Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Lorry driver slams cyclist with "a camera on his helmet and a big chip on his shoulder"

Warwick Fribance convicted of breaking Queensland's safe passing distance law...

A lorry driver in Australia insists that he was only "technically" guilty after being convicted of passing too close to a cyclist. He said the video footage that brought him to court was shot by a cyclist with “a camera on his helmet and a big chip on his shoulder.”

Warwick Fribance was reported to police by a cyclist who said that he had breached Queensland’s 1.5 metre passing law. The rule, introduced in April, sets a safe distance for passing cyclists, reports the Courier Mail.

The 67-year-old, who decided to retire from trucking following the incident, was caught on video by the cyclist’s camera as he passed him.

His defence solicitor, Michael Robinson, said that Mr Fibrance was driving his truck uphill. To comply with the passing regulation he would have had to break another law by crossing a double white line in the middle of the carriageway.

There was no contact between Mr Fribance’s truck and the unnamed cyclist during the incident, which happened on 4 July, and he was said to have only narrowly broken the 1.5 metre limit.

“The truck missed him by a fair bit, but it was not (outside) 1.5m,’’ Mr Robinson explained.  “He has been caught out by technicalities of law.’’

Annette Hennessy, the magistrate presiding over the case at Maroochydore, agreed to waive the penalty of $341 that Mr Fribance could have faced.

She said he should be “convicted but not further punished’’.

The defendant said afterwards: “I would have had to drive over double white lines to be within the law. Technically I’m guilty but it’s wrong,’’ he said.

“At least I don’t have to pay the $341 fine (given by police), only a $107.10 offender’s levy.’’

The now retired driver said of the incident: “It’s a war out there. It’s us against them.

“I hate the thought of him [the cyclist who lodged the complaint] sitting there sipping his latte and laughing at me.”

Under the minimum passing law, known as the ‘Split Rule,’ drivers in Queensland can face a maximum penalty of $4,400.

They are required to leave at least a 1-metre gap when passing a cyclist on roads with a speed limit of up to 60kph, and 1.5 metres on those with a greater speed limit.

A similar law is in force in Australian Capital Territory. Dave Sharp, director of Safe Cycling Australia, told Daily Mail Australia that drivers needed to be patient.

“‘We always hear the argument that sticking to this rule would force drivers to overtake on the other side of the road but if there isn’t room they should wait … there is a brake pedal and we are more than ready to see them to use it,” he said.

He also said that the introduction of the law had encouraged more cyclists to buy cameras to video their ride in case something should happen.

“There are lots of people who take umbrage to our presence on the roads and a camera covers the cyclist if anything goes wrong,” he said. “More cyclists are buying cameras to help enforce the law.

“We certainly encourage cyclists to use cameras if they are road riders or sporting cyclists, they normally have the most issues on the road traffic.

“Police in Queensland have stated they are supportive of cyclists using the cameras if drivers are breaking the Split Rule.

“There is a small minority of drivers who seem intent on doing the wrong thing and then there are those that don’t pay attention to cyclists.”

Earlier this week, we reported how a cyclist in Sydney had used video footage to convince police he had done nothing wrong following an incident in which he was stuck by a car.

There is no minimum passing law in the UK, and while cyclists often capture footage of motorists passing them far too close, police seldom take action and only then in instances when there has been a collision.

However, a caravan company based in Gloucestershire sacked one of its drivers earlier this year after he was filmed overtaking a cyclist with just inches to spare.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

35 comments

Avatar
antigee | 9 years ago
0 likes

brooksby just above has explained the (2 year trial) law change
very well but forget to mention for those that didn't notice is that these trucks are twice the length of any in the UK

crossing a solid line to give a cyclist the mandated minimum distance is allowed if it is safe to do so

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queensland-road-rules/Changes-to-road-r... the detail is in the linked pdf

there is a lot of background to this including one very sad failed prosecution where the truck driver that caused the death of a cyclist was allowed to walk free as he held "the honest and reasonable belief" there was enough room on the road to safely overtake

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/cement-truck-driver-luke-stevens-fo...

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Cycling/Parliamentary-inq...

according to Queensland cycle campaigners the case reported by road.cc is a rarity - in the first three months of the trial there was only 4 fines issued for passing too close but over 1300 cyclists fined under revised legislation
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/media/2929/

live in Victoria and watching with interest as Government here is fairly anti introducing a similar rule

Avatar
3wheelsgood | 9 years ago
0 likes

I hope they don't introduce this law in UK.
Where I live the bleddy trucks and tractors would have to stay behind us pedal-pushers causing endless frustration and annoyance to the much put-upon queues of lane-clogging emmets. Who, by the way, have not the remotest clue how wide their bleddy cars are in the first place!!!  102

Avatar
Tinysaur | 9 years ago
0 likes

To comply with the passing regulation he would have had to break another law by crossing a double white line in the middle of the carriageway

This law was changed when the passing legislation came in - in QLD drivers are now permitted to cross double white lines to give sufficient space; the defence lawyer should probably have known that...

Police also measured the lane at 3.7m and the truck at 2.4m. Therefore, if the truck passed within the lane (so as not to cross double lines), he passed the cyclist with 1.3m between his nearside wheels and THE KERB, with a cyclist sandwiched in the gap. The gutter is ~0.3m so the rider most likely had HGV wheels 0.7-0.8m from his shoulder at best.

Unfortunately, the mentality of too many Australian drivers is illustrated in the 500+ comments that follow the courier article.

Avatar
Flying Scot | 9 years ago
0 likes

So the guy got 1.3m space and went to the cops?

Get a grip, can any other driver out there judge 1500mm on their nearside?

It's not great, but not dangerous either.

I didn't see a need for the gutter riding either, sometimes you get locked in thereafter dodging a pothole, but the road looked OK

Only good thing is the article making it plain you need to cross the line to pass a cycle.

Avatar
brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

“‘We always hear the argument that sticking to this rule would force drivers to overtake on the other side of the road but if there isn’t room they should wait … there is a brake pedal and we are more than ready to see them to use it,” he said.

Hear, hear, Mr Sharp of Safe Cycling Australia.

This is the problem: mustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfrontmustgetinfront...

Avatar
Das | 9 years ago
0 likes

Im wondering why hes upset that he was only "Technically" guilty? Seem more like hes upset because he was caught.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Das | 9 years ago
0 likes
Das wrote:

Im wondering why hes upset that he was only "Technically" guilty? Seem more like hes upset because he was caught.

Technically guilty means he gets to walk away with a clear conscience. Yes, he broke the law. Yes, he endangered someone's life. But it was a stupid law anyway which meant he might have had to slow down and pay more attention to the road.

Avatar
DannyX | 9 years ago
0 likes

“It’s a war out there. It’s us against them."

It's the kind of "war" where one side does all the bleeding, and that happens to be the side of the non-aggressors.

Avatar
The _Kaner | 9 years ago
0 likes

Jaysus, that was plenty distance by the lorry in passing....
I barely get a quarter of that on a regular basis, irrespective of the size of the vehicle...

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 9 years ago
0 likes

Stupid careless driver is stupid - shock horror

As others have said, he was tailgating the bus so didn't see the cyclist in time. The bus driver was smart enough to pull out for an overtake but if the trucker was too close to the brow of the hill for a safe overtake, he should've waited. But of course he couldn't stop in time as he was too close to the bus. Of course this dolt shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV.

 1

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to OldRidgeback | 9 years ago
0 likes

Oops - double post

Avatar
massspike | 9 years ago
0 likes

When I am on rural roads of Ottawa I get buzzed like this on a regular basis. There's typically just me and the 2 cars (sometimes just the passing driver). I like to count "Mississipi's" (ref. last night's Big Bang Theory) to see how long the passer would have to wait to pass safely (i.e. a break in the traffic): this is typically less than 5 seconds and rarely more than 10. And in Ontario its not illegal to cross a double line so they just need to wait for road to clear. This lack of consideration boggles the mind.

Avatar
BigDummy | 9 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

“He has been caught out by technicalities of law.’’

Yep. The law that says it is prohibited to do that which he has done. Suck it up sunbeam.

 1

Avatar
Jeroen0110 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Why was he cycling in the gutter? And secondly I really need to get my eyes checked, the truck looks about an inch closer than the bus, who wasn't criticised.

Avatar
DaveE128 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Agree if cyclist hadn't been hugging the gutter it might have been more clear cut, and they may have been safer (I never ride this close to the gutter). I was just pointing out that the lorry driver shouldn't be complaining at the cyclist that he couldn't legally overtake - the only reason was that his lorry was too big!

Avatar
harrybav | 9 years ago
0 likes

Lorry driver failed to recognise that the bus he was tailgating had pulled out around a cyclist. No evidence he saw the cyclist or the white lines (that were about to end) at all.

Nice fast legal process it sounds like. Only off note is the magistrate waiving the fine.

Avatar
Paul_C | 9 years ago
0 likes

Cyclist didn't help things by being so close to the edge there... riding 4 feet out would have prevented both of those passes... well, I hope it would, but Australia seems to breed motons who will overtake no matter what...

Avatar
DaveE128 | 9 years ago
0 likes

The least the lorry drive could have done was slow down a little. I agree it would have been somewhat scary for the cyclist from the video. I think it's a reasonable outcome. The cyclist appears to have been keeping as far left as they could to allow the best possible chance of sensible sized vehicles overtaking legally. The bus could overtake safely - it seems to me that the lorry was just too big to overtake safely in the situation and should have waited at least until the brow of the hill, which AFAICR wasn't far away.

Avatar
daccordimark | 9 years ago
0 likes

This seems like an over-reaction by the cyclist to me and on that basis is it any wonder the lorry driver is a bit peeved? The introduction of laws like this is a good thing but only if the infrastructure can support it and allowances are made in other laws. With regard to double white lines the UK Highway Code states that "You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less." Now 10mph is a bit slow for a pedal cycle I'll admit but at least the principle is there. Perhaps they should have something like that in Queensland.

As for the idea that the truck should have waited before overtaking it's very hard to call that one based on the cyclist's video. The speed differential between the bike and lorry is pretty high and as mentioned earlier the lorry driver might not have seen the bike until quite late because of the bus.

Avatar
mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

He couldn't cross the centre line, he couldn't give the required 1.5m clearance to the cyclist without crossing the line, how hard is it for the driver to wait until he was legally allowed to overtake?

Or, as is quite common, would crossing the centre line have really been an issue?? IME it can be safe to cross a centre line and overtake, it may not be legal, but the line markings are, I suspect, based on the premise of car overtaking car, ie two vehicles near the speed limit and not one at 15-20mph and one at 60+ mph.

Avatar
marche | 9 years ago
0 likes

I think the lorry driver didn't even see the bike hidden by the leading bus.

Avatar
silkred | 9 years ago
0 likes

The implicit assumption on the part of the driver is that he will overtake - regardless of the double lines or the presence of the cyclist - there is nothing in the utterances reported here that would suggest that any thought was given or that the concept even exists for waiting till the road is clear to pass safely. It is this sense of entitlement that is so dangerous to us when we are out there cycling.

Avatar
notfastenough replied to silkred | 9 years ago
0 likes
silkred wrote:

The implicit assumption on the part of the driver is that he will overtake - regardless of the double lines or the presence of the cyclist - there is nothing in the utterances reported here that would suggest that any thought was given or that the concept even exists for waiting till the road is clear to pass safely. It is this sense of entitlement that is so dangerous to us when we are out there cycling.

This. It's the assumption that the overtake is compulsory and must happen NOW. His progress is more important than someone elses' life. The fact that he says "it's us against them" means I'm glad he's retired, at least.

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Avatar
truffy replied to notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Avatar
notfastenough replied to truffy | 9 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Agreed, but he said this after the case had completed, and the implication is that the law isn't really a law, it's just a little technicality that has tripped up his honest hard-working client etc etc.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes
notfastenough wrote:
truffy wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Agreed, but he said this after the case had completed, and the implication is that the law isn't really a law, it's just a little technicality that has tripped up his honest hard-working client etc etc.

Didn't see where it said that in the linked report, but if true, then the lawyer is clearly part of the problem - nothing to do with his job.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to truffy | 9 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, its not so much the lawyer who isn't helping, as the general attitudes amongst jurors (especially motorist jurors) that such things are merely 'technicalities'. The lawyer is of course cynically colluding with those attitudes, as he is indeed paid to do.

Just as some lawyers have gotten clients off of sexual charges by playing up to dodgy attitudes amongst jurors. It may be part of the job but its still not particularly edifying to see.

Avatar
truffy replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 9 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
truffy wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, its not so much the lawyer who isn't helping, as the general attitudes amongst jurors (especially motorist jurors) that such things are merely 'technicalities'.

Ooooh, ooooh, ooooh, can I be even more pedantic and point out that this case was heard at a Magistrate's Court which doesn't have a jury?

Other than that minor technicality, please do carry on.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to truffy | 9 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
truffy wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, its not so much the lawyer who isn't helping, as the general attitudes amongst jurors (especially motorist jurors) that such things are merely 'technicalities'.

Ooooh, ooooh, ooooh, can I be even more pedantic and point out that this case was heard at a Magistrate's Court which doesn't have a jury?

Other than that minor technicality, please do carry on.

As you admit its a minor technicality (unless you seriously think magistrates are somehow radically different types of human to jurors, and that they somehow exist outside of society?) I'm not sure why you bother to mention it.

Avatar
truffy replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 9 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
truffy wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
truffy wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Oh, and the lawyer spouting off about "technicalities" isn't helping either.

Defence lawyers aren't paid to be helpful, they're paid to get their clients off. Looks like he did his job well enough.

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, its not so much the lawyer who isn't helping, as the general attitudes amongst jurors (especially motorist jurors) that such things are merely 'technicalities'.

Ooooh, ooooh, ooooh, can I be even more pedantic and point out that this case was heard at a Magistrate's Court which doesn't have a jury?

Other than that minor technicality, please do carry on.

As you admit its a minor technicality (unless you seriously think magistrates are somehow radically different types of human to jurors, and that they somehow exist outside of society?) I'm not sure why you bother to mention it.

I mention it simply to put your prejudices into perspective. You ranting on about lawyers playing up to jurors has got square root of diddly squat to do with the case in the report.

Pages

Latest Comments