Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Ross wrote:

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even the journo's are getting confused ATM. Sending out the 1m message when the 1.5m petition is powering on isn't affecting petition numbers to any great extent that I can see, but its still diluting the message somewhat.
On another note, Scott Emerson hasn't even read the petition when he still tries fall back on the "cyclists must ride more closely to queued traffic" auto response. Got that covered with the 30m exemption Scott, as well as having already cited several enforceable time and distance based QRR's. there are no excuses this time. None!

Ross wrote:

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Queensland Transport Minister is a moron judging by his comments reported in that article.

Brisbane Times have a poll up for the Minimum Safe Passing Distance. Please vote and help the current positive direction that this poll is headed.

The 2nd Womble wrote:On another note, Scott Emerson hasn't even read the petition when he still tries fall back on the "cyclists must ride more closely to queued traffic" auto response. Got that covered with the 30m exemption Scott, as well as having already cited several enforceable time and distance based QRR's. there are no excuses this time. None!

Scott Emerson wrote:Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the petition would be considered, but there were currently no plans to change rules regarding overtaking cyclists.

“Any petition lodged will be considered, however a fixed distance raises a number of issues such as making it illegal for cyclists to move slowly and closely past queued vehicles,” he said.

And thus brings back my query regarding filtering through stationary traffic at more than 30m from an intersection as it seems people don't really understand the proposal. I am assuming the 30m applies to cars so that they can move forward if someone is cycling beside them and that it will not affect the cyclist's ability to filter, no matter the distance.

No-one in the positions of supposed power seem to understand what is being proposed. I think it must be kept in mind that whatever gets through should not affect the ability of bicycles to filter.

EDIT:

The 2nd Womble wrote:Brisbane Times have a poll up for the Minimum Safe Passing Distance. Please vote and help the current positive direction that this poll is headed.

Link? I can't see it on the article's page.

Cyclists, motorists and Transport Ministers know the rule allowing us to lane split/filter. The rule isn't expected to change with the introduction of the new overtaking rule, it's merely incorporated into it.

I really don't like the headline on the brisbane times - "a haunting symbol of cycling danger". It was only dangerous for Richard because the truck driver made it that way If motorists behaved themselves it wouldn't be dangerous.

Glad that there was no police presence (that I saw) in the end.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/polls/s ... 2jq85.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

InTheWoods wrote:I really don't like the headline on the brisbane times - "a haunting symbol of cycling danger". It was only dangerous for Richard because the truck driver made it that way If motorists behaved themselves it wouldn't be dangerous.

Glad that there was no police presence (that I saw) in the end.

Red marked XR6 Turbo Pursuit Vehicle.

The fact is that the majority of Australians view cycling on the roads with similar attitudes to base jumping and Russian roulette. That is part of the problem.

The 2nd Womble wrote:Red marked XR6 Turbo Pursuit Vehicle.

Oh, must have been at the back then.

Seems like it would be a fast road to ride on. I imagine in a normal peak hour a bike would be faster (but maybe even less safe) on the footpath though...

And the way its meant to be done...

Lifetime driving ban and 10 year sentence.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... le--37415/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know that crazy one in Edinburgh where the driver was given 300 community service hours for killing his 2nd cyclist?

The CTC have successfully pushed for the sentence to be appealed, which is a very hard thing to make happen.

More here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/ctc-welcomes ... ler-driver" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... rejoinder/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was overseas when this trial verdict was reached, cycle-touring in Italy and France and have missed most of the discussion of the terrible tragedy and the issues involved. However from that Alan Davies blog, the comments by "Mrs Thatcher" strike a chord:

the prosecution essentially required the jury to convict on the basis that a driver of a vehicle — any vehicle, should drive so far away from a cyclist passing that even if a cyclist were to fall of his own accord, no damage would come to the cyclist. This is an impossible proposition to assert and would very probably be rejected upon appeal even if the jury were to convict.

This very expectation seems to govern the behaviour of drivers around cyclists in both Italy and France. Since returning home everyone we have spoken to has asked how we coped with the Italian drivers, and indeed many Italians asked the same question, seemingly expecting us to tell a litany of horror stories of aggressive drivers and foolish traffic behaviour. The reality is far from this. Drivers routinely slowed to less than 15kmh behind us, overtook with a full lane-change and over 2m clearance, and did so with none of the engine-revving and foolish speed that is common in Australia. This was equally the case with drivers of large trucks. The only horn use we encountered was the standard short toot to say "I am about to pass you". Whatever is such an "impossible proposition" about expecting drivers to stay very well clear of cyclists, who by their very nature are riding less-stable vehicles, subject to the vagaries of poor road surfaces and ill-designed roads, and far more vulnerable to any sort of contact ????

All I can see is a direct obligation on the part of every driver to overtake very well clear of any cyclist.

Say What was wrong with Luke Stevens' brakes anyway? Every car and truck comes well-equipped with very effective brakes. This case is nothing short of Bogan-law !!!!

Ross wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... rejoinder/

The most important infomation contained in this post is that Fiona Thatcher will not be hired by me in any legal capacity. How Luke Stevens behaved after the incident or in court is irrelevent as is most of her other observations.

exadios wrote:

Ross wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... rejoinder/

The most important infomation contained in this post is that Fiona Thatcher will not be hired by me in any legal capacity. How Luke Stevens behaved after the incident or in court is irrelevent as is most of her other observations.

+1. If that reflects the standard of legal education in this country then no wonder the legal system requires significant reform, especially the introduction of elected judges (or at least a much greater degree of accountability).

biker jk wrote:+1. If that reflects the standard of legal education in this country then no wonder the legal system requires significant reform, especially the introduction of elected judges (or at least a much greater degree of accountability).

It has less to do with legal education and alot more to do with the normalisation of driving and dangerously passing cyclists.

"any vehicle, should drive so far away from a cyclist passing that even if a cyclist were to fall of his own accord, no damage would come to the cyclist. This is an impossible proposition to assert"

Such an attitude is not a legal one, it is not a non-driver one, it is an attitude of somebody who drives and passes cyclists closely. The thing is that most drivers have learnt to squeeze pass cyclist and consider this normal behaviour.

Fiona will be well suited to her profession. That's all I need to say.

What's a100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A good start(If they have Fiona Thatchers attitude anyway)

brokenbus wrote:What's a100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A good start(If they have Fiona Thatchers attitude anyway)

That's not very fair, you shouldn't be demonising the good ones based on the behaviour of the majority

Mulger bill wrote:

brokenbus wrote:What's a100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A good start(If they have Fiona Thatchers attitude anyway)

That's not very fair, you shouldn't be demonising the good ones based on the behaviour of the majority

You are probably right MB but given the basic aim of a lawyer is to ensure only facts that come are the ones that are in the clients favour no matter which side they represent, I doubt there would be any good ones who actually still work as a lawyer

human909 wrote:

biker jk wrote:+1. If that reflects the standard of legal education in this country then no wonder the legal system requires significant reform, especially the introduction of elected judges (or at least a much greater degree of accountability).

It has less to do with legal education and alot more to do with the normalisation of driving and dangerously passing cyclists.

"any vehicle, should drive so far away from a cyclist passing that even if a cyclist were to fall of his own accord, no damage would come to the cyclist. This is an impossible proposition to assert"

Such an attitude is not a legal one, it is not a non-driver one, it is an attitude of somebody who drives and passes cyclists closely. The thing is that most drivers have learnt to squeeze pass cyclist and consider this normal behaviour.

(emphasis in original)

This.

The essence of being a cyclist is that you get to know what people are really like......

exadios wrote:

Ross wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... rejoinder/

The most important infomation contained in this post is that Fiona Thatcher will not be hired by me in any legal capacity. How Luke Stevens behaved after the incident or in court is irrelevent as is most of her other observations.

She's completely fallen for the defense's assertion that he should have turned off out of the way of the cement mixer. It is of no relevance whatsoever.

Defences*