2021 Cycling fatalities

[redsonic]

I had forgotten that this fatality (01/01/21) had its own thread. For those interested, it is being discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=104762

[find_bruce]

Tragically, a 21 year old cyclist was killed on the Eyre Highway, 75km west of the Caiguna Roadhouse, yesterday (April 7).

The only articles I can find are paywalled, e.g. https://thewest.com.au/news/disaster-an ... 881841317z

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-08/ ... /100055786

In a follow up Truck driver Luke Brooks jailed after killing cyclist Leif Justham in drug-fueled crash on Nullarbor.

A litany of common complaints- methamphetamine, amphetamine, fatigue, using his phone while driving. 4 years in gaol, non parole period of 2 years, 3 years driving disqualification after release.

As his mother said no prison term would be long enough.

Given his logbooks show he only had a few hours' sleep in the 24 hours before the crash, mostly what were described in court as 15 minute "rest" breaks, when will there be prosecutions for others in the chain of responsibility which were introduced to eliminate this sort of dangerous behaviour

[MichaelB]

Tragically, a 21 year old cyclist was killed on the Eyre Highway, 75km west of the Caiguna Roadhouse, yesterday (April 7).

The only articles I can find are paywalled, e.g. https://thewest.com.au/news/disaster-an ... 881841317z

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-08/ ... /100055786

In a follow up Truck driver Luke Brooks jailed after killing cyclist Leif Justham in drug-fueled crash on Nullarbor.

A litany of common complaints- methamphetamine, amphetamine, fatigue, using his phone while driving. 4 years in gaol, non parole period of 2 years, 3 years driving disqualification after release.

As his mother said no prison term would be long enough.

Given his logbooks show he only had a few hours' sleep in the 24 hours before the crash, mostly what were described in court as 15 minute "rest" breaks, when will there be prosecutions for others in the chain of responsibility which were introduced to eliminate this sort of dangerous behaviour

Can only hope so. Maybe the industrial manslaughter laws that South Aust are looking to introduce will help with some of this.

[uart]

In a follow up Truck driver Luke Brooks jailed after killing cyclist Leif Justham in drug-fueled crash on Nullarbor.

The text message he sent is also quite chilling. Extremely cavalier, and definitely sounds like he thought it was the cyclist's fault for being there.

Brooks later sent a text message to a colleague saying: "Bicycle rider in my lane, I didn't notice him until the last minute. I swerved but still clipped him."

[Mububban]

In a follow up Truck driver Luke Brooks jailed after killing cyclist Leif Justham in drug-fueled crash on Nullarbor.

The text message he sent is also quite chilling. Extremely cavalier, and definitely sounds like he thought it was the cyclist's fault for being there.

Brooks later sent a text message to a colleague saying: "Bicycle rider in my lane, I didn't notice him until the last minute. I swerved but still clipped him."

Just another entitled piece of sheet blaming everyone/everything but his own poor driving and poor life choices

[P!N20]

Can't see that this was posted when it happened, but here's the latest anyway: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-20/ ... /102108084

[redsonic]

The motorcyclist who ran down and killed 84 year old John Peters on a bicycle path in Perth has been sentenced to 9 years' jail (7 years with parole).

ABC News

[uart]

The motorcyclist who ran down and killed 84 year old John Peters on a bicycle path in Perth has been sentenced to 9 years' jail (7 years with parole).

ABC News

That's the first half decent sentence that we've seen for killing a cyclist for quite a while. From memory the last one that compared was the motorcyclist that killed a cyclist on the old Pacific Highway north of Sydney, and that guy bragged about it on social media afterwards (which is the only reason that they were able to show intent to intimidate and get a similar decent sentence).

[find_bruce]

The motorcyclist who ran down and killed 84 year old John Peters on a bicycle path in Perth has been sentenced to 9 years' jail (7 years with parole).

ABC News

That's the first half decent sentence that we've seen for killing a cyclist for quite a while.

Sentence reflects that he was convicted of manslaughter which is s very rare - most are dismissed as a whoopsie. In this case I suspect it was the cumulative effect of

• alcohol & cannabis
• illegal to ride a motorbike on a shared path
• unregistered motorbike
• estimated speed of 90km/h
• pulling wheelies

Will this sentence deter other morons from riding in the same way? I suspect no sentence will have that effect because morons like this don't think about the consequences, for them or anyone else

[zebee]

This motorcyclist suspects that being a motorcyclist was an issue too. If a cardriver had been pulling burnouts on a footpath and hit someone dunno they'd have been treated in the same way.

When 2 outgroups collide, then the one who is more "like us" gets the better treatment. If the cyclist had also been a young man?

[find_bruce]

This motorcyclist suspects that being a motorcyclist was an issue too. If a cardriver had been pulling burnouts on a footpath and hit someone dunno they'd have been treated in the same way.

When 2 outgroups collide, then the one who is more "like us" gets the better treatment. If the cyclist had also been a young man?

I agree with you about outgrouping, but I am unconvinced it was just the dirt bike that did it. What are the differences between Tyson Michael Denny and the Lamborghini driver Alexander Campbell who was found not guilty of death by dangerous driving but guilty of the lesser charge of driving without due care & attention?

There is a view in the legal profession that juries are reluctant to convict where they can see themselves being in that situation. Interesting that Campbell elected for a judge alone trial - it may be his lawyers thought the jury would not relate to him & so more likely to convict.

[antigee]

May 27, 2021 - 20 year old cyclist hit and killed at intersection with green lights for both cyclist and buses. 200 accounts of near misses at this location. Cyclist had right of way, death by blind spot. Inquest not recommended by coroner, no recommendations made, charges dropped against the driver. Smh....

[shareyoutube]https://youtu.be/Blk3JQptJCc[/shareyoutube]

eventually there is an inquest now ongoing...not my area but sadly similar to the 2023 death on Footscray Rd in Melbourne of Angus Collins, cement truck driver and Angus both had green lights...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -bus-crash

"....A forensic crash investigator was “alarmed” at the design of the intersection where a 20-year-old cyclist died, because its traffic lights gave both vehicles the impression they had right of way simultaneously, the Queensland coroner’s court has heard.

A recreation of the fatal accident showed that the driver of the Brisbane city council bus, Andrew Rudnicki, had almost no opportunity to see Maximillian Patrick McDowall, before he struck and killed him.

McDowall died at the corner of Gillingham and O’Keefe Streets Woolloongabba in May 2021 as the City Glider bus turned on to the south-east busway......"

[Mr Purple]

"....A forensic crash investigator was “alarmed” at the design of the intersection where a 20-year-old cyclist died, because its traffic lights gave both vehicles the impression they had right of way simultaneously, the Queensland coroner’s court has heard.

A recreation of the fatal accident showed that the driver of the Brisbane city council bus, Andrew Rudnicki, had almost no opportunity to see Maximillian Patrick McDowall, before he struck and killed him.

McDowall died at the corner of Gillingham and O’Keefe Streets Woolloongabba in May 2021 as the City Glider bus turned on to the south-east busway......"

I was wondering if this had happened knowing the intersection and hearing of the poor bloke dying there.

The bus lane/cycling lights along this stretch are absolutely diabolical. They've fixed a couple since but it used to be the cyclist had a red light even if no buses were able to proceed through the intersection. And you'd rarely see a bus - so pretty much everyone just ran the red and risked being killed the one in a thousand times a bus was actually driving through the intersection.

And then to top it off they had this one the wrong way around - the cyclist had a green light, and so did the bus. Mind you the bus also needed to legally give way to traffic crossing the side road which clearly didn't happen. Karl Street (an essential street crossing with no lights or crossing on the V1 veloway) has exactly the same problem. I can count on no hands the number of motorists who have actually given way to me while crossing there, despite the cyclist/pedestrian legally having right of way.

You'd swear the whole series of lights was purposely designed to kill cyclists. Fortunately the overpass bridge should finally be open there next month.

[jasonc]

it's a joke of an excuse. you have a blind spot. you need to see around it before proceeding. that's on the driver. if the driver is uncomfortable driving the vehicle, or if the vehicle is not fit for purpose, that's a conversation that they can have with their employer. it's still the driver's fault

[Mr Purple]

it's a joke of an excuse. you have a blind spot. you need to see around it before proceeding. that's on the driver. if the driver is uncomfortable driving the vehicle, or if the vehicle is not fit for purpose, that's a conversation that they can have with their employer. it's still the driver's fault

Agreed. And this whole kerfuffle about the cyclist and the bus both having a green light is a distractor. If you have a green light but are turning into a side street you still have to give way to both pedestrians and traffic coming the other way. Your green light is irrelevant.

If you can't see the direction you are supposed to give way to, don't go until you can. Reminds me of the drivers I constantly see pulling out of side streets without even looking slightly to their right. Just because you didn't look doesn't mean you have right of way.

[P!N20]

Motorist sentenced for killing cyclist while watching YouTube in NSW

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-24/ ... /103762438

Judge Bright set the non-parole period at 18 months, meaning Turnbull-Fielding will be eligible for parole in May next year

[redsonic]

Not cyclists, but two motorcyclists killed in 2021 when Ashley McDonald, under the influence of ice, crossed to the other side of the road and ploughed into them. He'll be out of prison in 2 years.
ABC News

What does it take for the punishment to fit the crime? I'm still reeling from the pitiful sentence given to the woman in the Sunshine Coast who killed 2 bus mechanics while under the influence. Post here

[zebee]

What does it take for the punishment to fit the crime? I'm still reeling from the pitiful sentence given to the woman in the Sunshine Coast who killed 2 bus mechanics while under the influence. Post here

Talk to politicians. There are legislated and regulated sentencing guidelines the judges have to abide by.

However, you'd have to have a better argument for why taxpayers should foot a higher bill. Incarceration is expensive, what good will it do to give that driver more time? Will it deter others? Will it stop them from doing it again where a shorter sentence would not? Can you construct the guidelines so that genuine mistakes are not over-punished?

If you think there should be heavier sentences for road deaths then start working on it. Read up on the current sentencing guidelines. Find cases where they were badly applied or inadequate. Look at the proof required for the higher charges, how easy is it to get someone convicted of a crime with a higher penalty and if it should be easier, how?

Sounds like a lot of grinding hard work requiring a deep understanding of the current legal and legislative system? Yup. Will anything else work such as whinging on social media? Nup.

[elantra]

What does it take for the punishment to fit the crime? I'm still reeling from the pitiful sentence given to the woman in the Sunshine Coast who killed 2 bus mechanics while under the influence. Post here

Talk to politicians. There are legislated and regulated sentencing guidelines the judges have to abide by.

However, you'd have to have a better argument for why taxpayers should foot a higher bill. Incarceration is expensive, what good will it do to give that driver more time? Will it deter others? Will it stop them from doing it again where a shorter sentence would not? Can you construct the guidelines so that genuine mistakes are not over-punished?

If you think there should be heavier sentences for road deaths then start working on it. Read up on the current sentencing guidelines. Find cases where they were badly applied or inadequate. Look at the proof required for the higher charges, how easy is it to get someone convicted of a crime with a higher penalty and if it should be easier, how?

Sounds like a lot of grinding hard work requiring a deep understanding of the current legal and legislative system? Yup. Will anything else work such as whinging on social media? Nup.

Venting our concern about the adequacy of justice is part of being a thoughtful and caring human being.
Social discussion to identify and discuss problems that concern us is what sets humans apart from other mammalian animals.
Other mammalian animals are less social and more territorial than humans.
Perhaps the world would be a better place if humans were less territorial but as they say, it is what it is.
Justice processes vary wildly from one society to another.
Penalties in some other parts of the world would be considered harsh by Australian standards.
The flip side is that typical Australian penalties would be considered excessively lenient by the standards of some other countries.

Perhaps our penalties are too lenient. Perhaps they are just right.
Over time, things do change. Sentencing in Australia is less severe than it used to be.
This did not happen by accident, it reflects the changing nature of criminality and the change in the whim of the popular attitudes to punishment.
Which is determined by people talking about it and thus popular attitudes shifting and influencing “the ruling elite”

There is one furphy that needs to be laid to rest.
The amount of money spent on incarceration of criminals.
Expenditure is a relative thing.
Governments don’t like spending big dollars on prisons. It’s not a very sexy way to spend government money.
But remember that governments in Australia don’t care much about the cost of criminal activity because those costs are borne by individuals, insurance companies, other government jurisdictions (such as Policing), and the public and private health care systems. NOT the state governments own Corrections budget !
So the full answer is that the overall financial damage caused by criminal activity is enormous in comparison with the cost of incarceration.

I’m not saying that we obviously need to build more prisons, but it’s plainly incorrect to dismiss the effectiveness of incarceration facilities on purely the cost of operating them

[find_bruce]

I could talk for hours about criminology & imprisonment and occasionally do, so I will stick to the highlights.

• Incarceration rates per 100,000 adults rapidly declined between 1860 and 1920
• Since 1985 there has been a 130% increase in Incarceration rates per 100,000 adults

This is not due to crime rates which have mostly declined, but have been attributed to "higher reporting rates, stricter policing practices, tougher sentencing laws, and more stringent bail laws" The Second Convict Age: Explaining the Return of Mass Imprisonment in Australia

The rate at which crimes are reported is an important consideration - the reported rates of sexual assault have risen significantly, however this is due to an increase in the reporting rates, but is still estimated to be less than 10% are currently reported.

In NSW there was a massive rise in the adult prison population in the 2010s, however this appears to have now stabilised and decreased slightly since covid

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in NSW published this diagram in relation to the importance of factors in sentencing


In NSW, similar to other jurisdictions, the purpose of sentencing is:

1. to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
2. to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
3. to protect the community from the offender,
4. to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
5. to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
6. to denounce the conduct of the offender,
7. to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and to the community.

[find_bruce]

The idea that severe sentences, even the death penalty, will prevent crime by deterring people is massively overstated. It is well established through the research of criminologists that the risk of getting caught has a much greater deterrent effect than the consequences.

We humans are not very good at dealing with low probability, high consequence activities. Drink driving comes with a statistically significant risk of death, but even the risk of their own death is not sufficient to deter people. Watch the anti-drink driving ads - the vast majority will focus on the risk of being caught rather than the consequences of being caught.

Returning to the case of the reprehensible conduct of Damon Turnbull-Fielding. Do you really think that he had any thought for the consequences of his incredibly stupid behaviour?

[jasonc]

In NSW, similar to other jurisdictions, the purpose of sentencing is:

1. to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
2. to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
3. to protect the community from the offender,
4. to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
5. to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
6. to denounce the conduct of the offender,
7. to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and to the community.

and with the poor sentences given to perpetrators:

1. they are not being adequately punished ,
2. others are not being deterred from committing similar offences
3. the poor sentences, and inadequate driving bans means they are out driving again very soon after committing the initial offence
4. no rehabilitation has occurred
5. the media helps them think it's the cyclist's fault, so they don't feel to blame
6. the media's portrayal of car crashes as the fault of the car, rather that the driver, means that no-one has been denounced
7. harm done? how dare you put the perfect citizen in jail? it was only a cyclist

[Mr Purple]

The bit that gets me most with the sentencing is not so much the manifestly inadequate prison sentence (often suspended for merely killing a cyclist) it's that they inevitably get their licence back at some point, usually in the medium to short term.

There need to be more people permanently forbidden from ever driving a car again. I fail to see where a 'right to drive' is somehow enshrined in our constitution. Pretty sure negligently killing someone while behind the wheel of a car should stop you from ever getting behind the wheel of a car again.

Not that most of them would listen anyway. And how many of them were actually licensed in the first place?

[zebee]

Problem with suspending/disqualifying is that we are in a car-dependent country. I live where I don't need a car but most people don't.

Also, the only way to tell if someone is driving without a licence is if they get pulled over by a cop who asks to see said licence or are involved in a crash where police are called.

The last time I was asked if I was licenced was at an RBT on the New England Hwy about 5 years ago.

Meaning that if you do something stupid and get disqualified, what do you do? Do you need to drive to work? Lots of people do. Do you need to drive to get your kids to sport? Lots of people do. Do you have joint custody of kids and need to drive to pick them up? Lots of people do. Do you need to drive to the shopping centre to get food? Lots of people do.

What do you do? You think of the last time you saw a cop and you drive.

[elantra]

The idea that severe sentences, even the death penalty, will prevent crime by deterring people is massively overstated. It is well established through the research of criminologists that the risk of getting caught has a much greater deterrent effect than the consequences.

We humans are not very good at dealing with low probability, high consequence activities. Drink driving comes with a statistically significant risk of death, but even the risk of their own death is not sufficient to deter people. Watch the anti-drink driving ads - the vast majority will focus on the risk of being caught rather than the consequences of being caught.

Returning to the case of the reprehensible conduct of Damon Turnbull-Fielding. Do you really think that he had any thought for the consequences of his incredibly stupid behaviour?

I totally agree with you on these points, and if you as a professional believe that the risk of being “caught” must be INCREASED then that is a consolation.

It does not seem logical to me that the risk of getting busted for using a distracting device while driving is VERY LOW but the fine if you do is VERY HIGH. This seems incongruous to the evidence base that you have presented.
One of the obvious problems with this enforcement “strategy” is the fact that many offenders are either unlicensed or unlikely to ever pay the (exorbitant) penalty.

I hope that we can all agree that the depressing frequency of lives lost due to distracted driving and/or drug driving is something that demands acute intervention by our governments, Police Forces AND Judicial systems.

Hardly a day goes bye without there being the death or serious injury to innocent civilians due to the actions of a distracted or drug and alcohol affected driver. This should be a problem of multilateral concern and action.
It’s not just push bike riders that we are talking about. It’s also pedestrians, motor car occupants, motor cycle occupants, and truck and bus drivers.

And FWIW, as others in this discussion have said, if you go to prison for 6 or 12 months because of one of the above driving convictions then you shouldn’t get the privilege of getting a driver’s license again for MANY YEARS !!!