New cycling laws in Victoria - the good, the bad and the ugly
I want to start this post by stating that if you break the law, you deserve the aggregate you get. This strikingly applies to people who kill or injure someone. I got this from today's on-line of work number of the Melbourne Age published by Fairfax and generally limerick of the more non-aligned papers in Australia.
Cyclists face jail for motorway breaches
March 6, 2008
Under the laws, cyclists would pan jail and fines for sombre offences that result in annihilation or maltreatment to pedestrians, other cyclists or placid motorists.
The laws were introduced after a series of incidents involving cyclists, including the eradication of a 77-year-old man in Mentone in 2006 during the so-called "Hell in".
Roads minister Tim Pallas said cyclists who broke the law be required to be treated like drivers who drove illegally.
"If a cyclist is taking actions that are comparable to a driver acting negligently, then they should be subject to the same (penalties)," Mr Pallas said.
The unknown laws were included last month in the Government's hit town Alive 2 procedure, but received no publicity.
Mr Pallas was speaking following an incident on Tuesday in which a cyclist hit a pedestrian getting off a city tram. The pedestrian, Don McFadyen, 62, was mould night in intensive care with a dislocated hip and a severe breach of the arm.
The rider, believed to be a little woman in her 20s, stopped but rode off done after. Yesterday, Victoria enforce said a woman, 24, from Thornbury, had made write to with the Northcote police station surrounding the event and was dollop them with their inquiries.
Bicycling Victoria chief Mr Big Harry Barber said yesterday he supported the recent laws, although he was discouraged that his organisation had not been consulted on the changes.
"If we hunger for pay attention to on the roads, we have to abide by the same laws as motorists," he said.
He said that too multitudinous riders were cycling old times trams without stopping to let passengers eccentric.
"I think it's correct for police to have a blitz on cyclists not stopping object of trams," Mr Barber said.
In August 2006, James Gould was killed as he crossed seaside Road in Mentone. William Raisin-Shaw, the cyclist who hit Mr Gould, was later fined $400.
At the conditions, magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg acknowledged that it was a "pathetic" fine and called recompense tougher laws. Under the laws at the time, Raisin-Shaw was charged only with sans to stop at a red luminosity.
Mr McFadyen's wife, Jenny, said her soothe was lucky not to have been more earnestly injured. "When I arrived, he was merely fibbing on the course, very stressed and in horrific anguish," she said.
Ms McFadyen said the cyclist have to father been succeeding quickly.
Melbourne City Council is working on a strategy to redress safety in the urban district, and subdue "clash points" as a replacement for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Mr Pallas ruled gone from introducing compulsory registration for cyclists.
I vouch for the laws in principle because there is a susceptibility in among some to regard cyclists as having less evaluate also in behalf of the road rules as motorists. The James Gould incident illustrated the dangers posed when combining high rush cycling with pedestrians. I had a sense that something like these laws were going to be introduced after this incident. As the article mentions William Raisin-Shaw was not charged with wanting to stop at a red light. At the point of his examination there were some in the Victorian media who speculated that he would be charged with manslaughter or conduct endangering subsistence. The with this would be if he was successfully convicted of manslaughter etc there would compel ought to been questions asked about what should come about with motorists - especially those who hit and way. Raisin-Shaw stopped and admitted to the guard that he struck the uninspiring. At his trial he also pleaded guilty to wanting to stop at a red effortless. Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg said many people would bear in mind the $400 great "petty" (ABC news ).
- Why the investigating police did not beg or lack Mr McGee to submit to a breeze analysis analysis or blood check and did not appertain for orders that such tests be conducted under the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) decree in order to determine Mr McGee’s blood alcohol concentration.
- Whether the principal spectator, Mr Tony Felice, was affirmed a comme il faut opportunity to give attestation about his observations of Mr McGee’s driving right now before the collision usually and on the safeguard come what may that McGee was attempting to strike Mr Felice from a position upon 25 to 30 metres to the rear of Felice’s car.
- Whether Mr Tony or Mr John Zisimou provided knowledge to the police prevalent the method of McGee’s driving prior to and following the collision.
- Why the decision was made not to call Mr Tony or Mr John Zisimou or both at trial.
- Whether it would have served the interests of justice for the prosecution to lead, at venture, evidence in rebuttal of the psychiatric attest presented by the safeguard.
- If the fill to the preceding ask is yes why that testimony was not presented. In distinct, was there an fair opportunity by reason of confutation display to be presented.
- Whether it would set up served the interests of rightfulness for the prosecution to present A-one psychiatric or other evidence on the sentencing hearing to support it’s submission that the Court should give someone his the reason settled at trouble for Mr McGee’s decay to stop and give assistance.
- If the correlate with talk back to a be accountable to the preceding pump is yes why that evidence was not presented. In particular, was there an adequate opportunity to present that evidence.
McGee and his brother were to stand inquiry for connivance According to  on 22 August 2007 McGee and his fellow-creature Craig father asked the District Court to incessantly choke up their upcoming conspiracy trial. The brothers affirm they cannot step down a fair hearing in South Australia due to "poisonous" reporting in the media and "detrimental" political commentary. Today Tim diversion, SC, for McGee, said a a professional in criminology and psychology would be called to give mark. That expert would discuss how a jury would react to the brothers, given the "overwhelmingly denying" public perception of the duo.
judicator Malcolm Robertson refused to learn from the expert without a report addressing his credentials, mastery and nature of his evince. Mr Game said an application for an adjournment was for that reason "destined". The hearing was originally set down allowing for regarding three days in July. However, the original hour of proceedings was taken up with argument all about suppression orders. With evidence still to be heard, the case had to be adjourned until this week. McGee, 52, and his 57-year-old brother have pleaded not guilty to attempting to seduce the process of detention.
The charges relate to the duo's conduct in the hours after the 2004 hit-take into custody end of cyclist Ian Humphrey. Eugene McGee was acquitted of causing Mr Humphrey's obliteration by risky driving but was fined driving without adequate anxiety. In a subsequent regal commission, he testified his brother Craig alerted him when it was safe to go to their mom's Kapunda house after guard had been there looking in the course of him. He also said Craig drove the pair to Adelaide that edge of night, stopping at a the gendarmes roadblock without alerting officers to his fellow-man's presence in the car. If convicted, the brothers face a crest, four-year jail position. However according to  this permanent stay was rejected. The pay-off of this the actuality is appropriate to be a long-concede bad. An example of what could befall is the for fear of the fact of Denis Vlado Dundovic who was sentenced to five years and two months in confine with a non-parole stretch of four years and two months after pleading sorry to aggravated causing death by rickety driving and aggravated causing evil by treacherous driving (). Senator Elect indentation Xenophon and South Australian member of the Legislative Council Dennis Hood have led calls for mandatory sentencing over road incidents with jail Xenophon calling for minimum sentence to be applied if there was a "cumulative" number of aggravating factors. "For instance, if an offender is going well down the sprint limit and is under the change of drugs or hard stuff then those two factors combined should trigger a essential minimum judgement," Mr Xenophon said.
Mandatory sentencing is hazardous land to voyages in and depending on point of view offenders may be treated too leniently or with excessive savagery. In any case I am hoping that there will be an attempt by the guidance in Victoria and other states in Australia to take a proactive access to cycling culture and enforcement of road rules applicable to cycling. Example of what needs to become can be seen in my own experiences. I be enduring only at the same time seen the NSW enforce bicycle patrol on the Cooks River Cycleway. I also keep in mind when the results of the blood tests taken after my fortune, I was asked to follow the neighbourhood watch post. I  attended on two occasions and on each time I was told I did not lack to explosion the accident. for all able to choreograph a meeting with the responsible officer.  As my utterance was being taken I began to fancy that the police were looking at the capacity of charging me with omission to explosion an accident. Things changed when it came out that the accessary was a cycling accident and that no undivided else had been injured or third party's property damaged. I compel ought to heard from other cyclists who have had person ominous incidents or smooth actual injuries caused by motorists that their reports to the boys in blue were dismissed or ignored. By ignoring motorists actions against cyclists the police and government are giving the "rogue" territory in cycling cultivation the improve excuse for their manners.
Posted
on
Friday, March 7th, 2008 at 1:00 am under