Liabilitiy petition to Vic Govt - cyclists and pedestrians

[Leaf T]

There is a petition to the Victorian Parliament to reverse onus of proof in crashes involving "vulnerable road users".

Instead of the TAC assuming the cyclist or pedestrian at fault in crashes with motor vehicles, the first assumption would be that the motorist is at fault and must demonstrate that they were not.

This would bring Victoria in line with European practice.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/counc ... ails/12/69

[Jmuzz]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide. Each sides story should be weighed up with whatever evidence is available.
Each side has equal incentive to carry cameras.

I don't want to be automatically blamed for every idiot pedestrian who suddenly jumps to the right when being overtaken or runs out of a giveway sidepath on cycleway either.

Most situations can be judged accurately anyway. With the 1m/1.5m laws any car is not telling a very convincing story if they claim a cyclist swerved so suddenly that the gap closed to nothing before they could react. The point of that 1m is to give a buffer for sudden swerving.

[Thoglette]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide.

We've had nearly a hundred years of this; plus a whole pile of anti-cycling and anti-pedestrian legislation and regulation.

The upshot is that the cyclist is either blamed (e.g. missing front light contributing to liability ) or "came out of nowhere" (the QLD truckie who also "accident" shot his wife in the back) when run over from behind.

[bychosis]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide.

I think that would crush our already overloaded legal system. Giving a more simple approach leaves the decision making at a much lower level. Then if there is something out of the ordinary you can take it to the courts.

The idea is that the vulnerable road user Ian more likely to be somewhat protective of themselves and try to stay out of harms way.

[Jmuzz]

I think that would crush our already overloaded legal system.

It's the system now, no change.
And "judge" only applies when the party's and/or their insurers haven't come to a civil settlement.

[queequeg]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide. Each sides story should be weighed up with whatever evidence is available.
Each side has equal incentive to carry cameras.

I don't want to be automatically blamed for every idiot pedestrian who suddenly jumps to the right when being overtaken or runs out of a giveway sidepath on cycleway either.

Most situations can be judged accurately anyway. With the 1m/1.5m laws any car is not telling a very convincing story if they claim a cyclist swerved so suddenly that the gap closed to nothing before they could react. The point of that 1m is to give a buffer for sudden swerving.

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.

[bychosis]

I think that would crush our already overloaded legal system.

It's the system now, no change.
And "judge" only applies when the party's and/or their insurers haven't come to a civil settlement.

Sorry, misread your comment then. You seemed to indicate that all incidents would require bth side to present to a judge, which is clearly not necessary.

[Leaf T]

Imagine the difference in driver attitude and death/injury/hospital admissions for cyclists and pedestrians this would have over time. I think it has the potential to be a major game changer.

[London Boy]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide. Each sides story should be weighed up with whatever evidence is available.
Each side has equal incentive to carry cameras.

I don't want to be automatically blamed for every idiot pedestrian who suddenly jumps to the right when being overtaken or runs out of a giveway sidepath on cycleway either.

Most situations can be judged accurately anyway. With the 1m/1.5m laws any car is not telling a very convincing story if they claim a cyclist swerved so suddenly that the gap closed to nothing before they could react. The point of that 1m is to give a buffer for sudden swerving.

I think you misunderstand the way the law operates and the way public policy determines how legal decisions are made.

The bare fact is that, when a collision occurs, the pedestrian or rider comes off worse. As long as drivers are not held to account, and they are not held to account if there is insufficient proof of culpability, then drivers will continue to kill and injure pedestrians and cyclists. Put out of your mind any notion that actual culpability matters in any way, shape or form. It is only what can be proved. And that is more difficult than you might assume, camera or no camera.

[AUbicycles]

It's the system now, no change.

I understand your concerns, but at the moment we are seeing media publishing reports where the titles and content suggest that the rider is at fault and also victim reports on collision where the circumstances are fairly obvious in that the driver is at fault.

When Australian and overseas studies should that 80-90% of motor vehicle and bike collision are the fault of the driver, this is a compelling case to review the current laws.

[cyclingnolycra]

My understanding is that the law is also already like that in Japan as well. I've had a Japanese friend tell me after he moved here from Japan he was too scared to ride his bike in Sydney.

If studies show that over 80% of these collisions are the fault of the driver, it makes a lot of sense to change the law...

[Scintilla]

Imagine the difference in driver attitude and death/injury/hospital admissions for cyclists and pedestrians this would have over time. I think it has the potential to be a major game changer.

Yep!

It WORKS in Italy. And the old excuse of "better bike facilities" there holds NO water. We rode for 3500 kms in Italy and rode a total of less than 30 kms on separated bike paths.

[Tequestra]

My understanding is that the law is also already like that in Japan as well.

In Thailand too, the rule of thumb is "Big Pays For Little", as long as you're Thai, of course. So trucks care about cars and cars care about motorbikes and bikes (theoretically). Motorbikes and bikes care about pedestrians and adults care about children. That's the official rule for Thais, so I was told in 2549(2006). (The other unwritten rule is that foreigners pay for Thais, no matter what).

I think that it is best if both sides of a potential collision have roughly equivalent motivations ('scuse pun) to avoid that collision, and the little one already has that reason because of the greater chance of injury most of the time. When the big one knows that they get to pay for the damage and hospital time, they run over less little ones. Unfortunately, without such things as license suspensions and prison time, the rich can still do whatever their insurance can pay for.

[fat and old]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide.

I think that would crush our already overloaded legal system. Giving a more simple approach leaves the decision making at a much lower level. Then if there is something out of the ordinary you can take it to the courts.

The idea is that the vulnerable road user Ian more likely to be somewhat protective of themselves and try to stay out of harms way.

Yeah? Tell that to the bloke I saw (only just in time) this morning. Dark, dark clothing, side street lighting with big old trees and no lights nor reflectors anywhere on his bike, riding in the gutter then suddenly swerving into middle of road from behind parked cars. Only thing that saved him was his hivis vest...the bright green at least while not flouro at that time was brighter than anything else in the street and the refl. stripes caught my headlights...the part that wasn't covered by his backpack anyway.. 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.

[Trevtassie]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide.

I think that would crush our already overloaded legal system. Giving a more simple approach leaves the decision making at a much lower level. Then if there is something out of the ordinary you can take it to the courts.

The idea is that the vulnerable road user Ian more likely to be somewhat protective of themselves and try to stay out of harms way.

Yeah? Tell that to the bloke I saw (only just in time) this morning. Dark, dark clothing, side street lighting with big old trees and no lights nor reflectors anywhere on his bike, riding in the gutter then suddenly swerving into middle of road from behind parked cars. Only thing that saved him was his hivis vest...the bright green at least while not flouro at that time was brighter than anything else in the street and the refl. stripes caught my headlights...the part that wasn't covered by his backpack anyway.. 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.

That falls into the "you can demonstrate the cyclist was at fault" category....breaking the law because of the lack of compliant reflectors and lights...

[Trevtassie]

Japan...

[HenryCharlie]

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.

In cases like that there's a very good chance you could prove it wasn't your fault, more so if you have a dashcam.

[Tequestra]

riding in the gutter then suddenly swerving into middle of road from behind parked cars. Only thing that saved him was his hivis vest...

Good morning F&O. It is not easy to get the picture from twenty-five words or less, but from what I gather, the hi-vis vest would be reflective, although before dawn it would be illegal to ride any bike on the road without lights in WA anyway so technically he'd be in the wrong just for being there before first light - it may have been some emergency?). The 1m-> rule also prevents cyclists from being 'car-doored', and so personally, when I am riding in the city, I expect any other vehicles behind me who are considering passing to pre-empt my need to move into line with at least 750mm to the right of any car parked at the side of the road. That is better than running into the back of a parked car. It is not easy to get the picture from 25 words or less.

PS: As mentioned before I finished writing, a dashcam would make it easier to get the picture.

[ball bearing]

In Thailand too, the rule of thumb is "Big Pays For Little", as long as you're Thai, of course. So trucks care about cars and cars care about motorbikes and bikes (theoretically). Motorbikes and bikes care about pedestrians and adults care about children. That's the official rule for Thais, so I was told in 2549(2006). (The other unwritten rule is that foreigners pay for Thais, no matter what).

I think that it is best if both sides of a potential collision have roughly equivalent motivations ('scuse pun) to avoid that collision, and the little one already has that reason because of the greater chance of injury most of the time. When the big one knows that they get to pay for the damage and hospital time, they run over less little ones. Unfortunately, without such things as license suspensions and prison time, the rich can still do whatever their insurance can pay for.

That may be the unwritten law, but the law does not appear to be having much effect on the care factor...

"fter being shamed for having the worst traffic in the world in February, Thailand wrapped up 2017 by nabbing the title of “Country With The Highest Road Traffic Death Rate” in a report from World Atlas.

According to the report, which ranked 30 countries, Thailand has an average of 36.2 road deaths per 100,000 citizens, which is the highest in the world..."

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/thai-r ... rld-atlas/

[Leaf T]

That statisitic about Thailand surprises me actually. I cycled there from Bangkok on my way to Singapore and I honestly felt safer there as a cyclist than I do in Australia. And apologies to the good drivers in QLD but I've never felt so unsafe cycling as I did in QLD.

[Tequestra]

That may be the unwritten law, but the law does not appear to be having much effect on the care factor...

After riding mainly motorbikes around The Kingdom for a decade I have to agree on that care factor deficit towards motorbikes, similar in some ways possibly perhaps to the care factor in car drivers towards cyclists in Australia. At least motorbikes get some small degree of respect in Australia, and are even permitted to park in half a car bay at shopping centres here, unlike Thailand where if you park your motorbike in a car bay you'll have a parking attendant on your back before you walk away from it, most likely.

I would like to ... actually 'like' is not the right word, because looking at stats on dead people makes my spine shiver ... it would be educational to compare the statistics for Australia and Thailand - the percentage of casualties who were on motorbikes, compared to in cars. While I have noticed a kind of 'pecking order' amongst cars where Mercedes gets right of way over Toyotas and Mitsubishis etc. (poor are afraid of rich), this pecking order seems to be government sanctioned when it comes to cars over motorbikes. Hence, the normal way to ride motorbikes in Thailand is slowly (<50km/h) on the road shoulder, as cars whizz by at 100km/h or more in the left lane and the right. It is much like bicycles are relegated to the roadside in Australia.

This means that motorcyclists turning right off a highway in Thailand use the Victorian system; they pull off to the left and wait until all the big traffic has passed by, before ambling across the highway onto the side road. The trouble with riding at 50km/h when everyone is speeding by at 100km/h+ is that there is much higher chance of getting whacked by a passing car when the driver is on the phone or talking to someone in the back seat etc., and so that is why I found it safer to choose a large fast vehicle like a 4x4 ute or a landcruiser and tailgate that vehicle at whatever pace it wants to travel, because that helps to maintain the attention of the cars behind it - they would never drive into the landcruiser in front of me, so why would they bother to run me down if I am riding at the same pace as the traffic?

Oncoming traffic will also overtake regardless of whether a motorcycle is approaching from the other direction on single-carriageways, so following a 4x4 over bridges is a wise move if you don't fancy a swim in the khlong. I have only had three(3) smacks with the cars in ten(10) years which resulted in hospitalisation (mine only), which I reckon is a fairly good outcome considering the statistics mentioned.

[madmacca]

I think there should be equal requirement to present proof and let a judge decide. Each sides story should be weighed up with whatever evidence is available.
Each side has equal incentive to carry cameras.

I don't want to be automatically blamed for every idiot pedestrian who suddenly jumps to the right when being overtaken or runs out of a giveway sidepath on cycleway either.

Most situations can be judged accurately anyway. With the 1m/1.5m laws any car is not telling a very convincing story if they claim a cyclist swerved so suddenly that the gap closed to nothing before they could react. The point of that 1m is to give a buffer for sudden swerving.

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.

[Scintilla]

My understanding is that the law is also already like that in Japan as well.

In Thailand too, the rule of thumb is "Big Pays For Little", as long as you're Thai, of course. So trucks care about cars and cars care about motorbikes and bikes (theoretically). Motorbikes and bikes care about pedestrians and adults care about children. That's the official rule for Thais, so I was told in 2549(2006). (The other unwritten rule is that foreigners pay for Thais, no matter what).

I think that it is best if both sides of a potential collision have roughly equivalent motivations ('scuse pun) to avoid that collision, and the little one already has that reason because of the greater chance of injury most of the time. When the big one knows that they get to pay for the damage and hospital time, they run over less little ones. Unfortunately, without such things as license suspensions and prison time, the rich can still do whatever their insurance can pay for.

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.

[Scintilla]

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?

[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.

Yes, and there are likely financial reasons behind it, possibly something to do with a higher tax on new cars than bikes (???), but I am not sure of the exact regulations. Only that it is not difficult to find a reliable, second-hand motorbike in Thailand for 5,000 baht, ($200 AUD), whilst the most rundown, second-hand cars tend to start at over 50,000 THB ($2000) or double that if you want something as reliable as a '90s model Camry or equiv. that you can find in Australia for $2,000.

Compared to Australia, motorbikes in Thailand are half the price, and cars are double the price, as a generalisation. This means that unlike Australia where motorbikes are the domain of the middle-class, and the poor people drive cheap second-hand cars, in Thailand it is the opposite, where a car is middle-class transport, and poor people get around on scooters or motorbikes. There are a lot of poor people in Thailand, and so there are, it would seem to me, a very significantly higher percentage of scooters and motorbikes compared to cars. This obviously results in a far larger number of motorcycle or scooter deaths compared to car deaths, than the ratio on Australia, where the car is the normal transport for the poor.