This is what I wrote in response to the draft of this bill to Malcolm Watters. The draft was promulgated unchanged. Mr Watters, I've read quite a lot about the draft legislation proposed under the rather oddly named Draft Safety of Cyclists Regulations. As both a motorist and cyclist I don't feel this draft does anything to improve the safety of cyclists on our roads, and if anything creates more of a distinction between cyclists and other road users. An "us versus them" situation. I've been cycling for 18 years here in the Cape, and in that time I've only been involved in one incident that resulted in me being knocked from my bike. This is certainly below the average, both for accidents involving cyclists, and vehicle on vehicle accidents. I've made a point of adopting best practices that will ensure my safety, practices that are shown to keep cyclists alive. As the PPA stated in their letter to you, the 1m rule is not based on best practices at all. A search of the literature will show that 1.5m to 2m is the distance at which cyclists stay alive. Is it inconvenient to motorists? Yes. But if countries like Holland, Germany, France, Ireland and Italy can implement and police it, so can we. The 1m passing distance proposed by the draft falls clearly into the "squeeze" zone where motorists will try to squeeze past a cyclist. The Golden Arrow bus that killed a cyclist on Main Road in Muizenburg last year and the more recent death of a cyclist by (yet another) Golden Arrow bus on Durban road could both have been prevented if a 1.5m gap was required to pass the cyclists. (I find it quite funny that the City of Cape Town advocates a 1.5m gap, http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/Citycommittedtocyclingsafety.aspx while the Provincial Legislature is targetting 1m.) Under the current national legislation, bicycles are treated like another other road using vehicles, and as such, should be overtaken in the same manner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling). The saying "own your lane" is often used, and this gives cyclists the safety to avoid being caught in the squeeze zone by acting like any other vehicle in the road, and requiring other vehicles that wish to overtake to do so correctly. Which brings me to the next point - keep as far left as possible. What does that mean? As safely possible? As physically possible? Yet again, this exposes cyclists to being caught in the squeeze zone, and given the state of many of our roads, this might even be more than 3 feet from the edge of the road. And what about dual lane roads where a cyclists wishes to turn right? Or congested roads with parked cars on the left? A car door is over a metre wide - and that's how far away from a parked car I will always ride. Lastly, I have an issue with the headphone ban. Again, I can't see any empirical evidence that shows wearing headphones increases the accident rate for cyclists. Cyclists ride facing forward, moving forward, looking forward. This means that in all but a few rare circumstances any danger that a cyclist is likely to be presented and to which he/she will be able to effectively respond, will be in front of him/her. Taking evasive or defensive action to a threat that is positioned behind the rider is practically impossible since the rider is facing forward, moving forward, looking forward. A cyclist needs to actually see the nature and position of the “danger” in order to react appropriately. When was the last time you heard a “danger” and made a conclusive decision on where to go to avoid it? Our eyes are far more effective when it comes to identifying and responding to “danger”. (http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/hearing.htm) Why are cyclists singled out for wearing headphones while riding and getting knocked over from behind. A no go zone of 1.5m would be far more effective in keeping cyclists alive. Motorists talk on phones, listen to music, eat, text, apply make up, and control roudy kids etc while driving - if we're going to legislate things that distract road users, let's do it properly. Blaming cyclists is a complete misdirection. They belong in the road as much as cars do, and deserve to be as comfortable and have the same rights as anyone in a car. And I'm not sure when you last stuck your head out of the car at 40km/h and tried to hear anything. I'm rather blessed with big ears, and the wind noise at anything over 20km/h not only make hearing almost impossible, but on longer rides tend to "numb" my other senses. Try a 4hr drive to Knysna with your car window partially open. This draft proposal singles out cyclists, puts the blame on us, and takes away our rights as road users. I'm all for safer roads, but I don't feel the points highlighted above will make our roads safer for cyclists. Rather try and enforce the rules that currently exist, and design and build new roads that are bike friendly (How was Main Road redone with not a single thought given to cyclists??). We've got to create a culture where all road users are afforded the same rights and protections, and that we learn to respect those rights. Targeting an individual group will just increase the animosity between road users, and do nothing to make our roads safer. For some more info on bicycle-car accidents: "The City of Westminster has revealed that more than two thirds of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists within its boundaries in the past year that resulted in injury to the rider were due to some factor associated with the driver, compared to one in five cases where the cause was attributed to the rider." http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says Much like London, the accidents in Cape Town are probably due to driver error, yet this draft places no burden or limitation on the actions of the people most likely at fault. Regardless of whether this law is promulgated or not, I will still do what I feel constitutes the best practice in order to stay safe on our roads, even if that means breaking some of the proposed laws. Thanks for reading this
