Shaking with rage! Not Guilty!

[ldrcycles]

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 .

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.

[il padrone]

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).

[g-boaf]

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!

[The 2nd Womble]

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.

[human909]

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.

[jules21]

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.

[The 2nd Womble]

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.

[InTheWoods]

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.

[jules21]

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.

[Chuck]

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.

[human909]

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.

[jules21]

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.

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.

[il padrone]

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 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!"

[The 2nd Womble]

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.

[dontazame]

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 !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! on that one. Going back to ignoring road rules when it is safer to do so.

[Boppo]

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.

[The 2nd Womble]

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?

[Lukeyboy]

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 .

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!

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.

[AndrewBurns]

Wow you were very close to becoming like the subject of this thread in that video 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.

[Summernight]

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.

[exadios]

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.

[jules21]

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".

[exadios]

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.

[Mulger bill]

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?

[Cheesewheel]

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)