I wonder what the WA Police and the Minister for Road “Safety” excuses are now given that the so call unenforceable road rule is actually quite enforceable.
Steven McKiernan Have you asked them?
Bicycle Transport Alliance I had a meeting yesterday which included police, office of road safety and the rac. They were arguing that research showed that at best 6% of cycling hospitalisations would possibly be impacted be impacted by the safe passing laws. I will have a look at the source they quoted, and post the link here, so somebody can check….
Bicycle Transport Alliance My first caution on the study below is the small sample size…. http://monash.edu/miri/research/reports/muarc311.html
Bicycle Transport Alliance From the report “When the collision partner was a moving car (21 cases), the most common crash mechanisms were side swipe by a parallel left turning vehicle (5 cases); side swipe
by a parallel vehicle from the same direction (4 cases); and being hit by cross traffic at intersection (4 cases). ” To me this says that in half the cases that involved a car, the bicycle rider was injured by a car driving in the same direction. To the RAC, this is 6%…..
Heinrich Benz Reading the report, it is clear that the RAC misquoted the findings in the report, ignored the low sample as well as the comment by the authors that the findings were not statistsally significant. What were they thinking?
Steven McKiernan 6% hospitalisation is therefore acceptable and not significant enough to try and reduce. maybe a letter to the Ministers for Police and Transport seeing as we have to ‘deal with congestion’
Heinrich Benz I think what the RAC did was that they had this report which looked at 158 cases (in Victoria, which I would expect to have about six times more cycling hospitalisations than Perth (1200 pa). They then took the nine cases that involved a car either side swipping, or turning left. and made this 6% of the total. It is obvious that a safe passing distance does not help if your chain breaks and you fall off the bike. All we need to worry about are the crashes that involve a car …
Steven McKiernan and now they’ll get their paid-for “bike advocates” to wade in.
Heinrich Benz Yeah, between them, the Office of Car Safety and the Police, and with Bicyle WA supporting them, a safe legalised passing distance is unlikely to happen here. The Greens put it up, and both Labor and Liberal will oppose it. The best hope is for a change to the Australian Road Rules. This will take a few years…..
Steven McKiernan Without securing a major party for 1m this was always going to happen
Strict Liability may get ALP support if lobbied correctly
Andrew Priest I just looked quickly at the Monash study and there does not appear to be multi-variate analysis of the motorist-cyclist interaction in the crashes and differently not involving an analysis of crashes with vehicles travelling in the same direction. I am therefore struggling to see how this research can be used as nothing more than a low ranking document in the research pyramid. It is not published research net alone research published in a A* journal.
Furthermore research such as the South Australian hospital data study paints a different picture, but again lacks the status of being published research.
The South Australian paper  looked at 61 crashes that required attendance at a hospital over a two year period. The study found:
* Those cyclists who struck the side of a vehicle were generally found to sustain more serious injuries when compared with other crash types and resulted in hospitalisation for longer periods.
* Collisions between a vehicle and a cyclist travelling in the same direction were the third most common movements leading to crashes in the study. In half of these cases the crash occurred as a result of the vehicle driver turning left into a side street immediately ahead of the cyclist, accounting for ten per cent of all crashes.
* In 79% of the cases the motorist was found to be at fault;
I would have hoped that the RAC WA is taking a far more professional approach to examining this issue than basing their argument on this one paper.
About 90% aof cycling deaths involve a motor vehicle. The three major reasons are being sideswiped, a car turning left, or a right angle crash with an oncoming car or as a result of the cyclist entering a roadway. Each group is about 20%, depending on jurisdiction.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau looked at the data in 2006, and concluded that on the available evidence The most common type of crash in which cyclists were fatally injured was the cyclist being hit from behind by a motor vehicle travelling in the same lane in the same direction.
At the meeting I mentioned earlier, the RAC argued that only 6% of cycling hospitalisations would be affected by the safe passing legislation, and that it was therefore not worthwhile pursuing. ORS and Police agreed. But with that way of thinking speed and red light legislation would be unnecessary, as only about 200 people get killed in WA, but there are probably about 100’000 infringements issued for speeding and red light. That would be 0.2%?
Bottom of Form