A Meter Matters Online Petition

[gauchoracer]

Greetings all, A work mate drew my attention to this online petition this morning, and I thought it would be a good idea to let all of you know that it is available, if you did not already know of it...

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/a ... e_petition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not designed to work against the good work being done by members of this forum, but more to add another avenue of telling the pollies that we do exist, and we Vote...

Thanks..
Be safe...
Max...

[g-boaf]

I will not support this campaign as it appears to be from AGF and confuses the issue. It doesn't benefit us as much as the 1.5m campaign from SCA. This is a better outcome for us. 1m isn't enough.

It would be nice if they could all get together and advocate very strongly for 1.5m...

[ozzymac]

Greetings all, A work mate drew my attention to this online petition this morning, and I thought it would be a good idea to let all of you know that it is available, if you did not already know of it...

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/a ... e_petition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not designed to work against the good work being done by members of this forum, but more to add another avenue of telling the pollies that we do exist, and we Vote...

Thanks..
Be safe...
Max...

If its not designed to work against what has already been done why do it at all?

It doesn't help to have 2 different safe distances being promoted why can't AGF etc just get on board with the 1.5m distance as no way 1m sufficient when being passed by bdoubles on the roads around here.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

[g-boaf]

Do you see the above, AGF? That's what we want. We want a unified response. We want 1.5m not 1 metre!

[jcjordan]

Speak for yourself as I am quite happy with the idea of one meter.

In the its a more practical and sellable solution to the wider public.

[find_bruce]

Anyone see the press ads by AGF yesterday.

Apparently a meter only matters if cyclists stop at red lights. An excellent job on how to reinforce negative stereotypes while giving credence to the excuse that cyclists don't deserve safety unless all cyclists obey every law, unlike every other part of humanity

[The 2nd Womble]

Speak for yourself as I am quite happy with the idea of one meter.

In the its a more practical and sellable solution to the wider public.

Preferred Australian Lane width is 3.5m. Cyclist rides 1m from rd edge. Legislate only 1m to pass. 1.5m for a car to "squeeze" through. RIP.
The rest of us aren't happy with being dead.
I might just post a link to this for the wow factor. There's also the "wow, I didn't start this shanking for a change" factor for a clean double whammy. You're all entitled to your opinions, its just that SCA is actually right in pushing for 1.5.

[The 2nd Womble]

Besides, petitioning the federal government is pointless unless you only want 1 metre to pass on the Bruce Highway, and I'd suggest given Bruce's condition, you'd need a tad more than one metre to feel safe at any speed let alone the magic ton.

[ozzymac]

Speak for yourself as I am quite happy with the idea of one meter.

In the its a more practical and sellable solution to the wider public.

So you would rather have what you call the more saleable option?

Myself, I prefer the option which is safer for me and other cyclists.

If its a little bit harder to sell, so be it.

Lives are what is important.


Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

[LM324]

I get the impression that only reason why the AGF is still trying to push the 1 metre as opposed to the 1.5 is because they believe that 1 metre is their idea (which it isn't) and that by supporting the 1.5 it shows that even with all the funding, power and size of the organisation, a smaller organisation run can do more than them.

Did any of you look on the AGF Facebook page on the lead up to/on the day SCA announced their petition? They basically posted a series of lengthy posts that made it look like they were doing a lot but basically had the core message of "you should email your local minister because we can't/don't want to do anything"

I get the impression that the AGF is more concerned with maintaining their image of being the biggest advocacy group for cyclists than actually doing stuff that will help cyclists on the road.

[The 2nd Womble]

I didn't say that either. Did I bribe or coerce you into posting it on my behalf? Everyone needs to be clear on this nowadays.

[jcjordan]

Speak for yourself as I am quite happy with the idea of one meter.

In the its a more practical and sellable solution to the wider public.

Preferred Australian Lane width is 3.5m. Cyclist rides 1m from rd edge. Legislate only 1m to pass. 1.5m for a car to "squeeze" through. RIP.
The rest of us aren't happy with being dead.
I might just post a link to this for the wow factor. There's also the "wow, I didn't start this shanking for a change" factor for a clean double whammy. You're all entitled to your opinions, its just that SCA is actually right in pushing for 1.5.

The ability to sell this change is very important. The 1.5 distance would be better but it harder to convince lawmakers that its practical for drivers to comply.

This very much comes down to the 80/20 rule when implementing policy. A 80% effective implementation now is better than a possible 100% implement some time in the future. By getting the on meter in it makes improving its implementation easier in the future.

[The 2nd Womble]

Speak for yourself as I am quite happy with the idea of one meter.

In the its a more practical and sellable solution to the wider public.

Preferred Australian Lane width is 3.5m. Cyclist rides 1m from rd edge. Legislate only 1m to pass. 1.5m for a car to "squeeze" through. RIP.
The rest of us aren't happy with being dead.
I might just post a link to this for the wow factor. There's also the "wow, I didn't start this shanking for a change" factor for a clean double whammy. You're all entitled to your opinions, its just that SCA is actually right in pushing for 1.5.

The ability to sell this change is very important. The 1.5 distance would be better but it harder to convince lawmakers that its practical for drivers to comply.

This very much comes down to the 80/20 rule when implementing policy. A 80% effective implementation now is better than a possible 100% implement some time in the future. By getting the on meter in it makes improving its implementation easier in the future.

Our law makers aren't convinced by the 1 metre proposal which is precisely why they are looking at the options. So are TMR. One very important point to again stress is that in RR144, our law makers quite rightly believe that - although shot to hell this year by the Pollett verdict - they had provided for a greater passing distance that 1 metre. "A metre matters" is essentially asking our law makers to also take a backward step.
Aaaand again, (how many times must these things be repeated really?) the AGF boasts that 27 US states have 3ft(1m) rules, but they don't tell you that the majority of those 27 have seen no improvement in injury and fatality rates. The law is not proving itself of worth so far. Why follow in these footsteps?

[MREJ]

I feel like a metre is not enough as well. The last thing we want is a "not a centimetre more" attitude, but I fear that's what this concept invites. Combine that attitude with poor driving and things could get quite scary.

[Mulger bill]

I didn't say that either. Did I bribe or coerce you into posting it on my behalf? Everyone needs to be clear on this nowadays.

You've coerced me into posting a lot of things over the years, many of them silly

I need nobody to tell me to wind that mob up, I'd be happy to do it myself if I thought they were worth the keystrokes.

[Howzat]

Aaaand again, (how many times must these things be repeated really?) the AGF boasts that 27 US states have 3ft(1m) rules, but they don't tell you that the majority of those 27 have seen no improvement in injury and fatality rates. The law is not proving itself of worth so far. Why follow in these footsteps?

I've seen that assertion made a few times, and would like to know more - can you link to details or research looking at the outcomes of jurisdictions that have passed minimum-passing-distances rules?

[The 2nd Womble]

Compiling that info for everyone ATM

[Ken Ho]

Speak for yourself as I am quite happy with the idea of one meter.

In the its a more practical and sellable solution to the wider public.

Preferred Australian Lane width is 3.5m. Cyclist rides 1m from rd edge. Legislate only 1m to pass. 1.5m for a car to "squeeze" through. RIP.
The rest of us aren't happy with being dead.
I might just post a link to this for the wow factor. There's also the "wow, I didn't start this shanking for a change" factor for a clean double whammy. You're all entitled to your opinions, its just that SCA is actually right in pushing for 1.5.

The ability to sell this change is very important. The 1.5 distance would be better but it harder to convince lawmakers that its practical for drivers to comply.

This very much comes down to the 80/20 rule when implementing policy. A 80% effective implementation now is better than a possible 100% implement some time in the future. By getting the on meter in it makes improving its implementation easier in the future.

Yes, but mate, it's already been sod. The 1.5m petition got up in Qld, and provided an impetus or change.
The AGF seems to be trying to sabotage that effort.
That they even spend Foundation on money lawyers is a travesty.

[Aushiker]

I've seen that assertion made a few times, and would like to know more - can you link to details or research looking at the outcomes of jurisdictions that have passed minimum-passing-distances rules?

PM Cyclesnail. Heinrich should be able to put you on to the "key paper" used by the likes of Bicycle Victoria to apparently argue against three feet ...

Andrew

[Aushiker]

Bicycle Victoria on safe passing distances ... http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/genera ... ing/10568/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Bicycle Network Victoria opposes such laws because they are less effective than existing 'safe passing distance' laws, which can take into consideration other factors such as speed.)

Would love to see some evidence of actual prosecutions based on these more effective existing laws. My experience with the Police suggests otherwise.

Andrew

[exadios]

Bicycle Victoria on safe passing distances ... http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/genera ... ing/10568/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Bicycle Network Victoria opposes such laws because they are less effective than existing 'safe passing distance' laws, which can take into consideration other factors such as speed.)

Would love to see some evidence of actual prosecutions based on these more effective existing laws. My experience with the Police suggests otherwise.

Andrew

The minimum passing distance law need not supplant or revoke the existing safe passing requirements. The specific and more general requirements can coexist.

I have two problems with any minimum passing legislation. The first problem with the minimum passing law is that it is unenforcable. For instance, a vehicle passes me with a distance of 900mm. I perceive that the vehicle has shaved my by passing too close anf I estimate the distance as 800mm. I go to the police and make a report. They, quite reasonably, ask for any evidence to support my claim. I tell them that I used my calibrated eyeball to estimate the distance. After the officers recover sufficiently from their mirth to regain a standing position they suggest that I leave my eyeball with them and they will check it out. The problem is that it is the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and 1 meter is an objective standard requiring objective data as evidence.

The second problem is the realtime problem that the motor vechicle driver has no objective means of estimating the minimum distance that they will pass the bike. If the driver maintains the current tradjectory will the vehicle pass at 1.1M, 1M, 900mm? A far better law would be to require that the motor vehicle pass in another lane. So, if the vehicle is to the right of the line then its legal, but not otherwise. Single lane roads (yes, there are still some in WA) would require a fallback to the present law.

[InTheWoods]

The second problem is the realtime problem that the motor vechicle driver has no objective means of estimating the minimum distance that they will pass the bike. If the driver maintains the current tradjectory will the vehicle pass at 1.1M, 1M, 900mm? A far better law would be to require that the motor vehicle pass in another lane. So, if the vehicle is to the right of the line then its legal, but not otherwise. Single lane roads (yes, there are still some in WA) would require a fallback to the present law.

That was my thinking too.

Although we do need some kind of change in qld, as apparently all you need to do is "think" you have enough room and that makes it ok if you run over a cyclist.

[Roberth]

In NSW, drivers used to have to give cyclists six feet (1.83 metres) clearance when overtaking them. The regulation was one of the questions I had to answer correctly to pass my drivers licence test on 19 November 1963. Car drivers in the late 1950s and early 1960s when I was cycling 8km to school and back used to give that clearance, probably because they -- the baby boomers' parents -- had used bicycles as their main transport as adults before they could afford a car.
In New Zealand, the set passing distance is 1.5 metres, as this photo shows.



By the way, the unit of distance measurement is "metre". A "meter" is a measuring instrument, such as gas meter, speedo-meter, odo-meter etc. The Yanks working for Microsoft cannot spell.

[The 2nd Womble]

Bicycle Victoria on safe passing distances ... http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/genera ... ing/10568/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Bicycle Network Victoria opposes such laws because they are less effective than existing 'safe passing distance' laws, which can take into consideration other factors such as speed.)

Would love to see some evidence of actual prosecutions based on these more effective existing laws. My experience with the Police suggests otherwise.

Andrew

The Pollett verdict is one that BNV must support in that case.

[The 2nd Womble]

The second problem is the realtime problem that the motor vechicle driver has no objective means of estimating the minimum distance that they will pass the bike. If the driver maintains the current tradjectory will the vehicle pass at 1.1M, 1M, 900mm? A far better law would be to require that the motor vehicle pass in another lane. So, if the vehicle is to the right of the line then its legal, but not otherwise. Single lane roads (yes, there are still some in WA) would require a fallback to the present law.

That was my thinking too.

Although we do need some kind of change in qld, as apparently all you need to do is "think" you have enough room and that makes it ok if you run over a cyclist.

Indeed it is the current law that is unenforceable, and prosecutions/fines are only considered once the cyclist has already been hit.
If minimum safe passing distance laws are successfully enforced around the world then they can be enforced here as well. The fact that so many road rules rely on time/distance and are also enforceable in every state and territory in this country shoots the argument of enforceability to shreds.
Doing nothing and not modifying or replacing 144 is worse than any change at all.