Views: 1060

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It really boggles the mind.

Surely it is the responsibility of drivers not to run into other things on the road.

I wonder what would the police response had it been one of their own.

"Police re-creations showed the bike was "virtually indistinguishable" in the dark, with the rear red light on Hall's bicycle difficult to see."

"Senior Constable Potts said he wouldn't describe the strip as illuminating but agreed the bag had been on the bike."


I wouldn't describe the reflective vest Constable Potts was wearing was illuminating.

Laying no charges effectively sends the message that the driver did nothing wrong.  That is a bizarre conclusion considering he drove into and killed another person.

Didn't he have 2 bright rear lights?

Will they look at the lack of a shoulder at this critical point? A cyclists worst dream, car turning right ahead, one narrow through lane with an Armco barrier hard up on the left, and a car bearing down at 100 behind.

Can see it on google maps at the Williamsdale Rd intersection.

You'd have to hope that the coroner will be also be shown this video and that they then question the veracity of the police efforts.

The coroner was shown the video.  The police had seen it until preparation for the coronial inquest.

As per

Day 1 of the Mike Hall Coronial Inquest

 The first day of the inquest proceeded mostly as expected:

  • Counsel Assisting presented a summary of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) evidence.
  • Senior Constable Potts of the AFP presented his statement.
  • A lawyer for ACT Roads asked Senior Constable Potts some questions in cross examination.

After lunch:

  • Monash University Accident Research Centre presented the report they prepared for the Coroner.
  • Senior Constable Potts of the AFP was cross-examined by lawyers for the race organisers and for Mike Hall’s former partner Anna Haslock.

Cycle has some questions – in the public interest – pertaining to the evidence presented. These questions are expected to be addressed in the coming two days, and include the following:

  • Mike Hall’s clothing was not retained or admitted into evidence to be examined, and yet it was alleged that his clothing was not visible and had no reflective properties.
  • The Inquest was advised that Mike Hall’s rear bag was returned to the family. This remains a source of contention. The bag was not admitted into evidence, and therefore the presence of reflective strips that Mike’s former partner asserts Mike had added to the back of his bag now cannot be established.
  • The AFP tested the car’s remaining front light and found the light to be below the required brightness to pass a roadworthy test in both NSW and the ACT. The officer who tested the light stated that he did not know what the legally required brightness was.
  • Monash University Accident Research Centre was specifically asked to investigate if Mike Hall’s rear light was sufficiently bright to meet the standard of the road rules. Other aspects including driver distraction were examined in the report even though this was not specifically requested.
  • Senior Constable Potts of the AFP created a video using a reconstruction of Mike Hall’s bike to examine how visible Mike Hall would have been. This reconstruction placed the bike off the road to the left, substituted the Dynamo hub with a 6-volt battery, excluded the rear bag and its reflective strip, excluded any person or clothing, excluded any front white light shining on the road, and excluded any human movement of the bike. There was also a Police light stationed near the bike and an oncoming car in the simulation that was admitted into evidence by the AFP. In the submitted video, the reconstructed bike was difficult to see.
  • A documentary that had extensive video footage of Mike Hall’s rear light and clothing and reflective strip on this rear bag was not viewed by the AFP until two weeks prior to the Coronial Inquest. This video evidence was only introduced to the Coroner’s Court as evidence on Day 1 of the Inquest, and this was only done at the request of the lawyer representing Anna Haslock.
  • The driver was interviewed by AFP officers at least three times. In the first interview the driver stated that he left his home at 5:30 am. In subsequent interviews he stated that he left home at 5 am. The statement admitted into evidence by Senior Constable Potts of the AFP only included the earlier time. The AFP officers interviewing the driver did not question the inconsistency of the driver’s statements. It was asserted by Counsel Assisting that the driver was driving within the speed limit.

"In the first interview the driver stated that he left his home at 5:30 am."

Perhaps this was changed because it would suggest that he had been speeding to get to the point of impact!

Beginning to wonder whether this is another Canberra nanny case of doing things for mates and keeping schtum instead of doing a thorough investigation.

Did we really expect it to go any other way?

Pertinent information would be the adherence to the 1m/1.5m Minimum Passing Distance (MPD) law that has been in place since Nov 2015 has been rather lax by both drivers and the authorities 
( Note that it was published 15 February 2017 , 6 weeks before Mike Hall was killed  ) 

As you know Peter, our colleague David as noted that NSW data is showing that more people win Lotto than get booked for the 1 metre law

There is no explanation other than the motorist was driving too fast for the road/conditions despite not exceeding the speed limit.

You don't drive around a bend in the road that you can't see around, especially in low light conditions, at 100 km/h.

Roadkill and fallen trees can be hard to see, nothing reflective, no flashing red lights... 

Complacent, irresponsible and totally unsafe. Still so saddened by this incident and even more so by the inevitable legal outcome :(


You would think the driver would have backed off a bit seeing a car in the right hand turning lane up ahead. Maybe he did, I don’t know. Hope the coroner asks. He admits being distracted by a truck parked somewhere just before the intersection. If he did see Mike Hall it may have been too late to brake, and he couldn’t go around him because of the turning car. We don’t know if Mike Hall was riding in the narrow shoulder or not. If he was the car should have just missed him if it stayed in its lane. 

If the shoulder had been wider (Armco barrier placed a few feet further back) Mike Hall might have been well away from the passing car through this squeeze point.


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service