Punishment pass

[find_bruce]

Outnabike there is an important qualification - the various acts apply to private conversations. A stranger berating or threatening you in a public place & then continuing to your front door is unlikely to be a private conversation

[cj7hawk]

What I am upset about is that after four instances that were obviously a danger to the rider, supplied on video, the police have not even written a singe thing to me on the matter from start to finish.

3. Jurisdiction summary

WA Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)
No

From the WA Surveillance Devices Act 1998. ( As someone who had cameras installed to watch for people coming through at night and committing crimes against me )

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a person shall not install, use,
or maintain, or cause to be installed, used, or maintained, a
listening device —
(b) to record a private conversation to which that person is a
party.
(3) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to the installation, use, or
maintenance of a listening device by or on behalf of a person
who is a party to a private conversation if —
(d) a principal party to the private conversation consents
expressly or impliedly to that installation, use, or
maintenance and the installation, use, or maintenance is
reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful
interests of that principal party.

Looks pretty legit to me. Someone talking to you while a camera is visible and present, like on top of your helmet, is implied consent, and if they object you still state "Your objection to being recorded is noted" and continued recording, since you are still a principal party and you have consented.

Recording for your own safety to identify people who are driving so as to endanger your life or commit other crimes against you, would be lawful interests, and a camera is more than reasonable under the circumstances.

More so, interactions with most motorists would occur in public space anyway, so there is no expectation of the conversation being private anyway.

Hope this helps

David.

[outnabike]

Thanks for the response guys.
I may have given the wrong impression.
Two officers knocked on my door; I only spoke with one. The other looked like a surly type that didn’t get involved, and was happily leaning against the front post. I was not introduced and neither did he seem to care. It was not a comfortable discussion at all.

Half of the discussion which went for 10 minutes was at the door very loudly, and after calling me ridiculous he moved off the veranda towards the drive way. Then due to my protestations, he stopped and continued, and also saw the sound camera as it has a flashing red led. And probably the sign I have on the meter box which reads “video surveillance on the premises”, Still loud, he suddenly became more conciliatory. I could visibly see his expression change. Suddenly from talking at me he started to talk to me.

So it was all on my property but one neighbor came out of his front door due to the loudness of the voices.
My reading of the Vic law leans to the understanding that the front door is allowed to be accessed by any one, and as long as I am included in the surveillance footage it is legal.
I am also on record as having been rang by the police for access to my footage on other matters, to assist the police with street activity. And it proved very useful. But that was previously and by a different station. So two different departments entirely.

I intend to edit the captured Video to half, as there is a lot of repetition, and to delete the visual images whilst changing the sound to unrecognizable voices.
I did tell the police of the whole thing being on tape previously so they know of it. I still get the feeling they don’t believe it though, as when I pressed them with an inquiry they didn’t even ask for it.

[outnabike]

I can do no more than show what happened to me for sending in videos of moron motorists to the police. From the reactions of even some members this may appear to be unjustified. I say you had to be there.
If you have had a charmed life and no punishment passes that is good news. You can criticise me for riding too much left, to much centre, too busy a road, take another route, riding too slow, not being dressed in bright colours etc etc.
that's cool as well. I took up riding again only a few years ago and some of this footage goes back that far.

But realise that it is only a matter of time, and you will get the same treatment. Irrespective of a cyclists lack of skill though, no one deserves the treatment meted out to them by dangerous motorists.

Their driving is so habitually bad, that the police say they didn't even have a memory of ever having driven too close to me. Motorist centric police can only sympathise with them, and agree. The cyclist should get of the road. You will have to listen carefully as I degraded the video with voice simulation bats it's all there.

[human909]

Attrocious behaviour by the police. But I'm used to such reports by now....

The changing of the voices is unnecessary and made it hard to follow.

[myforwik]

The sad fact is, there is no regulation against what these drivers are doing, because the system treats 'safely' passed on if our not you are hit/injured. This isn't just the police, but the courts and regulations following a car oriented society.

I haven't watched the video yet, but I don't see any reason why police would come to your house other than to intimidate you into not making any more of these reports.

I recommend you always report, because eventually these people are going to hit someone, and then these details will be dragged out, and the fact that police did nothing will be extremely useful in helping regulations change. Sadly like in qld someone will have to die first.

[bychosis]

As a safe pass is not a hit then we all need stunt man training so that in the event of an unsafe pass we can do a spectacular dive/crash without being hurt.

[human909]

As a safe pass is not a hit then we all need stunt man training so that in the event of an unsafe pass we can do a spectacular dive/crash without being hurt.

If you are not injured then the police won't attend the accident and there is a very good chance of not further action by the police.

[myforwik]

One other idea is to put it on car terms...

So it's ok to pass a vehicle in the same lane?

So it's ok to pass a vehicle while lane straddling, you don't need to change lanes fully?

So it's ok to pass a vehicle at 1cm in the same lane, so long as I don't hit it?

I hate how one eyes these people are, imagine if you passed a police car partly in their lane, you would be booked instantly, but when it's a bike, it's ok.

[bychosis]

As a safe pass is not a hit then we all need stunt man training so that in the event of an unsafe pass we can do a spectacular dive/crash without being hurt.

If you are not injured then the police won't attend the accident and there is a very good chance of not further action by the police.

but capture a few on camera and ...

[il padrone]

Attrocious behaviour by the police. But I'm used to such reports by now....

Yep. Most police are motor-centric morons. ALL police are part of the system and unwilling to 'rock the boat'.

My strategy is to ride within my rights. Keep as far left as practicable on single lane roads (usually not practicable for me to go closer than 1m to the kerb). Ride in the middle of the lane (<70kmh speed limit roads) or in the left wheel-track (70kmh+ roads), to take possession of the lane. This keeps 99% of motorists at bay as they can clearly see that they need to change lanes to pass; even maybe slow down a little while doing so.

This is a USA diagram so reverse for Australian roads.

[il padrone]

One other idea is to put it on car terms...

So it's ok to pass a vehicle in the same lane?

So it's ok to pass a vehicle while lane straddling, you don't need to change lanes fully?

So it's ok to pass a vehicle at 1cm in the same lane, so long as I don't hit it?

I hate how one eyes these people are, imagine if you passed a police car partly in their lane, you would be booked instantly, but when it's a bike, it's ok.

Sharing a lane is entirely legal...... as long as there is enough space and it is done safely.

1. Bikes are much more efficient users of space, and as the speed is much lower, passing a car with say 10-20cms may well be no issue.

2. I see NO justification for suggesting that a car passing a cyclist at 80kmh with <20cms of space is "safe"...... not in any scenario. I have had large trucks slow down to about 40kmh and pass me with about 30-50cms of space (because they were caught by the traffic situation), and this was unfortunate, but fairly safe behaviour.

It's all about speed and distance.

[human909]

My strategy is to ride within my rights. Keep as far left as practicable on single lane roads (usually not practicable for me to go closer than 1m to the kerb).

I don't keep as left as practicable, and if the police want to charge me I'll fight it all the way. Given that there is plenty of government advice and signage encouraging taking of the full lane I feel completely within my rights. (Keep as left as practicable is the "drive on the left side of the road rule", it is not a gutter hug rule.)

On single lane roads that are narrow ride on the right side of the lane. Every second week there is another death from a cyclist being sideswiped by a car/truck not leaving enough room. Be damned if I'm going to let them pass me within a narrow lane.

[il padrone]

My strategy is to ride within my rights. Keep as far left as practicable on single lane roads (usually not practicable for me to go closer than 1m to the kerb).

I don't keep as left as practicable, and if the police want to charge me I'll fight it all the way. Given that there is plenty of government advice and signage encouraging taking of the full lane I feel completely within my rights.

On single lane roads that are narrow ride on the right side of the lane. Every second week there is another death from a cyclist being sideswiped by a car/truck not leaving enough room. Be damned if I'm going to let them pass me within a narrow lane.

You may have missed my point - I was referring to regular single-lane roads (one lane each way) that are generally wide enough for motor traffic and bikes, My policy is always keep to a 1m minimum, even if there is room. On narrower roads, sure, take all the space for safe riding. Following drivers need to suck it up.

BTW, do not mix up "keep as far left as practicable" for bicycles, with the "keep to the left of centre" rule, which is for all road users. Two different rules. As far left as practicable is what it says, but only I can judge what is practicable for me.

[human909]

You may have missed my point - I was referring to regular single-lane roads (one lane each way) that are generally wide enough for motor traffic and bikes, My policy is always keep to a 1m minimum, even if there is room. On narrower roads, sure, take all the space for safe riding. Following drivers need to suck it up.

A little bit of that and a little bit of me wanting to re-empasise to the broader community to take the god damn lane!

I do recognise that we are largely on the same page on this. But time and time again I see videos of people gutter hugging and getting close passed. It is frustrating.

[warthog1]

I don't advocate routinely taking the lane, I only do it at pinch points where I am going to get squeezed; entering roundabouts, traffic calming chicanes and the like.
If there is a shoulder I get off the road generally if the surface is good or left wheel track where there is debris on the shoulder. Multilane roads = left wheel track of left lane.
(people might be saying that anyway)
Gutter hugging is never a good idea.
Most of the close passes I have had I am convinced have been deliberate and would have happened regardless of lane position. Gutter hugging however invites squeezing and will increase the incidence of close passing by drivers who have poor spatial awareness, of whom there are quite a few. They think there is enough room for a bicycle and their car in the same lane.
What are most worrying are the incompetent close passes, texters or otherwise distracted or debilitated drivers who should not be on the road. They really scare me.

[il padrone]

I don't advocate routinely taking the lane, I only do it at pinch points where I am going to get squeezed; entering roundabouts, traffic calming chicanes and the like.
If there is a shoulder I get off the road generally if the surface is good or left wheel track where there is debris on the shoulder. Multilane roads = left wheel track of left lane.
(people might be saying that anyway)

You are probably riding on more high-speed (70+) roads in Bendigo and surrounds - where taking the left-wheel-track would be wisest. Or maybe you just have more aggro tools on Bendigo's 50 & 60kmh streets

[warthog1]

There are some agro tools for sure and the traffic volumes are lower. Plenty of good shoulders where I ride so I use them.
I am broadly in agreement with you, I don't claim the lane when the left wheeltrack will do. Just clarifying that I guess.
Coming into a round about = smack bang in the middle of the lane and continuing through the roundabout despite that stupid green paint on the outside of the roundabout .
Door lane death zones = left wheel track 1.5m+ from the cars. I get almost no grief for that and regularly see people open their doors as I ride past which probably reinforces my lane positioning to the following drivers.

This is piepers hill an 80 km/h section of road on my commute;

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-36.787 ... 312!8i6656" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I take the left hand wheel track L lane on the way up and the shoulder on the other side on the way down . Works for me.

[biker jk]

Those police officers are a disgrace and should be sacked.

[outnabike]

Friends, I am with you all and I do appreciate the comments. I can tell you it was not a wonderful experience to have this officer on my door. Sorry to make it hard to listen to. I have the thought of having identified some one on my mind probably more than it needed to be. Just trying to do the right thing.
Much as i didn't like the door stop I still wanted the anonymity for the officer, its only fair and also I cant handle the litigation.
I was actually caught unawares by the ombudsman.
From a simple agitated enquirery, and without asking, it went straight to the ibac process. No; do you want too, no; what do you think, no; here are the pros and cons.Just chucked off the deep end.
But that's only half of it and I have lots more to play with for time immemorial, so to speak.

But what this process did do is free me from the clutches of the presiding officer. Later submissions are now handled by another officer that processed an incident that was proceeded with, and was successful.

The process was that they came to my home and took statements and then it went forward. I get the feeling it was as much to sound me out as it was to do the job. They both work out of the same office after all and probably have a beer together. But a completely different frame of mind to the last officer.

But I now get the feeling that my claims are going to the bin file beside the desk, as I didn't go further with any other enquirers. The do not give any paperwork so nothing can be checked.

I mean if they came to take particulars and whether I would stand as a witlessness once, but don't follow that path again, I must assume they are merely warning the drivers on the video.

I don't think its personal,I have had two break ins to my property and have the blokes on video but it's in ifrared. Not even a visit to site to get a finger print, foot print or even to just say hello.

[outnabike]

We all are seeking the into of the one metre law. But did you know it was here in principal.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety- ... g-handbook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Aside from being the key resource for novice drivers, the Road to Solo Driving handbook provides an overview of the rules and regulations for driving on the road in Victoria.
It is the responsibility of all drivers to know and adhere to the requirements for driving safely on the road.
The handbook outlines many of the legal requirements for drivers in Victoria.
This may not be the written law but it explains the rules for all license, holders it is a handbook.

Yet when I give proof to the police with a close pass video, they do not act on it.

[outnabike]

On my riding around video I was assaulted by a horn blower. If assault is too strong a word or not I will find out, as I submitted it to the police as unwarranted use of a warning device.
I am alleging that the only one I had to fear in this incident was the horn blower himself.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4964&start=1250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is the current law.
My thoughts are that if it is illegal in Vic to merely toot the horn as a wave goodbye when visiting friends, this display is outright aggression.

I am riding legally and don't accept that it is necessary to overtake another vehicle and blast everyone to make the point.This clod was also approaching a red light and so should have been slowing down.
However I expect the usual side step from the law as it is always a problem to prosecute on a video matter.
I would love to see a policeman's reaction though if I overtook a patrol car and did that very action.

[softy]

This video clearly points out the attitude towards bicycles,
It was mentioned to ride on the footpath, i get comments like this alot. It indicates you are the problem because you choose to ride on the road and hold up traffic. Illegal or out it doesn't matter.

i am constantly amazed by how people put their own beliefs above the law and facts.

even the police do it!

not really surprising.

[warthog1]

I am loving your persistence and thorough presentation of your complaints Outnabike.
I am thinking these will make good evidence, when combined with the police inaction, that the current laws are functionally insufficient.
Have you approached the office of our roads minister with your evidence?
http://m.vic.gov.au/contactsandservices ... 4a3c6adce9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We have BN(V) and the RACV advocating against the implementation of safe minimum passing distance laws.
Your evidence provides a stark contradiction to their stance that the current laws are sufficient. Plainly we all know they are not, we need to convince the legislators.

[Thoglette]

combined with the police inaction... we need to convince the legislators.

And here is the rub: the police officer is either following policy or being selectively lazy - they don't have time to enforce the massive oversupply of badly thought out laws we have.

If it is laziness (or worse), that can be dealt with by an appeal to someone higher up the chain in the police force. Depending on the behaviour of various individuals and the terms of reference, the ombudsman is the final step in this chain.

If it is policy you need to address the politics: your two local members; the minister; the shadow minister and the press.