Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby KonaCommuter » Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:50 pm

cp123 wrote:If anyone is interested - read all the comments on the Riot Act website posted above.


Same cyclist - another issue today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_PP85ZtMI&feature=plcp


I hope this guy doesn't go for the trifecta tomorrow....


Bloody hell i need cameras NOW!!! :roll:



From the video camera thread


Aushiker wrote:Image

at Highly Tuned Athletes. HTA is a great retailer in my experience. Very good after sales service.

Andrew
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

by BNA » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:02 pm

BNA
 

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby exadios » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:02 pm

find_bruce wrote:
exadios wrote:
PawPaw wrote:I also sent a complaint to Jim's Mowing, and think it would be advantageous more people did so.
Businesses need to know this sort of behavior is totally unacceptable, and will damage their corporate image and hip pocket.
Imagine how the good guys with Jim's Mowing franchises feel when they see galahs like this bringing the whole corporate image down.

Unfortunately, given the title of the video (and this thread) the response may be a SLAPP.

A Strategic lawsuit against public participation almost always involves a suit for defamation. As Jim's Mowing is a corporation, in Australia it can't sue for defamation and can only sue for the tort of injurious falsehood which requires proof that the statement was made with malice & the corporation suffered economic loss.

Whilst they may consider writing nasty letters, the risk for a corporation is the Streisand effect, whereby their response generates far more negative publicity than the original incident. Because there is video, a draconian response runs the risk of attracting the attention of drawing TV news coverage.


The usual tactic is for the corporation to fund an individual to bring the action. This is what happened to me many years ago after I made a complaint to ASIC about a company. However, corporations may sue for a type of defamation - its just that the standards are different.

One of the problems with invoking the "Streisand Effect" effect is that Jims Mowing is not Barbara Streisand. There are many defamation cases filed in Australia every year, the vast majority of of which you never hear of. So, unless the defendant has a method of invoking the effect, it is not relevant.

Another problem with relying on Streisand Effect is that, IIRC, that case was tried - in the US - which means that the defendant was able to write a check of about $50,000 and have it presented. But, even if the case had not gone to trial, which is what happens in most SLAPPS, the defendant would still have been up for a significant upfront cost. And, of course, it is a lot harder for a plaintiff to run a defamation case in the US than it is in Australia which is why countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK are regarded as SLAPP central.

Anybody who done business in Australia will have become aware that a certain portion of business leaders are, IMO, psychopaths. That is they have, among other traits, a high sense of worth and lack of judgment. For the Streisand Effect to come into play the potential defendant may be relying on such a person to know about the effect and his or her judgment that the effect will harm them. The Australian defamation laws are made for such people.

Of course I do not know anything about Jims Mowing. They are probably a very reasonable company and I certainly hope so. And they will probably look at the video and take the appropriate action. What I am trying to say is that it is not a good idea to make claims which cannot be supported by the video. What is in the video is bad enough.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby exadios » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:06 pm

ozstriker wrote:There would be no lawsuit the video has undeniable proof


In Australia it is the plaintiff that gets to decide what the defendant's words mean. So for the defense of truth to prevail the defendant would need to prove that the plaintiff had been tried and convicted of "hit and run". Do you see such a trial and conviction in th video?
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Oxford » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:11 pm

cp123 wrote:If anyone is interested - read all the comments on the Riot Act website posted above.


Same cyclist - another issue today. <a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_PP85ZtMI&feature=plcp"><span>http</span><span>://</span><span>www</span><span>.</span><span>youtube</span><span>.</span><span>com</span><span>/</span><span>watch</span><span>?</span><span>v</span><span>=</span><span>Cx</span><span>_</span><span>PP85ZtMI</span><span>&</span><span>feature</span><span>=</span><span>plcp</span></a>


I hope this guy doesn't go for the trifecta tomorrow....


Bloody hell i need cameras NOW!!! :roll:
enough to make you want to stop riding.
Building more roads to prevent congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to prevent obesity.
- Lewis Mumford
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 5165
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby KonaCommuter » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:27 pm

Oxford wrote:enough to make you want to stop riding.



To be honest if that were me in the video, It would be a distinct possibility. Especially if my wife saw it. If I do stop riding I’ll be buying the largest car I can afford to run and I’ll have a bumper sticker with a bike symbol and that reads “this car park / road space is occupied by a former cyclist. Thanks for not sharing” or something wittier like that
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby find_bruce » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:28 pm

exadios wrote:The usual tactic is for the corporation to fund an individual to bring the action. This is what happened to me many years ago after I made a complaint to ASIC about a company. However, corporations may sue for a type of defamation - its just that the standards are different.

I am sorry to inform you that, since the introduction of the (almost) uniform laws of defamation in 2006, you are completely mistaken See section 9 of the Act in the relevant state. For example the WA Act provides
Defamation Act 2005 (WA) wrote:9 . Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation
(1) A corporation has no cause of action for defamation in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about the corporation unless it was an excluded corporation at the time of the publication.
(2) A corporation is an excluded corporation if —
(a) the objects for which it is formed do not include obtaining financial gain for its members or corporators; or
(b) it employs fewer than 10 persons and is not related to another corporation,
and the corporation is not a public body.
(3) In counting employees for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), part-time employees are to be taken into account as an appropriate fraction of a full-time equivalent.
(4) In determining whether a corporation is related to another corporation for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), section 50 of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth applies as if references to bodies corporate in that section were references to corporations within the meaning of this section.
(5) Subsection (1) does not affect any cause of action for defamation that an individual associated with a corporation has in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about the individual even if the publication of the same matter also defames the corporation.
(6) In this section —
corporation includes any body corporate or corporation constituted by or under a law of any country (including by exercise of a prerogative right), whether or not a public body;
public body means a local government body or other governmental or public authority constituted by or under a law of any country.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby cp123 » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:44 pm

Oxford wrote:
cp123 wrote:If anyone is interested - read all the comments on the Riot Act website posted above.


Same cyclist - another issue today. <a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_PP85ZtMI&feature=plcp"><span>http</span><span>://</span><span>www</span><span>.</span><span>youtube</span><span>.</span><span>com</span><span>/</span><span>watch</span><span>?</span><span>v</span><span>=</span><span>Cx</span><span>_</span><span>PP85ZtMI</span><span>&</span><span>feature</span><span>=</span><span>plcp</span></a>


I hope this guy doesn't go for the trifecta tomorrow....


Bloody hell i need cameras NOW!!! :roll:
enough to make you want to stop riding.




hope not.


Kona - still saving unfortunately. $4 grand more to knock off the slate and then cameras!
cp123
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Oxford » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:46 pm

KonaCommuter wrote:
Oxford wrote:enough to make you want to stop riding.



To be honest if that were me in the video, It would be a distinct possibility. Especially if my wife saw it. If I do stop riding I’ll be buying the largest car I can afford to run and I’ll have a bumper sticker with a bike symbol and that reads “this car park / road space is occupied by a former cyclist. Thanks for not sharing” or something wittier like that

funny you mention the wife, part of the reason I do not ride now is not so much pressure from her, but that I do not want to put her through what she went through again. other reasons range from psychological to physical reasons.
Building more roads to prevent congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to prevent obesity.
- Lewis Mumford
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 5165
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby exadios » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:55 pm

find_bruce wrote:
exadios wrote:The usual tactic is for the corporation to fund an individual to bring the action. This is what happened to me many years ago after I made a complaint to ASIC about a company. However, corporations may sue for a type of defamation - its just that the standards are different.

I am sorry to inform you that, since the introduction of the (almost) uniform laws of defamation in 2006, you are completely mistaken See section 9 of the Act in the relevant state. For example the WA Act provides
Defamation Act 2005 (WA) wrote:9 . Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation
(1) A corporation has no cause of action for defamation in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about the corporation unless it was an excluded corporation at the time of the publication.
(2) A corporation is an excluded corporation if —
(a) the objects for which it is formed do not include obtaining financial gain for its members or corporators; or
(b) it employs fewer than 10 persons and is not related to another corporation,
and the corporation is not a public body.
(3) In counting employees for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), part-time employees are to be taken into account as an appropriate fraction of a full-time equivalent.
(4) In determining whether a corporation is related to another corporation for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), section 50 of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth applies as if references to bodies corporate in that section were references to corporations within the meaning of this section.
(5) Subsection (1) does not affect any cause of action for defamation that an individual associated with a corporation has in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about the individual even if the publication of the same matter also defames the corporation.
(6) In this section —
corporation includes any body corporate or corporation constituted by or under a law of any country (including by exercise of a prerogative right), whether or not a public body;
public body means a local government body or other governmental or public authority constituted by or under a law of any country.


You will note that I did not say that corporations can sue for defamation. I said they can sue for a "type of defamation" - under different legislation.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby find_bruce » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:56 pm

exadios wrote:You will note that I did not say that corporations can sue for defamation. I said they can sue for a "type of defamation" - under different legislation.

Really ? Which piece of legislation do you think provides for a "type of defamation" ?
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby exadios » Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:26 pm

find_bruce wrote:
exadios wrote:You will note that I did not say that corporations can sue for defamation. I said they can sue for a "type of defamation" - under different legislation.

Really ? Which piece of legislation do you think provides for a "type of defamation" ?


I think that if you need legal advice you should consult your legal adviser. In the context of this thread it is not important which legislation applies to corporations.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby find_bruce » Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:15 pm

exadios wrote:
find_bruce wrote:
exadios wrote:You will note that I did not say that corporations can sue for defamation. I said they can sue for a "type of defamation" - under different legislation.

Really ? Which piece of legislation do you think provides for a "type of defamation" ?


I think that if you need legal advice you should consult your legal adviser. In the context of this thread it is not important which legislation applies to corporations.

Very good comment - if you do not know what you are talking about, do not go around making stuff up about non-existant legislation. And to answer your question, no I don't think I need to get legal advice.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby KonaCommuter » Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:30 pm

cp123 wrote:

Kona - still saving unfortunately. $4 grand more to knock off the slate and then cameras!



REMOVED $30


EDIT

Removed link to a rubbish camera
Last edited by KonaCommuter on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby damhooligan » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:43 pm

exadios wrote:
Exactly. In order for there to be a "hit and run" (whatever it is actually called in the particular state) the party that leaves the scene has to be aware that there has been an accident. I doubt whether this driver did know.


How does one prove one does or does not know ??
Sounds like an easy way out, ow, did I hit you, I didn't know that... :?

What I gather is that the driver is aware he has trailer.
Also knows the cyclist is there,as he is clearly very visible , so anything that follows is 100% to blame to the driver.
Based on that, according to my logic, wich may not be the law, it is a hit and run to me.
The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;
SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!
User avatar
damhooligan
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: melbourne

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby il padrone » Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:08 pm

damhooligan wrote:
exadios wrote:
Exactly. In order for there to be a "hit and run" (whatever it is actually called in the particular state) the party that leaves the scene has to be aware that there has been an accident. I doubt whether this driver did know.


How does one prove one does or does not know ??
Sounds like an easy way out, ow, did I hit you, I didn't know that... :?

Takes the concept of SMIDSY to the extreme.

[hands over eyes, fingers in ears] "Nah-na nah, nah-na nah, nah-na nah na-na nah...... bike? Collision? Where?"

:|

Accept that and you accept all the calls to "get awf the f******* road!"
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18793
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby damhooligan » Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:14 pm

il padrone wrote:
damhooligan wrote:
exadios wrote:
Exactly. In order for there to be a "hit and run" (whatever it is actually called in the particular state) the party that leaves the scene has to be aware that there has been an accident. I doubt whether this driver did know.


How does one prove one does or does not know ??
Sounds like an easy way out, ow, did I hit you, I didn't know that... :?

Takes the concept of SMIDSY to the extreme.

[hands over eyes, fingers in ears] "Nah-na nah, nah-na nah, nah-na nah na-na nah...... bike? Collision? Where?"

:|

Accept that and you accept all the calls to "get awf the f******* road!"



But apparantly thats the law ??
If you can 'prove' you didn't know you hit someone, its not a hit and run ??

I dont agree with it, but that is what exadios said, no ??
The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;
SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!
User avatar
damhooligan
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: melbourne

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby wombatK » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:16 pm

Oxford wrote:to be fair, sometimes these things happen so fast you just don't react or take evasive action. .

Dead right Oxford. For this case, though, has anyone noticed that the cyclist at no time looked over
his shoulder to see if there was a risk of another car following the ones that had just zoomed across
his proposed path ?

How many of us here would cross a freeway exit ramp without a head-check ? I won't cross
any intersection where traffic can left turn into me like this without a head-check, and I use
a mirror to help me see the best safe crossing opportunity.

This is no excuse for the motorists negligent driving - there simply isn't any.

Notwithstanding that, it was extremely good luck that when the cyclist veered right into
the next traffic lane, there was no following car to run over him.

A head check might have made him much less reliant on good luck. Being in the right isn't much
good if you're not so lucky and wind up in a grave.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
User avatar
wombatK
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby hannos » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:31 pm

He might have been using the mirror on the right side of his handlebars?
2010 BMC SLC01
Image
User avatar
hannos
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:36 pm

hannos wrote:He might have been using the mirror on the right side of his handlebars?

Yep, a couple of times.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26032
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby il padrone » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:22 pm

hannos wrote:He might have been using the mirror on the right side of his handlebars?

He obviously was not :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18793
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby exadios » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:51 am

find_bruce wrote:
exadios wrote:
find_bruce wrote:Really ? Which piece of legislation do you think provides for a "type of defamation" ?


I think that if you need legal advice you should consult your legal adviser. In the context of this thread it is not important which legislation applies to corporations.

Very good comment - if you do not know what you are talking about, do not go around making stuff up about non-existant legislation. And to answer your question, no I don't think I need to get legal advice.


But I have received advice on this particular law (I did not say it was "legislation"). So I do know what I am talking about.

In any case, as you point out it is possible for corporations to sue for defamation.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby wombatK » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:45 am

il padrone wrote:
hannos wrote:He might have been using the mirror on the right side of his handlebars?

He obviously was not :roll:

+1. Only goes to prove you still need to head-check. Mirrors are an aid, not a substitute - just like in the car.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
User avatar
wombatK
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby find_bruce » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:08 pm

exadios wrote:But I have received advice on this particular law (I did not say it was "legislation").

Quick call the cops because it seems someone must have hacked your account as when I read the thread it say that on Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:55 pm you posted this
exadios wrote:You will note that I did not say that corporations can sue for defamation. I said they can sue for a "type of defamation" - under different legislation.

I mean the only other explanation is that you have no recollection or comprehension of what you said less than 12 hours before.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Big_Red » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:18 pm

KonaCommuter wrote:
cp123 wrote:

Kona - still saving unfortunately. $4 grand more to knock off the slate and then cameras!



http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=QC8003 $30


Well KonaCommuter i honestly hope it doesn't come to the point where you are forced by another's actions not to enjoy the simple act of getting on your bike and enjoying yourself. That said, do you have any review of that jaycar cam at all? I'd like to know how it compares to something like the 808#16 cam from eletoponline365 off ebay.
Image
User avatar
Big_Red
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Brisbane East

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby jules21 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:44 pm

he's made it big now!
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8815
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit