2017 Cycling fatalities

[biker jk]

I think the fact she pleaded guilty and didn’t try to justify or excuse her behaviour was taken into account. She also has other provisions re: community service etc. Should maybe serve that with a cycling organisation of some kind.

There are no winners in these cases.

This driver pleaded guilty as well but was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/ ... d/10558098

[cyclotaur]

I think the fact she pleaded guilty and didn’t try to justify or excuse her behaviour was taken into account. She also has other provisions re: community service etc. Should maybe serve that with a cycling organisation of some kind.

There are no winners in these cases.

This driver pleaded guilty as well but was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/ ... d/10558098

Min 7 years, max 11 years, but well done that judge.

[redsonic]

I think the fact she pleaded guilty and didn’t try to justify or excuse her behaviour was taken into account.

The irony is that, based on other cases mentioned here, if she had contested the charges, and claimed she just didn't see the cyclist (he came out of no-where), it is highly likely she would have walked out of court.

[uart]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/ ... d/10558098

Sounds about right.

1. Impaired by phone instead of alcohol, halve the sentence -> 5.5 years.
2. Female perp and male victim. Halve it again -> 2.75 years.
3. Victim is not just a male, but a male cyclist! Divide sentence by 3.

Comes out at about one year.

[cyclotaur]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/ ... d/10558098

Sounds about right.

1. Impaired by phone instead of alcohol, halve the sentence -> 5.5 years.
2. Female perp and male victim. Halve it again -> 2.75 years.
3. Victim is not just a male, but a male cyclist! Divide sentence by 3.

Comes out at about one year.

The most significant one:

4. One victim instead of two. -> Divide by 2.

[warthog1]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/ ... d/10558098

Sounds about right.

1. Impaired by phone instead of alcohol, halve the sentence -> 5.5 years.
2. Female perp and male victim. Halve it again -> 2.75 years.
3. Victim is not just a male, but a male cyclist! Divide sentence by 3.

Comes out at about one year.

Agree with that
However, in his findings, Judge Smallwood was clear in articulating that "the community simply no longer tolerates this sort of conduct".

"This sort of behaviour has to be stopped."

Judge Smallwood said if Allen had not pleaded guilty he would have been facing a minimum 11 years in jail.

Apparently the community does still tolerate distracted driving and phone use whilst driving.

Similar result and a fraction of the penalty.

[redsonic]

Drunk, speeding, unlicensed teenager sentenced to just over 2 years for killing cyclist in Adelaide's north.

ABC News

Uart's & Cyclotaur's metric seems to hold true:
(compared to the 11 years given for the Omeo highway crash here)

1. Only one person killed - divide by 2
2. Impaired by alcohol, not phone - no adjustment
3. Male perp, male victim - no adjustment
4. Victim is a male cyclist - divide by 3

Comes to roughly 2 years.

[madmacca]

Drunk, speeding, unlicensed teenager sentenced to just over 2 years for killing cyclist in Adelaide's north.

ABC News

Uart's & Cyclotaur's metric seems to hold true:
(compared to the 11 years given for the Omeo highway crash here)

1. Only one person killed - divide by 2
2. Impaired by alcohol, not phone - no adjustment
3. Male perp, male victim - no adjustment
4. Victim is a male cyclist - divide by 3

Comes to roughly 2 years.

And no adjustment for driving while unlicensed.

[biker jk]

The inconsistent sentencing depending on whether a cyclist or a motorist is killed due to negligent/dangerous driving is one reason why I oppose judges having discretion over sentencing. There must be mandatory sentences. The current system where judges have discretion over sentencing but no accountability is a disaster for justice.

[opik_bidin]

https://www.facebook.com/Cycle.Org.Au/p ... =3&theater



VICTIM BLAMING IS NOW LEGAL IN THE ACT

Because the clothing has not been retained by the AFP, the Coroner cannot determine that the driver was negligent, but the Coroner will refer this to the AFP for consideration.

Therefore, a) the AFP destroy evidence that could lead to a charge of negligent driving; and, b) the Coroner refers this situation back to the people that destroyed the evidence in the first place for consideration.

Thus, in the A.C.T.:

1)
Regardless of whether your bike lights are legally bright enough, if a driver says he/she could not see you and as a result hits and kills you, you were not visible enough and therefore the driver is not guilty of negligent driving.

2)
If the police destroy your clothing and thus it cannot be proven that you were visible enough, the driver will not be charged with negligent driving, and any further investigations will be conducted with those same police who destroyed your clothing evidence.

Full :
https://courts.act.gov.au/__data/assets ... b6NAy7QPUg

[Thoglette]

1)
Regardless of whether your bike lights are legally bright enough, if a driver says he/she could not see you and as a result hits and kills you, you were not visible enough and therefore the driver is not guilty of negligent driving.

Worse here

Coroner Boss made six recommendations, including that the ACT Government ...amend legislation about visible gear and lighting to be used by cyclists in low-light conditions.

<deleted>

[AdelaidePeter]

Worse here

Coroner Boss made six recommendations, including that the ACT Government ...amend legislation about visible gear and lighting to be used by cyclists in low-light conditions.

<deleted>

When I read the ABC quote, I read "gear" as "clothing". But the report does not mention clothing. It says (and I think all these recommendations are reasonable):

62. Drawn from the facts and circumstances of Mr Hall’s death I make the following recommendations:
...
(d) Standards Australia should conduct a review of AS3562-1990 relating to bicycle lighting, and the Standard be either updated or replaced.
(e) The ACT Government should amend its relevant legislation to require a flashing rear light when riding a bicycle in low light conditions on rural roads. However, I also commend this recommendation to all Australian State and Territory Governments, for consideration of changes to the Australian Road Rules
(f) The ACT Government should amend its relevant legislation to clarify whether bicycles require a wholly separate reflector to be on the back of the bicycle, or whether the reflector may be integrated into the rear light. However, I also commend this recommendation to all Australian State and Territory Governments, for consideration of changes to the Australian Road Rules

[Thoglette]

When I read the ABC quote, I read "gear" as "clothing". But the report does not mention clothing.

Thanks for the clarification. I should know better than to take the press literally!

I'll have to read the rest to understand what the coroner had in mind, given the lighting that was reportedly on the bike.

[antigee]

driver involved in death of Jason Lowndes appears in court again....pleaded not guilty back in Feb to dangerous driving, careless driving and using a mobile phone whilst driving......

"sentence indication hearing this afternoon in Melbourne {30/04/2019}, which sees the court broadly indicate the sentence that offenders would likely face if they pleaded guilty to the offences."

https://www.goldcentralvictoria.com.au/ ... list-death

I can smell dangerous driving being dropped for a guilty plea and few hours community service hope I'm wrong

[AdelaidePeter]

driver involved in death of Jason Lowndes appears in court again....pleaded not guilty back in Feb to dangerous driving, careless driving and using a mobile phone whilst driving......

"sentence indication hearing this afternoon in Melbourne {30/04/2019}, which sees the court broadly indicate the sentence that offenders would likely face if they pleaded guilty to the offences."

https://www.goldcentralvictoria.com.au/ ... list-death

I can smell dangerous driving being dropped for a guilty plea and few hours community service hope I'm wrong

Pleaded not guilty... I missed that, but it was reported back in September 2018: https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/st ... des-crash/ .

In an interview in January [2018], Ms Rodda told detectives she had messaged her boyfriend four to five times while driving home. She told them she glanced down at her speedometer and when she looked back up she saw Mr Lowndes in front of her car, but there was no time to do anything. Defence counsel Mr Behan contested the prosecution’s assertion that Ms Rodda used her mobile phone just one minute before her car crashed into Mr Lowndes, because of the poor phone signal in the area.

So she admitted to texting 4 to 5 times while driving, but her lawyer says before the crash she looked her speedo rather than texted, as if that makes a difference. (But is also totally BS, who looks at their speedo for more than a moment?)

[biker jk]

driver involved in death of Jason Lowndes appears in court again....pleaded not guilty back in Feb to dangerous driving, careless driving and using a mobile phone whilst driving......

"sentence indication hearing this afternoon in Melbourne {30/04/2019}, which sees the court broadly indicate the sentence that offenders would likely face if they pleaded guilty to the offences."

https://www.goldcentralvictoria.com.au/ ... list-death

I can smell dangerous driving being dropped for a guilty plea and few hours community service hope I'm wrong

Pleaded not guilty... I missed that, but it was reported back in September 2018: https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/st ... des-crash/ .

In an interview in January [2018], Ms Rodda told detectives she had messaged her boyfriend four to five times while driving home. She told them she glanced down at her speedometer and when she looked back up she saw Mr Lowndes in front of her car, but there was no time to do anything. Defence counsel Mr Behan contested the prosecution’s assertion that Ms Rodda used her mobile phone just one minute before her car crashed into Mr Lowndes, because of the poor phone signal in the area.

So she admitted to texting 4 to 5 times while driving, but her lawyer says before the crash she looked her speedo rather than texted, as if that makes a difference. (But is also totally BS, who looks at their speedo for more than a moment?)

It's a sad fact that defence lawyers use these excuses because they are usually successful. "Cyclist appeared out of nowehere", "the sun blinded me", "I had a medical episode", etc.

[AdelaidePeter]

...Defence counsel Mr Behan contested the prosecution’s assertion that Ms Rodda used her mobile phone just one minute before her car crashed into Mr Lowndes, because of the poor phone signal in the area.

It's a sad fact that defence lawyers use these excuses because they are usually successful. "Cyclist appeared out of nowehere", "the sun blinded me", "I had a medical episode", etc.

I'll add, the excuse ("poor phone signal in the area") makes no sense either. You don't need good phone reception to type or send a text! In fact I've done it often: I type the text and send it, knowing my phone will send it on once it gets reception. Hopefully the prosecution pointed that out.

We do not know yet if the lame excuse will work in this case. But yes, I've seen that sort of thing work in the past. I'm not sure if the problem is poor prosecution, poor judges/juries or poor laws.

[AdelaidePeter]

It's a sad fact that defence lawyers use these excuses because they are usually successful. "Cyclist appeared out of nowehere", "the sun blinded me", "I had a medical episode", etc.

And now Ms. Rodda's lawyer is trying to argue that 2 to 4 seconds not looking at the road is "a short period of inattention". https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 51ixp.html

Other points from the article:
* Prosecutors say she sent 7 messages and received 10 during her half hour drive.
* Data from Lowndes' GPS device (as well as Ms. Rodda's phone, of course) has helped reconstruct the timeline.

[uart]

Other points from the article:
* Prosecutors say she sent 7 messages and received 10 during her half hour drive.

Wow, 17 messages in half an hour. I wouldn't be surprised is she was pretty much constantly playing with the phone for the whole trip.

I certainly hope that the charge of "dangerous driving causing death" sticks. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what her driving amounted to, and that is the most import charge IMHO.

[jules21]

I don't even understand why they have to argue the cause. If she was playing with her phone, which seems highly likely, it would explain her not seeing Jason before running into him. If she was doing something else, it must have been equally as bad to result in the same outcome. The defence's case is essentially to cast doubt over precisely what she was doing wrong to cause the collision, and that if we can't pin-point what she was doing, that she is somehow not guilty. Nonsense - if she wasn't driving dangerously, then how did she miss Jason? They have offered no credible explanation for that.

(to be clear - I understand how the defence argument may work, I'm arguing it's stupid that a court accepts that)

[AdelaidePeter]

I don't even understand why they have to argue the cause. If she was playing with her phone, which seems highly likely, it would explain her not seeing Jason before running into him. If she was doing something else, it must have been equally as bad to result in the same outcome.

My understanding of the difference is this: if you are texting, you are already breaking the law, whether or not you hit someone. If you are looking at the speedo instead of the road you are not breaking the law (it would be argued). So it's not killing someone because you were breaking the law, it's killing someone due to a momentary mistake.

That's how Caleb Wills and Mohamed Fageer, to name but two, got off with no or minimal sentence despite killing a cyclist and being 100% at fault.

I agree that is a horrible injustice, but that is how the laws stand at the moment. I have said before (and I am sure no one on this forum would disagree), that if you kill another road user and you are at fault, then it should be dangerous driving, by definition.

[Howzat]

And now Ms. Rodda's lawyer is trying to argue that 2 to 4 seconds not looking at the road is "a short period of inattention".

The case the lawyer is making here is “not guilty because my client wasn’t paying attention.”

[find_bruce]

The offence is not driving causing death, the driving must be dangerous in some specific way - such as using a mobile phone or not paying attention to the road in front of her. There are decisions that it must be outside the usual competence of a driver such that a momentary lapse of attention is not dangerous driving.

Its a fine line however - the lapse of attention must be sufficient to explain the failure to notice the person in front of her & not so long as to be evidence of the dangerous driving.

Her lawyer has said 2-4 seconds. Traveling at 100 km/h = 1667 m per minute = 27.8 m/s. In 2-4 seconds she has traveled 55 - 111 metres. Is there any reason Ms Rodda could not see Mr Lowndes from that distance ? Nothing I have read suggests that. Equally importantly, as we saw from the Mike Hall case, the court is bound by the evidence before it & the way in which the case was presented.

Does anyone know if or how the prosecutor challenged Ms Rodda's so called explanation?

[jules21]

I suspect we all? agree that looking down for a couple of seconds isn't enough to miss a cyclist who has in normal circumstances (straight road, light traffic) been in your line of sight for much longer. We all divert our eyes for a couple of seconds while driving. It's not dangerous when you've checked that you won't hit anything during that couple of seconds - particularly on an open road.

If I am approaching a cyclist from behind while driving, I will typically (or always) see them way earlier than that. Obviously, I do not look down at other stuff when I know I will have to conduct a more complicated overtaking manouevre.

The reason she hit Jason is that she was distracted a lot longer than just 2-4 seconds. We all know that.

[jules21]

my point was that her defence argument is contradictory. on the one hand, they're arguing she wasn't distracted (only looked down 2-4 seconds). but if she wasn't distracted - how did she fail to see Jason? they haven't offered a reasonable explanation for that, other than throwing in some random red herrings about his clothing colour, etc. the Chewbacca defence.

it doesn't make sense. if she's arguing she wasn't distracted, then why did she run into him?