Inaugural Indian Pacific Wheel Race

[nezumi]

This video should put paid to any suggestions Mike was hard to see- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZpUjE ... e=youtu.be


Funnily enough, there was a comment on Facebook about the legal status of the race, referencing my dealings with the police over the Innisfail-Cairns record mentioned above by find_bruce. Just to clarify, QPS have since advised that they consider the relevant section of the traffic act DOES NOT apply to a single rider, adhering to normal road rules. NSW and ACT have almost identically worded rules, but I haven't yet contacted the police there about it. It is debatable as to how IPWR would be considered under those rules, on one hand the participants were single riders, adhering to normal road rules and separated by sometimes hundreds of kilometres. On the other hand, it was very clearly promoted and run as a race. The only thing I'm sure of is I would not like to be in the organiser's shoes, he must have gone through an enormous amount of stress ever since the event, and it's unlikely the legal side of things will be resolved for a long time yet.

That would be me - and only going off what I remembered and referenced in your original post. If they have since changed tack, that's awesome - but I do still see a worrying amount of grey in the "here's a ride that I am doing, and if you want to do the same ride at the same time you're welcome to" type of approach. I recall that when I first mentioned the now-apparently-defunct Melbourne Gravel Grinders rides, Il Padrone was dubious as to their legality.

[caneye]

"Senior Constable Potts of the AFP created a video using a reconstruction of Mike Hall’s bike to examine how visible Mike Hall would have been. This reconstruction placed the bike off the road to the left, substituted the Dynamo hub with a 6-volt battery, excluded the rear bag and its reflective strip, excluded any person or clothing, excluded any front white light shining on the road, and excluded any human movement of the bike. There was also a Police light stationed near the bike and an oncoming car in the simulation that was admitted into evidence by the AFP. In the submitted video, the reconstructed bike was difficult to see."

speechless.
stating the obvious but you only have to contrast that with the video of him at Cooma.

[g-boaf]

This video should put paid to any suggestions Mike was hard to see- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZpUjE ... e=youtu.be

It makes the conclusion more egregious - given how bright he is in the video.

[TonyMax]

I will never forget those reflective parts on his calves going up and down.

[redned]

"...excluded the rear bag and its reflective strip, excluded any person or clothing, excluded any front white light shining on the road, and excluded any human movement of the bike. ... the reconstructed bike was difficult to see."

So if you remove everything that would have made the bike and rider visible, it was difficult to see? Interesting.

[Jmuzz]

Cops trying to get the driver off with dodgy investigation.
Who was he related to?

[macca33]

Cops trying to get the driver off with dodgy investigation.
Who was he related to?

One wonders....strange things happen in ACT....

I saw a video snippet of him on-road on the night/morning of the collision (posted on another medium) and he was CLEARLY visible from a long way off, to the rear.

Hopefully the Coroner sees sense and recommends review by the ACT DPP - not holding my breath though...

[Thoglette]

Is anyone able to submit an "amicus curiae" brief to the coroner to refute Mr Plod's creative recreation?

[find_bruce]

I will never forget those reflective parts on his calves going up and down.

Tony it would be good if you & whoever took the video linked to could approach the counsel assisting to offer to give evidence - they have an obligation to bring all relevant evidence before the coroner

[TonyMax]

I did so today (gave evidence).

I simply cannot believe that his clothing was not bagged as evidence.

[queequeg]

I did so today (gave evidence).

I simply cannot believe that his clothing was not bagged as evidence.

I thought the reconstruction of his bike to test visibility (as reported) was a total farce. Really gives me little confidence that the investigators had any idea what they were doing.

[fat and old]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... ourt-hears

[find_bruce]

I did so today (gave evidence).

I simply cannot believe that his clothing was not bagged as evidence.

Thanks Tony. Do you know if the video will be played?

[fat and old]

From the Cycle.org wrap up of day 1

A documentary that had extensive video footage of Mike Hall’s rear light and clothing and reflective strip on this rear bag was not viewed by the AFP until two weeks prior to the Coronial Inquest. This video evidence was only introduced to the Coroner’s Court as evidence on Day 1 of the Inquest, and this was only done at the request of the lawyer representing Anna Haslock.

Not sure if that had the footage you mention?


Seems that only Tony Max saw the cyclist clearly; all other motorists to appear so far claim he "came out of nowhere". This makes sense to me. Tony was probably the only regular cyclist that saw him that morning who gave evidence and he was looking for Mike. Regular drivers just don't have cyclists on their radar.....how many of them thought the cyclist was a roo or other wildlife? I would hope that some sort of recommendation that a public awareness campaign/education comes from this, at the very least.


Thoglette has a good idea there. I assume Cycle.org is doing so? If money is an issue, say so.

[silentC]

how many of them thought the cyclist was a roo or other wildlife? I would hope that some sort of recommendation that a public awareness campaign/education comes from this, at the very least.

Mate if they can't tell the difference between a roo and a cyclist, they really should not be allowed on the road. Seriously...

Nope my tip is that an awareness campaign would rightfully be dismissed as a WOFTAM that would achieve very little. Most likely recommendations will involve legislating for increased hi-vis for cyclists, or maybe just banning them from highways altogether.

[g-boaf]

how many of them thought the cyclist was a roo or other wildlife? I would hope that some sort of recommendation that a public awareness campaign/education comes from this, at the very least.

Mate if they can't tell the difference between a roo and a cyclist, they really should not be allowed on the road. Seriously...

Nope my tip is that an awareness campaign would rightfully be dismissed as a WOFTAM that would achieve very little. Most likely recommendations will involve legislating for increased hi-vis for cyclists, or maybe just banning them from highways altogether.

The will probably suggest that cyclists should have mandatory GPS tracking devices, mandatory timing devices to prevent them riding for more than 2 hours at a time, mandatory hi-viz, mandatory registration, mandatory license plates, mandatory this, mandatory that...

Hey, I must just run for election to Parliament on that ticket - watch me win by a landslide. Call me cynical and jaded.

Anything to avoid making motorists be more accountable. In this case, Mike Hall was very obviously highly visible, so what we are hearing from these proceedings is quite worrying.

[silentC]

Yep. I'm going to buy a CX bike I think...

[fat and old]

how many of them thought the cyclist was a roo or other wildlife? I would hope that some sort of recommendation that a public awareness campaign/education comes from this, at the very least.

Mate if they can't tell the difference between a roo and a cyclist, they really should not be allowed on the road. Seriously...

Hey, no disagreements here. None at all. Just trying to make sense of it. I don't think that telling the difference even comes into the equation. It starts and stops with "is it bigger than my car". Hence the idiot who ran him down paying attantion to a truck that was parked, but not being concerned by "a roo". I'll bet that regular outback drivers would see a cyclist more readily than a suburban motorist.


I disagree that a targeted, TAC style awareness campaign would be a waste of money or time, but that's another discussion.

[silentC]

Yeah, I just think back to the 'awareness campaign' they ran in NSW about the 1 metre law. The number of people who don't understand that rule, it's just mind boggling. But that might be largely due to the fact they focused on the increased fines for not wearing a helmet etc. That was a real coup by the transport minister.

[fat and old]

ok, I'll bite..

I'm thinking of the Victorian TAC ads, which are at times quite confronting. They get saturation level penetration too....print, on line, TV, billboards at side and over road. The TAC don't muck around in getting their message across.


I don't want any rules, laws or regulations even mentioned. I want to see a cyclist graphically run over by a texting person. I want that person to then realise that it's their neighbour's kid/spouse/parent. I want them shown at the funeral, being spat on by all and sundry. There's precedent there....they did one on M/C lane changes that was quite graphic. OK, maybe not the funeral bit, but you get what I'm saying.

[silentC]

I don't watch much (any) commercial TV but I know the ads you mean. I've seen a texting one that was quite confronting but not sure how much impact it has actually had, people still do text and drive an awful lot.

Not sure what the answer is. If you're silly enough to read the comments on Facebook, or have had roadside 'chats' with motorists, you'll very soon realise that the issue is a combination of low opinion of cyclists in general and an ignorance of the road rules. Maybe sticking it in everyone's faces in between episodes of The Block would help.

[Ross]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/hal ... 5067h.html

P-plater Shegu Bobb, 19 at the time, was driving the car at the speed limit of 100km/h and told police he didn't see Hall until it was too late.

He was excused from giving evidence at the inquest after being described as "suggestible" in police interviews about the incident.

What does "suggestible" mean?

[robbo mcs]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/hal ... 5067h.html

P-plater Shegu Bobb, 19 at the time, was driving the car at the speed limit of 100km/h and told police he didn't see Hall until it was too late.

He was excused from giving evidence at the inquest after being described as "suggestible" in police interviews about the incident.

What does "suggestible" mean?

It is a medical and legal term, meaning the person is prone to suggestibility, which is a know psychological phenomenon. In this context, it means a witness may be easily lead, and come to have false or innaccurate memories of an event. It also means a witness may give different accounts of an event at different times. It is important to note that this is not the witness lying, or trying to mislead. It is a witness honestly trying to give their best recollections, which may be false. It is relatively common in traumatic incidents and post traumatic stress disorder

I note that all legal parties agreed to the witness being excused.

[mikesbytes]

Is this inquest a prosecution vs defense situation?

[find_bruce]

Is this inquest a prosecution vs defense situation?

No Mike they a coroner's inquiry is very different. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine the identity of the deceased and the date, place, circumstances and medical cause of death. The Coroner may make recommendations to governments and other agencies with a view to improving public health and safety.

In cases like this most of the inquest is about the circumstances of the death. There is a counsel assisting whose job it is to assemble & present all of the evidence - usually a police prosecutor but in high profile cases a barrister. Unlike most other proceedings there are a whole range of "interested parties" who might get permission to appear & possibly ask questions - the most common of these is the victims family who usually has no formal place in a trial.

It seems in this inquiry the driver is not represented at the inquest