WA Labor Promises New Law to Protect Vulnerable Road Users

[Scott_C]

But only for emergency vehicles, tow-trucks and roadside assistance vehicles.

I was reading through Labor's list of 200 Fresh Ideas, hoping to find a commitment to cycling of any kind (nope, we don't rate a mention and are clearly less important that their promise to "Recognise Dennis Cometti at the new Perth Stadium") and came across this:

155. Introduce Slow Down Move Over (SLOMO) laws

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a move over law is a law which requires motorists to move over and change lanes to give safe clearance to law enforcement officers, firefighters, and in some cases, tow-truck drivers, if you cannot move over you are required to slow to a safe speed (as nominated in the legislation).

It effectively creates a minimum passing distance of ~3m (a lane width) or alternatively a maximum passing speed (in South Australia, for example, the maximum passing speed is 25kph).

The promise was apparently originally made in December which clarified that the proposed law would apply to emergency vehicles and breakdown assist vehicles (which includes private citizens instead of just Government personnel).

From a cycling perspective it is interesting that most of the objections that are made regarding minimum passing laws (difficult to enforce, too difficult to slow down and wait for a safe space to pass etc.) also applies to the SLOMO law yet we have a firm pledge here to protect one group of vulnerable road users while there is silence regarding the protection of cyclists.

I am not against the passage of the SLOMO law (in fact it just codifies something I already do when driving) but the extension of protection to one class of vulnerable road user whilst ignoring the protection of another infuriates me. I just hope that when the SLOMO law is passed it is only applicable to motor vehicles otherwise cyclists might find themselves forced out of the shoulder and into the right hand traffic lane at 110kph if, for example, a cop has pulled someone over on the Forrest Highway.

TL;DR: Motorcycle cop stopped on the road shoulder with beacon light flashing, 3m safety clearance enforced by law; cyclist in the same position, pass 10cm from their handlebars and you are A O.K.

[Cycleops70]

The RAC called for the same a couple of years ago, after a tow truck driver was hit.
I quizzed them about safe passing legislation for cyclists. Their response was a very carefully crafted piece about how they 'support safe passing of cyclists ' but left out the legislation bit.
It was quite a dishonest response.

It will be interesting if they do implement it (assuming they get in), if they oppose the same for bikes, & on what grounds. Disappointing cyclists have been left out. However, it may help in the long run, as it would stink of double standards.

[XIX]

Although I do agree we need much more protection, I think the difference here is all the protected parties are stationary.

Cyclists are very rarely if ever stationary and usually travelling at a reasonable rate of knots. I think we need clearance laws, but not so much slow down laws, as in many instances if the driver slows down they wont be able to overtake.

I much prefer drivers who speed up but at a safe distance away and overtake, the ones who putt past always make me nervous as I usually feel they dont really know what they are doing. Not based on any fact mind you

[Scott_C]

Labor have released a media statement on their cycling related promises and it includes a 2 year trial of a minimum passing law for cyclists.

A little bit disappointed that it is still a trial after the successful adoption of the laws on a permanent basis elsewhere but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

[CycleSnail]

Currently direct spending on cycling is between $10mio to $14mio pa, coming from different pots. Makes it about $56mio over four years. Confusing that Labor seems to announce "and additional $27mio will be invested in cycling infrastructure over four years". Is this on top of the existing $56mio, or instead of?

Progressing safe passing laws is good, irrespective how it is dressed up.

[cj7hawk]

I noticed that the first thing Labor did upon taking government was to delete all internet accessible copies of their pre-election policies -

I don't suppose you have a copy in your cache do you?

David

[Scott_C]

I don't suppose you have a copy in your cache do you?

I grabbed a copy of Labor's Cycling for the Future policy statement on Sunday morning.

It appears it is currently still accessible using this direct link:
https://www.markmcgowan.com.au/files/Cy ... future.pdf

If the direct link dies before you get a chance to download it I can email you a copy.

[rolandp]

I've also got copies of their 2015 and 2017 cycling for the future, the media statement 10-Feb-2017, and WestCycle summary of all parties promises in relation to cycling.

[eldavo]

Ride next week to deliver petition that was signed for MPD laws prior to change of government.

Event by Cycle Alliance on facebook, ride lead by Sara Stace their WA/Perth Director.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1659617764343426/

Article with the new Premier's pledge:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-1 ... le/8260870

Re: additional funding. If the fruit bowl has one orange, one additional orange to the fruit bowl makes two oranges. Sounds like the WestCycle election campaign "double bike funding" agreement. I hope we can ask them to cancel the "might be a mate" failure of a substitute for MPD laws we got from Liza Harvey, and Colin Barnett against the MPD from day dot. Colin Barnett's statements read like earth is flat era layman opinion.

I saw my first example of the terrible ads, latest vid in my insta link in sig.

[rolandp]

9 months later
Perth drivers face $400 fine if they don't give cyclists one metre gap

[Wixxy]

How is this practically possible on single lane roads with a continuous centre line?

[Aushiker]

9 months later
Perth drivers face $400 fine if they don't give cyclists one metre gap

Thanks Roland. Excellent news.

[trailgumby]

How is this practically possible on single lane roads with a continuous centre line?

It's actually quite simple.

You do what you currently do when the line is broken. In other words, *when it's safe to do so*, you cross the centre line to pass. If it isn't safe, you wait until it is.

Make sense?

[Mububban]

How is this practically possible on single lane roads with a continuous centre line?

The article clearly said "Under the new rule, drivers are allowed to cross centre lane markings on roads, including double-white lines, when it is safe to do so."

“Where there is clear and legally admissible evidence of a breach of the new laws, police will issue the appropriate sanction.”

I guess we'll see about this....

[Wixxy]

In that circumstance it erodes the protection double continuous lines is designed for in that scenario where you`re needing to cross a continuous centre to comply?

Edited to make more sense!

[Thoglette]

In that circumstance it erodes the protection double continuous lines is designed to protect in that one scenario where you need to cross the centre to comply?

I'm going to make a guess at what you meant. And the short answer is: No.

The solid white line is there to deal with high speed vehicles being passed by higher speed vehicles (supposedly at below the speed limit).
E.g. an 80kph caravan in a 110 zone.

The solid white line makes no sense when passing low speed road users: horses; bicycles; tractors etc. Never did. But no sane copper was ever going to ping you for it. The "OMG we might have to break the law to pass (or wait a while)" is a complete furphy by the MGIF/DGAF crowd. But, sensibly, the minister has clarified this piece of regulation.

Next step: removing anti-dink laws. (OMGosh won't someone think of the children? The little darlings will die in droves)

[Scott_C]

In that circumstance it erodes the protection double continuous lines is designed to protect in that one scenario where you need to cross the centre to comply?

Under the existing WA road code continuous lines aren't inviolable as you can cross over them to make a right turn or (somewhat ridiculously) a u-turn (road rule 116).

Additionally in accordance with the existing road rule 120 you are also allowed to cross over continuous line(s) to avoid an obstruction with appropriate caution and the bicycle passing rule is probably going to be included as another situation under Rule 120.

As overtaking a group of bicycles is likely to leave you blocking the opposing carriageway for less time than doing a u-turn it isn't the most dangerous manoeuvre the road rules will let you do over continuous line(s).

As noted by Thoglette the lines are drawn based on the distances needed for an overtake of a long vehicle with a relatively low speed differential compared to the larger speed differential and generally shorter group of cyclists meaning that it is still possible to have a safe sighting distance for overtaking cyclists where it wouldn't be safe to overtake a longer, faster vehicle.

[Wixxy]

Still seems a conflict of interest. But I don't make the rules.

The U-turn inclusion is a brain dead idea.