قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Australia / Full text of Cameron Frewer’s letter from beyond the grave

Full text of Cameron Frewer’s letter from beyond the grave

This is the full text of the Queensland cyclist defender Cameron Frewer's open letter was written just days before he was tragically killed in an accident.

Outlines his frustration with the enforcement by the Queensland police of the law of one million motorists.

An open letter to Hon Mark Ryan, Hon Mark Bailey, Hon Jarrod Bleijie, Commissioner Ian Stewart, Bicycle Queensland CEO Anne Savage, We Ride Australia Board, Australia Cycling, Amy Gillett Foundation, Bike SA, Bicycle NSW, Bicycle Victoria , Bicycle Network Australia, Cycling Australia, Westcycle, Pedal Power Canberra and other interested parties.

I write this as an open letter, rather than writing another email to a deputy, at the local Sargent station, or some other person in a position of power.

Why? Because in the last 1

8 months, every letter I sent to the government departments or ends in silence, is sent by hand to someone else, or I receive the usual cut and paste answer that tells me how "busy" the police / government departments are in my repeated concerns.


Much has been broadcast recently about Australian cycling safety. Even at the point of a recent David Maywald petition from the Dulwich Hill Cycling Club, which was trying to force state police forces to seriously begin to take the close-crossing law seriously. There have also been numerous reports suggesting that the police do not support the rule despite quotations such as the following:

& # 39; The Queensland Police Service supports the 144A Safe Remote Transition Rule. The QPS is committed to providing a safe environment for all road users and adopting a variety of proactive and reactive strategies to target motorists, cyclists and pedestrians who undertake high risk road behavior "

This quote (October 2018) was in response to a recent local news I described after talking about the police attitude to the safety of the pilots and the lack of application of Section 144A on the Sunshine Coast.The story lasted about a year after the first time I suspected that the QPS did not support the cyclist's right to drive safely on the roads, it was this quote that prompted me to detail my experiences with this "support" that QPS seems to give to people who use bicycles in this state. [19659010] media_camera Cameron Frewer with the family dog ​​

And who am I?

I am a father of three people, a husband, someone who occasionally rides a bicycle, as well as a driver and a motorcyclist. I work weekends, so I'm not a bike weekend warrior. I have not joined any clubs, so I'm not a cyclist. Pedalo alone and sometimes avoid rush hour traffic. I stop at the red lights, turn left as far as I can and do my best to keep me safe on the streets. I do not shave my legs, I use flashing front and back lights and I use cycling clothes that always carry a message "safe passage", and I bring a few more kgs that I keep mentioning. Now I mount the front and rear cameras on my bike for every ride. I'm hardly the "stereotypical" lycra lout, but I appreciate my life and I appreciate a law and a process that encourages people to use bicycles for any reason.

Bicycle Queensland has joined forces with other state cycling organizations to try to find a way forward in these matters, through education and the commitment of drivers

Obviously, the QPS can not be everywhere at any time. Cyclists who believe that their safety has been compromised by motorists who do not observe the MPDL are invited to file a complaint and evidence to support the local station for scrutiny and action. But what happens then? It should be noted that when a close test is presented there are two main criteria that must be addressed: "Sufficiency of evidence" and test of public interest "

This is detailed in point 3.4.3". "Factors to consider when deciding to pursue (on page 8).


But what happens when such complaints actually occur? Well, the first of these, & Sufficiency of Evidence & # 39 ;, is self explanatory.No one should present a pass that can not be easily confirmed as totally in violation of the required distance.And all my tests would have passed the "pub test", the passages are close, dangerous and unnecessary But having "Sufficiency of my evidence" questioned by the police is not unusual, and sometimes it is only to be expected, so unless I can gather enough evidence to show that a pass is measurable: use of road signs or lines, I (and many, many others) simply do not bother to take them forward.

But the second criterion, the (so-called) "Test of public interest" is a whole other thing. exactly the reason that leads me to show only some of the incidents that I have faced at the hands of QPS for a period of 18 months. One of the many factors listed in the "public interest test" – as reported in the police manual on operating procedures – is "Discretion of officers". However, the police must also examine each presentation in an objective and impartial manner. In the book of hands. & # 39; & # 39 Impartiality; is defined:

When agents make a decision to pursue, they should not be affected by such matters. . .

(ii) personal feelings regarding the offender or the victim; . . .

Unfortunately, it is clear from reading my experiences in QLD that there are a large number of policemen who have the same views towards people riding bicycles on public roads, as will be found in the comments section on social media. They seem to be influenced by their personal feelings towards the offender (fellow drivers) or the victim (annoying cyclists). In other words, they do not decide (consciously or perhaps unconsciously) whether they pursue or not, objectively and impartially. Moreover, these views and comments are often also signed by the sergeants of the station, they are also apologized by the officers at the inspector level, and they fly in front of the alleged "support citations" that the police regularly exhales when questioned about their role in Education, and deterrents surrounding the safe passage rule.

The following examples include case numbers with direct citations from officers or e-mail correspondence in relation to my requests for a close passage; I connected videos to each of them and I took note of the station that was in charge of the investigation.

They will ask you where the "official discretion" is found in respect to a law that has been promoted to help provide VRU (vulnerable road users) the space they need to avoid being killed while ride on roads, that is to do something that is "presumably legal".

These are not only "one-offs" but a series of tests demonstrating how much QPS is "supports cycling on Queensland's roads.

" Probably a magistrate would throw him out, it seems he did the best he could, avoided a collision, how long you expected to sit behind you, I asked around there is nothing I can do "

The almost inexperienced cyclist of Queensland Cameron Frewer at the head of his death [19659028] Queensland cyclists Cameron Frewer nearly missed death

The question was referred to police complaints where the two agents involved were unofficial conducts.The issue failed and the police discretion was used (Documented)

QP1702157740 9 December 2017 No infraction: Beerwah police: Discretion of officers

Forced to leave the road Lorry carrying horses of v alore, the driver had a previous accident, the car coming soon made it difficult, the driver did not know the rule, the driver thought he had given enough space. "This is a dangerous road and the cyclist should be extremely careful". (Documented)

QP1702275954 22 December 2017 No infraction. Palmwoods Police. Discretion of the official.

First reason given by the "jurisprudence" of the officers. Months later recommended because not in the list of "life-threatening offenses". The request by FOI in the investigation documents was not aware of the 4-year law. (Documented)

QP1800192941 31 October 2017 No infraction. Beerwah Police. Discretion of the Officers

"Maybe the pilot could use the path ?, Maybe the cyclist should keep the bike lanes ?, Maybe the pilot could use roads with green paint ?, Maybe the cyclist should choose an alternative form of transport ?, cyclist is not a hazard "

The police report mentions my other observations and calls these" surrounding circumstances "

" Surrounding circumstances "was mentioned when they gave their" discretion "

to the & # 39; the attitude of the officers and the fault of the victims. The report was in charge of (hidden name) who found that the agent had acted professionally and had no case to answer. The movie was deemed unacceptable for QPS by (hidden name). (Documented)

QP1702275954 Dec 27, 2018 No infraction. Palmwoods Police. Discretion of the officer

The closest to whom I arrived to be hit. 80 km / h. The fixed footage shows that the rearview mirror bends due to the wind that deviates from my hand. The FOI in the police report simply says: "The driver was warned about this matter" No further information was provided. (Documented)

QP1800192941 20 January 2018 No violation. Beerwah Police. Discretion of the officer

"It seems that the driver did the best he could" The officer had not talked to the driver as he could not id drivers at the time. The FOI in the report says that the official DID speaks with the driver, but the officer did not mention it in any e-mail. (Documented)

QP1800192941 29 January 2018 No infringement. Beerwah Police. Official Discretion

This issue was reinvested after questioning the criteria used by the police to determine the overtaking distance. The answer was one of those, moving the position where the truck was and omitting my right side, removing the mirrors of the truck that brought the passage over the legal distance. From a beginning of 69 centimeters. Less than 80 cm of the minimum legal distance of 150 cm. A "complete" investigation that did not include talking to me or confirming the measurements of my bike.

"On the review of the movie and the ongoing crimes reported by the reclusive cyclist, he is worried about the need to continue driving on roads that are not safe for bicycles and perhaps should consider his own safety if you feel in danger on these particular roads and move on safe roads with built cycle paths or much larger shoulders and open visions "

" A 23-ton truck that slams its breaks (sic) after turning a corner with a cyclist on the roadway not safe for any road user "(Documented)

QP1800628153 4 April 2018. No infraction. Beerwah Police. Official discretion

Extremely close to speed. This road is a signed area of ​​70 km / h.

Movies not allowed for (hidden name). After being given this reason by the official. He felt the need to add this "advice",

"These roads were not designed for two vehicles, You could be accused of marking the road" (which I have in no way)

QP1800729556 20th April 2018. No infringement. Beerwah Police. Discretion of Officer

By far the most obvious refusal to look at this question with something other than prejudices and prejudices.

This question had been referred to police ethics. The registered mail contains a letter and a disc delivered on September 25, 2018. I did not respond to the complaint upon completion of this letter.

"It is difficult to stand with cyclists when they travel on narrow, winding roads, The fine is extreme, I do not intend to fire a driver with a fine, do not agree with the law, cyclists expect the drivers change lanes, what are the expectations of the community, the driver made an explicit effort to switch to a safe distance, expecting drivers to cross the other lane will cause an accident "I will not sleep at night after giving a driver an "infraction" Do you expect drivers to have a yardstick? (Documented)

QP1800748077 April 23, 2018 Palmwoods Police No infraction .. Officer Discretion [19659005] Denouncement centered on a driver who not only changed lanes unnecessarily to intimidate, but also had a German shepherd in the back of a uterine who barked loudly as he passed by.The driver looks at me directly. ;driver he was cautioned at close range even though this was not the complaint. After repeated requests for information on why no intimidation or harassment has been issued. On 17 July I was informed that, since it was not under the list "Life threatening restrictions", it was considered worthy of caution

QP1801303972 16 July 2018 Caloundra Police. (From 1 November 2018) Ignored despite the e-mails at the station request status.

QP1801303999 16 July 2018 Police of Caloundra. (From 1 November 2018) Ignored despite e-mails at the station request status.

QP1801547555 27 July 2018 Beerwah Police. No infringement. Discretion of the official.

The age of the driver was a factor, he thought I was saying good-bye. I did not know the safe passage law.

QP1801588383 24 August 2018. Beerwah Police. In progress. The agent requested the record with footage on September 13, 2018. Starting October 30 and despite the e-mails to (hidden name) I had no response. Indeed. In the last 3-4 months, I have not had any response to requests for information from the official responsible for the Beerwah station.

QP1801785758 21 August 2018. Beerwah Police. No response from the station. Ignored. (from 1 November 2018)

QP1800783459 25 April 2018 (Anzac Day) The Beerwah police. No infringement. Discretion of the official Despite the two owners admitted that it was their car. Neither would admit to having driven it. The police did not apply the law for the owner. The answer I received after questioning the owner and the persuasive owners of Section 55 to release information about who was driving. "The question has been completed and there will be nothing left of me regarding this matter"

4451946 8 December 2018. Beerwah Police. No infringement. Discretion of the official.

The owner would not have told who he was driving. Nothing the police can do. "Since the owner does not know who he was driving, there is nothing I can do".

QP1801784377 21 August 2018. Beerwah Police. Removal truck on the highway. I was a hard shoulder. The passenger shouts out the window, the driver uses the horn and cuts off the hard shoulder. Ignored.

QP1801857867 2 October 2018. Police Kawana. No reply from 1 November 2018

QP1801857827 6 October 2018. Palmwoods Police. No reply from 1 November 2018

There is no doubt that there are a number of officers who can examine the proposals objectively and within the letter and the spirit of the law. I received 5 articles in violation of the purpose of the law. In none of these five I had been subjected to ridiculous arguments of deviation, false equivalence or fault of the victim. In any of the following presentations I have asked to "use safer roads", "use a cycle path", "use a different mode of transport" or any other reason to justify why I was using a public road with a "seemingly legal vehicle" [19659070] media_camera Cameron Frewer and family

The question I often ask myself is: "Will bicycles ever be considered vehicles by those who have been charged with defending the laws of the states? "Or the apology for the poor guide, blaming the victim and irrelevant comments continue?

And in particular, because the officers with little or no understanding of what it feels like to have a motor vehicle come some distance from you on a bicycle (often at high speed) seen as qualified to make an important decision using their "discretion"

Objectivity and impartiality require that the officer be willing to see a complaint MPDL from the point of view of both the driver and the cyclist

It is reasonable to doubt that the majority of the police use their "discretion" as a smoke screen for their anti-cyclist prejudices and the ignorance of same laws that are entrusted to them Not just once, but many times Each of these presentations has been entrusted to several officers, which is therefore contained in the excuse "It does not satisfy the test of public interest" [19659005] The main problems are

1. The operators have personal opinions of the cyclists (everyone has a story) that exceeds the written law.

2. The fact that Rule 144A DOES NOT fit the list of "life threatening offenses", which means more possibilities to use "official discretion" without any personal firsthand experience on a bicycle.

3.Owner onus seems to be widely ignored. There seems to be no pressure from the police to investigate and find out who was actually driving the vehicle at the time. Even when a submission meets "Sufficiency of evidence"

4. Failure of communication from lower level officers to station sergeants who simply do not recognize any e-mails as simple as requests.

5.I ​​filmed with loop cameras are eligible? I (along with many others) have been told by the police that they will not accept the shooting of the camera as "convincing evidence"; yet there are five of my cases in which they have. In fact, recently a truck driver was violated for a close pass after another matter went to court. The video was accepted by the police and the courts (P18001836O3 Southport Magistrates Court 7 13/08/2018) The video was shown 20 times during the hearing.

There is no doubt that I have now been ignored as a "parasite", or presenting very tight overtaking (as indicated in the "public interest test" criteria in the police manual). There is no doubt that I have filed several close complaints over the last 18 months. This should illustrate how I believe this law is ignored and also show how I view my security as a legitimate road user. Now I am at the stage where I no longer answer all the complaints. It is incredibly demoralizing and disheartening to hear these excuses from what should be held at a higher level by all members of the public.

Look through the presentations and answers related to those requests for help. You will understand that quotations like this from QPS (Serve with Honor) could be considered as an eloquence:

The Queensland Police Service supports the 144A rule for safe remote passage. The QPS is committed to providing a safe environment for all road users and adopting a variety of proactive and reactive strategies to target drivers, cyclists and pedestrians who undertake high risk road behavior "

In conclusion, the foregoing clearly indicates that

1. An evaluation system that is considered fair and impartial for individuals, all involved and,

3. Clarifies the objective and impartial practice;

4. Clarifies the required and acceptable treatment of crimes; and,

5. I hope that I can connect with all of you to help push the message to the competent authorities in each of your jurisdictions so that we can make a difference and our roads secure.

Without a strong system and cohesive that helps to recognize vulnerable road users as such.

There is a small incentive for the average person to ride for any reason ne.

More people ride, more often will be encouraged only when those who are entrusted with the claim that the laws begin to do so.

Thank you for taking the time to read my experiences.

Cameron Frewer

Source link