You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Victim blaming?
Helmet wearing?
Punishment for motorists?
This story has it all.
Counsel assisting will not be recommending to the coroner to refer the matter to prosecutors.
Australia, innit mate.
Cars allowed to kill cyclists because it's always the cyclists fault.
No charges have been laid. Counsel assisting will not be recommending to the coroner to refer the matter to prosecutors.
Lie about not seeing a cyclist and you've done nothing wrong. What a ****ing sad story that is.
I didn't see anything in the article on helmet wearing there, it's a commentary on an ongoing coroners inquiry so I would expect more to follow.
It seems like a balanced reporting of day one,
Was the defendant lying?
Cars allowed to kill cyclists because it’s always the cyclists fault.
Just because he's someone we knew and liked don't start getting all stupid. Does no-one any favours. Deeming it an accident, if that's what happens, is not the same thing as saying it's 'allowed' is it? This isn't the time to be a dick.
I didn’t see anything in the article on helmet wearing there
No, just me stirring 🙂 But in the picture he is shown wearing a helmet !!
Its mandatory in australia to wear helmet
But in the picture he is shown wearing a helmet !!
It's legal to in all og the states he was riding through I think. If the questions in hopsters link are asked that would be interesting to hear the responses.
It would be wise to wait until the coroner sums up too, they are simply reporting what was presented in the court as far as I can tell.
Was the defendant lying?
Said he didn't see the bike light.
Documentary footage shows light was visible.
Maybe not lying. But he killed someone while driving. The person he killed was not invisible.
I'd go with lying - I mean, why wouldn't you lie?
Said he didn’t see the bike light.
Documentary footage shows light was visible.
The light could have failed or fallen off just before the crash. Not likely, but possible. Also, he didn't say the cyclist was not visible, he said he didn't see him. Driver could have not seen him for a number of reasons. Brains are funny things, especially when you're tired.
I'm not sticking up for the cyclist, the driver probably wasn't paying attention, but I cannot stand a mob mentality.
as molgrips said, the light was shown at a different time. Yes there are questions and I hope their are answers.
Australia, innit mate.
Cars allowed to kill cyclists because it’s always the cyclists fault.
Attitudes and laws are changing.
Bobb had seen a truck parked in an unusual place on the Monaro Highway. When he refocused on the road, he saw something briefly but had no time to avoid
That suggests he wasn't paying proper attention. Rubbernecking at something out of the side window, doesn't matter how bright his rear light was.
In the documentary the car driver looks to be travelling at about 20mph rather than the 60mph the crash driver was. Not defending the car driver at all by the way, before the STW lynch mob move into overdrive.
Still a ****ing sad story whichever way you wanna say it's ok to kill cyclists.
Who could foresee such a tragedy, cycling in the dark with only inconspicuous clothing and a tiny led light to protect you against the entire spectrum of drivers expected to be encountered.
Still a **** sad story whichever way you wanna say it’s ok to kill cyclists.
Calm down a bit... Nobody is but some of us would like to hear the conclusions from the evidence after it concludes and if the other questions raised are answered properly.
Police cover up innit.
Typical Hunger Games....May the Plods be ever in your favour.
The way that some buggers drive, I reckon we've got a fixed chance of this happening anyway regardless.
Once, coming down a road that had two lanes approaching a roundabout, sunny day, I was wearing bright colours. I wanted to turn right so I looked behind me and there's a car about 1/4 mile away behind me and nothing else on the road. So I changed to the right hand lane and took primary - maybe a little early. Then just as I approach the roundabout I hear the screech of brakes about 20m behind me. The driver hadn't seen me till the last second and had to emergency stop. He was in my lane and I was directly in front of him on a straight road in broad daylight. He must've been looking at his phone or something.
So it could've been me.
Calm down a bit… Nobody is but some of us would like to hear the conclusions from the evidence after it concludes and if the other questions raised are answered properly.
This.
its the nature of adversarial courtrooms.
The defendants lawyer will do what he can to minimise the culpability of the defendant even if that means as in this case victim blaming. Its how the game is played.
This is an inquest, not a trial.
Cars allowed to kill cyclists because it’s always the cyclists fault.
Not always,still tragic though.
A single rear light can be mistaken for being further up the road - especially when it is mounted higher than usual, eg on a back pack. This is made worse on undulating and winding roads where the light is only visible for a few seconds. Maybe it's time to develop a cycling specific lighting standard so cars can see a slower moving vehicle is ahead.
Who could foresee such a tragedy, cycling in the dark with only inconspicuous clothing and a tiny led light to protect you against the entire spectrum of drivers expected to be encountered.
Even the most basic rear lights give good visibility.
In Australia there's kangaroos often on the roads at night.
They don't carry lights or helmets, and make a right mess of your car if you hit one - including coming through the windscreen and killing you.
You've got to be a right mug not to be driving with that awareness...
Did the driver not have working headlights? Doesn’t matter if mike had on black clothes and no lights. Driving without due care and attention!
- headlights were defective
- The AFP tested the car’s remaining front light and found the light to be below the required brightness to pass a roadworthy test in both NSW and the ACT. The officer who tested the light stated that he did not know what the legally required brightness was.
for those that have not clicked the cycle.org.au link, you should have, it has facts,
<header class="article-header clearfix">
<h2 class="article-title">Day 1 of the Mike Hall Coronial Inquest</h2>
</header><section class="article-intro clearfix"> The first day of the inquest proceeded mostly as expected:
- Counsel Assisting presented a summary of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) evidence.
- Senior Constable Potts of the AFP presented his statement.
- A lawyer for ACT Roads asked Senior Constable Potts some questions in cross examination.
After lunch:
- Monash University Accident Research Centre presented the report they prepared for the Coroner.
- Senior Constable Potts of the AFP was cross-examined by lawyers for the race organisers and for Mike Hall’s former partner Anna Haslock.
Cycle has some questions – in the public interest – pertaining to the evidence presented. These questions are expected to be addressed in the coming two days, and include the following:
- Mike Hall’s clothing was not retained or admitted into evidence to be examined, and yet it was alleged that his clothing was not visible and had no reflective properties.
- The Inquest was advised that Mike Hall’s rear bag was returned to the family. This remains a source of contention. The bag was not admitted into evidence, and therefore the presence of reflective strips that Mike’s former partner asserts Mike had added to the back of his bag now cannot be established.
- The AFP tested the car’s remaining front light and found the light to be below the required brightness to pass a roadworthy test in both NSW and the ACT. The officer who tested the light stated that he did not know what the legally required brightness was.
- Monash University Accident Research Centre was specifically asked to investigate if Mike Hall’s rear light was sufficiently bright to meet the standard of the road rules. Other aspects including driver distraction were examined in the report even though this was not specifically requested.
- 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.
- 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.
- The driver was interviewed by AFP officers at least three times. In the first interview the driver stated that he left his home at 5:30 am. In subsequent interviews he stated that he left home at 5 am. The statement admitted into evidence by Senior Constable Potts of the AFP only included the earlier time. The AFP officers interviewing the driver did not question the inconsistency of the driver’s statements. It was asserted by Counsel Assisting that the driver was driving within the speed limit.
</section>
Even the most basic rear lights give good visibility.
Not true. Noticing a small amount of red light during darkness is very difficult for many people. Judging how far away a small red light source is can be impossible.
In Australia there’s kangaroos often on the roads at night.
They don’t carry lights or helmets, and make a right mess of your car if you hit one – including coming through the windscreen and killing you.
You’ve got to be a right mug not to be driving with that awareness…
Yes, kangaroos get hit all the time because drivers don't see them or because they dont pay enough attention. So why not try to be as visible as you can, and take advantage of the fact you are not a kangaroo, and you can actually wear things that make you really stand out when cycling on the same roads at night?
for those that have not clicked the <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">cycle.org.au</span> link, you should have, it has facts,
Yep and let us wait until this process is over and those questions have been asked rather than judging the process 1/3 of the way through.
Not true. Noticing a small amount of red light during darkness is very difficult for many people.
If they're not looking where they're going.
In the video the red light isn't all that visible at first, because it's round a corner, and I think there are also roadside markers that are also red.
I've not been to Australia, but I have driven a lot in the US. The countryside can get pretty empty there, and there are very few cars. So the culture of driving means that you don't need to pay that much attention, usually. So not concentrating all that much is the norm - and that will affect people's attitudes towards those involved in accidents. Add to that the idea that car is king, and the fact not many people cycle at all, and I think the judgement is likely to favour the motorist as the expected standard won't be that high.
Not true. Noticing a small amount of red light during darkness is very difficult for many people. Judging how far away a small red light source is can be impossible.
Then maybe such people shouldn't be driving at night, or possibly at all?
Swap the 'small' rear light for a powerful light and watch the same people scream about being dazzled. We're just disposable in some drivers' minds. Can't see you generally means can't be arsed looking.
It was very odd to see a cyclist on the road and particularly at that time of day,
That quote from the inquest reminds me of "Traffic" where the author talks to psychologists studying driver observation. They describe how many drivers tend to only see what they are already expecting on the road, and can literally blank out other objects.
I'm not suggesting that's an excuse for failing to see cyclists, because I think a responsible, competent driver should always be attempting to actively counter that bias and should constantly be looking out for the unexpected.
Not true. Noticing a small amount of red light during darkness is very difficult for many people. Judging how far away a small red light source is can be impossible.
Yes, but the massive pool of white light emanating from the front of the bicycle would have been an indication that something was there.
Also, did I read Mike was actually on the verge - so the driver was not only distracted, but couldn't drive in a straight line?
A single rear light can be mistaken for being further up the road – especially when it is mounted higher than usual, eg on a back pack. This is made worse on undulating and winding roads where the light is only visible for a few seconds. Maybe it’s time to develop a cycling specific lighting standard so cars can see a slower moving vehicle is ahead.
I came across a cyclist in a dark lane few nights back and he had a front/white bike light on his helmet only, because of the height of the light I initially thought he was further away then he was as Id assumed it was on his bars. Thankfully I was going slow and it was a dry night, otherwise might not have ended well for either of us.
We’re just disposable in some drivers’ minds.
No, this isn't it at all.
The problem is that people don't take driving seriously. So when they have an accident they go 'wah it's not fair, I can't be expected to notice everything'.
I would expect most drivers would be pretty devastated by killing a cyclist. The question isn't wether or not they care about killing people (this is unhelpful hyperbole on your part); rather one of what constitutes a 'reasonable' standard of driving beyond which people cannot be held accountable. And this is is a cultural issue, not a personal one relating to the driver.
Totally agree mogrips.
On a related note, I met a very nice woman yesterday, who told me she'd received notice from the police as part of "Operation Close Pass". She said she remembered driving on that road, that day, but couldn't recall any cyclists. Her response to receiving the letter was not "Oh damn! I'll have to remember to watch out for cyclists and not drive too close"... it was "I have no comeback and feel like doing it again [close passing a cyclist] so that they have to question me!". It's definitely a cultural issue and one that really need serious address.
I think it's different in other countries. As I said, in the US, driving is the default mode of transport and cycling is some kind of fringe werido activity. Far more people think cyclists shouldn't be on the roads at all - more than here. And a lot of cyclists allow themselves to be pushed away from normal commuting routes and onto country roads for leisure riding because they don't even consider that traffic and cyclists could mix.
Then maybe such people shouldn’t be driving at night, or possibly at all?
No, they shouldn't but they do. So why not take that into account when riding a bike at night and make yourself as visible as you can?
.. people think cyclists shouldn’t be on the roads at all – more than here.
See above.
When I passed my driving test my dad said to me assume everyone driving is an idiot and you’ll be safer that way . I ride on the road like that , I assume that all cars are going to pull out on me and I make sure at night no one will be able to say they didn’t see me . It would be brilliant if we lived in a world where everyone drives safely with complete attention on the road but we don’t and I try and mitigate that as best I can because even if your in the right your still the one not protected by a metal box .
I've just seen comments by Mike's mother shared on Facebook.
I came half way across the world for my boy. I attended the Inquest and sat for three days listening to the evidence I knew whatever the findings will be that I have to live with it. There is no blame no anger and no recriminations
I went for my son who always asked people to be kind to each other and have empathy. I saw a young lad with fear in his eyes with sorrow in his heart and I took him in my arms and held him tight as he sobbed that he was sorry for what he had done. I hugged him and his girlfriend told him I forgave him and asked him to try to move on and find a way foward to look. after his young family and to have a good life . I came to Australia to find answers and I did I found the answer all around in the courtroom I saw destructive anger that is negative I saw people so wrapped up in their own need that it destroyed what my son stood for But I also saw incredible steadfastness and the ability to reach out and have compassion. I came away with clarity I had done want Mike would have done I forgave Be Kind to us</span>
I think that sums it up.
Thanks for posting that, Mike.
Sobering, thanks mike
Mike's mum showing an awful lot of strength in a difficult time there.
Mike’s mum showing an awful lot of strength in a difficult time there.
This. Fair play to her, that shoes what a strong and amazing character she must be, and from I've read, what her son must have like. RIP #bemoreMike
#bemoreMikesmum ❤
Wow. I know I could never be as strong as that. Amazing words and actions from Patricia Hall.