I certainly have not bee suggesting worksafe as a means of prosecution or redress. Alerting an organisation to the breech of their OH&S obligations has resulted in actions to help prevent future occurances.fat and old wrote:But it seems to me that very often the recommendation from more than a few here is to attempt to use Worksafe as a defacto prosecutor.....
....
Given that, why do people still refer to Worksafe as a possible means of redress? Is there anybody here who has done this succesfully?
Great Scott wrote:I'll explain in layman terms.
Yet our police continue to fail to act on clear evidence. Our courts have decided that thinking that you have left enough room is sufficient. Never mind that you didn't leave enough room and ran over the cyclist.Great Scott wrote:Australian Road legislation is prescriptive. We are told exactly how fast to go, when to stop, who to give way too, indicate when changing lanes ....etc.
Breaching any of these means were in the wrong. Drive 63kph in a 60kph zone. Its black and white, fault is easily determined if the evidence is on hand. Fault can be directed to the person behind the wheel.
It is quite clear that the prescriptive Australian Road legislation is FAILING cyclists.
'Great Scott wrote:The most dangerous activity you'll do all day is drive to work, not the workplace itself.
Which suggests that WHS/OHS legislation has been quite effective keeping things safe. Whereas road legislation has not been.
Huh? Weak. Your examples seem to indicate stronger obligations. There are plenty of examples in law where being non prescriptive about the exact actions required to meet the obligations is FAR stronger than being prescriptive.Great Scott wrote:So yes, WHS/OHS legislation is weak for that reason compared to Road legislation.
(Don't get me wrong. I believe these issues should be a police matter. But suggesting the OH&S obligations are weaker clearly is living in the 1910s and not the 2010s.)