Indian Pacific Wheel Race

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D

Deleted member 1258

Guest
His inquest is on-going but the BBC report this morning is at
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-45622381

The first part of the comment

He said Mr Hall had been wearing dark clothing with little reflective material at the time of the collision.
However, the inquest was also played documentary footage of Mr Hall racing at night in which he was visible.

is obviously factual, but disappointing.

I find its strange that they mention his clothing but not whether he was using lights or not.
 

Slick

Guru
No charges have been laid against Mr Bobb. He had suffered significant distress and shock after the crash, the inquest heard.

Well, tha5s okay then, as long as your suitability distressed, we don't need to do anything else. Ffs
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
By the video i saw of Mike just before the collision,his front and rear light were visible from distance.Did the car involved not hqve defective lights ?
I gather part of Bobby's testimony was that he actually wasn't looking where he was going. By the time his eyes returned to the road from what was distracting him, it was too late. So, cyclist's fault, obviously....
 

raleighnut

Legendary Member
The Australian (ACT?) police have identified the guilty party in Mike Hall's death. (sorry for the sarcasm but...) Can you guess who it was?

Yup, Mike Hall. Apparently he was invisible.

I hope the inquest will come to a different conclusion, but I have to believe it won't.
What a bunch of f**ktards, the car (driven by a half asleep youth( hit a well lit cyclist. :cursing:
 

raleighnut

Legendary Member
The other thread is also discussing the inquest, obviously. It is part of the same narrative.
Maybe they could be merged?
 

steveindenmark

Legendary Member
I have been following this in several places. I have a great respect for what Mike achieved but would not take that he was totally in the right on face value. But having read everything I have read from many places, it appears that Mike did everything right and had no blame in this accident.

My first question would have been to the senoir constable in charge of the investigation and that would have been "How many fatal road traffic accidents have you dealt with?" Taking what we know as a whole, the investigation looks shambolic. He did not sieze the drivers mobile phone for tests and I would have thought that was a matter of procedure. He did ascertain that the phone had not been used for sending messages or phone calls before, or at the time of the accident. But the phone was not searched for other data. He could have been using the phone for many other things. The Senior constable admitted at the inquest that this was an error and it should have been confiscated and checked.

The Senior Constable said that the lights on the car were "Below the normal standard". But were not tested as he did not know what the normal standard was. During several interviews the driver changed what distance he could see from 15 metres to half a football field. The discrepancies were never investigated. The driver also changed his mind about if there were other vehicles in the area. The area is well known for kangaroos getting hit and a question I would have asked is if there were no other vehicles in the area, why was the driver not on full beam. The driver admitted he was distractacted and when he looked forward again Mike was right in front of him. What was distracting him at that time of the morning?

I believe there were 7 car driver witnesses who saw Mike about the time of the accident. One of them rang Crimestoppers 2 days after the accident. But was not contacted by the police for 4 months. The car drivers accounts range from Mike to being very visible to being almost invisible and not wearing a helmet.

An "Expert" on Australian roads was called who answered "I am not an expert in this field" to all the questions. He admitted at inquest that he had no idea why he was called.

What is not in dispute was that Mike was in the part of the road he should have been in. He was riding straight and not swerving.

As they say. "Dont believe all you read in the papers". But if any of the above is true. It must surely bring into doubt the thoroughness and professionalism of the police enquiry.

To date. The driver has not been charged with any offences and that will make any compensation claim difficult.

Unless the inquest papers are made public. All of the above has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
Top Bottom