42x16ss and fatclimber, you're both right: manifest driver aggression and casual negligence are both potential killers. Thankfully, the former is perhaps a little rarer, as its exponents need to be real head cases to act on their tendencies. Instead, they tend to spew enraged, insecure nonsense onto comments sections of online newspapers. Let's hope that's as far as it goes.
The following link has a video displaying what I take to be casual negligence from a motorist that severely injured a cyclist in Brisbane in July.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/exe...e-for-a-metre-passing-law-20131202-2yk8s.html
This Fairfax paper blog by Michael O'Reilly is an excellent one, and neatly sums up what it's like cycling in English-speaking countries. He neatly summarises the 'cyclists should pay rego' furphy in an article linked towards the bottom. He always supplies lots of useful links in every post.
As posted earlier, Queensland has made it law for motorists to pass cyclists no closer than 1 metre on 60km/h roads, and 1.5 metres on faster roads. O'Reilly's link above examines this. As usual, the comments from non-comprehending motorists make for sombre reading. O'Reilly even notes some objections he's found, such as this one,
'"How do you give one metre clearance to a cyclist on a narrow bridge with a truck coming towards you?" was one anguished plea. Presumably, their standard practice would be to skim past the bike rider with millimetres to spare.'
The question is why do some motorists think it's justified putting a person's life in danger because they use a different mode of transport? Haven't we been through and utterly extinguished the validity of instinctual arguments such as one group is more important than another because of their creed, class, gender or colour? We generally refrain from thoughts and exclamations based on racism, sexism, homophobia and the rest, so what's this new blindspot for modes of transport?
Well, this is why a law mandating the safe passing of cyclists is so important. Naturally, they're will always be unbalanced, unreasonable people who believe it's fine to discriminate against anyone they regard as 'other.' But laws against discrimination make these people rein in their negative behaviours, at least in public where they can identified, shamed and or arrested. By enacting laws, the behaviours and mindsets change over time. I remember a time when it wasn't taboo to drink and drive. It used to be a mark of respect among certain men that they could still keep in control of their cars even though their cement was wet. This is no longer the case.
There has been a predictable outcry over the difficulty of enforcing this new law, that in inability to identify and catch offenders makes the law useless.
As O'Reilly notes, 'another question is – how will the law be enforced? Will the police be chasing after cars with rulers or laser measuring devices?
'As [Queensland Transport Minister, Scott] Emerson told ABC Radio on Friday, most people are already very sensible when it comes to road safety, but having a defined law would encourage road users to do the right thing.'
I think this is true. It's not the reform and enforcement of new laws that make the biggest difference (at least in this case, and at this stage of the game), but the changing of dynamics and a new-found consciousness that results in meaningful, sensible change, for everyone's benefit.
That's what this is about - a victory for understanding, compassion and the public good over petty, mean self-interested humbug. If you can stomach some of the comments to O'Reilly's article, you'll see just how difficult this consciousness-raising can be.
I never cease to be amazed how something so easy can be seen to be so hard.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram