Failure/Success of WA Policing - Register of incidents.

[Thoglette]

[.. write to the to Minister of Police asking why this is consider not a breach of the relevant section of the Road Traffic Code, i.e., why does she and the Police Commissioner consider it safe to pass a human being at 100 km/h with less than one metre of space. I would also ask the Minister and Police Commissioner if they would like to stand on the road with their back to the approaching vehicle and be passed in such manner. If not, why do they consider this driving acceptable?

At least the Police Commissioner will then have to explain to the Minister the decision. You might not get an outcome in the first instance (you will not I suspect given the wording of the Road Traffic code) but you likely see improved responses down the line from that same station. The Commissioner is rather sensitive to having to explain things to the Minister ...

+1 This

[tallywhacker]

there are a couple of main criteria that an incident has to fulfill before the police will even consider looking into it. Broken bones (number one) or other major injuries (ie cuts that require stitching), witnesses or video footage, medical reports. Anything that comes across an investigating officers desk is looked at according to these criteria and then presented to the supervising officer. Close passes without any of these don't make it that far. I know this from quite a few recent discussions with the officer investigating my incident.

[cj7hawk]

Western Australia has just assigned a new Road Safety Commissioner - so I'm planning on having a chat to them tomorrow to see where they see such incidents going in the future -

Thanks
David

[cj7hawk]

Western Australia has just assigned a new Road Safety Commissioner - so I'm planning on having a chat to them tomorrow to see where they see such incidents going in the future -

Thanks
David

So I spoke to Russell Greig at the Road Safety Council. He's their cycling "guru" and does cycle in traffic to work every day. He faces the same problems as the rest of us - worse, because for some reason his path gives him the worst of cars parked in the clearways obstructing his ride in. He's a person who very much lives with the issues we experience and it's good to have someone like him in that kind of position.

Unfortunately the response wasn't good. No reflection on Russell - he was very helpful, is a cyclist and faces the exact same issues. The problem is with the WA police who have decided that as long as they don't collide with you, then there's no offence. As the RSC put it, riding past a cycle at 100kph with 1cm clearance is just fine where the police are concerned. They don't like it either, but they were telling me what they perceive - not what they believe.

I discussed with him that there are plenty of laws that should cover this ( eg, careless driving ) but the police simply aren't paying attention. The Road Safety Commissioner is from the police, but there's no sign that they will do anything about it at this point in time and there are no methods of petitioning the road safety commissioner at this point in time - So basically, it's considered to be perfectly legal in WA to pass as close to a cycle as you want, at any speed. As long as you don't collide with them.

We discussed the traffic accidents that they use for safe passing evaluation, and the RSC determined that most of the accidents are from the side ( intersections + tboning or pulling out in front or into a cycle ) and from the rear and are rarely caused by a car wandering into the side of a cyclist. I pointed out that most strikes from the rear was because there wasn't a safe distance to the cyclist, but then they mentioned that in every case where a vehicle has run down a cyclist, the same excuse was always there - that they didn't see them, so that distance isn't relevant.

I suspect the "didn't see them" could translate into "I'm not going to admit I didn't give them enough distance, because no one will blame me if I claim I didn't see them" but that's just my thoughts on the topic.

We also discussed ( and agreed ) that very often, in the interests of safety, cyclists need to run red lights and break road rules. Apparently some of this danger is caused by Main Roads taking half of a methodology used overseas and leaving the other half, rendering the entire process less useful to cyclist - eg, Bicycle storage areas without dedicated preemptive bicycle lights. To this extent, they are working on having bicycle green lights go off a few seconds before the cars get the green lights - needless to say, they are concerned that this may anger motorists too, so the RSC is making progress here.

BTW, the RSC position on angry motorists seems to be very pragmantic. Angry motorists are a real problem to cyclists, because they're the ones who might just decide to do something to us regardless of the laws.

In April 2016 there will be a report from the University of Queensland to determine how effective the Queensland safe-passing legislation has been. If there is a measurable difference, then the WA government will look at introducing similar legislation.

At this point, it looks very much that if cycling is going to get any safer, it's because we're getting in peoples faces - Doing things like protests. In the mean time, we need to get video of motorists breaking other laws such as crossing solid white lines, going through stop signs etc. Police will have to act on these complaints. However there is nothing forcing them to act on unsafe passing distances.

Regards
David

[cj7hawk]

Oh, just to add - videos of close passes by cars aren't something they can do anything about - apparently one perth rider has exceptional cameras and even took in a hard disk full of video - with clear evidence of dangerous overtaking. But nothing that the Road Safety Commission can do about it -

Regards
David

[wellington_street]

Thanks for the David, good to get more of an insight from inside the bureaucracy.

[Cycleops70]

[/quote]

In April 2016 there will be a report from the University of Queensland to determine how effective the Queensland safe-passing legislation has been. If there is a measurable difference, then the WA government will look at introducing similar legislation.


Regards
David[/quote]

I hope when they are looking for a "measurable difference" they not only look at actual differences, but also take into consideration the perceived differences.

It is just as important that people 'feel' safer as well as measurably safer.

If people feel safer riding on the road, then more people will ride, & more often.

Changing the perception of cycling from risky sport, to normal, efficient, enjoyable transport option.

Undoing the harm mandatory helmet law created.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Oh, just to add - videos of close passes by cars aren't something they can do anything about - apparently one perth rider has exceptional cameras and even took in a hard disk full of video - with clear evidence of dangerous overtaking. But nothing that the Road Safety Commission can do about it -

Regards
David

I no longer accept at face value claims of overwhelming evidence. Too often such evidence is nowhere near as clear, unequivocal and serious as it is stated. And this forum seems to be a lot more balanced than most complainants.

People who submit videos to police alleging CLEAR violations of significant and dangerous level need to only do so when it IS abundantly clear. When we do otherwise we just add noise that swamps out the video evidence that IS clear. And evidence that cops unjaded by the accumulated noise of exaggeration and misrepresentation would probably be willing to look at more closely.

I sympathise with riders who get short shrift when they present what IS clear after a bit of close viewing. But I understand why cops may dismiss our videos without taking too much time to view them.

Thanks for the comprehensive commentary BTW David.

[Cycleops70]

So this has been my latest report to police (it's been awhile).


The worst pass I've ever had. I know they won't take any action because "there is no minimum distance" but it was so dangerous, I felt I had to.

[Cycleops70]

So this has been my latest report to police (it's been awhile).


The worst pass I've ever had. I know they won't take any action because "there is no minimum distance" but it was so dangerous, I felt I had to.

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

He refused to respond to my question of; "Do you think it was safe?", or "what would have happened if he'd passed a police motorcyclist like that?"

I'm dumbfounded. The police here are just as biased as the general public.

[NewStew]

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

He refused to respond to my question of; "Do you think it was safe?", or "what would have happened if he'd passed a police motorcyclist like that?"

I'm dumbfounded. The police here are just as biased as the general public.

Isnt there a law that requires the overtaking vehicle to fully move to the other lane to overtake.... in which case it matters not a whit if you were further left? That guy didnt even cross the middle lines? I suggest you send a copy of that video to the minister and shadow minister and WA today, The West etc. Message me if you want a contact at WA Today as I had a chat with them recently.

[Scott_C]

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

He refused to respond to my question of; "Do you think it was safe?", or "what would have happened if he'd passed a police motorcyclist like that?"

I'm dumbfounded. The police here are just as biased as the general public.

Did you remind the officer that it is the position of your left shoulder/elbow/handlebars that determines the leftmost extent of your vehicle and from the video (in particular the Fly12 view) the left end of your handlebars are located directly above the left edge line (i.e. As far left as practicable).

[Scott_C]

Isnt there a law that requires the overtaking vehicle to fully move to the other lane to overtake.... in which case it matters not a whit if you were further left? That guy didnt even cross the middle lines? I suggest you send a copy of that video to the minister and shadow minister and WA today, The West etc. Message me if you want a contact at WA Today as I had a chat with them recently.

As far as I know there is no requirement to fully change lanes if you can squeeze both vehicles into 1 lane. If you need to slightly overhang the lane marker then you are legally required to fully change lane but if you don't cross the lane marker the WA Road Traffic Code allows for 2 or more "lines of traffic" within a single lane.

WA Road Traffic Code 2000- Reg 126

[wellington_street]

So this has been my latest report to police (it's been awhile).


The worst pass I've ever had. I know they won't take any action because "there is no minimum distance" but it was so dangerous, I felt I had to.

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

He refused to respond to my question of; "Do you think it was safe?", or "what would have happened if he'd passed a police motorcyclist like that?"

I'm dumbfounded. The police here are just as biased as the general public.

Absolutely disgusting from the police.

[redned]

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

Cycleops: I understood that it had been demonstrated that "failed to keep as far left as practicable" does not mean "failed to keep as far left as possible". You are not required to ride in a road-related area (the verge) and practicable could mean wide enough to not encourage close passes. It doesn't mean that the requirement for the passing vehicle to pass only when it safe to do so doesn't apply.

[redned]

And in doing some Googling for my own edification, this explains it quite well (not WA, I know).

http://www.hobartlegal.org.au/tasmanian ... road-rules

[Cycleops70]

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

Cycleops: I understood that it had been demonstrated that "failed to keep as far left as practicable" does not mean "failed to keep as far left as possible". You are not required to ride in a road-related area (the verge) and practicable could mean wide enough to not encourage close passes. It doesn't mean that the requirement for the passing vehicle to pass only when it safe to do so doesn't apply.

The officer was quite clear he felt it meant as far left as POSSIBLE, but didn't think that applied to any other vehicles using the same road, just me (motorcycles are exempt).

Just to clarify, the bit to the left of the line is not road surface, it is hard packed gravel.
Basically the sub base that the road is laid on.

[Cycleops70]

So I got a call back about this one, & the WA traffic police felt this was my fault, as I "failed to keep as far left as practicable".

He refused to respond to my question of; "Do you think it was safe?", or "what would have happened if he'd passed a police motorcyclist like that?"

I'm dumbfounded. The police here are just as biased as the general public.

Did you remind the officer that it is the position of your left shoulder/elbow/handlebars that determines the leftmost extent of your vehicle and from the video (in particular the Fly12 view) the left end of your handlebars are located directly above the left edge line (i.e. As far left as practicable).

The officer wasn't really interested, he felt I was an inconvenience to the driver & he was doing me a favour by "moving over as much as he could".

[JonasPhoto]

Considering WAToday is leading with a column about 1m passing, you could do worse than contact them today with your footage:
http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/new-c ... qe4tf.html

Lots of sympathy here on this forum but you're already preaching to the converted.

[Cycleops70]

Considering WAToday is leading with a column about 1m passing, you could do worse than contact them today with your footage:
http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/new-c ... qe4tf.html

Lots of sympathy here on this forum but you're already preaching to the converted.

What have I got to loose. Done.

[NewStew]

Considering WAToday is leading with a column about 1m passing, you could do worse than contact them today with your footage:
http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/new-c ... qe4tf.html

Lots of sympathy here on this forum but you're already preaching to the converted.

I also forwarded a link for the video and also your comments on the Police response onto a reporter at WA Today who interviewed me a while back for a cycling related article... who knows there may be an additional article soon.