1m space to pass cyclist now law in WC

[Reg Lizard]

My overtaking is like these 16wheelers overtaking each other on a hill...it takes like foreva to get past...with an expected headwind it may even take longer

[_David_]

Twitter: This morning I spoke to 702 about Toyota's Safe Cycling 1.5m campaign. Then a cyclist is mown down by a taxi inside the yellow line. - Kevin McCallum

 

From the Movesafe Cycling facebook page:

 

 

 

Johan Labuschagne hit by a taxi this morning, at hospital now, looks like he will be ok.

Edited November 28, 2013 by d@vid

[ccc2]

the 1m law means sweet FA when you lying dead in the road. just miss me thats all i ask

[mikkelz]

The traffic police can't (don't) even arrest motorists for breaking the "original" laws: speeding, overtaking on solid lines, wreckless driving, etc. Then there's the small matter of illegal licenses...

 

It would just be great if they could get the basics right so that motorists actually drive properly. And that motorists weren't so aggressive and full of "roads were made for cars" bull****.

 

My personal feeling is that this attitude of lawlessness unfortunately stems from the total disregard for rules that minibus taxis have in this country.

[udxcob]

Amen

[Velouria]

Cycling tips has a good write up on the matter of 1m here

 

Firstly, there is no evidence that a law makes any difference in the space given to cyclists, and secondly, how is it enforced.

 

On that topic, how many people in the Western Cape have been fined for passing a cyclist within 1m? Cops eager on a quick Christmas bonus should be cashing in on ignorant motorists, but I doubt a single person has been fined.

 

As one Australian opponent to the law says:

 

“Most of these collisions are not due to a simple driver error in calculating the distance from the bike. These collisions are caused by impaired drivers — that is, drivers who are drug- or alcohol-affected, or prescription drug-affected, or have physical impairments such as eyesight or macular degeneration, or simply old age and cognitive impairment. Or they’re due to a range of distracted driving causes — working on the mobile phone, having a dog in the car, talking to kids in the back seat, eating in the car, changing clothes in the car.

 

So the issue we have to address is […] what are drivers doing in their cars? We have situations where drivers have ploughed into the back of bikes where the passengers have clearly seen the bicycle ahead on the road but the drivers haven’t. So there’s an issue here where drivers appear to be blind to the presence of bikes on roads and that’s a major concern. And that’s where serious investigation needs to be undertaken.”

 

Our new fancy law does nothing to limit behaviour of motorists, but restricts that of cyclists.

[Lucky Luke.]

The very recent incidents in Joburg (Johan Labuschagne) and KZN have prompted comments calling for an implementation of the WC's 1m rule, but it's patently obvious that our law would have done nothing to prevent the collisions in question, nor would it have helped Burry a year ago, or just about any other cyclist / car incident I can think of.

 

The only difference I can honestly see with our new laws, is that if the incidents had happened here, the drivers in question could have argued about the lack of reflectors on the bikes, asked questions about whether the riders were using earphones and debated in a court of law as to whether or not the cyclists were riding as far left as humanly possible. Did I miss anything?

 

It seems there is now a laundry list of legislated excuses for hitting a bicycle with your car.

[ccc2]

i said this from the beginning of the 1.5 m campaign is meaningless to the majority of motorists. if they have to choose between squeezing next to a cyclist to miss the oncoming traffic they will. law or no law

[G e r h a r d Odendaal]

Of particular importance is section 3(3)(b) - I hope everyone reads it.

 

Most cyclist don't , idiots

[G e r h a r d Odendaal]

Johan, get well friend

[GoLefty!!]

This I think is what the law really is in RSA - after all we still use Roman Dutch law in SA maybe not quite as evolved in SA with regards to the Dutch and bicycles but I believe this is still correct o the T!!!!!!

 

http://ukcyclelaws.b...ghway-code.html

 

 

BUT BUT BUT

 

Nobody seems to abide to this correct overtaking procedure in RSA and it never seems to be enforced in a court of law!!!!!!

 

SO

 

Now the law say 1 m this even though could be scene as a concession to motorist ( was a separate lane) is very important!

 

WHY

 

It is new and therefore in the forefront of the legal mind - basically when it is challenged in a court of law (1st time) after a fellow cyclist is possible hit (hopefully not killed) we will see how the court rules and basically it should rule guilty to the motorist as it is clear you did not give 1 meter in your over taking / passing procedure or the cyclist would not have been hit.

 

 

The only issue with your thinking is that the motorist will likely have witnesses that state he/she was driving like a saint. Taxi passengers will lie for fear of intimidation by the drivers and their fare collectors. Don't get me started on those arseholes who drive Fortuners and can't seem, to see anything darn that thing must have the worst visbility through the glass....