A tip truck driver who hit and killed a woman cycling to work did not see the Brisbane nurse due to a large blind spot, a Coronial investigation has revealed.
The death of avid cyclist, Carolyn Lister, in 2020 has been labelled “tragic and unnecessary” by cycling advocates.
Coroner Anne Thacker’s report into Ms Lister’s death was finalised this week and detailed the registered nurse’s final moments.
On June 30 Ms Lister left for work at 7:17am on her new bicycle after she ate breakfast and read the paper.
Just 20 minutes later she would be dead, after CCTV captured her at a red light appearing to indicate to a tip truck driver she would be riding straight in front of him in the right hand lane of O’Connell Tce, Bowen Hills.
The lights turned green and Ms Lister cycled straight ahead, the truck driver moved forward and began to turn right onto Bowen Bridge Rd, when the vehicle struck the back of her bike.
She was killed instantly after being run over by the passenger side wheels.
The 50-year-old was a keen cyclist – with 10 years experience – and would normally ride along a bikeway to the hospital, crossing at a traffic light and using a footpath to reach the hospital’s cycle centre parking.
However, the week before her death, construction to remove combustible blocked the footpath north of the cycle centre forcing her to take the alternate route.
The report found the truck driver, contracted to construction materials company Boral, was speaking on the phone, legally using hands-free Bluetooth and did not see Ms Lister.
The vehicle was not equipped with, and did not legally require, blind spot mirrors, cameras or sensors, despite recommendations made in a coronial inquest into the death of Danish student Rebekka Meyer, who was hit by a truck while riding on Annerley Road in South Brisbane in 2014.
Ms Meyer’s death inquest called for “conventional shaped heavy vehicles [to be] prohibited unless they are fitted with appropriate technologies to warn the driver of any obstacles or other road users within the forward blind spot of the truck”.
Ms Thacker’s inquest said this recommendation was not implemented as the cost of retrofitting and disparity in state legislation with vehicles frequently crossing state borders.
Bicycle Queensland CEO Lisa Davies-Jones said they had been “very disturbed” to read the coronial report.
“She died because there is no appropriate cycling corridor around the Royal Brisbane Hospital, a major workplace. The truck which hit her did not have safety features which have since been made mandatory for new trucks in Australia,” she said.
Advocates Space 4 Cycling wrote that if the truck had additional safety features Ms Lister would have likely made it work and back home safely.
“We had hoped a full Coronial Inquest might provide a more comprehensive analysis of the system that failed Carolyn and the truck driver that morning,” the advocacy group wrote.
The cycling advocacy group said the report left many unanswered questions including why the route the truck driver took was approved, what consideration was given to how cyclists might access the RBWH Cycle Centre safely while the footpath was closed and if the road design is suitable.
“We hoped the community could be reassured that adoption of better practices would make cycling safer for them and their loved ones,” they wrote.
“Instead, the only real response to the tragedy so far has been some “educational” and “awareness” campaigns directed at cyclists to help us understand that trucks with dangerous blind-spots are our problem to deal with.”
A spokesman for Boral welcomed the coroner‘s report and noted that they have acted to ensure that their fleet has appropriate blind-spot mirrors or cameras installed.
“And to restrict the route that our fleet and contractors travel through in Bowen Hills so as to avoid the intersection in question,” he said.
“The contractor truck involved in the accident was compliant with Boral’s fleet standards at the time. We have now defined as part of our minimum national fleet specifications that blind spot mirrors are a requirement across all company and contractor fleet.”
Repeating the comments from Space4Cycling Bne:
We wrote to the Coroner back in 2020 asking that an inquest address these questions:
i. Given construction happening in the area, combined with closure of various paths and bikeways, and type of truck involved known to have large blind spots, who approved the truck route, which was busy with pedestrians and cyclists?
ii. What consideration was given to how cyclists might access the RBWH Cycle Centre safely with all this happening (including closure of the footpath on Bowen Bridge Road which Carolyn would usually have taken), and how was this communicated?
iii. Given large volume of pedestrians and cyclists accessing RBWH and the Cycle Centre, is the road design of the intersection where Carolyn was killed suitable and safe for the number of people who use it?
iv. Trucks continued to travel through the intersection immediately following the accident and in the days following. Why wasn’t the operation at the worksite where the trucks originated and similar worksites shut down pending an assessment of the vehicles and the route?
v. What co-ordination was in place between the various work sites in the area to ensure safe movement?
None of these questions were addressed by the report. And so almost none of the systemic failures that lead to this unnecessary death will be addressed.
Ordinary truck routes dont need approval.
These questions wouldnt have been answered as they are not reasonable questions to the investigation.
Its like saying we asked what phase the moon was in as viewd from saturn. It really wasnt important to the investigation
Sorry, but you don’t think “why are trucks keeping driving through a key pedestrian and cyclist intersection even after one of them killed someone?” is a relevant question to ask?
What are cyclists still riding here after it is well established it’s deadly to do so?
Either question ends with the same outcome. Like it or not.
Mmm, love me some victim blaming.
Why are you wearing such a short skirt?
That question is proposing banning legal traffic from a normal street but dishonestly challenging others to justify not doing it, instead of making an argument in favour of their own proposal. You see that a lot from religious people who challenge you to prove their particular flavour of nonsense isn’t true.
Let me turn it back on you: should we ban bicycles from roads? Someone died from it! Why are bicycles still allowed on roads?!
“Should traffic be allowed on roads” is an incredibly broad, vague question that a coroner isn’t going to decide to take up when investigating the specifics of one particular incident.
Let me turn it back on you: should we ban bicycles from roads? Someone died from it! Why are bicycles still allowed on roads?!
Because you don’t fix a problem by telling the victims to stop being victims. You fix the perpetrator.
“Should traffic be allowed on roads” is an incredibly broad, vague question
Of course it is. But you know that, which is why you’re presenting a straw man argument like that rather than being intellectually honest.
We tell the victims to stop being victims all the time. That’s why you get fined for crossing the road near a crossing, or speeding when there are no other cars on the road. It’s not about who has the moral high ground, it’s about saving lives.
Intellectual dishonesty is actually what I’m accusing the bike group of. Instead of making the point that the road isn’t safe for trucks and backing that up with reasoning and evidence, they’re acting like it should be obvious that this government designed road is unsafe for government approved vehicles and trying to require others to prove that it is safe, because it’s easier to make someone else do all the work while you sit back and nitpick.
Trucks have a long history of running over cyclists and pedestrians. They are known to have poor visibility, when turning especially. Often the police find the truck driver did nothing wrong, but they didn’t see the person. This points to a systemic problem rather than a behavioural problem of truck drivers.
deleted by creator
Until Australia considers cycling as a legitimate mode of transport, you’ll never see any changes. The average person just sees a person on a bike as a casual cyclist at best and a Lycra wearing wanker at worst; not as a person legitimately using the road to get somewhere.
We’ve actually spent tax dollars sending council members over to Holland to check out the safe bicycle infrastructure there to bring the knowledge back here. Wonder what came out of that trip…
Obviously weren’t paying much attention and took it as a free holiday. Much like the attention they pay on the roads in their big SUVs.
We’ve actually spent tax dollars sending council members over to Holland to check out the safe bicycle infrastructure
Forget Holland, the most amazing bicycle infrastructure I’ve seen are in Chinese cities. Because bicycles were a dominant form of transport for most of the 20th century their cities were built to cater for this demand and had to have it work.
roadside bike lanes are horrifying to cycle on, they are literally death traps. I don’t understand why we think they’re okay, or why we allocate so much more space to roadside parking
Exactly! Paint is not infrastructure.
paint can sometimes be useful infrastructure though, like in bus lanes
Yep, I am very thankful it is legal to ride on the footpath here in SA. I would never commute via bike otherwise.
Removed by mod
