable. Well RAC the current rule isn't either!

Time to let the RAC know that cyclists lives are valuable too. Heck the RAC is the Vulnerable Users representative on the Office of Road Safety.

Hopefully the story will show up tomorrow.

Andrew

[citywomble]

Just a thought.

If cyclists are successful in getting a 1.0m buffer zone then presumably that would preclude overtaking slow moving traffic on the left.

If a car is prohibited from passing a slower cyclist then surely the same rule would apply when cars are slower in traffic queues. The cyclist would have to give 1m to the cars!

Also what about cyclists passing slower cyclists. I ride on shared paths at about 15 - 20kph which is about right for safety.
I am pi**ed off by faster cyclists that blast past me and my young son and his friends at ridiculously fast speeds so close that I can feel it. Unnerving to say the least (with no warning or even a bell on their bikes). So give us the one metre too.

Also, a very valid point from the replies to Perth Now that the same 1.0m gap should be a rule when a cyclist is passing pedestrians!

[RonK]

I'm a member of BTA and I am not calling for a 1 metre buffer zone, it would just be yet another unenforceable regulation.

+1

Well, I'm not a BTA member, but you know what I mean.

I do agree with a minimum standard publicised and promoted through L-plate and licence testing, of 1m.... but only as a minimum at 60kmh. 80kmh - 1.5m. 100kmh - 2m. And the general principle that drivers should, for best safety, always overtake by making a FULL lane-change*. They'd do it for a moto, why not for a bicycle??

* my reading of the road rules, especially rule 146 (1) of the Victorian Road Rules, suggests this type of overtaking is legally required.

I have been thinking about the metre matters campaign quite a lot lately, and have been observing how closely drivers overtake me, and my own tolerance levels to them.

My tolerance levels are quite high, and in 60 kmh traffic cars passing by one metre away barely register. But when a truck passes by that closely it's a different matter - it may be simply a matter of perception or intimidation by the sheer size of the vehicle, but my tolerance is tested. And when in faster traffic, in an 80 or 100 kph zone, a one metre passing distance even for cars seems much to close.

If a simple one metre rule became law, I'd be concerned that many motorists would interpret this as an entitlement to pass at this distance regardless of the conditions, speed or size of the vehicle, just as they assume they are entitled to travel at the posted speed limit under any conditions.

[find_bruce]

I love the comments - they are a great insight into the "thinking" of people who, in the wonder that is democracy, have the same right to vote. Just to pick one example

... I have to put up with cyclist riding all over the road disobeying laws, abusing other motorist for just driving past. ... I was on Jutland parade when I saw a trades man trying to pass cyclist which cut him off and proceeded to verbally and fiscally abuse the driver ...

Lets be honest, who wouldn't love to fiscally abuse a trades man ? The instructions aren't quite clear though as I can't quite follow how to translate "shouting and pulling finger signs" into fiscal abuse.

Oh & Andrew, in light of some of the comments from Cyclist fights back, videos close calls on WA roads you may be needing to deal with some deliberate driver behaviour. Stay safe.

[Aushiker]

Oh & Andrew, in light of some of the comments from Cyclist fights back, videos close calls on WA roads you may be needing to deal with some deliberate driver behaviour. Stay safe.

Thanks for your concern. I rode this morning without any dramas; well one car decided to back out on to the road without consideration but nothing too serious; just simply a failure to properly look.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

citywomble, there's a big difference between the risk of being passed by a motor vehicle and accepting the risk of passing motor vehicle. the defining situation is who is passing whom and as a result who is creating the greater risk. the risk created when a cyclist passes a near stationary or stationary motor vehicle is minor and certainly not life threatening to the motorist. the opposite is not true as we all know from video we see featured all the time and experience..

This is in my view a key point. There seems to be the trend to assume the risk to others by a cyclists is equal to a motor vehicle. It clearly isn't. This also applies to pedestrians. Approximately 180 pedestrians (I haven't checked the very latest data) where killed in Australia in the past 12 months. I believe a study of coroner's finding found that the at fault rate attributed to pedestrian was around 80%, so potentially 144 of those deaths where the fault of the pedestrian, yet there is strong focus on cyclists as being the issue ... cyclists are not killing people .. the statistics clearly show this. Motorist are killing people and if the data is correct, pedestrians are killing themselves. In the same period around 35 cyclists where killed.

I am not saying that they shouldn't ride safely and in a considerate manner around pedestrians and motorists, but some more informed and reasoned discussion is need I think.

Andrew

[find_bruce]

....

... I have to put up with cyclist riding all over the road disobeying laws, abusing other motorist for just driving past. ... I was on Jutland parade when I saw a trades man trying to pass cyclist which cut him off and proceeded to verbally and fiscally abuse the driver ...

....

interesting, was this trades person the state or federal treasurer I wonder? applying fiscal abuse implies they were abusing them through budgetary measures. maybe "Jake of Perth" means physical? got to love the high educational standards of Australia.

I would completely understand if English was his second (or 3rd etc) language, after all my french & german grammer are pretty lousy. But I put the quote in because, like you, I suspect he is our very own "get a brain moran"

[Aushiker]

I have been given a copy of the related Channel 10 story from Sunday night. I have converted it over to format that would allow me to upload it to YouTube (hence the watermark). You can find it below.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0_o31Tfp4&hd=1[/youtube]

Andrew