Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

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

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby ldrcycles » Wed May 08, 2013 6:29 am

human909 wrote: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.



And every car crash is described as an 'accident', and it was never caused by the driver but the car 'leaving the road' completely of it's own volition :evil: .

IMO if you kill another person while operating a vehicle, the onus should be on that person to prove they couldn't have avoided it, not for the prosecution to prove that it was their fault.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

by BNA » Wed May 08, 2013 6:48 am

BNA
 

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby il padrone » Wed May 08, 2013 6:48 am

jules21 wrote:
il padrone wrote: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.

Though my layman's eyes I do not view it that way. Moving halfway out of a lane then moving back in is not "changing lanes", but rather driving across two lanes for a length of time. This is regarded as illegal under the rule.

Changing one's mind is one thing, outright dangerous lane-splitting is something else entirely.

Good road practice is to fully change lanes for an overtaking move. It goes hand in glove with the cyclists' place within a road lane (no rule requires us to keep to the left of a lane).
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18178
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby g-boaf » Wed May 08, 2013 7:22 am

human909 wrote: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.


I've heard it said by "cyclists" that if we didn't blow through stop signs and red lights, and also didn't wear Lycra - we wouldn't have problems with motorists.

It is also said that we should accept this ruling with a thank you and by being nice, everything will get better. Note I'm just spitting out what has been said by others before and putting it all in one place to highlight the stupidity of it.

If a car or truck driver kills a cyclist - it must be upon them to prove they are not at fault!
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby The 2nd Womble » Wed May 08, 2013 8:07 am

Who here has said we should accept the ruling with a Thankyou an by being nice? As I said in the e-petition post, with this ruling, critical mass has been reached. I'm sure I speak for literally every forum member here when I say that we all feel a little hollow at present.
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 human909 » Wed May 08, 2013 9:48 am

g-boaf wrote:and also didn't wear Lycra - we wouldn't have problems with motorists.

And who has said that?

Though I know numerous people have put such words in other peoples mouths.

I understand your point may be benign. But making it by perpetrating untruths is not productive.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby jules21 » Wed May 08, 2013 9:51 am

il padrone wrote:Good road practice is to fully change lanes for an overtaking move. It goes hand in glove with the cyclists' place within a road lane (no rule requires us to keep to the left of a lane).

i agree with you in principle, i'm just unsure the road rules clearly support that. in practice, it's certainly not enforced, which makes debate over how the road rules should be interpreted moot.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8557
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby The 2nd Womble » Wed May 08, 2013 10:09 am

Enforcement is most certainly as much if a factor in the merits of any given rule. That will be the other half of the battle here in Qld, but if 1.5 got up at least the police would be able to prosecute with greater certainty.
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 InTheWoods » Wed May 08, 2013 10:17 am

The 2nd Womble wrote:Enforcement is most certainly as much if a factor in the merits of any given rule. That will be the other half of the battle here in Qld, but if 1.5 got up at least the police would be able to prosecute with greater certainty.


Unfortunately I don't see where the certainty comes from. IANAL but if I was defending it would be pretty obvious that it is hard to prove how much distance there was, plus whether or not the cyclist's path changed to reduce that distance. I've got videos of cars clearing me by 20cm but they still don't offer any proof of how close it was.

At the end of the day, what we really want is to be safe, not just to be able to prosecute people and make it stick. Clarifying rule 146 and banning lane sharing on multi lane roads would offer both. However I've got to admit, my suggestion is of no help on single lane roads...

I'd like to see some sharrows trialled on Brisbane roads, and get rid of all the BAZ's.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby jules21 » Wed May 08, 2013 11:48 am

InTheWoods wrote:Unfortunately I don't see where the certainty comes from. IANAL but if I was defending it would be pretty obvious that it is hard to prove how much distance there was, plus whether or not the cyclist's path changed to reduce that distance. I've got videos of cars clearing me by 20cm but they still don't offer any proof of how close it was.

+ 1

most riders don't have video footage. making a complaint, asserting that the driver passed with less than 1m clearance is not proof of anything.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8557
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Chuck » Wed May 08, 2013 11:48 am

My thoughts are with Mr Pollett's family. It's tragic enough to lose a loved one and now they have to deal with this injustice. I hope my family never have to go through something like this.
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby human909 » Wed May 08, 2013 11:54 am

jules21 wrote:most riders don't have video footage. making a complaint, asserting that the driver passed with less than 1m clearance is not proof of anything.


But even when there are cases where there is proof of a very close "pass" and when the person dies that is not proof. From what I can see unless the driven backs up and reverses over you several times then it will continue to be classed as an accident. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby jules21 » Wed May 08, 2013 12:16 pm

human909 wrote:But even when there are cases where there is proof of a very close "pass" and when the person dies that is not proof. From what I can see unless the driven backs up and reverses over you several times then it will continue to be classed as an accident. :roll:

yep, pretty much. even with a 1 or 1.5m clearance rule, it's only a minor offence. more serious charges, such as dangerous driving which Luke Stevens was charged with, proving a breach of a road rule isn't enough. a 1m clearance rule will only guarantee (if even that) a trivial fine - not much help.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8557
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby il padrone » Wed May 08, 2013 4:56 pm

InTheWoods wrote:At the end of the day, what we really want is to be safe, not just to be able to prosecute people and make it stick. Clarifying rule 146 and banning lane sharing on multi lane roads would offer both. However I've got to admit, my suggestion is of no help on single lane roads....

Actually Rule 146 should still be applied, A full lane change is required. If it's not possible (due to oncoming traffic or double lines) then you simply do not overtake until safe :idea: :roll: Simple really, drivers do it when overtaking other cars (mostly), why not when overtaking cyclists ???

Most Italian drivers are managing to do this for us.... and everyone knows "those Italian drivers are crazy!"
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18178
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby The 2nd Womble » Wed May 08, 2013 10:29 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote: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?

Riding east, not west.
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 dontazame » Wed May 08, 2013 11:34 pm

Post by g-boaf »
I've heard it said by "cyclists" that if we didn't blow through stop signs and red lights, and also didn't wear Lycra - we wouldn't have problems with motorists.


Yep, I'm calling bull showtime on that one. Going back to ignoring road rules when it is safer to do so.
dontazame
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Boppo » Thu May 09, 2013 4:15 am

I've only just learnt of this court finding and forum via a Crikey article, and I find myself shaking with rage and sorrow at this finding. No amount of legalise or supposed logic can make me believe in this finding. The law is truly an ass, and numbnuts out there continue to feel justified in their atrocious treatment or attitudes towards cyclists on the road.
Boppo
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:11 am

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby The 2nd Womble » Thu May 09, 2013 8:06 am

Boppo wrote:I've only just learnt of this court finding and forum via a Crikey article, and I find myself shaking with rage and sorrow at this finding. No amount of legalise or supposed logic can make me believe in this finding. The law is truly an ass, and numbnuts out there continue to feel justified in their atrocious treatment or attitudes towards cyclists on the road.

Are you in QLD Boppo?
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 Lukeyboy » Thu May 09, 2013 6:24 pm

ldrcycles wrote:
human909 wrote: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.


And every car crash is described as an 'accident', and it was never caused by the driver but the car 'leaving the road' completely of it's own volition :evil: .

IMO if you kill another person while operating a vehicle, the onus should be on that person to prove they couldn't have avoided it, not for the prosecution to prove that it was their fault.


Or those pesky trains that somehow keep managing to hit cars or those boom'guillotine'gates that don't give you any warning when they go down. Why can't the trains stop or swerve out of the way! :roll: :roll: :roll:

There should be some type of law to prove that the driver wasn't at fault or could have been in a position to avoid an accident such as when overtaking cyclists. The do not overtake long vehicles apply to trucks/buses so why not extend that futher for when those types of vehilces come to overtaking cyclists. I've had plenty of those smartasses trying to beat me to the apex. Especially the ones that do the ol blinker just as they pass you and slam on the brakes to make the turn.
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby AndrewBurns » Fri May 10, 2013 6:20 am

Lukeyboy wrote:


Wow you were very close to becoming like the subject of this thread in that video :shock: Imagine if you'd been startled by the truck pulling in so close (clearly attempting to pass at a dangerous time, realising it was going to hit on-coming traffic and squeezing you against the side), wavered a bit, hit the truck and fallen under. I'm sure a jury would find the truck driver not guilty in that case too despite causing the accident because they didn't directly run you over.
Image
AndrewBurns
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Summernight » Fri May 10, 2013 11:25 am

Lukeyboy wrote:


See the huge problem with the road in this video that Lukeyboy posted is that the cars/trucks think the gravel shoulder is fine for driving (at suitable speeds, mind you, not 100kph) so it should therefore be fine to push a cyclist across onto the gravel. To them the road doesn't stop at the end of the asphalted road - it stops at the end of the gravel. So why weren't you riding on the left most part of the road (ie. in the gravel), Lukeyboy, where all cyclists clearly belong? (I'm being facetious asking that question, just in case you didn't realise that I don't seriously expect you to ride in the gravel)

Those roads are dangerous for cycling on as there is nowhere to go in the event of an emergency due to the dangerous gravel shoulder.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby exadios » Fri May 10, 2013 11:31 am

jules21 wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:Unfortunately I don't see where the certainty comes from. IANAL but if I was defending it would be pretty obvious that it is hard to prove how much distance there was, plus whether or not the cyclist's path changed to reduce that distance. I've got videos of cars clearing me by 20cm but they still don't offer any proof of how close it was.

+ 1

most riders don't have video footage. making a complaint, asserting that the driver passed with less than 1m clearance is not proof of anything.


In any case, most riders do not calibrate their cameras which makes any observations based on the video useless from the technical point of view.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby jules21 » Fri May 10, 2013 11:34 am

exadios wrote:In any case, most riders do not calibrate their cameras which makes any observations based on the video useless from the technical point of view.

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".
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8557
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby exadios » Fri May 10, 2013 11:56 am

jules21 wrote:
exadios wrote:In any case, most riders do not calibrate their cameras which makes any observations based on the video useless from the technical point of view.

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.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Mulger bill » Fri May 10, 2013 1:08 pm

exadios wrote:
jules21 wrote:
exadios wrote:In any case, most riders do not calibrate their cameras which makes any observations based on the video useless from the technical point of view.

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?
...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: 25563
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

Postby Cheesewheel » Fri May 10, 2013 1:37 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:

There should be some type of law to prove that the driver wasn't at fault or could have been in a position to avoid an accident such as when overtaking cyclists. The do not overtake long vehicles apply to trucks/buses so why not extend that futher for when those types of vehilces come to overtaking cyclists. I've had plenty of those smartasses trying to beat me to the apex. Especially the ones that do the ol blinker just as they pass you and slam on the brakes to make the turn.

as a heavy vehicle driver, I can tell you that those signs on the back of the vehicles don't mean much - IOW other driver's periodically ignore them (and those that do pay attention probably do more out of a genetic sense of encountering something bigger than you that goes back to the the days of neanderthals vs mammoths ) and if, as a driver of a vehicle with those signs gets involved in any sort of collision incident, they would want to have a stronger case than saying the other party violated the signs on the back (IOW establishing some sort of automatic blame or accountability due to the signs on the back, in the real world, seems to prove very difficult)
GO!! Run!!! GAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
User avatar
Cheesewheel
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:22 pm
Location: GoldCoast Qld

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter