Category Archives for Uncategorized

Bicycle Boxes – What Are They And What Do They Do?

What is a Bicycle Box?

A bicycle storage area (or bicycle box) is a marked area of the road before a signalised intersection, where cyclists can position themselves in front of queued traffic at a red traffic signal.

The boxes are intended to make cyclists more visible to motor vehicles and give them a head start through the intersection. The rationale behind these boxes is that the improved visibility and head start will improve safety for cyclists when they are on the road.

the legislation

Under schedule 5 of the Queensland Road Rules (QRR), a bicycle storage area is defined as:

(a) An area of a road before an intersection with traffic lights-

    1. That has painted on it 1 or more bicycle symbols; and
    2. That is between 2 parallel stop lines, regardless of whether the lines are of equal length; but 

(b) Does not include any stop line. 

Section 60A of the QRR makes it an offence for a motor vehicle to enter the bicycle box when the traffic light of an intersection is red. 

Historically, under the QRR, a bicycle rider had to enter the bicycle storage area from a designated bicycle lane. However, following legitimate criticism of this impractical provision, the legislation was updated to remove this requirement. 

do they improve road safety?

Being a relatively new initiative, it largely remains to be seen what quantitative impact bicycle boxes will have on road safety in Queensland.

In November 2013, a Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into cycling issues heard evidence that suggested poor infrastructure provisions for cyclists at intersections created increased risks and safety concerns. Submissions were made that bicycle boxes reduced the potential for conflicts with vehicle turning movements on the green signal.

The Committee ultimately recommended that the Department of Transport and Main Roads (“DTMR”) conduct further trials of the use of bicycle boxes at a greater number of intersections across Queensland. Following this, DTMR would need to assess if bicycle boxes provided adequate safety improvements across Queensland’s cycle network. The Committee emphasised that the trial should include injury hot spot intersections along principal and high-frequency routes.

It is expected that the increased use of bicycle boxes at intersections in Queensland will improve road safety. This would be consistent with trends in other jurisdictions. Whilst we await the outcome of the formal trials, there appear to be cogent and reasonable reasons for them to have a wider implementation across Queensland.

Author

Emily Billiau | Principal

Phone | (07) 3014 6590
Email | [email protected]

Emily is a Principal at McInnes Wilson Lawyers in the Personal Services and Injury team, further managing the CycleLaw division. With a keen interest in cycling-related issues and claims, she has extensive experience in insurance litigation & dispute resolution for cyclists, and is a passionate advocate for cycling clients - whether they be leisure or social riders, professional cyclists or commuters.

Breaking down the smokescreen of uncertainty through a unique step-by-step approach. 

CONTACT US

t      (07) 3231 0413

e     [email protected]

a     345 Queen St, Brisbane City


Cycle Law © 2020 Privacy & Disclaimer

Who is At Fault – Strictly Speaking?

The number of people choosing to ride instead of drive is ever-increasing. Given the volume of cyclists and motorists sharing the roads, the number of incidents between cyclist and motorist are relatively few. But the potential for a motorist to harm a cyclist through carelessness or disregard is of concern to some cyclists.

There are some who support a strict liability system who argue strict liability laws make drivers more cautious around cyclists which in turn leads to safer cycling. To be able to determine whether there is merit in such an approach, it’s important to understand what’s actually involved in strict liability laws.

What is Strict Liability?

Strict liability laws are commonly misunderstood. In a technical legal sense, strict liability means automatic responsibility without having to prove fault. A rule making motorists strictly liable when they are in an accident involving a cyclist would mean the motorist was always liable. Under this regime, a cyclist could deliberately collide with a car and then claim compensation from the driver without any questions asked. Most cyclists can see the injustice in this.

That said, that sort of law is not normally what most cyclists actually mean when they advocate for strict liability laws. What they are actually calling for is a rule where a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unless the motorist can show the cyclist was at fault. What is actually being suggested is a presumption of fault as opposed to strict liability in its technical form. A presumption of fault would mean a shift in the burden of proof.

Currently, in Queensland, a cyclist injured in an accident has the burden of proving the driver was at fault. A shift in the burden of proof would mean there would be an assumption the motorist was at fault. It would then be up to the driver to establish they were not at fault and that the cyclist was responsible.

What is the law in QLD? 

Queensland operates a common law or 'fault'-based system. To recover compensation (whether that is for damaged property, injuries or otherwise), you need to prove the motorist was negligent. The burden is on the cyclist (the person seeking redress) to prove their case.

Proponents of the strict liability law say that it places an unfair burden on the cyclist, who is the more vulnerable of the two parties on the road.

The practical reality of the common law system in Queensland, though, is that it is not difficult to establish fault where the motorist has been negligent. Even though the technical legal burden to prove fault rests with the person bringing a claim, the courts recognise the fact cyclists are more vulnerable and that motorists are the ones capable of causing much greater harm. So while there is no strict liability in place, the law does still recognise this imbalance - in much the same way as it does with the last motorist in a rear-end collision (irrespective of that not being a strict law).

The outcome of the matter is then determined by the extent to which each party is to blame. The court will make a finding about that. If the motorist is wholly at fault, then the cyclist recovers their full losses.

If both parties were to blame, then the law ascertains the proportion each contributed to the accident. So if the motorist and cyclist were equally responsible, the cyclist would recover 50% of their loss.

All motorists (even unregistered ones) who injure others are covered by insurance under the Compulsory Third Party (CTP) scheme, which forms part of our registration fees. The benefit of the current system is that it only compensates people for harm caused by others. There is no recovery to the extent we are at fault ourselves. That limits the number and size of claims and enables the ongoing viability of the system.

Do the laws apply to both Civil and Criminal cases?

The debate about strict liability laws is usually more centred around the civil aspect rather than criminal offences of motorists.

It would be difficult to see the law being altered to make it an automatic criminal offence if a motorist was involved in an incident with a cyclist (irrespective of whether the driver had done anything wrong or not). There are some more minor regulatory offences or even statutory workplace offences where such a position is adopted, but there is much to be said, most would argue, for one of the cornerstones of our criminal system being maintained: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

In the civil arena, strict liability laws are really more about insurance. Ultimately it is the insurer of the motorist who pays any compensation for their wrongdoing.

It is said by some that strict liability laws would simplify the insurance claim process because of the presumed fault of the driver of the motor vehicle. But strict liability laws, in most countries where they exist, still allow the insurer of the motorist to argue the liability or fault of the cyclist. In other words, the dispute between the fault of the cyclist and the motorist still exists (it’s just that the cyclist enjoys a slight advantage by initially having a presumption of innocence until fault is established).

Are there Strict Liability laws elsewhere?

Some countries (many of them European) do operate under a strict liability system. They are usually a variation of the ”shifted burden of proof” model. They don’t avoid the issues about fault because most (including the Netherlands) still afford the motorist the right to argue the cyclist is at fault.

There are examples in Australia of a strict liability system. If a cyclist is injured by a motorist in Victoria, then no fault is required. It sounds inviting, but the trade-off is that you are less able to recover your actual loss. Only particular categories of injuries (measured under an artificial rating system) qualify for compensation. And there are restrictions on the amount recoverable too.

What is the best system?

Although the Queensland system may be imperfect at times, many would argue it strikes the best balance between ensuring the right outcome is achieved (through having to accept personal responsibility) and giving the right to recover the true extent of your loss.

Others would argue strict liability laws would make cycling safer because motorists would have an increased burden of proof in the event of an accident. But the reality of there being insurance in place means that such laws are unlikely to have the desired effect. There are many other avenues better placed to achieve greater cycling safety.

Author

Emily Billiau | Principal

Phone | (07) 3014 6590
Email | [email protected]

Emily is a Principal at McInnes Wilson Lawyers in the Personal Services and Injury team, further managing the CycleLaw division. With a keen interest in cycling-related issues and claims, she has extensive experience in insurance litigation & dispute resolution for cyclists, and is a passionate advocate for cycling clients - whether they be leisure or social riders, professional cyclists or commuters.

Breaking down the smokescreen of uncertainty through a unique step-by-step approach. 

CONTACT US

t      (07) 3231 0413

e     [email protected]

a     345 Queen St, Brisbane City


Cycle Law © 2020 Privacy & Disclaimer

Cyclists and the Gig Economy

Australia has embraced ‘gig economy’ since its arrival to Australian shores in 2015 in the form of two food delivery platforms: Deliveroo and UberEATS. The convenience of being able to order food from your smart phone, in the comfort of your own home and have it delivered to your door (preferably on an environmentally friendly bicycle, of course) has sparked a worldwide phenomenon. From a consumer perspective, the benefits are undeniable. From a worker’s perspective, gig economy work provides the flexibility and autonomy commonly absent in traditional and more rigid workplace structures.

However, this hype has been met with increasing debate surrounding the classification of gig workers. Importantly, why are workers treated as “employees” without receiving the benefits of being an employee?

Prior to a recent Fair Work Care commission decision, gig economy workers were classified as independent contractors, lacking many of the rights and protections enjoyed by employees. For example, they are not covered by worker’s compensation in the event of an injury. This was particularly concerning given the increasing number of injuries and deaths reported when riders were carrying out their delivery services. Between September to November 2020 alone, five food-delivery riders were tragically killed “on the job”.

Busy roads and poor infrastructure, compounded by the time pressure to ensure meals are delivered promptly, make delivery riders particularly vulnerable. Unfortunately, compensation schemes have failed to respond to the rapid growth of these online schemes adequately.

THE CTP SCHEME

In Queensland, the compulsory third party (CTP) scheme provides compensation for personal injury or death arising out of a motor vehicle accident. This scheme is governed by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA) and is established on an ‘at-fault system’. This means that compensation is only paid to injured road users if they can establish that the injury was caused by the negligence of an operator of a motor vehicle. In other words, someone was “at fault”. So while some injuries suffered by food delivery riders in the gig economy will involve motor accidents, this is not always the case. This leaves many delivery riders exposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

In Queensland, injuries that arise in the course of the worker’s employment are governed by the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). This legislation established a workers’ compensation scheme with stated objectives to:

  1. Provide benefits for workers who sustain an injury in their employment; and 
  2. Encourage improved health and safety performance by employers.

When determining a person’s entitlement under this scheme, they must be considered a “worker”, which is defined as “a person who works under a contract and is an employee for the purpose of assessment for PAYG withholding.”

This begs the overarching question: Are food-delivery riders Independent Contractors or Employees?

In Australia, the law has been somewhat unclear. Until recently, Fair Work Commission decisions ruled delivery riders need not be treated as employees. However, the most recent Fair Work Commission ruling published in May of this year instead ruled that a Deliveroo rider was an employee of the company, rather than an independent contractor.

This decision centered on the unfair dismissal of Diego Franco from Deliveroo, following termination of his account in April 2020. Deliveroo’s primary reason for termination was he had delivered food orders too slowly. The key issue for determination was whether Mr Franco was considered an employee or independent contractor.

Commissioner Ian Cambridge’s ruled in Franco’s, concluding that the relationship between Mr Franco and Deliveroo is that of employee and employer [138]. Mr Franco was, despite aspects of his relationship with Deliveroo, including elements usually associated with that of an independent contractor, engaged in work as a delivery rider for Deliveroo as an employee of Deliveroo. [139].

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FOOD DELIVERY RIDERS?

The decision strengthens a delivery riders entitlement to workers’ compensation under the legislative scheme in the event of injury during delivery. Whilst much is still to be done legislatively to tighten regulation and accountability in the industry to reduce a delivery rider’s exposure to the risk of injury, this recent decision still signifies a giant leap forward.

Authors

Emily Billiau | Principal

Phone | (07) 3014 6590
Email | [email protected]

Emily is a Principal at McInnes Wilson Lawyers in the Personal Services and Injury team, further managing the CycleLaw division. With a keen interest in cycling-related issues and claims, she has extensive experience in insurance litigation & dispute resolution for cyclists, and is a passionate advocate for cycling clients - whether they be leisure or social riders, professional cyclists or commuters.

Storme Louw | Solicitor

Phone | (07) 3231 0656
Email | [email protected]

Storme is a Solicitor at McInnes Wilson Lawyers’ in the Personal Services and Injury team. With a strong interest in road safety, particularly cycling-related matters, Storme stands behind cyclists and their rights.

Breaking down the smokescreen of uncertainty through a unique step-by-step approach. 

CONTACT US

t      (07) 3231 0413

e     [email protected]

a     345 Queen St, Brisbane City


Cycle Law © 2020 Privacy & Disclaimer