Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

g-boaf wrote:I see the point that the OP is trying to make, but it's a long shot.

Our law isn't quite the same as the USA, but there are examples - like that case in QLD where the jury decided the driver wasn't at fault.

I don't see there is much that can be done about it - the car is king here and anyone who proposes to change that will struggle against the media and interest groups.

There is a lot to be done. One thing to be done is to struggle against the media and interest groups. The main object of the struggle should be towards driver training.

the details aren't really the important part, the point was around how culture shapes laws and notions of justice. change the culture, change the laws and change principles of justice. and yes, that's hard - like most things worth doing.

jules21 wrote:the details aren't really the important part, the point was around how culture shapes laws and notions of justice. change the culture, change the laws and change principles of justice. and yes, that's hard - like most things worth doing.

I disagree. I think the details are important. If they where not then having the cyclists of Australia arranged around a camp fire singing Kumbaya would be just as effective as any other course of action.

exadios wrote:I disagree. I think the details are important. If they where not then having the cyclists of Australia arranged around a camp fire singing Kumbaya would be just as effective as any other course of action.

it could work

Moral of the story. Don't repeatedly punch and slam someone's head into concrete (particularly if they have a gun).

dontazame wrote:Moral of the story. Don't repeatedly punch and slam someone's head into concrete (particularly if they have a gun).

In the same way the moral of the other story is that Richard Pollett shouldn't swerve into cement trucks.


The critical think in this thread is sadly lacking...

Well the similarity such as it is is I guess that no one could prove it was not self defence in the first case and no one could prove he did not swerve into the cement truck in the second. But its a minimal similarity and its not a difference between american and oz culture.

We all (well nearly all) expect to have the right to self defence even using lethal force under some conditions. So I think mostly we squirm a little bit..can't prove different and acquit Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is telling the truth then he wound up (very stupidly) in a situation where the use of lethal force is not unreasonable. I suspect IF I had sat on the jury that is where I might have ended up. But all of us think the other case should have ended differently and is a miscarriage of justice and entirely exempts the driver from an expectation of reasonable care. And that seems to me to be a real carcentric cultural issue. Because I cannot see anyway that that overtake was anything but entirely unreasonable. And I don't know but I really doubt my opinion would change if I was on the jury.

Personally I 'think' Zimmerman is a lying as$$$$$$le who got away with murder. But I don't know that. And I don't think the cement truck driver is a liar. Just a as$$$$$le who got away with manslaughter. And I am more confident with the second opinion than I am with the first.

human909 wrote:

dontazame wrote:Moral of the story. Don't repeatedly punch and slam someone's head into concrete (particularly if they have a gun).

In the same way the moral of the other story is that Richard Pollett shouldn't swerve into cement trucks.

bingo.