Bicycle Institute of South Australia, BISA Media Release, Monday 2nd May, 2005. Contact: Sam Powrie, Chair, BISA.

South Australian Government Failing Cyclists on Road Safety

At 9.30am, Saturday 7th May many of Adelaide’s cycling fraternity will rally at Victoria Square and proceed to Parliament House protesting both the outcome of the recent trial of Eugene McGee and the Government of South Australia’s lack of commitment and action on Cycling Safety.

BISA Supports Protest Aims: The Bicycle Institute of South Australia supports this rally and endorses its aims, highlighting need for urgent review of:
1. driver accountability in sharing the road with cyclists in S.A.
2. further legal provisions for cycling safety on SA’s roads.

McGee’s Prosecution: On the first count, it appears to BISA that the prosecution and sentencing of Eugene McGee proceeded with no acknowledgment of the public-interest issues central to the case:
- asserting the principle of deterrence in making all drivers accountable for hazardous behaviours that place cyclists at risk (ie; not looking out for cyclists, not giving cyclists adequate clearance when passing, traveling at excessive speed around cyclists)
- the court’s responsibility to continually refine and critique the concept of ‘fitness to drive’, either in terms of intoxication or prevailing mental state!

In not more forcefully prosecuting this case and in particular the charge of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, BISA believes that the State has missed a valuable opportunity to assert the community’s desire for a safer cycling environment. BISA believes that the sentencing notes suggest that McGee’s involvement in Ian Humphrey’s death was an accident which could have happened to anyone, implying chance and inevitability rather than more predictable and volitional causal factors (such as a lack of due care, consideration and respect for cyclists on the road). Such comments are inconsistent with the science of road safety and are rejected by BISA. How Courts consider driving offences against cyclists and the sanctions available to them for responding to such offences are clearly out of step with community expectations and should be refined and increased respectively.

The Real Issues: BISA believes that the Government’s current focus in this matter - the punishment of Eugene McGee for leaving the scene of the crash - is in fact simply a distraction from the real and most pressing question to be asked – why the crash occurred in the first place? Cycling represents only 1-2% of activity on our roads, yet cyclists are represented quite disproportionately in injury statistics and deaths (they are about 5 times more likely to suffer serious injury per km traveled than motorists). The most common response from motorists on hitting cyclists is ‘I didn’t see him’. Drivers are found at fault on over 70% of car/bike crashes with the most frequent causes being excessive speed and motorist’s lack of consideration and attention. Such comments and reported causes suggest that most car/bike collisions, and hence most cyclist injuries and deaths, are entirely preventable given sufficient motivation on the part of motorists!

SA’s Lack of Cycling Safety Provisions: On the second issue, BISA notes that despite issuing of 5 advisory documents since its formation in 2002, SA’s Road Safety Advisory Council has made virtually no recommendations aimed at cyclists as a vulnerable group of road users, nor has it offered any systematic approach to enhancing cycling safety in SA.

Where the Council briefly considers the safety of cyclists (in South Australian Road Safety Strategy 2004-2010) it does so in an entirely unrealistic, contradictory and off-hand manner, stating simply that ‘where possible these road users will be separated from other traffic!’:
- no attempt to identify the causal factors in cycling injuries and deaths
- no attempt at all to identify best practice from more experienced cycling-friendly countries
- no attempt to recognize cyclist’s need to use the public road system
- no attempt to offer any sort of systematic framework for better providing for cycling safety.

The RSAC’s statement implies that cyclists have no place on our roads and that there is no need for a safe cycling environment thereon! BISA asks:
- does the RSAC speak for Government policy?
- does the Government support cyclist’s rights to use the roads in safety?

Government Responses: Both Government and Opposition have been silent on the implications of Eugene McGee’s trial for cycling safety. In recent comments Premier Rann has been strong on increasing penalties for hit-and-run drivers, but has said virtually nothing in support of initiatives aimed at minimizing further cycling death or injury. He has commented on behaviours McGee demonstrated after he hit and killed Ian Humphrey but has said little about prevention of the driver behaviours that may have led to the collision. Is Premier Rann at all interested in preventing grossly irresponsible driving? Is the Premier interested in preventing further cycling injuries and deaths? BISA and the South Australian public would like to know!

BISA fears that the Premier’s focus on driver punishment shows a lack of concern for the circumstances and hazards, which cyclists have to deal with everyday, and for their urgent need for better legal protection on the roads. Yes - cyclists have ‘equality’ on the roads, but that equality before the law counts for little:
- in the absence of cycling facilities on most main roads
- with arterial limits set at speeds lethal for cyclists
- with road laws giving drivers virtually no guidance or direction as to how to share the roads with cyclists.

Need for Legal Protections for Cycling: BISA has developed a Cycling Safety Agenda for South Australia, soon for submission to the Minister of Transport and the Road safety Advisory Council. A key platform within this agenda is an urgent need in South Australia for changes to road laws to better weight driver’s duty-of-care in favour of cyclists and pedestrians.

Just as cyclists are required to always respect and safeguard the safety of pedestrians on shared paths, the far greater hazards associated with motor vehicles should require that drivers ensure as much as possible the safety of more vulnerable cyclists on our roads!

Currently and despite public campaigns such as ‘Share the Road’ and ‘Give Cyclists a Metre’, drivers receive virtually no legal or ongoing guidance as to how they should respond to cyclists on the road in terms of:
- appropriate passing and mixed-traffic speeds
- sensible and safe passing strategies
- avoiding injury to cyclists.
In the absence of a strong and generally shared ‘cycling culture’ (that might ensure all drivers understood and respected the safety needs of cyclists), BISA believes such direction should be provided by enhanced duty-of-care provisions within our road laws.

In Northern Europe for example it has long been recognized that:
- virtually all cycling injuries and deaths and deaths are due to driver decision-making and behaviour
- that it is the car that kills, not the bike
- that societies simply cannot countenance cycling being seen as a dangerous transport option
- that cyclists are far more vulnerable than car drivers and therefore require a greater degree of protection under law!

In Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, penalties for hitting and injuring cyclists are severe and include permanent loss of license, extensive fines, vehicle confiscation and mandatory prison terms. The underlying beliefs, expressed either in law or legal precedent, are that drivers can exercise direct responsibility for cyclist safety to an extent that most injuries and deaths can be prevented. The onus of proof for establishing responsibility for road crashes involving cyclists is effectively shifted towards the driver. These laws are complemented by severe penalties for endangering or injuring cyclists and by much slower ‘cycling-friendly’ speed limits, especially on urban arterial roads (where most cycling injuries occur) and in mixed traffic areas.

As a result, and despite extremely crowded traffic conditions, drivers pay far more attention to cycling safety than they do in Australia. They look out for and give way to cyclists, slow down and maintain adequate clearance in mixed traffic and are generally far more considerate of cyclist needs. The balance of responsibility is to a large extent restored. The road user with the greater capacity to do harm shoulders more of the responsibility for both prevention of injury and death and following any collision or crash.

Consistent with Government’s Agenda: BISA notes that the Government’s State Plan already aims to double cycling by 2018 in the interests of community health and increased sustainability. However we also understand that perceptions of danger associated with cycling are the single biggest disincentive preventing more South Australians using their bikes. BISA therefore recommends that the State Government address the community’s need for a safer cycling environment by establishing a thorough review of provision for cycling safety, with particular attention to increasing both the reality and the perception of danger on the roads.

It is contradictory and ironic that cycling, the most efficient, sustainable, healthy and potentially the safest form of personal transport available, in S.A. has also become the most dangerous simply due to Government failures in providing for vulnerable road users! BISA looks forward to more constructive responses from Government that focus on Cycling Safety rather than simply on crime and punishment.

BISA believes that if the Government wishes to adequately respond to the entirely avoidable deaths of Ian Humphrey and many other cyclists in recent years, it can do no less!

Sam Powrie,
Chairperson,
Bicycle Institute of South Australia.