Liabilitiy petition to Vic Govt - cyclists and pedestrians

[Thoglette]

Why should I be responsible for someone who makes no effort at all to help himself?

Because you're driving a ton or so of machinery. Full stop. This is the whole BÁNH MÌ THITing point.

Had that been a small child, dog, cow or car door the result would have been the same.

Particularly if I take you at your word: that YOU did not see another road user, despite being close enough to need to pass him and travelling fast enough that you had to take evasive actions.

SMIDSY remains a cop-out for not paying attention; not being aware of the blind spots and/or driving too fast for the conditions.

*note that the legal system would have, as other posters have pointed out, blamed the victim for failing to meet all the regulations. And I'm a big fan of reflectors & bike lights. But you are supposed to have headlights and you supposed to be using them to spot hazards.

[Thoglette]

Motorbike and scooter rider collisions, injuries and deaths in Thailand are woefully high, I have been told by a friend who lives and rides there.

And your point is?

[fat and old]

Why should I be responsible for someone who makes no effort at all to help himself? At least a crappy cheap knog or something, or pedal reflectors or anything.

Maybe because you give a fruit? You DO, don't you?

If I didn't drive with care, he'd be roadkill now. TBH, I'm sick of being harassed by cars etc in the inner city for driving at 30 or less, but !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! em. It's safer.

[queequeg]

The liability is an insurance liability, not a criminal liability. We already have such a thing. For example, if you rear end someone in an accident, you are automatically liable.

Go tell that to the ACT Coroner, who seems intent on holding the IPWR organisers responsible for the death of Mike Hall, rather than the driver who RAN HIM DOWN FROM BEHIND.

As far as I know, the ACT Coroner has not held an inquest into the death of Mike Hall yet and the facts of the case have not been publicly released, so it is premature to discuss what they may or may not do. However, again, presumed liability has nothing to do with criminal proceedings.

[fat and old]

Why should I be responsible for someone who makes no effort at all to help himself?

Because you're driving a ton or so of machinery. Full stop. This is the whole BÁNH MÌ THITing point.

Had that been a small child, dog, cow or car door the result would have been the same.

Particularly if I take you at your word: that YOU did not see another road user, despite being close enough to need to pass him and travelling fast enough that you had to take evasive actions.

SMIDSY remains a cop-out for not paying attention; not being aware of the blind spots and/or driving too fast for the conditions.

*note that the legal system would have, as other posters have pointed out, blamed the victim for failing to meet all the regulations. And I'm a big fan of reflectors & bike lights. But you are supposed to have headlights and you supposed to be using them to spot hazards.

You can take me at my word then that at <10kmh, exiting a tight burban roundabout that had cars parked on the departure side which meant slowing more than normal both helped and hindered him. IF he hadn't have swerved into the road I would have passed him without even realising until I was abreast at best. Oh, and I had both headlights and those stupid semi spot driving lights on, for spread. always use the around those streets early morning. And yes, it would have been the same in those scenarios you made (barring car door, never close enough to worry about them in those streets or whenever I can), hence my driving style. I've hit (and been hit by) roos not far from there.

On the legal system; it's easy enough to pull examples of various Euro examples where riding through a stop light or sign (for instance) is not considered to be enough to lose your rights. You know that Thoglette. At best there may be contributory negligence applied; I've not seen an example where that has exceeded 50% (but am happy to be shown examples otherwise).

To be honest, you raise a good, fair point. Is there a maximum/minimum speed involved when talking of "driving to the conditions"? Should there be?

[Thoglette]

You can take me at my word...

Thought there was some detail missing.

To be honest, you raise a good, fair point. Is there a maximum/minimum speed involved when talking of "driving to the conditions"? Should there be?

There is a real problem in that we can only really be "safe" if we're not moving. Reductio ad absurdum? How do you balance the risk. I certainly don't think there's a legislative solution.

Roos at sunset in the country being a great example of a risk that can't really be fixed by adjusting speeds. How slow do you go when you have 400km still to go to get home? Last time I did the nullabour we'd seen a lot of roos during the day and a lot of fresh road kill. So we parked the car at sunset every day. A motorcyclist travelling with us decided to "go on" one evening. He ended up spending the night lying by the road with a broken leg - fortunately a truck found him in the morning.

There's also some serious issues around road and urban design: In the situation you describe 10kph (jogging pace) is probably fast enough, which is a little insane (as an outcome). e.g. Removing the parked cars might help. However, dropping the speed limit in these congested, contested spaces to 20kph at least gives drivers permission to be cautious - if you'd kept your low speed up for more than 20m Ms/Mr DGAF would have been on the horn for sure.

Plus then there's the question of why our old mate Mr. Bike Ninja needed to be mixing it with (I assume) 50kph or 60kph traffic in the first place.

[human909]

I live right in the thick of what is likely Australia's hotspot of urban cycling. Most cyclists are just regular Jane's and John's. Many without lights.

In the many years I've lived, ridden and driven around here there has only been one time as a motorist I've been left shaking my head at a cyclist's idiocy.

Sure I've lost count of the number of cyclist I've seen riding without lights. I do have some concern for their safety but to be honest the fact that I've seen them shows that they ARE visible.

Sure cyclists should have lights. But motorists should be attentive and be able to see what is in front of them, lights or no lights.

Hold motorists responsible for the stuff they crash into.

[fat and old]

To be honest, you raise a good, fair point. Is there a maximum/minimum speed involved when talking of "driving to the conditions"? Should there be?

There is a real problem in that we can only really be "safe" if we're not moving. Reductio ad absurdum? How do you balance the risk. I certainly don't think there's a legislative solution.

Roos at sunset in the country being a great example of a risk that can't really be fixed by adjusting speeds. How slow do you go when you have 400km still to go to get home? Last time I did the nullabour we'd seen a lot of roos during the day and a lot of fresh road kill. So we parked the car at sunset every day. A motorcyclist travelling with us decided to "go on" one evening. He ended up spending the night lying by the road with a broken leg - fortunately a truck found him in the morning.

There's also some serious issues around road and urban design: In the situation you describe 10kph (jogging pace) is probably fast enough, which is a little insane (as an outcome). e.g. Removing the parked cars might help. However, dropping the speed limit in these congested, contested spaces to 20kph at least gives drivers permission to be cautious - if you'd kept your low speed up for more than 20m Ms/Mr DGAF would have been on the horn for sure.

Plus then there's the question of why our old mate Mr. Bike Ninja needed to be mixing it with (I assume) 50kph or 60kph traffic in the first place.

Speed in that street would average 30-40, although due to succesive roundabouts most will accelerate, slow, accelerate, slow etc. He seemed to be keeping up after I passed him. That particular piece of road is part of Darebin CC’s bicycle route network.

Last time I drove across central Qld (Barkley St to Rocky) I was maybe 50k short of Winton at dusk. I reckon I averaged 50kmh that last bit, being passed by R/T’s every 10 minutes. Sometimes got down to 20k’s.

I’m not sure that I’m in agreement that if liability laws came in that a speed “limit” shouldn’t be considered. Proving it would be very difficult but I’d certainly like to know at what speed I’m considered to be driving beyond the conditions. In fact I’d like to hear from any members here on this. Are people comfortable with having a point at which you say “well gee, the driver wasn’t speeding, maybe the cyclist has a case to answer”? Or do people want an open ended, cyclist is never at fault car is always going to fast system? From what I’ve seen over the years here, there’s maybe two people who can ask that with a straight face. Unless all of the things I’ve seen posted about pedestrians and their behaviour was my imagination.

[Scintilla]

Motorbike and scooter rider collisions, injuries and deaths in Thailand are woefully high, I have been told by a friend who lives and rides there.

And your point is?

Don't take Thai motorcyclist behaviours as any good example of safe riding practises.

[Tequestra]

Motorbike and scooter rider collisions, injuries and deaths in Thailand are woefully high, I have been told by a friend who lives and rides there.

And your point is?

Don't take Thai motorcyclist behaviours as any good example of safe riding practises.

They're actually quite natural-born riders because they start out as toddlers on the handlebars and from then on it is a part of life. It would be nice if those of them who are lucky enough to afford a Big Car could respect these riders' skills a bit more, and not squash them like flies on the roads, but because it is such a common part of the social structure, the acrobatic skills of Thai motorcyclists don't get the local recognition they deserve. Of course, ignorant foreigners just read the statistics and take the easiest option for their lazy brains and blame the victims.

[Scintilla]

And your point is?

Don't take Thai motorcyclist behaviours as any good example of safe riding practises.

Of course, ignorant foreigners just read the statistics and take the easiest option for their lazy brains and blame the victims.

Hmm......

Ad hominem insult is always the VERY BEST form of argument!!

[Tequestra]

Don't take Thai motorcyclist behaviours as any good example of safe riding practises.

Of course, ignorant foreigners just read the statistics and take the easiest option for their lazy brains and blame the victims.

Hmm......

Ad hominem insult is always the VERY BEST form of argument!!

Oh sorry. It just the norm' on Australian social media because it seems that many people just accept whatever the ABC tells them, which is 50% lefty propaganda and 49% rubbish. In the real world, Thais are much more skilled motorcyclists on average than Australians, but that would be unpatriotic to broadcast on free-to-air television. It is not as much of an insult at Thais to me as it was years ago when I first came across such ignorance in allegedly intelligent adults. I just don't take much of whatever Australians say about Thailand seriously now. No worries mate.

[human909]

Is it just me or is everybody else thoroughly confused by the above post?

ABC? Social media? Unpatriotic? Lefty propaganda?

[fat and old]

I'm not confused. Just because the left are so vocal re fox, murdoch and Bolt doesn't mean there isn't feelings on the other side. Each of his claims could be substantiated just as the claims of a left leaning bolt hater could be. It's all cool.

[Scintilla]

Is it just me or is everybody else thoroughly confused by the above post?

ABC? Social media? Unpatriotic? Lefty propaganda?

#confused.

ABC - Anti Bicycle Commission.

They do not give a rat's a^$e about the rights of bicyclists nor motor-cyclists.

[Thoglette]

Is it just me or is everybody else thoroughly confused by the above post?

No, just disappointed.

I've noted the ABC's poor reporting of cycle issues before (e.g. here) but the above post is extremely plain and easy to understand.

What it does not provide is the Author's opinion of the relative merits of News Corp, Fairfax and Breitbart News. Or advice on where to find less biased reporting.

[Tequestra]

Or advice on where to find less biased reporting.

SBS broadcasts news services in a multitude of languages every day of the week. Just pick a language that you don't understand with a pretty news-reader and you won't get lied to nearly as much. Otherwise, pack your bags and get on the plane. As they like to joke about at the ABC, get the REAL story.

[Thoglette]

BNSYC says With Great Horsepower Comes Great Responsibility

You’ve heard it before:

Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers.

I'm calling bull$hit.

First, as a cyclist, you don’t have the same rights as drivers. Not only are there thousands of miles of roadway to which you have zero access, but you can’t even get service at the drive-thru. (Though maybe the fast food industry is doing us a favor there.)

Second, the idea that cyclists and drivers bear the same level of responsibility is absurd as it defies the laws of physics. The operator of a two-ton Chevy Tahoe damn well better be a lot more responsible than the rider on a 20-pound Trek, and suggesting otherwise is like saying the “Enjoy Responsibly” admonition you see in booze commercials applies equally to Jack Daniels and chamomile tea.