NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines

[mikesbytes]

I didn't see it as I was at the gym. So they didn't call for the cycleway to be ripped up and another car lane put in?

I was expecting the usual touchstones of lycra and red lights - or maybe a call to reduce the over-generous 4 secs of green.

They got some count of 190 odd in an hour on one path - probably during the recent holidays - and mid july wouldn't help. Autoexpert opined there shouldn't be more. I'd assume he thinks 15 odd cars parked per city block paying peppercorn rent is a better outcome.

Feel like I'm linking a DT article here, dirty, dirty..

https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/vi ... cation=ufi

That's gutter press. Where do I start;
1. the stats done showed that there were more people movement in the space taken by the bike lanes than the same space allocated to cars on the same road
2. the lane shown was put in without reducing the number of car lanes

[AUbicycles]

A very good article from Peter Walker for the Guardian
Roundabout arguments can't disguise Sydney's cycling laws are taking the public for a ride


He managed to get an interview - not with MP Duncan Gay, but was referred to Bernard Carlon, head of road safety at Transport for NSW. I suggest reading the complete article (link above). These reflect the ongoing concerns of bicycle riders.

Author Peter Walker writes about his interview with Bernard Carlon - here are selected, important quotes.

He’s thus a civil servant rather than a politician but he very patiently sought to answer all my questions about the state government’s approach to cycling safety.

It was, nonetheless, one of the more curious conversations of my life. Listening back to the recording, it was as if Carlon and I were speaking different languages. Again and again he insisted the new regime was based on evidence, not prejudice, and it would make cycling more safe and this in turn would prompt cyclist numbers to rise.

Carlon’s inference seems to be that too many cyclists are riding in a risky and reckless manner, and must be somehow reined in through huge fines and compulsory ID checks. But, if you were Dutch or Danish, you might begin by looking at the nature of the road infrastructure into which all these cyclists keep somehow crashing.

Carlon told me the key vehicle statistic is “a very clear indication that in fact the behaviour on the road of bike riders actually is contributing to the crashes that are happening at a reasonably significant level”. I’d disagree. In fact I’d argue it says a lot more about the inherent prejudices of his department.

I just don’t believe him. While it is the subject for an entirely different (and even longer) article, it seems clear that the state’s helmet laws, in place since 1991, are the beginning of all this, suppressing cyclist numbers and doing nothing provable for public safety. The new fines seem set to do the same.

Sydney has a fairly long and ignoble history of deciding cyclists are a problem.

Christopher

[biker jk]

A very good article from Peter Walker for the Guardian
Roundabout arguments can't disguise Sydney's cycling laws are taking the public for a ride


He managed to get an interview - not with MP Duncan Gay, but was referred to Bernard Carlon, head of road safety at Transport for NSW. I suggest reading the complete article (link above). These reflect the ongoing concerns of bicycle riders.

Author Peter Walker writes about his interview with Bernard Carlon - here are selected, important quotes.

He’s thus a civil servant rather than a politician but he very patiently sought to answer all my questions about the state government’s approach to cycling safety.

It was, nonetheless, one of the more curious conversations of my life. Listening back to the recording, it was as if Carlon and I were speaking different languages. Again and again he insisted the new regime was based on evidence, not prejudice, and it would make cycling more safe and this in turn would prompt cyclist numbers to rise.

Carlon’s inference seems to be that too many cyclists are riding in a risky and reckless manner, and must be somehow reined in through huge fines and compulsory ID checks. But, if you were Dutch or Danish, you might begin by looking at the nature of the road infrastructure into which all these cyclists keep somehow crashing.

Carlon told me the key vehicle statistic is “a very clear indication that in fact the behaviour on the road of bike riders actually is contributing to the crashes that are happening at a reasonably significant level”. I’d disagree. In fact I’d argue it says a lot more about the inherent prejudices of his department.

I just don’t believe him. While it is the subject for an entirely different (and even longer) article, it seems clear that the state’s helmet laws, in place since 1991, are the beginning of all this, suppressing cyclist numbers and doing nothing provable for public safety. The new fines seem set to do the same.

Sydney has a fairly long and ignoble history of deciding cyclists are a problem.

Christopher

We've covered Bernard Carlon's ignoring of the evidence before on this forum which resulted in the conclusion that he is merely a stooge of Duncan Gay. BNA's questions to Carlon on Facebook were not answered if you recall?

[AUbicycles]

Correct - this again confirms.

The minister and his staff are really doing a disservice to the community and ignoring their responsibility in their rolls. I have attempted to get answers with multiple letters (postal and digital), through other MPs, the premier and via social media and only get rhetoric.

[CalvinAndHobbes]

I read the Guardian article with interest. This statement especially:

"When it came to evidence, Carlon cited a couple of things. The first was a statistic that, in more than 50% of cycle crashes in the state, the “key vehicle” was a bike. In road safety terms this usually means the vehicle which made the manoeuvre central to the incident. So it could mean, say, a cyclist who crashes into the back of a car. But it could equally be a rider making a perfectly legitimate turn and being struck by a driver speeding round a blind corner."

Anyone have a reference for any such documentation / evidence from Transport for NSW? This seems to be a very different number to other research. I would be very interested in how the 'key vehicle' is determined.

CalvinAndHobbes

[Leethal]

I read the Guardian article with interest. This statement especially:

"When it came to evidence, Carlon cited a couple of things. The first was a statistic that, in more than 50% of cycle crashes in the state, the “key vehicle” was a bike. In road safety terms this usually means the vehicle which made the manoeuvre central to the incident. So it could mean, say, a cyclist who crashes into the back of a car. But it could equally be a rider making a perfectly legitimate turn and being struck by a driver speeding round a blind corner."

Anyone have a reference for any such documentation / evidence from Transport for NSW? This seems to be a very different number to other research. I would be very interested in how the 'key vehicle' is determined.

CalvinAndHobbes

Agreed. I'm also not aware of too many instances where a cyclist would deliberately put themselves in harms way of a much heavier motor vehicle - even where they have the right of way. I also suspect a proportion of the high bicycle "key vehicle" incidents may be due to evasive maneuvers conducted by cyclists to avoid more significant collisions with pedestrians and vehicles; Maybe not, but considering the reports and root statistics are not readily accessible I guess we'll likely never really know...

[AUbicycles]

The "Key Vehicle" concept is a bad joke.If the bike rider was not there, they would not get hit.

The Adelaide university study, along with a Queenland report (PDF) which I am not familiar with confirm international stats that put the motor vehicle driver at fault in 80 - 90% of collisions.

The department wont comment on this stat and wont provide details on where / how accidents occurred. For example, they had a stats to say a percentage of accidents happened at intersections and used this as justification for the increase in fines for going through red. However they wont respond about how many of the intersections had traffic lights and how many collisions were a result of a bike rider going through red. Even a common sense guess would suggest that bike riders are not causing the problem in the majority of collisions.

I welcome the 1 meter safe passing distance however the department has done a shocking job - it has not been properly publicised. The police targeting of bike riders and ignoring 1 meter violations suggest that this hasn't been done well and fairly.

The whole thing is a distraction from their responsibility to improve transport infrastructure to benefit all road users. Duncan Gay reduced spending and wouldn't respond and provide a breakdown. I got a response from a staffer to say that they can't share the budget breakdown. I asked why - if it is a secret and for what reason the government expenses / budget for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure needs to be withheld from the community. It is well over a year and they still wont provide answers.

Excuse the length of this... as a cyclist it is very easy to feel that you are not being heard by the government.

[biker jk]

The most often quoted study on bicycle crashes involving cars found that 79% were the fault of motorists.

"More than 85 per cent of the cyclists in the study were identified as travelling straight on a single carriageway with the intention of continuing straight at the time of the crash,"

"By far the most crashes, four in every 10 of the crashes in the study, involved an oncoming vehicle turning right across the path of a cyclist who was continuing straight."

"In six out of 10 crashes, the vehicle driver was crossing two or more traffic lanes while turning right."

"In two in every 10 crashes, cyclists ran into cars that were turning from the stem of a T-junction."

"Collisions between a vehicle and a cyclist travelling in the same direction were the third most-common movements leading to crashes in the study, totalling one in every 10 crashes."

"T-intersections were the most dangerous locations for crashes, followed by straight roads, and signalled intersections."

So it has nothing to do with cyclists behaving recklessly. Carlon is just making that up.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 1469680917

[mikesbytes]

And using the stats that they have given us, its showing that increasing the fines has caused an increase in the number breaking the law, as is shown by the dramatic increase in fines issued. So if they are using their own stats to justify what they have done they should actually decrease the fines so to decrease the number of offenders

[AUbicycles]

mikesbytes... that is an interesting spin on the data

[human909]

The first was a statistic that, in more than 50% of cycle crashes in the state, the “key vehicle” was a bike.

The "Key Vehicle" concept is a bad joke.If the bike rider was not there, they would not get hit.

I can't comment on this statistic but some previous 'statistics' from WA did show cyclists were at fault in over 50% of crashes and motorist were at fault less than 50% of the time. What was later revealed was this included single vehicle bicycle crashes! So technically that statistic being quoted was correct according to the data but it was entirely misleading in the context of the discussion.

A similar statistic would be motorists are at fault in 99.5% of motor vehicle crashes.

[Mulger bill]

mikesbytes... that is an interesting spin on the data

Yep, classic case of the more you look the more you see. Creates a politically ideal situation of "Seen to be doing something".

[mikesbytes]

A similar statistic would be motorists are at fault in 99.5% of motor vehicle crashes.

LOL

So we could say that cyclists were at fault in 0.25% of crashes

[human909]

So we could say that cyclists were at fault in 0.25% of crashes

Exactly.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. And the NSW state government seems to be using all three!

[BianchiCam]

And using the stats that they have given us, its showing that increasing the fines has caused an increase in the number breaking the law, as is shown by the dramatic increase in fines issued. So if they are using their own stats to justify what they have done they should actually decrease the fines so to decrease the number of offenders

Same is said for speeding fines. Year on year the numbers caught goes up but does not correlate to accidents going down. Yep that's working out well now, isn't it?

[bychosis]

I saw this article on the Sydney City Council elections. Clover Moore vs Christine Foster (Tony Abbot's Sister). One obviously pro bike and the other calling to pause installation of bike infrastructure.

It occurs to me that the latter is pandering to the noisy majority in the media, most of whom won't live within the local council area. Those that do live in the area are more likely to be anti-car, living and working within walking/cycling/public transport distance in the city and not wanting their steets overrun by smokeboxes.

[mod=mikesbytes]fixed the link[/mod]

[mikesbytes]

So we could say that cyclists were at fault in 0.25% of crashes

Exactly.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. And the NSW state government seems to be using all three!

Thinking this one a bit further, that means that 0.25% of law enforcement should be focused on bicycles, ie 99.75% of the focus should be on the other road users

[find_bruce]

I saw this article on the Sydney City Council elections. Clover Moore vs Christine Foster (Tony Abbot's Sister). One obviously pro bike and the other calling to pause installation of bike infrastructure.

It occurs to me that the latter is pandering to the noisy majority in the media, most of whom won't live within the local council area. Those that do live in the area are more likely to be anti-car, living and working within walking/cycling/public transport distance in the city and not wanting their steets overrun by smokeboxes.

Yep, Clover is very popular with those who live in the city - it is the reason the Liberals decided to make business votes worth two resident votes. Size of the business doesn't matter though so my vote is worth as much as the Commonwealth Bank. Having attempted to navigate the bureaucratic minefield that is the registration process (not sure if I was successful) it won't surprise me if business registration remains low.

[Thoglette]

Same is said for speeding fines. Year on year the numbers caught goes up but does not correlate to accidents going down. Yep that's working out well now, isn't it?

There's three basic reasons for that
1. Total distance driven continues to trend upwards
2. Policing of speeding fines is spotty at best (if you pass one a week it's unusual)
3. Policing subject to the whims of ministers & public servants. Camera numbers may be fixed but the hours spent by uniformed officers is highly variable (and basically zero at the moment this side the rabbit proof fence)
4. Camera sites are generally reused and known.

Ergo. Your chance of getting caught speeding is pretty bloody slim if you are half awake (despite those who continue to pay the stupidity tax at fixed camera sites)

We have the technical means to easily vastly expand the enforcement of speeding (and bus lane abuse and tailgating and mobile phone use) but there is no political desire to do so.

If we really wanted to, mandatory electronic vehicle monitoring systems coupled with automated fines (with amounts linked to gross income) could be rolled out across 90% of the fleet within 5 years.

[bychosis]

If we really wanted to, mandatory electronic vehicle monitoring systems coupled with automated fines (with amounts linked to gross income) could be rolled out across 90% of the fleet within 5 years.

That oughta get some peeps back on bikes. Big brother wont be able to watch you there (until we have to get rego plates etc. )

[human909]

If we really wanted to, mandatory electronic vehicle monitoring systems coupled with automated fines (with amounts linked to gross income) could be rolled out across 90% of the fleet within 5 years.

Forget mostly about the fines. If you did it properly then you would very likely have a big drop in speeding fines. If you are going to do that then any system that cared about SAFETY and not revenue raising would incorporate a 10second warning or similar.

I care about personal privacy but you could have a system which almost completely dissociated the tracking and fining with names. (Exceptions would undoubtedly be made in cases of serious crimes.)

[biker jk]

Correct, Northern Beaches LAC. Meeting was at Frenchs Forest.
@find_bruce: Is Duncan in the Senate or House of Reps?

my experience with DY is appalling - interesting to see how u go!

I will provide my experience with Mona Vale when appropriate.

I opted for the driver to be warned, for two reasons. First, the difficulty of proving the offence according to the police (yes I understand that measurements could be taken but when the officer is not sounding keen that's a pretty transparent sign about desire to prosecute). Second, I was happy for the driver to be educated about his dangerous pass so that it leads to better behaviour rather than fined and producing an angry response.

The truck driver passed with an oncoming vehicle (which you can see moving well left to avoid a collision) missing my wife by around 50cm. For reference, the distance from the left side of her handlebar to the edge of her mirror on the right side is 50cm.

[trailgumby]

The reasons I went with a TIN were multiple
* the action of Mr Green Ute was clearly an intentional punishment pass
* I wanted to back the officer who helped me. He invested quite a bit of his time, including writing up the statement draft while on holiday
* the balance of infringement numbers needs to be redressed
* I had a slam-dunk thanks to the road markings enabling accurate measurements to be taken
* I wanted to find out what the requirements were to get a prosecution, and
* turn that into a repeatable process for others to use if at all possible

I've achieved all the outcomes I wanted, except for the relative infringement numbers of course, and the last which is still in progress.

While the driver may not be happy about getting TIN'd, and it is unlikely he will like cyclists any more, I'm less concerned about being liked than I am about being treated with respect and safety. And sometimes bullies will only like you if they respect you, and they'll only respect you if you bite them back, hard.

The driver will have had some explaining to do to his family, as the officers visited his home after he was returning from visiting McDonalds with them.

[BJL]

So we could say that cyclists were at fault in 0.25% of crashes

Exactly.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. And the NSW state government seems to be using all three!

Thinking this one a bit further, that means that 0.25% of law enforcement should be focused on bicycles, ie 99.75% of the focus should be on the other road users

Not necessarily, the 0.25% of accidents that cyclists do cause would result in a lot less than 0.25% of trauma and property damage overall. Using these percentages, it would be closer to 0%.

[mikesbytes]

Exactly.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. And the NSW state government seems to be using all three!

Thinking this one a bit further, that means that 0.25% of law enforcement should be focused on bicycles, ie 99.75% of the focus should be on the other road users

Not necessarily, the 0.25% of accidents that cyclists do cause would result in a lot less than 0.25% of trauma and property damage overall. Using these percentages, it would be closer to 0%.

Would the following statement be reasonable?

"Accidents causing trauma to others where a cyclist was at fault accounts for less than 0.1% of those trauma's"