|
|
Post by arewelost on Aug 31, 2024 12:01:45 GMT 10
In the news this morning there is a story about a truck driver who was convicted of three charges succeeds in getting two of those charges thrown out, thus reducing her sentence.
Why did I raise this? Because on the surface the law seems an ass, yet there are some interesting pieces in the puzzle. And maybe our resident truck driver member will have more than a passing interest.
In summary, Amala Paulson was doing her regular overnight run from Adelaide to Melbourne. On the approach to Horsham, on a straight road just after sunrise she struck and killed a cyclist. No witnesses. She kept driving. She claimed not to have seen him or been aware of the impact.
On that basis she was originally convicted of negligent driving, failing to stop and failing to render assistance. Those last two charges were subsequently dismissed on appeal (the reason for the news article). If she had not seen him, then it is quite reasonable that she would not have felt the impact, so the dismissing those convictions seems logical.
Analysis. An easy accident to happen in my opinion. The sun was almost directly in her eyes, having just risen above the horizon. Google street view shows pretty close to what she would have seen. But at the time of the accident, the sun would have been lower and almost exactly straight ahead (118 degrees sun direction vs 120 degrees road direction). In fact the sun would have been a fraction to the left of centre, just where a cyclist would be.
On the other side of the argument, did she know she hit him? There were impact marks on the bullbar apparently from the bike rear sprocket (puzzling in itself), so it was not a trailer sliding into him, or him being sucked into the truck. Surely she should have seen him at least in the last few seconds (maybe too late to avoid hitting him). And surely the bang on the bullbar would have been enough to look behind.
She stopped for a 3 minute break due to "knee cramping" just one kilometre after the impact. Quite a coincidence, especially after completing a 90 minute break just 40 minutes ealier. But coincidences do happen.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Aug 31, 2024 13:43:28 GMT 10
I think B doubles are too big for most Victoria roads - and probably other states' roads too.
There are a few significant roads in western Victoria that, when towing the caravan, I will not travel on any day bar Sunday, they are simply too narrow for passing such trucks safely and usually require me to put the passenger wheels off the road.
To have speed limits which set the same maximum speed for a 65T truck and a Porsche is beyond comprehension. Such trucks are too big for most roads - get them off those roads or slow them right down.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Aug 31, 2024 19:18:23 GMT 10
I think B doubles are too big for most Victoria roads - and probably other states' roads too. There are a few significant roads in western Victoria that, when towing the caravan, I will not travel on any day bar Sunday, they are simply too narrow for passing such trucks safely and usually require me to put the passenger wheels off the road. To have speed limits which set the same maximum speed for a 65T truck and a Porsche is beyond comprehension. Such trucks are too big for most roads - get them off those roads or slow them right down. Hi Mike. Yeah, right. You'd have to be dreaming,surely? . Tomorrow I will try to find time to give a detailed response, but I will say that if you can't find room for a caravan alongside a truck you may need to reconsider your driving abilities. |
|
pete
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by pete on Aug 31, 2024 22:36:10 GMT 10
Hi Mike. Yeah, right. You'd have to be dreaming,surely? . Tomorrow I will try to find time to give a detailed response, but I will say that if you can't find room for a caravan alongside a truck you may need to reconsider your driving abilities. Some of those Victorian "bicycle track" roads are hardly wide enough for any vehicle. Nothing to do with driving abilities. |
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Sept 1, 2024 12:15:01 GMT 10
I think B Doubles are too big for most Victoria roads - and probably other states' roads too. There are a few significant roads in western Victoria that, when towing the caravan, I will not travel on any day bar Sunday, they are simply too narrow for passing such trucks safely and usually require me to put the passenger wheels off the road. To have speed limits which set the same maximum speed for a 65T truck and a Porsche is beyond comprehension. Such trucks are too big for most roads - get them off those roads or slow them right down. Hi Mike, your no doubt well-intentioned assertions are so far beyond reality that I am bewildered! You suggest that "B Doubles are too big for MOST Victoria Roads". This I find hard to understand, as the vast majority of roads are sufficiently wide to accomodate two trucks passing whilst travelling in opposite directions. Even in the bush in WA and Queensland there is room for 2 trucks, each at 2.5 metres width, to pass or overtake, although this often necessitates that both vehicles put a set of wheels off the road's edge. Competent drivers don't bat an eyelid in such situations, but many times I've seen "townies" panic and skid to a complete halt, sometimes even going RSup. Simply because they can't drive. Period Most "B Double restricted" roads have this classification for weight limits, not size, for a variety of reasons that I will leave for now. "Slow them right down" you say, but to do so would create absolute mayhem. The secret to efficient movement of traffic is to have ALL traffic travelling at the same speed. Overtaking is one of the most dangerous activities a driver can undertake as their vehicle has to then travel on the "wrong" side of the road, into oncoming traffic. Having one class of vehicle travelling at a lower speed than others necessitates more overtaking manoeuvres by the faster vehicles. More overtaking=more vehicles on "wrong" side of road = more risk of head-collisions=more risk of death. We all have experienced the frustration and danger of having Daddy and Mummy letting little Daisy drive the family car for long distances whilst they're on holiday so that Daisy can get her driving hours up. Spare me! The absolute WORST time for Daisy to be creating havoc surely is when the roads are crowded with motorists keen to safely reach their own holiday destinations. We all have to learn to drive, but surely trying to do so on packed roads in peak periods is stupidity in the extreme? Referring to B Doubles, you say "get them off the road" but this is not feasible. With a National shortage of some 26,000 SKILLED Truck drivers, but ever-increasing amounts of freight to be moved, operators always are looking for ways to maximise each trucks' load-carrying ability, which is why we now see small (2 trailer) Roadtrains on the Pacific highway that used to have only B Doubles and semi-trailers. Around 50 years ago interstate trucks typically were 22 wheels, but the Pacific Highway Roadtrains now are 42 wheels, while the BIG gear in WA goes up to maybe 110 wheels, with a 60 metre length. Driving these trucks requires a special skill set that can't even be imagined by the typical motorist. Compensating for the stupidity of many caravanners is one of those skills. It is not we truckies that need guidance or advice on maximising safety on the road. Guilty parties can be found by looking into your own mirrors. Before bleating about things that they have little understanding of, please could people such as you do a little in-depth thinking. Later today, if I get time, I will address the points outlined in Steve's opening post. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Sept 2, 2024 13:32:57 GMT 10
>You suggest that "B Doubles are too big for MOST Victoria Roads".
OK, I'll retract most and replace it with many - that changes nothing.
FYI; one of the roads to which I refer is a 100kph (may be 110kph?) bitumen road with zero shoulder width either side and 6m bitumen width - except it isn't because the sides of the bitumen are regularly broken up - these are Vic Roads figures, they are available in their database.
My caravan is 2.3m wide, a large truck is 2.5m wide = 4.8m. Given nearside clearance to edge of road for each vehicle of 300mm we are left with a passing clearance of 600mm and this at a closing speed of 190kph perhaps higher. If you think that's adequate then you and I have very different perspectives.
[Edit: at 190kph it takes 11.4mS or 0.011S to travel 600mm. It takes at least 10 times as long to blink.]
As for differences in speed between vehicles requiring overtaking: of course it may but the rest of the world seems to manage OK and if a driver is not competent to overtake safely then he's not fit to be driving.
Yobarr: the reality is many country roads were built for horse and buggy or Ford Model 10s and subsequently were slowly and often badly upgraded to basic bitumen, it was *never* envisaged they would be carrying trucks of 65T at 100kph and the only reason they are is because politicians were too weak to resist the pressure of the farming and trucking lobby who are simply after increasing profits and have little, if any, regard for the consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Sept 2, 2024 14:22:35 GMT 10
AWL: sorry to hijack your thread a bit in earlier posts.
I have recently had involvement as a witness in a major murder case. To me the evidence indicated the accused is guilty and I am firm in that opinion but the only person who *really* knows what happened is the accused because there is nothing other than circumstantial and scientific evidence. From what you say that appears to also be the case here; life is not perfect and there is no answer to that. Sometimes bad things are done by bad people and sometimes accidents happen.
I doubt this driver intended this death so it all comes down to the level of responsibility: no one knows but she.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Sept 2, 2024 15:13:59 GMT 10
In the news this morning there is a story about a truck driver who was convicted of three charges succeeds in getting two of those charges thrown out, thus reducing her sentence. Why did I raise this? Because on the surface the law seems an ass, yet there are some interesting pieces in the puzzle. And maybe our resident truck driver member will have more than a passing interest. In summary, Amala Paulson was doing her regular overnight run from Adelaide to Melbourne. On the approach to Horsham, on a straight road just after sunrise she struck and killed a cyclist. No witnesses. She kept driving. She claimed not to have seen him or been aware of the impact.
On that basis she was originally convicted of negligent driving, failing to stop and failing to render assistance. Those last two charges were subsequently dismissed on appeal (the reason for the news article). If she had not seen him, then it is quite reasonable that she would not have felt the impact, so the dismissing those convictions seems logical. Analysis. An easy accident to happen in my opinion. The sun was almost directly in her eyes, having just risen above the horizon. Google street view shows pretty close to what she would have seen. But at the time of the accident, the sun would have been lower and almost exactly straight ahead (118 degrees sun direction vs 120 degrees road direction). In fact the sun would have been a fraction to the left of centre, just where a cyclist would be. On the other side of the argument, did she know she hit him? There were impact marks on the bullbar apparently from the bike rear sprocket (puzzling in itself), so it was not a trailer sliding into him, or him being sucked into the truck. Surely she should have seen him at least in the last few seconds (maybe too late to avoid hitting him). And surely the bang on the bullbar would have been enough to look behind.
She stopped for a 3 minute break due to "knee cramping" just one kilometre after the impact. Quite a coincidence, especially after completing a 90 minute break just 40 minutes ealier. But coincidences do happen.
What do you think?
Thanks Steve, for posting this article. OK, so let's look at this objectively, shall we? This unfortunate cyclist seems to have been one of the many who appear to delight in playing games with other traffic, as evidenced by the fact that he chose to ride 300-500mm to the RIGHT of the solid white fogline while there was a clear 1 metre of bitumen to the LEFT of said fogline. Stupidity in the extreme. In addition, it should have been clear to him that the sun shining directly in his face also would affect the vision of following drivers? Clearly dangerous to him, but easily minimised by him choosing to travel to the LEFT of the fogline. On top of this, the cyclist chose to wear earbuds, which likely meant that he could not hear any traffic approaching from the rear. Talk about asking for trouble. The accident occurred on a straight road, and there were marks on the lower left of the bullbar, so the length of the B Double had no effect on the accident. Mike unrealistically suggested that with B Doubles "we should slow them right down", which I have already covered, but I would like to point out here that this truck was travelling at only 76km/hr. At what speed do you propose we should travel? It is puzzling that the marks on the bullbar appear to have been caused by the bike's gear set, as the gearset is on the right side of the bicycle about (guess) 300mm from the rear of the bike, so the bike would have had to be at an angle to the bullbar for the gears to make contact with it. There would likely have been no noise for the driver to hear at point of impact, as a 100kg object being hit by a 65 ton truck travelling at 76km/hr would have little affect. When we hit 6' roos, or 500kg buffaloes, or even camels, there is a bit of a noise, but they're a lot bigger and more visible than a cyclist bent over the handlebars of his bike would be. As an aside, I make NO effort to avoid hitting a beast that appears in front of my truck. I'm not prepared to send 130-160 ton truck RSup in an effort to spare a bloody Roo, bull or camel etc. Not sure if the truck was a cab-over model, or a conventional (bonneted) model, but with the bonnet of a conventional often 2.5 metres high and the driver's eye level maybe 3 metres above the road there clearly would be a huge area, maybe 6 metres in front of the truck, that is hidden from the driver's view. This is one of the areas that we have to watch, and always be alert for dipstick drivers sneaking past and disappearing in to. Any cyclist or car in that area would be invisible to the driver of a conventional. The rising sun seems to have been a major contributing factor to this accident, and the truck driver was driving safely and legally, so I find it hard to understand why any jury saw fit to convict her of anything, let alone of the 3 original charges. The evidence from another truck driver who said that the cyclist was riding "300-500mm to the RIGHT of the fogline" and his prediction that "this bloke is gonna get killed" clearly show that the cyclist was not riding safely. "Driving with due care and attention" is a road rule that applies to ALL road users, and especially is not to be ignored by bicycle riders who choose to play games with the big boys. My sympathy goes to the cyclist's wife and children, as well as to the unfortunate truck driver, but clearly there could have been many more steps taken to prevent this tragedy. P.S The "knee cramp" just after the accident certainly is suspicious, but hard to disprove. |
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Sept 2, 2024 16:51:55 GMT 10
Yobarr, just picking these points, "he chose to ride 300-500mm to the RIGHT of the solid white fogline". The court document does not say that. A truck driver travelling in the opposite direction said "....he observed a cyclist about 300 to 500 millimetres from the fog line inside his lane of travel." Who is "his"? It makes no sense for it to be the truckie giving evidence because that would imply the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road. The B double driver was female, so not hers. So "his" must refer to the cyclist "riding inside his line of travel". Still not quite sure what it means. "It is puzzling that the marks on the bullbar appear to have been caused by the bike's gear set". If a bullbar is low enough to impact with the sprocket, then I can believe that. The court document says "could only have been caused by something such as the gear sprockets on the back of Mr Batson’s bicycle". It is surprising that there is no mention if this was confirmed by examination of the bike. Accepting that it is true, then it makes no difference that it was a B double. Any truck would be the same. "the driver's eye level maybe 3 metres above the road there clearly would be a huge area, maybe 6 metres in front of the truck, that is hidden from the driver's view" Those 6 metres would pass in one third of a second. From 3 metres eye height, the cyclist should have been visible for a lot longer than that. As I said earlier, he should easily have been seen by someone who is looking ahead, but perhaps not in time to avoid impact. On that basis I believe the negligent driving conviction is valid. Example: If he had fallen off the bike and was lying unconscious in the middle of the road, the truckie should still be observant enough and travelling at a suitable speed to avoid him. If visibility was that bad, then maybe she should have slowed down more. Safety should come before keeping to schedule. That section of road heading directly into the sun is only a couple of kilometres. "P.S The "knee cramp" just after the accident certainly is suspicious, but hard to disprove." Aren't dashcams as common in trucks as radios? 3 minutes to remove one would explain that short stop.
As Mike pointed out earlier, there is only one person who knows. Speculation is just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Sept 2, 2024 23:50:39 GMT 10
Yobarr, just picking these points, "he chose to ride 300-500mm to the RIGHT of the solid white fogline". The court document does not say that. A truck driver travelling in the opposite direction said "....he observed a cyclist about 300 to 500 millimetres from the fog line inside his lane of travel." Who is "his"? It makes no sense for it to be the truckie giving evidence because that would imply the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road. The B double driver was female, so not hers. So "his" must refer to the cyclist "riding inside his line of travel". Still not quite sure what it means. "It is puzzling that the marks on the bullbar appear to have been caused by the bike's gear set". If a bullbar is low enough to impact with the sprocket, then I can believe that. The court document says "could only have been caused by something such as the gear sprockets on the back of Mr Batson’s bicycle". It is surprising that there is no mention if this was confirmed by examination of the bike. Accepting that it is true, then it makes no difference that it was a B double. Any truck would be the same. "the driver's eye level maybe 3 metres above the road there clearly would be a huge area, maybe 6 metres in front of the truck, that is hidden from the driver's view" Those 6 metres would pass in one third of a second. From 3 metres eye height, the cyclist should have been visible for a lot longer than that. As I said earlier, he should easily have been seen by someone who is looking ahead, but perhaps not in time to avoid impact. On that basis I believe the negligent driving conviction is valid. Example: If he had fallen off the bike and was lying unconscious in the middle of the road, the truckie should still be observant enough and travelling at a suitable speed to avoid him. If visibility was that bad, then maybe she should have slowed down more. Safety should come before keeping to schedule. That section of road heading directly into the sun is only a couple of kilometres. "P.S The "knee cramp" just after the accident certainly is suspicious, but hard to disprove." Aren't dashcams as common in trucks as radios? 3 minutes to remove one would explain that short stop.
As Mike pointed out earlier, there is only one person who knows. Speculation is just that.
Hi Steve, there are several points in the report that are contradictory, and clearly wrong. Tomorrow I will outline them, which may clear up your apparent misunderstanding of a couple of vital points. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Sept 3, 2024 1:11:18 GMT 10
I agree the court document leaves a lot of questions. Perhaps it reflected how the court case ran. I would expect the GPS data would indicate if she slowed suddenly at the time of impact or not. Even if she decided in that moment not to stop, surely the natural instinct would be to slow enough to be reflected in the GPS data. No indication if this was mentioned. I make no claim to have legal experience but I watched Perry Mason so I am sure I am as much an epert as the counsel she had. To the witness "Can you please describe to the jury what happened in the moments before the incident ... just the last 2-3 seconds." Obviously the witness can't answer that. Next "Could the rider have moved over to the left and in doing so, lost control when the front wheel dipped off the bitumen onto the gravel?" The answer has to be "Yes it's possible". Innocent until proven guilty.
Or, with a prosecutor's hat on, hoping she falls for this trap ....
To the driver "You said you did not see the cyclist, is that correct?" "Did you see any cyclists that morning before getting to Melbourne? Where?" The obvious answer is "I don't remember" (would you remember if you saw one?). "So why do you remember not seeing this one but don't remember if you saw others?"
Anyway, we don't have the transcript of the original case or the appeal, only a summary. A jury made the decisions based on what they heard. |
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Sept 3, 2024 13:41:26 GMT 10
Yobarr, just picking these points, "he chose to ride 300-500mm to the RIGHT of the solid white fogline". The court document does not say that. A (1) truck driver travelling in the opposite direction said "....he observed a cyclist about 300 to 500 millimetres from the fog line inside his lane of travel." Who is "his"? It makes no sense for it to be the truckie giving evidence because that would imply the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road. The B double driver was female, so not hers. So (2) "his" must refer to the cyclist riding inside his line of travel". Still not quite sure what it means. "It is puzzling that the marks on the bullbar appear to have been caused by the bike's gear set". If a bullbar is low enough to impact with the sprocket, then I can believe that. The court document says "could only have been caused by (3) something such as the gear sprocket on the back of Mr Batson’s bicycle". It is surprising that there is no mention if this was confirmed by examination of the bike. Accepting that it is true, then it makes (4) no difference that it was a B Double. Any truck would be the same. "the driver's eye level maybe 3 metres above the road there clearly would be a huge area, maybe 6 metres in front of the truck, that is hidden from the driver's view" Those 6 metres would pass in one third of a second. From 3 metres eye height, the cyclist should have been visible for a lot longer than that. As I said earlier, (5) he should easily have been seen by someone who is looking ahead, but perhaps not in time to avoid impact. On that basis I believe the negligent driving conviction is valid. Example: If he had fallen off the bike and was lying unconscious in the middle of the road, the truckie should still be observant enough and travelling at a (6) suitable speed to avoid him. If visibility was that bad, then maybe she (7) should have slowed down more. Safety should come before keeping to schedule. That section of road heading directly into the sun is only a couple of kilometres. "P.S The "knee cramp" just after the accident certainly is suspicious, but hard to disprove." Aren't dashcams as common in trucks as radios? 3 minutes to remove one would explain that short stop.
As Mike pointed out earlier, there is only one person who knows. Speculation is just that.
Hi Steve, there are several points in the report that are contradictory, and clearly wrong. Tomorrow I will outline them, which may clear up your apparent misunderstanding of a couple of vital points. Cheers OK, here we go. To facilitate the job of any member trying to follow my input I have numbered Steve's comments that I will be addressing. 1) The truck driver who observed the cyclist riding "300-500mm from the fogline, inside his line of travel" and who told his two friends "this bloke is gonna get killed" was clearly travelling EAST, as evidenced by the fact that he was "driving a B Double truck INTO Melbourne, FROM Adelaide". Dimboola Road ends WEST of Horsham, and becomes Baillie Street. Clearly he couldn't have been approaching Horsham from the East, as was reported. His truck clearly was HEADED EAST, as he also stated that " the sun was not quite over the horizon and there was good visibility". He would not have been able to accurately observe this if he was heading AWAY from the sunrise, and he would have observed the cyclist's headlight in the truck's rear view mirror as he checked that he'd passed safely, as we always do. 2) Given my explanation of the above it now is easy to the "his" referred to is the truck driver that commented on the cyclist's position on the road, and who made the observation "this fella's gonne get killed". 3) "Something such as the gear sprocket". Strange comment, as the marks could have been made by "something" such as a wayward wheelnut or a low-flying UFO Doesn't take much to make a mark on the aluminium bull bar that most trucks now use in the pursuit of lower tare and greater load capacity. 4) "Makes no difference that it was a B Double". Great observation Steve as so many people seem to think that a B Double takes on colossal dimensions when the only things that change are that the truck gets a bit longer, and has a greater GVM. People should understand that a B Double still is not a big truck. 5) "He should easily have been seen". This comment I take issue with as I defy ANYBODY to look directly into the sun and see a cyclist in front of a truck. Common sense is a rare commodity these days, but any rider with common sense who was riding directly into the sun should realise that he would be virtually invisible to following drivers, and certainly he would not appear to play "chicken" by riding "300-500mm INSIDE the fogline when there was a 1 metre wide paved area OFF the main carriageway, to the LEFT of the fogline. Cyclists seem to have a self-generated sense of entitlement regarding their use of the roads that they make NO contribution to providing or maintaining. 6) "Suitable speed to avoid him". Surely it is impossible to avoid something you haven't seen? 7) "Should have slowed down". In itself that would not have been safe as always there is the danger of being hit from behind while stationary on a carriageway, and in this case the danger would have been exacerbated by the fact that the sun was just above the horizon, and directly ahead (+/- 2 degrees). There are a couple of things in this case that don't add up, but I'll refrain from rocking the boat by addressing them. As stated previously, my sympathies go to the dead man's family, but I am not comfortable with the fact that he clearly made the decision to play chicken by riding on the main carriageway while there was a much safer alternative just to his left. Out of the way. Out of danger, surely? AND he chose to wear earpods. (Plugs) Stupidity in the extreme, surely? Cheers P.S Given the fact that so many people seem to know so much more about driving trucks than do we truck drivers, I am somewhat surprised that there is currently a NATIONAL shortage of over 26,000 drivers? Easy to earn $150,000 plus, with many places also providing accomodation and meals. Then perhaps these no-doubt well-intentioned do-gooders could practice what they preach, and give us dumb truckies the chance to learn from them? |
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Sept 3, 2024 14:44:33 GMT 10
I accept what you say on point 1 and agree the court summary is probably wrong in saying that he was coming from the east. No doubt the jury heard the actual testimony. However Forbes' testimony (the other truck driver) raises some puzzling questions.
A. GPS evidence shows Mr Batson turned onto Dimboola Rd at "about 6.22 am". The incident happened at 6.24.06. So there was at maximum a 2 minute window for the other truckie to have seen him. In fact, less than that. Mr Batson was riding "consistently" about 30kph . Evidence says the impact was 650 metres into the straight section. That would be about 800 metres from when he turned onto Dimboola Rd. At 30kph that means he was on the road for about 1.5 minutes. Forbes must have been pretty much right in front of Paulson. On that straight road he must have been in her view.
B. Yet Paulson said she saw a couple of trucks coming FROM Horsham, yet not going her way. How can both A and B be true? How could she remember that anyway, several hours later?
C. Forbes said the visibility was good. Yet, Paulson travelling moments later appears to justify poor visibility as the reason. Maybe perfect visibility everywhere but straight in front.
I'm pretty sure these gaping holes in the story must have been covered in the trial, and it is just this summary that leaves questions. Many other questions too.
I see problems that point in opposite directions. My personal opinion is that the outcome of the appeal is the correct one. Maybe the holes are just in the write-up.
Anyway, from my point of view it's time to park this.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Sept 4, 2024 9:36:28 GMT 10
I accept what you say on point 1 and agree the court summary is probably wrong in saying that he was coming from the east. No doubt the jury heard the actual testimony. However Forbes' testimony (the other truck driver) raises some puzzling questions.
A. GPS evidence shows Mr Batson turned onto Dimboola Rd at "about 6.22 am". The incident happened at 6.24.06. So there was at maximum a 2 minute window for the other truckie to have seen him. In fact, less than that. Mr Batson was riding "consistently" about 30kph . Evidence says the impact was 650 metres into the straight section. That would be about 800 metres from when he turned onto Dimboola Rd. At 30kph that means he was on the road for about 1.5 minutes. Forbes must have been pretty much right in front of Paulson. On that straight road he must have been in her view.
B. Yet Paulson said she saw a couple of trucks coming FROM Horsham, yet not going her way. How can both A and B be true? How could she remember that anyway, several hours later?
C. Forbes said the visibility was good. Yet, Paulson travelling moments later appears to justify poor visibility as the reason. Maybe perfect visibility everywhere but straight in front.
I'm pretty sure these gaping holes in the story must have been covered in the trial, and it is just this summary that leaves questions. Many other questions too.
I see problems that point in opposite directions. My personal opinion is that the outcome of the appeal is the correct one. Maybe the holes are just in the write-up.
Anyway, from my point of view it's time to park this.
I'm in concurrence with both points highlighted above because:- Reporters are noted for their tendency to embellish the truth in an effort to dramatise mundane events. There is no suggestion that the report was wrong, but there are so many inconsistencies and impossibilities that we could debate forever without concurrence. |
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Sept 4, 2024 10:51:41 GMT 10
"Reporters are noted for their tendency to embellish the truth in an effort to dramatise mundane events."
All the discussion has been on the basis of the official Supreme Court summary written by the judges.
|
|
