That's not an "annoyed" emoticon, just an "embarassed" one since I'm repeating myself.
By the way, while I think the intensity bump is something that should be solved (Cycles does it well), different sized object sharing the same material setting will still be an issue.
It's a question of workflow. The real problem here is not the object size, but the relative UV size of the meshes. If we fix the distance, we're fixing one of two correlated workflow issues.
And the other one (finding the correct "transform" size for different sized mehses) will still need to be solved "manually" by the user.
That's why other projection methods (Triplanar above all!) are highly recommended in these kind of situations, unless UV's for all the meshes in the scene are "proportioned".
I've made a scene showing the 2 boxes sharing the exact same material, and the same bump effect. You can change size and intensity as much as you need, and still get a perfectly consistent result, thanks to the correct relative size of the UVs, which solves both issues at once.