Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

find_bruce wrote:

Fine - so can anyone tell us what's eventuated?

..... an awful lot of not very much.

It's safe to say that happens a bit around here.....

Oxford wrote:This is what will happen:

Police: Were you hurt?
Cyclist: No
Police: Was there any damage?
Cyclist: No
Police: Well what's the problem then?

Just the cynic in me.

Ask if that’s the line of questioning if you produce a firearm the next time a motorist endangers your life and see the response.



I know that I’m preaching to the choir but I honestly do not understand the wilful ignorance to road safety. 1,500 killed and 30,000 hospitalised every year and as a society we condone drink driving if it’s only a little bit over, speed camera’s are the source of open hostility and so on

exadios wrote:Exactly. In order for there to be a "hit and run" (whatever it is actually called in the particular state) the party that leaves the scene has to be aware that there has been an accident. I doubt whether this driver did know.

Not sure about the ACT legislation, but in NSW rule 287 requires drivers to stop when "involved in a crash" and there is no exception if they didn't realise that there had been an accident (although logic dictates that you won't stop if you don't realise). However someone I know had their car sideswiped by the rear wheels of a semi trailer which did not stop, and the police gave the semi driver "benefit of the doubt" and didn't book them for failing to stop.

So yes, it is technically illegal, but the cops probably won't do anything about them leaving the scene unless it's obvious that they were aware of the collision.

However if they claim to have not been aware of the collision, then it becomes really difficult for them to try and disprove your version of events (important for incidents without camera footage, but where damage to their car shows evidence of the collision).

KonaCommuter wrote: speed camera’s are the source of open hostility

This really REALLY irks me, people constantly moaning on about speed cameras just being 'revenue raising'. Hello, don't speed, PROBLEM SOLVED! .

ldrcycles wrote:

KonaCommuter wrote: speed camera’s are the source of open hostility

This really REALLY irks me, people constantly moaning on about speed cameras just being 'revenue raising'. Hello, don't speed, PROBLEM SOLVED! .

Crap. I don't speed and I loathe them, their overuse and associated justification advertising has promoted a mindset among too many motorists that as long as they don't speed they are driving safely. Govts and police use them as a cost saving measure to reduce patrols which are proactive policing and finally, they don't stop one speeding car they merely invoice after the fact. There's no way of proving this as there will never be stats collected on it but I'll lay a fiver that more than one road death caused by a speeding car would not have occurred if it had been detected and intercepted rather than photographed prior to the prang.

According to local media, VicPol are planning on cracking down on right lane hogs and pace cars (not before time) and much of the public sentiment is that it is unwarranted. Dunno why, if they're doing nothing wrong they've got nothing to worry about.

If you want cameras (red light excepted) to really have a positive impact, have a fleet of marked and unmarked Police, not lowest tendering contractors cars cruising any and every road day and night with four way constantly recording cameras and a button on the dash where the driver can flag anything for review.

I agree with what you're saying, there is a big difference between driving under the limit and driving safely. But the fact is, if you don't speed, you don't get booked and pay the fine. That's all.

ldrcycles wrote: But the fact is, if you don't speed, you don't get booked and pay the fine. That's all.

Hmmm...

somewhere in China it was wrote:But the fact is, if you don't talk about the Party being corrupt, you don't get taken away by the police

Not saying it's the case here but it always worries me when that justification is trotted out for compliance... the law and justice are not the dame thing.

What if the law is a bad one?

trailgumby wrote: What if the law is a bad one?

Convince yourself that it really isn't bad. Laws that rule 1 billion people have to be
harsher than those for 20 million. Doesn't matter if you doubt it, at least 1 billion
people buy it.

wombatK wrote:

trailgumby wrote: What if the law is a bad one?

Convince yourself that it really isn't bad. Laws that rule 1 billion people have to be
harsher than those for 20 million. Doesn't matter if you doubt it, at least 1 billion
people buy it.

I seriously hope you are kidding here. That logic is incredible.

+1to the power of shedloads to that.

trailgumby wrote:What if the law is a bad one?

You're trying to convince me that our speed laws are bad ??

I guess they are really - most Australian speed laws in our cities are too high. And 90% of Australian motorists would ignore them at will if the speed cameras were dropped (as they did back in the 80s prior to their implementation here in Melbourne)

ldrcycles wrote:

KonaCommuter wrote: speed camera’s are the source of open hostility

This really REALLY irks me, people constantly moaning on about speed cameras just being 'revenue raising'. Hello, don't speed, PROBLEM SOLVED! .

But if I spent more time looking at the road than worry about 3kmh, I'd be a safer driver. Driving/riding safety is way bigger than a fraction over the already low limit.

But meh, I'll continue to swerve erratically under the limit because "I'm safe under the speed limit"

So what was the outcome? Jim's Mowing, a light clip and trim?

for all those wanting quick justice, please note, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

I lodged a complaint that day with the Roads and Traffic authority after this...they looked at it for 2 weeks. they were helpful but then suggested I contact police. I spoke to police and they took a further 4 weeks to issue a ticket.

Thank you to oxford for his pro-forma statement....very simple to use. Driver got a ticket 6 weeks after, but still got a ticket!

holy bloody cow... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist


ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!

cp123 wrote:holy bloody cow... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist


ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!

It's unfortunate we all have to carry around video cameras to capture these but it's become an unnecessary evil.

SmellyTofu wrote:

ldrcycles wrote:

KonaCommuter wrote: speed camera’s are the source of open hostility

This really REALLY irks me, people constantly moaning on about speed cameras just being 'revenue raising'. Hello, don't speed, PROBLEM SOLVED! .

But if I spent more time looking at the road than worry about 3kmh, I'd be a safer driver. Driving/riding safety is way bigger than a fraction over the already low limit.

But meh, I'll continue to swerve erratically under the limit because "I'm safe under the speed limit"

Yes catching and fining people for speeding is like shooting fish in a barrell. Speeding is just one contributing factor to crashes, not the only one as authorities might have us believe. Careless driving like the silver Commodore in the video clip is far more dangerous. The Commodore quite likely wasn't even speeding (presuming that bit of the road wasn't actually part of the roadworks) yet he still managed to nearly kill the bike rider. There needs to be more marked Police cars and uniformed officers out on the roads. And better road user training - this includes cyclists.

Ross wrote:There needs to be more marked Police cars and uniformed officers out on the roads.

who's going to pay for that?

cp123 wrote:holy bloody cow... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist


ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!

Colour me surprised - if it was centennial park you would be wondering when the cyclist would be charged.

Looks like someone from Jims has gone into damage control. Much different attitude to what was displayed on their facebook page:

Andrew Kelly21 minutes ago
Good afternoon,
It is with some disappointment to find this one-sided story.
The headline, Cyclist Catches Hit & Run, suggests that the driver of the vehicle, a Jim’s Mowing franchisee, was aware that he made contact with the cyclist and failed to stop. This is in fact, not the case.
Jim's Group has gone to great lengths to make contact with the cyclist.
Unfortunately, the franchisee was totally unaware that he made any contact.
Jim’s Group first became aware of the accident when it was posted on YouTube.
Obviously, when made aware of the accident, Jim’s Group acted immediately. We located and spoke with the franchisee, who was unaware that the accident even occurred.
We also made immediate contact with police and reported the accident to them. We believe we were the first to do so.
Finally, we e-mailed the cyclist, offering our sincerist apologies and offered in writing to pay for any damage that the accident may have caused to the bicycle. We are yet to hear back from the cyclist, despite three separate e-mails being sent to him.
We are hoping to obtain the footage of the accident to show to new franchisees in training, highlighting the challenges of towing a trailer and to ensure that this kind of accident does not occur again. We also want to utilise it internally to educate more of our 3000 Jim’s franchisees.
As a group, we are deeply upset that the accident took place and we care for the wellbing of the cyclist. Fortunately, he appears to have escaped any injury.
Kind regards, Jim Penman, Jim's Group Founder

Can't confirm is its legitimate, as its just in the comments section of the news

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist

othy wrote:Looks like someone from Jims has gone into damage control. Much different attitude to what was displayed on their facebook page:

Unfortunately, the franchisee was totally unaware that he made any contact.

i actually believe that. if you look at the video, i'd say the franchisee probably assumes the cyclist will hug the gutter, leaving him free to turn left across the strange green paint, the purpose of which he doesn't understand but doesn't have time to worry about either.

i think it's just gross negligence.

jules21 wrote:

othy wrote:Looks like someone from Jims has gone into damage control. Much different attitude to what was displayed on their facebook page:

Unfortunately, the franchisee was totally unaware that he made any contact.

i actually believe that. if you look at the video, i'd say the franchisee probably assumes the cyclist will hug the gutter, leaving him free to turn left across the strange green paint, the purpose of which he doesn't understand but doesn't have time to worry about either.

i think it's just gross negligence.

Do not agree myself. He knew (or ought to have known) that the cyclist wasn't hugging the gutter when the vehicle passed the cyclist.

Here is how I see it. This driver, let's call him Jim, is in roadworks, behind two cyclists. Wants to turn left just after where the roadworks end. Gap between cyclists is too small to squeeze through there. So Jim being an impatient numpty,and you know, these cyclists, they only do about 10 km/h, and [insert usual ignorant rant here] accelerates to try and squeeze through the gap. It is apparent he realises quite late it's a bit tight, because his speed is *increasing* as he commences his turn. The driver clearly knew it was tight. He's gunning the engine, you can see the acceleration and hear the engine rumbling.

Having decided to proceed with the LH turn, knowing it's a tight squeeze, he clips the cyclist, and gets on with his day regardless. Possibilities are:

1. He did know; or
2. He did not know.

If he did know and is just lying, the position is obvious.

If he did not know, the question is - why not? Having driven that car in that manner in those circumstances, and obviously knowing he was cutting it tight, to not check to see he got through, to not feel the bump or hear the cries, suggests a level of wiflul blindness. You cannot claim to be truly "not aware" of an accident where you have, by your own actions, and clearly to your own knowledge, created a dangerous situation. Refraining from checking the wing mirror and ignoring the sounds of the incident, are simply not an answer here. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did know, is not a simple matter.

But IMO it is highly likely that he either knew, or was wilfully blind to the probable outcome of his actions, which is of course no answer at all.

Frankly, had the damage to Eugene McGee's car been less, I am quite certain Mr McGee would have denied knowledge of any accident at all. In the end it's a character question. Some people behave appropriately when they cause an incident, and some people do not. Jim is of poor character. Persons of poor character, the ones who will not stop, will generally also be willing to lie, prevaricate, delay and avoid, and otherwise only ever own up to the most inconceivable but theoretically possible version of events that provides the best outcome for themselves.

Oxford wrote:

othy wrote:Looks like someone from Jims has gone into damage control. Much different attitude to what was displayed on their facebook page:

Andrew Kelly21 minutes ago
Good afternoon,
It is with some disappointment to find this one-sided story.
The headline, Cyclist Catches Hit & Run, suggests that the driver of the vehicle, a Jim’s Mowing franchisee, was aware that he made contact with the cyclist and failed to stop. This is in fact, not the case.
Jim's Group has gone to great lengths to make contact with the cyclist.
Unfortunately, the franchisee was totally unaware that he made any contact.
Jim’s Group first became aware of the accident when it was posted on YouTube.
Obviously, when made aware of the accident, Jim’s Group acted immediately. We located and spoke with the franchisee, who was unaware that the accident even occurred.
We also made immediate contact with police and reported the accident to them. We believe we were the first to do so.
Finally, we e-mailed the cyclist, offering our sincerist apologies and offered in writing to pay for any damage that the accident may have caused to the bicycle. We are yet to hear back from the cyclist, despite three separate e-mails being sent to him.
We are hoping to obtain the footage of the accident to show to new franchisees in training, highlighting the challenges of towing a trailer and to ensure that this kind of accident does not occur again. We also want to utilise it internally to educate more of our 3000 Jim’s franchisees.
As a group, we are deeply upset that the accident took place and we care for the wellbing of the cyclist. Fortunately, he appears to have escaped any injury.
Kind regards, Jim Penman, Jim's Group Founder

Can't confirm is its legitimate, as its just in the comments section of the news

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist

I now dub Australia the ignorant country. reading some of those comments leaves me in no doubt that we are not so lucky anymore.

I am annoyed with myself - I know better than to listen to talk back radio or read comments on news articles.

I am not sure which is a greater demonstration of stupidity - the comments themselves or the fact that they appear to use their real names.

It would seem some people don't realise just how common it is for people to google their name - prospective employers, insurance co investigators, lawyers who are going to cross examine you etc etc

Arrrg. Reading some of those comments.. It makes my faith in humanity die a little bit.

It's the cyclists fault he got hit and run by a careless and dangerous driver because...

a. he isn't paying rego and doesn't deserve to be on the road unless he does.
b. cyclists shouldn't be on the road, ever (even if they paid rego, that's just a fee to be allowed to exist).
c. simply because he's a person riding a bicycle instead of driving a car like all the other rednecks.

That's it. I quit.

You forgot the "might is right" argument posed quite often.
I'm gonna get me one of these and carve up everything smaller than a b double, that'll show 'em

Is there any truth in the argument that the size of ones vehicle is inversely proportional to ones dangly bits? This bloke'd need black pepper to go with the tweezers and magnifying glass