Moron Motorists #3

[hannos]

What a croc.
I attended Burwood police station and submitted the information as per Oxford's form.
Constable Atkinson initially said no TINs could be issued from video submitted by the public. When I mentioned I know of others that have had TINs issued and been notified of this he changed his story. Now it would take some time to identify the driver and I'd only be notified if it went to court.

Personally I think that is a cop out but don't know how to proceed further.

UPDATE:

Seems something might be done after all...
The following is part of an email I receive from P/Cst Atkinson of Burwood LAC

I have managed to review the footage and yes definitely there have been some road rules broken. I am going to take the footage to my Traffic Sergeant to discuss the legalities of issuing a ticket using personal recording systems as evidence. As I stated to you in the station we are not able to issue tickets when the public have been the informant. I have just come off my last night shift and won’t be able to talk to the Sgt till Wednesday (hopefully) as she only works during the week and days. I will let you know the outcome.

[trailgumby]

UPDATE:

Seems something might be done after all...
The following is part of an email I receive from P/Cst Atkinson of Burwood LAC

I have managed to review the footage and yes definitely there have been some road rules broken. I am going to take the footage to my Traffic Sergeant to discuss the legalities of issuing a ticket using personal recording systems as evidence. As I stated to you in the station we are not able to issue tickets when the public have been the informant. I have just come off my last night shift and won’t be able to talk to the Sgt till Wednesday (hopefully) as she only works during the week and days. I will let you know the outcome.

The assertion they are unable to issue tickets when the informant is a member of the public is not correct. They do it all the time for motor vehicle crashes despite turning up at the scene sometimes hours after the event, and TINs have been issued before off video presented by the public. There are, however, some requirements, mostly to the point of being able to back the TIN with evidence to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" (as I now understand to be the case).

What you need to do is attend the station, make an official statement on the record, express your understanding therein that you may be summonsed to give evidence in court, and have it witnessed at the station under the Oaths Act. And then be prepared to go to court if the driver is stupid enough to challenge.

I couched it in these terms, when told that Police have to witness it to issue the ticket: "If I show it to you on video, does that count?" and the answer was a resounding (enthusiastic, even )"yes!". I wouldn't have spent nearly a grand on camera bits and bobs otherwise.

The primary evidence is your actually your statement or (if required to go to court) your cross-examined testimony. The video simply backs it/you up, and refutes counterclaims.

You should make it clear to PC Atkinson that this is your understanding, that you *expect* to go to court to support the charge if required, and want to make a formal statement ... "when can I attend?".

But if you're not prepared to back them, I think it's unfair to expect them to issue a TIN. That would be hanging them out to dry.

[Hardyakka]

What a croc.
I attended Burwood police station and submitted the information as per Oxford's form.
Constable Atkinson initially said no TINs could be issued from video submitted by the public. When I mentioned I know of others that have had TINs issued and been notified of this he changed his story. Now it would take some time to identify the driver and I'd only be notified if it went to court.

Personally I think that is a cop out but don't know how to proceed further.

Move it up the chain of command if nothing happens? That seems to be what Aushiker does in his area.[/quote]


Might have to. From their very own Police Handbook:

Front counter enquiries
•
Ensure victims receive an event number and a victim’s card.
•
Use interpreter or disability
services where appropriate.
•
Ensure initial victim follow-up occurs within
seven days and that all ongoing follow-up
occurs within seven days and that all ongoing follow-up complies with the
Charter of
Victims’ Rights
.
•
Try to resolve the customer’s matter at the first point of contact.

I was neither offered nor given an event number. Seems I really was being fobbed off.[/quote]

Although it may be different from state to state, here in Victoria The Victims Charter generally relates to crimes against the person eg assault, rape etc. Breaches of road rules fall under offences against 'The Road Safety Act' or 'Road Regulations' (or equivalent for each state).

Effectively what you have done is reported to police that you witnessed a breach of road rules and have footage of this breach. You are a witness to the traffic breaches and not a victim of a crime (which may explain why you didn't receive an event number or victim card)

[BianchiCam]

After hearing all the horror stories and videos of near misses, I've got myself a go pro silver edition.
Hope to the Big Man I don't need to go through the hoops that some seem to have to overcome with these numpties on the road.
Luckily I don't have to commute through the city. Just from Mount Martha to Red Hill. Normally a good ride, but with people in such a hurry I've often been shaved at ridiculous speeds.
It's my insurance........

[Hardyakka]

Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.

Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.

I startled a disembarking passenger in the process

If this pedestrian came forward and requested you be charged for riding on the footpath and caused him to take evasive action to prevent injury/collision, would you be accepting of this infringement notice or summons?

[jules21]

If this pedestrian came forward and requested you be charged for riding on the footpath and caused him to take evasive action to prevent injury/collision, would you be accepting of this infringement notice or summons?

really? who cares? you sound a bit like some of the motorists in this thread - "yes i almost deliberately killed you, but you were not riding close enough to the kerb so let's call it even"

[uppo75]

If this pedestrian came forward and requested you be charged for riding on the footpath and caused him to take evasive action to prevent injury/collision, would you be accepting of this infringement notice or summons?

really? who cares? you sound a bit like some of the motorists in this thread - "yes i almost deliberately killed you, but you were not riding close enough to the kerb so let's call it even"

Someone rides illegally on the footpath, almost hits a pedestrian. How is this different to a motorist driving illegally and almost hitting a cyclist?

[ironhanglider]

If this pedestrian came forward and requested you be charged for riding on the footpath and caused him to take evasive action to prevent injury/collision, would you be accepting of this infringement notice or summons?

really? who cares? you sound a bit like some of the motorists in this thread - "yes i almost deliberately killed you, but you were not riding close enough to the kerb so let's call it even"

Someone rides illegally on the footpath, almost hits a pedestrian. How is this different to a motorist driving illegally and almost hitting a cyclist?

Hmm just guessing here might it be the likelihood of death or serious injury?

Cheers,

Cameron

[warthog1]

really? who cares? you sound a bit like some of the motorists in this thread - "yes i almost deliberately killed you, but you were not riding close enough to the kerb so let's call it even"

Well put Jules. Totally different consequences.
The kinetic energy in a 1600kg object travelling at 60 kmh is massively different than a cyclist travelling at 15 kmh.

[skull]

Sorry accidentally hit a pedestrian from illegally riding on the foot path can still call serious injury. Regardless of speed.

So he has a point if the peds decided to have you infringed will you wear it?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Aushiker]

Sorry accidentally hit a pedestrian from illegally riding on the foot path can still call serious injury. Regardless of speed.

So he has a point if the peds decided to have you infringed will you wear it?

I would if I was legitimately found at fault ... have used video evidence in the past which could have had resulted in a TIN against me. It didn't but it was a close call but as the driver hadn't signalled a left turn I wasn't charged. My view at the time and that view still holds that the driver's behaviour warranted the reporting. The driver did receive a formal caution.

As has been pointed out there is a big difference in likely outcomes with motor vehicles versus cyclists versus pedestrians. A simply review of the all the data on serious injuries and deaths involving pedestrians shows this .... In 2012 174 pedestrians where killed ... how many by motorists and how many by cyclists? None by cyclists from my reading of the data.

Andrew

[Marto]

Sorry accidentally hit a pedestrian from illegally riding on the foot path can still call serious injury. Regardless of speed.

So he has a point if the peds decided to have you infringed will you wear it?

I would if I was legitimately found at fault ... have used video evidence in the past which could have had resulted in a TIN against me. It didn't but it was a close call but as the driver hadn't signalled a left turn I wasn't charged. My view at the time and that view still holds that the driver's behaviour warranted the reporting. The driver did receive a formal caution.

As has been pointed out there is a big difference in likely outcomes with motor vehicles versus cyclists versus pedestrians. A simply review of the all the data on serious injuries and deaths involving pedestrians shows this .... In 2012 174 pedestrians where killed ... how many by motorists and how many by cyclists? None by cyclists from my reading of the data.

Andrew

Might not get a TIN, but once the bus drivers find and share this video it will give them ammunition to shift the blame and focus from the bus driver to you.

[trailgumby]

Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.

Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.

I startled a disembarking passenger in the process

If this pedestrian came forward and requested you be charged for riding on the footpath and caused him to take evasive action to prevent injury/collision, would you be accepting of this infringement notice or summons?

Sure. Well worth the $68 to get this guy pinged.

There are two material differences between the bus and me:
1: If the ped had stayed his course and not moved out of the way, there'd have been no collision because I was already on the brakes, almost at a stop anyway, with plenty of remaining stopping room. The video demonstrates this amply.

And he did get a loud apology from me for startling him, which you can hear in the video. But if I got TIN'd, I'd wear it.

2: Compare that with the bus's behaviour. If I'd not have taken avoiding action we would not be having this conversation.
No apology. He blew me off. He knew exactly what he was doing.

And then there's this: there is a slight difference between being bumped by a cyclist at low speed and going under the rear wheels of a bus or cement mixer at any speed, don't you think?

[elantra]

Sorry accidentally hit a pedestrian from illegally riding on the foot path can still call serious injury. Regardless of speed.

So he has a point if the peds decided to have you infringed will you wear it?

I would if I was legitimately found at fault ... have used video evidence in the past which could have had resulted in a TIN against me. It didn't but it was a close call but as the driver hadn't signalled a left turn I wasn't charged. My view at the time and that view still holds that the driver's behaviour warranted the reporting. The driver did receive a formal caution.

As has been pointed out there is a big difference in likely outcomes with motor vehicles versus cyclists versus pedestrians. A simply review of the all the data on serious injuries and deaths involving pedestrians shows this .... In 2012 174 pedestrians where killed ... how many by motorists and how many by cyclists? None by cyclists from my reading of the data.

Andrew

The issue of cyclist versus pedestrian is going off on a slight tangent, but is a bit different up here in Brisbane.

Here, as you may or may not be aware, it is NOT illegal to ride bicycle on footpath. (lack of nationally consistant laws )

So you do see lots of cyclists riding on the footpath - sometimes a bit hazardously, sometimes not.
As far as i know no pedestrian has ever been killed from collision with bicycle ON THE FOOTPATH (in brisbane).

Recently i saw, for the first time ever, a bloke zooming along the (narrow) footpath on a motorized bicycle.
But it was in NSW, of course...

[Ross]

Just on a lighter note I rode 130km today and didn't have a single incident with any motorists. Did have one with another cyclist though that decided that pedestrian red lights don't apply to him and chose to ride across the road as I was riding through. Luckily for him we didn't have a coming together...

[trailgumby]

Just on a lighter note I rode 130km today and didn't have a single incident with any motorists.

Well that's just plain wrong. Anyway, you're not allowed to say that in here. Next you'll have people thinking cycling is safe!

If you want to argue about it, arguments are the next door on the left.

[jules21]

i wouldn't discount the possibility of the cyclist falling as a result of being squeezed by the truck. it can be disconcerting, especially for an inexperienced cyclist.

rogan - i think we're agreeing that it is up to the jury to make a judgment on whether the driver did come too close to the cyclist, and whether that may constitute dangerous driving. the problem is, without evidence of how close he came, it's difficult to make such a judgment.

note to mods - is this discussion out of line? if so, please delete.

[Gerry.M]

Riding alone yesterday I came along Mountain Hwy heading west with the intention of turning right into Boronia Rd.

Here: http://goo.gl/maps/uUMNB

I stayed in the right hand right turn lane as I then needed to turn right into Wantirna Rd, which for those who don't know this intersection, you need to do almost immediately after turning into Boronia Rd.
A grumpy bloke in a 4 wheeler behind was revving his engine as I took off and clipped in.
Obviously my take off wasn't fast enough so this clown stepped on it and overtook me on the left through the intersection. Note, there were other cars in the left hand right turn lane so he basically pushed past me forcing me to move out right through the intersection. I could see his frustration as he passed me cursing and hissing which made me smile .
To his advantage he arrived in the Wantirna Rd turn lane .03 seconds sooner than if he had of waited for me to move ahead and out of his way...

To others who use this intersection, which part of the road do you turn from?
As I continued on my way I thought maybe I should have been in the left of the turn lanes on Mountain Hwy and then made my way across to get into Wantirna Rd.
The thing is though cars also using that lane may end up going straight so you are navigating across through accelerating traffic which is never fun.
The right hand lane gives the advantage of basically moving from one turn lane to another with having to change lanes.

[VRE]

I just avoid those intersections entirely, when returning from my Dandenongs rides, by riding along the Dandenong Creek Trail until Wantirna Rd, then I turn right there and head home.

Those 2 intersections are a nasty combination: uphill and 2 consecutive right turns. If you approach from Boronia Rd, you have to watch for merging traffic from Mountain Hwy. If you must use these intersections, then (a) use Boronia Rd all the way to Wantirna Rd, instead of Mountain Hwy and (b) do a hook turn at Wantirna Rd. The latter may slow you down a bit due to the light sequences, but at least you'll have relative peace of mind .

[jules21]

To others who use this intersection, which part of the road do you turn from?

just use the lane you need, as you did. let other people blow steam out of their ears, it's not your problem.

I just avoid those intersections entirely, when returning from my Dandenongs rides, by riding along the Dandenong Creek Trail until Wantirna Rd, then I turn right there and head home.

this is the best option. the ride out to the dandys is not to bad for me, usually along maroondah hwy, but even better is the shared path along the Eastern Fwy and Eastlink. i exit it at Old Dandenong Rd or whatever it is, which finishes at Canterbury Rd and then the Tourist Rd.

[Gerry.M]

I just avoid those intersections entirely, when returning from my Dandenongs rides, by riding along the Dandenong Creek Trail until Wantirna Rd, then I turn right there and head home.

Thanks, good suggestion

Yesterday was the first time I had used that route, probably the last.
Usually I either go along Boronia Rd all the way back from the Basin, or if via Mountain Hwy turn off at Bayswater station and hook up with the Dandy Creek Trail.

[VRE]

Forgot to mention: a few times last Winter the Dandenong Creek Trail was flooded in a few locations: mainly the road underpasses, plus one section of trail that dips to nearly creek level. So when this occurs, a detour is required. Fortunately, it doesn't happen too often. I rode this trail on my way to/from Mt Dandenong about 30-something times last year, and only saw flooding 2 or maybe 3 times.

[jasonc]

well that's crap:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 6635894242" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[trailgumby]

Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.

Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.

I startled a disembarking passenger in the process

WOW.

This morning I had a request for *phone call* from a staff supervisor at Brookvale Depot.

He advised that he saw from the camera on the driver no evidence of intent by way of facial expression or gesture, however he agreed that the manouvre was completley unnecessary, high risk and a dangerous thing to do with a 13 tonne vehicle. He also said that when he pulled in behind me and then began executing the overtake that he was much too close. The overall tone of the conversation was quite sympathetic to me.

The driver will be pulled aside, shown on-board footage of what he did (but not mine) and "educated" about his responsibilities with regard to the road rules and Sydney Buses safe driving practice. If there had been any evidence of intent, he'd have been stood down immediately.

Can't ask for more than that. A good outcome, I think.

[find_bruce]

Can we give the tragic circumstances of Mr Pollett's passing a rest. Christopher has been pretty consistent in this regard and one thread on this topic has already been removed with the message

While most members show respect - the odd few forget the pure tragedy and the influence of their comments on family and friends.
Aside from paying respects, generally on BNA, out of respect, we would not like to host detailed discussions surrounding the specific events.

The topic has been removed for this reason and for road safety issues and improving road safety (with consideration in posting) the cycling advocacy and safety section can be used.