Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

[ColinOldnCranky]

I too don't believe a full lane change is ALWAYS necessary. However such decisions on "inciting further anger against cyclists" is fundamentally flawed.

disagree. there is good evidence that laws which are poorly supported are more likely to be broken. a trap is in thinking that passing a rule is achieving the objective under which the rule is aimed at supporting - it isn't.

+1

[InTheWoods]

On the option that POllett could have turned off at Blacon Street:

I am of the impression that Pollett was riding on the south side of Moggill Road and heading west. If so then , to turn off at Blacon Street as the defence suggests, he would have to have made the decision to cross his existing lane to the right, and then to cross the middle lane and then to cross the oncoming two lanes before moving away from the corner in order to make himself safe.

Is my reading of physical layout correct?

According to a news article I just checked, he was heading inbound, so on the blacon street side.

[ColinOldnCranky]

i see them as related. people sometimes like to view laws as the ultimate authority, but in truth they partly reflect societal standards and expectations. that is a democratic principle. cyclists are frustrated with the lack of legal protection afforded to them, but the fact is this is partly a symptom of democracy - we're a minority. aka the 'tyranny of majority'.

All valid points. However sometimes the majority view needs imposed change via the law. This has occurred for MOST of our road laws. The change of attitude often needs leadership.

We've cracked down on drink drivers, we've cracked down on work place accidents. Yet we allow our cyclists to be killed on our roads with impunity.

Correct and hits a big nail on the head imo.

Laws can be made but if they go against the tide of public opinion then they are doomed. The societal change in attitude to things like smoking ocurred with deliberate and well funded campaigns to educate people and engender serious attitudinal changes. Takes money, takes committmen and takes lengthy periods.

It amazes me that so little money is spent on this. Even with the best infrastructure and hard laws with serious sanctions, attitudes need to be addressed.

Another requirement is a genuine belief that we are highly likely to be pinged when we do break those laws. More imoportant than outrageous severity of sanctions imo.

[human909]

Another requirement is a genuine belief that we are highly likely to be pinged when we do break those laws. More imoportant than outrageous severity of sanctions imo.

And this driver was not pinged.

[ColinOldnCranky]

On the option that POllett could have turned off at Blacon Street:

I am of the impression that Pollett was riding on the south side of Moggill Road and heading west. If so then , to turn off at Blacon Street as the defence suggests, he would have to have made the decision to cross his existing lane to the right, and then to cross the middle lane and then to cross the oncoming two lanes before moving away from the corner in order to make himself safe.

Is my reading of physical layout correct?

According to a news article I just checked, he was heading inbound, so on the blacon street side.

ta. Some one posted a map link that indicated the bend on the souther side to the west of Blacon. Obviously incorrect.

[InTheWoods]

I'm not convinced about the minimum distance thing, be it 1 or 1.5 meters. Firstly, it would be hard to prove in court - especially when you consider the not-guilty in this court case. If I'm to believe a previous post, there was 80cm of road space left for the cyclist, including clearance distance. Even with that apparently undisputed fact, the jury was unwilling to call this dangerous. There is always also the defence of "well I was leaving 1 meter of space but the cyclist swerved out" - without witnesses or cameras what are you going to do. Having talked to the police at length about passing distances, I can't see how it will be enforceable. Secondly, there are times when less clearance is ok (lower speeds) and times where 1m could still really be too close. It leaves too much up in the air and is either unenforceable, or juries or judges may be unwilling to convict unless there was the equivalent of slow motion 3-d "hawkeye" video of the incident...

Most of the multi-lane roads I ride on (and I do try to avoid them somewhat), are not wide enough to allow a cyclist, a "safe" passing distance, and a vehicle in the lane. I understand that not all roads are like this though. However my 2-fold suggestion is:

1. If a road really is that wide that you can safely share a lane, change the paint and just add an on-road cycle lane and narrow the obviously very wide traffic lane. Wins all round.

2. Then for the roads that are left, update road rule 146 to make it clear (I thought it was clear enough already but apparently its not - BS!!) that you cannot legally straddle or share lanes, do a short education campaign about the rule change that this means you need to change lanes to go around a cyclist (a few tv adds and a radio campaign), and we can all feel comfortable claiming the lane where we are more visible and protected by a clear cut rule that sharing is not allowed. It will be much easier to "prove" via camera or witness testimony that a car was in a particular lane, vs "the car was 99cm from me and hence broke the rule". Its also a simple rule to remember, understand, and process while driving. "Oh there is a cyclist in this lane, I have to change to the other lane" vs "Its gonna be a squeeze but I reckon I can get through with a 1m gap". "Sharrows" could be used as a reminder.

My logic is simply that on any section of road, it is either unsafe or safe to share that lane. If its safe, put in a bike lane because obviously there is room. If its unsafe, disallow sharing. Simple.

Still, I would like to say I really appreciate the effort of the few who campaign for our safety, such as womble.

For the record, rule 146 is

146 Driving within a single marked lane or line of traffic
(1) A driver on a multi-lane road must drive so the driver’s
vehicle is completely in a marked lane, unless the driver is—
(a) entering a part of the road of 1 kind from a part of the
road of another kind (for example, moving to or from a
service road or a shoulder of the road); or
(b) entering or leaving the road; or
(c) moving from 1 marked lane to another marked lane; or
(d) avoiding an obstruction; or
(e) obeying a traffic control device applying to the marked
lane; or
(f) permitted to drive in more than 1 marked lane under this
regulation.

[The 2nd Womble]

I got word this afternoon that 612ABC Brisbane have backed out of the interview on this. Not impressed at all.

[il padrone]

but there are legal means of clarifying what a "safe passing distance" is, such as through an official code of practice. these are used in other types of legislation and have the status of being used by a court to help determine what constitutes compliance with the rule, or not. this would have helped overcome the ambiguity over interpretation of the rule that seems to have helped get the truck driver off, here.

SAFE passing distance is pretty simple really - the one where you do not hit the cyclist (or any other road-user). By definition the truck driver passed unsafely so he should go down.

[KenGS]

On the contrary. In this case (my interpretation), is that the jury decided that a close shave was NOT dangerous as the cyclist was not struck by the truck but then fell under it. I'm no lawyer but this would now appear to be a precedent. So we now need a clear change in the law that says that passing with less than 1 metre clearance is dangerous.

[il padrone]

I too don't believe a full lane change is ALWAYS necessary. However such decisions on "inciting further anger against cyclists" is fundamentally flawed.

disagree. there is good evidence that laws which are poorly supported are more likely to be broken. a trap is in thinking that passing a rule is achieving the objective under which the rule is aimed at supporting - it isn't.

1. The rule already exists (Rule 146 as posted by ITW)

2. Education campaign about good driving practices.

Almost universally I find the professional drivers - long distance truck drivers - do a full lane change, but you need to show you are claiming the lane via position and/or your vehicle width. Riding wider and using two panniers is a good strategy to get the lane-change, certainly from (almost all) truck drivers.

Also we need to have a strong campaign that says "cyclist DO NOT need to keep to the far left". There is no such rule in existence for multi-lane roads.

[The 2nd Womble]

On the contrary. In this case (my interpretation), is that the jury decided that a close shave was NOT dangerous as the cyclist was not struck by the truck but then fell under it. I'm no lawyer but this would now appear to be a precedent. So we now need a clear change in the law that says that passing with less than 1 metre clearance is dangerous.

The judge instructed the jury to accept as fact that the truck HAD hit Richard.

[InTheWoods]

On the contrary. In this case (my interpretation), is that the jury decided that a close shave was NOT dangerous as the cyclist was not struck by the truck but then fell under it. I'm no lawyer but this would now appear to be a precedent. So we now need a clear change in the law that says that passing with less than 1 metre clearance is dangerous.

The judge instructed the jury to accept as fact that the truck HAD hit Richard.

If that is the case it makes the verdict bewildering. It strengthens my suspicion that the best protection is to make sharing specifically illegal under rr 146. Then it would have been a case of "was the truck in the same lane as the cyclist". Yes? Guilty. No judgement calls about approximately how close they were, did anybody swerve, did somebody fall, did the bicycle have a mechanical failure, how wide was the lane... And in the meantime it is saving lives by putting cyclists in a position of high visibility to reduce right hooks, and lefts to an extent as well.

[human909]

Part of the problem is that every time a cyclist gets sideswiped by a vehicle and ends up under the wheels the incident is describe as the cyclist fell under the wheels. A belief that cyclists fall over is being perpetrated when in fact they are being hit by the vehicles.

[twizzle]

The judge instructed the jury to accept as fact that the truck HAD hit Richard.

Methinks you are relying on newspaper paraphrasing and ignoring the context. The subsequent quoted instructions show that your interpretation is likely to be incorrect.

[The 2nd Womble]

The judge instructed the jury to accept as fact that the truck HAD hit Richard.

Methinks you are relying on newspaper paraphrasing and ignoring the context. The subsequent quoted instructions show that your interpretation is likely to be incorrect.

My information came from Patricia Pollett first.

[Red Rider]

This is what was reported by the Courier journalist:

He said the jury needed to exclude the possibility Mr Pollett fell from his bike for reasons that didn't involve the truck as a cause.

So it doesn't specifically say the truck hit Richard, that is immaterial to the fact that the truck was the sole cause of his fall.

The specifics of the case are important in highlighting the deficiencies in our laws and help to bring about change, that is what we must focus on.

[high_tea]

Some observations:

1. The driver wasn't charged with breaching a road rule. What's more, it wasn't an element of the offence he was charged with.
2. This case doesn't create a legal precedent, not from what I've seen reported. The jury decides questions of fact and precedents relate to questions of law.
3. It seems to me there are two separate but related issues being discussed here: how to prevent unsafe overtaking snd what laws should be changed to secure a conviction in this scenario. As far as the first goes, it's about more than changing the law. Others pointed this out earlier. As far as the second goes, bear in mind that there were other offences that could have been charged but weren't for, I'm sure, good reasons.

[twizzle]

This is what was reported by the Courier journalist:

He said the jury needed to exclude the possibility Mr Pollett fell from his bike for reasons that didn't involve the truck as a cause.

So it doesn't specifically say the truck hit Richard, that is immaterial to the fact that the truck was the sole cause of his fall.

The specifics of the case are important in highlighting the deficiencies in our laws and help to bring about change, that is what we must focus on.

Or it could have been :To find the defendant guilty, the jury... <rest of the quote>

Given the subsequent quotes, re. prosecution vs. defence, it's highly unlikely he was trying to tell the jury what to do.

No transcript, no point harping on about it.

Sent from my iThingy...

[linds]

This RACV grant may be of interest on this topic. If, of course, RACV would accept the focus being cycling injuries. The scope appears wide enough to look into legislative solutions as a preventative measure.

http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/ ... 7db64ecdf4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jules21]

This is what was reported by the Courier journalist:

He said the jury needed to exclude the possibility Mr Pollett fell from his bike for reasons that didn't involve the truck as a cause.

this could be read 2 ways:
1. that the jury must discard that possibility (i.e. they must accept that the truck caused his fall), or
2. that the jury must satisfy themselves that this possibility can be excluded, before finding beyond reasonable doubt that the truck drive caused the fall.

both possible interpretations have opposite meanings.

[jules21]

1. The rule already exists (Rule 146 as posted by ITW)

i don't think Rule 146 requires a full lane change by vehicles when overtaking, if that's what you meant, due to the exception:

(c) moving from 1 marked lane to another marked lane; or

it could be argued that's what a vehicle is doing when straddling the lane marking - it's just that they may not complete the manouvre - i.e. return to the original (left) lane. to reject that argument would also mean you were breaking the road rules to change your mind about a lane change, mid-way through. i doubt that's what is intended.

[KenGS]

This is what was reported by the Courier journalist:

He said the jury needed to exclude the possibility Mr Pollett fell from his bike for reasons that didn't involve the truck as a cause.

this could be read 2 ways:
1. that the jury must discard that possibility (i.e. they must accept that the truck caused his fall), or
2. that the jury must satisfy themselves that this possibility can be excluded, before finding beyond reasonable doubt that the truck drive caused the fall.

both possible interpretations have opposite meanings.

Good pick up jules. Based on the statements that then followed I think your interpretation (2) sounds likely; in which case the jury decision is more understandable. Not that I like the decision but it demonstrates that the law as it stands does not protect cyclists in this situation. It seems that a close pass is Ok because even if contact is made with the cyclist, he/she might have hit a pothole or sneezed or swerved etc... and that caused the collision - not bad driving.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Another requirement is a genuine belief that we are highly likely to be pinged when we do break those laws. More imoportant than outrageous severity of sanctions imo.

And this driver was not pinged.

I'm guessing you are not being literal. Pinged but in EFFECT not pinged.

No argument here.

The defence put up is so laughable yet the jury bought it. Incomprehensible. Is it something in qld water?

[high_tea]

this could be read 2 ways:
1. that the jury must discard that possibility (i.e. they must accept that the truck caused his fall), or
2. that the jury must satisfy themselves that this possibility can be excluded, before finding beyond reasonable doubt that the truck drive caused the fall.

both possible interpretations have opposite meanings.

Good pick up jules. Based on the statements that then followed I think your interpretation (2) sounds likely; in which case the jury decision is more understandable. Not that I like the decision but it demonstrates that the law as it stands does not protect cyclists in this situation. It seems that a close pass is Ok because even if contact is made with the cyclist, he/she might have hit a pothole or sneezed or swerved etc... and that caused the collision - not bad driving.

At the very most, this demonstrates that the existing dangerous-driving law doesn't protect cyclists. Lesser offences such as careless driving or a breach of the Road Rules weren't considered at the trial. I've got a hard time seeing a gap in the law. A gap in enforcement is a given. So too a gap in community attitudes. The latter two are, unfortunately, rather harder to fix.

[human909]

Who said cyclist need protection?

The disdain given to cyclists riding on the roads is pervasive. This ruling is ultimately a symptom of that disdain, its not the cause.