Thanks Thanks:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Armidale NSW
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by corbs View Post
    The heaviest vehicle in the accident is to be assumed at fault until proven otherwise.
    I still think that that is a ridiculous notion. The person who caused the accident should be the one at fault and that needs to be proved.

    You could have some pedestrian/cyclist/car driver who steps/rides/drives out in front of a truck (which has no chance of stopping) and that is somehow the truck drivers fault (as an example).

    In most road incidents it is quite obvious who was at fault ... why have such ridiculous "laws"? Yet people expect the law to be fair and just.
    Cheers.

    Vernon.
    __________________________________________________
    Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like crazy.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vernonv View Post
    I still think that that is a ridiculous notion. The person who caused the accident should be the one at fault and that needs to be proved.

    You could have some pedestrian/cyclist/car driver who steps/rides/drives out in front of a truck (which has no chance of stopping) and that is somehow the truck drivers fault (as an example).

    In most road incidents it is quite obvious who was at fault ... why have such ridiculous "laws"? Yet people expect the law to be fair and just.
    I assume that the intention is to put the heavier weight of responsibility on the person in charge of the vehicle that is going to cause the most damage. Creates a greater sense of responsibility perhaps. There is a lot of debate about whether it actually works, but statistically the Netherlands (where this is in force) is safer for cyclists than Australia.
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

  4. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Armidale NSW
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    I assume that the intention is to put the heavier weight of responsibility on the person in charge of the vehicle that is going to cause the most damage. Creates a greater sense of responsibility perhaps.
    ... and conversely creates less of a sense of responsibility for others. Every road user has to follow the same road rules and should be equally responsible for their safety and safety of other road users.

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    There is a lot of debate about whether it actually works, but statistically the Netherlands (where this is in force) is safer for cyclists than Australia.
    Not sure you are comparing apples with apples there ... and you are assuming (inferring?) that "strict liability" is what has caused the difference in cyclist safety.
    Cheers.

    Vernon.
    __________________________________________________
    Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like crazy.

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    I'm just telling you what it is. I don't know whether or not it works.
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Armidale NSW
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Yes true, but you were also trying to link the better cyclist safety in the Netherlands with the concept of "strict liability".
    Cheers.

    Vernon.
    __________________________________________________
    Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like crazy.

  7. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    Out of curiosity, do you believe that the size of the vehicle has no bearing on the amount of responsibility involved in driving it? So riding a push bike is every bit as serious as driving a B Double? I mean strictly thinking about the amount of damage you can cause if you make a mistake.

    Take the 4WD that ploughed through the front of the chemist in Kogarah yesterday and killed that girl. If that had been a push bike that lost control the chances of severe injury or death would be very limited. She nearly took out 3 (driving unlicensed I might add). So the consequences of her failure to keep the car on the road were much more serious.

    I think that is the point of strict liability.

    As for strict liability in the Netherlands, I'm not linking anything to anything. If you were familiar with these debates, you would already have heard the argument and the strict liability law is one of the reasons given. The others being better infrastructure and better motorist attitudes. As I said, I don't know. It is just a statistic and we know how good they can be.
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

  8. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Armidale NSW
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that the size of the vehicle has no bearing on the amount of responsibility involved in driving it?
    No, as I said I believe that every road user has equal responsibility for their safety and the safety of others on the road. If you don't want the responsibility, then you shouldn't be on the road.

    A cyclist running a red light and getting hit by a truck is just as dead, as the cyclist who gets hit by a truck that ran a red light, but the truck driver is only responsible for one of the deaths. How does making the truck driver "more responsible" prevent the death of the first cyclist.

    Telling someone they are "more responsible" does not necessarily make them any more responsible. Conversely those that are now "less responsible" and are so inclined, may just abdicate their responsibility to their own detriment.

    There will always be road users (regardless of their method of transport) who have a chip on their shoulder and believe they have more rights (and less responsibility?) than others on the road and no law will ever fix that.
    Cheers.

    Vernon.
    __________________________________________________
    Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like crazy.

  9. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    I think we are using the term 'responsible' in different ways. You are talking about blame. I am talking about the duty of care involved in being in charge of a large, heavy vehicle. Most people take driving for granted and never really think about the responsibility they have for the people in it and around them. That is until something goes wrong. You can't say that driving a car is not a major responsibility. And the responsibility involved in driving a B Double is greater. As it is for a bus full of people or a Boeing 777. There is definitely a scale of responsibility for care and it is directly related to the potential amount of damage that you can cause.

    My understanding is that strict liability addresses that by reflecting the greater responsibility required of the person in control of the larger vehicle. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are culpable. You can be found not at fault and still have to pay half the damages (in the Netherlands 3rd party motor vehicle insurance is compulsory).
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

  10. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Armidale NSW
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    I think we are using the term 'responsible' in different ways.
    Yes I am probably mixing terms somewhat, but am really referring to the mindset of road users, all road users. I don't really want to share the road with either a cyclist or a truck driver who does not feel responsible for their actions and behavior on the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    You can be found not at fault and still have to pay half the damages.
    That is the notion I object to. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Why should an "innocent" party have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.
    Cheers.

    Vernon.
    __________________________________________________
    Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like crazy.

  11. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vernonv View Post
    I don't really want to share the road with either a cyclist or a truck driver who does not feel responsible for their actions and behavior on the road.
    Agreed. It's just that the cyclist is less likely to kill you. But yes they can cause accidents and can't just ride around thinking everyone else should be looking out for them. This is why a cycling forum I'm a member of has a thread titled "Dumb cyclists and pedestrians" which is currently 291 pages long. They give all of us a bad name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vernonv View Post
    That is the notion I object to. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Why should an "innocent" party have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.
    I tend to agree that if you could prove it was entirely the cyclist's fault, they should pay for all the damage. But that's the law over there anyway. I really only raised it as a comparison to what happens here where you can just say "sorry didn't see him" and get away with it.
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

  12. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,820

    Default

    A Google on said perv shows a court system replete with cases involving him. He is a very nasty chap. Seriously in need of jailing.

    But, Mr Drink Drive needs fierce punishment. The courts have just confirmed that it is perfectly OK to get busted drink driving multiple times, drive without a licence and kill cyclists with impunity. There is not punishment. Zero. Zip. Its all A-OK with the courts.

    Run em down. I'd imagine he might celebrate by driving to the pub and killing a few more on the way there. After all, it's just dandy.

  13. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Mornington Peninsula
    Age
    48
    Posts
    2,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vernonv View Post
    ...
    A cyclist running a red light and getting hit by a truck is just as dead, as the cyclist who gets hit by a truck that ran a red light, but the truck driver is only responsible for one of the deaths. How does making the truck driver "more responsible" prevent the death of the first cyclist.....
    I think you're missing the point of strict liability... the heavier vehicle is assumed to be at fault unless proven otherwise. The bike rider who ran the red light is at fault and responsible. The truck driver who ran the red light is responsible. In one scenario the driver should go to jail and in the other not.

    Statistically, 80% of accidents involving vehicles and bikes are the fault of the vehicle operator. Might isn't always right.
    It's only a mistake if you don't learn from it.

  14. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    ACT
    Age
    84
    Posts
    2,578

    Default


    So what happens to the "innocent until proven guilty" sacred cow?
    Any one else only gets a number when they get photographed on the way into goal, but a motorist has to wear one on his/her vehicle at all times any way.
    Hugh

    Enough is enough, more than enough is too much.

  15. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Armidale NSW
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Duke View Post

    So what happens to the "innocent until proven guilty" sacred cow?
    Maybe it only applies to cyclists?



    Guilt should be proven, not assumed.
    Cheers.

    Vernon.
    __________________________________________________
    Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like crazy.

  16. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    OK first of all, it only applies to liability. It has nothing to do with culpability. The starting point is that the driver of the larger vehicle (or their insurance company in actual fact, since insurance is compulsory) is responsible for all damages. They may or may not also be charged with something like negligent driving or receive a spot fine.

    If it is determined that the cyclist has part or all of the culpability for the collision, they pay up to 50% of the damages (cyclist insurance is not compulsory). This means that if a bike is written off, the motorists's insurance company may have to fork out from a few hundred to a few thousand to replace the bike and cover all of the costs of damage to the car.
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Failing Vision
    By beer4all in forum WELDING
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 15th October 2013, 01:26 AM
  2. A question regarding failing vision
    By Grandad-5 in forum WELDING
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29th July 2011, 12:57 AM
  3. Failing CA
    By brendan stemp in forum WOODTURNING - GENERAL
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 6th July 2011, 01:56 PM
  4. Delta saw failing
    By Treecycle in forum TABLE SAWS & COMBINATIONS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th October 2009, 10:01 PM
  5. Eye Sight Failing...Getting Old
    By stevew in forum METALWORK FORUM
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th December 2006, 09:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •