Toyota Landcruiser Driver Fined for Not Giving a Cyclist One Metre of Room When Passing [WA]

teasatotalling on 06/12/2017 - 03:02
Last edited 06/12/2017 - 10:11 by 1 other user

Finally it appears the law is focusing on drivers as much as cyclists, with a motorist fined $400 and four demerit points after travelling too close to a bicycle rider. In what is believed to be the first breach of Western Australia’s new one metre passing rule, the driver of a Toyota LandCruiser was fined after an incident last Sunday.

The cyclist, who asked not to be named, said the vehicle encroached into the bicycle lane as it overtook him while travelling in a 70km/h zone.
“His vehicle was in the bike lane — completely unnecessary because he had two lanes of empty traffic which he could have used,” he told Perth Now.
After voicing his anger at the close pass, the cyclist was confronted by the driver who had pulled over about 20m in front of him.
There was an angry exchange between the pair, which then led to another confrontation further down the road.
“I rode ahead and was about to cross back to the bike lane, but he came up the inside and then cut me across two lanes towards the centre,” the cyclist said. “Just as well there was no other traffic, as I would have been roadkill when he tried to run me into the middle.”
Wanneroo police travelling in the opposite direction spotted the incident and issued an infringement to the driver, who gave the excuse he was “abused for nothing”.

The cyclist said police gave him the option of attempted assault or breach of the one meter rule.
“I went for the latter as it needs reinforcing, even though apparently it is a lesser charge,” he said.
The fine comes after legislation stipulating drivers must leave a gap of at least one metre when passing a cyclist at 60km/h or less or 1.5m when passing above 60km/h was introduced last Thursday.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the…

Sports & Outdoors

Comments

        • Euphemistic on 08/12/2017 - 12:50
          +1

          @Chris12345: and even if it isn't legal (like in NSW) there are plenty of times where riding on the footpath will cause absolutely no inconvenience to a pedestrian (when the path is barely used) and significantly reduce risk for the cyclist.

          I used to cross the road and use the footpath to pass a busy roundabout. In a year of commuting I reckon I had to ride on the grass around a pedestrian only a handful of times. Illegal, but safer. No harm to the pedestrian, especially if you give them a wide berth and a smile and a greeting.

    • hangdog on 07/12/2017 - 21:00
      +2

      Yeah, cyclists could put their taxes into consolidated revenue and fund roads or something. Oh, wait…

    • 2ndeffort on 11/12/2017 - 15:09

      Most of us pay taxes so we help fund the same roads that everyone uses.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/12/2017 - 17:20

    I wish the TAC would be more measured in their approach and consider both cyclists and motorists. While it's great that they are protecting cyclists, when cyclist put themselves in unnecessary danger (i.e. using a busy road when a cycle path runs parallel), they should also fine the cyclist.

  • MessyG on 07/12/2017 - 21:22
    +4

    I think the poster who said this is nothing more than road rage nailed it. This isn't about cyclist vs driver, this is about a driver getting enraged and driving dangerously because they couldn't control their emotions on the road. I take issue with the cyclist going for the lesser charge to suit their ideology instead of taking a bigger stand on violent behaviour. I'm sick of overly emotional road ragey drivers losing their shit on the road and doing irrational things like that, it's just not on.

    And the cyclist, god, someone tries to nearly take him out on the road and he chooses to uphold a traffic infringement on behalf of all cyclists? I don't mind people on bikes but jeez some of them are bit too evangelical about it.

    • teasatotalling on 07/12/2017 - 21:24

      No, I reckon the truth is because without video footage it’s harder to prove

      • MessyG on 07/12/2017 - 21:34
        +2

        Didn't the OP write that the cops witnessed the incident? Don't need video footage if you have police witnesses.

    • hangdog on 07/12/2017 - 21:56
      +2

      You might have a different view of this so-called "evangelism" if you were a cyclist regularly subjected to unprovoked threats and abuse from motorists.

      • MessyG on 08/12/2017 - 18:26
        +2

        I'm not denying that doesn't happen. I have a problem with this case though - this cyclist has elected to go for lesser charges to prove a point, rather than say road violence is unacceptable. They're protecting a one metre rule over attempted assault. And as someone who has been abused by a certain ilk of male cyclists for doing absolutely nothing wrong myself, both as a pedestrian, motorist, and on a bike, I'd say it very much goes both ways. The majority of cyclists I have no problem with but some of them are just as ridiculous as crazy road rager motorists.

        The end outcome of this is that the motorist is going to have increased resentment to cyclists, be out of pocket, and have absolutely no impetus to reform their behaviour whatsoever. If anything, it will escalate because of this.

        • hangdog on 09/12/2017 - 00:12

          To say it goes both ways is false equivalence and doesn't excuse any misbehaviour towards innocent parties. Getting the errant driver penalised for passing too closely is more than just proving a point - unsafe passing is a frequent and real danger, and is one of many unsafe behaviours cyclists encounter from motorists. Unprovoked motorist hostility towards cyclists is a massive problem in Australia.

          Your argument about the motorist resenting cyclists more after being pinged for unsafe passing, as opposed to the alternative, doesn't make sense to me. How would being brought up on attempted assault make the driver any better disposed? One may as well say that no penalty against anything can be effective because it increases resentment and leads to escalation of the offending behaviour.

        • MessyG on 09/12/2017 - 17:21

          @hangdog: Because the attempted assault has been highlighted as the problem, not the traffic infringement. The focus is all wrong in this case. You said it yourself - unprovoked hostility aka road violence is a huge problem and I completely agree with you. Having the motorist get a criminal record for that instead of a traffic infringement would highlight the seriousness of it far more than a bloody fine for crossing a white line. I really think it sends the wrong message and the cyclist should have gone hammer and tong for assault charges.

          I don't think saying it goes both ways is false equivalence because it does but motorists are obviously far more dangerous to cyclists than the reverse, I'll give you that. Unsafe passing is dangerous but what the motorist did was vindictive and violent and should have been penalised appropriately for it. I'd put money on them behaving that way to everyone and the cyclist could have done the world a favour and gotten him on the record for it.

  • berry580 on 08/12/2017 - 06:33
    +2

    Why the option of attempted assault or breach of the one meter rule and not both?

    It's not like the victim gets the $400.

    Sounds more like attempted murder to me. Takes a lot of skill to only 'assault' someone with a Landcruiser.

    God bless.

  • Pricebeat on 08/12/2017 - 07:20

    Bets are open, how long before disableduser007?

  • sweetnipples on 08/12/2017 - 07:56

    Laws are passed so fines can be handed out.
    Why is this even posted for discussion?
    Who cares… Same as School Zones.

  • Aceboy884 on 08/12/2017 - 09:58

    I had cyclist ride in front of all the cars during traffic stop

    It gives me the shits because it’s turning into a single lane and the stupid bike slowed everyone behind her

    It goes both ways

    • Rollins on 08/12/2017 - 10:52
      +2

      Whats the issue here you had to use the indicator and move the powered steering wheel a little to the right ? I hope your ok ?

      • Aceboy884 on 08/12/2017 - 14:36
        +1

        the issue here is the cyclist know they can't ride faster than a car

        yet they choose to over take all the cars,

        a dick move

        • Rollins on 08/12/2017 - 14:44
          +1

          Go ride a bike in traffic, then get back to me on that. In some jurisdictions I cyclist/Motorbike ride MUST proceed to the front of the line of traffic as it is safer when the traffic moves off at the lights. That person probably rides that stretch of road frequently and has probably sat back off the queue of cars to be polite, only to be nearly run over whilst taking off. If it was a Bus, Tractor, Truck, Caravan, Rubbish truck etc etc etc would you have the same issue ? They would all be moving far slower than you. By your logic the fastest vehicle should be at the front of the queue at every red light.

          Unfortunately you do not own the road for your own convenience.

          I would also say that bar the initial acceleration, a cyclist is moving faster than a car in peak hour.

          As you say "It goes both ways"

        • HighAndDry on 08/12/2017 - 15:43

          @Rollins: Quote me that rule. Because it doesn't exist - they're allowed to lane-filter (and I'm pretty sure this still only applies to motorbikes), not that they must.

          And how the hell is a cyclist at the front of a queue of cars safer? They're only forcing every car they just passed to have to overtake them again.

        • Rollins on 08/12/2017 - 15:59
          +3

          @0blivion:

          In the UK you MUST filter to the front of the traffic on a pushbike/motorbike, note i said certain jurisdictions.

          However locally these apply and are relevant to the conversation, why do you think they make these boxes ? To annoy motorists ?

          http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers-handbook/t…

          https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-device…

          I am certainly not suggesting that a cyclist has an absolute right to be at the front of the traffic, but in certain situations its a better place to be, visibility, large truck is not going to cut you off as you enter/leave the intersection etc etc.

          If you are unable to navigate past a cyclist, tractor, horse, pedestrian or other obstacle, I would suggest not driving a motor vehicle.

          Its pretty simple really. Overtake cyclist. If they catch you at the next set of lights is that the cyclists fault ? Or is the traffic flow SLOWER than the cyclist.

          If you are really making the point that cyclists are not wanted on the road, then I would suggest lobbying your local govt for more infrastructure. Good luck with that.

        • Euphemistic on 08/12/2017 - 16:00
          +1

          @0blivion: in some situations the road narrows at the intersection, then the sholder opens up afterwards. In that case it is much safer (as a cyclist) to head to the front, cross the intersection in front of the cars, then shift over to the shoulder and allow the cars to pass again. I've done that plenty of times.

          Sometimes though, the traffic is that heavy that cars don't get to overtake 'again' because the bike is moving faster on average than the cars.

          I agree it's a dick move if the cars then need to change lanes to overtake again and the rinse and repeat.

        • HighAndDry on 08/12/2017 - 16:04
          -1

          @Rollins:

          However locally these apply and are relevant to the conversation, why do you think they make these boxes ? To annoy motorists ?

          I'd assume they're only for intersections where there's a bicycle only traffic light. And in any case, that'd mean you'd still be wrong anywhere those don't exist. Which is the majority of intersections.

          Its pretty simple really. Overtake cyclist. If they catch you at the next set of lights is that the cyclists fault ? Or is the traffic flow SLOWER than the cyclist.

          Or cyclists can treat themselves like drivers, and queue up behind traffic like drivers. Do you know how often cyclists leave 1.5m (or even 1m) of room when lane-filtering to the front of traffic? Never.

        • HighAndDry on 08/12/2017 - 16:07
          +1

          @Euphemistic:

          In that case it is much safer (as a cyclist) to head to the front

          I honestly still don't see how this is safer.

          Cars move forwards in traffic - how is a cyclist at the back of traffic at any kind of danger?

        • Aceboy884 on 08/12/2017 - 17:40

          This (profanity) did it on a road with single lane and there is no bike lane

          So all cars had to follow

        • Euphemistic on 08/12/2017 - 18:00

          @0blivion: it is safer when you are not at the back of the traffic.

        • berry580 on 08/12/2017 - 18:11
          +1

          In NSW, cyclists can legally take the entire lane. Yet I see most cyclists don't, probably because they know they can't drive faster than a car. That's out of courtesy mate, ever been thankful if that? I hope you are. I am, and I'm not a cyclist.

          I know it's definitely annoying to have a 30km/hr push bike in front of you.
          Over take them only if its safe. Keep in mind that could be someone's mother, father, son or daughter. Please don't risk killing anyone just so that you can brake earlier at the next light.

          At best you'd be minutes earlier, would thats be worth the months if not years of legal repercussions?

        • Aceboy884 on 08/12/2017 - 19:24
          +2

          @berry580:

          No one suggested running over someone because he/she is a dick

          But doesn’t stop me thinking they are a dick

        • berry580 on 08/12/2017 - 20:03

          @Aceboy884: might be easy to have self control when you're just behind a keyboard and screen. It is generally thoughts like that which causes road rage in many cases.

          Think positive. They're helping to preserve our planet. You can help too by not accelerating excessively.

        • Ocean on 08/12/2017 - 20:20

          @Aceboy884:
          Some days i drive to work approx 20mins causing noise, pollution, traffic congestion and altogether negative impact on society.. nice day, no dramas.

          Some days i ride to work approx 20mins im law-abiding, dont filter traffic, wait at lights, accelerate fast, and stay as far left as potholes allow. No impact on society. Generally get overtaken/sideswiped dangerously at least once and feel lucky to arrive alive.

          I drive more than i ride. Your loss. More cars on the road so you can sit in traffic longer…

        • Aceboy884 on 08/12/2017 - 20:48

          @Ocean:

          You are right

          I do get agro

        • Euphemistic on 08/12/2017 - 21:15

          @berry580:

          Keep in mind that could be someone's mother, father, son or daughter.

          Keep in mind it IS someone’s loved one, not just could be.

        • Omitsukasa on 09/12/2017 - 08:44

          @Rollins:

          I stay behind trucks and buses as their slow speed is within my acceptable threshold, but bikes are just way too slow. It is dangerous to zip to different lanes all the time all because of one cyclist doing the aforementioned.

  • Durian Pancake on 08/12/2017 - 11:57
    +4

    As a car driver, motorbiker and cyclist. All road users are arseh%#&$.
    Blind drivers, motorbikers filtering at excessive speed, mamil peletons taking up the entire road.

    They should just revenue raise more and fine everyone.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/12/2017 - 14:41
    -1

    Mayte there is a reason natz is for carz only. Becuz carz rule.

  • CalmLemons on 08/12/2017 - 14:48

    This thread is about to get closed real soon I think.

    The issue is, sometimes the road doesn't even allow 1m between the cars and the bicycles. If there is a truck in a two lane road with a bycicle lane, there is no way the car can make it through without getting close to the bycyclist. That's not even considering whether the truck driver is going to stay perfectly in a straight line depending on the road surface, wind conditions and driver.

    • Euphemistic on 08/12/2017 - 16:00
      +2

      Then the car needs to wait until it is safe to pass. Pretty simple.

      • MessyG on 09/12/2017 - 17:24
        +1

        Except when the cyclist drives up beside the car and creates a less than 1m gap! I'm a stickler for road rules and I do my best but sometimes it's not easy and hard to take when they don't follow the rules themselves. I am all for more bikes in cities because it's healthier and far better for the environment and I really don't mind the mild inconvenience of giving way to bikes but it's really irritating when cyclists behave as if motorists are the only ones not following the rules on the road.

        • Euphemistic on 09/12/2017 - 20:53
          +1

          Cars and trucks passing bicycles create a wind buffer that can blow a cyclist off course, especially at higher speeds. This is why we need 1m and more clearance. Additionally cyclists do deviate a bit from a straight line while pedalling hard a bit of space helps keep them safe.

          A cyclist will typically only pass a stationary or very slow moving vehicle with less than one metre clearance. The rule does not apply because there is no wind buffer to blow the cyclist around and cause a crash. The cyclist also has a good reason not to clip the vehicle or they are likely to crash - which hurts. The faster you ride the more clearance is required, especially to avoid opening doors.

          I regularly ride in the bush and miss trees and other stationary objects with less than 1m clearance, it’s not hard to miss stuff and you learn quickly that clipping something with your handlebars is a recipe for crashing. There is no need to maintain 1m clearance from a stationary object.

  • Punda on 09/12/2017 - 21:06

    Attempted assault? How is that even a charge?

    • MessyG on 09/12/2017 - 21:10
      +4

      The motorist tried to assault the cyclist with his car. The police saw it. Weird overly emotional and irrational driver dangerously driving to hurt someone. I still feel annoyed that the motorist wasn't charged for it. Road violence is something that just isn't taken as seriously as it should be yet.

    • Davo1111 on 10/12/2017 - 18:54

      so it's ok to run at someone yelling "i'm going to knock you out" with a closed fist, then stop 20cm from their face and be like "jokes!"?

      • Punda on 15/12/2017 - 09:30
        -1

        Bike der s want protection yet they regularly break road rules with no penalty. Stay on he bike paths that ratepayers have had to provide.

        • Euphemistic on 15/12/2017 - 10:13
          -1

          Last week in Sydney:

          59 cyclists were caught disobeying traffic lights.

          34 riding on the footpath.

          56 not wearing a helmet.

          11 for other offences.

          Bike riders want to be safe on the road, just like anyone else. When they break the rules there is potential for a penalty, just like driving. Not everyone that breaks a rule gets a fine while either driving or riding.

        • Davo1111 on 15/12/2017 - 10:57
          +1

          errr wut.

          Drivers regularly break the road rules with no penalty.

          Rate payers includes cyclists. The same rate payers that pay for the roads we all use.

        • Punda on 16/12/2017 - 01:44

          dont pay registration, in Wa many footpaths are cycleways. Just yesterday I saw a guy, no helmet riding on the road. Then the light turns red…. what did he do? Go up onto the cycleway and keep riding thru the red as if he was 'jaywalking' then he gets over the intersection and goes back onto the road. Have never ever seen a cyclist get pulled over.

        • Davo1111 on 16/12/2017 - 14:11

          @Punda: Wait, you seriously think car registration covers the costs of roads? HAHAHHAHAHAHhahahahaha

          Without checking my reciepts, according to the website, i paid around $650 for registration. $400 was instantly Motor Injury insurance, the remainder <$250 was the actual bit of revenue that goes to the state government. The DOT will get their cut indirectly, and the rest is pooled with the state government spent on all projects. Lets just assume, that DOT got $30. So how much road do you think i deserve for $220? It's less than $1/day… per business day. It doesnt even begin to cover the cost of the roads.

  • 2ndeffort on 11/12/2017 - 15:03
    +2

    Yawn, another drivers vs cyclists. the one thing that never creases to amaze me with this boring topic is the unshakable stereotyping that always goes on. In one camp we have the lycra clad pests that break every road rule with impunity and get away with it because they are arrogant and hellbent on causing the most inconvenience possible. The irrefutable truth of their existence is that somewhere sometime on your inner city commute you saw a cyclist run a red light or ride on a footpath. In the other camp we have the crazed road raging driver in a semi trailer scouring the highways for innocent cyclists to run down. If this was any other issue and people were using extreme stereotypes we would probably all call them out. If i said all (insert minority here) do this or that i would be called a bigot and exposed for my prejudice but cycling seems to be fair game. In reality most of us know that in any walk of life there are morons and normal people, why should mode of transport be any different.

    I am a keen cyclist but realistically i only cycle for fitness and friendship, not to transport myself anywhere. I leave home, ride 100km and end up back at home. If i have to go anywhere for a reason I drive my car. I am a 90% driver. I dont ride in the inner city and I never break road rules intentionally. I think i am pretty 'normal'. I ride with a load of fellow middle aged guys and I dont see any of them doing any of the stuff everyone uses as justification for their extreme opinions. Most people I ride with aer very careful because we all want to get home alive. I have a wife and 2 sons that i would like to come home to and I'm not trying to inconvenience anyone else, truly. I'm happiest just to be left alone to enjoy riding.

    In the subject of the OP, the driver clearly crossed into a bike lane to hit the cyclist. There is no justification for using your car as a weapon to hit somebody more vulnerable than yourself. Maybe the cyclist was a moron, maybe he had caused some earlier frustration or incident, that still doesnt give somebody else the justification to run him down with a car. The 1m law is important because now there can be no doubt that a law was broken, the driver cant say it was 'appropriate' for the conditions etc. You have to be within 1m to actually hit somebody therefore the law has been broken.

    • Davo1111 on 12/12/2017 - 15:21
      +2

      unshakable stereotyping that always goes on.

      pretty much this.

      It's also easy journalism, as the most people sit on one side of the fence, and you can easily stir up controversy. Combine that with the whole "revenue raising" angle (in this case from a recently implemented law) and you've got a fantastic controversial article, getting those views.

    • Euphemistic on 13/12/2017 - 11:40
      +1

      This doesn't give us any indication of why the cyclist overreacted. More than likely he felt as though his life had been in danger and after a confrontation didn't want the driver chasing him down.

      I've had a 'lady' follow me up the road shouting at me and my sons cycling for her doing something stupid and endangering my kids. If she had stopped, she might have lost her keys too.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join