Lawyer regrets fatal hit-run (on cyclist)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:19:36 -0700, Absent Husband wrote:

Pity that he didn't actually stop to see if the guy was OK - maybe he
wouldn't be dead now...

As far as I heard (or think I heard), there was a driver nearby who saw
the whole thing, beeped at the offender to stop (which he didn't), took
his number plate then went to see how the cyclist was.

It seemed like a fairly straight bit of road, too, so I can't see any
excuse.

Maikkeli Wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:19:36 -0700, Absent Husband wrote

Pity that he didn't actually stop to see if the guy was OK - maybe h
wouldn't be dead now..

As far as I heard (or think I heard), there was a driver nearby who sa
the whole thing, beeped at the offender to stop (which he didn't), too
his number plate then went to see how the cyclist was

It seemed like a fairly straight bit of road, too, so I can't see an
excuse.

You heard correctly. That stretch of road is dead straight, have ridde
it a few times myself

--
leestevens

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:49:36 +1000, leestevens wrote:


Maikkeli Wrote:
It seemed like a fairly straight bit of road, too, so I can't see any
excuse.

You heard correctly. That stretch of road is dead straight, have ridden
it a few times myself.

*sigh* ..And today the newspaper reported that another motorist who had
earlier passed the cyclist told the court how he was riding erratically
and "more than a meter into the lane". -- I suppose implying that they
think the cyclist was somehow responsible.

Maikkeli Wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:49:36 +1000, leestevens wrote


Maikkeli Wrote
It seemed like a fairly straight bit of road, too, so I can't se
an
excuse

You heard correctly. That stretch of road is dead straight, hav
ridde
it a few times myself

*sigh* ..And today the newspaper reported that another motorist who ha
earlier passed the cyclist told the court how he was riding erraticall
and "more than a meter into the lane". -- I suppose implying that the
think the cyclist was somehow responsible.

More than a metre into the lane, eh? Well the driver should have see
him then

Steve

--
SteveA

"Maikkeli" == Maikkeli writes:

Maikkeli *sigh* ..And today the newspaper reported that another
Maikkeli motorist who had earlier passed the cyclist told the court
Maikkeli how he was riding erratically and "more than a meter into
Maikkeli the lane". -- I suppose implying that they think the
Maikkeli cyclist was somehow responsible.

Oh you mean riding more than a meter in to the lane as recommended by
the page devoted to cycling in the Melways? Or as advised in the the
Apr-May 2005 edition of Ride On?

OK, I'm exaggerating slightly, Melways just says ride a distance out
from the kerb rather than gutter hug and the article in Ride on says one
meter, not more than a meter. Both publications give the same reason:
it makes you more VISIBLE. In other words the cyclist was doing the
right thing. Riding a meter or more out from the kerb does not
constitute erratic cycling, indeed to people who know what they're
talking about it further damns the defendant.

Typical "everything must give way to the motor car" mentality.
--
Cheers
Euan

wrote:

"Maikkeli" == Maikkeli writes:

Maikkeli *sigh* ..And today the newspaper reported that another
Maikkeli motorist who had earlier passed the cyclist told the court
Maikkeli how he was riding erratically and "more than a meter into
Maikkeli the lane". -- I suppose implying that they think the
Maikkeli cyclist was somehow responsible.

Oh you mean riding more than a meter in to the lane as recommended by
the page devoted to cycling in the Melways? Or as advised in the the
Apr-May 2005 edition of Ride On?

OK, I'm exaggerating slightly, Melways just says ride a distance out
from the kerb rather than gutter hug and the article in Ride on says one
meter, not more than a meter. Both publications give the same reason:
it makes you more VISIBLE. In other words the cyclist was doing the
right thing. Riding a meter or more out from the kerb does not
constitute erratic cycling, indeed to people who know what they're
talking about it further damns the defendant.

Typical "everything must give way to the motor car" mentality.

Given that we have "uniform" national traffic laws, the same situation
probably applies in Victoria as it does in Qld. If there is more than
one marked lane in the direction you are travelling, you don't have to
"keep as far left as practicable". You can ride in any lane and use any
part of the lane.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

"Peter McCallum" wrote:
wrote:

OK, I'm exaggerating slightly, Melways just says ride a distance out
from the kerb rather than gutter hug and the article in Ride on says one
meter, not more than a meter. Both publications give the same reason:
it makes you more VISIBLE. In other words the cyclist was doing the
right thing. Riding a meter or more out from the kerb does not
constitute erratic cycling, indeed to people who know what they're
talking about it further damns the defendant.

Typical "everything must give way to the motor car" mentality.

Given that we have "uniform" national traffic laws, the same situation
probably applies in Victoria as it does in Qld. If there is more than
one marked lane in the direction you are travelling, you don't have to
"keep as far left as practicable". You can ride in any lane and use any
part of the lane.

I thought the multi-lane rule was for drivers (and cyclists) generally, but
there was still a specific rule for cyclists requiring us to keep as far to
the left as safe and reasonable.

No, a quick check shows no specific requirement for cyclists:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_15.pdf

However the general rule about keeping as far to the left as practicable
applies to single lane roads, and all multi-lane roads without median
strips:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_11.pdf

It's only on multi-lane roads with median strips and speed limits of 80kmh
and lower that you don't have to keep as far left as practicable. Mind you,
I don't fancy riding the bike along Burwood Hwy (which fits this category)
in the right traffic lane :-{

Cheers
Peter

*sigh* ..And today the newspaper reported that another motorist who ha
earlier passed the cyclist told the court how he was riding erraticall
and "more than a meter into the lane". -- I suppose implying that they
think the cyclist was somehow responsible

Riding Erratically ! Who hasnt done that? Dodging broken glass
gravel, shreaded tyres, bits o'metal that have fallen of cars, garbage
potholes, crap repairs, or generally crap road surface. It might loo
"erratic" to someone whizzing past all comfy in a car who doesnt ride
but it needs a lot of skill to stay upright with all the obstacles in
riders path.

From reading an article in The Australian earlier in the week i
appears that after the collision he continued on to Adelaide and the
later drove back to his mothers place near where he had lunched. M
reaction was that he was trying to hide the vehicle or make it look a
if he had not done the journey, not knowing that cops had his rego. M
opinion, maybe I read too much between the lines.

Sad n Angry.

Hug

--
HughMann

Peter Signorini wrote:
It's only on multi-lane roads with median strips and speed limits of 80kmh
and lower that you don't have to keep as far left as practicable. Mind you,
I don't fancy riding the bike along Burwood Hwy (which fits this category)
in the right traffic lane :-{


The main thing about the law in this case is that it does not prevent
you from taking a mid lane position if you feel it is necessary. I use
this practice when passing cars parked in the left lane, so so that cars
following have to wait until I move left again before passing (or
overtake in the next lane). Mostly they do that, however I had to report
a B-Double driver to the police the other day who just blasted his horn
and charged on through, missing my handlebars by 10cm.

You can also use the right lane if you want to pass long lines of
traffic turning left, or if you are turning right yourself.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Here is some irony for y'all

http://www.policejournalsa.org.au/0008/18a.html

"The Need For Speed"

Did he think he was still a policeman on duty??