Comment

Comment on ‘Tragic and unnecessary’: Truck driver didn’t see cyclist hit and killed

Repeating the comments from Space4Cycling Bne:

We wrote to the Coroner back in 2020 asking that an inquest address these questions:

i. Given construction happening in the area, combined with closure of various paths and bikeways, and type of truck involved known to have large blind spots, who approved the truck route, which was busy with pedestrians and cyclists?

ii. What consideration was given to how cyclists might access the RBWH Cycle Centre safely with all this happening (including closure of the footpath on Bowen Bridge Road which Carolyn would usually have taken), and how was this communicated?

iii. Given large volume of pedestrians and cyclists accessing RBWH and the Cycle Centre, is the road design of the intersection where Carolyn was killed suitable and safe for the number of people who use it?

iv. Trucks continued to travel through the intersection immediately following the accident and in the days following. Why wasn’t the operation at the worksite where the trucks originated and similar worksites shut down pending an assessment of the vehicles and the route?

v. What co-ordination was in place between the various work sites in the area to ensure safe movement?

None of these questions were addressed by the report. And so almost none of the systemic failures that lead to this unnecessary death will be addressed.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Ordinary truck routes dont need approval.

These questions wouldnt have been answered as they are not reasonable questions to the investigation.

Its like saying we asked what phase the moon was in as viewd from saturn. It really wasnt important to the investigation

source
- Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Sorry, but you don’t think “why are trucks keeping driving through a key pedestrian and cyclist intersection even after one of them killed someone?” is a relevant question to ask?
  
  source
  - zurohki@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    That question is proposing banning legal traffic from a normal street but dishonestly challenging others to justify not doing it, instead of making an argument in favour of their own proposal. You see that a lot from religious people who challenge you to prove their particular flavour of nonsense isn’t true.
    
    “Should traffic be allowed on roads” is an incredibly broad, vague question that a coroner isn’t going to decide to take up when investigating the specifics of one particular incident.
    
    source
    Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Let me turn it back on you: should we ban bicycles from roads? Someone died from it! Why are bicycles still allowed on roads?!
    
    Because you don’t fix a problem by telling the victims to stop being victims. You fix the perpetrator.
    
    “Should traffic be allowed on roads” is an incredibly broad, vague question
    
    Of course it is. But you know that, which is why you’re presenting a straw man argument like that rather than being intellectually honest.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Wooki@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    What are cyclists still riding here after it is well established it’s deadly to do so?
    
    source
    Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Mmm, love me some victim blaming.
    
    Why are you wearing such a short skirt?
    
    source