Submission to the Australian Bicycle Council / Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group regarding perceived visibility of recumbent bicycles and tricycles and other Human Powered Vehicles.
The Bicycle Transportation Alliance of Western Australia has been asked to provide comment on a proposal to increase regulation and legal compliance of human powered vehicles. This proposal appears to be based based on spurious and anecdotal experiential demand, rather than a clear scientific, needs analysis based objective response to an over-representation of recumbent HPV’s in vehicle collisions, near collisions, lost time injury, hospitalisations and fatalities.
The Bicycle Transportation Alliance of WA (BTAWA) is Western Australian’s largest bicycle advocacy group, with members and affiliate cycling organisations representing over 1000 cyclists. Established in 1993 from many long existing cycling groups, the BTAWA is dedicated to ecological sustainability, achieving public health improvement, advocating for increased and improved cycling transport infrastructure, and promoting everyday cycling.
An amendment is proposed to the Australian Road Rules that would mandate the display of an orange flag on recumbent cycles to increase the visibility and safety of the rider and other road users.
The proposal is to define a recumbent cycle and to require the display of one orange flag at a height not less than 1.5 metres above the ground.
The purpose of this proposal is to enhance the visibility of recumbent cycle riders and to increase their safety.
I would appreciate your comments with regard to this proposal. Any suggestions to improve this proposal would also be appreciated.
The view of the BTAWA is that any amendment to the Australian Road Rules should be based on sound empirical evidence, responding to an identified need, with clear safety outcomes a defined goal. So we would ask the following questions and make comment:
- The proposal to define recumbents does appear to largely redundant. “Recumbent” can be defined as ‘lying down, either prone or supine’, any such HPV would therefore require the passenger/engine to assume that position.
- Exactly what percentage of cyclists do recumbents represent in differing jurisdictions?
- What needs analysis has been conducted to determine that such changes to legislation, regulation or code of practice are urgently needed, justified or even desirable? Without a comprhensive needs analysis any such move for greater regulation would be precipitate.
- Has there been any empirical evidence that compulsory addition of an orange flag at a height of no-less than 1.5m above the ground will deliver guaranteed and deliverable safety and health outcomes? Why 1.5m and not 1.3 or 1.8m?
- Within the totality of vehicle collisions, near-collisions, lost time injury, hospitalisations and fatalities are recumbent riders disproportionately over-represented?
- Have recumbent riders and recumbent manufacturers’ been consulted on this matter?
- Has any social or cultural analysis been conducted to determine any reduction in cyclist participation rates through compulsory addition of an orange flag? What are the public health outcomes from any possible reduction in participation rates?
- What benefits are anticipated to result from any such change for ‘other road users’?
- To what extent has overseas experience been sought to avoid us ‘reinventing the wheel’?
- It is very important that any proposed changes to “increase visibility” avoid the massive legal challenges that occurred via the change to Australian Design Rule ADR 19/01 subsequently modified into ADR 19/02 regarding compulsory motorcycle ‘lights on’.
It is the view of the BTAWA that issues of visibility should be applied equally to all road users. It is easy to enact changes to small select and easily separated and segregated groups that appear to have little political significance, but much harder to make unpopular changes to larger more politically active groups even when there is clear empirical evidence that such a change would be of benefit to the community (for example slower urban speed limits).
The term ‘cyclist’ covers everything from a child with trainer wheels, BMX mounted youth, upright shoppers, tourists, vacationers, through to the carbon framed racers wannabes.
The BTAWA acknowledges that there are significant numbers of cyclists in all of these groups who may appear to place themselves at greater risk by wearing inappropriate and less visible options for clothing for the traffic conditions they are negotiating, and more obviously, riding at night with non existent or inadequate lights. This is not a phenomenon that can be overcome through regulation without consultation.
The BTAWA is of the view that rather than create yet more dubiously enforceable legislation, a cycling awareness education campaign would be far more effective coupled with increased expenditure for cycling infrastructure whilst making other less sustainable transport options more expensive – acknowledging the triple bottom-line impact of fossil-fueled transport options on public health and neighbourhood connectivity.
The BTAWA is of the view that such an awareness campaign would emphasis ‘rider responsibility’ of which being visible to other road users would be a part coupled with strong awareness campaigns for all road users.
The most effective safety feature for cyclists is to have more cyclists cycling everyday, to make cycling ordinary.
The more cyclists there are, the more other road users have an expectation of seeing and negotiating with cyclists. Any statutory change should be viewed from the aspect ‘Will this encourage or discourage cycling’? Will this make cycling safer? Is there any basis for this proposed change?’
Any change that discourages cycling must be regarded as undermining their safety. On those grounds and with the complete lack of empirical evidence being presented to justify this proposal, the BTAWA would oppose the amendment.
The BTAWA appreciate being kept appraised of any proposed changes to cycling infrastructure, legislation, regulation or code of practice.
The BTAWA appreciate the opportunity to comment on any such a proposal and look forward to doing so into the future.
Steven McKiernan
Convenor BTAWA
Greig, Russell wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }Thanks guys for your comments.
Fiona’s summation below
Russell
From: fiona maccoll
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2010 1:58 PM
Importance: HighFYI – the main points that have come out of my questioning are:
- upright two wheeled recumbents are at the same height as other bicycles and suffer from the same visibility problems that are not aided by inappropriate clothing;
- three wheeled recumbents are more visible that bicycles or two wheeled recumbents;
- the main problem arises with low racers that are built very low to the ground but are used mainly off-road and for racing (as the name implies);
- very rarely would these low racers be used on the road;
- the number of recumbents on the road is very low. Greenspeed could not provide any accurate statistics but felt that it would be in the very low 1000′s across the whole country and the vast majority would be tricycles (which have the higher visibility);
- and the number of low racers or lower two -wheeled recumbents would be minimal and would not justify any legislative change.
Could you please thank your respondents for me?
I will keep you informed of progress.
Regards
Peter
Regards
Fiona
Fiona MacColl
Executive Officer
Australian Bicycle Council
Recumbents low visibility issue is nonexisten, tidiculous. Don’t drivers see a cat on the road? or a pothole. They are quite lower than the lowest recumbent, and still,drivers avoid them. A white flashing light up front and a red flashing one at the rear end are more than enough.
Greetings, German Barbato
Writing from Washington State, USA.
I have come to the conclusion that a safety orange flag falls between the category of useless to increasing risk for a road using cyclist. Drivers tend to be more aggressive if they do take notice of your little safety flag. It appears that the flag represents a ‘toy’ to them, not a vehicle with the right to be on the road and they tend to get more aggressive. We’ve also seen that there can be a disconnect between seeing a safety flag and the bike rider. The motorist focuses on the flag, and seems at times to think it is attached to the motor vehicle in front of the cyclist. It distracts the driver from actually taking notice of the bike and the true distance between them.
I personally do not run any flags. I’ve experienced drivers pulling up next to me at stop lights after having changed lanes about 100-500 feet back, roll down their window and tell me that they can’t see me. This has always been after they made an obvious maneuver at a safe distance to get out from behind me. I believe the real issue is that they saw me, changed lanes to get out from behind me, but didn’t know exactly what I was because I didn’t instantly register as a bicycle.
I put on a set of high viz yellow panniers and my red rear lamps and have not experienced that conversation since. On the other hand… I haven’t seen any difference in when drivers change lanes to route around me either. I suspect that a regulation that would positively increase safety would be to have cyclists ride a minimum of 3-4 feet out into the lane so that they would stay in the area of the drivers vision where they actually register the cyclist’s presence. I won’t hold my breath for that one…
I should have mentioned that the “Can’t see you!” comments were all when riding my Greenspeed GTO trike with me using vehicular cycling techniques. Never had the conversation but have had people almost clip me when riding a Rans Tailwind which is wider and as tall as a normal cruiser bike. That used to occur when I’d ride to close to the edge of the lane, even with 5 sets of solid and blinking red lights on the back and a couple of square feet of hi viz reflective striping across the back of the mesh seat… but they never said they couldn’t see me as they almost took me out with right hooks and overtakes where they drifted into my space. Just would honk and scream stuff out the window if they noticed at all. Moved further into the lane and that all went away.
Why Orange?
I use a bright flag which is a mixture of flourescent orange , flourescent yellow and a border of Scothchlite reflective.
Yet this would now be illegal and I am forced to use a flag that is less visible during the day and invisible during the nigh.
This law is passed would decrease my safety!
Dear sirs.
First I wonder who raised the issue in the first place a cyclist or a car driver?
I am a cyclist I have been riding unusual bikes and recumbent since 1995 regularly on the road. My experience is that all of my accidents and near accidents have been on normal safety bikes. I have had the experience that most drivers keep clear of a recumbent more so when on a trike. The most unusual thing I have noted is that when riding in company with a normal bike the driver will not notice the other cyclist at all and more often than not get too close to my companion.
Another thing I have noticed is that what is more important car drivers think that the recumbent is a real vehicle some laugh and harass you and others give you a wide berth. The idea that a little flag is going to fix the idiots on the road is ridiculous.
Then there is a practice point. Most recumbent are long and unmaneuverable and when going through the numerous cycle ways we have to go under the U bars in the cycle ways. we can not go round! My Sister who did have a flag on her greenspeed found that the flag simply gets broken with possible damage to the bike or in this instance splintering and going toward my nephew in the trailer behind. Now I am for better visibility but do you really want to segregate a part of the community to use the roads more? That would cause more accidents not less.
Also if anything is made please research the results at least. Otherwise like the argument against mandatory helmets which caused a drop in cyclists equal to the drop in cyclist deaths we don’t an angry community.
Regards Gareth Buckland