open topic, for anything cycling related.
Regardless of this one detail, I will be seeking a meeting in the new year with the Police Minister and the Deartment of Justice and the Attourny-General to discuss what is becoming apparent today, which is that the QPS would love to throw the book at this guy and others but are so severly hamstrung that they are increasingly becoming redundant. If our roads are allowed to become this lawless, it seems logical that the rest of our society will follow. Hell, it already is.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist
Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
I'll be following this case with interest. According to what the qld police told me last week, the video could not be used as evidence. See my thread in the safety&advocacy forum.
as i mentioned to you, that's a lie
watch them use this video to nail this moron the wall.
...for failing to indicate/give way/wear a seatbelt...
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist
Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
It can be used as evidence just fine, however there are limitations as to what acts the evidence will prove. What the prosecutors don't want to do is rely on is third party digital video evidence for routine anonymous enforcement of minor infringements for non collision events, where the complainant becomes the state, rather than the video owner, and there is considerable scope for interpretation of the video evidence. ie estimation of distance for one.
If someone collides with you, there is no doubt a magistrate in a post accident civil or criminal case, will accept video of that incident as evidence the collision occurred, and that the elements of the collision facts are as seen on the video are true, subject to the majistrates interpretation of the limitations of the videos point of view. I would also expect then that a magistrate will subsequently (as they are wont to do), disregard witness testimony that is improbable based on the video evidence. Witnesses to major collisions often have outright contradictions in testimony. The weight applied to various evidence is usually documented in the written judgements.
+ 1 zero.
a camera really only provides reliable evidence at the general level - it can't be used to judge fine distances or vehicle speed. but it can be used to establish basic facts, which is usually all you need it for.
Reporting an incident becomes a bit academic, when the police refuse to take reports unless there has been an injury or property damage. Budget cutbacks and financial pressures and all that . I've heard it reported that even in a collision event, police don't want to know about it much.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
I was at my local station on Tuesday to drop off video footage of a bloke riding a quad bike on a shared path and making a threat against me. They've got a sign up that lists the traffic accident scenarios that they will not make a report on. One of the scenarios was (something like) a hit and run incident where there is no prospect of identifying the fleeing party. Felt like walking out straight away.
where it is only a minor incident, i.e. not justifying a media campaign and team of detectives upturning every stone looking for the perpetrator, this seems reasonable. what's the point in doing all that paperwork when you know it's not going to come to anything?
where the perpetrator is practicably identifiable though - that's different.
hang on......now let's get this straight.
The STATE took away from its citizens their right to ensure they live safely and securely in society.
The STATE contracted upholding of this right to the police.
Now, when the STATE starts dictating back to us when and how THEY will fulfill their contractual obligation to us, then we have a ROGUE STATE that has abrogated its duties to its citizens.
It's time to petition your local member that it is unacceptable for the police to de-prioritize dangers to cyclists, and hard evidence motorists have done wrong.
We cyclists need to become a louder minority group than GLBT, to ensure we are not ignored.
It makes me angry as hell sometimes to see Australia being enveloped in a sea of apathy, gutlessness, and fuzzy logic re what is socially acceptable and what isn't.
Yet a surprising number of people believe we have no right or ability to police ourselves:
From the Moron Motorist thread regarding my suggested, minor vigilante-ism...
The police are there for one reason - to enforce the law and provide first point of contact for justice to the community. If they can't deal with the people who come to make complaints, then they are in the wrong job. They are public servants. Serving the public. If they want to pick and choose their jobs, become a private investigator. Discretion isn't really part of the gig. Maybe they need to work in a call centre for a while. You don't get to pick and choose your customers if you're frontline staff.
Yep, it's a bit disasterous. I think there really should not be any cause for free kicks to be passed over. If the offender wants to waste the court's time, then make them pay for the lot... if you drag in a video of dodgy behaviour, that should be it. Guilty.
It's really not hard to sort this stuff out.
sadly, and speaking as a public servant, there are 2 key differences between private and public organisation customer service. those are:
1. public organisations don't work on commission, which tends to make customers less of an urgent priority than for private ones who are relying on their custom, and
2. possibly for the same reason, resources aren't allocated to public organisations in proportion to customer demand. this can place public servants, even those who choose to make customers a priority, in an impossible position.
the reality is, police have no choice but to prioritise jobs. it's not a matter of principle, it's just a practical constraint. am i suggesting they never use that as an excuse to bury complaints? nope.
Thing is, the cops CAN database some of this info in broad terms to improve their ability to follow up. If cyclists ping AAA-123 a dozen times, even for minor things, you would naturally think that driver needs a TIN just as much as the guy who sped 30kmh over once and got caught. Patterns are easy to pick up. If a particular car is always the offender, then that just means that the registered owner is going for a row if they can't ping someone.
If they can't build a database to deal with such info, they need to talk to a bank. or Google. It's not hard to do such things
i have made one statement at a cop shop. the officer tried to enter it into her computer. i understand why they don't use IT to its full extent - the computer wouldn't even boot up.
You've picked up on a shortcoming here though - if the repeated footage of AAA-123 doesn't actually show that it's the same driver everytime, or doesn't show the driver at all, then the police still have a no-one to pin the offences to - all the owner has to say is I wasn't driving - someone else must have taken the spare key. I'd say we still have a burden of proof, even with the video "evidence".
What is it with cycling? 30+ kmh and lycra???!!!
Offender arrested and charged not sure what with yet, but i would imagine there will be more placed on him at court. looks like he is a spoilt little rich boy with a bad temper.
Thats what a formal demand on the owner of a motor vehicle is for. If they don't reveal the details when the demand is placed on them, then they are breached/given a court attendance notice. Edit, in NSW.
2012 Oppy A4 | 200x Hard tail Kona Blast Deluxe
Sheesh i hope they hit him with a few more charges than that Sometimes they incorporate multiple offences within the one charge, and describe it within the fact sheet, and this is taken into account by the Magistrate.
The police aren't compiling a database of offences... they are compiling a list of incidents, that may lead to a charge. I understand they can't ping everyone for everything. That would be a bit inappropriate sometimes as well. Risk free lawbreaking isn't something I want to see charges laid every time. But if AAA-123 has had a dozen incidents, I don't care who is driving anymore - they have run out of chances, and the driver gets the book thrown at them.
Technology is able to help common sense function more effectively
Ohhh the 'STATE', must be a nasty piece of work that 'STATE'...
The wilful damage one is quite subtle, but one of the sentencing options for it (commonly exercised), is for a person found guilty of it to be required to pay compensation. In a typical collision you have do the legwork yourself, and if you don't get paid, you have to hire your own rep and sue the other party. In this case the state will take on the case and may well actually retrieve the compensation for the cam driver.
Well it certainly is not "the smart state", as one of our more famous politicians envisaged.
I doubt if these issues are any more prevalent up here than in many other parts of Australia.
But there do seem to be "Hot Spots", and this is usually local knowledge only.
The Gold Coast is actually quite a nice place, well maybe it is between the low water mark and the high water mark.
Between these two lines it is full of nice people, often visitors from interstate or overseas.
"Technology gives us much more information but Education is never be able to give us the skill to evaluate it"
Save your sarcasm for the growing number of cyclists maimed or assaulted and unable to get the State to deal with it as they are contracted to do.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: coffeeandwine