Min 1 Metre may be law

[PB12IN]

How about a law that if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the motor vehicle is ALWAYS at fault and we have SERIOUS penalties instead of the slap on the writs motorists get for murdering cyclists at the moment.

Because I have seen a bike get hit because he came right out of a side street infront of a car and there was no way that the car had any time to stop. As much as there are people on this forum that refuse to believe it sometime people on bikes do ride recklessly and dangerously and are the cause of accidents.

[Tornado]

Apologies, Tornado. MGIF = Must Get In Front.

(Unless you were being facetious, then you got me. )

I honestly had no idea.

[g-boaf]

How about a law that if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the motor vehicle is ALWAYS at fault and we have SERIOUS penalties instead of the slap on the writs motorists get for murdering cyclists at the moment.

Because I have seen a bike get hit because he came right out of a side street infront of a car and there was no way that the car had any time to stop. As much as there are people on this forum that refuse to believe it sometime people on bikes do ride recklessly and dangerously and are the cause of accidents.

Sometimes bicycles may deliberately go inside 1 or 1.5m of a car as well. So the 1m or 1.5m law was argued against too for that reason - as sometimes people on bikes do ride recklessly and dangerously and are the cause of accidents.

That's sometimes, but often, there are a whole lot of good riders who do ride carefully and don't just go blasting out of a side street.

The onus does need to be on the car driver to prove they didn't cause the accident with their driving. If that means cars driving along with cameras as happens in Russia, then fair enough, too. After all, some car drivers do the craziest things - they play with radios, phones, etc. I was a passenger in a car yesterday that was rammed up the back and into another car by a driver. We were stopped, then bang! No injuries, and surprisingly the wagon we were in came out of it without much damage. I thought we'd have the back shunted in to the rear seats. In those cases, as car driver you need a camera.

I honestly had no idea.

You're not the only one.

[KonaCommuter]

I'm very happy for cars to be fitted with cameras. So much so I think that it should be an Australian standard and a part of a vehicles roadworthy. Chuck a Black box GPS in there as well and the motorist has an easy defence that they were in the right. They weren't speeding, didn't run the red light, overtook the cyclist safely, didn't accelerate at the sight of a yellow light, weren't tailgating and they weren't texting/ on the phone (camera views driver as well). Make the black box & cameras linked to the ignition.

Whilst I'm at it could we get rego notices changed to highlight the pitiful amount that they pay for roads? "This year you pay $40 towards federal roads. Don't drive on local roads outside of your city / town because you sure didn't pay for them"

[elantra]

I'm very happy for cars to be fitted with cameras. So much so I think that it should be an Australian standard and a part of a vehicles roadworthy. Chuck a Black box GPS in there as well and the motorist has an easy defence that they were in the right. They weren't speeding, didn't run the red light, overtook the cyclist safely, didn't accelerate at the sight of a yellow light, weren't tailgating and they weren't texting/ on the phone (camera views driver as well). Make the black box & cameras linked to the ignition.
..............................................................................................

Absolutely Agree. About time this was introduced.
But of course the motor retail industry is massive and would scream blue murder.
Motor building industry might approve but unfortunately there is not much of this that remains down under and soon to be even less. (R.I.P. Falcon)

[PB12IN]

The onus does need to be on the car driver to prove they didn't cause the accident with their driving. If that means cars driving along with cameras as happens in Russia, then fair enough, too. After all, some car drivers do the craziest things - they play with radios, phones, etc. I was a passenger in a car yesterday that was rammed up the back and into another car by a driver. We were stopped, then bang! No injuries, and surprisingly the wagon we were in came out of it without much damage. I thought we'd have the back shunted in to the rear seats. In those cases, as car driver you need a camera.

Guilty until proven innocent?
What a load of rubbish, it is that sort of attitude that the idiots use to label us all as arrogant and self-righteous, thinking everyone else needs to bend around us.
Why don’t we make it that cyclists have to have cameras too? We like to claim we are vehicles too, why aren’t we held to the exact same standards as cars. (why not equip every ped with a chest or head mount too just to cover everyone?)
As for saying it is car drivers doing the craziest things have you looked in the dumb cyclists and peds thread recently? There are plenty of examples of cyclists of all types doing stupid and dangerous things.

[elantra]

The onus does need to be on the car driver to prove they didn't cause the accident with their driving. If that means cars driving along with cameras as happens in Russia, then fair enough, too. After all, some car drivers do the craziest things - they play with radios, phones, etc. I was a passenger in a car yesterday that was rammed up the back and into another car by a driver. We were stopped, then bang! No injuries, and surprisingly the wagon we were in came out of it without much damage. I thought we'd have the back shunted in to the rear seats. In those cases, as car driver you need a camera.

Guilty until proven innocent?
What a load of rubbish, it is that sort of attitude that the idiots use to label us all as arrogant and self-righteous, thinking everyone else needs to bend around us.
Why don’t we make it that cyclists have to have cameras too? We like to claim we are vehicles too, why aren’t we held to the exact same standards as cars. (why not equip every ped with a chest or head mount too just to cover everyone?)
As for saying it is car drivers doing the craziest things have you looked in the dumb cyclists and peds thread recently? There are plenty of examples of cyclists of all types doing stupid and dangerous things.

Yes but when a cyclist or a ped does something stupid it is only the cyclist or the ped that gets hurt (with few exceptions)

[Tornado]

Whilst I'm at it could we get rego notices changed to highlight the pitiful amount that they pay for roads? "This year you pay $40 towards federal roads. Don't drive on local roads outside of your city / town because you sure didn't pay for them"

Are any roads paid for by rego?

[Grog]

I applaud the push to make this mandatory. Unfortunately human nature being what it is has shown us that there will always be a deads**t element out there that will probably disregard it, want to fight it or are just plain vindictive and nasty about it in their resentment.
Laws will always be ignored by some. Texting anyone? Red light runners? The list goes on.

Around where I live there are a lot of great roads in the hills, many I ride regularly on a motorcycle. The number of cars i meet coming the other way well on my side of the road is staggering and appears to be getting worse last few years. To my (unqualified) thinking its proof that a) they can't steer, b) can't tell the size of their vehicle or c) just don't give a rats (which is the most worrying) much as I'd like to I won't ride a bicycle on some of them out of pure self preservation regardless what the law says I can or can't do.

I personally think there needs to be a three way national strategy.
1. Vehicle operator awareness for ALL road users regardless what it is they operate. Anything from simple awareness education (at school) through to rigorous formal training, dependent on the vehicle type.
2. Viable shared infrastructure where deemed suitable - bike lanes in high traffic areas etc Wider roads with decent verges / shoulders / runoff areas that are maintained outside of built up areas. Some of the roads in Australia are narrow, giving you no where to go in case of oncoming emergency.
3. Effective law enforcement for dangerous behaviour. My pet hates is the self absorbed texter or the tailgater.
Unfortunately all the above costs and until there is a serious level of commitment to change and real accountability I don't see attitudes changing. Bit sad really.

People like womble deserve immense respect for pushing programs like the 1mtr rule. As to the deads**t element, just watch out for them as best you can and report the dangerous ones. No matter what they drive / ride.

[beanspropulsion]

Sometimes I worry for the future of the human race. Idiots can't even read or comprehend the article and they still post:

Gary of Brisbane 7:40am

"There's enough rules and regulations. Cyclists will continue to ignore the rules regardless of any new legislation that's set up. You need to start booking them more often and with harder penalties for anyone to take notice. "

*shakes head*

[mick243]

The onus does need to be on the car driver to prove they didn't cause the accident with their driving. If that means cars driving along with cameras as happens in Russia, then fair enough, too. After all, some car drivers do the craziest things - they play with radios, phones, etc. I was a passenger in a car yesterday that was rammed up the back and into another car by a driver. We were stopped, then bang! No injuries, and surprisingly the wagon we were in came out of it without much damage. I thought we'd have the back shunted in to the rear seats. In those cases, as car driver you need a camera.

Guilty until proven innocent?
What a load of rubbish, it is that sort of attitude that the idiots use to label us all as arrogant and self-righteous, thinking everyone else needs to bend around us.
Why don’t we make it that cyclists have to have cameras too? We like to claim we are vehicles too, why aren’t we held to the exact same standards as cars. (why not equip every ped with a chest or head mount too just to cover everyone?)
As for saying it is car drivers doing the craziest things have you looked in the dumb cyclists and peds thread recently? There are plenty of examples of cyclists of all types doing stupid and dangerous things.

No, not quite " Guilty until proven innocent? ", cars dont just crash into bikes.... a car is a potential lethal weapon, therefore the operator of said lethal device needs to be held to a higher standard than the 11 year old crossing the street, the cyclist, or the father and 3 kids waiting for a bus. Crashing a car **into anything** needs to become an offence of "strict liability". That does not preclude any other parties to the crash being contributory, but would go a long way to make drivers realise just how dangerous thier actions could be.

[Lukeyboy]

I'm very happy for cars to be fitted with cameras. So much so I think that it should be an Australian standard and a part of a vehicles roadworthy. Chuck a Black box GPS in there as well and the motorist has an easy defence that they were in the right. They weren't speeding, didn't run the red light, overtook the cyclist safely, didn't accelerate at the sight of a yellow light, weren't tailgating and they weren't texting/ on the phone (camera views driver as well). Make the black box & cameras linked to the ignition.
..............................................................................................

Absolutely Agree. About time this was introduced.
But of course the motor retail industry is massive and would scream blue murder.
Motor building industry might approve but unfortunately there is not much of this that remains down under and soon to be even less. (R.I.P. Falcon)

Didn't Lindsay Fox try to get that exact same thing done for the trucking industry but unions/truckers said it was an invasion of privacy, cost too much or something. He didn't give a toss and thought what they were saying was a load of bull and retro fitted his whole fleet with cameras and speedos which could be monitored remotely.

[Xplora]

You must make laws to guide and influence the lawabiding. If the careless and reckless break the law, it is because they aren't doing the right thing.

Penalties for the ramifications of car accidents can be incredibly low. Setting the standard will help. I am wondering how these people will be booked though, unless it is another penalty for hitting a cyclist after impact, like neg driving?

Talk about cameras and the like - the community expects better enforcement of the law. If a camera resolves that, awesome. I commute with a heart rate monitor, a GPS and a phone, as well as lights. A camera is not a serious imposition, especially if all vehicles had to be fitted. Everything important is recorded now...

[high_tea]

I'm very happy for cars to be fitted with cameras. So much so I think that it should be an Australian standard and a part of a vehicles roadworthy. Chuck a Black box GPS in there as well and the motorist has an easy defence that they were in the right. They weren't speeding, didn't run the red light, overtook the cyclist safely, didn't accelerate at the sight of a yellow light, weren't tailgating and they weren't texting/ on the phone (camera views driver as well). Make the black box & cameras linked to the ignition.
..............................................................................................

One, it's harder than you make it sound. Legally and logistically.
Two, it's not going to happen.
Three, we have offences of strict liability and lots of them. They're called Road Rules. Why not give them some teeth? Make injuring someone a circumstance of aggravation, for example.

[Lukeyboy]

They said the same thing about seat belts.

[high_tea]

They said the same thing about seat belts.

Explain for my simple mind how wearing a seatbelt helps you make out a defence when charged with an offence of strict liability.

EDIT: and I'm fairly sure they didn't say "Why not instead add a circumstance of aggravation to an existing offence".

[Lukeyboy]

Manufactures said it would be too costly to roll out seatbelts to every car being manufactured at the time so they charged the buyer for seatbelts as an additional add on. Now days due to laws seat belts are a safety standard. Australia was one of the first countries to make it mandatory for drivers and passengers to wear seat belts. All the Government has to do is say by January 1st 2015 all newly manufactured and imported cars have to have front and rear facing cameras installed (very easy to do especially if the market your selling them to has a law surrounding it). By 2020 it must be mandatory to have front and rear facing cameras in all cars (again very easy to do as camera setups are very cheap and affordable these days). Even depending on who your insurance company is they can sometimes offer you a discount on your premiums if your car has front and rear video cameras.

[high_tea]

The analogy with seatbelt laws is a poor one.

To name but one problem with your idea, cameras are significantly higher-maintenance than seatbelts. If my legally-mandated camera fails, I want to know about it right then. If whatever mass storage device it uses starts acting up, ditto. It's one thing to have cameras being constantly monitored, panopticon-style. It's quite another to have a heap of them running just in case. Doing that reliably is not trivial. If you make it incumbent on the owner to keep them running, they need the tools to, at the very least, find out that there's a problem. If it isn't, whoops, you've just created an incentive to sabotage these cameras. Admittedly it works in the aviation industry, but that's a much smaller number of vehicles working in a much more highly regulated environment. It's a much harder problem than mandating the fitting and wearing of seatbelts.

[Mugglechops]

Another cyclist death in NSW

unday, 09 June 2013 12:02:57 PM

A cyclist has died and her husband has been injured after they were hit in Pagewood this morning.

Emergency services were called to Bunnerong Road shortly after 10.30am today (Sunday 9 June) after the couple were struck by a hatchback being driven by an elderly woman.

NSW Ambulance Paramedics treated both but the 35-year-old woman died at the scene. Her husband escaped with relatively minor injuries and is being treated in hospital.

The driver has also been taken to hospital for mandatory blood and urine tests.

Traffic on Bunnerong Road is disrupted between Maroubra and Gardeners Roads.

Police are recommending motorists avoid the area for the next few hours as investigators examine the scene.

[Lukeyboy]

I really don't want to get into an argument but maintenance would be quite minimal. Rear facing cameras would double up as the reverse camera and they could easily program a system check when the ignition turns on. If the storage device fails they can easily run it in a raid type setup where data is stored to 2 separate storage devices - if one fails data will continue to be stored on the other storage device and during the next system check when the ignition is turned on the sat nav screen will alert the driver to the fault. If there happens to be a fault just get the car serviced by a trained tech or take it to the dealership as there are usually warranties around the electronic video and sat nav systems on cars.

No one else would be viewing the footage as you drive. Take the front and rear cameras onboard trains. The data will only be stored on the train itself and should there be a incident such as hitting a car at a level crossing or the train running a red aspect light a data tech can go to the train to download the data, video and radio coms leading up to and after the incident. After a set period of time the data is then automatically overwritten.

[high_tea]

I really don't want to get into an argument but maintenance would be quite minimal. Rear facing cameras would double up as the reverse camera and they could easily program a system check when the ignition turns on. If the storage device fails they can easily run it in a raid type setup where data is stored to 2 separate storage devices - if one fails data will continue to be stored on the other storage device and during the next system check when the ignition is turned on the sat nav screen will alert the driver to the fault. If there happens to be a fault just get the car serviced by a trained tech or take it to the dealership as there are usually warranties around the electronic video and sat nav systems on cars.

No one else would be viewing the footage as you drive. Take the front and rear cameras onboard trains. The data will only be stored on the train itself and should there be a incident such as hitting a car at a level crossing or the train running a red aspect light a data tech can go to the train to download the data, video and radio coms leading up to and after the incident. After a set period of time the data is then automatically overwritten.

Well, I don't really want to argue the toss about maintenance either, because it's just one problem with this idea working at scale in the framework of a coercive law.

I have to say this, though, your idea of relying on RAID for data integrity is madness. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the exhortation not to do this.

[KonaCommuter]

Three, we have offences of strict liability and lots of them. They're called Road Rules. Why not give them some teeth? Make injuring someone a circumstance of aggravation, for example.

I'd settle for having the driver whom is at fault wear the total cost of an incident. Ambulance, Police, Fire Brigade, rehabilitation, ER costs. The lot.


When people start losing their homes, their life savings, their future earnings. Maybe then people will start taking driving seriously.

Until then they'll fork out $600 excess for putting someone through a shop window and everyone will say "what a terrible accident"

[greyhoundtom]

Three, we have offences of strict liability and lots of them. They're called Road Rules. Why not give them some teeth? Make injuring someone a circumstance of aggravation, for example.

I'd settle for having the driver whom is at fault wear the total cost of an incident. Ambulance, Police, Fire Brigade, rehabilitation, ER costs. The lot.


When people start losing their homes, their life savings, their future earnings. Maybe then people will start taking driving seriously.

Until then they'll fork out $600 excess for putting someone through a shop window and everyone will say "what a terrible accident"

+1000

[g-boaf]

Another cyclist death in NSW

unday, 09 June 2013 12:02:57 PM

A cyclist has died and her husband has been injured after they were hit in Pagewood this morning.

Emergency services were called to Bunnerong Road shortly after 10.30am today (Sunday 9 June) after the couple were struck by a hatchback being driven by an elderly woman.

NSW Ambulance Paramedics treated both but the 35-year-old woman died at the scene. Her husband escaped with relatively minor injuries and is being treated in hospital.

The driver has also been taken to hospital for mandatory blood and urine tests.

Traffic on Bunnerong Road is disrupted between Maroubra and Gardeners Roads.

Police are recommending motorists avoid the area for the next few hours as investigators examine the scene.

They are saying the elderly driver may have experienced some kind of medical condition. It's speculation however. Very sad.

Her husband must be absolutely shattered. The driver of the car will also be pretty devastated too.

[The 2nd Womble]

***Addition: RIP TO THE LADY KILLED TODAY. terrible news***
Disgusting AGF, disgusting. For cyclists from Qld to hold you to account for effectively claiming the credit for their success and be banned from your social media accounts is abhorrent. No they didn't already support us as far as we know, but they sure as hell do now.
I expect there will be alot of inquisative Queenslanders eyeballing your representatives when we all see you in Brisbane for the Cycling Issues Committee Submission Hearing. Bumper stickers might not cut it on this trip.