A Meter Matters Online Petition

[The 2nd Womble]

1.5 is successfully enforced in:
Singapore

Ireland:

NZ:

Spain:

And France:

Then there are other European countries that also successfully enforce 1m. Our police are as well equipped as any police force in the western world, so enforcement should not be an argument.

[exadios]

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.

Which laws are you refering to?

[exadios]

1.5 is successfully enforced in:
Singapore

Ireland:

NZ:

Spain:

And France:

Then there are other European countries that also successfully enforce 1m. Our police are as well equipped as any police force in the western world, so enforcement should not be an argument.

None of the photos show enforcement of any law.

[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

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

Andrew

[The 2nd Womble]

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.

Which laws are you refering to?

Do you honestly think I posted these to prove their enforcement?

[LM324]

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.

From your post, I think you support the 1.5 metres. If 10 cm is the difference between what is considered a safe pass and what "I perceive that the vehicle has shaved my by passing too close" then 1 metre is just not enough. If a vehicle passes within 1.5 metres but the rider is still comfortable and it is a safe pass, I doubt they will report it to the police. If someone passes at 90cm and the rider feels that this is too close and unsafe, they will have a better chance arguing to the police that the driver overtook 60cm closer than what the law says as opposed to 10cm.

[exadios]

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.

From your post, I think you support the 1.5 metres. If 10 cm is the difference between what is considered a safe pass and what "I perceive that the vehicle has shaved my by passing too close" then 1 metre is just not enough. If a vehicle passes within 1.5 metres but the rider is still comfortable and it is a safe pass, I doubt they will report it to the police. If someone passes at 90cm and the rider feels that this is too close and unsafe, they will have a better chance arguing to the police that the driver overtook 60cm closer than what the law says as opposed to 10cm.

No, the 1.5 meter rule has exactly the same problems as the 1 meter rule.

If it is an offence to pass less than 1.5 meters then it is necessary to prove in court (and not to the police as you seem to believe) beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle passed at less than the minimum. So, imagine that you are the prosecuting counsel. Make your case.

[schroeds]

No, the 1.5 meter rule has exactly the same problems as the 1 meter rule..

...except it encourages drivers to give you an extra half a meter.

Encouragement which could save your life. Laws provide provide good guidance to people about what society expects....regardless of whether they are difficult to prosecute. The purpose of the law is not to put drivers in jail, it's to keep cyclists safer.

[InTheWoods]

Every time I see that picture I feel depressed.

[Dropbear20]

1.5 is successfully enforced in:
Singapore

It may be law here but I haven't seen it enforced, and in fact like most road rules here it seems to be optional. The chances of this being enforced is very slim when basic things like indicating, staying withing your lane, stopping at red lights/stop etc etc are not or don't appear to be.

[The 2nd Womble]

1.5 is successfully enforced in:
Singapore

It may be law here but I haven't seen it enforced, and in fact like most road rules here it seems to be optional. The chances of this being enforced is very slim when basic things like indicating, staying withing your lane, stopping at red lights/stop etc etc are not or don't appear to be.

Are you in Singapore or Brisbane ATM? Sounds like the day I just had. In fact I passed some muppets in a clapped out blue Festiva HOLDING ONTO the queen ensemble on his roof heading westbound on the Ippy just short of Redbank.

[antigee]

was sitting at a busy set of lights in Melbourne today and there was a large poster promoting the 1m matter slogan - think the problem with 1m matters rather than 1.5m is that 1m is too close to the width of the bike lanes which I try to ride far enough out to be able to react to door opening which puts me to close to traffic - I have a feeling 1m matters to safely pass easily becomes give 1m to bikes. (full stop) Would be interesting to know if the ad agency did any forum/feedback on how they were interpreted before using them - I'm pretty sure some people think "the share the road" posters with cyclists two a breast is a reminder to cyclists not to ride 2 a breast because it is illegal is not sharing and stops other people using the road safely*
* yes I know this isn't true but I'm pretty sure a lot of people believe it to be

[exadios]

Cyclist hit by car challenges police over fine, video evidence.

[InTheWoods]

was sitting at a busy set of lights in Melbourne today and there was a large poster promoting the 1m matter slogan - think the problem with 1m matters rather than 1.5m is that 1m is too close to the width of the bike lanes which I try to ride far enough out to be able to react to door opening which puts me to close to traffic - I have a feeling 1m matters to safely pass easily becomes give 1m to bikes. (full stop) Would be interesting to know if the ad agency did any forum/feedback on how they were interpreted before using them - I'm pretty sure some people think "the share the road" posters with cyclists two a breast is a reminder to cyclists not to ride 2 a breast because it is illegal is not sharing and stops other people using the road safely*
* yes I know this isn't true but I'm pretty sure a lot of people believe it to be

I'm also not keen on "share the road" as a message, because I suspect motorists see it as meaning cyclists should share the road by getting out of the way or riding as far left as possible (even on multilane roads) - they don't see the message as being directed at *them*.

Re 1m or 1.5m matters, that is always in reference to 1/1.5 meters from the right side of the cyclist to the left side of the car, ie a 1/1.5 meter space in between. Not a 1 meter wide space for the cyclist to fit into with car whizzing by 20 cm away.

[Mulger bill]

I'm also not keen on "share the road" as a message, because I suspect motorists see it as meaning cyclists should share the road by getting out of the way or riding as far left as possible (even on multilane roads) - they don't see the message as being directed at *them*.

Never thought of it that way but it goes a long way towards explaining the attitude of some...

[VRE]

I'm also not keen on "share the road" as a message, because I suspect motorists see it as meaning cyclists should share the road by getting out of the way or riding as far left as possible (even on multilane roads) - they don't see the message as being directed at *them*.

Never thought of it that way but it goes a long way towards explaining the attitude of some...

Very similar to the attitude of some pedestrians on shared paths; they seem to think that sharing means that the pedestrians (and their dogs) do what they want and the cyclists have no choice but to put up with it.

[find_bruce]

InTheWoods & VRE have nailed it - for many the concept of sharing is "you can have it when I am finished with it"

[exadios]

I'm also not keen on "share the road" as a message, because I suspect motorists see it as meaning cyclists should share the road by getting out of the way or riding as far left as possible (even on multilane roads) - they don't see the message as being directed at *them*.

Never thought of it that way but it goes a long way towards explaining the attitude of some...

Very similar to the attitude of some pedestrians on shared paths; they seem to think that sharing means that the pedestrians (and their dogs) do what they want and the cyclists have no choice but to put up with it.

In WA there are no "path rules" that pedestrians are required to follow. On the other hand cyclists are required to avoid collision with the pedestrians.

[VRE]

I'm also not keen on "share the road" as a message, because I suspect motorists see it as meaning cyclists should share the road by getting out of the way or riding as far left as possible (even on multilane roads) - they don't see the message as being directed at *them*.

Never thought of it that way but it goes a long way towards explaining the attitude of some...

Very similar to the attitude of some pedestrians on shared paths; they seem to think that sharing means that the pedestrians (and their dogs) do what they want and the cyclists have no choice but to put up with it.

In WA there are no "path rules" that pedestrians are required to follow. On the other hand cyclists are required to avoid collision with the pedestrians.

Yes, and as mentioned above by myself and others, many pedestrians use these laws as an excuse not to share the so-called "shared" path.

[Mulger bill]

There's still the one about "Not causing hazard by moving into the path etc" or does that only apply on the roads?

[exadios]

The legal asymmetry is an indication that pedestrians are not required to share the path with cyclists. Cyclists are required to share with pedestrians. So, no excuse is required by the pedestrians.

If you want this situation to change then you should lobby for a change in the law.

[g-boaf]

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...

Signed.

[Aushiker]

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...

Signed.

Done the same.

Andrew

[VRE]

The legal asymmetry is an indication that pedestrians are not required to share the path with cyclists. Cyclists are required to share with pedestrians. So, no excuse is required by the pedestrians.

If you want this situation to change then you should lobby for a change in the law.

No, any asymmetry is just your interpretation. What you call an asymmetry, I call an oversight.

[exadios]

The legal asymmetry is an indication that pedestrians are not required to share the path with cyclists. Cyclists are required to share with pedestrians. So, no excuse is required by the pedestrians.

If you want this situation to change then you should lobby for a change in the law.

No, any asymmetry is just your interpretation. What you call an asymmetry, I call an oversight.

In which case you should lobby to have that "oversight" to be corrected.