That Doesn't Solve The Problem

[foo on patrol]

This was my mate here but that summary does not fix the root of the problem.

http://www.qt.com.au/news/coroner-get-c ... c.facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Foo

[yugyug]

Victim blaming. The logical response is to advise that the danger is removed from the highway ie ban trucks.

Like with the RACS and their pigheaded support for MHL, advice like that bothers me because people assume he is an expert talking within his expertise when he is actually talking about transport planning.

[herzog]

Jeepers that's a disgraceful exercise in victim blaming, comparable to the "short skirt" line.

A coroner would be run out of town if they used that argument.

[human909]

"If cyclists choose, in spite of such signage, to cycle on the roadway, they might be held to have done so at their own peril," Mr Hutton said.

"In the current situation, where no alternative is provided to potential danger, and no prohibition is in place, cyclists may use the road in the (clearly mistaken) belief that it is safe for them to do so."

[il padrone]

Coroners come up with some crazy findings at times (Google judge lazarus, cathedral range school hike, coroner findings). Often there is a healthy measure of ignorance, combined with excess conservatism. Their findings are generally only recommendations, but sad to read of such victim-blaming.


Just looked at Streetview. This looks like a freeway. And WOW, you guys build freeways with no emergancy stopping lane. Crazy!!!

I must admit, I would never ride a bike anywhere along that road. Here in Melbourne a section of the Calder Freeway has no stopping lanes (bikes are not permitted on this and other urban freeways), and the speed limit is dropped to 80 kmh because of this.

[wombatK]

Where do they find these people ? What are they teaching in law school ? Wherever and whatever, it's the wrong thing.

FWIW, the full coroner's report is http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/ass ... 141203.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find that the most substantial single cause of Mr Kamp’s death was the failure, by the semi-trailer driver, to brake sufficiently, or to leave sufficient room between the truck and the bicycle, to pass safely.

For completeness, I note a suggestion made in evidence by Mr Mike Carter of the Department of Transport and
Main Roads, to the effect that a committee convened by that Department had formed the view that Mr Sutton
deliberately drove close to Mr Kamp, in order to scare him. Mr Carter then appeared to distance himself
from that view. There is no evidence before me to suggest Mr Sutton deliberately harmed, Mr Kamp.

The accident occurred somewhere near the Kholo rd off-ramp. Evidence was provided at the coroner's court by occupants of a vehicle following the semi-trailer. As you can see, it's a 2-lane rural motorway,
with an 100 kph limit reducing to 80 kph on off-ramps, and shoulder that should be adequate for cyclists. Evidence was given that the cyclist's
practice was to ride near the edge or fog line to avoid debris. The truck driver should have been easiliy able
to maintain a meter clearance when passing or to have braked until it was possible to do so.

If that doesn't constitute acting to deliberately harm someone, I don't know what does. Failure to act legally is a deliberate act.

[wombatK]

Pictures http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... 1fnve.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.qt.com.au/news/cyclist-dead- ... ay/869284/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; indicate that the collision
may have occurred on the off-ramp, where the shoulder became very much narrower (maybe half or less than elsewhere). There's no designated cyclist crossing point, and a cautious cyclist probably would have taken the route being followed by Mr Kamp.

Other parts of the coroner's report discuss the opportunity that the truck driver had to move to the right lane. That implies the truck wasn't exiting on the ramp.

Given the lack of a proper shoulder, why has the exit speed limit been set so high (80 kph) ? Why hasn't the coroner drawn any attention to that ... even if the point of impact was prior to the off-ramp, that exit speed is not appropriate.

[foo on patrol]

I know this road extremely well and where my mate was hit, was before that photo and there is plenty of room and vision for traffic coming up from behind.

Another one of my mates has been sitting in on this inquiry and has told me that motorist that were following the truck, spotted Malcolm with plenty of time to spare.

I have done thousands of Ks training on this road back when I was racing and I drive it in a B-double every day of the week and in my opinion, the driver of the B-double was not paying attention to what was going on around him. Plus for the doubters, Malcolm was a QLD and Aus Champion and new how to ride a straight and tight line.

No winners here but the clowns that sit in judgement and make decisions on planning, have a lot to answer for!!!!!!!!!

Foo

[il padrone]

I am all in favour of cracking down on driver illegal acts, punishing offenders who cause real injury or death much more severely, and changing our legal structure and infrastructure to persuade/force drivers to drive with a much better attitude to other road users..... BUT:

If that doesn't constitute acting to deliberately harm someone, I don't know what does. Failure to act legally is a deliberate act.

Sorry, no. Logic fail. I rode my bike through a stop sign without stopping the other day. It was an illegal act. I had no intention of harming anyone (nor did I in actuality). Same would apply if I had done it in the car.

Failure to follow the road rules is not failure to care about others, much less intent to cause harm - general or specific.

Severity scale - Breaking the law;

Accidental --> Acting with care ----> Don't care about others ---------> Intent on harming anyone in my way --------------> Intent to harm that person.

[wombatK]

Sorry, no. Logic fail. I rode my bike through a stop sign without stopping the other day. It was illegal. I had no intention of harming anyone (nor did I in actuality)

Was it a deliberate act of yours to ride through the stop sign ? It's immaterial whether you had an intention of harming, it was an act of your own choice or inattention, either of which you should take responsibility for.

In the truck drivers' case, the coroner indicates he had his "young son" as a passenger. Just how responsible is that, given the potential for children to distract a driver ? Damned sure the child could have done without the trauma of witnessing the accident.

[il padrone]

You are mixing up responsible/irresponsible acts, careless acts, and intentional acts. Use a dictionary perhaps Good lawyers are doing this all the time.


My rolling through a stop sign was illegal, a deliberate act, some may judge it irresponsible, was not done carelessly, and most certainly had no intent to cause any harm to others.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I am all in favour of cracking down on driver illegal acts, punishing offenders who cause real injury or death much more severely, and changing our legal structure and infrastructure to persuade/force drivers to drive with a much better attitude to other road users..... BUT:

If that doesn't constitute acting to deliberately harm someone, I don't know what does. Failure to act legally is a deliberate act.

Sorry, no. Logic fail. I rode my bike through a stop sign without stopping the other day. It was an illegal act. I had no intention of harming anyone (nor did I in actuality). Same would apply if I had done it in the car.

Failure to follow the road rules is not failure to care about others, much less intent to cause harm - general or specific.

Severity scale - Breaking the law;

Accidental --> Acting with care ----> Don't care about others ---------> Intent on harming anyone in my way --------------> Intent to harm that person.

Was it a deliberate act of yours to ride through the stop sign ? It's immaterial whether you had an intention of harming, it was an act of your own choice or inattention, either of which you should take responsibility for.

You seem however to be avoiding calling il padrones act as deliberate. Which is all that his example was intended to do.

You are right il padrone. It does not even come close to passing the test of whether or not it was a deliberate act by the driver. Unfortunately you and I are in a minority that do not apply heinous motives to very bad actions that are really stupidity/carelessness/etc.

However any logic fail by posters here probably pales into insignificance when compared to that applied by the coroner. (Caution - I have not read the coroners report.)

I still can't believe that no charges have emanated from the accident. Hopefully the coroners findings (he still comes down on the driver) will precipitate them but probably not.

[biker jk]

Where do they find these people ? What are they teaching in law school ? Wherever and whatever, it's the wrong thing.

FWIW, the full coroner's report is http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/ass ... 141203.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find that the most substantial single cause of Mr Kamp’s death was the failure, by the semi-trailer driver, to brake sufficiently, or to leave sufficient room between the truck and the bicycle, to pass safely.

For completeness, I note a suggestion made in evidence by Mr Mike Carter of the Department of Transport and
Main Roads, to the effect that a committee convened by that Department had formed the view that Mr Sutton
deliberately drove close to Mr Kamp, in order to scare him. Mr Carter then appeared to distance himself
from that view. There is no evidence before me to suggest Mr Sutton deliberately harmed, Mr Kamp.

The accident occurred somewhere near the Kholo rd off-ramp. Evidence was provided at the coroner's court by occupants of a vehicle following the semi-trailer. As you can see, it's a 2-lane rural motorway,
with an 100 kph limit reducing to 80 kph on off-ramps, and shoulder that should be adequate for cyclists. Evidence was given that the cyclist's
practice was to ride near the edge or fog line to avoid debris. The truck driver should have been easiliy able
to maintain a meter clearance when passing or to have braked until it was possible to do so.

If that doesn't constitute acting to deliberately harm someone, I don't know what does. Failure to act legally is a deliberate act.

I totally agree. If a motorist hits a cyclist while trying to pass then it's a deliberate act to harm. Unfortunately, the law often treats this as an "accident" and unintentional. But irrespective of whether the motorist intended to hit the cyclist, common sense suggests that they chose to pass too close, with the potential consequences of such a willful act clear as daylight. As such, the motorist's decision to drive so close to the cyclist is a deliberate act to harm.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I totally agree. If a motorist hits a cyclist while trying to pass then it's a deliberate act to harm. Unfortunately, the law often treats this as an "accident" and unintentional. But irrespective of whether the motorist intended to hit the cyclist, common sense suggests that they chose to pass too close, with the potential consequences of such a willful act clear as daylight. As such, the motorist's decision to drive so close to the cyclist is a deliberate act to harm.

Cheez. It never fails to astound me.

Will ful disregard is certainly bad. But let's leave terms like deliberate in order to differentiate between cases that ARE deliberate and all the others.

Tell me, what are you and the courts going to use when a person TRULY deliberately mows down another. Or do you expect us and the law to view that act no more seriously?

[il padrone]

I totally agree. If a motorist hits a cyclist while trying to pass then it's a deliberate act to harm. Unfortunately, the law often treats this as an "accident" and unintentional. But irrespective of whether the motorist intended to hit the cyclist, common sense suggests that they chose to pass too close, with the potential consequences of such a willful act clear as daylight. As such, the motorist's decision to drive so close to the cyclist is a deliberate act to harm.

If people here cannot distinguish between illegal, accidental, careless act, deliberate act, and intent to harm a person, I fear for the future hope of a just legal system. Jurors (members of the public) are expected to judge on these types of matters all the time

[find_bruce]

The idea of a warning sign is a good one, but the wording could use a bit of a tweak. How about

Warning: dangerous drivers use this road but putting up this sign was easier than addressing the problem

[Mulger bill]

The idea of a warning sign is a good one, but the wording could use a bit of a tweak. How about

Warning: dangerous drivers use this road but putting up this sign was easier than addressing the problem

Works for me but it would be prohibitively expensive to put one up every 100m on every damn road in the country.

I'm not going to comment on the actions of the killer but Foos input as a true expert, in the aspects of local knowledge and as an HGV operator is enough for me.

Apart from that, to the charge of "Contempt of Court official" I plead guilty by reason of obvious truth. "Uncovered Meat" My shiny metal ass!

[Thoglette]

I know a few places that the sign could be usefully used hereabouts

[mikesbytes]

Sounds like the Coroners statement on preventing this tragedy from re-occuring should of been for the road to upgrade to remove the squeeze points

Edit: corrected "would" to "should" gotta luv autocorrect

[wombatK]

Sounds like the Coroners statement on preventing this tragedy from re-occuring would of been for the road to upgrade to remove the squeeze points

The Coroner takes issue with the process by which the road was "upgraded" to Rural Motorway status, and is suggesting that the DTMR should have undertaken a
risk assessment (in consultation with the community). He quotes the DTMR as saying

the Department also stated [at para 19]:
There was no cause to undertake a risk assessment prior to the incident – the only meaningful change was the designation of the motorway.

As a matter of logic, the risk analysis ought to be undertaken first in order to form a view as to whether cyclists should
be prohibited. If the risk analysis suggests that prohibition is necessary, then consultation on the effects of such a prohibition might follow.

A logical conclusion from the DTMR statement is that its experts considered a risk assessment a pointless
and expensive exercise that would not have changed anything. Because there was no statistical evidence
(and possibly still isn't sufficient) to suggest that drivers and cyclists can't co-exist safely on that road.

The off-ramp shoulder is poor design IMHO, but the collision possibly occurred before that. It is just not
feasible to design out all risk from any highway or road. OP might confirm it, but I suspect that the
"upgrading" was just a change in designation ... not anything more than perhaps signage change (if that).

But I'd rather know whether and when the driver has been charged, and if not, why not.

There was witness evidence. In the recent death at Church Point, there were witnesses and the
17 year old driver was very quickly charged (within a day or two). The Church Point driver was on the wrong side
of the center-line; the truck driver was on the wrong side of the edge line, and speeding
into the cyclist (i.e the coroner said if he did brake, it was not sufficient, means he was
going to fast for the circumstance, so speeding).