According to Ballarat's The Courier:
A magistrate has dismissed a charge against a driver who hit a cyclist in Delacombe last year because it was "an accident waiting to happen".
Despite displaying a flashing red light and wearing high-viz gear, the cyclist was struck from behind by a car and seriously injured. In dismissing the charge of careless driving against the driver, Magistrate Terry Wilson said
"If he had a (front) light it would have projected 200m in front and Ms Jasper could have picked up a bike was on the road"
Sorry? Could you run that by me again?
Law
OK, the legal stuff. Yes, according to Victorian Road Rules, the cyclist should have had a headlight:
259. Riding at night
The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays—
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the front of the bicycle;and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the rear of the bicycle;and
(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 metres from the rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle's headlight on low-beam.
So, in the absence of a headlight, I presume that makes this particular bicycle unroadworthy for night riding. A black mark against the cyclist.
Logic
I don't know about you, but I don't expect the headlight on any vehicle on the road to contribute to rear visibility. That's precisely why tail lights point backwards and are red. To argue, as the Magistrate appears to have done, that the absence of a headlight significantly diminished the cyclist's rear visibility simply beggars belief and ignores logic.
Look at it another way: in a nose-to-tail collision between two cars, would we seriously expect that the driver of the rear car could be excused of his/her legal liability because the car in front had defective headlights?
Logic presents another real possibility in this case: that the cyclist really was reasonably visible and that the motorist really was driving carelessly.
If the decision to dismiss the charge is a legal technicality based on the unroadworthiness of the bicycle, leave it at that. Because no one in their right mind could seriously believe that the absence of a forward-facing headight on the bicycle was a contributory factor in the collision, in which the cyclist was struck from behind. And to pretend otherwise just sounds like a weak and pathetic attempt at justifying a manifestly unjust decision, no matter how legally sound.
Quite rightly, Bicycle Victoria has "asked the Attorney-General to examine the Magistrate's comments in this case". Hopefully this will not be the end of the matter.
Tom Vanderbilt wasn't impressed either.
Update 29 April
With thanks to Chris for the link, Yarra BUG rehearsed similar points on its radio show this week. Keep listening to the same episode for an excellent discussion on bike lighting in general.
Comments
I was under the impression where both road users are partially responsible then the responsibility is shared or liability reduced. A cyclist without a front light would be eligible for (eg) only 80% of the damages - on the technicality that they didn't have a front light though with consideration that this would not have prevented the accident.
It could make you wonder though - in a car crash - rear car rams another car from behind at night. Lets say that the headlights of the car in front were not on (though the brake lights were). I would find it hard to believe that there would be the same verdict.
We were far than impressed with the magistrates comments on this weeks YarraBUG Radio, i.e.: Laws of Physics, anyone?
Anyway I really didn't mean it about Ballarat being a Event Horizon.
It's a grouse place. Honest.
I think the judge was incorrect on his interpretation of the law too - the lamp has to be visible from 200m, not project 200m. You can see a candle 200m away, but it does f***-all to project any light and illuminate the road.
This still infuriates me. Do we know if there has been an appeal against the verdict yet? I see BV have picked up on it.