Minimum safe passing distance between cyclists and motorists of 1M - all of DHBC should be signing this partition. Tell your cycling friends and your family. Tweet it and Like it on Facebook (links on the page).
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/min ... -moto.html
Background (Preamble):
The aim of this Petition is to enlist your support in lobbying the State and Federal Government's for a Minimum Safe Passing Distance rule of at least one (1) metre to be enshrined in law.
Such a change will help to ensure that we can all get from A to B and back to A again by being able to maintain a more authoritative position whilst sharing our limited roadspace with other users. We've already lost too many Aussie cyclists on our roads!
Thank you for helping us.
Pls sign this partiton 4 min safe passing distance
Good point, patn.
I get annoyed at motorists who whizz past within centimetres of me, but I am pretty relaxed about cars that pass me, when they are moving at less than 20km/h. I also take advantage of the current road rules that allow me to advance past a row of stationary cars, even though I am centimetres from them when I do so.
The petition is not a law, and I don't think the purpose of the petition is to consider what happens at slow speed, but rather, as is mentioned in the petition, it is what happens "at considerable speed". Even so, any law would have to impose the same requirements on the cyclists as the other road vehicles: it would be an offence to come within 1 metre of another vehicle when travelling at speed.
This of course, opens up a can of worms. What about two cyclists riding abreast at speed. Currently completely legal, but if those cyclists were closer than 1 metre apart, they might fall foul of these rules. You could complicate things by imposing some rule where it's the relative speeds of the two vehicles which determines whether the distance matters. So, for example, two riders abreast would have no relative speed difference, and would not be breaking any rules. The trouble is that these rules cannot be enforced. How does anyone measure their relative speed to all the hundreds of other vehicles on the road at any one moment? How can anyone prove a breach of the rules?
I get annoyed at motorists who whizz past within centimetres of me, but I am pretty relaxed about cars that pass me, when they are moving at less than 20km/h. I also take advantage of the current road rules that allow me to advance past a row of stationary cars, even though I am centimetres from them when I do so.
The petition is not a law, and I don't think the purpose of the petition is to consider what happens at slow speed, but rather, as is mentioned in the petition, it is what happens "at considerable speed". Even so, any law would have to impose the same requirements on the cyclists as the other road vehicles: it would be an offence to come within 1 metre of another vehicle when travelling at speed.
This of course, opens up a can of worms. What about two cyclists riding abreast at speed. Currently completely legal, but if those cyclists were closer than 1 metre apart, they might fall foul of these rules. You could complicate things by imposing some rule where it's the relative speeds of the two vehicles which determines whether the distance matters. So, for example, two riders abreast would have no relative speed difference, and would not be breaking any rules. The trouble is that these rules cannot be enforced. How does anyone measure their relative speed to all the hundreds of other vehicles on the road at any one moment? How can anyone prove a breach of the rules?
I was thinking mainly of the two times this year (already) I've had my car run
into by a commuting cyclist while I've been sitting (stationary) in traffic.
Once on Cleveland St, and the other on Oxford St Bondi Junction outside
the AboutLife Cafe. Im just lucky my car has so many bangs and
scratches that I couldn't tell. The bike commuters between Bondi Junction
+ Sydney Uni (Oxford St, Cleveland St, Moore Park Rd etc) are terrible,
and thats coming from an obvious bike sympathiser who both commutes
on a bike, and does training rides on the road.
I agree Stuart every measure that makes it safer for EVERYONE on
the road is a good thing. I reckon the best thing would be for EVERYONE
to just chill out, be courteous and thoughtful, say thanks when people
let you in etc, give way to other people and let people park etc
into by a commuting cyclist while I've been sitting (stationary) in traffic.
Once on Cleveland St, and the other on Oxford St Bondi Junction outside
the AboutLife Cafe. Im just lucky my car has so many bangs and
scratches that I couldn't tell. The bike commuters between Bondi Junction
+ Sydney Uni (Oxford St, Cleveland St, Moore Park Rd etc) are terrible,
and thats coming from an obvious bike sympathiser who both commutes
on a bike, and does training rides on the road.
I agree Stuart every measure that makes it safer for EVERYONE on
the road is a good thing. I reckon the best thing would be for EVERYONE
to just chill out, be courteous and thoughtful, say thanks when people
let you in etc, give way to other people and let people park etc
You bored Toff?...talk about overcomplication. Simple petition, intent is clear. Sign or don't sign.This of course, opens up a can of worms. What about two cyclists riding abreast at speed. Currently completely legal, but if those cyclists were closer than 1 metre apart, they might fall foul of these rules. You could complicate things by imposing some rule where it's the relative speeds of the two vehicles which determines whether the distance matters. So, for example, two riders abreast would have no relative speed difference, and would not be breaking any rules. The trouble is that these rules cannot be enforced. How does anyone measure their relative speed to all the hundreds of other vehicles on the road at any one moment? How can anyone prove a breach of the rules?
'Clear intent' is not enough when making laws. Clear to who?
Maybe I'm a little thick, but I'm not really sure of the
meaning, implications, and enforcement of such a law. As
such its a little hard for me to sign up to it as is. In any case,
if it is to be introduced to parliament, those pretty obvious
questions (e.g my simple one, and those from Toff) are going
to be asked, and will need to be answered.
What is the answer to my original question?
If I'm sitting at the lights in my car, and a bike comes by dangerously
close to my car, has the bike rider broken this law?
Maybe I'm a little thick, but I'm not really sure of the
meaning, implications, and enforcement of such a law. As
such its a little hard for me to sign up to it as is. In any case,
if it is to be introduced to parliament, those pretty obvious
questions (e.g my simple one, and those from Toff) are going
to be asked, and will need to be answered.
What is the answer to my original question?
If I'm sitting at the lights in my car, and a bike comes by dangerously
close to my car, has the bike rider broken this law?
Having been in an advisory role for "law making" I can recall no time when the wording in a petition was directly translated into a law. All the problems you are talking about get picked up in the drafting process of making an amendment and then getting a majority to vote for it. Nowhere in the petition does it specifically refer to the section or sections of the Act(s) it would amend.
The petition raises an issue that people feel strongly about and suggests a solution. It's up to parliament to decide how that's interpreted or what they do about it in the laws. I wouldn't put too fine a point on the detail because I think the value of a petition is in a large number of people raising an issue, in this case cars not giving cyclists sufficient space on the road.
The petition raises an issue that people feel strongly about and suggests a solution. It's up to parliament to decide how that's interpreted or what they do about it in the laws. I wouldn't put too fine a point on the detail because I think the value of a petition is in a large number of people raising an issue, in this case cars not giving cyclists sufficient space on the road.
.....well put Eleri. That's what I meant in theory.....but as usual you put it so much better. When you pass that Law degree you can be my lawyer anyday.Having been in an advisory role for "law making" I can recall no time when the wording in a petition was directly translated into a law. All the problems you are talking about get picked up in the drafting process of making an amendment and then getting a majority to vote for it. Nowhere in the petition does it specifically refer to the section or sections of the Act(s) it would amend.
The petition raises an issue that people feel strongly about and suggests a solution. It's up to parliament to decide how that's interpreted or what they do about it in the laws. I wouldn't put too fine a point on the detail because I think the value of a petition is in a large number of people raising an issue, in this case cars not giving cyclists sufficient space on the road.
Last edited by Trouty on 29 Jun 2011, 18:59, edited 1 time in total.
Fortunately for us both I will never be admitted as a solicitor. Only one semester to go though!
.....well put Eleri. That's what I meant in theory Eleri.....but as usual you put it so much better. When you pass that Law degree you can be my lawyer anyday.
I see thanks Eleri, I didn't know how the petition thing worked.
To be totally honest, my previous negativity is probably because I'm a little
sceptical about how much rules like this will make it safer for cyclists on the
road. All the problems on the road come from an attitude problem, not a
legal problem. I am convinced that both cyclists and motorists have this
attitude problem, and that laws like this won't help change that. I'm sorry
I feel like that about it. In my opinion any real, lasting solution to the
problems on our roads will be aimed at changing how people think about
sharing the roads.
To be totally honest, my previous negativity is probably because I'm a little
sceptical about how much rules like this will make it safer for cyclists on the
road. All the problems on the road come from an attitude problem, not a
legal problem. I am convinced that both cyclists and motorists have this
attitude problem, and that laws like this won't help change that. I'm sorry
I feel like that about it. In my opinion any real, lasting solution to the
problems on our roads will be aimed at changing how people think about
sharing the roads.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests