Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby exadios » Fri May 10, 2013 2:06 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
exadios wrote:
jules21 wrote:i'm going to start a camera thread/FAQ to (allow people to contribute to) clarifying these myths.

you're right that a camera cannot measure the precise distance a vehicle passes from you, but i wouldn't agree they "make(s) any observations based on the video useless".


Actually, the modern cameras that are available are precision instruments. And contained within the video is all the information required to make an accurate determination of passing distance. However, the data needs to be calibrated for this observation to be true.

Reference?


Fully Automatic Camera Calibration Using Self-Identifying Calibration Targets[url]
[url=http://docs.opencv.org/tutorials/calib3d/camera_calibration/camera_calibration.html]Camera Calibration

Camera calibration using OpenCV

There are a number of engineering and procedure papers elsewhere. You can find them.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

by BNA » Fri May 10, 2013 2:18 pm

BNA
 

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby InTheWoods » Fri May 10, 2013 2:18 pm

Any talk of "calibrating" cameras is going to be pointless. To be able to *accurately* determine distances you would need a calibrated 3D camera ... or one of those laser measuring thingies. And even so I'm not convinced a Qld jury would care. It would be hard to argue with video footage of a vehicle sharing your lane, if it isn't allowed to be there, though.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby exadios » Fri May 10, 2013 2:28 pm

InTheWoods wrote:Any talk of "calibrating" cameras is going to be pointless. To be able to *accurately* determine distances you would need a calibrated 3D camera ... or one of those laser measuring thingies. And even so I'm not convinced a Qld jury would care. It would be hard to argue with video footage of a vehicle sharing your lane, if it isn't allowed to be there, though.


I agree. The best solution would be a change in the law that forbid same lane passing.

You are wrong about the necessity of lasers or 3D cameras. All the data needed to synthesize the necessary aperture is available from calibrated video. I am not going to attempt to present the math here though.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 pm

InTheWoods wrote:Any talk of "calibrating" cameras is going to be pointless. To be able to *accurately* determine distances you would need a calibrated 3D camera ... or one of those laser measuring thingies. And even so I'm not convinced a Qld jury would care. It would be hard to argue with video footage of a vehicle sharing your lane, if it isn't allowed to be there, though.

Not strictly true. You only need a reading from two points. With so much fixed points in an image - the road,the curb, the road signage, the ground itself - then even if those dual points were recorded a moment later, it is sufficient tomap spacially map the scene. Then it is mostly a matter of locating the vhicle against that map.

However, in practical terms you need a mathematician to do the work and then to give his declaration.

Even assessing a 3-d image will be arguable when it comes to absolute distances. If you rely on a viewer to use his expereince in the real world to assess distances naturally then you still need technical support to set the viewer up correctly as anyone watching a 3-d movie from the wrong seats in a theatre will attest.

But bottom line, a good quality move sequence will still give you enough data to determine distances and speeds. Mostly anyway. But having courts aqccept it is not so easy, with some justification.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby exadios » Fri May 10, 2013 5:56 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:Any talk of "calibrating" cameras is going to be pointless. To be able to *accurately* determine distances you would need a calibrated 3D camera ... or one of those laser measuring thingies. And even so I'm not convinced a Qld jury would care. It would be hard to argue with video footage of a vehicle sharing your lane, if it isn't allowed to be there, though.

Not strictly true. You only need a reading from two points. With so much fixed points in an image - the road,the curb, the road signage, the ground itself - then even if those dual points were recorded a moment later, it is sufficient tomap spacially map the scene. Then it is mostly a matter of locating the vhicle against that map.

However, in practical terms you need a mathematician to do the work and then to give his declaration.

Even assessing a 3-d image will be arguable when it comes to absolute distances. If you rely on a viewer to use his expereince in the real world to assess distances naturally then you still need technical support to set the viewer up correctly as anyone watching a 3-d movie from the wrong seats in a theatre will attest.

But bottom line, a good quality move sequence will still give you enough data to determine distances and speeds. Mostly anyway. But having courts aqccept it is not so easy, with some justification.


My comments have been made from an engineering point of view. However, in the hope that Physics and the Law are in rough agreement as to the nature of reality (which is given by Physics, not the Law), I see no reason why video evidence cannot be presented.

To have a lab forensically examine a video would, I think, present no real challenge. And, having done the analysis and making the objective conclusions, the evidence could be presented to the court in the same manner as other forensic evidence is given.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri May 10, 2013 6:28 pm

exadios wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:Any talk of "calibrating" cameras is going to be pointless. To be able to *accurately* determine distances you would need a calibrated 3D camera ... or one of those laser measuring thingies. And even so I'm not convinced a Qld jury would care. It would be hard to argue with video footage of a vehicle sharing your lane, if it isn't allowed to be there, though.

Not strictly true. You only need a reading from two points. With so much fixed points in an image - the road,the curb, the road signage, the ground itself - then even if those dual points were recorded a moment later, it is sufficient tomap spacially map the scene. Then it is mostly a matter of locating the vhicle against that map.

However, in practical terms you need a mathematician to do the work and then to give his declaration.

Even assessing a 3-d image will be arguable when it comes to absolute distances. If you rely on a viewer to use his expereince in the real world to assess distances naturally then you still need technical support to set the viewer up correctly as anyone watching a 3-d movie from the wrong seats in a theatre will attest.

But bottom line, a good quality move sequence will still give you enough data to determine distances and speeds. Mostly anyway. But having courts aqccept it is not so easy, with some justification.


My comments have been made from an engineering point of view. However, in the hope that Physics and the Law are in rough agreement as to the nature of reality (which is given by Physics, not the Law), I see no reason why video evidence cannot be presented.

To have a lab forensically examine a video would, I think, present no real challenge. And, having done the analysis and making the objective conclusions, the evidence could be presented to the court in the same manner as other forensic evidence is given.

I think we agree. The info is there. The expertise is there. I was attempting to inidcate the sorts of reasons however that courts may shy away from it, espcially without that expertise.

Indeed simply viewing does not hold sufficient weight -anymore than a lay-persons estimate of speed - which is highly variable. I imagine that the efficacy of even 3-d movies for guauging speed and distances has been tested in controlled circumstances. It would be interesting to how close one correlates to the other.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby InTheWoods » Fri May 10, 2013 7:11 pm

That is a lot of effort and cost so the only time they might try is if the rider is dead. For general enforcement of a 1m rule it is not going to happen. Therefore it's only going to help (maybe) if you're dead.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby exadios » Fri May 10, 2013 7:19 pm

InTheWoods wrote:That is a lot of effort and cost so the only time they might try is if the rider is dead. For general enforcement of a 1m rule it is not going to happen. Therefore it's only going to help (maybe) if you're dead.


...Or injured!

Actually, the real problem is that the distance determination is made after the fact. What is needed is a reliable way a driver can determine the safe distance before the fact. Such a method does exist in the form of lane markings. This is why I think that the law needs a change to mandate a lane change to pass.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Mulger bill » Fri May 10, 2013 7:31 pm

exadios wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:That is a lot of effort and cost so the only time they might try is if the rider is dead. For general enforcement of a 1m rule it is not going to happen. Therefore it's only going to help (maybe) if you're dead.


...Or injured!

Actually, the real problem is that the distance determination is made after the fact. What is needed is a reliable way a driver can determine the safe distance before the fact. Such a method does exist in the form of lane markings. This is why I think that the law needs a change to mandate a lane change to pass.


Pretty sure the law already requires this but seeing as the only road policing that gets ANY priority these days beyond the odd blitz is cameras and booze buses, the enforcement level of such "trivial" offences means aless than one in 10000 chance of being pinged. I am 100% certain that a higher likelihood of being done is a greater deterrent than massive punishment.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25275
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby InTheWoods » Fri May 10, 2013 8:35 pm

Here's how it gets enforced in one place overseas:
http://www.kvue.com/home/Undercover-off ... 96951.html
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Ken Ho » Sat May 11, 2013 9:14 am

mick243 wrote:how many on the jury were "drivers" of some variety?
how many were cyclists?


This is why participation rates are so important.
If 50 % of teh adult population rode a bike from time to time, then 50% of the jury would have been "cyclists".
Suppose then a few jurists had been elbow shaved themslevees, then there MIT have been a bit more empathy.
While cyclists remain a marginalized group of sports enthusiasts rather than the utilitarian norm, then nothing will change.
I got elbow shaved by a B-double again today, and I'm not convinced that the "you are crazy for riding on the road" critics are not right.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby London Boy » Mon May 13, 2013 7:11 pm

warthog1 wrote:This decision effectively legitimises other road users bullying us off the road.

No, what is does is legitimise (if it needed it) a cyclist's right to claim the lane. We are entitled to do that on a multi-lane road as a matter of course.

Legally, on a single lane road (i.e. one lane each way) we must ride as close to the left as practicable. According to the courts, 'practicable' is whatever the cyclist reasonably determines it to be in all the circumstances.

As has now been conclusively demonstrated, it is unacceptably dangerous to allow space within the lane for passing traffic. It is therefore impracticable to ride so close to the left as to allow that space.

We must, from now until such time as the law recognises our particular vulnerability, ride away from the left of the road and so deny motorised vehicles the space (and/or temptation) to overtake within the lane.

It will clog the traffic somewhat, but that is something the legislators will have to deal with. In the mean time, I hope that the family sues the truck driver and his employer for his negligent conduct.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby KonaCommuter » Mon May 13, 2013 7:14 pm

London Boy wrote:
I hope that the family sues the truck driver and his employer for his negligent conduct.



I personally would contribute towards seeing justice done.
2012 Oppy A4 | 200x Hard tail Kona Blast Deluxe
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Mulger bill » Mon May 13, 2013 8:13 pm

KonaCommuter wrote:
London Boy wrote:
I hope that the family sues the truck driver and his employer for his negligent conduct.



I personally would contribute towards seeing justice done.

I'm in.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25275
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby winstonw » Mon May 13, 2013 8:48 pm

I'll contribute $1000 to the family for legitimate expenses to see justice done here.
I don't think the general community appreciates the gravity of the jury's decision in this case.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby InTheWoods » Mon May 13, 2013 9:01 pm

London Boy wrote:
warthog1 wrote:This decision effectively legitimises other road users bullying us off the road.

No, what is does is legitimise (if it needed it) a cyclist's right to claim the lane. We are entitled to do that on a multi-lane road as a matter of course.

Absolutely :) It has made me much more determined, even in places where I didn't use to...

Legally, on a single lane road (i.e. one lane each way) we must ride as close to the left as practicable. According to the courts, 'practicable' is whatever the cyclist reasonably determines it to be in all the circumstances.

Well in Queensland, its different. Practicable is whatever a jury of queensland motorists will determine is reasonable, which means if you aren't riding on the footpath, or possibly just maybe in the actual gutter, its not being reasonable.

In the mean time, I hope that the family sues the truck driver and his employer for his negligent conduct.

Yes I'd been thinking about that the other day, along the lines of damages, lost income etc. It would be a different type of case to the criminal one, and IANAL but the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby KonaCommuter » Tue May 14, 2013 5:15 am

winstonw wrote:I'll contribute $1000 to the family for legitimate expenses to see justice done here.
I don't think the general community appreciates the gravity of the jury's decision in this case.



2nd womble - I really appreciate your hard work and I'm loathe to ask you as you're a busy Womble. But if SCA could suggest / organise this I'm sure we could deliver some justice.


Perhaps a private prosecution? Do we have those?
2012 Oppy A4 | 200x Hard tail Kona Blast Deluxe
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby high_tea » Tue May 14, 2013 8:17 am

KonaCommuter wrote:
winstonw wrote:I'll contribute $1000 to the family for legitimate expenses to see justice done here.
I don't think the general community appreciates the gravity of the jury's decision in this case.



2nd womble - I really appreciate your hard work and I'm loathe to ask you as you're a busy Womble. But if SCA could suggest / organise this I'm sure we could deliver some justice.


Perhaps a private prosecution? Do we have those?

Double jeopardy applies.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby The 2nd Womble » Tue May 14, 2013 8:56 am

high_tea wrote:
KonaCommuter wrote:
winstonw wrote:I'll contribute $1000 to the family for legitimate expenses to see justice done here.
I don't think the general community appreciates the gravity of the jury's decision in this case.



2nd womble - I really appreciate your hard work and I'm loathe to ask you as you're a busy Womble. But if SCA could suggest / organise this I'm sure we could deliver some justice.


Perhaps a private prosecution? Do we have those?

Double jeopardy applies.

That's a call for the family to make ATM, and Pateicia has gone to pieces since last week's verdict. I think the Pollett family need a breather so they can grieve and think things through.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Summernight » Tue May 14, 2013 9:46 am

high_tea wrote:
KonaCommuter wrote:
winstonw wrote:I'll contribute $1000 to the family for legitimate expenses to see justice done here.
I don't think the general community appreciates the gravity of the jury's decision in this case.



2nd womble - I really appreciate your hard work and I'm loathe to ask you as you're a busy Womble. But if SCA could suggest / organise this I'm sure we could deliver some justice.


Perhaps a private prosecution? Do we have those?

Double jeopardy applies.


He was acquitted of a criminal charge. Double jeopardy would apply in relation to the bringing of same or similar criminal charges.

I'm sure a civil complaint would be on different grounds and the double jeopardy rule wouldn't apply. Just look at OJ Simpson - acquitted of the criminal charge and 'convicted' under the civil (although that is a USA case).

And the driver's employer hasn't been sued yet (that I've heard) so the double jeopardy rule wouldn't apply to them.

At the end of the day it is up to the family and what is best for them.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby myforwik » Tue May 14, 2013 10:02 am

It wouldn't matter if he was guilty. The 'penalty' would have been maybe a few years off the road and a fine.

This is why you should:
-Always ride with cameras.
-Ride big and claim the whole lane.
myforwik
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby The 2nd Womble » Tue May 14, 2013 2:13 pm

Brisbane's CBD BUG is organising a ride along Moggill Rd past the spot where Richard Pollett's ghost bike is located.

The ride would start at 7.30am this Friday (17 May, 2013) at/near the Kenmore roundabout and terminate at the Centenary Bikeway junction (approx 3km). They will ask the QPS Bike Squad to ride with us.
Please spread this far & wide.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby brett.hooker » Tue May 14, 2013 3:09 pm

The 2nd Womble wrote:Brisbane's CBD BUG is organising a ride along Moggill Rd past the spot where Richard Pollett's ghost bike is located.

The ride would start at 7.30am this Friday (17 May, 2013) at/near the Kenmore roundabout and terminate at the Centenary Bikeway junction (approx 3km). They will ask the QPS Bike Squad to ride with us.
Please spread this far & wide.

Awesome. Ack!
Loving my Merida's and working towards adding a Pinarello to the stable... Go go go...
User avatar
brett.hooker
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby myforwik » Wed May 15, 2013 10:22 pm

The biggest thing wrong with this is how such a defense would 100% not work in a truck vs car situation, and it is a scary result that indicates the thinking of the generkal public when it comes to cyclists.

Can you imagine if the truck driver just decided to pass a car in the same lane, and claim he thought he had enough room to do it safely, only to hit the car. That sort of defense would be laughed out of court. But when it comes to cyclists - every one accepts it - the case shows that a jury of persumably sensible people honestly believe that passing in the same lane as a cyclist is 100% normal and expected behaviour that isnt dangerous and which happens every day - probably some of them did it on the way to jury duty - which is why there is no way they would ever give a guilty verdict.
myforwik
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Ross » Fri May 17, 2013 9:49 am

The 2nd Womble wrote:Brisbane's CBD BUG is organising a ride along Moggill Rd past the spot where Richard Pollett's ghost bike is located.

The ride would start at 7.30am this Friday (17 May, 2013) at/near the Kenmore roundabout and terminate at the Centenary Bikeway junction (approx 3km). They will ask the QPS Bike Squad to ride with us.
Please spread this far & wide.


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... 2jozq.html
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist