It’s somewhat difficult to account for the intensity of the reaction to the introduction of new rules that prescribe the distance motorists must keep from cyclists in order to enhance the latter’s safety on our roads.

That reaction, judging by those moved to comment publicly, would be something akin to unmitigated fury.

In case you missed the news, from the end of this month, WA motorists will be required to do what motorists in Queensland, NSW, Tasmania and South Australia have to do already — keep a minimum 1m clear of a cyclist on a road with a posted speed limit of up to 60km/h, rising to 1.5m clear for roads with a higher speed limit.

It’s not a big ask — in fact, it is already the norm for the overwhelming majority of car-bike interactions on the roads.

Camera Icon The new road rule will come in to play at the end of this month. Credit: Don Lindsay

What changes is a penalty for failing to pass at those safe distances ($400 and four demerit points) and an explicit exemption to the usual prohibition on motorists crossing a centre line (including double-white lines) in order to create that passing distance — if it is safe to do so.

The rule is less a trap than a reminder — one class of road users is far more vulnerable than another with whom they are asked to share the space.

But this commonsense point seems to be lost on some.

Here are some of the scenarios that have been put during the debate in the letters pages, on talkback radio and in the online comment threads this week.

- As a motorist, I might get fined if cyclists decided to ride too close to me.

- As a professional truck driver, what is stopping a vengeful cyclist deliberately infringing my space in order to see me fined.

- The rule will create a lawyers’ picnic, as infringed motorists challenge their fines in the courts about matters of centimetres.

- There will be a surge in crashes as motorists, cramped in narrow lanes, have to hit the skids or cross over into oncoming vehicle traffic.

Quite why a cyclist would get their rocks off shoulder-charging a 10-tonne truck is beyond my grasp of human nature, but it doesn’t appear to be the likeliest outcome.

In terms of enforcement, the experience elsewhere suggests magistrates need not worry just yet about clogged courts.

In NSW, in the first 15 months of minimum passing laws being introduced, there were 43 infringements issued Statewide, so fewer than three per month.

As for a surge of crashes as motorists helplessly hit other cars as they sought to avoid cyclists newly protected by their force field, well, as Acting Road Safety Commissioner Iain Cameron asked motorists on my program on Tuesday, “What do you do now?”

Hint: The answer is not usually to elect to hit the person on two wheels.

Here’s a little experiment you can do as you read the paper or this column on your computer or smartphone screen.

Hold out your left arm horizontally and to your side. The distance from your right shoulder to your left fingertip is a pretty good guide of a metre.

Now, extend both arms out sideways. Your wingspan will be, in most cases, comfortably more than 1.5m. Now, mentally insert yourself into your vehicle.

If you reckon, as a matter of course, you are driving that close to a cyclist, I would be very surprised indeed.

Another exercise.

The next time you come across a cyclist (or cyclists) on the road and they cause you to either slow down or accelerate more slowly than you would wish to were the road otherwise unoccupied, start a little mental count of one-elephant, two-elephant, three-elephant … all the way until you are safely past the obstruction.

Seriously, give it a try. If you get to 30, again, I would be surprised, but please do report results to me via the email address below.

An unfortunate consequence of all this sturm und drang is that a measure meant to protect cyclists has, at least in some vocal quarters, instead injected more fury into the regrettable “war” on our roads.

Reasonable debate is replaced by sweeping generalisations as cyclists blame “all motorists” and motorists blame “all cyclists”. The terms become oddly depersonalised, and the camps retreat to their corner without recognising that nearly all adult cyclists are motorists as well.

Each imagines the others’ motives (and assumes the worst) when the reality is that most people are just trying to get from A to B without getting maimed.

As the driver of an SUV, who this year has made the leap into bicycle commuting to and from work most days, there is no doubt that I am much more aware of other, less protected road users (which includes pedestrians) than I was before.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the loudest voices in the discussion to neglect to imagine their “foe” as a fellow human being.

Saturday morning pelotons featuring lycra (disclosure: I have never been a member of the former but have begun to wear the latter) are a lightning rod for the “all cyclists” crew, and, yes, they do get in the way a bit.

But even then — is it that big a deal to delay your own journey a minute or two to allow other members of the community some good, healthy recreation?

The motor vehicle is an invention without parallel in advancing personal freedom of movement, but cars — especially lots of them in the same place at the same time — aren’t without their problems.

And just because they are bigger and faster, it’s a mistake to think that this makes the road exclusively theirs.

Slow down a bit, chill out and, as the ad says, remember that the bloke on the bike could be Cometti.