Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

[Nate]

Well we're at the next stage...

He failed to respond to the letter of demand in any way shape or form!
I rang him today & he "didnt see it as an official document"... lolz...

So he'll be served when i get back from holidays & we'll do the court thing!

[blastork]

(Haven't read anything except your first post)
(edit: oh im glad the people's tribunal resolved it in your friends favour. certainly more sensible to give the pedestrian 100% blame. as for the NSW road rule in favour of the pedestrian - thats one i haven't read so i cant really say to much about it :/. i might read your attempts to recover judgment later )

i would have thought your rider is completely in the wrong.

Correct my misperceptions, but a bicycle is treated largely like a car. All cars have to give way to pedestrians. So had your bicyle been a car approaching that intersection at 15-20kmh and seeking to pass the bus, the driver of the car would have been just as liable. In fact, it is arguable that a cyclist with greater maneuvaribility and field of view should have been even more careful (and hence mor eliable than a car).

So from the prspective of a possible criminal offence, the rider of the bicycle is in breach of the law which requires him to give way to the pedestrian. The decision to prosecute/fine is up to the police.

Now for any civil liability: In the event of civil litigation between the cyclist and the pedestrian, tort law allows the cyclist to reduce his liability for the contributory negligence of the pedestrian. I believe the reduction would be substantial. However, I believe the cyclist would carry a larger blame compared to a car driver at that juncture.

[jasimon]

Blastork, you seem to have misunderstood the law. Which road rule says that cars must always give way to pedestrians in general traffic unrelated to a pedestrian crossing? You have ignored the following rules:

231 Crossing a road at pedestrian lights

(1) A pedestrian approaching or at an intersection, or another place on a road, with pedestrian lights and traffic lights must comply with this rule.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

Note. Intersection, pedestrian lights and traffic lights are defined in the Dictionary.
(2) If the pedestrian lights show a red pedestrian light and the pedestrian has not already started crossing the intersection or road, the pedestrian must not start to cross until the pedestrian lights change to green.

234 Crossing a road on or near a crossing for pedestrians

(1) A pedestrian must not cross a road, or part of a road, within 20 metres of a crossing on the road, except at the crossing or another crossing, unless the pedestrian is:
(a) crossing, or helping another pedestrian to cross, an area of the road between tram tracks and the far left side of the road to get on, or after getting off, a tram or public bus, or
(b) crossing to or from a safety zone, or
(c) crossing at an intersection with traffic lights and a pedestrians may cross diagonally sign, or
(d) crossing in a shared zone, or
(e) crossing a road, or a part of a road, from which vehicles are excluded, either permanently or temporarily.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction

(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.


(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

[m@]

(Haven't read anything except your first post)
(edit: oh im glad the people's tribunal resolved it in your friends favour. certainly more sensible to give the pedestrian 100% blame. as for the NSW road rule in favour of the pedestrian - thats one i haven't read so i cant really say to much about it :/. i might read your attempts to recover judgment later )

i would have thought your rider is completely in the wrong.

Correct my misperceptions, but a bicycle is treated largely like a car. All cars have to give way to pedestrians. So had your bicyle been a car approaching that intersection at 15-20kmh and seeking to pass the bus, the driver of the car would have been just as liable. In fact, it is arguable that a cyclist with greater maneuvaribility and field of view should have been even more careful (and hence mor eliable than a car).

So from the prspective of a possible criminal offence, the rider of the bicycle is in breach of the law which requires him to give way to the pedestrian. The decision to prosecute/fine is up to the police.

Now for any civil liability: In the event of civil litigation between the cyclist and the pedestrian, tort law allows the cyclist to reduce his liability for the contributory negligence of the pedestrian. I believe the reduction would be substantial. However, I believe the cyclist would carry a larger blame compared to a car driver at that juncture.

If you expect others to read and respond to your posts it is really only polite to offer them the same courtesy.

[blastork]

ah im not dispensing legal advice. this is a casual forum, if you do not like the contributions made, there is no need to be critical. people can read what they like and as much as they like. as for the length of the thread, its 4 pages long and i dont have the time to read everything before giving a considered response. and no i dont expect everyone to read everything i write, as i certainly dont complain if they dont.

[jasimon]

ah im not dispensing legal advice. this is a casual forum, if you do not like the contributions made, there is no need to be critical. people can read what they like and as much as they like. if you have any complaints go message a mod.

Neither here nor there to me. You stated that there is a law that says a car must give way to a pedestrian - apparently in all circumstances. I would welcome you directing me to that law so I can read it for myself.

[blastork]

if u read my original post i made it clear that that point of law is not one i was able to offer an authoritative comment on.

you guys are really intolerably serious. lighten up. the world isn't a steel trap.

[jasimon]

if u read my original post i made it clear that that point of law is not one i was able to offer an authoritative comment on.

you guys are really intolerably serious. lighten up. the world isn't a steel trap.

Then what is the point? Because that seemed to be the basis of your comment.

[Aushiker]

if u read my original post i made it clear that that point of law is not one i was able to offer an authoritative comment on.

Hi

For someone who is not able to offer an authoritative comment on the law, you seem to be definite on what the law says:

Correct my misperceptions [sic], but a bicycle is treated largely like a car. All cars have to give way to pedestrians. So had your bicyle been a car approaching that intersection at 15-20kmh and seeking to pass the bus, the driver of the car would have been just as liable. In fact, it is arguable that a cyclist with greater maneuvaribility [sic] and field of view should have been even more careful (and hence mor eliable than a car).

So from the prspective [sic] of a possible criminal offence, the rider of the bicycle is in breach of the law which requires him to give way to the pedestrian. The decision to prosecute/fine is up to the police.

Now for any civil liability: In the event of civil litigation between the cyclist and the pedestrian, tort law allows the cyclist to reduce his liability for the contributory negligence of the pedestrian. I believe the reduction would be substantial. However, I believe the cyclist would carry a larger blame compared to a car driver at that juncture.

As to the lighten up comment ... I suspect that people are getting a bit over your "trolling" and reacting accordingly. Why not try actually contributing positively? You might find the responses quite rewarding; you just never now.

Regards
Andrew

[Biffidus]

i dont have the time to read everything before giving a considered response

Heh, it's not really a considered response then, is it?

[Nate]

Blastork - as much as everyone hammered you for your post - the police said basically the same thing!
I'm not having a go, but it seems you both need to understand the laws that apply to cyclists etc

I've been reading a tonne of case-law, there is 1 contentious issue - but it'll be an easy one for me to nail on the head & shouldnt give me too many issues.
The biggest winner for me is the fact he's lied profusely in his statements to the police & its pretty easy to prove it.


I rang & spoke with the pedestrian yesterday...
"did you receive my letter of demand?"
"yes"
"and you didnt respond to it at all?"
"no... i umm didnt see it as an official letter"
LOL

So i'll be pretty quiet over the next few weeks (on holidays) & will be preparing my case.
Love to see the look on his face when he sees the photos i'll take to court - showing there's a camera mounted on the bike & a few shots taken from it

[trailgumby]

Can't wait to see this arrogant piece of work get his come-uppance. Keep us posted.

[Mulger bill]

Can't wait to see this arrogant piece of work get his come-uppance. Keep us posted.

+lots. Can you take that camera into court as well?, love to see the reaction to the pics

Take no prisoners Nate.

Shaun

[il padrone]

you guys are really intolerably serious. lighten up. the world isn't a steel trap.

No, but your view of the law seems to be

Correct my misperceptions, but a bicycle is treated largely like a car. All cars have to give way to pedestrians.

Rule 236 says pedestrians do have some obligations to give way to other vehicles.

[TheSkyMovesSideways]

Been any progress on this one, Nate?

[Nate]

Been any progress on this one, Nate?

Finished going through all the case law, gotten all the forms to serve the guy...
waiting on the letter from the physio about the injury & recovery etc
Should serve him in the next week or so!

[Nate]

well i was working 3 jobs on the last post...

today = SERVED!
So up to a 28day wait & we'll see how we go.

Also went through a heap more case law & found more gaping holes in his dodgy statements.

Game on.

[TheSkyMovesSideways]

You're a champion. Hope it works out!

[Boognoss]

You're a champion. Hope it works out!

+1

[hannos]

Stick it to him Nate!

[jules21]

let justice prevail in an even handed and reasonable manner!

[leighthebee]

Good Luck!

[Nate]

19 days have gone (assuming its calendar days & not business days)... only 9 days of waiting left.
Hilarious if he does not respond & it goes to default judgment!

[Zac150]

Nate, I fully support what you are doing, I have followed this thread from day 1 and agree with your position, I would do the same.

If I am correct Default Judgement will sit on his credit file as a court action (similar to default) basically this will make it very difficult to obtain finance / loans going forward until it is removed. Even if paid it will remain as a listing - part of the court process.

He is clearly not getting good advice if any, in todays credit environment defaults and court actions are taboo and in many industries they can mean your job. I am not sure of the legality of spelling out his position to him I know it is not really your role but maybe a note explaining that this won't go away and ignoring it will create a much greater issue.

[othy]

He is clearly not getting good advice if any, in todays credit environment defaults and court actions are taboo and in many industries they can mean your job. I am not sure of the legality of spelling out his position to him I know it is not really your role but maybe a note explaining that this won't go away and ignoring it will create a much greater issue.

He's had plenty of opportunity to sort this out. It would not be wise for Nate to make any contact outside of what he is currently performing. Let the court sort it out.

Good Luck Nate. Perhaps he is still hoping that you're going to give up at some point?